Knowledge in Industrial Organizational Psychology

Creative Way to Make Perception Assignment

This is one of the most creative ways to submit assignments.

Organisational behaviour

Organizational behavior (OB) is the study of the way people interact within groups. Normally this study is applied in an attempt to create more efficient business organizations. The central idea of the study of organizational behavior is that a scientific approach can be applied to the management of workers. Organizational behavior theories are used for human resource purposes to maximize the output from individual group members.  

BuzzFeed HR issue

Secondary Case: BuzzFeed Organizational profile of BuzzFeed BuzzFeed is a News and Entertainment company based in the New York City. It was founded in the year 2006 by Jonah Peretti, the current CEO, and John S. Johnson III. BuzzFeed produces social news, lists, videos and quizzes. BuzzFeed’s flagship channel, BuzzFeed Video has gained immense popularity. The videos have 10.2 billion views and the channel has more than 12.6 million subscribers. BuzzFeed primarily focuses on creating viral content. Due to the various viral hits, it has grown into a global media and technology company. BuzzFeed has not gained its success from the Google search results or even from his homepage. It has done so through word of mouth. The articles and videos liked by people were shared to their friends and thus creating a buzz. It has faced a lot of allegations and criticism over the years. They have faced multiple copyright infringement lawsuits and have been accused of plagiarizing a lot of their content from their competitors. In 2014, Pew Research Centre observed BuzzFeed be an unreliable source in their analysis of trust levels of news sources. Event of Interest BuzzFeed announced its Development Partner’s programme which offered its homegrown stars new creative opportunity in exchange for a vow of exclusivity. However, two employees (Jenny Lorenzo and Brittany Ashley) were fired for violating the contract by featuring in a show outside of BuzzFeed, “Gent-fied”. This led to a wave of employees resigning. This issue took place in June 2017 and came to limelight due to the “Why I left BuzzFeed” videos. Though the employees did not portray BuzzFeed in a negative manner felt the work environment was suffocating. However, in the light of the recent events, the employees that left their jobs do not agree with the previous statement. The other reasons stated by the employees for resigning their job are: 1. Though the former employees accept that they signed a contract which said that the content belongs to the organization, they felt that enough credit wasn’t given for their work. Moreover, they weren’t allowed to work on projects outside BuzzFeed or reply to comments on their videos on YouTube. According to the recent videos posted by the former employees, the organization is “owning their name”. Individuals also felt that they weren’t making videos that they could relate to, rather making ones that the organization thought would go viral on the internet. According to articles that have addressed this issue, “when taking an ethical standpoint, it (BuzzFeed) is a scary place for a creator to be”. 2. The former employees have joined organizations or created their own channels that provide a free work environment. Following this, fans and audience have pointed out that BuzzFeed has copied certain videos that were made by their former employees. 3. As stated by the employees, “BuzzFeed concentrated on producing more videos than producing quality videos and thus focusing on money-making”. This the former employees claim, added pressure and when at the end they(interns) do become producers or actors or designers, their zeal for the work is destroyed and the employees also felt very drained out. Analysis and Interpretation While most of BuzzFeed’s actions were in compliance with their contract, their environment was toxic and did not make employees feel appreciated. Most individuals who work at BuzzFeed are both highly motivated and incredibly creative. People who work here have “messy minds” and the corporate structure present at BuzzFeed hinders their growth and leads to them feeling suffocated. Most interns were subjected to a high-pressure environment which focused more on the quantity of video rather than quality. When these same interns became producers, by social cognitive theory, they didn’t break out of the environment but further helped propagate it. BuzzFeed lacked a humanistic approach to their employees. Rather than nurture their growth, employees felt that they were in an environment which thwarted their growth. Nor were their feelings accepted. Moreover, their failures were looked down upon. What employees craved for was genuineness, empathy and acceptance. With the presence of highly motivated individuals in the organization, all BuzzFeed had to do was create a happy environment to allow employees to broaden and build creating a happy, healthy and creative environment. Add to that most of the employees at BuzzFeed scored 300+ on the SRRS scale. This was due to the lack of communication and the frequent change in management and managerial decisions. Stress leads to unproductive, unhappy employees with low creativity. Also, BuzzFeed tried to motivate employees through incentives such as pay packages and catered lunches. In this way, they tried to shift the locus of control making it external rather than internal. Rather than motivating the employees this further demotivated them when they did not achieve these material goods. Conclusion and Future Recommendation The stringent terms of the Development Partners Program hampered the creative integrity of the employees which shouldn’t be the case in a responsible organization. For BuzzFeed to regain its employee loyalty and improve the quality of content produced: 1) They should give their content creators the due recognition that they deserve, help them associate with the work and interact with the viewers. 2) The employees should be given an opportunity to develop their own work, which will be under BuzzFeed’s umbrella organization and negotiations can be made accordingly. 3) Incentives that promote intrinsic motivation among employees should be exercised. 4) The organization should focus more on connecting with its employees and viewers to increase quality rather than vitality through feedbacks and suggestions. 5) Most importantly, the organization should be more transparent in its distribution of power and organizational hierarchy. BuzzFeed has silenced or rather hushed most of the allegations of the disgruntled employees by referring to them as “growing pains”. Once the company starts taking responsibility for its own employees and treating them as an integral part of the company that is “wanted” or “appreciated”, the increased satisfaction would reflect greatly on the creativity and dedication of its loyal workforce. Credits: Prachi Upadhyay Shivangi Sharma Shaurya Goel

PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY I

PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN WORKPLACE The term “psychometrics” refers to the measurement of psychological attributes according to some set of methodologies that aim to provide estimates of magnitude that are both reliable and valid. Prior to the 1980s, questionnaire measures of integrity and honesty tended to be somewhat esoteric and “private” documents that were used in place or, or in addition to a polygraph, and were marketed by specialist security companies and consultants. There was practically no published research evidence for their utility, except that put forward by the organisations and individuals who sold the tests. Most tests were based around a polygraph procedure, and some, as in the London House series, actually warned candidates that they may have to undergo a polygraph test if deception was suspected. All psychometric tests of honesty and integrity are self-report. An integrity test is a specific type of personality test designed to assess an applicant's tendency to be honest, trustworthy, and dependable. A lack of integrity is associated with such counterproductive behaviors as theft, violence, sabotage, disciplinary problems, and absenteeism. Integrity tests have been found to measure some of the same factors as standard personality tests, particularly conscientiousness, and perhaps some aspects of emotional stability and agreeableness. The Collins English Dictionary, 3rd edition (1991) defines an honest person as one “not given to lying, cheating, stealing etc., trustworthy; not false or misleading, genuine; and characterised by sincerity and candour”. Integrity is defined as “adherence to moral principles, honesty; the quality of being unimpaired”. Thus, the two terms convey virtually the same meaning. However, two other terms have come into usage more recently, “employee reliability” (Sackett and Harris, 1985; Hogan and Hogan, 1989), and “counter-productive behaviour” (Hollinger, 1986). These two terms reflect the broadening of the meaning of honesty and integrity from the relatively narrow conceptualization of theft, lying, and cheating that first defined the overt integrity tests of the early 1980s, through to a range of behaviours, attitudes, and dispositions that were considered “not conducive to efficient and effective work practices” or counter-productive to organizational “health”. It is in this widening of the definition that the use of personality tests came more to the fore in I/O practice. Overt Psychometric Integrity Tests  The term “overt” refers to the fact that these tests ask direct questions about an individual’s honesty, criminal history, and attitudes toward drug abuse, theft by others, and general outlook on issues concerning integrity. The purpose of doing this is generally as part of a pre-employment screen of job applicants, such that those who do not meet the minimal test scores deemed suitable by a company are refused employment. Although many psychologists and test publishers recommend using the test scores as part of a “basket” of selection tools, in practice an “undesirable” score on an integrity test will serve as the sole discriminator as to hire/not hire. Covert Psychometric Integrity Tests The term “covert” refers to the use of tests whose relevance to honesty and integrity is not immediately clear. In fact, personality-oriented trait tests are used exclusively as the indirect measures. These tests aim to predict a broader range of counter-productive work behaviors, using weighted composite measures of personality trait scores. The need for integrity tests in organizations The importance of honesty in the workplace is fairly self-explanatory; honest employees are more accountable, reliable, and less likely to do damage to an organization by engaging in unethical or illegal behavior. Honesty and integrity are associated with a number of other characteristics, including rule adherence and trustworthiness. Employees who lack these qualities may be more prone to disciplinary problems or be more at risk to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) such as theft, time-wasting, and fraud. Tests that assess honesty are especially useful for positions that require employees to work in a client’s home or handle cash, such as cashiers, retail store associates, home health care aides, field service technicians, and security guards.   Integrity tests available online 1.      WPP (Workplace productivity profile) 2.      PRB (Personnel Reaction Bank) 3.      EI (PDI Employment Inventory) 1. WPP (Workplace productivity profile) The Workplace Productivity Profile (WPP) is a personality assessment that is used to help predict whether an individual will be a conscientious, productive and reliable employee. It is used primarily for entry-level positions where rule adherence and trustworthiness are of primary importance. Like other integrity tests, the WPP can be used to predict overall performance as well as to screen out candidates judged to be more prone to possible disciplinary problems. The WPP measures four traits: Conscientiousness, Perseverance, Integrity/Honesty, and Attitudes towards Theft and Fraud. The first two traits (Conscientiousness and Perseverance) relate to a person's likely work habits. The latter two (Honesty and Attitudes towards Theft) relate to a person's integrity and perceived risk of engaging in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) such as theft, time-wasting, and fraud. It is formed by Criteria Corporation, which is a leading provider of web-based pre-employment testing services, headquartered in Los Angeles, USA.  