Brian W. McCormick

A meta-analysis of sex differences in physical ability: revised estimates and strategies for reducing differences in selection contexts.

Despite the wide use of physical ability tests for selection and placement decisions in physically demanding occupations, research has suggested that there are substantial male-female differences on the scores of such tests, contributing to adverse impact. In this study, we present updated, revised meta-analytic estimates of sex differences in physical abilities and test 3 moderators of these differences-selection system design, specificity of measurement, and training-in order to provide insight into possible methods of reducing sex differences on physical ability test scores. Findings revealed that males score substantially better on muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance tests but that there are no meaningful sex differences on movement quality tests. These estimates differ in several ways from past estimates. Results showed that sex differences are similar across selection systems that emphasize basic ability tests versus job simulations. Results also showed that sex differences are smaller for narrow dimensions of muscular strength and that there is substantial variance in the sex differences in muscular strength across different body regions. Finally, we found that training led to greater increases in performance for women than for men on both muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance tests. However, training reduced the male-female differences on muscular strengths tests only modestly and actually increased male-female differences on cardiovascular endurance. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on physical ability testing and adverse impact, as well as the practical implications of the results.

Quality Charters or Quality Members? A Control Theory Perspective on Team Charters and Team Performance.

Though prevalent in practice, team charters have only recently received scholarly attention. However, most of this work has been relatively devoid of theory, and consequently, key questions about why and under what conditions team charter quality affects team performance remain unanswered. To address these gaps, we draw on macro organizational control theory to propose that team charter quality serves as a team-level “behavior” control mechanism that builds task cohesion through a structured exercise. We then juxtapose team charter quality with an “input” team control mechanism that influences the emergence of task cohesion more organically: team conscientiousness. Given their redundant effects on task cohesion, we propose that the effects of team charter quality and team conscientiousness on team performance (through task cohesion) are substitutive such that team charter quality primarily impacts team performance for teams that are low (vs. high) on conscientiousness. We test and find support for our hypotheses in a sample of 239 undergraduate self-managing project teams. Our study contributes to the groups and teams literature in the following ways: first, relative to previous studies, we take a more theory-driven approach toward understanding team charters, and in doing so, uncover when and why team charter quality impacts team performance; second, we integrate two normally disparate perspectives on team effectiveness (team development and team selection) to offer a broader perspective on how teams are “built”; and third, we introduce team charter quality as a performance-enhancing mechanism for teams lower on conscientiousness.

Proactive personality and proactive behaviour: Perspectives on person-situation interactions

We conducted a field survey of leaders and their followers to examine factors that moderate the relationship between employee proactive personality and proactive behaviour. As hypothesized, random coefficient modelling analysis showed that two situational factors – transformational leadership and a climate of innovation and flexibility – moderated the relationship between employee proactive personality and proactive behaviour. Conceptually, we draw from situational strength theory to predict the pattern of these interactions. Our findings indicated that organizations desiring proactive employee behaviour would be well advised to take one of three courses of action: select employees with proactive personality who will generally behave proactively regardless of the situation; develop transformational leaders who will motivate, inspire, and support proactive employee behaviour; or cultivate a climate of innovation and flexibility which will create a strong situation that fosters proactivity regardless of employee individual differences.

Scientific Contributions of Within-Person Research in Management: Making the Juice Worth the Squeeze

A multitude of studies in the management literature are focusing on within-person phenomena. The study of such phenomena offers great promise as within-person research facilitates the capacity to enhance temporal precision, show change over time, and reveal the kinds of novel insights that are not possible if relying solely on a traditional between-person perspective. Drawing on the features of within-person research that comprise its unique value proposition, we conduct a quantitative and narrative review of within-person studies to ascertain the degree to which these studies are maximizing the contribution and impact that they can make to the field of management. We pose three research questions that we present as a holistic framework for assessing the contributions of within-person research. To answer our questions, we synthesize across studies and analyze variability data, correlational data, and researchers’ hypothesizing to show (a) the degree to which hypotheses in within-person studies incorporate temporality; (b) the differential within-person fluctuation and variability that exists based on construct, theoretical, and measurement-related factors; and (c) the degree to which within-person relationships are different from equivalent between-person relationships. While our data and conclusions offer insight into the contributions being made by the within-person literature at large, we also propose that our framework can be used at the individual study level of analysis to help optimize the contributions made in future within-person research.