Search results

Peter Y. Chen heads the Occupational Health Psychology Training program within the Industrial/Organizational Psychology program at Colorado State University. His primary research interests are in occupational health, performance evaluation, training, and methodology. He has published a book, numerous book chapters and various empirical articles appearing in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Personality Assessment, Group and Organization Management: An International Journal.Shoshi Chen is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Faculty of Management, Tel-Aviv University, Israel (M.Sc., Organizational Behavior). Her current research interests are: work and stress, preventive stress management, and IT implementation.Oranit B. Davidson is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Faculty of Management, Tel-Aviv University, Israel (M.Sc., Organizational Behavior). Her current research interests are: job stress and strain, respite relief, expectation effects and self-fulfilling prophecy.Michelle K. Duffy is an Associate Professor and Gatton Endowed Research Professor in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky. She received a B.S. in Psychology from Miami University (Ohio), an M.A. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Xavier University, and a Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Management from the University of Arkansas. She previously worked as a Research Psychologist at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Dr. Duffy teaches courses in the area of Organizational Behavior. Her research interests include employee health and well being, social undermining behaviors and processes, and team composition issues. Her research has appeared or been accepted for publication in journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Group and Organization Management, Small Group Research, and Security Journal, among others.Rudy Fenwick received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Duke University. He is currently Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Akron. Previously, he taught at the University of South Carolina. His research interests include the effects of markets and organizational structures on jobs characteristics and worker well being, particularly job stress and participation in organizational decision making. His most recent research has appeared in The American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, and Journal of Family and Economic Issues. In 2003, he served as guest editor of a special edition of Sociological Focus on “Organizations Transforming Work; Work Transforming Organizations.”Glenda M. Fisk is a doctoral student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the Pennsylvania State University. She earned her B.A. degree in psychology at the University of Calgary. Her primary research interests include emotions in the workplace and organizational justice.Corina Graif received her Masters in Sociology from the University of Akron. She is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at Harvard University. Her interests include studying social organizations, institutions, networks, social justice, deviance, gender, and class inequality. She is also interested in the socio-legal mechanisms behind the adoption of social policy programs in the context of comparative social, political, and economic development.Alicia A. Grandey earned her Ph.D. at Colorado State University and has been an assistant professor in industrial-organizational psychology at Penn State University since 1999. Her research focuses on the experience and expression of emotions and stress in the workplace, particularly within the service industry and as it relates to work-family issues. Her work in these areas has been published in such journals as Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Journal of Organizational Behavior, as well as several book chapters. Dr. Grandey is a member of the American Psychological Association, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (APA Div. 14), and Academy of Management.Paula L. Grubb is a Research Psychologist in the Division of Applied Research and Technology, Organizational Science and Human Factors Branch at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Dr. Grubb received her doctorate in experimental psychology from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Grubb’s research interests include workplace violence and psychological aggression, racial/ethnic discrimination, traumatic stress, supervisory best practices, organization of work, and job stress. Her current research focuses on developing intervention and evaluation strategies for workplace psychological aggression, as well as examining workplace violence and psychological aggression policies and organizational decision-making.Stevan Hobfoll has authored and edited 11 books, including Stress, Social Support and Women, Traumatic Stress, The Ecology of Stress, and Stress Culture and Community. In addition, he has authored over 150 journal articles, book chapters, and technical reports, and has been a frequent workshop leader on stress, war, and terrorism. He has received over $9 million in research grants on stress and health. Dr. Hobfoll is currently Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Kent State University and Director of the Applied Psychology Center and the Summa-KSU Center for the Treatment and Study of Traumatic Stress. Formerly at Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Universities, he has also been involved with the problem of stress in Israel. Dr. Hobfoll received special commendation for his research on The Psychology of Women and for his AIDS prevention programs with ethnic minority populations, and was cited by the Encyclopædia Britannica for his contribution to knowledge and understanding for his Ecology of Stress volume. He was co-chair of the American Psychological Association Commission on Stress and War during Operation Desert Storm, helping plan for the prevention of prolonged distress among military personnel and their families, and a member of APA’s Task Force on Resilience in Response to Terrorism. He maintains a private practice as a clinical psychologist and organizational consultant.Michiel A. J. Kompier has a full chair in Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Nijmegen (The Netherlands). His research area is occupational health psychology. He has published many (inter)national articles, books and book chapters on topics such as work stress, the psychosocial work environment, mental work load, sickness absenteeism, work disability, work and health, productivity, work-home interaction, and working conditions policies. In his studies the emphasis is on prevention and intervention studies in organizations and applied research methodology. Michiel Kompier is chairman of the scientific Committee “Work Organization and Psychosocial Factors” of ICOH (International Commission on Occupational Health), co-editor of the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, and member of the editorial boards of Work and Stress and the International Journal of Stress and Health.Shavit Laski is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Faculty of Management, Tel-Aviv University, Israel (M.Sc., Organizational Behavior). Her current research interests are: work stress, burnout and work-non-work relationship.Lawrence R. Murphy, Ph.D. received from DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois and did postdoctoral training at the Institute for Psychosomatic and Psychiatric Research, Michael Reese Medical Center. He joined the Work Organization and Stress Research Section, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), as a Research Psychologist in 1977. He has published articles and book chapters on job stress, stress management, and safety climate, and co-edited several books, including Stress Management in Work Settings (1989), Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress (1995), and Healthy and Productive Work: An