The WPP is used to help predict the likelihood of a wide range of outcomes ranging from general reliability and rule-following to risk for counterproductive work behaviors such as theft or fraud. As such, while it can be used for many positions it is of particular utility for employers screening entry-level employees where attendance, trustworthiness, and work ethic are of great value. Because of its emphasis on trustworthiness and rule adherence, the WPP is particularly popular with employers screening for positions where employees will be handling cash or inventory, or working in a client's home or business. The WPP is used widely as a selection instrument for positions such as retail store associates, cashiers, home health care aides, production workers, field service technicians and security guards, as well as a wide range of other entry-level positions. The WPP consists of 50 self-report items and typically takes less than ten minutes to complete. An internal "faking" scale measures the extent to which a candidate is exaggerating strengths or minimizing weaknesses - and the scores of those applicants are automatically adjusted when appropriate. Intended Use and Legal Compliance The WPP can be used to help predict the likelihood of a wide range of outcomes including performance, general reliability and rule-following, and risk for counterproductive work behaviors such as theft or fraud. While it can be used for many positions it is of particular utility for employers screening entry- and mid-level employees where attendance, punctuality, work ethic and trustworthiness are valued, and is particularly popular for positions where employees will be handling cash or inventory, or working in a client's home or business. It is estimated that employee theft costs U.S. businesses between $15 and $25 billion per year, and as a result about 40% of U.S. employers use integrity tests as part of their employee screening process. The WPP, like other integrity tests, has been shown to have no adverse impact on protected minority groups. There are no federal prohibitions on the use of integrity tests; however, the state of Massachusetts prohibits the use of any written assessment of honesty for hiring purposes, so the WPP should not be used in MA. The state of Rhode Island prohibits using integrity tests as the primary basis of employment decisions; users in RI should consult their legal counsel before using the WPP. Score Reports Each individual is given a percentile ranking for each of the four traits, as well as an Overall Rating of High, Medium, or Low, based on a combined score derived from the four individual trait scores. An internal "Self-enhancing scale" is used to adjust scores up or down in the event that the test detects unusually positive or negative response styles. In extreme cases of self-enhancing, the test will also be flagged as a potentially invalid result. Score reports also contain brief text descriptions for each of the four traits, and provide information as to how a candidate's score in individual traits may affect job suitability. Standardization Sample Norms for the WPP were developed using a sample of 1,107 individuals. The sample was made up of adults aged 18 and older, including both incumbents and job applicants. These individuals were being assessed for employee selection and/or benchmarking purposes, and represented a sample of individuals from over 50 companies, in an extremely broad and diverse range of positions CASE STUDY for WPP A leading retailer based in the Southeastern U.S. wanted to reduce the impact of counter-productive work behaviors such as absenteeism, tardiness, theft, and time-wasting amongst its retail sales associates. The company administered the Workplace Productivity Profile (WPP) to a group of its existing sales associates. The employees' test scores were then compared to performance rankings for "Discipline" assigned by Store Managers. Managers based the Discipline scores on factors such as punctuality, attendance, trustworthiness, rule adherence, and work ethic. The employees' Discipline scores were then compared to their overall WPP scores (High, Medium, Low), and to the four individual trait scores on the WPP: Conscientiousness, Perseverance, Integrity/Honesty and Attitudes Towards Theft. Results: Overall WPP scores were positively correlated (.23) with the performance rankings in Discipline. Of the employees who received passing scores on the WPP (High or Medium overall rankings), 60% were rated as "Good" or "Excellent" in Discipline by their managers. Of those who received "Low" ratings on the WPP, only 33% received "Good" or "Excellent" Discipline ratings. Some of the individual trait scores were even stronger predictors of Discipline, as Conscientiousness scores and Integrity/Honesty scores were correlated .41 and .45, respectively with Discipline ratings, as detailed in the Chart below. Correlations between WPP Trait Scores and Managerial Rankings in "Discipline" Conscientiousness                          .41 Perseverance                                   .18 Integrity/Honesty                            .45 Attitudes towards Theft                 .14  N=28 Based on the results of this local concurrent validity study, the company decided to incorporate the WPP into its employee selection process for sales associates at all retail locations.   