Fundamentals of Human Resource Management John Molson School of Business Concordia University Fall 2011 (Proposed) Tuesday, 12:45-15:30 Instructor: Dev Bhave MB 14-109 dbhave@jmsb.concordia.ca Office hours: Tuesday, 4.00-5.00 pm Course Description This doctoral-level seminar will provide students with an overview of different issues in the domain of Human Resource Management (HRM) research. The main focus of seminar discussions and assignments will be on theoretical, conceptual, and empirical issues in work design, staffing, performance management, compensation, training and development, as well as strategic human resource management. Course Objectives 1. Gain an understanding of current theory and practice in HRM. 2. Critically evaluate empirical and theoretical literature in HRM. 3. Engage in discussions on research, theory, conclusions, methods, and issues in HRM. 4. Identify research ideas based on previous academic research and writing. 5. Conceptualize research designs and consider appropriate methodologies in developing a research proposal Course Requirements Seminar 20% Research Paper and Presentation 40% 1 Class Participation and Writing assignments 20% Seminar Leadership For each class session, one or more students will be assigned to lead the seminar covering the listed readings. Designated discussion leaders for each class will be assigned on the first day of class. Depending on the class size, students may have the opportunity to lead 2-3 class sessions on different topics. The role of the discussion leader will be to clarify key concepts, identify controversial or interesting points presented by the papers we study, point out other articles of relevance, provide critiques of the readings, etc. It is not, however, the role of the facilitator to lead the entire discussion: all students must participate equally. Seminar leaders have full creative liberty regarding how to organize and lead the discussion. This can include, but should not be limited to, providing discussion questions for the class, organizing framework or figures, bringing in additional articles reflecting current (or historical) research trends, etc. Before the session that you will be assigned to lead, please discuss your planned approach with me so that I can provide

2 feedback and prepare the appropriate material connected to the seminar topic. Research Paper and Presentation Based on a problem or research need identified during the seminar, each student will develop a research proposal. This proposal should clearly identify a problem of theoretical and practical significance, propose hypotheses that are derived from appropriate theory, identify specific variables that would be assessed to address the problem/test the hypotheses, and outline potential means of soliciting data, as well as the nature of the process used to collect those data. This is a proposal for basic (scientific) research, and should focus on psychological, economic, or HRM constructs and their inter-relationships. In practical terms, the end product will essentially be the introduction and method sections of an empirical journal article. For the introduction section, you will first review the literature on a particular topic and then propose your own hypotheses. Each hypothesis should be preceded by a sound rationale. For the method section, you will describe your participants (experimental subjects, survey respondents, etc.) and procedure (including survey measures, if any), and your analytical strategy. Originality, thoroughness, and scholarly thinking are the most important criteria for the research paper. All papers should be written in a format and structure suitable for submission to top journals in the field (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology), and should not exceed thirty pages (without references). Follow the guidelines specified by the American Psychological Association (APA) in formatting your manuscript. Because the best papers in the field are not written once, but are instead re-written and drafted many times, your work on the research paper will mirror this process, with several iterations in writing and conceptual development. The specific deliverables are listed below: I. Research Proposals: A 3-5 page research proposal is due by week 5 (INSERT DATE). Aside from my feedback on these proposals, each proposal will also be distributed to two other students for review and critique. To ensure that the author has time to consider and integrate this feedback into the paper, the student reviewers will return the feedback to me (two copies placed in my mailbox in MB 13-138) no later than (INSERT DATE). I will provide you with feedback, as well as the feedback from your fellow student reviewers on (INSERT DATE). II. First Draft of Research Paper: The first draft of the research paper is due (INSERT DATE). Please e-mail it to me, and I will forward it to two of your classmates for review. Reviews from the students are due on (INSERT DATE). I will provide you with my feedback and the feedback from the student reviewers in class on (INSERT DATE). III. Presentation: Presentations will be made by each student during the last two class periods, and will follow the format of the Academy of Management Meetings Conference (15 minute power-point presentation, followed by questions from the audience). IV. Final Draft: The final paper is due on (INSERT DATE). Each student must also submit a short written response to the comments made by their reviewers with their final draft.

