CRITERION THEORY AND DEVELOPMENT
PSY 992, Fall 2014
Tuesday 1:50-4:40, PSYC 325
Instructor:
Office:
Chris Nye
PSYC 316
Phone: 355-3408
Email: nyechris@msu.edu
TEXTS
There will be no textbooks for this course. All course material is either available online or
will be distributed in class. These materials will also serve as useful references later in your
careers, and might help when you study for qualifying exams.
COURSE OBJECTIVES & ORIENTATION
This course is designed to provide you with an overview of the key topics and issues related to
employee performance on the job. We will cover a number of topics related to this area of
research and the goal of this course is for you to become familiar with the research on job
performance and to be able to predict, measure, and understand the nature of this construct.
CLASSROOM POLICIES
We're scheduled to meet from 1:50-4:40 p.m. on Tuesdays. We'll take a 15-minute break near the
midpoint of class. Read the assignments beforehand and come to class. You'll be responsible for
submitting a list of your own "Discussion Questions" about those readings to me by 12:00 pm on
the Monday before class. You can e-mail them to nyechris@msu.edu. You'll need to have three,
well-articulated and thought-provoking questions each week.
At the beginning of the semester, each student will sign up (see the table on the last page) to
present the assigned readings and lead the discussion for one or more of the classes during the
semester. This is an informal presentation but must include (1) summaries of the articles, (2) the
major thing(s) that you learned from the articles (i.e., the take-home points), and (3) at least
three discussion questions for each article for the class to discuss. Note that these cannot be
the same questions that you submit to me (described above) each week. The questions that you
submit each week should be broader questions related to the readings but the questions discussed
here should be related to the specific topic of the article. There may be some overlap in the
questions (e.g., one of your weekly questions may be used for the class discussion) but they
should not be the same.
1
STUDENT EVALUATION
The following components will be considered in the determination of your grade in the
course:
1) Research Proposal (40%): Students will be required to propose a study or a
series of studies designed to test ideas that bridge their research interests to the
study of job performance. Each proposal should include 1) a literature review,
2) a “Methods” section that describes how the study will be conducted, and 3)
a section describing your plan for conducting this study. The literature review
will describe the relevant research in the area that is related to the research
questions posed in the paper, propose several hypotheses related to the topic,
and describe how this new study (or these studies) will add to existing
knowledge. This introduction should be 5 to 9 pages long, double-spaced
with 12 point font. The Methods section should include a description of the
research methods (participants, equipment, procedures, design, measures,
techniques, etc.) and a discussion of how this approach improves upon
previous research. The length of this section is less important than the quality
and rigor of the research design but this section should generally be between 2
and 4 double-spaced pages for each study that is proposed. The final section
of the paper should propose how you will conduct this study over the next
couple of years and should answer questions like: Where will you get the
data? How will you get the data? Will you need to apply for a small grant or
some other source of external funding? This section is primarily for your
benefit but will be critiqued based on the plausibility of your approach. The
final paper must not be more than 14 double-spaced pages. Students are
strongly encouraged to contact me about potential topics and to discuss
options for each section of the paper throughout the writing process. The final
paper will be due by 5:00pm on Tuesday, November 18th.
2) Class Presentation (30%): You will also be responsible for presenting
your proposed research topic to the class. Your presentation should detail
the theory and research that you will be building on, your proposed
methodology, and your plan for collecting data. In your presentation, be
specific about your research design and discuss the measures that you will
use, how you will administer them, and how you will analyze your data.
You should also address any potential limitations to your study and the
conclusions that you can draw from it. Each student should prepare a set
of slides to present and plan on presenting for 15-20 minutes with an
additional 10-15 minutes of questions from myself and the rest of the class.
You must send your presentation to me no later than Friday November
21st at noon. The actual presentations will take place on November 25th
and December 2nd. Note that everyone will turn in their presentations on
the same day despite presenting a week apart.