2. Personnel Reaction Bank (PRB) by IPAT The Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB) is an integrity assessment that is used to screen applicants for entry-level positions and predicts whether they will exhibit dependable and reliable workplace behavior. It is comprised of 84 multiple-choice items and can be completed in less than 15 minutes. It is designed for selection in positions where dependability, conscientiousness, diligence, and restraint are considered to be important qualities and counterproductive behaviors need to be minimized. The PRB measures Sense of Well-Being, Positive Background Indicators, Compliance with Rules and Routines, Conventional Occupational Preferences, Personal Reliability Index.  The Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB; Gough, 1971, Gough et al., 2004) consists of 84 items related to attitudes and self-perceptions, and is designed to assess the likelihood that a given individual will demonstrate reliability and dependability, as opposed to counter-productivity, in the workplace. Of the 84 items, 62 (41 personality-based items and 21 others dealing with occupational preferences,) are used for scoring the Personal Reliability Index (PRI), a global index on which lower scores indicate tendencies toward counterproductive workplace behaviors. Scores on the PRI are obtained by summing the raw scores from four subscales: Sense of Well-being (SWB; 16 items), on which high scores reflect a positive outlook on one's life circumstances; Pro-social Background (PSB; 13 items), on which high scores reflect a view of one's childhood and upbringing as happy and satisfying; Compliance with Social Norms (CSN; 12 items), reflecting, at the high end, a tendency to conform and comply with social norms and conventions; and Conventional Occupational Preferences (COP; 21), an index of occupational preferences on which higher scores reflect a preference toward conventional, low-risk jobs and lower scores indicate a preference for jobs that are unconventional or involve some element of risk or physical danger. Past research has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties for all PRB scales (Gough et al., 2004). Complete PRB scores were available for 768 participants (511 women). The Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB) is an important personality‐based instrument for assessing the integrity of individuals. Study conducted Tong, Yew Kwan and Arvey and Richard D. (2012) by investigated the cross‐cultural applicability of its three psychological factors (Sense of Well‐being, SWB; Pro-social Background, PSB; and Compliance with Social Norms, CSN) using American and Singaporean respondent groups. Based on this three‐factor structure, the PRB demonstrated acceptable cross‐group generalizability. Mean scores for SWB, PSB, and CSN showed differences between male and female respondents, although the factor correlation matrices were invariant across gender. The mean composite score (SWB + PSB + CSN) was also not significantly different across gender. With respect to integrity tests per se, Conscientiousness (r = .42), Agreeableness (r = .40), and to a lesser extent Emotional Stability (r = .33), are the strongest trait correlates of integrity tests including the PRB, with the combination of these factors predicting scores on these measures better than either factor alone. Hence, the PRB and measures of integrity appear to largely assess Conscientiousness and Agreeableness – dimensions which form a higher-order factor of “disinhibition” in the structural framework of personality (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005). An additional finding of Ones, Schmidt, and Viswesvaran (1994) as well as others (e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Marcus, Höft, & Riediger, 2006) is that the above-noted personality factors mediate the relationship between integrity tests and a range of external criteria including indices of counter-productivity. However, Ones and colleagues (1994) also noted that these factors did not entirely account for the association between integrity test scores and external criteria, suggesting that other types of data beyond an individual's self-reported current dispositional make-up are measured by personality-based integrity tests and can predict counter-productivity. 3. PDI Employment Inventory   The PDI Employment Inventory (EI) is designed to identify applicants who will become productive hourly employees and who will stay on the job voluntarily at least three months. It measures personality characteristics that underlie the continuum of productive, unproductive, and counterproductive job behaviors. Among others, these characteristics include dependability, responsibility, and conscientiousness--dimensions of hourly job performance that affect success in many jobs. In its final form, the EI contains 97 items in three sections: 69 true-false opinion and attitude statements, 14 self-descriptive adjective triads, and 14 multiple-choice background questions. The true-false items and adjective triads are intended to solicit opinions, attitudes, and self-perceptions relevant to responsibility, reliability, stability, impulse control, and test-taking frankness. The multiple-choice EI questions ask for various experience and background information, as well as for situational judgments thought to predict overall performance in hourly jobs. Most of the EI is written at the sixth grade reading level, however a few of the adjectives are a bit more difficult. The EI works best in selecting employees