3 Friendly Peer Review An integral aspect of an academic career is the opportunity to read and review the papers of your colleagues. As indicated above, feedback will be provided and received at many opportunities during the seminar, making the class a dynamic forum for mutual intellectual development. You will be required to provide feedback to your classmates on the proposals and drafts of the required theoretical paper, and will receive feedback on your paper from your classmates. Class Participation and Writing Assignments
Class Participation
The success of this course is largely dependent on student participation, which will require adequate preparation for each seminar. When students meet this challenge, everyone benefits from a more positive and interesting learning environment. Students are expected to be well prepared for class by reading all papers required for a given class session (marked with an asterisk), thinking critically about the themes and issues that characterize their content, and preparing to actively participate in class discussion. Students are encouraged, although not required, to read beyond the assigned readings and to bring to the class’ attention research that informs and explores the topic (some suggested, additional articles are listed after the required readings). In preparing for class discussion, you may want to ask yourself some of the following questions:  What question is the author addressing? How important/interesting is this question?  What assumptions does the author make? How valid are these assumptions?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of this article?  How does this article fit in with other articles on the topic?  If you were doing research in the same content area as the article, what would you do next, or do differently? For example, how could this work be extended or refined? Class sessions will be spent evaluating, integrating, and supplementing the material presented in the readings. The quality and quantity of student contributions to class discussions will be evaluated when grading this course component. High-quality contributions to class discussion will (a) demonstrate knowledge and comprehension of course content, (b) identify critical issues that critique course content, (c) pose questions of interest given course content, and/or (d) integrate themes common across course content.
Writing Assignments
Written assignments will facilitate student preparation for class participation. Students will be expected to complete these assignments throughout the semester. Each one is described in the course schedule. High-quality writing assignments will (a) accomplish the objective being laid out, (b) be presented in a writing style that is clear and organized, (c) demonstrate that the student comprehends the material presented in the readings, and (d) provide comments and perspectives that are novel, integrative, and analytically-sophisticated. †Students will turn in a written assignment in every class except when the student is the Seminar Leader.

4 Required Materials Students are responsible for obtaining copies of the readings listed in the class schedule in advance of each class. Unless otherwise indicated, these readings are available electronically through the Concordia Library. General Comments No supplemental work is allowed to make up a low grade. There are no make-up presentations or papers. If you miss a presentation for any reason (e.g., medical reason), you need to provide a university-validated document that justifies your absence. Course Readings Each week’s reading (from Week 3 onwards) begins with a set of review articles or meta analyses. These articles are marked (†). I highly recommend that you review these articles to obtain an overview of the topic for the week. The articles marked with an asterisk (*) are required reading for each week.
Week 1
Course Overview and Introduction to the Field of Human Resource Management *Gospel, H. (2010). Human Resources Management: A historical perspective. In Adrian Wilkinson, Tom Redman, Scott Snell, and Nick Bacon, eds., The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, London: Sage. *Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237-264. *Wright, P.M., & Boswell, W.R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28, 247-276.
Week 2
Human Resource Management Research and Practice *Rynes, S., Giluk, T., & Brown, K. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 987-1008. *Cascio,W. (2007). Evidenced-based management and the marketplace for ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5):1009-1012. *Cohen, D. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1013-1019. *Dipboye, R. (2007). Eight outrageous statements about HR science. Human Resource Management Review, 17: 96-106. * Cascio, W.F. & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062-

5 1081. Guest, D. (2007). Don’t shoot the messenger: A wake-up call for academics. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1020-1026. Latham, G. (2007). A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science findings to the workplace: “The times they are a-changin”. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1027 1032. Lawler, E. (2007). Why HR practices are not evidenced based. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1033-1036. Assignment Please be prepared to discuss these questions: 1. What are the major themes in these articles? 2. How have these articles affected your thinking about HRM research? 3. Do you think discussions such as those in the assigned articles influence HRM researchers? How? 4. Should all HRM research inform practice? How should practice inform HRM research? Be prepared to justify your position.
Week 3
Work Design †Grant, A.M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2010). Work Matters: Job Design in Classic and Contemporary Perspectives. In Zedeck, S. (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. †Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317-375. †Humphrey, S., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356. †Roberts, K. & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193-217. *Morgeson, F., & Campion, M.A. (2002). Minimizing tradeoffs when redesigning work: Evidence from a longitudinal quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 589-612. *Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417. *Grant, A. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108-124.

