The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How Do I Assess If My Supervisor and Organization Are Fair: Identifying the rules Underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal. 51 (6), 1099-1116.

Employees’ perceptions of fairness greatly influence their workplace attitudes and behaviors. Employees are more likely to have positive attitudes and engage in behaviors that benefit the organization when they perceive the organization to be fair. When employees perceive unfairness, they are more likely to have negative attitudes and engage in workplace behaviors that can be detrimental to the organization.

On What Is Fairness Based?

In the past, most research regarding organizational fairness, also called justice, has focused on the fairness of workplace events. Specifically, it has focused on how people assess the fairness of the procedure, treatment, information, and outcomes in relation to a particular event (e.g., performance appraisal).

Recently, the focus of justice research has shifted to a more comprehensive perspective, that is, people assess the fairness of entities involved in the workplace and workplace events, not just the isolated event itself. Employees tend to assess their supervisors’ and organizations’ overall fairness, as these are often the two entities perceived as responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the employees’ work lives.

Employees’ comprehensive assessments have been broken down into key rules most often used to assess these entities’ (i.e., the supervisor and organization) propensity to be fair. Recognizing these rules helps manage employees’ fairness perceptions, which influence important organizational outcomes.

Assessing the Fairness of the Organization

The key rules that employees use to assess organizational fairness include:

• Organizational support: Pleasantness of work environment and the amount of opportunity for professional development.
• Organizational flexibility: Degree of flexibility offered by the organization in regard to employees’ work schedules and how the work is completed.
• Organizational diversity: Degree to which the organization values all types of diversity among its staff.
• Organizational turnover: The tenure of the employees at the organization.

Higher organizational support, flexibility, and diversity, coupled with a lower turnover rate, leads to greater perceptions of organizational fairness.

Assessing the Fairness of the Supervisor

The key rules that employees use to assess the fairness of their supervisors include:

• Supervisor support: How accommodating and supportive of subordinate professional development the supervisor’s behavior is.
• Supervisor flexibility: Flexibility granted by the supervisor in regard to work schedules and how the work is completed.
• Supervisor traits: The personality, characteristics, and style of interactions used by the supervisor.

The higher the supervisory support, flexibility, and desirable traits, the higher likelihood that the employee will perceive the supervisor as fair.

Other Factors Employees Assess

An increase in perception of fairness in one entity is related to the fairness in the other. For example, employees who view their supervisor as fair may see the supervisor as a representative for the organization, and therefore, a major factor in determining the fairness of the organization.

However, employees also base their fairness perceptions on information gathered from other coworkers. Hearing of a coworker’s past experience with the supervisor or organization can make an impression on the employee by revealing certain traits or aspects that the employee may not have known otherwise, or by reinforcing an impression that he or she already formed.

Additionally, employees can often slightly differ day-to-day in their perceptions of the organization’s fairness depending on their mood.

Practical Implications

Based on the key rules that employees use for assessing fairness, supervisors and organizations can better manage their employees’ fairness perceptions by doing the following:

• Advertise and emphasize organization’s positive work environment, developmental opportunities, diversity, and low turnover rate in internal newsletters and in recruitment brochures and presentations.
• Provide support to employees (e.g., strive for a positive work environment, reasonably accommodating to employee needs, and providing opportunities for employee development).
• Provide flexibility to employees (e.g., adjustment of work schedules and how they complete their work).
• Foster a climate of fairness in which all entities are perceived as fair, as there is reciprocity in fairness perceptions of entities.
• Provide opportunities for social communication in which employees can share their stories and experiences related to the supervisors’ and organizations’ fairness (e.g., potlucks, “brown-bag” events, conferences, and happy hours).
• Provide employees an outlet for their emotions and opportunities to experience positive emotions (e.g., open-door policies, employee assistance programs, wellness programs, team retreats, recreation teams).

Following these suggestions can help organizations ensure that employees have greater perceptions of fairness, leading to the employee maintaining more positive attitudes and job behaviors.

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from:

When someone mentions the term “popularity” it often brings back memories of high school dances and Friday night football games – a concept from the past. However, the concept may not be so distant. “Popularity contests” are occurring in many organizations today, where the “winners” are rewarded immeasurably and the “losers” are simply overlooked.

