Measuring implicit psychological constructs in organizational behavior: An example using psychological capital

Implicit psychological constructs are effective predictors of behavioral outcomes but are rarely used in organizational settings because of real or imagined problems with measurement validity and administration. To address these concerns, we present a means of assessing implicit constructs quickly and easily by using psychological capital as an example

Measuring implicit psychological constructs in organizational behavior: An example using psychological capital

Implicit psychological constructs are effective predictors of behavioral outcomes but are rarely used in organizational settings because of real or imagined problems with measurement validity and administration. To address these concerns, we present a means of assessing implicit constructs quickly and easily by using psychological capital as an example

Beyond the Bright Side: Dark Personality at Work

Despite the long history of the psychological study of dark personality characteristics and the recent surge of interest in the topic, much work remains to fully understand the breadth and depth of the impact of dark personality in the workplace. This commentary briefly covers the history of dark personality, discusses the place of this special issue within that history, and then proposes a number of avenues for future research in terms of defining, measuring, and providing a more comprehensive theoretical framework for the study of dark personality

Follower Perceptions Deserve a Closer Look

On the whole, we embrace the wisdom of Lord and Dinh’s suggestion that leadership researchers need to refocus our attention on the distinction between leadership perception and effectiveness. That said, we hope that the field can move one step further by recognizing the need to treat perceptual biases as more than systematic errors to be controlled for. As encoded in Lord and Dinh’s first two principles, followers are active participants in the construction of leadership phenomena, so the perceptual “baggage” that they bring into the leader–follower system is an important building block in that construction. We believe that by accounting for perceiver effects in leadership research we can not only help disentangle leadership perception from effectiveness but also open up new opportunities to explore how perceptions may drive effectiveness. In addition, we believe that a better understanding of follower perceptions can facilitate more effective management by allowing practicing managers to make sense of the idiosyncratic reactions followers may display in response to the decisions and behaviors of their leaders

Perceiver Effects as Projective Tests: What Your Perceptions of Others Say about You

In three studies, we document various properties of perceiver effects—or how an individual generally tends to describe other people in a population. First, we document that perceiver effects have consistent relationships with dispositional characteristics of the perceiver, ranging from self-reported personality traits and academic performance to well-being and measures of personality disorders, to how liked the person is by peers. Second, we document that the covariation in perceiver effects among trait dimensions can be adequately captured by a single factor consisting of how positively others are seen across a wide range of traits (e.g., how nice, interesting, trustworthy, happy, and stable others are generally seen). Third, we estimate the one-year stability of perceiver effects and show that individual differences in the typical perception of others have a level of stability comparable to that of personality traits. The results provide compelling evidence that how individuals generally perceive others is a stable individual difference that reveals much about the perceiver’s own personality

How Functionalist and Process Approaches to Behavior Can Explain Trait Covariation

Factors identified in investigations of trait structure (e.g., the Big Five) are sometimes understood as explanations or sources of the covariation of distinct behavioral traits, as when extraversion is suggested to underlie the covariation of assertiveness and sociability. Here, we detail how trait covariation can alternatively be understood as arising from units common to functionalist and process frameworks, such as self-efficacies, expectancies, values, and goals. Specifically, the expected covariation between two behavioral traits should be increased when a specific process variable tends to indicate the functionality of both traits simultaneously. In 2 empirical illustrations, we identify a wide array of specific process variables associated with several Big Five-related behavioral traits simultaneously, and which are thus likely sources of their covariation. Many of these, such as positive interpersonal expectancies, self-regulatory skills, and preference for order, relate similarly to a broad range of trait perceptions in both studies, and across both self- and peer-reports. We also illustrate how this understanding of trait covariation provides a somewhat novel explanation of why some traits are uncorrelated. As we discuss, a functionalist understanding of trait covariation as arising through functionalist or process variables has implications for many basic issues in personality psychology, such as how personality traits should be measured, mechanisms for personality stability and change, and the nature of personality traits more generally. Includes supplementary materials

Predicting the Counterproductive Employee in a Child-to-Adult Prospective Study

Abstract The present research tested the relations between a battery of background factors and counterproductive work behaviors in a 23-year longitudinal study of young adults (N = 930). Background information, such as diagnosed adolescent conduct disorder, criminal conviction records, intelligence, and personality traits, was assessed before participants entered the labor force. These background factors were combined with work conditions at age 26 to predict counterproductive work behaviors at age 26. The results showed that people diagnosed with childhood conduct disorder were more prone to commit counterproductive work behaviors in young adulthood and that these associations were partially mediated by personality traits measured at age 18. Contrary to expectations, criminal convictions that occurred prior to entering the workforce were unrelated to counterproductive work behaviors. Job conditions and personality traits had independent effects on counterproductive work behaviors, above and beyond background factors

The Over-Claiming Technique: Measuring Self-Enhancement Independent of Ability

Overclaiming is a concrete operationalization of self-enhancement based on respondents’ ratings of their knowledge of various persons, events, products, and so on. Because 20% of the items are nonexistent, responses can be analyzed with signal detection formulas to index both response bias (over-claiming) and accuracy (knowledge). Study 1 demonstrated convergence of over-claiming with alternative measures of self-enhancement but independence from cognitive ability. In Studies 2–3, the validity of the overclaiming index held even when respondents were (a) warned about the foils or (b) asked to fake good. Study 3 also showed the utility of the over-claiming index for diagnosing faking. In Study 4, the over-claiming technique was applied to the debate over the adaptive value of positive illusions

