The definition and measurement of human capital resources: A content and meta-analytic review.

Although human capital resources (HCR) can be important for organizational performance, researchers have defined and measured HCR in various ways. Consequently, it is unclear whether existing measures provide valid inferences about HCR or their relations with other constructs. We conducted this three-study research to address these issues. In Study 1, we reviewed HCR definitions (k = 84) and found that most definitions focus on collective knowledge, skills, and abilities. Recent definitions also tend to include other characteristics (e.g., personality). In Study 2, a content analysis of HCR measures (k = 127) revealed that only 23.6% of the measures focused solely on HCR and they tended to assess only one or two dimensions of the construct (i.e., were deficient). Many measures (46.5%) assessed both HCR and other constructs (i.e., were partially contaminated), and other measures (29.9%) assessed only non-HCR constructs (i.e., were fully contaminated). In Study 3 (k = 94), we found that HCR measures that were less deficient demonstrated stronger criterion-related validity for predicting unit and firm performance. Interestingly, partially contaminated measures were somewhat more predictive than uncontaminated measures (ρ = .35 vs. .25, respectively), mainly because they assessed both HCR and other constructs that are related to performance. Both types of measures demonstrated stronger validity than fully contaminated measures. Overall, findings suggest that extant HCR measures often are deficient and/or contaminated. We discuss implications, as well as offer guidance for measuring HCR in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Organizational political affiliation and job seekers: If I don't identify with your party, am I still attracted?

Political divisions appear to be relatively frequent in today's world. Indeed, individuals on opposing sides of these divisions often view each other very negatively. The present multi-study investigation contributes to the nascent literature on organizational political affiliation by examining how job seekers view organizations with political affiliations, a practice that is becoming more prevalent. Studies 1 and 2 indicated that many job seekers are aware of organizations' political affiliations or stances, and that they often considered these affiliations and stances during recent job searches. For example, nearly one-third of participants said they did not apply to an organization because of its political affiliation or stances. Study 3 showed that the extent to which job seekers identified with the organization's party affiliation positively influenced their reactions toward the organization (e.g., perceived similarity and liking), as well as their intention to pursue employment with the organization. In contrast, job seekers' disidentification with the organization's affiliation decreased their feelings of perceived similarity and liking. Study 4 demonstrated that organizational affiliation with a political issue (i.e., gun control/second amendment) also influenced perceptions of similarity and liking. Taken together, results suggest that organizations' affiliations with political parties or their stances on political issues can influence the amount and types of potential employees that organizations attract. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

What's on job seekers' social media sites? A content analysis and effects of structure on recruiter judgments and predictive validity.

Many organizational representatives review social media (SM) information (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) when recruiting and assessing job applicants. Despite this, very little empirical data exist concerning the SM information available to organizations or whether assessments of such information are a valid predictor of work outcomes. This multistudy investigation examines several critical issues in this emerging area. In Study 1, we conducted a content analysis of job seekers' Facebook sites (n = 266) and found that these sites often provide demographic variables that U.S. employment laws typically prohibit organizations from using when making personnel decisions (e.g., age, ethnicity, and religion), as well as other personal information that is not work-related (e.g., sexual orientation, marital status). In Study 2 (n = 140), we examined whether job seekers' SM information is related to recruiter evaluations. Results revealed that various types of SM information correlated with recruiter judgments of hireability, including demographic variables (e.g., gender, marital status), variables organizations routinely assess (e.g., education, training, and skills), and variables that may be a concern to organizations (e.g., profanity, sexual behavior). In Study 3 (n = 81), we examined whether structuring SM assessments (e.g., via rater training) affects criterion-related validity. Results showed that structuring SM assessments did not appear to improve the prediction of future job performance or withdrawal intentions. Overall, the present findings suggest that organizations should be cautious about assessing SM information during the staffing process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Are coworkers getting into the act? An examination of emotion regulation in coworker exchanges.

Research on emotional labor-the process through which employees enact emotion regulation (i.e., surface and deep acting) to alter their emotional displays-has predominately focused on service-based exchanges between employees and customers where emotions are commoditized for wage. Yet, recent research has begun to focus on the outcomes of employees engaging in emotion regulation, and surface acting in particular, with coworkers. Given that coworker interactions are qualitatively distinct from those with customers, we build on the emotional labor and emotion regulation literatures to understand why such acts of emotion regulation occur in coworker-based exchanges, and whether there are well-being and social capital costs and/or benefits for doing so. Across 3 complementary studies spanning over 2,500 full-time employees, we adopt a person-centered approach and demonstrate that four distinct profiles of emotion regulation emerge in coworker exchanges: deep actors, nonactors, low actors, and regulators. Further, our results suggest that certain employees are driven to regulate their emotions with coworkers for prosocial reasons (deep actors), whereas others are more driven by impression management motives (regulators). Our results also suggest that while nonactors and deep actors similarly incur well-being benefits (i.e., lower emotional exhaustion and felt inauthenticity), deep actors alone experience social capital gains in the form of higher receipt of help from coworkers, as well as increased goal progress and trust in their coworkers. Combined, our research delineates the motives that drive emotion regulation with coworkers and identifies when such regulatory efforts yield social capital gains for employees. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).