6 *Parker, S.K., Griffin, M.A., Sprigg, C.A., & Wall, T.D. (2002). Effect of temporary contracts on perceived work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 55, 689-719. Morgeson, F.P., Johnson, M.D., Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Mumford, T.V. (2006). Understanding reactions to job redesign: A quasi-experimental investigation of the moderating effects of organizational context on perceptions of performance behavior. Personnel Psychology, 59, 333-363. Edwards, J. Scully, J., & Brtek, M. (2000). The nature and outcomes of work: A replication and extension of interdisciplinary work-design research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 860-868. Campion, M. & Thayer, P. (1985). Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 29-43. Campion, M. (1988). Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 467-481. Morgenson, F. & Humphrey, S. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339. Journal of Organizational Behavior: Special Issue on Work Design Assignment Write a no more than a two-paged paper summarizing the major themes of these readings.
Week 4
Job Analysis and Competency Modeling †Morgeson, F.P., & Dierdorff, E.C. (2010. Work Analysis: From Technique to Theory. In Zedeck, S. (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology †Singh, P. (2008). Job analysis for a changing workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 87-99. †Sanchez, J.I., & Levine, W.L. (2009). What is (or should be) the difference between competency modeling and traditional job analysis? Human Resource Management Review, 19, 53-63. *Dierdorff, E. & Morgeson, F. (2007). Consensus in work role requirements: The influence of discrete occupational requirements on role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1228-1241. *Morgenson, F. Delaney-Klinger, K., Mayfield, M., Ferrara, P. & Campion, M. (2004). Self presentation processes in job analysis: A field experiment investigating inflation in abilities, tasks, and competencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 674-686.

7 *Shippmann, J., Ash, R., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L., Hesketh, B., Kehoe, J., Pearlman, K., Prien, E., & Sanchez, J. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740. *Lievens, F., Sanchez, J., & DeCorte, W. (2004). Easing the inferential leap in competency modeling: The effects of task-related information and subject matter expertise. Personnel Psychology, 57, 881-904. *Lievens, F., Sanchez, J.I., Bartram, D., & Brown, A. (2010). Lack of consensus among competency ratings of the same occupation: Noise or substance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Lievens, F., & Sanchez, J.I. (2007). Can training improve the quality of inferences made by raters in competency modeling? A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 812 819. Assignment Pick one future research idea/question/area for research that is explicitly identified in the Discussion section of any of the assigned articles. Discuss the importance of the research question and its relevance for practitioners. (maximum 2 pages). Week 5 Recruiting † Dineen, B. & Soltis, S. (2010). Recruitment: A review of research and emerging directions. In S. Zedeck (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. †Breaugh, J. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 103-118. †Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928-944. *Collins, C. J., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: The effects of early recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising, and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57, 685-717. * Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction: Person organization fit in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 723 734. *Curhan, J., Elfenbein, H. & Kilduff, G. (2009). Getting off on the right foot: Subjective versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 524-534. *Van Hoye, G. & Lievens, F. (2009). Tapping the grapevine: A closer look at word-of- mouth as

