O V E RV I E W

FİNAL

Chapter 7 to 10
Model of Personnel Decisions
Job & Organizational Analyses

Performance Criteria Predictors

Link between predictors & criteria: VALIDITY

Recruitment Strategies

Selection Process

Utility of Selection System(s)

 Validity Study
Do predictors forecast performance on the job?
• We must ensure that the predictors we use to
select applicants strongly relate to the
criteria.

1. Job Analysis
2. Choose Criteria
3. Choose Predictor(s)
4. Validate the predictors by collecting data
5. Cross-Validate
 1. Job Analys
• To identify worker requirements
(KSAOs) that are necessary to
accomplish the major
components of the job.
• Job Analytic Information Sources:
• Organization’s own JA reports
Validation Study
• O*NET
• Example: Manager’s job
• Task: Managing budget
• KSAO: knowledge of basic
mathematics,
conscientiousness
• Task: Coaching subordinates
• KSAO: interpersonal
communication skills
 2. Choose Performance Criteria

• Purpose is to use this criteria for

validating the predictor.
Validation
• Example: Manager’s Job
Study Task: Managing budget

Good performance criterion:

Staying within the budget

Task: Coaching subordinates

Good performance criterion:

subordinates ratings of supervisor
performance
 3. Choose Predictors
• What you will use to assess the
required KSAOs.
• Assessments
cognitive/physical/psychomotor abilities,
Validation personality, knowledge,
interviews, assessment center exercises,
Study work samples, biodata inventories
 Example: Manager’s job
 Task: Managing budget
Assessment: test of basic
mathematics, test of
conscientiousness
 Task: Coaching
subordinates
Assessment: assessment
center exercises (leaderless
group discussion, in-basket
tests, role playing)
Validation Study

4. Validate the Predictors

• Based on quantitative data
Correlate scores on predictors (assessments) with scores obtained from the
employees’ performance.

Predictors Criteria
 math test scores  staying within the budget
 conscientiousness test scores

 leaderless group discussion

ratings  subordinates ratings of
 in-basket activity ratings supervisor performance
 role playing ratings
 Selection Approaches

Data collected from “Predictors” are used to make

staffing decisions.

HOW?

1. Multiple Hurdles approach (non-compensatory)

2. Regression approach (compensatory)

Multiple predictors can be used for both approaches.

The process of using Regression
Generate regression equation from a validation study, prior to using the tests for
selection.
Obtain a and b.
In selection, you gather predictor data (X) from applicants.
Using the regression equation (you input the "a" and "b" ), estimate their
criterion (Y) scores based on their predictor (X) scores.
Select applicants based on:
• cut off scores

• rank order
Value of Scientific Selection to Organizations

Factors that Determine Selection Success:

• Validity

• Base rate

• Selection ratio
 Determining Cutoff Scores and Prediction Errors
Who is hired? Who is not?
r = .78

False
Negative True
(Performance) (Misses) Positiv
e
Criterion

Cutoff
(Hits)

True
Negativ False
e Positive

Predictor Cutoff
 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Legal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
Issues in Adverse Impact

Selection Adverse Treatment

Americans with Disabilities Act
Affirmative Action
 positive attitude or emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience

Why is it important?
A lot of research was conducted between the years 1935 and 1955. This was due to the idea that
unsatisfied workers would be more likely to go to strike, and be less productive
Idea that unsatisfied workers would be more likely to go to strike and be less productive
Components of Related to several employee and organizational outcomes
Performance (though inconsistent results)
Withdrawal behaviors (absenteeism, turnover)
Work Attitudes Led to Herzberg’s two factor theory. The idea was that:
 pay, work conditions lead to job dissatisfaction  withdrawal
 Challenging, interesting work lead to satisfaction

Affective Component

Cognitive Component Work Attitudes

Behavioral Component
What’s your attitude
about working as a
Which of these would be more informative student in AYBÜ PSY?
about one’s level of job satisfaction?

Which component should we asses?

 Need satisfaction: Satisfying motivator needs leads to
What is Job job satisfaction (acc to Herzberg’s theory)

Satisfaction - Cognitive comparison: Result of calculations individuals

make regarding what they believe they deserve from their

Theories job (Lawler, 1973) (perceived outcomes and inputs acc to

equity theory)

Discrepancy model: compare their job to some “ideal

job.”

Value theory: Attaining the aspects of job that you value

more would lead to job satisfaction. (similar to expectancy
theory)

 Emphasizes individual differences

Steady-State Theory
equilibrium level.

The finding that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time supports the steady-state view. The influence of personality on job satisfaction is also
consistent with the steady-state approach.

One implication is that improving the work situation may increase job satisfaction only temporarily. After a period of time, job satisfaction may return to
former levels.

Some job facets may lead to longer-lasting changes than others.

