WIXLIB

xHandbook of Psychology Prefaceand for persons outside of psychology seeking information about psychological matters, the Handbook volumesserve as a reference source for expanding their knowledgeand directing them to additional sources in the literature.The preparation of this Handbook was made possible bythe diligence and scholarly sophistication of the 25 volumeeditors and co-editors who constituted the Editorial Board.As Editor-in-Chief, I want to thank each of them for the pleasure of their collaboration in this project. I compliment themfor having recruited an outstanding cast of contributors totheir volumes and then working closely with these authors toachieve chapters that will stand each in their own right asvaluable contributions to the literature. I would like finally toexpress my appreciation to the editorial staff of John Wileyand Sons for the opportunity to share in the development ofthis project and its pursuit to fruition, most particularly toJennifer Simon, Senior Editor, and her two assistants, MaryPorterfield and Isabel Pratt. Without Jennifer’s vision of theHandbook and her keen judgment and unflagging support inproducing it, the occasion to write this preface would nothave arrived.IRVING B. WEINERTampa, Florida

ContentsHandbook of Psychology Preface ixIrving B. WeinerContributors xiii1STABILITY AND CHANGE IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1Walter C. Borman, Daniel R. Ilgen, and Richard J. KlimoskiPA RT O N EPERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY2JOB AND WORK ANALYSIS 21Paul R. Sackett and Roxanne M. Laczo3JOB PERFORMANCE 39Stephan J. Motowidlo4RECRUITMENT RESEARCH IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 55Sara L. Rynes and Daniel M. Cable5PERSONNEL SELECTION AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 77Neal Schmitt, Jose M. Cortina, Michael J. Ingerick, and Darin Wiechmann6INTELLIGENCE AND THE WORKPLACE 107Fritz Drasgow7USE OF PERSONALITY VARIABLES IN WORK SETTINGS 131Leaetta M. Hough and Adrian Furnham8PERSPECTIVES ON TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT 171Kurt Kraiger9STRATEGIC INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF UTILITYANALYSIS MODELS 193John W. Boudreau and Peter M. RamstadPA RT T W OORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY10MOTIVATION 225Terence R. Mitchell and Denise Danielsxi

xiiContents11JOB ATTITUDES 255Charles L. Hulin and Timothy A. Judge12LEADERSHIP MODELS, METHODS, AND APPLICATIONS 277Bruce J. Avolio, John J. Sosik, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berson13THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 309John R. Austin and Jean M. Bartunek14WORK GROUPS AND TEAMS IN ORGANIZATIONS 333Steve W. J. Kozlowski and Bradford S. Bell15CUSTOMER SERVICE BEHAVIOR 377Ann Marie Ryan and Robert E. PloyhartPA RT T H R E ETHE WORK ENVIRONMENT16CHANGES IN WORKERS, WORK, AND ORGANIZATIONS 401Wayne F. Cascio17WORK DESIGN 423Frederick P. Morgeson and Michael A. Campion18STRESS IN ORGANIZATIONS 453Sabine Sonnentag and Michael Frese19JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING 493Terry Connolly and Lisa Ordóñez20CAREER DYNAMICS 519Jeffrey H. Greenhaus21HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS 541William C. Howell22ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE 565Cheri Ostroff, Angelo J. Kinicki, and Melinda M. Tamkins23DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 595Clayton P. Alderfer and Adrienne D. SimsAuthor Index 615Subject Index 639