8 a recruitment source. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 341-352. *Cable, D., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. & Edwards, J. (2000). The sources and accuracy of job applicants’ beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1076 1085. Cable, D. M., & Graham, M. E. (2000). The determinants of job seekers’ reputation perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 929-947. Collins, C. & Stevens, C. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labor market entrants: A brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1121-1134. Assignment Based on the readings, write a two page paper describing one important and interesting research question that you believe should be studied in recruitment research. Make sure you describe why your question is important from an academic and practical perspective. Cite relevant literature. Also, include a discussion of the methodology you would use, i.e., sample, procedure, measured variables, description of independent and dependent variable(s). Week 6 Staffing & Selection †Murphy, K.R. (2009). Validity, validation and values. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 421 461. †Cascio, W. & Aguinis, H. (2008). Staffing twenty-first century organizations. Academy of Management Annuals, 2 (1), 133-165. † Ployart, R. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32, 868-897. † Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565-606. †Sackett, P. & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 419 445. †Macan, T. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 203-218. †Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185-1203. *Wilk, S. L., & Cappelli, P. (2003). Understanding the determinants of employer use of selection methods. Personnel Psychology, 56, 103-124.

9 *Morgeson, F., Campion, M., Dipboye, R., Hollenbeck, J., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683-729. *Tett, R. & Christiansen, N. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgenson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, & Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60, 967-993. * Ones, D., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C. & Judge, T. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995-1027. * Morgeson, F., Campion, M., Dipboye, R., Hollenbeck, J., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60, 1029-1049. *Ployart, R. & Holtz, B. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex group differences and adverse impact in selection. Personnel Psychology, 61, 153-172. * Caligiuri, P., Ibraiz, T. & Jacobs, R. (2009). Selection for international assignments. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 251-262. Beaty, J. C., Jr., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contextual performance in “strong” versus “weak” situations. Human Performance, 14, 125-148. Mount, M., In-Sue, O., & Burns, M. (2008). Incremental validity of perceptual speed and accuracy over general mental ability. Personnel Psychology, 61, 113-139. Kravitz, D. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Beyond selection- The role of affirmative action. Personnel Psychology, 61, 173-193. Assignment Read each article and be prepared to discuss its contribution to selection and/or staffing research. Week 7 Performance Management † DeNisi, A.S., & Sonesh, S. (2010). The Appraisal and Management of Performance at Work. In Zedeck, S. (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. † Wildman, J.L., Bedwell, W.L., Salas, E., & Smith-Jentsch, K.A. (2010). Performance Measurement at Work: A Multilevel Perspective. In Zedeck, S. (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. †Roberson, L., Galvin, B.M., & Charles, A.C. (2007). When group identities matter: Bias in Performance Appraisal. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 617-650.

10 †Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836-874. *Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F., & Ones, D. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (1), 108-131. * Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80. *Scullen, S., Bergey, P. & Aiman-Smith, L. (2005). Forced distribution rating systems and the improvement of workforce potential: A baseline simulation. Personnel Psychology, 58, 1-32. *Kinicki, A., Prussia, G., Wu, B., & McKee-Ryan, F. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employees’ responses to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6), 1057 1068. *Kurtzberg, T., Naquin, C. & Belkin, L. (2005). Electronic performance appraisals: The effects of e-mail communications on peer ratings in actual and simulated environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 216-226. Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605. Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a doubleedged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 67-72. Bartol, K., Durham, C., & Poon, J. (2001). Influence of performance evaluation rating segmentation on motivation and fairness perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1106-1119. Jelley, R. and Goffin, R. (2001). Can performance-feedback accuracy be improved? Effects of rater priming and rating-scale format on rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 134-144. Findley, H., Giles, W., & Mossholder, K. (2000). Performance appraisal process and system facets: Relationships with contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (4), 634 640. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior Heidemeier, H. & Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-