for those jobs in which the dimensions of dependability, reliability, responsibility, conscientiousness, and trustworthiness are important, and in which other skills and abilities play a smaller role. Since the EI has been validated and proved effective over a broad range of jobs in a wide range of work settings, it should be useful even in those jobs not specifically in the research base. Numerous validation studies have shown that the EI successfully identifies productive, dependable workers in a variety of jobs and work settings. Personnel Decisions, Inc. (PDI) and researchers at various universities have conducted over 140 validity studies involving more than a third of a million people in a wide range of companies located throughout North America. Industries involved have run the gamut: retail, transportation, quick service restaurants, grocery, health care, manufacturing, gas stations, and airlines. Consistently, the studies have confirmed that job applicants who get higher EI scores are more likely to be reliable, conscientious, stable employees. Reliability- The most demanding and operationally meaningful measure of the EI's reliability is test-retest reliability. This process requires the repeated administrations of the EI to given groups of subjects under controlled conditions. The four-week interval test-retest Pearson correlations from the University student sample during the EI's development were approximately .60. These correlations underestimate the instrument's true reliability because score ranges among job applicants are 22 Employment Inventory Research considerably larger than those among college students. With a range restriction correction, true EI reliability is expected to be approximately .80 for the Performance scale and .70 for the Tenure scale. Validity - Independent university researchers have conducted meta-analytic studies of the EI to estimate the true, generalizable validity. They reviewed 92 EI studies of 28,674 employees and reported a .33 correlation with measures of job performance when the EI is used for hiring. From their review of 57 other EI studies of 114,534 employees, they calculated a .29 correlation with counterproductive job behavior. Because the standard deviations of these correlations were zero, they concluded that these are the true EI validities in any setting, job or situation. Comparisons of Extreme Groups  The EI was given to members of extreme groups in two different studies of criminals. Scores of white collar criminals were compared with scores of white collar non-offenders, and juvenile delinquents' scores were compared to those of hourly job applicants. Together with four other tests, the EI was administered to 350 white collar offenders serving time in 19 federal prisons and to 330 successful employees with jobs similar to those formerly held by the felons (Collins and Schmidt, 1992). The crimes of the offenders included bank fraud, embezzlement, tax fraud, and racketeering committed while they were working in various organizations. Those in the employed group worked as loan officers, and as government and university supervisors and managers. The average age of members of each group was 49 years, and 29% of each had a graduate degree. EI test scores showed a strongly significant difference: The average score of the non-offenders was well-above-average at 59.67 with a standard deviation of 7.28, while the average score of the criminals was below- average at 46.83 with a standard deviation of 9.17. The EI also was given to 37 teenage boys residing in a secure facility for violent juvenile offenders. The group’s mean score on the Performance scale was 41.9, which is 1.4 standard deviations below the job applicant mean of 54.5. The substantially lower scores among both the adult and juvenile offenders provide some illumination of the low end of the EI construct space. CASE STUDY for EI The table below shows how often employees from a typical retail organization who passed an EI cutoff of 54 exhibited specific reliable and dependable behaviors, as rated by their supervisors, compared to those who failed the EI. These are the kinds of behaviors (selected from a pool of about 60, and measured in more than 77 validity studies) for which the most observable changes would be expected when the EI is used for selection. Employee Behavior                                                                                                               Fail EI         Pass EI _________________________________________________________________________________________ Keep working, even when other employees stand around talking.                                         40%             66% Check with supervisors, as policy requires, when in doubt about performing a task.             54%             80% Clean assigned areas, creating a more attractive work space.                                                  54%             82% Forget to perform a routine task.                                                                                              60%             36% Deliberately slow work pace and productivity.                                                                        40%             20% Let joking friends be a distraction and interruption to work.                                                   18%              5% Return from breaks and meals within the allotted time.                                                           21%             39% Take the initiative to find another task when finished with regular work.                               37%             55% Use weak excuses to stay home from work.                                                                            26%             10% Follow rules much more consistently than other employees.                                                  