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).

Different starting lines, different finish times: The role of social class in the job search process.

Although social class is an important construct throughout the social sciences, it has received only minimal attention in the industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management literatures. As a result, little is known regarding the potential role of social class in the work and career context. The present study examines the role of social class during the job search process. We integrate self-regulation and social class perspectives to hypothesize ways social class may influence job search antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes. Analysis of longitudinal data from new job entrants (N = 516) indicated that job seekers from lower social classes possess lower job search self-efficacy, lower perceived social support, and higher perceived financial hardship compared with those from higher social classes. Further, results suggest that through the mechanism of lower self-efficacy, lower social class job seekers display lower job search intensity. Finally, one indicator of social class-parental income-was positively related to job acceptance rate, a hazard outcome that reflected whether and how quickly participants accepted a job. In contrast, subjective social class was negatively related to job acceptance rate. Overall, the present findings suggest that social class plays a multifaceted role in the job search process and, thus, warrants more attention within this and other areas of organizational research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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).

Assessing and interpreting interaction effects: A reply to Vancouver, Carlson, Dhanani, and Colton (2021).

Van Iddekinge et al. (2018)'s meta-analysis revealed that ability and motivation have mostly an additive rather than an interactive effect on performance. One of the methods they used to assess the ability × motivation interaction was moderated multiple regression (MMR). Vancouver et al. (2021) presented conceptual arguments that ability and motivation should interact to predict performance, as well as analytical and empirical arguments against the use of MMR to assess interaction effects. We describe problems with these arguments and show conceptually and empirically that MMR (and the ΔR and ΔR2 it yields) is an appropriate and effective method for assessing both the statistical significance and magnitude of interaction effects. Nevertheless, we also applied the alternative approach Vancouver et al. recommended to test for interactions to primary data sets (k = 69) from Van Iddekinge et al. These new results showed that the ability × motivation interaction was not significant in 90% of the analyses, which corroborated Van Iddekinge et al.'s original conclusion that the interaction rarely increments the prediction of performance beyond the additive effects of ability and motivation. In short, Van Iddekinge et al.'s conclusions remain unchanged and, given the conceptual and empirical problems we identified, we cannot endorse Vancouver et al.'s recommendation to change how researchers test interactions. We conclude by offering suggestions for how to assess and interpret interactions in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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).

Meta-analytic and primary investigations of the role of followers in ratings of leadership behavior in organizations.

Leader-centric views of leadership tend to regard followers as passive recipients of leaders' influences. As such, researchers often control for follower characteristics (e.g., age, gender, organizational tenure) when examining relations between leadership behaviors and other variables. However, reversing-the-lens theory suggests that followers' characteristics represent substantive factors that may affect how they perceive their leaders or how leaders behave toward different followers. We conducted two studies to investigate this possibility. In Study 1, we meta-analyzed data from 479 primary studies (N = 172,494) and found meaningful relations between follower individual differences (e.g., gender, personality) and ratings of their leaders' behaviors (e.g., transformational leadership, abusive supervision). In Study 2, we conducted a primary study to estimate the extent to which actual leader behaviors or differences in follower perceptions of those behaviors account for these relations. Results suggest that follower perceptions and measurement error explain almost the same or more variance in follower ratings than do actual leader behaviors. In addition, other findings imply that relations between some follower characteristics (e.g., gender, neuroticism) and leadership ratings are likely to be due to perceptual differences associated with these follower characteristics. However, actual leader behaviors also appear to play a role, such that leaders tend to behave differently toward followers who possess high or low levels of certain characteristics (e.g., agreeableness). Taken together, this two-study investigation provides evidence that follower individual differences are related to ratings of leader behaviors and, thus, deserve more attention within leadership theory and research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Build or buy? The individual and unit-level performance of internally versus externally selected managers over time.

At some point, hiring managers in all organizations face the decision of whether to fill open positions with internal candidates (e.g., through promotions) or to hire external candidates (e.g., from competitors or new entrants into the labor market). Despite this ubiquitous choice, surprisingly little research has compared the effectiveness of internal and external selection or has identified situations in which 1 approach may be better than the other. The authors use theory on human capital resources to predict differences between internal and external hires on manager- and unit-level outcomes. Analysis of data from a quick-service retail organization (N = 3,697) suggested that internally hired managers demonstrated higher levels of individual job performance and commanded lower starting salaries than externally hired managers. At the unit-level, operations led by internal hires demonstrated higher performance on organization-specific criteria (i.e., service performance), whereas no internal-external differences were found on more general criteria (i.e., financial performance). They also found some evidence that differences in unit service performance decreased over time (but did not diminish completely) as external hires improved at a slightly faster rate than internal hires. Overall, these findings underscore the complexity of the recurring "build or buy" decision. The results also suggest that internal hires generally outperform external hires, both individually and collectively, and they do so for less money. (PsycINFO Database Record

Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: Reasons for caution.