What Is Popularity?

The term popular can be defined as “being generally accepted by one’s peers.” This concept is markedly different from liking someone, as you can develop a strong interpersonal relationship with someone, and they may not necessarily be popular. Conversely, you could generally dislike an individual; however, this individual could still be viewed as “popular” because of his or her group status. Popularity can be a result of a variety of factors including the individual’s personality and position in the overall communication network.

What Individual Characteristics Contribute to Popularity?

Individuals who are popular among coworkers often have a high core self-evaluation. This means the individual is more likely to have high self-esteem, be positive, confident, successful, and emotionally stable.  Popular individuals also tend to attribute success to their skills and abilities, rather than outside situational factors. For example, if a popular individual successfully completes a work project he may attribute this success to his knowledge of the project and the skills and abilities he used to complete the project, rather than the outside organizational factors, like guidelines for successful project completion, that aided in his success. These characteristics will often lead the individual to develop positive relationships with other individuals in the organization.

What Situational Characteristics Contribute to Popularity?

Situational factors may also play a role in how popular the individual is. It has been found that individuals who are central to the communication network in their organization are often viewed as more popular than their counterparts. This could be caused, in part, by the fact that mere exposure aids in increasing popularity. The frequent exposure to the individual could make interactions automatic and familiar. An example of this could be a secretary in the office who interacts with many employees on a daily basis.

It is important to note that these factors do not operate in isolation. A secretary whom many employees are exposed to on a daily basis could be unpopular because he lacks a high core self-evaluation. Additionally, an individual could have a high core self-evaluation; however, if she never interacts with other co-workers she may not be popular.

Impact of Popularity on Success

Popular individuals in the workplace are not only viewed differently from their unpopular counterparts, they are treated differently. Popular employees are:

• Often the recipients of more positive acts (e.g., receiving help from other employees on a project, helping when the employee is absent, etc.).
• Less susceptible to negative acts by other coworkers (e.g., harsh comments, interpersonal threats, hindering the individual’s ability to work, etc.).

Practical Implications

Organization’s Role. Organizations should recognize it is highly probable a popularity contest is occurring, to some degree, in their workplace. Steps should be taken to ensure marginalized (“unpopular”) employees are being recognized and rewarded for their contributions to the organization in a way that is consistent with their popular counterparts, as popularity can strongly influence how individuals are treated. This can help to create a sense of fairness in the organization.

Individual’s Role. “Unpopular” employees should realize there are actions that can be taken to increase popularity such as increasing communication with other employees and helping others in an altruistic way. However, being popular is not the only way to be successful. Employees should ensure that their contributions are visible and add to the overall success of the organization in order to make certain popularity status is not affecting their perceived effectiveness to the organization.

Popularity is prevalent and influential in the workplace. Therefore, it is important organizations not only understand why some individuals may be considered more popular than others (high core self-evaluation and network centrality) but also attempt to mitigate the negative effects on marginalized employees.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Toegel, G., Anand, N., & Kilduff, M. (2007). Emotion helpers: The role of high positive affectivity and high self-monitoring managers. Personnel Psychology, 60, 337-365.

The workplace can be thought of as a living organism, in which each employee is a ‘cell’. In the same way that an organism can only function properly if all cells are working correctly, a workplace needs all employees to function in order to succeed. Negative emotion is an often overlooked problem that can hinder the functioning of an employee.

Negative Emotions in the Workplace

Stress, anxiety, and tension resulting from work and home life can lead to negative emotions, and these negative emotions can dramatically impair the functioning of an entire organization. Employees experiencing negative emotions often perform work less efficiently and with more errors, which can cause productivity problems for others. Additionally, these individuals can have a negative attitude towards others, causing negative emotions in others, thus, spreading an epidemic.

Changes in Views on Negative Emotions

For many years emotions at work were hidden, as people would rather walk around with a blindfold than see people having emotional problems and try to intervene. In fact, not only was there an unwillingness to help, but the mere act of showing negative emotions was taboo.

Fortunately for employees and employers alike, recent changes in society and views of the workplace have led to a paradigm shift. Now, employees experiencing negative emotions at work may receive assistance from a coworker or supervisor, which can help enable employees and organizations to maintain high levels of performance.