ContributorsClayton P. Alderfer, PhDGraduate School of Professional PsychologyRutgers UniversityPiscataway, New JerseyWayne F. Cascio, PhDDepartment of ManagementUniversity of ColoradoDenver, ColoradoJohn R. Austin, PhDPennsylvania State UniversityPittsburgh, PennsylvaniaTerry Connolly, PhDDepartment of Management and PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucson, ArizonaBruce J. Avolio, PhDSchool of ManagementCenter for Leadership StudiesBinghamton UniversityBinghamton, New YorkJose M. Cortina, PhDDepartment of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, VirginiaJean M. Bartunek, PhDDepartment of Organization StudiesBoston CollegeChestnut Hill, MassachusettsDenise Daniels, PhDBusiness and Economics DepartmentSeattle Pacific UniversitySeattle, WashingtonBradford S. BellSchool of Industrial and Labor RelationsCornell UniversityFritz Drasgow, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois atUrbana-ChampaignChampaign, IllinoisYair Berson, PhDPolytechnic UniversityNew York, New YorkMichael Frese, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of GiessenGiessen, GermanyWalter C. BormanUniversity of South FloridaTampa, FloridaJohn W. Boudreau, PhDILR Human Resource StudiesCornell UniversityIthaca, New YorkAdrian Furnham, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity College LondonLondon, EnglandDaniel M. Cable, PhDKenan-Flagler Business SchoolUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, North CarolinaJeffrey H. Greenhaus, PhDDepartment of ManagementDrexel UniversityPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaMichael A. Campion, PhDKrannert Graduate School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IndianaLeaetta M. Hough, PhDThe Dunnette Group, Ltd.St. Paul, Minnesotaxiii

xivContributorsWilliam C. Howell, PhDDepartment of PsychologyArizona State and Rice UniversitiesGold Canyon, ArizonaTerence R. Mitchell, PhDSchool of BusinessUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, WashingtonCharles L. Hulin, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaign, IllinoisFrederick P. Morgeson, PhDDepartment of ManagementTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TexasDaniel R. IlgenMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MichiganStephan J. Motowidlo, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MinnesotaMichael J. IngerickDepartment of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, VirginiaTimothy A. Judge, PhDDepartment of BusinessUniversity of IowaIowa City, IowaDong I. Jung, PhDDepartment of ManagementSan Diego State UniversitySan Diego, CaliforniaAngelo J. Kinicki, PhDArizona State UniversityPhoenix, ArizonaRichard J. KlimoskiGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, VirginiaSteve W. J. Kozlowski, PhDDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MichiganLisa Ordóñez, PhDDepartment of Management and PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucson, ArizonaCheri Ostroff, PhDTeachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew York, New YorkRobert E. Ployhart, PhDDepartment of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, VirginiaPeter M. RamstadPersonnel Decisions InternationalMinneapolis, MinnesotaAnn Marie Ryan, PhDDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MichiganKurt Kraiger, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of ColoradoDenver, ColoradoSara L. Rynes, PhDDepartment of Managementand OrganizationsTippie College of BusinessUniversity of IowaIowa City, IowaRoxanne M. LaczoDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MinnesotaPaul R. Sackett, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota

ContributorsNeal Schmitt, PhDDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MichiganAdrienne D. SimsGraduate School of Professional PsychologyRutgers UniversityPiscataway, New JerseySabine Sonnentag, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of KonstanzKonstanz, GermanyJohn J. Sosik, PhDDepartment of ManagementPenn State Great ValleyMalvern, PennsylvaniaMelinda M. TamkinsTeachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew York, New YorkDarin WiechmannDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michiganxv