Meta-analysis has become a well-accepted method for synthesizing empirical research about a given phenomenon. Many meta-analyses focus on synthesizing correlations across primary studies, but some primary studies do not report correlations. Peterson and Brown (2005) suggested that researchers could use standardized regression weights (i.e., beta coefficients) to impute missing correlations. Indeed, their beta estimation procedures (BEPs) have been used in meta-analyses in a wide variety of fields. In this study, the authors evaluated the accuracy of BEPs in meta-analysis. We first examined how use of BEPs might affect results from a published meta-analysis. We then developed a series of Monte Carlo simulations that systematically compared the use of existing correlations (that were not missing) to data sets that incorporated BEPs (that impute missing correlations from corresponding beta coefficients). These simulations estimated ρ̄ (mean population correlation) and SDρ (true standard deviation) across a variety of meta-analytic conditions. Results from both the existing meta-analysis and the Monte Carlo simulations revealed that BEPs were associated with potentially large biases when estimating ρ̄ and even larger biases when estimating SDρ. Using only existing correlations often substantially outperformed use of BEPs and virtually never performed worse than BEPs. Overall, the authors urge a return to the standard practice of using only existing correlations in meta-analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record

Hispanic and Asian performance on selection procedures: A narrative and meta-analytic review of 12 common predictors.

Hispanics are both the largest and fastest growing minority group in the U.S. workforce. Asians also make up a substantial and increasing portion of the workforce. Unfortunately, empirical research on how these groups perform selection procedures appears to be lacking. To address this critical gap, we identified and reviewed research from a variety of literatures relevant to Hispanic and/or Asian performance on 12 commonly used staffing procedures. We also contacted authors of studies that included members of these subgroups and requested the relevant data. On the basis of our review, we provide updated estimates of Hispanic-White and Asian-White differences for the predictors, which often differ from existing estimates of these differences. Further, we provide the first known meta-analytic estimates for Hispanics and Asians on many predictors, such as vocational interests and physical ability. We discuss the implications of the findings for staffing research and practice. We also identify critical next steps for future research regarding these 2 important, yet largely neglected, groups. (PsycINFO Database Record

Who r u?: On the (in)accuracy of incumbent-based estimates of range restriction in criterion-related and differential validity research.

Correcting validity estimates for selection procedures for range restriction typically involves comparing variance in predictor scores between all job applicants and applicants who were selected. However, some research on criterion-related and differential validity of cognitive ability tests has relied on range restriction corrections based on data from job incumbents. Unfortunately, there remains ambiguity concerning the accuracy of this incumbent-based approach vis-à-vis the applicant-based approach. To address this issue, we conducted several Monte Carlo simulations, as well as an analysis of college admissions data. Our first simulation study showed that incumbent-based range restriction corrections result in downwardly biased estimates of criterion-related validity, whereas applicant-based corrections were quite accurate. Our second set of simulations showed that incumbent-based range restriction corrections can produce evidence of differential validity when there is no differential validity in the population. In contrast, applicant-based corrections tended to accurately estimate population parameters and showed little, if any, evidence of differential validity when there is no differential validity in the population. Analysis of data for the ACT as a predictor of academic performance revealed similar patterns of bias for incumbent-based corrections in an academic setting. Overall, the present findings raise serious concerns regarding the use of incumbent-based range restriction corrections in lieu of applicant-based corrections. They also cast doubt on recent evidence for differential validity of predictors of job performance. (PsycINFO Database Record

Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of research.

This article reviews 100 years of research on individual differences and their measurement, with a focus on research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. We focus on 3 major individual differences domains: (a) knowledge, skill, and ability, including both the cognitive and physical domains; (b) personality, including integrity, emotional intelligence, stable motivational attributes (e.g., achievement motivation, core self-evaluations), and creativity; and (c) vocational interests. For each domain, we describe the evolution of the domain across the years and highlight major theoretical, empirical, and methodological developments, including relationships between individual differences and variables such as job performance, job satisfaction, and career development. We conclude by discussing future directions for individual differences research. Trends in the literature include a growing focus on substantive issues rather than on the measurement of individual differences, a differentiation between constructs and measurement methods, and the use of innovative ways of assessing individual differences, such as simulations, other-reports, and implicit measures. (PsycINFO Database Record

Line manager implementation perceptions as a mediator of relations between high-performance work practices and employee outcomes.

