Organizationally Sensible vs. Legal-Centric Approaches to Employment Decisions With Legal Implications

This article is intended to: 1) alert human resource (HR) professionals to the risk that they, and the managers they serve, are unnecessarily contributing to the impact of legal considerations on the management of employees as a result of “legal-centric decision making”; and 2) provide information and guidance that will assist HR professionals in promoting better informed, more organizationally sensible responses to employment issues that have potential legal implications. The “legal-centric decision making” construct is introduced and illustrated, a model of the primary factors contributing to legal-centric decision making is presented, and keys to avoiding legal-centric decision making are identified and discussed

Legally Defensible vs. Organizationally Sensible: Avoiding Legal-Centric Employment Decision Making

Managers and human resource professionals express grave concern about the increasing influence that the law and lawyers are having on their ability to manage employees effectively. Blame is typically placed on growing governmental regulation of the employment relationship, a “litigation mentality” among workers, and overly aggressive lawyers pursuing selfish interests. Much less common, however, is attention focused on the role that organizational decision makers play in contributing to the perceived problem. This article is intended to help address that limitation by alerting managers to the likelihood that they are unnecessarily contributing to the impact of legal considerations on the management of employees as a result of “legal-centric decision making”, and by providing information and guidance that will assist them in formulating better informed, more strategic responses to employment issues that have potential legal implications. Keys to implementing the strategic approach are identified and discussed, and the approach is illustrated by applying it to a decision that American employers continue to confront: how to respond to the eroding employment at-will doctrine. The analysis strongly suggests that the extent of the law’s negative influence on the management of employees can be moderated significantly if organizational decision makers recognize their contribution to “the problem”, focus on what is organizationally sensible rather than what is perceived to be legally defensible, and adopt a more strategic (less legal-centric) approach to the challenges posed by employment decisions that raise legal concerns

“Challenge” and “Hindrance” Related Stress Among U.S. Managers

This study proposes that stress associated with two kinds of job demands or work circumstances, “challenges” and “hindrances,” are distinct phenomena that are differentially related to work outcomes. Specific hypotheses were derived from this general proposition and tested using a sample of 1,886 U.S. managers and longitudinal data. Regression results indicate that challenge related stress is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to job search. In contrast, hindrance related stress is negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to job search and turnover

Gone Fishing: I–O Psychologists’ Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees’ Experiences With Discrimination

This article focuses attention on research examining workplace discrimination against employees from marginalized groups.We particularly consider the experiences of seven different groups of marginalized individuals, some of which have legal protection and some of which do not but all of whom we feel have been overlooked by the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. We briefly describe the importance of studying each group and then delineate the brief amount of research that has been conducted. Finally, we make recommendations for I–O psychologists in terms of research and advocacy. Overall, we argue that I–O psychologists are missing an opportunity to be at the forefront of understanding and instigating changes that would result in maximizing the fairness and optimization of these often forgotten employees and their experiences in the workplace

Applying U.S. Employment Discrimination Laws to International Employers

The question of whether U.S. employment discrimination laws apply to international employers is complex and involves multiple sources of legal authority including U.S. statutes, international treaties, and the laws of non-American host countries. This article provides detailed, simplifying guidance to assist employers in working through that complexity. Based on an examination of 98 federal courts cases, this article identifies and explains eight general guidelines for determining when U.S. laws apply to international employers (e.g., U.S. employees working abroad or “foreign” employees working in the U.S.). These guidelines are incorporated into an organizing framework or “decision tree” that leads employers through the various decisions that must be made to determine whether U.S. discrimination laws apply in a wide range of international employment situations. Guidance for IO psychologists who advise international employers is provided and summarized in terms of general recommendations and conclusions

Alcohol Expectancies and Their Relationship to Actual Drinking Experiences

44 undergraduate normal drinkers participated in a social task in drinking and nondrinking conditions and rated their subjective experiences and their perception of experiences of other group members along 7 alcohol expectancy dimensions. In the drinking condition, Ss rated their experiences as being positively enhanced on those dimensions predicted by the expectancy literature, but did not report experiencing the negative cognitive and motor effects associated with alcohol consumption. It is concluded that in social situations, individuals\u27 alcohol expectancies and experiences coincide for socially relevant variables, but do not for variables related to cognitive skills

Gone Fishing: I–O Psychologists’ Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees’ Experiences With Discrimination

This article focuses attention on research examining workplace discrimination against employees from marginalized groups.We particularly consider the experiences of seven different groups of marginalized individuals, some of which have legal protection and some of which do not but all of whom we feel have been overlooked by the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. We briefly describe the importance of studying each group and then delineate the brief amount of research that has been conducted. Finally, we make recommendations for I–O psychologists in terms of research and advocacy. Overall, we argue that I–O psychologists are missing an opportunity to be at the forefront of understanding and instigating changes that would result in maximizing the fairness and optimization of these often forgotten employees and their experiences in the workplace