Who Will Help

While it is clear that some people provide counsel more than others, how do we know who is more likely to help?

One indicator of an individual’s propensity to help is positive affect, or the amount of ‘good emotions’ a person possesses. Those with more positive affect are more likely to help. People with high levels of positive affect often:

• Are happier
• Enjoy and seek out social contact
• Are more sensitive and attentive to others
• Are more overtly friendly
• Can pass their positive emotions to others

Another important factor in whether people are likely to help others experiencing negative emotions is self-monitoring, or the extent to which a person monitors and controls himself based on his surroundings. Individuals who self-monitor are more likely to help. Some characteristics of self-monitors include:

• Holding back negative thoughts
• Responding to the emotional states of others
• Trying to lift the spirits of others
• Attentively noticing others’ emotions
• Adjusting behavior to match the situation

Individuals who have more positive affect and are high self-monitors are more likely to engage in, and be successful in, helping others.

However, there is one other, very important piece to the pie as it relates to the workplace: the individual must not feel ‘hand-cuffed’ by the organization’s rules. Particularly in management positions, people can feel hesitant to help if they feel the organization will frown on it. This hesitation can be based on an unwritten organizational culture that does not embrace emotional support or on specific rules that advise managers not to intervene when employees are experiencing negative emotions.

The solution is, of course, to let management know that it is acceptable to help others experiencing negative emotions. Some companies may be more or less accepting of helping behaviors; therefore this should be addressed within the human resources department before taking action to determine the most acceptable behaviors at your organization.

Take Home Points

• Negative emotions can be toxic to the workplace
• High levels of positive affect and self-monitoring make it more likely that people will help others and be successful in the process
• Organizations should make it clear through management trainings and organizational policies that it is acceptable to help others experiencing negative emotions
• People who act as ‘emotion helpers’ provide an invaluable service to the company by increasing productivity

It is important to remember that, just as cells are vital to the functioning of a living organism, employees are also vital to the success of any organization, therefore, it is important that managers help employees deal with negative emotions to keep the organization productive and successful.

Interpretation by:

David Daly

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Choi, J. (2008). Event Justice Perceptions and Employees’ Reaction: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology. 93 (4), 513-528.

Organizational commitment, trust in managers, and organizational citizenship behaviors are much desired attitudes and behaviors in employees. A significant aspect that drives these attitudes and behaviors is the perception of fairness or justice within the organization. Thus, it is important to determine how employees evaluate justice and what reactions result.

How Do Employees Evaluate Justice?

Within the field of Psychology, two paradigms exist which attempt to understand how employees evaluate justice. First, the event justice paradigm suggests that employees evaluate a particular event based on the specific time and situation (e.g., I was given complete and timely information about the new evaluation procedure).

The second paradigm, social entity paradigm, suggests that employees evaluate the social entities (e.g., boss) perceived as responsible for the event and develop more global justice perceptions of the entities’ overall propensity to perform fair behaviors.  Two social entities particularly relevant to employees’ global justice perceptions are their (1) managers or supervisors and (2) the organization.

By blending these paradigms, one is able to more fully understand how employees evaluate and react to the fairness of events.

Employees can have differing perceptions of how fair their organization or supervisor is; therefore, even though employees may experience a similar event, fair or not, their reactions vary based on their preexisting view of the social entities involved.

Importance of Social Entity Justice

The relationship between event justice perceptions and employee reactions toward the organization (e.g., organizational commitment vs. abuse of sick time or the organization’s internet) and managers (e.g., trust in managers vs. undermining their authority) are moderated (meaning affected or strengthened) by the fairness of the social entity perceived accountable for the specific event.

The relationship between event justice perceptions and organization-directed reactions is moderated by perceptions that an organization is fair. Therefore, if employees are exposed to an unfair workplace situation, but otherwise perceive the organization to be fair, they will be less likely to negatively react toward the organization based solely on disappointment about an unfair event.

However, if in this case the employees perceive the organization to be generally unfair, their preexisting view will be confirmed and they will likely assign greater blame on the organization and negatively react toward it.

Notably, the overall fairness of the manager reduces detrimental reactions toward both the manager and the organization.