37%             66% Exhibit superior performance overall.                                                                                     10%             19% Have perfect attendance.                                                                                                          20%             52% Need major and minor disciplinary actions.                                                                             84%            40% Be absent or tardy at least once during a three-month period.                                                  80%            48% Table  - Rating Form Behaviors of who passed EI compared to those who failed   DIMENSIONS TO BE COVERED IN AN HONESTY/INTEGRITY TEST 1. CONSCIENTIOUSNESS- Using a broad-based measure of normal personality, a study by Murphy, K.R. & Lee, (1994), tested the hypothesis that the trait “conscientiousness” is the best single predictor of scores on two well-researched integrity tests. Data from 180 traditional and nontraditional college students provided clear support for this hypothesis, but also indicated that a number of traits other than conscientiousness were likely to be related to integrity test scores. Scores on all six of the primary scales, and 33 of the 45 homogeneous item clusters (HICs) of the Hogan Personality Inventory were related to scores on the PDI Employment Inventory and/or the Personnel Selection Inventory. Personality variables were better predictors of scores on the PDI Employment inventory, which is a veiled-purpose (also referred to as “personality based”) test, than of scores on the Personnel Selection Inventory, which measures honesty-related attitudes and includes items calling for direct admissions of misdeeds. 2. AGREEABLENESS-   Study by Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005), investigated the relations of the proposed sixth factor of personality, Honesty-Humility, with the dimensions of the classic English lexical Big Five and the closely related Five-Factor Model (FFM). Results showed that although Honesty-Humility was largely unrelated to markers of the Big Five factors, it was substantially correlated with the FFM Agreeableness domain. This relation was largely due to the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets of FFM Agreeableness, which were only weakly correlated with the Big Five version of Agreeableness. A realignment of FFM facets to produce separate Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness factors provided better prediction of personality variables that involve deceit without hostility, such as Social Adroitness and Self-Monitoring. Results indicate the importance of assessing Honesty-Humility as a separate factor. 3. OTHER DIMENSIONS – Michael Harris and Paul Sackett (1989) conducted a study and factor analyzed responses on 849 applications for positions as retail sales clerks. Four factors were obtained: 1) person’s temptations and thoughts about dishonest activities, such as being tempted to steal merchandise or money; 2) actual or expected dishonest activities by an individual, such as illegally taking company’s property; 3) person’s norms about what others do when it comes to dishonest activities, such as their expectations regarding how many people engage in criminal activity; 4) self- report questions related to the person’s impulsiveness and reliability. Another study by Michael Cunningham and Phillip Ash, (1989) found the following dimensions to be useful in integrity/honesty tests:  1) general tendency to oppose or avoid punishing and disciplining other people;  2) self indulgence and an unwillingness to punish either oneself or friends and family members in the event of misbehavior;  3) fantasies of dishonest behavior or speculation about performing dishonesty; 4) views as to the likelihood that others might behave dishonestly. Furthermore, evidence from factor analyses of other tests suggests that there is no one honesty factor. The tests overlap in the factors they measure. Most tests seem to tap at least some dimensions that are different from those in other tests. Accordingly, there could be some gain from using more than one honesty test, especially if separate scores are created for the various dimensions. Also, there may be reason to shop around for a test that contains dimensions that best fit the needs of a particular company. If the results of factor analyses are available for a test, that facilitates this process. REFERENCES Tong, Y. K., & Arvey, R. D. (2012). Investigating the Cross‐cultural Applicability of the Personnel Reaction Blank Using American and Singaporean Respondent Groups. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(3), 376-382. Blonigen, D. M., Patrick, C. J., Gasperi, M., Steffen, B., Ones, D. S., Arvey, R. D., ... & do Nascimento, E. (2011). Delineating the construct network of the Personnel Reaction Blank: associations with externalizing tendencies and normal personality. Psychological assessment, 23(1), 18. Paajanen, G. E., Hansen, T. L., & McLellan, R. A. (1999). Employment Inventory Research. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions International. Miner, J. B., & Capps, M. H. (1996). How honesty testing works. Greenwood Publishing Group.

