Technology and Discourse: A Comparison of Face-to-face and Telephone Employment Interviews

Very little research has investigated the comparability of telephone and face-to-face employment interviews. This exploratory study investigated interviewers' questioning strategies and applicants' causal attributions produced during semi structured telephone and face-to-face graduate recruitment interviews (N=62). A total of 2044 causal attributions were extracted from verbatim transcripts of these 62 interviews. It was predicted that an absence of visual cues would lead applicants to produce, and interviewers to focus on, information that might reduce the comparative anonymity of telephone interviews. Results indicate that applicants produce more personal causal attributions in telephone interviews. Personal attributions are also associated with higher ratings in telephone, but not face-to-face interviews. In face-to-face interviews, applicants who attributed outcomes to more global causes received lower ratings. There was also a non-significant tendency for interviewers to ask more closed questions in telephone interviews. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed

Creative analogy use in a heterogeneous design team: The pervasive role of background domain knowledge

We integrated two research traditions – one focusing on analogical reasoning, the other on knowledge sharing – with the aim of examining how designers’ unique knowledge backgrounds can fuel analogy-based creativity. The present dataset afforded a unique opportunity to pursue this aim since the design dialogue derived from team members with highly disparate educational backgrounds. Our analyses revealed that analogies that matched (versus mismatched) educational backgrounds were generated and revisited more frequently, presumably because they were more accessible. Matching analogies were also associated with increased epistemic uncertainty, perhaps because domain experts appreciate the challenge of mapping such analogies between domains. Our findings support claims from the knowledge-sharing literature for a direct route from knowledge diversity through analogical reasoning to novel idea production

Human Resource Flexibility as a Mediating Variable Between High Performance Work Systems and Performance

Much of the human resource management literature has demonstrated the impact of high performance work systems (HPWS) on organizational performance. A new generation of studies is emerging in this literature that recommends the inclusion of mediating variables between HPWS and organizational performance. The increasing rate of dynamism in competitive environments suggests that measures of employee adaptability should be included as a mechanism that may explain the relevance of HPWS to firm competitiveness. On a sample of 226 Spanish firms, the study’s results confirm that HPWS influences performance through its impact on the firm’s human resource (HR) flexibility

Three Approaches to the Investigation of Subgroup Bias in Performance Measurement: Review, Results, and Conclusions

Three methods of assessing subgroup bias in performance measurement commonly found in the literature are identified. After a review of these approaches, findings are reported from analyses of data collected in the US Army\u27s Project A (J. P. Campbell, 1987). Correlations between nonrating performance measures and supervisor ratings were generally not moderated by race, but correlations between nonrating indicators of negative performance and ratings assigned by peers were. In addition, significant interactions between rater and ratee race on performance ratings were not eliminated when variance in the nonrating measures was removed from the ratings provided by Black and White raters. Conclusions about the magnitude and nature of bias in supervisor and peer ratings are discussed

Performance Assessment for a Population of Jobs

Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing through the middle 1990s, the US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) sponsored a comprehensive research and development program to evaluate and enhance the Army\u27s personnel selection and classification procedures. It was actually a set of interrelated efforts (one major effort named Career Force, collectively known as Project A, that were carried out by the sponsor (ARI) and a contractor consortium of 3 organizations (the American Institutes for Research—AIR, the Human Resources Research Organization—HumRRO, and the Personnel Decisions Research Institute—PDRI). the purpose of this chapter is to describe the criterion measures that were developed based on the job analysis work on Project A. All of the criterion measures used in this program are described, including those developed to assess performance at the end-of-training, during a soldier\u27s 1st tour of duty (within the 1st 3 yrs), and during the 2nd tour of duty (roughly between the next 3–5 yrs of enlistment)