3) Class Participation (30%): Given that this is a graduate seminar, you are
expected to come to class (on time) prepared to discuss and critique the
assigned readings. Class participation will be evaluated based on the
discussion questions that you will submit to me weekly and on the article
2
summaries provided (see section titled “Classroom Policies”). However,
everybody can expect to be asked questions about the readings throughout the
semester. Note that class participation is worth as much of your grade as
the class presentation.
Course Schedule
September 2 Welcome, Syllabus, and Introduction
September 9 The Criterion
1. Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 836-874.
2. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 687-732). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
3. Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs. multiple criteria: A review and
resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24, 419-434.
4. Johnson, J. W., Schneider, R. J., & Oswald, F. L. (1997). Toward a taxonomy of
managerial performance. Human Performance, 10, 227-250.
5. Dierdorff, E.C., Rubin, R.S., & Morgeson, F.P. (2009). The milieu of managerial work:
An integrative framework linking work context to role requirements. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 972-988.
September 16 More Models of Job Performance
1. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.
2. Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and
maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482-486.
3. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policycapturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.
4. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual
synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082-1103.
5. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D.S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216-226.
6. Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process
model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1054-1068.
3
September 23 Expert and Adaptive Performance/Organizational Citizenship Behavior
1. Hoffman, B.J., Blair, C.A., Meriac, J.P, & Woehr, D.J. (2007). Expanding the criterion
domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 555-566.
2. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task Performance and Contextual
Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance,
10(2), 99.
3. Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). "All in a day's work": how
follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions
and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 841.
4. Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (2002).
Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human
Performance, 15, 299-323.
5. Ployhart, R. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). Individual adaptability (I-ADAPT) theory:
Conceptualizing the antecedents, consequences, and measurement of individual
differences in adaptability. In C. S. Burke, L. G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.),
Understanding adaptability: A prerequisite for effective performance within
complex environments (Vol. 6, pp. 3-39). Boston: Elsevier
6. Ackerman, P. L. (2014). Nonsense, common sense, and science of expert performance:
Talent and individual differences. Intelligence, 45, 6-17.
7. Ackerman, P. L. (2014). Facts are stubborn things. Intelligence, 45, 104-106.
Optional supplemental reading in case you are interested in an alternative perspective on expert
performance:
Ericsson, K. A. (2014). Why expert performance is special and cannot be extrapolated from
studies of performance in the general population: A response to criticisms. Intelligence, 45,
81-103.
September 30 Counterproductive Work Behavior
1. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. Handbook
of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, 1, 145-164.
2. Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to
reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.
3. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational behavior
and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12411255.
4. Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we
know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 781-790.
5. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility
in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
6. Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacolone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008).
Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 721-732.
4
October 7
Incivility/Sexual Harassment
1. Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence
of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 658-672.
2. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55-75.
3. Berdahl, J. L. (2007b). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of
gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641-658.
4. Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual
harassment in the military: The sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ-DoD).
Military Psychology, 11, 329-343.
5. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997).
Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an
integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589.
October 14
Withdrawal
1. Harrison, D. A., & Newman, D. A. (2013). Absence, lateness, turnover, and retirement:
Narrow and broad understandings of withdrawal and behavioral engagement. In N.
W. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 12, pp 262-291). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
2. Smith, F. J. (1977). Work attitudes as predictors of specific day attendance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 62, 16-19.
3. Hardy, G. E., Woods, D., & Wall, T. D. (2003). The impact of psychological distress on
absence from work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 306-314.
4. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications
for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.
5. Blau, G. (1994). Developing and testing a taxonomy of lateness behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 959-970.
6. Harrison, D. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1989). Investigations of absenteeism: Using event
history models to study the absence-taking process. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 300-316.
October 21
Dynamic Criteria and Variability in Performance
1. Hofmann, D. A., Jacobs, R., & Baratta, J. E., (1993). Dynamic criteria and the
measurement of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 194-204.