CHAPTER 1Stability and Change in Industrialand Organizational PsychologyWALTER C. BORMAN, RICHARD J. KLIMOSKI, AND DANIEL R. ILGENHandbooks Past and Present 1Industrial-Organizational Psychology:Overarching Models 1INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY INTHE 1990S 3Advances by Elaboration 3Advances Through Extension 6Chapters Comprising This HandbookREFERENCES 14Handbooks Past and Presentbelieve they did this very well—and did it in such a way thatthis volume can serve as a sequel to the handbook of the 1990s,informing and guiding industrial and organizational psychology in the early part of the twenty-first century.What follows begins by addressing the field of industrialand organizational psychology as a whole and describingsome of the major accomplishments and new directions thathave occurred since the publishing of the Dunnette andHough handbook. After some discussion of our disciplineand advancements in this field, we turn to a preview of individual chapters.In the mid-1970s Marvin D. Dunnette edited the first handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Dunnette,1976). This prodigious work brought together the writings ofthe leading scholars in the field under one cover and acted as afoundation and guide for the field for the next 15 years. In theearly 1990s Dunnette did it again. The second edition, editedby Dunnette and Leaetta M. Hough, maintained the same highquality of the first but expanded significantly from one to fourvolumes, each approximately 800 pages (Dunnette & Hough,1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, vols. 1–4, respectively). The definitive reviews and even visionary statements targeted virtuallyall areas of industrial and organizational psychology andagain set the standards for the field.Knowing the standard to which we would be inevitablycompared, we undertook the task of editing the present volumewith great trepidation. Ours was a more modest and somewhatdifferent objective. As a single volume nested within a handbook for all of psychology, our purpose was to provide thedepth and breadth that would capture the domain of industrialand organizational psychology in a way valuable for scholarsand students in that field domain; however, we also strove tocreate a volume to which those outside the field could turn inorder to gain an appreciation of the latest thinking in this areaof interest. To accomplish these purposes, we have again assembled a collection of leading scholars in the field. We askedthem to describe the work in their area, but to do so in a waythat would speak to both those inside and outside the field; we10Industrial and Organizational Psychology:Overarching ModelsIndustrial and organizational psychology is the study ofhuman behavior in organizations; the behaviors of interestcontribute to either the effectiveness of organizational functioning, the satisfaction and well-being of those who populatethe organizations, or both. These behaviors and the peoplewho exhibit them exist in a dynamic open system (Katz &Kahn, 1978). Behaviors observed in the present are influenced by past behaviors and conditions, as well as by the anticipation of future ones. Individuals are systems nestedwithin other systems—such as teams and work groups—thatare nested under larger organizational systems. All of thesesystems are open to the outside through connections to family members, customers, and multiple other potential sourcesof influence on organizational members’ behavior.1

