Organizational behavior and human performance最新文献

{"title":"The validity of mobley's (1977) model of employee turnover","authors":"Peter W. Hom,&nbsp;Rodger W. Griffeth,&nbsp;C.Louise Sellaro","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90001-1","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90001-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Unlike earlier tests of an oversimplified version of this model, the validity of W. Mobley's (1977, <em>Journal of Applied Psychology</em>, <strong>62,</strong> 237–240) original turnover model was fully investigated. Constructs that were neglected in prior studies were assessed and previously examined constructs were operationalized with more reliable measures. Measures of all constructs in Mobley's model were obtained from a survey of 192 hospital employees. Turnover data were collected a year following survey administration. Following the theoretical causal ordering of Mobley's constructs, each construct was regressed on all causally prior constructs. In general, each construct was accurately predicted by the linear combination of predictors representing its causal determinants. In the majority of instances, the best predictor of a model construct was the construct's immediate causal antecedent. Further, an alternative model was evaluated and compared with Mobley's model using path analysis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 141-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90001-1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21134322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Testing moderator variable hypotheses: A reply to stone and hollenbeck","authors":"Hugh J. Arnold","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90004-7","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90004-7","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>E. F. Stone and J. R. Hollenbeck (1984</span>, <em>Organizational Behavior and Human Performance</em>, <strong>34,</strong> 195–213) argue strongly in favor of the use of moderated regression analysis as the appropriate technique in testing for the presence of “moderator variables.” The primary thrust of the Stone and Hollenbeck article is to present criticisms of positions on tests for moderator variables taken by <span>H. J. Arnold (1982</span>, <em>Organizational Behavior and Human Performance</em>, <strong>29,</strong> 143–174) and by <span>M. R. Blood and G. M. Mullet (1977</span>, <em>Where Have All the Moderators Gone: The Perils of Type II Error</em>, College of Industrial Management, Georgia Institute of Technology). The Stone and Hollenbeck critique of the Blood and Mullet position is well placed, consisting essentially of a restatement (with special reference to Blood and Mullet) of arguments previously put forward by <span>H. J. Arnold and M. G. Evans (1979</span>, <em>Organizational Behavior and Human Performance</em>, <strong>24,</strong> 41–59), <span>J. Cohen (1978</span>, <em>Psychological Bulletin</em>, <strong>85,</strong> 858–866) and <span>J. Cohen and P. Cohen (1975</span>, <em>Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences</em>, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum). Their critique of Arnold's (1982) position is without foundation and results from a failure to recognize the different types of information carried by correlation coefficients and regression coefficients when moderator variables are being analyzed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 214-224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90004-7","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"53838038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Focusing techniques: A shortcut to improving probability judgments?","authors":"Baruch Fischhoff,&nbsp;Maya Bar-Hillel","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90002-3","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90002-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A recurrent finding of judgment research is that people often ignore important kinds of information, such as the base rate of some occurrence. Focusing techniques attempt to improve judgment in inferential problems by helping people to attend to all available information. One such technique is <em>Subjective Sensitivity Analysis</em>, which requires people to consider what judgments they would make were a given item of information to assume each of a series of possible values. A second focusing technique is <em>Isolation Analysis</em>, which requires people to consider what judgment they would make were each item of information to have been the only one available, prior to making a summary judgment based on all given information. In several experimental tasks, both techniques promoted the use of otherwise neglected kinds of information. Unfortunately, they also promoted usage of normatively irrelevant information. Similar effects were obtained both with a more modest technique, <em>Minimal Focusing</em>, which merely instructs subjects to “attend to all the information,” and a more ambitious one, <em>Balanced SSA</em>, which applies subjective sensitivity analysis to both items of information, rather than just to the one that is customarily ignored. All in all, the data suggest that these techniques do not actually enhance people's understanding of the role of base-rate considerations, but merely encourage the use of whatever information is presented. Improving judgment requires more extensive education than can be imparted through mechanical employment of focusing techniques.