Practical Implications

Overall, social entity justice perceptions are a better predictor of employee reactions than are event justice perceptions.

To decrease the likelihood of negative reactions and increase the likelihood of positive organization- and supervisor-directed reactions, such as organizational commitment, trust in managers, and organizational citizenship behaviors, organizations should improve employees’ social justice perceptions by:

• Training managers and supervisors to be fair and convey fairness throughout the workplace (e.g., provide fairness-oriented training via the web, manuals, in-person training).
• Directing managers and supervisors to do their best to show that the organization as a whole is fair (e.g., treat all employees equally, give adequate and timely information about new processes)
• Building a culture of fairness by communicating importance of fairness and making fairness a priority in all management practices (e.g., be open about managerial procedures, encourage employees to voice concerns about any perceived injustice, show employees that their concerns are heard).

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Takeuchi, R., Shay, J. P., & Li, J. (2008). When does decision autonomy increase expatriate managers’ adjustment? An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 45-60.

In today’s global economy, organizations are spreading talent across borders by asking professionals to spend time working at international locations. Individuals sent abroad, called expatriates, are generally on a short-term assignment to complete an organizational goal. The benefits of such practices can be far reaching, from unifying different company locations to increasing the organizational acumen of a rising star in the company.

Downfalls of Sending Talent Abroad

While the prospect of being an expatriate may sound exciting, many individuals have difficulty adjusting to their new environment. Expatriates can become lonely if they know very few people in the host country, and this can be compounded as they often do not speak the native language very well. This should be monitored closely, as an expatriate who does not like his or her overseas assignment may begin looking for a job elsewhere. There are three specific aspects of adjusting to the assignment expatriates can struggle with:

• Work adjustment refers to the expatriate’s level of comfort with his or her work environment
• Interaction adjustment involves the extent to which an expatriate is comfortable with his or her interpersonal contact with host country nationals
• General adjustment encompasses the comfort of an expatriate with the cultural environment in the host country

Minimizing Adjustment Problems

The most obvious way to minimize adjustment issues is to integrate expatriates to their new environment before they step foot in a different country. Individuals who are given expatriate assignments should be trained on the language and culture of the host country long before they begin the assignment.

In addition to learning about the host country’s language and culture, expatriates should be immersed in the work environment of the host location before they actually travel to the location. This can be accomplished through videoconferencing which will allow the soon-to-be expatriate to learn more about whom she will be working with and help her to gain exposure to projects she will be working on abroad.

Additional Factors Affecting Adjustment

Interestingly, other factors can affect the adjustment of expatriates, such as the amount of decision autonomy they have (the level of freedom granted to an individual to make decisions that affect the company) and the level of global integration pressure that exists (the expatriate’s perception that his organization’s business strategy is global in nature). The more decision autonomy afforded to expatriates, the more easily they will adjust to the new environment; however, this is not true when global integration pressure is high.

Global integration plays an integral part in this relationship because global integration pressure often leads a company to standardize their procedures internationally. A strategy of standardization can have negative consequences when the cultural differences of the host country are not accounted for, which causes additional stress for the expatriate.

Summary

Expatriates working abroad can have problems with adjustment in general, as well as with interaction with host country citizens and with the new work environment. These problems can be mitigated through a number of activities,

such as language and cultural education, assimilation with host country employees prior to departure from the home country, and by affording the expatriate with more decision autonomy, when possible. Implementing these strategies for minimizing the difficulties for expatriates can help lead to a more unified and productive international company.

Interpretation by:

David Daly

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Roth, P., Bobko, P., McFarland, L., & Buster, M. (2008). Work sample tests in personnel selection: A meta-analysis of Black-White differences in overall and exercise scores. Personnel Psychology, 61, 637-662.

Adverse impact in employee selection is a crucial concern for human resource management. Adverse impact occurs when a protected class of applicants is hired or selected at a substantially lower rate compared to other groups of applicants, which can potentially lead to costly court charges and lawsuits. Thus, reducing actual and potential adverse impact against protected groups is a key priority for most HR departments. This goal has led companies to search for the most effective selection tools possible that maximize differentiating among applicants of different qualifications and abilities while minimizing adverse impact.

