Search

This study examines cross‐cultural differences in students' academic faking (indicated by claiming to have impossible knowledge about mathematical concepts) by relating data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to the comprehensive cultural framework of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project. Data of N = 233,428 students from 41 countries showed a substantial amount of variance in academic faking between cultures. Students' academic faking was positively related to the cultural dimensions of gender egalitarianism, humane orientation, and in‐group collectivism. Additionally, the similarity between female and male students' academic faking was slightly greater in more gender‐egalitarian cultures than in less gender‐egalitarian cultures. Thus, educational stakeholders (e.g., teachers, principals, and policy‐makers) should be made aware of cross‐cultural differences in academic faking because faking gives fakers an unfair advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a globalised world, more and more organisations have to select from pools of applicants from different cultures, often by using personality tests. If applicants from different cultures were to differ in the amount of faking on personality tests, this could threaten their validity: Applicants who engage in faking will have an advantage, and will put those who do not fake at a disadvantage. This is the first study to systematically examine and explain cross‐cultural differences in actual faking behavior. In N = 3,678 employees from 43 countries, a scenario‐based repeated measures design (faking vs. honest condition) was applied. Results showed that faking differed significantly across countries, and that it was systematically related to countries’ cultural characteristics (e.g. GLOBE's uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, humane orientation, and in‐group collectivism), but in an unexpected way. The study discusses these findings and their implications for research and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we investigated job stressor ratings through Lazarus' transactional stress theory and the usefulness of supervisor ratings as an alternative to employee self-reports. Based on the finding that negative affectivity (NA) causes incumbents to over-report job stressors, we hypothesized that supervisors may also be affected by their NA when appraising an incumbent's job stressors. Building upon the literatures on judgement processes and social-cognitive information processing, we further hypothesized that stressor observability is an important boundary condition. Specifically, we hypothesized that the impact of NA on both self- and supervisor-reported job stressors should increase as stressor observability decreases. Moreover, we hypothesized that incumbent and supervisor ratings would converge less as stressor observability decreases. Data from 260 incumbent-supervisor dyads showed that stressor observability reduced the impact of supervisor NA on supervisor ratings (but not the impact of incumbent NA on incumbent stressor ratings). Further, as hypothesized, incumbent and supervisor ratings showed less convergence the less observable the stressor was. The results highlight the importance of personal and situational factors in the stressor appraisal process – an issue that advances both research and practice in the field of stressor ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study unites two perspectives concerning the determinants of job insecurity perceptions that exist in the literature and that resemble the classical nature-nurture debate. On the 'nurture' side, we investigated the company performance and type of contract, while we focused on negative affectivity and locus of control on the 'nature' side. In addition to demonstrating the known main effects of the respective predictors, we examined the proportional reduction in prediction error for both predictor types. Based on Lazarus' stress model, we also hypothesized interactive effects between the environmental and person-related predictors. Multilevel analyses of 640 employees from 50 companies revealed that all four variables significantly and incrementally predicted job insecurity in the hypothesized direction. Interestingly, the person-related variables contributed more than twice as much to the reduction in prediction error in job insecurity perceptions when compared with the environmental variables. Among the hypothesized interaction effects, only locus of control significantly interacted with type of contract in predicting job insecurity perceptions (employees on a temporary contract experienced a steeper incline in job insecurity perceptions with increasing levels of external locus of control relative to employees on a permanent contract). We discuss implications for the conceptualization of job insecurity as well as practical implications. Practitioner points The study shows that the person-related variables negative affectivity and locus of control weigh more heavily in the reduction in prediction error in job insecurity perceptions compared with the environmental variables company performance and type of contract. Above this, external locus of control was more strongly related to job insecurity perceptions among employees on a temporary contract, compared with employees on a permanent contract., To reduce job insecurity perceptions, managers should try to decrease temporary contract arrangements and take employees' personality dispositions into account (e.g., when assigning employees to work teams). By doing so, employees with extremely high negative affectivity and a strong external locus of control might be 'positively' affected by other team members (with less severe levels on these traits)., Moreover, managers should try to reduce any negative cues about future employment prospects that employees could interpret the wrong way. Instead, managers should try to give positive feedback concerning employment (if this fits the situation at hand) and/or verbalize negative messages with an unambiguous interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Job attitudes and performance are correlated, but which comes first? Despite a long-lasting debate regarding this question, the potential ordering of the job attitude-job performance relationship and its ideal timing of measurement over time remains unclear. Based on the hedonic treadmill theory and the endowment/contrast model, we develop arguments as to why the influence of performance on subsequent attitudes might be less persistent over time than vice versa and we suggest a strategy to determine the ideal period for measurement time lags. We contrasted both temporal directions within a data set of 755 employees from the retail banking division of a large bank, nested in 34 business units, for the period of 2005-2008, allowing for a controlled environment and consistent data capturing over time. We studied the relationship of organizational commitment aggregated to the business unit level with two business unit performance indicators (financial achievement and customer satisfaction). Results indicated that organizational commitment had a more persistent influence on performance at the business unit level than vice versa. Consistent with prior research, this suggests that job attitudes may come first, and that practitioners might be well advised to aim to improve job attitudes in order to boost performance. Practitioner Points Our study suggests a potential answer to the chicken-and-egg problem (i.e., the temporal ordering of the job attitude-job performance relationship): Our theory and data suggest that the influence of performance on subsequent attitudes might be less persistent over time than vice versa., Our study sheds new light onto which timely dimensions are involved in the job attitude-job performance relationship: While the impact of performance on attitudes diminishes after 1 year, the impact of attitudes on performance lasts up to 3 years., Our results may be relevant for practitioners when it comes to evaluating the benefits of human resource initiatives and adding dollar values to the discussion around attitudinal changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whereas helping is costly for the helper, it is beneficial for the person who requests help. However, there is only scarce evidence on the relative costs and benefits of helping and this evidence is mixed. In addition, hardly any research investigates how these costs and benefits can be manipulated. With a laboratory experiment, we first examined how helping affects the performance of the helper, the help requester, and the dyad. Second, we investigated whether quiet hours that structure time into spans with interruptions and spans without interruptions decrease the costs of helping while keeping its benefits. We found that the requester's performance was higher and the helper's performance lower when help requests were permitted at any time rather than when no help was allowed. However, overall performance fell short of being significantly higher with help at any time. In addition, the helper's performance failed to be higher with quiet hours compared to interruptions at any time. Instead, both the helper's and the requester's performance were lower with quiet hours, resulting also in a lower overall performance. In search of an explanation, our data indicate that structuring time into spans with and without interruptions might generate costs of their own that could be reduced by setting fewer but longer spans without interruptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]