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 175-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90002-3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"53837909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effects of gender differences and selection agent expertise on leader influence and performance evaluations","authors":"Patrick A. Knight,&nbsp;Frank E. Saal","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90005-9","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90005-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The effects of selection agent expertise and various gender factors upon the influence and perceived expertise of male and female leaders, and upon group cohesiveness, were examined. Leaders (male or female) were selected by an agent (male or female, expert or nonexpert) to lead groups working on either a masculine or a feminine task. While the influence of the leaders was unaffected by the manipulations, ratings of expertise and group cohesiveness were affected. Leaders selected by experts were given higher expertise ratings than were those selected by nonexperts, as were leaders working on masculine as opposed to feminine tasks. Also, in the feminine task condition, perceived expertise was higher for female leaders and for leaders chosen by female agents. Cohesiveness ratings were highest for groups with leaders chosen by experts, except for groups with male leaders and masculine tasks, where cohesiveness ratings were higher when the agent was a nonexpert. The implications of these results for the effects of selection agent and task characteristics in leader selection, and issues of criterion selection in leadership research, are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 225-243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90005-9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"53838070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Some issues associated with the use of moderated regression","authors":"Eugene F. Stone,&nbsp;John R. Hollenbeck","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90003-5","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90003-5","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In recent years, some degree of controversy has arisen over the methods that researchers should employ in the detection of moderating effects. More specifically, both M. R. Blood and G. M. Mullet (1977, <em>Where have all the moderators gone?: The perils of type II error</em>, Tech. Rep. No. 11, College of Industrial Management, Georgia Institute of Technology) and H. J. Arnold (1982, <em>Organizational Behavior and Human Performance</em>, <strong>29,</strong> 143–174) have challenged the use of “conventional” moderated regression (e.g., S. Zedeck (1971, <em>Psychological Bulletin</em>, <strong>76,</strong> 295–310) as an appropriate method for the analysis of moderating effects. Blood and Mullet, for example, have argued that conventional moderated regression is an overly “conservative” technique that is generally incapable of detecting moderating effects—even in data bases “constructed” so as to have strong interaction components. To remedy this problem, they suggest a “backward entry” regression analysis in which the interaction term is the first variable entered into the regression. Also critical of conventional moderated regression, Arnold argues that the same analytic strategy is inappropriate in instances where the researcher's concern is to demonstrate differing “degrees” of correlation between two variables for moderator variable based “subgroups.” The purpose of the present paper is to show that both the arguments of Blood and Mullet and those of Arnold are incorrect. The difficulties associated with the backward entry procedure are demonstrated through the use of Monte Carlo simulation methods. Results of the simulations revealed that the moderated regression analytic procedure is well suited to the detection of statistical interactions (i.e., moderating effects)—even in data bases constructed so as to have (a) very strong main effects for both the independent variable and the moderator variable, (b) dependent variables having large error components, (c) independent and moderator variables having only modest reliability levels, and (d) partially redundant (multicollinear) independent and moderator variables. The errors inherent in the recent arguments of Arnold are shown to result from (a) an unduly restrictive definition of the “degree of relationship” concept, and (b) a seeming belief that differences in correlation coefficients have necessary implications for the accuracy with which scores on one variables can be predicted on the basis of knowledge of scores on another variable. Implications of the present study's analyses are offered.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 2","pages":"Pages 195-213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90003-5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"53837984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A time of transition","authors":"James C. Naylor (Editor)","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90034-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90034-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 1","pages":"Pages 1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90034-5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137227386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction?","authors":"Philip M. Podsakoff,&nbsp;William D. Todor,&nbsp;Richard A. Grover,&nbsp;Vandra L. Huber","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90036-9","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90036-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>One assumption shared by many contemporary models of leadership is that situational variables moderate the relationships between leader behaviors and subordinate responses. Recently, however, R. J. House and J. L. Baetz (1979 in B. Staw &amp; L. Cummings, Eds., <em>Research in Organizational Behavior</em> (Vol. 1), Greenwich, Connecticut, JAI Press) have suggested that the effects of some leader traits and behaviors may be relatively invariant; that is, have the same effects in a variety of situations. One possible class of leader behaviors which may have relatively consistent effects across