This study applied meta‐analysis to assess the relationship between charismatic leadership style and leadership effectiveness, subordinate performance, subordinate satisfaction, subordinate effort, and subordinate commitment. Results indicate that the relationship between leader charisma and leader effectiveness is much weaker than reported in the published literature when leader effectiveness is measured at the individual level of analysis and when common method variance is controlled. Results also indicate a smaller relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinate performance when subordinate performance is measured at the individual level (r = 0.31) than when it is measured at the group level (r = 0.49 and robust across studies). These results suggest that charismatic leadership is more effective at increasing group performance than at increasing individual performance. Other moderators tested did not account for a significant portion of variance in the observed distribution of correlations, suggesting a need for further research into other potential moderators. Meta‐analysis examining the effects of charismatic leadership on subordinate effort and job satisfaction revealed lower correlations when multiple methods of measurement were used, with little convergence toward stable population estimates. Résumé La méta‐analyse a servi à évaluer le rapport entre le style de leadership charismatique et l'efficacité d'un tel style de leadership ainsi que le rendement, la satisfaction, l'effort et l'engagement des subalternes. Les résul‐tats obtenus indiquent que le rapport entre le charisme et l'efficacité du leader est beaucoup plusfaible que le pro‐posent les textes publiés à ce sujet lorsque l'efficacité du leader est mesurée au niveau individuel et lorsque la variance de la méthode commune est contrǒlée. Les résultats obtenus révèlent également un rapport moindre entre le leadership charismatique et le rendement des subalternes lorsque ce rendement est mesuré au niveau individuel (r = 0.31) qu'au niveau du groupe (r = 0,49 et notable parmi toutes les études passées en revue). Ces résultats suggèrent qu'un leadership charismatique con‐tribue davantage à accroǐtre le rendement du groupe que le rendement individuel. Les autres modérateurs mis à l'essai ne représented pas une portion significative de la variance dans la distribution des corrélations observées, ce qui laisser suggérer qu'une autre recherche serait nécessaire pour vérifier d'autres modérateurs potentiels. La méta‐analyse qui étudie l'incidence du leadership charismatique sur l'effort des subalternes et la satisfaction professionnelle démontre des corrélations moins marquées, lorsque des méthodes de mesure multiples one été utilisées, de měme qu'une convergence minime à l'égard des estimations de population stable.

SummaryState optimism was hypothesized to be significantly related to six organizationally relevant outcomes above and beyond the effect of trait optimism. Moreover, state optimism was hypothesized to have effects on these six outcomes beyond the effects of positive and negative affect. Conversely, trait optimism was expected to be unrelated to the six outcome variables when controlling for state optimism as well as when controlling for affect. These hypotheses were tested with two samples. First, 772 undergraduate students were assessed to determine the impact of state versus trait optimism on task performance in the form of course grade. From this sample, the 261 students working at least 20 hours per week were similarly assessed with regard to work related distress, burnout, affective commitment, and job satisfaction. Then, a field sample of 106 employees assessed distress, burnout, affective commitment, job satisfaction, and supervisor rated task and contextual job performance. Results indicate state optimism (but not trait optimism) is a potentially powerful indicator of important organizational outcomes, even after controlling for the effects of positive and negative affect. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Using videotaped interviews with 60 managers in utility companies, the authors found that a composite of vocal interview cues (pitch, pitch variability, speech rate, pauses, and amplitude variability) correlated with supervisory ratings of job performance (r = .18, p < .05). Using videotaped interviews with 110 managers in a news-publishing company, the authors found that the same composite of vocal cues correlated with performance ratings (r = .20, p < .05) and with interviewers' judgments (r-.20, p < .05) and that a composite of visual cues (physical attractiveness, smiling, gaze, hand movement, and body orientation) correlated with performance ratings (r = .14, p < .07) and with interviewers' judgments (r = .21, p < .05). Results of tests of mediation effects indicate that personal reactions such as liking, trust, and attributed credibility toward interviewees explain relationships (a) between job performance and vocal cues and (b) between interviewers' judgments and both visual and vocal cues. Empirical research has firmly established that nonverbal visual cues displayed by interviewees affect interviewers' judgments about their suitability for employment (e.g., Gif

Based on a study of federal investigative agents, Pulakos and Schmitt (1995) hypothesized that situational interviews are less effective for higher‐level positions than behavior description interviews. To evaluate their hypothesis we analyzed data from 2 new structured interview studies. Both of these studies involved higher‐level positions, a military officer and a district manager respectively, and had matching SI and BDI questions written to assess the same job characteristics. Results confirmed that situational interviews are much less predictive of performance in these types of positions. Moreover, results indicated very little correspondence between situational and behavior description questions written to assess the same job characteristic, and a link between BDI ratings and the personality trait Extroversion. Possible reasons for the lower situational interview effectiveness are discussed.

No abstract