Steady-State Theory
Implications for managers: Is the resulting increase in JS long-lasting?
 Antecedents & Consequences of JS

Potential
Antecedents Effects of Job
Satisfaction
• Situational • Performance
• Personal • Withdrawal
Presumed Antecedents, Correlates, &
Consequences of Job Satisfaction

Figure 9.3
• Affective commitment would be related to absenteeism and turnover intentions.
• Continuance commitment
Behavioral component, due to evaluating costs of leaving the organization. (costs = loss of seniority, job security,
benefits)
• Normative commitment
Feeling of obligation to remain

Different forms of commitment are expected to be differentially related to work outcomes.

Affective and normatve commitment would be related to job performance, but continuance
commitment would not.
Occupational Stress Process
Job stressor: Stimulus at work which requires an adaptive
response.
• E.g. Being fired, being promoted

Job strain: Negative reaction of the employee.

• Psychological: anger, anxiety, job dissatisfaction, burnout.
• Physical: headache, stomach ache, heart pounding, blood pressure.
• Behavioral: smoking, accidents, CWB, performance, turnover.

Short- Long-
Stress Perceptio
Appraisal term term
or n
strain strain
Demand-Control Model

Job Demands
– Workload (quantitative and qualitative workload)
– Intellectual Requirements

Job Control
– Autonomy on the job

Set own work schedule

Choose own tasks
Decide how to complete tasks
DEMAND-CONTROL MODEL
Coping Strategies for Individuals
(Lazarus, 1991)
Emotion-focused: Reducing the Problem-focused: Managing or
emotional response to the altering the problem causing the
problem stress
• Exercise • Time management

• Meditation • Mentoring

• Social support • Role negotiation

• Clinical counseling

9-22
 Full Campbell Model

Figure 4.2
The Full Campbell Model
Source: Based on Campbell,
McCloy, Oppler, & Sager (1993).
Extensions of the
Basic Performance Model

Task performance: Doing just what is expected

Contextual performance: Going beyond what is

expected
 Contextual
Task Performance Performance
Activities part of job Activities not part of job
description description
Requirements vary
from job to job Common to most jobs
Individual differences
tied to abilities & Individual differences
knowledge tied to personality

Supports organizational
environment
Organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB)
• Personal support (Altruism)
Helpful behaviors directed toward individuals or groups

• Organizational support (Generalized compliance)

Helpful behaviors directed toward the broader organization

• Conscientious initiative
Persisting with extra effort despite difficult conditions
 Performance Criteria

evaluative standards for making decisions

Theoretical criterion
• Ideal measure of all relevant aspects of
job performance (it is a theoretical
construct)
e.g. Personal discipline

Actual (observed) criterion

• Actual measure of job performance
obtained
e.g. supervisor ratings of discipline
 Other objective criteria:
Assembly- line worker - Number of units produced
Types of Performance College professor - Number of publications
Lawyer - Number of cases won
Data Salesperson - Amount of sales
Surgeon - Number of successful operations performed

Objective: count of the results of work

• E.g. # of claims processed by an insurance May not be under
claims adjuster the complete
control of the
individual
Personnel measures: Kept in personnel files
• E.g. absences, accidents, tardiness, (contaminated by
external sources)
disciplinary actions

Rating errors
Subjective (Judgmental): Evaluation of the can
effectiveness of an individual’s work contaminate
behavior.
• E.g. supervisor ratings
 Rating Formats

Graphic
Rating Behavioral
Scales Ratings
(GRS)

Behaviorally
Mixed Behavioral
Anchored
Standards Observation
Rating Scales
Scale (MSS) Scales (BOS)
(BARS)
 Rating Errors

Distributional Errors
• Central Tendency Error
Raters choose mid-point on scale to describe
performance when more extreme point is more
appropriate
1 2 3 4 5
Especially if rating format requires written justification of
extreme scores.
• Leniency-Severity Error
Raters are unusually easy or harsh in their ratings
Use well-defined behavioral anchors to avoid it.
360 DEGREE
A S S E S S M E N T:
 Hofstede’s 5 dimensions of culture might affect
Performanc performance evaluations

e • HOW?

Evaluation
Individualistic/Collectivistic
• Collectivistic more open to team evaluations

and Power distance

Culture • More resistant to 360-degree feedback

• When using self-ratings, tend to be modest

Masculinity/femininity
• Emphasize achievement versus emphasize
relationships
 Systematic effort to intimidate, ignore an
employee by hurting the person emotionally
or to distance the employee from the work
group/unit (Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott,
2005).

A.k.a: Mobbing, workplace bullying,

emotional harassment, workplace incivility.
Pyschological
To be considered as such (Leymann, 1996):
Harassment -For 6 months
-Weekly

Not all behaviors would be perceived as

psychological harassment by everyone. If
the employee feels distressed and faces
negative consequences, it is harassment
(Hockley, 2003).