CONFLICT AND NEGOTIATION

UNDERSTANDING THE FULL CONCEPT OF CONFLICT AND NEGOTIATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR WITH EXAMPLES

GMAT HANDBOOK OFFICIAL FULL E-BOOK FOR PREPARATION

GMAT FULL BOOK. GMAT HANDBOOK OFFICIAL FULL E-BOOK FOR PREPARATION

Metrology and quality control Question bank

Metrology and quality control Question bank class notes

Industrial Engineering & Management Assignment

Unit 1 Introduction Unit 3 Designing Organizational Structures Unit 5 Plant Location & Layout: Unit 6 Productivity

Industrial Relations

Industrial Relations: Industrial relations usually involve and consider employees as a group and employers as a group. The decisions taken by employers and managers are affecting on industrial relations; e.g.: Opening or closing down of a workplace, introducing new technology or work organization, allocating a specific distribution of profits are some of them. Decisions taken by employees are also affecting the industrial relations such as strikes, immediate leave without following proper way, and not doing the job in working time.Strike:Strike is an action by workers in which they cease to perform work duties and do not report to work.Union:A union is simply a group of workers acting together to influence their working conditions. So as just one example, it’s illegal to prohibit workers from discussing their wages and benefits with other employers, because this is a basic form of worker self-protection.Collective Agreement: A writen document outlining the terms and condions of employment in a unionized workplace.Collective Bargaining:Collective bargaining is a process of joint decision making in work places. It is the process of negotiation between ‘firms’ and workers’ representatives for the purpose of establishing mutually agreeable conditions of employment to enhance the harmonies working status at the work places.Labour Relations:Labour Relations refers to the relations between employers and employees. They are affected by a number of factors, including labour organizations, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, LABOUR MARKET, government policy, the structure of the economy, LABOUR LAW and technological change.

Underground Circuit in Building Utility

Underground Circuit House utility for construction engineering group which deals with the following steps to be followed in the future system

Principles and Practices of Management - Organization Structures

At the most fundamental level, management is a discipline that consists of a set of five general functions: planning, organizing, staffing, leading and controlling. These five functions are part of a body of practices and theories on how to be a successful manager.