David J. Woehr

Does Human Capital Matter? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Human Capital and Firm Performance.

Theory at both the micro and macro level predicts that investments in superior human capital generate better firm-level performance. However, human capital takes time and money to develop or acquire, which potentially offsets its positive benefits. Indeed, extant tests appear equivocal regarding its impact. To clarify what is known, we meta-analyzed effects drawn from 66 studies of the human capital-firm performance relationship and investigated 3 moderators suggested by resource-based theory. We found that human capital relates strongly to performance, especially when the human capital in question is not readily tradable in labor markets and when researchers use operational performance measures that are not subject to profit appropriation. Our results suggest that managers should invest in programs that increase and retain firm-specific human capital.

Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature.

The authors investigate the construct validity of the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)-task performance distinction by providing a quantitative review of the OCB literature. The authors extend previous meta-analytic reviews of the OCB literature by (a) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the dimensionality of OCB, (b) using CFA to examine the distinction between OCB and task performance, and (c) examining the relationship between a latent OCB factor and task performance and attitudinal variables. Results support a single factor model of OCB that is distinct from, albeit strongly related to, task performance. In addition, results show that OCB consistently relates more strongly to attitudes than does task performance and shares a modest amount of variance with attitudinal correlates beyond task performance.

Mixing Business With Politics: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Outcomes of Corporate Political Activity

Corporate political activity (CPA) has increased rapidly in the United States; however, research findings are spread across several social science fields. The authors use meta-analysis to aggregate findings involving two sets of research questions: (1) what factors and to what extent do these factors influence firms to engage in CPA, and (2) does CPA, in turn, affect firm performance and, if so, to what extent? Two important contributions are made. First, the evidence suggests that, although many factors shape CPA, very few affect CPA to a large extent. Second, the results suggest that CPA is positively related to firm performance and is an important determinant of firm performance. The authors build on this evidence to suggest several future research directions.

Gender and Perceptions of Leadership Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis of Contextual Moderators

Despite evidence that men are typically perceived as more appropriate and effective than women in leadership positions, a recent debate has emerged in the popular press and academic literature over the potential existence of a female leadership advantage. This meta-analysis addresses this debate by quantitatively summarizing gender differences in perceptions of leadership effectiveness across 99 independent samples from 95 studies. Results show that when all leadership contexts are considered, men and women do not differ in perceived leadership effectiveness. Yet, when other-ratings only are examined, women are rated as significantly more effective than men. In contrast, when self-ratings only are examined, men rate themselves as significantly more effective than women rate themselves. Additionally, this synthesis examines the influence of contextual moderators developed from role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Our findings help to extend role congruity theory by demonstrating how it can be supplemented based on other theories in the literature, as well as how the theory can be applied to both female and male leaders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

The Construct-Related Validity of Assessment Center Ratings: A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Methodological Factors

In the present study, we provide a systematic review of the assessment center literature with respect to specific design and methodological characteristics that potentially moderate the construct-related validity of assessment center ratings. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between these characteristics and construct-related validity outcomes. Results for rating approach, assessor occupation, assessor training, and length of assessor training were in the predicted direction such that a higher level of convergent, and lower level of discriminant validity were obtained for the across-exercise compared to the within-exercise rating method; psychologists compared to managers/supervisors as assessors; assessor training compared no assessor training; and longer compared to shorter assessor training. Partial support was also obtained for the effects of the number of dimensions and assessment center purpose. Our review also indicated that relatively few studies have examined both construct-related and criterion-related validity simultaneously. Furthermore, these studies provided little, if any support for the view that assessment center ratings lack construct-related validity while at the same time demonstrating criterion-related validity. The implications of these findings for assessment center construct-related validity are discussed.

In the Eyes of the Beholder: A Non-Self-Report Measure of Workplace Deviance

Because employees may be reluctant to admit to performing deviant acts, the authors of this study reexamined the commonly used self-report measure of workplace deviance developed by R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson (2000). Specifically, the self-report measure was modified into a non-self-report measure based on multiple other-reported assessments to address methodological concerns with self-reported information regarding deviant workplace behaviors. The authors assessed the psychometric properties of this new measure by first conducting an exploratory factor analysis, which indicated a 3-factor structure (production deviance, property deviance, and personal aggression). Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on a different sample verified these findings. Taken together, the results suggest that the content and psychometric qualities of this non-self-report measure of workplace deviance closely represent S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennetts (1995) original typology of workplace deviance. The potential usefulness of this measure in organizational studies is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

A meta-analytic evaluation of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center ratings

Two recent reviews have attempted to summarize findings quantitatively regarding assessment center (AC) construct-related validity (i.e., Lance, Lambert, Gewin, Lievens, & Conway, 2004; Lievens & Conway, 2001). Unlike these previous studies, which reanalyzed individual multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices from previously published research, the authors recoded and combined past matrices into a single MTMM matrix. This matrix, comprised of 6 dimensions each measured by 6 exercises, was then analyzed, providing a more generalizable set of results. Both dimensions and exercises were found to contribute substantially to AC ratings. Specific dimensions (i.e., communication, influencing others, organizing and planning, and problem solving) appeared more construct valid than others (i.e., consideration/awareness of others and drive). Implications for AC design and practice are discussed.

Convergent and discriminant validity of assessment center dimensions: A conceptual and empirical re-examination of the assessment center construct-related validity paradox

This study notes that the lack of convergent and discriminant validity of assessment center ratings in the presence of content-related and criterion-related validity is paradoxical within a unitarian framework of validity. It also empirically demonstrates an application of generalizability theory to examining the convergent and discriminant validity of assessment center dimensional ratings. Generalizability analyses indicated that person, dimension, and person by dimension effects contribute large proportions of variance to the total variance in assessment center ratings. Alternately, exercise, rater, person by exercise, and dimension by exercise effects are shown to contribute little to the total variance. Correlational and confirmatory factor analyses results were consistent with the generalizability results. This provides strong evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the assessment center dimension ratings–a finding consistent with the conceptual underpinnings of the unitarian view of validity and inconsistent with previously reported results. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness

This study presents a meta-analysis of 25 individual differences proposed to be related to effective leadership, with an emphasis on comparing trait-like (e.g. personality and intelligence) to state-like individual differences (e.g. knowledge and skills). The results indicate that although both trait-like (achievement motivation, energy, dominance, honesty/integrity, self-confidence, creativity, and charisma) and state-like (interpersonal skills, oral communication, written communication, administrative/management skills, problem-solving skills, and decision making) individual differences were consistent predictors of effective leadership, the impact of trait-like and state-like individual differences was modest overall and did not differ substantially (ρ= .27 and .26, respectively). Finally, organizational level of the leader, method of predictor and criterion measurement, and organization type moderated the relationship between individual differences and effective leadership.

Further Evidence for the Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions: A Meta-Analysis of the Incremental Criterion-Related Validity of Dimension Ratings

This study investigates the incremental variance in job performance explained by assessment center (AC) dimensions over and above personality and cognitive ability. The authors extend previous research by using meta-analysis to examine the relationships between AC dimensions, personality, cognitive ability, and job performance. The results indicate that the 7 summary AC dimensions postulated by W. Arthur, Jr., E. A. Day, T. L. McNelly, & P. S. Edens (2003) are distinguishable from popular individual difference constructs and explain a sizeable proportion of variance in job performance beyond cognitive ability and personality.