2. Steele-Johnson, Debra; Osburn, Hobart G.; Pieper, Kalen F. (2000). A review and
extension of current models of dynamic criteria. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 8, 110-136.
3. Ployhart, R. E., & Hakel, M. D. (1998). The substantive nature of performance
variability: Predicting interindividual differences in intraindividual performance.
Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 859-901.
5
4. Stewart, G. L., & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2007). Exploring how constraints created by other
people influence intraindividual variation in objective performance measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1149-1158.
5. Dalal, R. S., Bhave, D. P., & Fiset, J. (2014). Within-person variability in job
performance: A theoretical review and research agenda. Journal of Management,
40, 1396-1436.
6. Zyphur, M.J., Chaturvedi, S., & Arvey, R.D. (2008). Job performance over time is a
function of latent trajectories and previous performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 217-224.
October 28
No Class—Project Preparation
November 4
Dynamic Criteria and Employee Development
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101-116.
Rotundo, M., Sackett, P. R., Enns, J. R., & Mann, S. (2012). Refocusing effort across job
tasks: Implications for understanding temporal change in job performance. Human
Performance, 25(3), 201-214.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as
active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Conway, J. M. (2000). Managerial performance development constructs and personality
correlations. Human Performance, 13, 23-46.
Murphy, K. R. (1989). Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance
stable over time? Human Performance, 2(3), 183-200.
Helmreich, R. L., Sawin, L. L., & Carsrud, A. L. (1986). The honeymoon effect in job
performance: Temporal increases in the predictive power of achievement
motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 185-188.
November 11 Measurement, Modeling, and Perceptions
1. Borman, W. C. (1990). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 271-326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
2. Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B.
(1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-603.
3. Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72107.
4. Hansich, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals’
repertoires of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness of studying multiple
behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463-480.
5. Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F.
(2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of
performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 965-973.
6
6. Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the
reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 873-900.
November 18 Performance Ratings
Research Proposals Due
1. Woehr, D. J., Sheehan, M. K., Bennett, W. (2005). Assessing Measurement Equivalence
Across Rating Sources: A Multitrait-Multirater Approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 592-600.
2. Hoffman, B. J., Gorman, C. A., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B., & Atchley, E.
K. (2012). Evidence for the effectiveness of an alternative multisource performance
rating methodology. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 531-563.
3. Toegel, G., Conger, J. A. (2003). 360-Degree Assessment: Time for Reinvention.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 297-311.
4. Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A
quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
67(3), 189-205.
5. Heidemeir, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: A
meta-analysis of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353-370.
6. Oh, I.S., & Berry, C.M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial
performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1498-1513.
7. Lee, H., & Dalal, R. S. (2011). The effects of performance extremities on ratings of
dynamic performance. Human performance, 24(2), 99-118.
November 25 Performance Feedback
1. Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve
following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of
empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66.
2. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
3. Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What
managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393-423.
4. Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360 feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions
of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 930-942.
Class Presentations for the remainder of the class
December 2
Diversity and Job Performance
1. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
7
2. Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A meta-analysis of gender group
differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of
Management, 38(2), 719-739.
3. van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional
wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic
and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 38-53.
4. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392-423.
Class Presentations for the remainder of the class
General Schedule of Events:
Date
Sept. 2
Sept. 9
Sept. 16
Sept. 23
Sept. 30
Oct. 7
Oct. 14
Oct. 21
Oct. 28
Nov. 4
Nov. 11
Nov. 18
Nov. 25
Dec. 2
Topic
Welcome, Syllabus, and Introduction
Students
Responsible
---
The Criterion
More Models of Job Performance
Expert/Adaptive Performance/OCB
Counterproductive work behavior
Incivility/Sexual Harassment
Withdrawal
Dynamic Criteria and Performance Variability
No Class—Project Preparation
Dynamic Criteria and Employee Development
Measurement, Modeling, and Perceptions
Performance Ratings
Performance Feedback
Diversity and Job Performance
8
---