11 analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353-370. Algae, B., Ballinger, G., & Green, S. (2004). Remote control: Predictors of electronic monitoring intensity and secrecy. Personnel Psychology, 57, 377-410. Adler, G. & Ambrose, M. (2005). An examination of the effect of computerized performance monitoring on monitoring fairness, performance, and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 161-177. 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. Hofmann, D. A., Jacobs, R., & Baratta, J. E. (1993). Dynamic criteria and the measurement of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 194-204. Harrison, D. A. & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Mapping the criterion space for expatriate success: task- and relationship-based performance, effort, and adaptation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1454-1474. Assignment: As you may have noticed by now, the Discussion section of every article includes directions for future research. 1. Choose one of the empirical articles from this week that interests you (other than the meta analyses). 2. Pick one future research idea/question/area for research that is explicitly identified in the Discussion section of the article. 3. Discuss the methodology you would recommend for testing that research question. Methodology includes sample, procedure, brief discussion of measures, and data analysis strategy. Your write-up should not exceed three double-spaced pages. Make sure you clearly identify the title of the article, the future research idea/questions and the page number where it appears in the article, and each section of your proposed methodology. Week 8 Compensation & Pay for Performance † Martocchio, J.J. (2010). Strategic Reward and Compensation Plans. In Zedeck, S. (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. †Gerhart, B., Rynes, S., & Smithey Fulmer, I. (2009). Pay and Performance: Individuals, Groups, and Executives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 251-315. Barry Gerhart a ; Sara L. Rynes b ; Ingrid Smithey Fulmer c † Rynes, S., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel Psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 571-600.

12 † Dulebohn, J. & Werling, S. (2007). Compensation research past, present, and future. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 191-207. *Schaubroeck, J., Shaw, J., Duffy, M. & Mitra, A. (2008). An under-met and over-met expectations model of employee reactions to merit raises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 424-434. *Ostroff, C. & Atwater, L. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age composition on managers’ compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 725-740. *Trevor, C. & Wazeyer, D. (2006). A contingent view of reactions to objective pay conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1260-1275. *Dunford, B., Oler, D. & Boudreau, J. (2008). Underwater stock options and voluntary executive turnover: A multidisciplinary perspective integrating behavioral and economic theories. Personnel Psychology, 61, 687-726. *Williams, M., McDaniel, M., & Nguyen, N. (2006). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 392-413. Shaw, J. & Gupta, N. (2007). Pay systems characteristics and quit patterns of good, average, and poor performers. Personnel Psychology, 60, 903-928. M. Brown, M. Sturman & M. Simmering (2003). Compensation policy and organizational performance: The efficiency, operational, and financial implications of pay level and pay structure. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6) 752-762. Other useful books on compensation research and theory Gerhart, B. and Rynes, S. Compensation: Theory, Evidence and Strategic Implications (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003). Rynes, S. & Gerhart, B. (eds.). Compensation in organizations: Current Research and Practice. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000). Assignment Write a short paper (three pages, maximum) entitled, “Theories that have been used in compensation research: Past and future”. The “future” part of the paper should identify and discuss one or two theories that haven’t been used in compensation research, but which you believe could help advance the field. Make sure you briefly describe the theories and how they can help advance (or have helped advance) our understanding (i.e., the research questions they will help address or have helped address).

13
Week 9
Training † Noe, R.A., Tews, M.J., & Dachner, A.M. (2010). Learner Engagement: A New Perspective for Enhancing Our Understanding of Learner Motivation and Workplace Learning. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 279-315. †Aguinis, H. & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474. †Brown, K. & Sitzmann, T.. Training and Development (2010). In Zedeck, S. (ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. †Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. , Edens, P., & Bell, S.(2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234-245. †Tharenou, P., Saks, A., & Moore, C. (2007). A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 251-273. †Sitzmann, T., Brown, K., Casper, W., Ely, K., & Zimmerman, R. (2008). A review and meta analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 280-295. *Colquitt, J., LePine, J., and Noe, R. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5), pps 678-707. *Shapiro, J., King, E., & Quinones, M. (2007). Expectation of obese trainees: How stigmatized trainee characteristics influence training effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 239 249. *Brown, B. & Kozlowski, S. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296 316. *Iddekinge, C., Ferris, G., Perrewe, P., Perryman, A., Blass, F., & Heetderks, T. (2009). Effects of selection and training on unit-level performance over time: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 829-843. *Orvis, K. , Fisher, S., & Wasserman, M. (2009). Power to the people: Using learner control to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 960-971. Chen, G. & Klimoski, R. (2007). Training and development of human resources at work: Is the state of our science strong? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 180-190