Strategic human resources management (SHRM) scholars recently have suggested that high-performance work practices (HPWP) implementation might serve as a critical mediator between HPWP and workplace outcomes. This study proposes and tests a model that positions line managers' perceptions regarding the extent to which they implement their organization's HPWP as a mediator of relations between HPWP and employee attitudes (i.e., turnover intentions and participative decision-making perceptions) and behavior (i.e., job performance). Using data from 507 line managers and 109 matched line manager-subordinate response sets, the results suggest that line managers' HPWP implementation perceptions fully mediate relations between HPWP and employee outcomes. The authors also found that line managers' human resources competency and political skill affect their HPWP implementation perceptions. Overall, these findings contribute to a more informed understanding of relationships between HPWP and work outcomes and suggest that additional SHRM research is needed to better understand whether and how HPWP are implemented.

Taking it to another level: do personality-based human capital resources matter to firm performance?

Drawing on the attraction-selection-attrition perspective, strategic human resource management (SHRM) scholarship, and recent human capital research, this study explores organization-level emergence of personality (i.e., personality-based human capital resources) and its direct, interactive, and (conditional) indirect effects on organization-level outcomes based on data from 6,709 managers across 71 firms. Results indicate that organization-level mean emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness are positively related to organization-level managerial job satisfaction and labor productivity but not to financial performance. Furthermore, organization-level mean and variance in emotional stability interact to predict all three organization-level outcomes, and organization-level mean and variance in extraversion interact to predict firm financial performance. Specifically, the positive effects of organization-level mean emotional stability and extraversion are stronger when organization-level variance in these traits is lower. Finally, organization-level mean emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness are all positively related to firm financial performance indirectly via labor productivity, and the indirect effects are more positive when organization-level variance in those personality traits is lower. Overall, the findings suggest that personality-based human capital resources demonstrate tangible effects on organization-level outcomes. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed along with study limitations and future research directions.

Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: not much more than range restriction?

The concept of differential validity suggests that cognitive ability tests are associated with varying levels of validity across ethnic groups, such that validity is lower in certain ethnic subgroups than in others. A recent meta-analysis has revived the viability of this concept. Unfortunately, data were not available in this meta-analysis to correct for range restriction within ethnic groups. We reviewed the differential validity literature and conducted 4 studies. In Study 1, we empirically demonstrated that using a cognitive ability test with a common cutoff decreases variance in test scores of Black subgroup samples more than in White samples. In Study 2, we developed a simulation that examined the effects of range restriction on estimates of differential validity. Results demonstrated that different levels of range restriction for subgroups can explain the apparent observed differential validity results in employment and educational settings (but not military settings) when no differential validity exists in the population. In Study 3, we conducted a simulation in which we examined how one corrects for range restriction affects the accuracy of these corrections. Results suggest that the correction approach using a common range restriction ratio for various subgroups may create or perpetuate the illusion of differential validity and that corrections are most accurate when done within each subgroup. Finally, in Study 4, we conducted a simulation in which we assumed differential validity in the population. We found that range restriction artificially increased the size of observed differential validity estimates when the validity of cognitive ability tests was assumed to be higher among Whites. Overall, we suggest that the concept of differential validity may be largely artifactual and current data are not definitive enough to suggest such effects exist.

Do candidate reactions relate to job performance or affect criterion-related validity? A multistudy investigation of relations among reactions, selection test scores, and job performance.

Considerable evidence suggests that how candidates react to selection procedures can affect their test performance and their attitudes toward the hiring organization (e.g., recommending the firm to others). However, very few studies of candidate reactions have examined one of the outcomes organizations care most about: job performance. We attempt to address this gap by developing and testing a conceptual framework that delineates whether and how candidate reactions might influence job performance. We accomplish this objective using data from 4 studies (total N = 6,480), 6 selection procedures (personality tests, job knowledge tests, cognitive ability tests, work samples, situational judgment tests, and a selection inventory), 5 key candidate reactions (anxiety, motivation, belief in tests, self-efficacy, and procedural justice), 2 contexts (industry and education), 3 continents (North America, South America, and Europe), 2 study designs (predictive and concurrent), and 4 occupational areas (medical, sales, customer service, and technological). Consistent with previous research, candidate reactions were related to test scores, and test scores were related to job performance. Further, there was some evidence that reactions affected performance indirectly through their influence on test scores. Finally, in no cases did candidate reactions affect the prediction of job performance by increasing or decreasing the criterion-related validity of test scores. Implications of these findings and avenues for future research are discussed.

The critical role of the research question, inclusion criteria, and transparency in meta-analyses of integrity test research: a reply to Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012).

We clear up a number of misconceptions from the critiques of our meta-analysis (Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, & Odle-Dusseau, 2012). We reiterate that our research question focused on the criterion-related validity of integrity tests for predicting individual work behavior and that our inclusion criteria flowed from this question. We also reviewed the primary studies we could access from Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt's (1993) meta-analysis of integrity tests and found that only about 30% of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Further, analyses of some of the types of studies we had to exclude revealed potentially inflated validity estimates (e.g., corrected validities as high as .80 for polygraph studies). We also discuss our experience trying to obtain primary studies and other information from authors of Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012). In addition, we address concerns raised about certain decisions we made and values we used, and we demonstrate how such concerns would have little or no effect on our results or conclusions. Finally, we discuss some other misconceptions about our meta-analysis, as well as some divergent views about the integrity test literature in general. Overall, we stand by our research question, methods, and results, which suggest that the validity of integrity tests for criteria such as job performance and counterproductive work behavior is weaker than the authors of the critiques appear to believe.