2Stability and Change in Industrial and Organizational PsychologyOpen SystemsAlthough open systems models capture the complexities of apsychology bound by the context in which the behaviorsoccur, the field of industrial and organizational psychologyhas—for the most part—constrained its domain to that of theinterface between individuals and their environments, wherethat environment is physical (tasks, jobs, working conditions,organizational structures) or social (superiors, subordinates,peers). Furthermore, the beliefs, feelings, and behaviors ofinterest within that domain are limited to those for whichthere is some reason to believe that understanding them willenhance our ability to influence organizational effectivenessor individual well-being.FitUnderlying the psychological focus on individuals in organizational settings is the implicit assumption that both the organization and the individual are best served when there is agood fit between the goals, expectations, and conditions of organizations (e.g., jobs) with the characteristics of the peoplein them. From a prescriptive viewpoint, there are many waysto obtain a good fit. One is to consider organizations and people as relatively fixed entities. From this position, characteristics of each entity are assessed and the match is accomplishedthrough selection—selection of people by organizations ororganizations by people. The second option to obtain fit isto modify either or both of the two domains. In the caseof changing people, training and development are primarymechanisms. Job design, organizational development, organizational design, or policies and practices related to goals,work rules, and other factors are relevant for changing organizations. For any particular case, multiple factors influence thefit, and the fit is a dynamic interaction between people and theorganization, with each influencing the other over time. In addition, of course, while efforts at producing good fit are underway, both the individual and the organization are subject toevolutionary forces outside of the control of either the leadersof an organization or those whom they trust as advisors.For much of industrial and organizational psychologicalresearch, the person-organization (P-O) fit has been implicit.In the last decade, considerably more effort has been devotedto developing it explicitly. The P-O model posits that a fit between applicants’ personal characteristics and attributes of theorganization contributes in important ways to individual performance and retention, as well as to organizational effectiveness. One way to demonstrate support for the P-O model is tofind interactions between applicants’ personal characteristicsand organizational attributes. For example, Cable and Judge(1994) showed that a fit between applicants’ personality andpay system characteristics enhanced the prediction of paypreferences and job attractiveness over and above the main effects of pay system characteristics themselves. Gustafson andMumford (1995) found that individuals’ personality predictedjob satisfaction and performance better when the type ofjob situation was taken into account, supporting a P-O fitinterpretation.An important issue with P-O fit is how to conceptualize andmeasure it. Kristof (1996) pointed out that there has been considerable confusion on this issue. For example, P-O fit may beconceived of as person-environment congruence that confounds P-O fit with person-vocation and person-job fit. Also,fit has been measured directly by obtaining a single judgmentof congruence between applicant and organizational characteristics and indirectly by getting independent judgments ofperson and organization characteristics and then assessing thesimilarities and differences. Finally, for the indirect approach,various indexes of fit are of course possible. Edwards (1994)provided a useful discussion of fit indexes and recommendeda polynomial regression approach to overcome certain measurement problems. However, subsequent analysis (Kristof,1996; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) has shown thatthis method poses some limitations as well.The most compelling theoretical approach to modelingP-O fit is the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model(Schneider, 1987). Those who advocate this approach arguethat individuals are attracted to organizations whose membersare similar to them in relation to personality, values, and otherattributes. Organizations in turn find attractive and are morelikely to select those who possess knowledge, skills, and abilities similar to the ones that their organizational memberspossess. After they have been offered a job, those more similar are more likely to accept the job and are also more likely tobe successfully socialized into the organization. Over time,those who do not fit well are more likely to leave—either ontheir own accord or because of problems on the job. Thus, thecontinuous process of attraction, assimilation, and attritionover time creates a force toward a fit between the peopleemployed in the organization at any one time and the needsand expectations of that organization. The process is a lessthan-perfect one in the sense that it does not create a perfect fitbetween all employees, their work, and those with whom theywork, but it does create a force toward fit.An important component of ASA theory is the gravitational hypothesis; this hypothesis posits that over time, people will gravitate to organizations that have values, attitudes,and so on that are similar to theirs. Empirical tests of thishypothesis have shown some support. For example, Wilk,Desmarais, and Sackett (1995) found that general cognitive

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 1990sability is a good predictor of movement to jobs of higher orlower complexity 5 years later.Schneider et al. (1995) provided an update on ASA research and thinking. Regarding personnel selection in theASA context, these authors point out that if P-O fit is to beconsidered important, organizational diagnosis should be included in the job analysis strategy and that personality islikely to be a useful predictor of turnover and job performance because of the positive individual and organizationaloutcomes associated with homogeneity. Schneider et al.(1995) also argued that organizational homogeneity in personality, attitudes, and values is usually good early in the lifeof an organization because of its positive effect on cooperation and communication; however, such homogeneity overtime may lead to an inability for the organization to adapt tochanging external environments.On balance, as organizational flexibility in effectivelyusing employees is increasingly required (e.g., more movement of organization members from job to job or task force totask force), the P-O fit model may be more relevant comparedto the person-job match strategy (e.g., Kristof, 1996) of thepast. We think that both models will continue to have merit.Aptitude-Treatment InteractionUsing Gough’s (1957) terminology, in which aptitude represents individual difference characteristics of people andtreatment is broadly defined as situations encountered bypeople (job characteristics, working conditions, supervisors,performance goals, etc.), John Campbell (1999) cogently argued that all industrial and organizational psychology is captured by aptitudes, treatment, and their interaction. In almostall cases, the dependent variables important to the field can becaptured by individual, work group, or team performance;withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism, turnover, or lackof attention to work; self-evaluation of the job or facets of thework setting (e.g., job satisfaction); or self-evaluation of fairtreatment at work. Constructs that fall into eithe

industrial and organizational psychology (Volume 12). Each of these volumes reviews what is currently known in these areas of study and application and identifies pertinent sources of information in the literature. Each discusses unresolved is