What behaviors would you consider

psychological harassment?
 Frequency of Various Psychological Harassment Types
% of experencing PH
Attacks at Injuring Reputation/Credibility (N =159)
- Making fun / imitating 22,6
- Injuring one’s honor, credibility, reputation, status 25,8
- Making fun of a person as a group 44,6
- Slander (iftira atmak)/ gossip 56,0
- Criticizing the decisions 66,7
- Injust evaluation of effort 67,3
Kaynak: Attacks at Communication
http://www.eurofound.europa.e - Criticizing the work being conducted/the output 17,6
u/ewco/2008/09/PL0809019I.ht - Not letting the employee to express him/herself verbally 20,13
m - Insulting, derogatory hand gestures 35,2
- Raising voice 47,8
Attacks at Social Relationships
- Isolating the employee’s office from other employees 33,3
- Social isolation by supervisors 55,3
Attacks at Occupational Prestige
- Assigning work that exceeds qualifications 16,3
- Assigning easy, humiliating work tasks 23,9
- Making the employee useless 28,9
 Individual coping mechanisms:
Coping 1) Retaliation

with
- Filing a complaint,
- Ignoring the perpetuators’s requests,

Psychologi 2)
- Intentional low performance.
Avoidance
cal - Quitting the job,
- Unit transfer request,
Harassmen - Tardiness, absenteeism.
3) Seeking social support
t - Sharing the incident with coworkers, supervisors,
- Professional pychological counseling,
- Family.
 Organizational coping mechanisms:
• Organizations need to focus on creating
a proactive organizational climate to
prevent such incidents.
Training to create awareness and emphasize
Coping with manegerial support

Psychological Clear written policies

Commitee to handle cases
Harassment
Training about how to cope with
psychological harassment was shown to
be effective in terms of maintaining
psychological well-being after harassment
incidents.
 Unwelcome behaviors in the workplace that have a
sexual or sexist nature (Fitzgerald, 1993).
Statistics:
• UN: %2
• TR: %6
(EUROFOUND 4th European Work Conditions
Research, 2007)
Sexual Sector:
• TR – health sector: 37.1 % of nurses are victims.
Harassment • TR – education sector: 15% of women teachers.
• TR – food sector:
Physical - infrequent
Verbal - 13 %,
inapproapriate requests - 7 %,
excessive attention 5 %,
by upper-level management 8 %.
 1) Quid-pro-quo: Sexual coercion and bribery
• Sexual cooperation being tied to work rewards or
threats

2) Unwanted sexual attention

• Unwanted physical sexual advances and verbal
Sexual advances indicating sexual interest
• “frequent requests for a date” veya “forcefully
Harassment kissing/touching”

3) Sexual hostility
• Behaviors with a sexual content that create a
hostile/unpleasent work contextiş Örn., sexual jokes,
exposing women to pornographic material.

4) Sexist hostility
• Gender discriminatory behavior
• “making jokes about women’s existence in the work
life”
 Demographics:

• Younger women
• Single or divorced

Antecedents of SH Organizational factors:

Experiences • Job-gender context  more SH

cases
• More men in the
company/work group,
• Supervisors are mostly men,
• Organizations with jobs
traditionally known as work
for “men”.
 5 coping mechanism (Knapp, Faley,
Ekeberg, & Dubois,1997; Wasti &
Cortina, 2002).

1) Reporting:
SH Coping • To a higher authority within the
organization
Mechanisms • Less frequently employed. Reasons:
The victim is afraid of retailiation by the
perpetrator of the organization in
geneeral.
Asymmetrical gender-roles in the society
make women think that male
aggressiveness is normal (or others may
think it si normal).
The woman may be afraid that her
personal, family or occupational
reputation could get wounded.
SH Coping Mechanisms

2) Confrontation and Negotiation:

-Explicitly expressing to the perpetrator that she does not
welcome the behaviors.
-Asking that the behavior would cease.

-Less frequently employed in collectivistic cultures.

-However, according to Wasti & Cortina (2002), women in

Turkey do prefer this coping mechanism.
 SH Coping Mechanisms

3) Avoidance:
-Trying to avoid the perpetrator in the org as
much as possible
-Avoiding the physical context in which the
incident can take place
-Frequently employed

4) Denial:
-Cognitive strategies used to deny that that
incident happened and trying to ignore it and
assume it is unimportant.
-Frequently employed

5) Seeking social support:

- From coworkers, friends, family.
 Study: USA military personnel, N > 6000.
Victim, who reports the incident, can in return come across 3
responses: (Bergman et al., 2002):

1) Retaliation (Misilleme):
-hostility,

Consequences -changing the work unit or position without the request of the
women,
of Reporting -punishment

SH 2) Organizational minimization (Bastırma):

-asking that she withdraws the complaint,
-not taking the complaint seriously or criticizing, reprimanding,
-not taking any remedial action upon the complaint,
-positing that the complaint does not have grounds

3) Remedial action:
-authority figures in the organization can warn the perpatrator,
-Changing the work unit/position of the perpetrator.
 As the status of the perpetrator increases
 more retaliation (r = .12),
 more minimization (r = .14),
 less remedial action (r = -.08).

As the organizational climate tolerates sexual

Consequences harassment more
 more retaliation (r = .29),
of Reporting  more minimization (r = .36),

SH  less remedial action (r = .14).

Retaliation, minimization, and not taking any

remedial action:
 negatively affects procedural justice
perceptions (r range
= .09 ve .35)
 negatively affects the victim’s general
and psychological health and job-related
outcomes such as job satisfaction,
organizational and work-group commitment (r =
.18).