The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: an updated meta-analysis.

Integrity tests have become a prominent predictor within the selection literature over the past few decades. However, some researchers have expressed concerns about the criterion-related validity evidence for such tests because of a perceived lack of methodological rigor within this literature, as well as a heavy reliance on unpublished data from test publishers. In response to these concerns, we meta-analyzed 104 studies (representing 134 independent samples), which were authored by a similar proportion of test publishers and non-publishers, whose conduct was consistent with professional standards for test validation, and whose results were relevant to the validity of integrity-specific scales for predicting individual work behavior. Overall mean observed validity estimates and validity estimates corrected for unreliability in the criterion (respectively) were .12 and .15 for job performance, .13 and .16 for training performance, .26 and .32 for counterproductive work behavior, and .07 and .09 for turnover. Although data on restriction of range were sparse, illustrative corrections for indirect range restriction did increase validities slightly (e.g., from .15 to .18 for job performance). Several variables appeared to moderate relations between integrity tests and the criteria. For example, corrected validities for job performance criteria were larger when based on studies authored by integrity test publishers (.27) than when based on studies from non-publishers (.12). In addition, corrected validities for counterproductive work behavior criteria were larger when based on self-reports (.42) than when based on other-reports (.11) or employee records (.15).

Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover.

A common belief among researchers is that vocational interests have limited value for personnel selection. However, no comprehensive quantitative summaries of interests validity research have been conducted to substantiate claims for or against the use of interests. To help address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of relations between interests and employee performance and turnover using data from 74 studies and 141 independent samples. Overall validity estimates (corrected for measurement error in the criterion but not for range restriction) for single interest scales were .14 for job performance, .26 for training performance, -.19 for turnover intentions, and -.15 for actual turnover. Several factors appeared to moderate interest-criterion relations. For example, validity estimates were larger when interests were theoretically relevant to the work performed in the target job. The type of interest scale also moderated validity, such that corrected validities were larger for scales designed to assess interests relevant to a particular job or vocation (e.g., .23 for job performance) than for scales designed to assess a single, job-relevant realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, or conventional (i.e., RIASEC) interest (.10) or a basic interest (.11). Finally, validity estimates were largest when studies used multiple interests for prediction, either by using a single job or vocation focused scale (which tend to tap multiple interests) or by using a regression-weighted composite of several RIASEC or basic interest scales. Overall, the results suggest that vocational interests may hold more promise for predicting employee performance and turnover than researchers may have thought.

Can I retake it? Exploring subgroup differences and criterion-related validity in promotion retesting.

Despite recent interest in the practice of allowing job applicants to retest, surprisingly little is known about how retesting affects 2 of the most critical factors on which staffing procedures are evaluated: subgroup differences and criterion-related validity. We examined these important issues in a sample of internal candidates who completed a job-knowledge test for a within-job promotion. This was a useful context for these questions because we had job-performance data on all candidates (N = 403), regardless of whether they passed or failed the promotion test (i.e., there was no direct range restriction). We found that retest effects varied by subgroup, such that females and younger candidates improved more upon retesting than did males and older candidates. There also was some evidence that Black candidates did not improve as much as did candidates from other racial groups. In addition, among candidates who retested, their retest scores were somewhat better predictors of subsequent job performance than were their initial test scores (rs = .38 vs. .27). The overall results suggest that retesting does not negatively affect criterion-related validity and may even enhance it. Furthermore, retesting may reduce the likelihood of adverse impact against some subgroups (e.g., female candidates) but increase the likelihood of adverse impact against other subgroups (e.g., older candidates).

Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: the validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions.

Although vocational interests have a long history in vocational psychology, they have received extremely limited attention within the recent personnel selection literature. We reconsider some widely held beliefs concerning the (low) validity of interests for predicting criteria important to selection researchers, and we review theory and empirical evidence that challenge such beliefs. We then describe the development and validation of an interests-based selection measure. Results of a large validation study (N = 418) reveal that interests predicted a diverse set of criteria­including measures of job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions­with corrected, cross-validated Rs that ranged from .25 to .46 across the criteria (mean R = .31). Interests also provided incremental validity beyond measures of general cognitive aptitude and facets of the Big Five personality dimensions in relation to each criterion. Furthermore, with a couple exceptions, the interest scales were associated with small to medium subgroup differences, which in most cases favored women and racial minorities. Taken as a whole, these results appear to call into question the prevailing thought that vocational interests have limited usefulness for selection.