situations are those known as leader reward and punishment behaviors. The first goal of the research reported here was to increase our understanding of the relationships between leader <em>contingent</em> and <em>noncontingent</em> reward and punishment behaviors and subordinate responses. Contingent reward behavior was found to have the most pronounced relationships with subordinate performance and satisfaction, followed by noncontingent punishment behavior. Neither leader noncontingent reward nor contingent punishment behavior were found to be related to either subordinate performance or satisfaction, with the exception that noncontingent reward behavior was negatively related to subordinates' satisfaction with work. The second goal of the research was to examine the effects of a variety of potential moderators on the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and subordinate responses. The results of this study suggest that the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and subordinates' performance are relatively free of moderating effects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 1","pages":"Pages 21-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90036-9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21136857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A partition of small group predecision performance into informational and social components","authors":"Jeff T. Casey,&nbsp;Charles F. Gettys,&nbsp;Rebecca M. Pliske,&nbsp;Tom Mehle","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90039-4","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90039-4","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>New theoretical and methodological techniques for partitioning and identifying the sources of performance differences between groups and individuals in hypothesis and act generation tasks are presented in two experiments. Experiment 1 presents a two-component model which separates group performance into informational and social components. The model proposes that the pooling of information in an interacting group (the information component) is mediated by the social factors (e.g., level of arousal, cohesiveness) which are present in a given situation (the social component). Interacting groups were found to be inferior to nominal groups in a hypothesis generation task. Thus, in Experiment 1, the social component was found to have a negative effect and the information component was found to be positive. Experiment 2 further partitions the social component into a social information component which accounts for the additional information which becomes available as a result of group interaction and a social, noninformational component which consists of purely social factors. The social information component estimates the synergistic effect of group interaction on information retrieval. The social informational component was estimated by including a group of subjects who exchanged ideas (information) via computers but had no social interaction. The “information exchange” group was found to be somewhat superior to a nominal group in an act generation task, and both of these groups were superior to an interacting group. Experiment 2 illustrates that even when the social, noninformational component has a negative effect on the informational component, the social information component may have a positive effect.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 1","pages":"Pages 112-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90039-4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"53840323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects","authors":"Robert P. Vecchio,&nbsp;Bruce C. Gobdel","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90035-7","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90035-7","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In a test of hypotheses derived from the literature surrounding the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) Model of Leadership, 45 supervisor-subordinate dyads were studied in a setting which differed from much of past VDL research. The results generally confirmed previous findings in that IN-group status was associated with higher performance ratings, reduced propensity to quit, and greater satisfaction with supervision. Also, objective measures of actual job performance yielded results which were in a predicted direction. The need for conceptual and operational revisions of VDL constructs is discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 1","pages":"Pages 5-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90035-7","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"53840256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A role set analysis of managerial reputation","authors":"Anne S. Tsui","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90037-0","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0030-5073(84)90037-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper offers an alternative perspective on managerial effectiveness. Effectiveness of managers is analyzed from their reputation in the role set. It is proposed that focal managers gain the reputation of being effective by meeting the self-interested expectations of role set members. It is further proposed that the most reputationally effective managers tend to be more successful in their careers than the least reputationally effective managers. Five hypotheses relating to this reputational viewpoint were tested using a sample of 217 middle managers, 173 superiors, 387 subordinates, and 303 peers. Results confirm the hypotheses and provide the foundation for a new direction of managerial effectiveness research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"34 1","pages":"Pages 64-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90037-0","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"53840290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}