Some selection tools, such as general cognitive ability tests, have reputations for producing adverse impact. Other tools, such as work sample tests, have generally been considered to be effective while producing little adverse impact. Work sample tests require applicants to perform brief exercises that are similar to functions they would be performing in their jobs.  Examples of work sample tests include:

• Role playing exercises (e.g., supervisor or customer service roles)
• In-basket exercises (e.g., writing memos or scheduling employee work hours)
• Technical skills exercises (e.g., troubleshoot a computer problem or solve a work-related math problem)

Thus, work sample tests are often recommended for use by many sources in place of other tools and instruments that are seen as more likely to result in adverse impact. However, research has discovered that the risk of adverse impact using work sample tests may actually be much greater than once thought.

Problems with Past Research

Several studies have claimed that work sample tests exhibit less adverse impact than other HR tools. However, this research contained some important limitations, including:

• Using only job incumbent ratings and not job applicants, which can affect statistical results by attenuating the range of scores.
• Some research grouped minorities together for analysis (for instance, combining African American and Hispanic data rather than analyzing it separately).
• Some of the research combined work sample tests with other types of selection assessments, which prevented adverse impact information from being calculated just for work sample tests.

Current Research Findings

Recent evidence indicates that incumbent work sample tests show higher adverse impact than was expected. Applicant work sample scores have nearly double the commonly expected difference between whites and blacks. Work sample tests demonstrating the largest differences are in-basket exercises and technical and scheduling sample tests. Oral briefings and role-playing exercises, however, both exhibit low difference scores.

The recent research also analyzed work sample exercises based on what constructs they were measuring. A construct here refers to underlying psychological attributes like personality, communication ability, cognitive ability, etc. Work sample tests that exhibit large group differences appear to tap into constructs involving cognitive ability and writing skills/knowledge, while work sample tests that exhibit lower group differences tap into constructs like leadership and interpersonal oral communication.

Implications for Practice

As research has indicated that adverse impact can be a bigger problem with work sample tests than previously thought, some recommendations for reducing the risk of adverse impact with work sample tests include:

• Selection decision makers need to consider what constructs will be evaluated with a particular work sample test. Any given work sample test will likely involve several different constructs (e.g., in-basket exercise involving cognitive ability, personality, communication, and/or psychomotor skills).
• Measured constructs must be closely aligned to key job functions and duties. For example, is general cognitive ability or certain social skills really necessary for satisfactorily completing the tasks of a particular job?
• Record detailed information about applicants, incumbents, ratings, and specific types of work sample tests for adverse impact analyses.

The recent research does not indicate that work sample tests (or any other HR selection tool) will necessarily produce adverse impact. However, the results do indicate that HR professionals need to be more aware of the potential for adverse impact and to not take for granted the idea that work sample tests will be more acceptable.

Interpretation by:

Donnie Johnson

DeGarmo Group

Workplaces are generally thought to be stress-inducing environments on many levels.  Various studies have examined task-related stressors (e.g., high work load), but it is also important to consider the influence of social stressors – psychological/physical strains that are social in nature (e.g., co-worker conflict, poor group climate, unjust treatment, and verbal aggression from customers).

Buffering Social Stressors

It is valuable to understand characteristics of those who can successfully buffer (cope) against social stressors.  Therefore, research has looked toward understanding core self-evaluations.

Core Self Evaluations are individual characteristics that represent fundamental evaluations people form concerning themselves, other people, and the world in general. Core Self Evaluations consist of four distinct individual traits that vary from person to person and include:

• Self-esteem – general confidence and assurance in oneself.
• Locus of control – beliefs about what causes good or bad events (i.e., environmental [external], or individual causes [internal]).
• Generalized self-efficacy – views of individual ability to ascertain goals.
• Neuroticism – tendency to experience more negative emotional states (e.g., anger, anxiety, guilt).

These traits take part in mediating how one copes with stress and can ultimately buffer against unwanted stressors. For example, an individual who has an internal locus of control, has high self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy, while low in neuroticism may, generally, cope with stress/stressors better than an individual who has an external locus of control, is low in self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy, yet high in neuroticism.

