Fred A. Mael

Identification in work, war, sports, and religion: Contrasting the benefits and risks

Social identification appears to be a ubiquitous phenomenon. However, it is not clear why one would want to identify with a particular entity. We argue that the potential benefits of identification include enhanced self-esteem, transcendence of self, meaning, belonging, and raised aspirations. We explore the nature of identification with several traditional foci, namely work organizations, war (as an expression of patriotism), spectator sports, and religious values and groups. We discuss (and contrast) the extent to which the benefits of identification can be attained in each domain and the future of each domain as an identification object.

The Importance and Invasiveness of Student Team Selection Criteria

The type of information that students desire to know about prospective team members and the degree to which the behaviors covered by that information had affected satisfaction in previous classroom team experiences were examined. Communication skills, achievement orientation, and dependability explained a large proportion of the variance in overall satisfaction with a team member. Surprisingly, a number of items that could be considered both task relevant and relatively public knowledge were seen as invasive. The results provide a framework for allowing students to choose team members that will result in more cohesive teams and more satisfying classroom experiences.

Development of the Functional Assessment Taxonomy

The development of the Functional Assessment Taxonomy is described and the taxonomy is presented. The taxonomy provides a method to classify and organize constructs that are used to assess the functional abilities of people with medical impairments to determine work disability. The taxonomy has 131 constructs that are organized into 33 conceptual factors that are nested in 5 domains. Each construct is defined and is categorized in terms of the work disability model and the unit of analysis that is commonly used to measure the construct. The use of the taxonomy in the Disability Methodology Redesign Project is described. Other possible uses for the taxonomy are presented.

Improving the Validity of the Impairment Evaluation Process: A Proposed Theoretical Framework

The American Medical Associations Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment is the most widely used set of procedures for rating permanent medical impairment. Although the Guides authors intend that the impairment ratings not be used for disability determination, the ratings are routinely used in benefit entitlement systems for work disability. This has created problems with the validity of the Guides because the validity of a measure is affected by the context within which the measure is used. To maintain wide acceptance of the Guides, its authors need to address this problem. One approach that we recommend is to adopt a model of work disability to specify the context of the Guides so that the level of measurement of each chapter can be explicated. This will retain the validity of inferences from the measures and integrate with developing systems that determine work disability.

‘Don't ask—Please tell’: Selection privacy from two perspectives

The privacy concerns of applicants have received much attention. However, little is known about the type of information co-workers need and desire about applicants. This research examined the issue of privacy and selection fairness from the perspectives of potential applicants and their prospective co-workers. Results showed that employees want to know about controllable, negative and interpersonal items concerning applicants. Also, items seen as most invasive by potential applicants were the same items that, as co-workers, they least wanted to know. However, in some cases, individuals were interested in knowing information that they would be reluctant to reveal as applicants.

Selection in the wrkplace: Whose rights prevail?

The selection process involves a very difficult balancing act for employers who have to weigh the rights and concerns of applicants, current employees, the organization itself, and society as a whole. Each of these perspectives brings with it its own set of concerns and issues that need to be considered in the broader hiring arena. Applicants assert the right to be treated fairly while being evaluated for a position; current employees assert the right to productive coworkers who will not harm them on the job, organizations assert the right to hire qualified employees while remaining cognizant of the legal issues that surround the hiring process; and society as a whole asserts the right to a process that benefits the greater good. But, with each of these groups pursuing these rights, an important question arises as to whose rights prevail when there is a conflict. This paper, through the use of a true scenario, explores the difficult balancing act between rights and concerns of applicants, current employees, organizations, and society as a whole and discusses whose rights should take priority when they conflict.