14 Noe, R. A. & Tews, M. (2009). Strategic training and development. In J. Storey, P. Wright, and D. Ulrich (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Strategic Human Resource Management (pps. 262-284). New York: Routledge. Callahan, J., Kiker, D., & Cross, T. (2003). Does method matter? A meta-analysis of the effects of training method on older learner training performance. Journal of Management, 29(5), 663 680. Sitzmann, T.M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D.W., & Wisher, R.A. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59 (3): 623-664. Keith, N & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 59-69. Donovan, J.J. & Radosevich, D.J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (5), 795-805. Burke, L. & Hutchins, H. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative review. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 263-296. Saks, A.M & Belcourt, M. (2006). An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in organizations. Human Resource Management, 45, 629-648. Tews, M.J. & Tracey, J.B. (2008). An empirical examination of post training on-the-job supplements for enhancing the effectiveness of interpersonal skills training. Personnel Psychology, 61, 375-401. Towler, A. & Dipboye, R.L. (2001). Effects of trainer expressiveness, organization, and trainee goal orientation on training outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), pps 664-673. Other Useful Resources Kozlowski S. and Salas E. (eds.) (2010). Learning, training, and development in organizations. New York: Routledge Kraiger, K. (ed.) (2002). Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jackson, S. , Hitt, M. & DeNisi, A. (eds) (2003). Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Assignment Choose one of the empirical articles from this week’s readings (not the meta-analysis or reviews). Read and critically evaluate the article. Prepare a short paper (three pages, maximum) answering the following questions.

15 1. What was the purpose and contribution(s) of the article? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used (participants, measures, design)? 3. Is the statistical analysis appropriate? Why or why not? Could the data have been analyzed using a different statistical approach? Explain. 4. How do you think this study added to the training literature? Week 10 Development †Feldman, D.C., & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 31, 829-848. †Kammeryer-Mueller, J.D., & Judge, T.A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269-283. †Wanberg, C.R., Welsh, E.T., & Hezlett, .S.A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 39-124. †Smither, J., London, M., & Reilly, R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66. †Jacobs, R., & Washington, C. (2003). Employee development and organizational performance: A review of literature and directions for future research. Human Resource Development International, 6, 343-354. *Hurtz, G., & Williams, K. (2009). Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation in voluntary employee development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 635-653. *Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P., Russell, J., & Oh, I. (2009). Understanding managerial development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 731 743. *Benson, G., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. (2004). You paid for the skills, now keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 315-331. *Allen, T, Eby, L., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 567-578. *Smither, J, London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y., & Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an executive coach improve multisource ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. Personnel Psychology, 56, 23-44. Noe, R.A. and Wilk, S. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’

16 participation in development activities, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291-302. DeRue, D., Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 859-875. McCauley, C., Ruderman, M., Ohlott, P., & Morrow, J. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544-560. Allen, T., Eby, L., Poteet, M., Lentz, E. & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127-136. Wang, S., Noe, R., Wang, Z., & Greenberger, D. (2009). What affects willingness to mentor in the future? An investigation of attachment styles and mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 245-256. Assignment Find an empirical article published between 2007 and 2011 on mentoring, or coaching, or 360 degree feedback. Write a one-paged summary of the article. Make sure you include the full citation of the article. Please bring copies of the article to share with the other seminar participants and the instructor. Week 11 Strategic Human Resource Management † Lengnick-Hall, M., Lengnick-Hall, C., Andrade, L., & Drake, B. (2009). Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 64 85. † Becker, B & Huselid, M. (2006). Strategic human resource management: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32, 898-925. * M. Huselid (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635 672. * J. Delery & D. Doty (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configural performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802-835. * Lepak, D. & Snell, S. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment and resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28, 517-543. * Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L. & Allen, M. (2005). The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58, 409-446