Conservation of Resources

Core self evaluations are important to buffering against stressors, therefore one must examine the idea that individuals can gain or lose resources from four principle categories, which include valued resources:

• Object Resources – such as place of dwelling and vehicles.
• Condition Resources – such as status in the organization and place in the community.
• Personal Resources – such as feelings of achievement.
• Energy Resources – interpersonal or time investments.

Social stressors in the workplace (e.g., conflicts with coworkers, unpleasant workplaces, or organizational politics) may threaten and/or cause a depletion of valued resources. However, these stressors can be buffered by higher core self evaluations.

For example, being viewed negatively at work (losing condition resources), experiencing feelings of failure (losing personal resources), or expending energy coping with negative social situations (using up energy resources) can all deplete resources.  These resources can be better maintained with higher levels of core self evaluations and can ultimately lead to higher coping of job strains.

Job Related Outcomes

Social Stressors relate to negative job outcomes such as low levels of job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and a lack of helping behaviors.

Individuals reporting more social stressors at work perceive that their personal resources are being threatened or are expending additional resources (e.g., time and energy).

For example, when social stressors are present in the workplace, an individual spends time thinking about how to manage and possibly avoid these situations. Individuals, therefore, expend time and energy, thus resulting in greater strains and less energy for obtaining goals and helping others.

Again, greater core self evaluations are relevant and necessary as those possessing such characteristics are better equipped and more able to minimize/buffer the aforementioned negative situations (i.e., how to manage and possibly avoid social stressors) that lead to depleted resources and ultimately to negative job related outcomes.

Implications for Practice

When dealing with social stressors in the workplace:

• Promote positive social climates and establish norms against social injustice and/or aggression – this should lead to fewer social stressors and therefore fewer resources needed to maintain/buffer against social stressors.
• Consider employee selection and placement – individual traits such as core self evaluations are stable (i.e., enduring individual characteristics); therefore altering these characteristics may be impractical.  It is important to assess workplace social stressors and hire and/or place appropriate individuals for the job and/or situation (i.e., if there are high social stressors, seek individuals with high core self evaluations).

Ultimately, by understanding the work situation and level of stress, while evaluating (or at least understanding) an employee’s ability to cope through core self evaluations and conservation of resources there exists the possibility of mediating social stressors at work. In addition, by doing so negative job related outcomes and job strains can be avoided – increasing an employee’s resources and focus to achieve organizational goals and uphold organizational values.

Interpretation by:

Adam Bradshaw

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 162-176.

People are predisposed to experiencing certain levels of approach-related arousal emotions and avoidance-related arousal emotions which influence different aspects of their job performance. Approach-related arousal is generally associated with feelings such as happiness, elation, or feeling energetic. Avoidance-related arousal is generally associated with feelings involving negative emotions. These predispositions, which are called positive affect and negative affect, are different from the emotions a person will experience in reaction to specific events in that affect shows stability across time and even situations. It is important to realize that positive affect and negative affect are not opposite ends of a continuum – one can have high levels of one but not the other, or can have high or low levels of both types at the same time.

Examples of different affect profiles include:

• A person who experiences anxiety or fear (high on both levels). This profile is high in positive affect because anxiety arouses a person to be alert, but it is also high in negative affect because it makes a person want to escape from something.
• A person who feels very relaxed, laid-back (low on both levels). Such a person isn’t experiencing particularly high positive or negative arousal.
• A person who is bored (high in negative affect, low in positive affect). This profile indicates someone who is unenergetic and experiencing negative arousal.
• A person who is cheerful and energetic (high in positive affect, low in negative affect). Such a person isn’t experiencing negative feelings but is experiencing a high level of positive arousal.

Emotions and Performance

Recent evidence provides a clearer understanding of the role of dispositional emotions in work performance. Specifically:

• Positive emotions are related to increased task performance ratings by supervisors
• Negative emotions are related to decreased task performance ratings by supervisors
• Positive affect is associated with increases in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) – i.e., work behaviors that are helpful but not required of one’s position, like volunteering for overtime or assisting a coworker
• Negative affect is associated with decreases in OCBs
• Negative affect is associated with increases in withdrawal and counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) – e.g., theft, absenteeism, abuse, sabotage, etc.
• Negative affect is associated with increased occupational injury

