The Experts below are selected from a list of 24243 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ante Glavas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
when corporate social responsibility csr meets Organizational Psychology new frontiers in micro csr research and fulfilling a quid pro quo through multilevel insights
Frontiers in Psychology, 2017Co-Authors: David A Jones, Chelsea Willness, Ante GlavasAbstract:Researchers, corporate leaders, and other stakeholders have shown increasing interest in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)—a company’s discretionary actions and policies that appear to advance societal well-being beyond its immediate financial interests and legal requirements. Spanning decades of research activity, the scholarly literature on CSR has been dominated by meso- and macro-level perspectives, such as studies within corporate strategy that examine relationships between firm-level indicators of social/environmental performance and corporate financial performance. In recent years, however, there has been an explosion of micro-oriented CSR research conducted at the individual level of analysis, especially with respect to studies on how and why job seekers and employees perceive and react to CSR practices. This micro-level focus is reflected in 12 articles published as a Research Topic collection in Frontiers in Psychology (Organizational Psychology Specialty Section) titled “Corporate social responsibility and Organizational Psychology: Quid pro quo.” In the present article, the authors summarize and integrate findings from these Research Topic articles. After describing some of the “new frontiers” these articles explore and create, the authors strive to fulfill a “quid pro quo” with some of the meso- and macro-oriented CSR literatures that paved the way for micro-CSR research. Specifically, the authors draw on insights from the Research Topic articles to inform a multilevel model that offers multiple illustrations of how micro-level processes among individual stakeholders can explain variability in meso (firm)-level relationships between CSR practices and corporate performance. The authors also explore an important implication of these multilevel processes for macro-level societal impact.
-
corporate social responsibility and Organizational Psychology an integrative review
Frontiers in Psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Ante GlavasAbstract:The author reviews the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature that includes the individual level of analysis (referred to as micro CSR in the article) based on 166 articles, book chapters, and books. A framework is provided that integrates Organizational Psychology and CSR, with the purpose of highlighting synergies in order to advance scholarship and practice in both fields. The review is structured so that first, a brief overview is provided. Second, the literatures on Organizational Psychology and CSR are integrated. Third, gaps are outlined illuminating opportunities for future research. Finally, a research agenda is put forward that goes beyond addressing gaps and focuses on how Organizational Psychology and CSR can be partners in helping move both fields forward—specifically, through a humanistic research agenda rooted in positive Psychology.
Michael A Mcdaniel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and Organizational Psychology
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Sven Kepes, Michael A McdanielAbstract:The trustworthiness of research findings has been questioned in many domains of science. This article calls for a review of the trustworthiness of the scientific literature in industrial–Organizational (I–O) Psychology and a reconsideration of common practices that may harm the credibility of our literature. We note that most hypotheses in I–O Psychology journals are confirmed. Thus, we are either approaching omniscience or our journals are publishing an unrepresentative sample of completed research. We view the latter explanation as more likely. We review structural problems in the publication process and in the conduct of research that is likely to promote a distortion of scientific knowledge. We then offer recommendations to make the I–O literature more accurate and trustworthy.
-
publication bias a case study of four test vendors
Personnel Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Michael A Mcdaniel, Hannah R Rothstein, Deborah L. WhetzelAbstract:This article has 2 goals. First, we discuss publication bias and explain why it presents a potential problem for industrial and Organizational Psychology. After reviewing the traditional failsafe N, or file drawer analysis, we introduce a more sophisticated method of publication bias analysis (trim and fill), which has been developed in the medical literature but is largely unfamiliar to industrial and Organizational Psychology researchers. Second, we demonstrate trim and fill by applying it to validity information reported in the technical manuals of 4 test vendors. In doing so, we assess the likelihood that criterion-related validity information provided by test publishers may overestimate test validity. In our analysis of 18 validity distributions, we found evidence of either no or minimal bias for 2 of the vendors’ distributions and evidence of moderate-to-severe bias in at least 1 distribution from each of the other 2 vendors. In both cases in which publication bias was found, we noted instances in which the publishers tended to report only statistically significant correlations and that this practice was detected using publication bias methodology.