17 *Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. (2009). Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects of high performance work systems on employees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62, 1-30. Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C., Wall, T., Wood, S. (2008). The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61, 467-501. Nishii, L., Lepak, D., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behavior and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61, 503-545. Beltran-Martin, I., Roca-Puig, V., Escrig-Tena, A., & Bou-Llusar, J. (2008). Human resource flexibility as a mediating variable between high performance work systems and performance. Journal of Management, 34, 1009-1044. Gong, Y., Law, K., Chang, S. & Xin, K. (2009). Human resource management and firm performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 263-275. Hartner, J. Schmidt, F., & Hayes, T. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279. Fulmer, I. Gerhart, B. & Scott, K. (2003). Are the 100 Best Better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a “great place to work” and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 965-993. Other papers on measurement issues B. Gerhart, P. Wright, G. McMahan (2000). Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates? Personnel Psychology, 53, 803-834. M. Husleid & B. Becker (2000). Comment on “Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates by Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, and Snell , Personnel Psychology, 53, 835-854. B. Gerhart, P. Wright, & G. McMahan (2000). Measurement error in research on the human resources and firm performance relationship: Further evidence and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 53, 855-872. P. Wright, T. Gardner, L. Moynihan, H. Park, B. Gerhart, & J. Delery (2001). Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 54, 875-901 B. Schneider, P. Hanges, D. Smith, & A. Salvaggio (2003). Which comes first: Employee

18 attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 836-851. Assignment Write a 3-4 paged paper (a) summarizing what you believe are the major contributions of the studies we read this week to our understanding of SHRM; and (b) discussing which two future research directions can make the next important contribution to SHRM. Justify your choice of research questions. OR Write a 3-4 paged paper summarizing the measurement issues in Strategic Human Resource Management. Explain why they are important. How should future SHRM research address these issues?
Week 12 Diversity from a HR Perspective
† Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A. & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801-83. †Harrison, D.A., & Klein, K.J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199 1228. *Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28. *Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 546-561. *Chatman, J. A. & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 193-208. *McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2006).What has race got to do with it? Unraveling the role of racioethnicity in job seekers' reactions to site visits. Personnel Psychology. 59(2), 395 429. *Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A., Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-689. *Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969-1000. Chatman, J.A., Polzer, J.T., Barsade, S.G., & Neale, M.A. (1998). Being different yet feeling

19 similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749-780. Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273 287. Chattopadhyay, P. (2003). Can dissimilarity lead to positive outcomes? The influence of open versus closed minds. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 295-312. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 114-140. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., & Bell, M.P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H., & Florey, A.T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045. O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 207-216. O’Reilly, C.A.III., Caldwell, D.F., & Barnett, W.P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37. Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 299 357. Riordan, C.M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 19, 131-173. Riordan, C.M., & Shore, L.M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342-358. Riordan, C.M., & Wayne, J.H. (2008). A review and examination of demographic similarity measures used to assess relational demography within groups. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 562-592. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.

20 Assignment Based on the readings write a two-paged paper describing one important and interesting research question that you believe diversity research should address. Make sure you describe why your question is important from a HR perspective. Cite relevant literature. Also, include a discussion of the methodology you would use, such as sample, procedure, measured variables, description of independent and dependent variable(s).
Week 13
Student Presentations References: The format, write-up, assignments, and readings for this seminar draw heavily from material presented in other doctoral seminars in Human Resource Management and related areas that are offered by Professors R. Noe (Ohio State), J. Dencker (Illinois), B. Dineen (Kentucky), D. Lepak (Rutgers), R. Dalal (George Mason), J. Hoobler (Illinois, Chicago).
The instructor reserves the right to make changes to the course outline with reasonable advance
notice.
Academic Integrity
The Code of Conduct (Academic) at Concordia University states that the "integrity of University academic life and of the degrees, diplomas and certificates the University confers is dependent upon the honesty and soundness of the instructor-student learning relationship and, in particular, that of the evaluation process. As such, all students are expected to be honest in all of their academic endeavours and relationships with the University." (Undergraduate Calendar 2008-2009, section 17.10.3 page 66) All students enrolled at Concordia are expected to familiarize themselves with the contents of this Code. You are strongly encouraged to visit the following web address: www.concordia.ca/academicintegrity , which provides useful information about proper academic conduct.