Explaining these Associations

Evidence indicates that the relationships between positive and negative affect and the dimensions of job performance may be mediated by the factors fairness, job satisfaction, and stress. Mediation refers to a factor being a reason why one variable (e.g., emotion) influences another variable (e.g., performance). That is, emotions are thought to influence one or more of these three factors, which then affect performance, in the following ways:

• Perceived fairness is a significant mediator between positive affect and task performance and OCBs
• Perceived fairness is a significant mediator between negative affect and task performance, OCBs, CWBs, and withdrawal
• Job satisfaction is a significant mediator between both positive affect and negative affect and OCBs
• Job satisfaction is a significant mediator between negative affect and withdrawal
• Job stress mediates the association between positive affect and task performance/OCBs
• Job stress mediates the associations between negative affect and CWBs/withdrawal

Affect and Personality

Evidence also indicates that positive and negative affect, which exhibit high associations with the personality traits extraversion and neuroticism respectively, are not redundant with those traits in predicting task performance. Positive and negative affect predict task performance even after extraversion and neuroticism have been accounted for.

Implications for Practice

These results clearly indicate that emotional predispositions are important factors in predicting success in different performance categories ranging from productive behavior to destructive behavior. Suggestions for capitalizing on this knowledge to maximize organizational performance include:

• Screen and hire applicants in part based on their dispositional affect, especially for occupations that are inherently stressful.
• Introduce stress management resources for employees. Examples include employee assistance programs (EAPs) and gym membership information.
• Take steps to increase employee perceptions of fair treatment at work. This can be done by following standard procedures for everyone, letting employees have some input or “voice” when appropriate, or providing sufficient information about why certain workplace decisions have been made.
• Strive to reduce a negative work climate while also striving to create a positive work environment. This can involve reducing personal conflicts in the organization and promoting cooperation among employees.

Recent evidence is much clearer about the roles that positive and negative affect play in employee performance. Employers should consider these emotional dispositions when making decisions about how to increase or maintain worker performance in their organizations.

Interpretation by:

Donnie Johnson

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Golden, T., Veiga, J. & Dino, R. (2008). The Impact of Professional Isolation on Teleworker Job Performance and Turnover Intentions: Does Time Spent Teleworking, Interacting Face-to-Face, or Having Access to Communication-Enhancing Technology Matter?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, (6), 1412-1421.

As companies and the workforce continue to change, options for working environments are also increasing. More and more employees are trading in their corner office to work from home, or telecommute. This may be a desirable option for many employees as it affords more flexibility, decreases travel time and reduces conflicts with demands outside of the organization. However, being completely separated from the office and other individuals can often lead employees to feel isolated.

What Is Professional Isolation?

Professional isolation is the belief or perception that one is not connected to others in the organization, which can reduce one’s influence and social contact. This can occur because individuals often use feedback from others in the organization to determine how they should behave/react/perform in certain situations and to evaluate their own performance.  When social contact is limited, feedback is less likely, leaving the employees unsure of appropriate behaviors and about their performance relative to others.

How Can Professional Isolation Affect Performance and Turnover Intentions?

Performance  – Limited input and feedback from others in the organization can place teleworkers at a severe disadvantage. Consequently, teleworkers may feel more anxious and lonely, resulting in psychological or physical health problems, and a reduction in job performance.

Turnover – Additionally, teleworkers are less likely to leave the organization. Though this may seem like a positive implication, reduced turnover is more likely due to a lack of confidence on the part of the employee. Telework benefits (i.e. flexibility, decreased travel, etc.) outweigh the costs (i.e. loneliness, decreased interpersonal contact, etc.), and therefore the employee may choose to stay with the organization, even though he or she may not be satisfied or highly motivated to perform.

Dissatisfied teleworkers may stay with the organization because they value the flexibility, and think it will be difficult to find another job that allows them to telecommute. However, the number of companies who offer telecommuting is increasing. This may cause the fear associated with losing flexibility to decrease, and turnover among telecommuters may, in turn, increase.

What Other Factors Can Influence Professional Isolation in Telework?

• Amount of time spent teleworking – Perceptions that coworkers and supervisors are inaccessible increase as the amount of time spent teleworking increases. This “inaccessibility” may make it more difficult for the employee to identify with the organization.