-
Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors
2006Co-Authors: Michael A Mcdaniel, Hannah R Rothstein, Deborah L. WhetzelAbstract:This article has 2 goals. First, we discuss publication bias and explain why it presents a potential problem for industrial and Organizational Psychology. After reviewing the traditional failsafe N, or file drawer analysis, we introduce a more sophisticated method of publication bias analysis (trim and fill), which has been developed in the medical litera-ture but is largely unfamiliar to industrial and Organizational Psychology researchers. Second, we demonstrate trim and fill by applying it to va-lidity information reported in the technical manuals of 4 test vendors. In doing so, we assess the likelihood that criterion-related validity in-formation provided by test publishers may overestimate test validity. In our analysis of 18 validity distributions, we found evidence of either no or minimal bias for 2 of the vendors ’ distributions and evidence of moderate-to-severe bias in at least 1 distribution from each of the other 2 vendors. In both cases in which publication bias was found, we noted instances in which the publishers tended to report only statistically sig
Deborah L. Whetzel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
publication bias a case study of four test vendors
Personnel Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Michael A Mcdaniel, Hannah R Rothstein, Deborah L. WhetzelAbstract:This article has 2 goals. First, we discuss publication bias and explain why it presents a potential problem for industrial and Organizational Psychology. After reviewing the traditional failsafe N, or file drawer analysis, we introduce a more sophisticated method of publication bias analysis (trim and fill), which has been developed in the medical literature but is largely unfamiliar to industrial and Organizational Psychology researchers. Second, we demonstrate trim and fill by applying it to validity information reported in the technical manuals of 4 test vendors. In doing so, we assess the likelihood that criterion-related validity information provided by test publishers may overestimate test validity. In our analysis of 18 validity distributions, we found evidence of either no or minimal bias for 2 of the vendors’ distributions and evidence of moderate-to-severe bias in at least 1 distribution from each of the other 2 vendors. In both cases in which publication bias was found, we noted instances in which the publishers tended to report only statistically significant correlations and that this practice was detected using publication bias methodology.
-
Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors
2006Co-Authors: Michael A Mcdaniel, Hannah R Rothstein, Deborah L. WhetzelAbstract:This article has 2 goals. First, we discuss publication bias and explain why it presents a potential problem for industrial and Organizational Psychology. After reviewing the traditional failsafe N, or file drawer analysis, we introduce a more sophisticated method of publication bias analysis (trim and fill), which has been developed in the medical litera-ture but is largely unfamiliar to industrial and Organizational Psychology researchers. Second, we demonstrate trim and fill by applying it to va-lidity information reported in the technical manuals of 4 test vendors. In doing so, we assess the likelihood that criterion-related validity in-formation provided by test publishers may overestimate test validity. In our analysis of 18 validity distributions, we found evidence of either no or minimal bias for 2 of the vendors ’ distributions and evidence of moderate-to-severe bias in at least 1 distribution from each of the other 2 vendors. In both cases in which publication bias was found, we noted instances in which the publishers tended to report only statistically sig
Michele J Gelfand - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cross cultural industrial Organizational Psychology and Organizational behavior a hundred year journey
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2017Co-Authors: Michele J Gelfand, Zeynep Aycan, Miriam Erez, Kwok LeungAbstract:In celebration of the anniversary of the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), we take a hundred-year journey to examine how the science of cross-cultural industrial/Organizational Psychology and Organizational behavior (CCIO/OB) has evolved, both in JAP and in the larger field. We review broad trends and provide illustrative examples in the theoretical, methodological, and analytic advances in CCIO/OB during 4 main periods: the early years (1917-1949), the middle 20th century (1950-1979), the later 20th century (1980-2000), and the 21st century (2000 to the present). Within each period, we discuss key historical and societal events that influenced the development of the science of CCIO/OB, major trends in research on CCIO/OB in the field in general and JAP in particular, and important milestones and breakthroughs achieved. We highlight pitfalls in research on CCIO/OB and opportunities for growth. We conclude with recommendations for the next 100 years of CC IO/OB research in JAP and beyond. (PsycINFO Database Record
-
to prosper Organizational Psychology should adopt a global perspective