A sociogenomic perspective on neuroscience in organizational behavior

We critically examine the current biological models of individual organizational behavior, with particular emphasis on the roles of genetics and the brain. We demonstrate how approaches to biology in the organizational sciences assume that biological systems are simultaneously causal and essentially static; that genotypes exert constant effects. In contrast, we present a sociogenomic approach to organizational research, which could provide a meta-theoretical framework for understanding organizational behavior. Sociogenomics is an interactionist approach that derives power from its ability to explain how genes and environment operate. The key insight is that both genes and the environment operate by modifying gene expression. This leads to a conception of genetic and environmental effects that is fundamentally dynamic, rather than the static view of classical biometric approaches. We review biometric research within organizational behavior, and contrast these interpretations with a sociogenomic view. We provide a review of gene expression mechanisms that help explain the dynamism observed in individual organizational behavior, particularly factors associated with gene expression in the brain. Finally, we discuss the ethics of genomic and neuroscientific findings for practicing managers and discuss whether it is possible to practically apply these findings in management

The Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness Program Evaluation. Report #4: Evaluation of Resilience Training and Mental and Behavioral Health Outcomes

The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the effectiveness of Master Resilience Training, which is a pillar of the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2) program. The report evaluates the relationship between resilience training and diagnoses for mental health or substance abuse problems and whether this relationship was mediated by Soldiers’ self-reported resilience/ psychological health (R/PH). In other words, we tested whether Soldiers with MRT trainers in their units experienced increases in self-reported R/PH, and whether increases in self-reported R/PH were associated with reduced odds of Soldiers receiving diagnoses for mental health or substance abuse problems. The results revealed that exposure to resilience training increased various aspects of Soldier R/PH, which, in turn, appeared to be associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving a diagnosis for a mental health problem (i.e., anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). Thus, this finding suggested that the reduced odds of receiving a diagnosis for a mental health problem was partly due to increases in indicators of R/PH that were likely associated with exposure to resilience training. Moreover, the findings provided evidence that Soldiers exposed to the training were diagnosed with substance abuse problems at a significantly lower rate than Soldiers who were not exposed to the training. Importantly, the results of this evaluation bolster findings from previous evaluations by employing more sophisticated and stringent statistical techniques to demonstrate that resilience training can improve the R/PH of Soldiers. Additionally, the analyses included in this evaluation accounted for the potential effects of Soldier deployment; these considerations were not made in previous evaluations of the program. Therefore, the current evaluation provides further evidence that resilience training may improve the self-reported R/PH of Soldiers, even when controlling for a wider range of factors that might be expected to impact the R/PH of Soldiers. The findings of this evaluation have a number of implications. First, this evaluation provides some evidence that resilience training may be related to improvements on objective measures of mental and behavioral outcomes (i.e., diagnoses for mental health and substance abuse problems). Second, when considered at the organizational level, the effects of resilience training may reach beyond improving the health of individual Soldiers by improving the aggregate health and effectiveness of the Army as an organization. Given that diagnoses for mental health disorders are a leading cause for hospitalization in the Armed Forces (Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, 2012b), the findings provide evidence that interventions such as those offered by CSF2 may help relieve the stress that is currently being placed on medical services in the Army. In sum, it appears that the improvement of R/PH through resilience training efforts can protect against problems that undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army. As with any large-scale evaluation of this type, there are a number of limitations to be acknowledged. First, the timing of deployment cycles of Soldiers in the eight Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) that were examined introduced potential confounds with regard to the timing of resilience training and data collection efforts for use in this report. Specifically, it appeared that the timing of deployments was such that Soldiers with MRTs in their units were more likely to have been deployed to combat than were those who had no MRT trainers in their units. This means that Soldiers who received resilience training were also more likely to have experienced combat which likely increased the probability of subsequently experiencing the adverse outcomes examined in this study. While this fact posed a potential confound, statistical controls were put in place that allowed for a meaningful test of the resilience training program’s effect on R/PH and diagnoses for mental health and substance abuse problems. Other limitations of this evaluation effort have been described elsewhere (Lester, Harms, Herian, Krasikova & Beal, 2011c) and are expanded upon later in this report. In light of these limitations, it is important that readers recognize two points when reviewing this report. First, this report builds on previous evaluations of the CSF2 program. Specifically, the analyses used here were more stringent given the nature of the data. It is important to note that, given the more rigorous testing methods, the results of this and previous evaluations are fairly consistent. Second, it is critical to recognize that the findings presented in this report represent the latest effort in an ongoing evaluation of the resilience training program. Future analyses may also be conducted that empirically explore the relationship between resilience training and other objective outcomes. If such analyses are undertaken, it is possible that the results may differ from those presented here and in previous evaluations due to the amount of time that has passed since implementation of the training program. In the end, however, the effectiveness of CSF2 cannot be judged solely on the results of any single evaluation, but instead must be considered in light of the entire body of work done to date