• Face-to-face interactions – Face-to-face interactions with other employees tend to reduce the negative impact professional isolation may have on job performance. Therefore, the more face-to-face interaction the teleworker has with other employees, the less impact isolation will have on his or her performance.

• Access to communication enhancing technology – As access to technology increases, the ability to perform effectively also increases. It seems, however, that communication via technology is not an adequate substitute for face-to-face interactions.

Practical Implications

In order to reduce or prevent the negative effects of professional isolation there are several steps that managers can take:

• Training – Help employees understand the possible negative implications of professional isolation as a teleworker.    Providing communication strategies and ways to foster interactions with other employees and teleworkers can be effective in preventing professional isolation.

• Performance Appraisals – Allow employees to demonstrate their knowledge and competence during performance appraisals. In addition, provide professional growth opportunities (i.e. training, increased responsibilities, more complex projects/ assignments, etc.) that challenge the teleworker and strengthen his/her skills.   Allowing the teleworker to make an important contribution to the organization and discussing goals/opportunities for advancement will demonstrate the organization’s support and can help to mitigate the negative effects of telework.

• HR – Modify the position or responsibilities of those who telework to make them feel more integrated and involved in “core organizational functions.” Teleworkers can benefit by participating in group projects that encourage regular communication with coworkers, including in-office employees or other telecommuters. This can allow employees to feel more connected and invested in the organization.

Overall, it is important to recognize employees who telework are interacting with the organization in a different way than traditional employees. Therefore, it is essential employers develop systems for training, professional growth and gathering and providing feedback so teleworkers can maintain a connectedness to the “core organizational functions.” Preventing teleworkers from experiencing professional isolation will positively influence the work environment, and allow companies to compete in a dynamic and changing global economy.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Umphress, E. E., Simmons, A.L., Boswell, W. R., & Triana, M. (2008). Managing discrimination in selection: The influence of directives from an authority and social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 982-993.

Although great strides have been made in the past half-century to improve the representation of minority groups in the workplace, disparities still exist. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that men are 4 times more likely to hold a position at the highest levels of an organization than women. Additionally, white employees are 11 times more likely to hold a position of management than blacks and Latinos.

Although there are many factors that contribute to these disparities (poverty, education, etc.), the failure of organizations to select and promote minority applicants is partly responsible for this gap. Despite the best intentions of the organization, if individuals who are responsible for hiring and promotion give preference to higher status groups – either intentionally or unintentionally – this trend will continue.

Social Dominance Orientation

Within most human societies, there is a social hierarchy in which some groups hold more power than others. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a tendency to support the social hierarchy in which some groups hold more social power and some groups hold less power.

High SDO is associated with prejudice against low-status groups such as women, blacks, and Latinos. This can be problematic when employees high in SDO are responsible for hiring or promoting within organizations. These individuals may tend to prefer candidates of high-status groups, thus preserving the social hierarchy.

Some individuals are higher in Social Dominance Orientation and some people are lower in SDO. People high in SDO are not necessarily members of a high status group. Minorities can also have high SDO. In a hiring context, a minority hiring manager with a high SDO may be just as likely to prefer a candidate from a high status group.

Directives from an Authority

Fortunately, organizations can use Social Dominance Orientation to their advantage. Because individuals high in SDO strongly support the social hierarchy, they tend to stringently follow directives from supervisors.  Recent research has shown that explicit instructions from an authority figure to focus on job qualifications during selection can mitigate high SDO employees’ failure to select qualified minority applicants.

Practical Advice

Failure to select a candidate based on his or her social status can potentially result in a number of undesirable outcomes for an organization. Some of these include the loss of a high-performing employee, absence of diversity within the organization, and possibly even legal issues resulting from discriminatory hiring practices.

However, because individuals high in SDO tend to follow directives from supervisors, organizations can take action to reduce the probability of these outcomes. Some of these include:

• Develop a list of specific job requirements for each position.
• Ensure that employees responsible for hiring and promotion understand the qualifications for each job.
• Implement written policies that support these initiatives and communicate these policies to employees.

These recommendations can help to counteract high SDO employees’ tendency to discriminate against qualified minority applicants.

Interpretation by:

Michelle Toelle

The DeGarmo Group