Dear Colleagues,Summer is truly the awards season and these past few weeks it has been exciting to read about all the scholars and scholarship recognized and honored in our community. At Personnel Psychology, we have been doing our part as well. As we had to forgo our traditional celebration at AOM this year, I want to acknowledge our award winners in this forum. We are excited about the contributions the journal is making to the science of people at work and the recognition we have been receiving, including our new 4* (world elite) rating by the Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide 2021 (ABS list).
BEST PAPER AWARDS
Every year we recognize three outstanding papers published two years earlier (this year we are recognizing articles published in 2019), from which a single winner for the Best Paper Award is selected. Congratulations go to the author teams and papers listed below. The articles will be free to read until October 15, and we would appreciate it if you could share them with others who might be interested.Winner: A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of prehire work experienceAuthors: Chad H. Van Iddekinge, John D. Arnold, Rachel E. Frieder, Philip L. RothOrganizations frequently screen or select job applicants based on their work experience. Despite this, surprisingly little is known about the criterion-related validity of prehire experience, which reflects the amount, duration, or type of experience workers have acquired before they enter a new organization. To address this critical gap in the literature, we used meta-analysis to synthesize data from 81 independent samples that reported relations between prehire experience and performance or turnover. Results revealed overall corrected correlations of .06 for job performance (k = 44, n = 11,785), .11 for training performance (k = 21, n = 8,176), and .00 for turnover (k = 32, n = 11,676). Measures that capture prehire experience with tasks, jobs, or occupations relevant to workers' current position also are only weakly related to the outcomes (e.g., .07 for job performance). Two exceptions to our main findings are that (a) prehire experience is somewhat more predictive of job performance when workers first start a new job and (b) measures of task-level experience predict training performance, although these results are based on small subsets of primary studies. Overall, the present findings suggest that the types of prehire experience measures organizations currently use to screen job applicants generally are poor predictors of future performance and turnover. We therefore caution organizations from selecting employees based on such measures unless more positive evidence emerges.
Leaders and followers behaving badly: A meta-analytic examination of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviorsJeremy D. Mackey, Charn P. McAllister, Liam P. Maher, Gang Wang
We draw from social psychological and resource-based theories to meta-analytically examine curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors (i.e., job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and workplace deviance). Overall, our meta-analytic results demonstrate that relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors are essentially linear. The limited evidence of curvilinear relationships we did find supports the application of social psychological theories when examining high levels of destructive leadership. Overall, this study's meta-analytic regression, relative weight, and semipartial correlation results have important implications for how to interpret the conclusions drawn from prior destructive leadership research, how to conduct future studies that examine destructive leadership, and practitioners' attempts to limit the effects of destructive leadership on followers' workplace behaviors.How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness
Ryan Outlaw, Jason A. Colquitt, Michael D. Baer, Hudson Sessions
Although studies have linked procedural justice to a range of positive attitudes and behaviors, the focus on justice has neglected other aspects of decision-making procedures. We explore one of those neglected aspects: procedural timeliness-defined as the degree to which procedures are started and completed within an acceptable time frame. Do employees react to how long a procedure takes, not just how fair it seems to be? To explore that question, we examined the potential effects of procedural timeliness using six theories created to explain the benefits of procedural justice. This integrative theory-based approach allowed us to explore whether "how long" had unique effects apart from "how fair." The results of a three-wave, two-source field study showed that procedural timeliness had a significant indirect effect on citizenship behavior through many of the theory-based mechanisms, even when controlling for procedural justice. A laboratory study then replicated those effects while distinguishing procedures that were too fast versus too slow. We discuss the implications of our results for research on fostering citizenship behavior and improving supervisors' decision-making procedures.
BEST REVIEWER AWARDS
Each year, we select two reviewers from our Editorial Board for our "Best Reviewer" Award. This year's Best Reviewer award recipients are:
Trevor A. Foulk (University of Maryland)
Emily Grijalva (University at Buffalo, The State University of New York)
We appreciate their service to the journal and to the field. Have a great summer!
**You can find the most recent content from the journal here. If you would like to receive an email when new content becomes online, you can sign up here.