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2008Co-Authors: Michele J Gelfand, Lisa M Leslie, Ryan FehrAbstract:Summary We argue that for the field of Organizational Psychology to prosper, it must adopt a global perspective. In this article, we discuss three specific ideals for a more global Organizational Psychology, our progress toward these ideals (or lack thereof), and potential solutions to move toward a truly global science. First, we argue that a truly global Organizational Psychology must incorporate global voices. Yet cross-cultural research in Organizational Psychology still remains largely a U.S. export business wherein the very questions we ask are colored by Western assumptions and values which are then explored to other cultures. To be a global science, we must acknowledge that the questions we ask are value-laden, and we must ensure that the questions we ask to have global relevance. Second, a truly global Organizational Psychology must articulate with precision the level at which culture operates. Yet the level at which culture is defined varies widely across studies and levels of analysis confusion abounds in the literature. We discuss a number of conceptualizations and measures of culture and suggest the conditions under which each may be warranted. Third, a truly global Organizational Psychology must advance an understanding of when culture matters. Despite abundant evidence that behavior in organizations is influenced by multiple contextual factors (e.g., the work team, organization, industry), we have little understanding of how national culture and non-cultural factors jointly influence behavior in organizations. We discuss several promising models to guide such efforts. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Joel Lefkowitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
forms of ethical dilemmas in industrial Organizational Psychology
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2021Co-Authors: Joel LefkowitzAbstract:Professional ethics has not been a major focus in industrial-Organizational (I-O) Psychology—in comparison with our study of unethical behavior in organizations. Consequently, we know very little about ethical situations actually faced by I-O psychologists. This article presents and tests a structural perspective on understanding the nature of ethical dilemmas that can facilitate such study. A taxonomy of five paradigmatic forms of ethical dilemmas is defined and placed in a theoretical context. Narrative descriptions of 292 ethical situations were obtained from a sample of 228 professional members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in the United States and were used to empirically test the taxonomy. The narratives were content analyzed for form of dilemma, work domain of occurrence, relevance to human resource administration concerns, and favorability of the situation’s resolution. The work domains that were most problematic were academic research/publication activities, individual assessment/assessment centers, consulting issues regarding the client, and academic supervising/mentoring. There were no significant differences as a function of respondents’ sex, seniority, or professional membership status (member/fellow). This relatively “content free” structural aspect of ethical dilemmas enables comparisons across different domains (of professions, organizations, demographic groups, age cohorts, etc.) in which the overt idiosyncratic ethical problems experienced are not commensurable. Similarly, it can yield interpretable longitudinal comparisons despite changes in the manifestations of ethical problems encountered over time.
-
to prosper Organizational Psychology should expand the values of Organizational Psychology to match the quality of its ethics
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2008Co-Authors: Joel LefkowitzAbstract:The values of Organizational Psychology are criticized as (a) having supplanted Psychology's humanist tradition and societal responsibilities with corporate economic objectives; (b) being “scientistic” in perpetuating the notion of value-free science while ignoring that it is business values that largely drive our research and practice; (c) failing to include normative perspectives of what organizations ought to be like in moral terms; (d) having a pro-management bias; and (e) having allowed ourselves to be defined largely by technocratic competence, almost to the exclusion of considering desirable societal goods. Illustrations of some adverse consequences of these values are presented. It is suggested we expand our self-image to encompass a scientist–practitioner–humanist (S-P-H) model that includes consideration of different values, advocacy of employee rights and a normative characterization of how organizations ought to be—reflecting the broader societal responsibilities of a true profession. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
ethics and values in industrial Organizational Psychology
2003Co-Authors: Joel LefkowitzAbstract:Ethics and Values in Industrial-Organizational Psychology was one of the first books to integrate work from moral philosophy, moral Psychology, I-O Psychology, and political and social economy, as well as business. It incorporates these perspectives into a "framework for taking moral action" and presents a practical model for ethical decision making. The second edition has added a chapter on Virtue Theory, including its application in I-O, Organizational behavior (OB) and business; expands Moral Psychology to two chapters, with more attention to moral emotions, effects of the "dark side" of personality, and the intuitionist model of moral judgment; expands the sections on social and economic justice; and expands the treatment of the Responsible Conduct of Research with a new chapter on Research Integrity. Examples from I-O research and practice, as well as current business events, are offered throughout. It is ideal for ethics and I-O courses at the graduate level.