International Perspective (2000). He serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Work and Stress, and Journal of Business and Psychology. His current research involves identifying characteristics of healthy and productive work organizations, and assessing the quality of work life using a national sample of U.S. workers.Anne M. O’Leary-Kelly is a Professor in the Department of Management at the University of Arkansas. She received her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management from Michigan State University in 1990 and previously has been on the faculty at Texas A&M University and the University of Dayton. Her research interests include the study of aggressive work behavior (violence, sexual harassment) and individual attachments to work organizations (psychological contracts, identification, cynicism). Her work has appeared in (among others) the Academy of Management Review, the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Management, the Journal of Management Inquiry, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Research in Organizational Change and Development, and the American Business Law Journal. She is a member of the Academy of Management and has been co-recipient of the Outstanding Publication in Organizational Behavior Award (given by the Organizational Behavior Division) and co-recipient of the Dorothy Harlow Outstanding Paper Award (given by the Gender and Diversity in Organizations Division). She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the OB Division of the Academy of Management.Rashaun K. Roberts is a Research Psychologist in the Division of Applied Research and Technology, Organizational Science and Human Factors Branch at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Dr. Roberts received her master’s and doctorate degrees in Clinical Psychology from Case Western Reserve University. Prior to joining the research team at NIOSH in 2002, Dr. Roberts was a fellow at Duke University Medical Center in the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, where she developed an expertise in occupational mental health. Dr. Roberts’ current research at NIOSH focuses on the contributions of structural and psychosocial variables to the emergence of psychological aggression in the workplace and on understanding the implications of psychologically aggressive behaviors for occupational safety and health. As a member of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Workplace Violence Research and Prevention, she is collaborating to develop NIOSH’s research agenda in these areas. Dr. Roberts’ other research interests include issues related racial/ethnic health disparities, occupational mental health, and women’s health.Steven L. Sauter received his Ph.D. in Industrial Psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and held an appointment in the University of Wisconsin, Department of Preventive Medicine until joining the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1985. He currently serves as Chief of the Organizational Science and Human Factors Branch at NIOSH, and leads the NIOSH research program on work organization and health. He also holds an appointment as an Adjunct Professor of Human Factors Engineering at the University of Cincinnati, Department of Industrial Engineering. His research interests focus on work organization and occupational stress. He serves on editorial boards of several scholarly journals – including Work and Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, he has prepared several books and articles on psychosocial aspects of occupational health, and he is one of the senior editors of the 4th Edition of the International Encyclopedia of Occupational Safety and Health.Kristin L. Scott is a doctoral student in Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Management in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky. She received a B.S. in Business Administration from Villanova University and an M.A. in Human Resources from the University of South Carolina. She previously worked as a Human Resources Manager at General Electric Company. Her research interests include employee emotional responses, justice issues, employee antisocial behavior, and compensation and reward systems. Currently, she has manuscripts under review at the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management and the Leadership Quarterly.Lori Anderson Snyder received her Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Colorado State University. She is now an assistant professor in the psychology department at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include workplace aggression, safety, performance errors, multisource feedback, and the Assessment Center method.Naomi G. Swanson is head of the Work Organization and Stress Research group at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the U.S. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1989. Along with Dr. Steven Sauter, NIOSH, she was involved in some of the initial research in the U.S. examining the relationship of organizational factors to non-fatal workplace violence. She is currently participating in research examining the relationship between workplace stressors and depression, the assessment of work organization interventions designed to improve worker health and well being, and the assessment of workplace violence programs and practices.Toon W. Taris is an associate professor at the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology of the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. He holds a MA degree in Administrative Science (1988) and took his Ph.D. in Psychology in 1994, both from the Free University of Amsterdam. Since 1993 he has been affiliated with various psychology departments of several Dutch universities and also served as a research consultant. His research interests include work motivation, psychosocial work stress models, and longitudinal reearch methods. Taris has published on a wide range of topics in journals such as Journal of Vocational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, and Sociological Methods and Resarch. Further, he serves on the boards of several journals, including Work & Stress and the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health.Mark Tausig received his Ph.D. in Sociology from the State University of New York at Albany. He is has been at the University of Akron since 1983 and currently holds the title of Professor of Sociology. His research interests include investigating the relationships between macro-economic conditions, work organization and worker well being. His most recent research has appeared in The American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Family and Economic Issues and, The Journal of Health and Social Behavior. He is also co-author of A Sociology of Mental Illness.Mina Westman an associate professor and Researcher, at Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, Israel (Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior, Tel Aviv University). Her primary research interests include determinants and consequences of job and life stress, negative and positive crossover between partners and team members, work-family interchange, effects of vacation on psychological and behavioral strain and the impact of short business trips on the individual, the family and the organization. She has authores empirical and conceptual articles that have appeared in such journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Relations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Applied Psychology: An International Journal, and Journal of Vocational Psychology. In addition, she has also contributed to several book chapters and presented numerous scholarly papers at international conferences. She is on the editorial board of Journal of Organizational Behavior and Applied Psychology: An International Journal.Thomas A. Wright is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior and industrial relations from the University of California, Berkeley. Similar to the Claude Rains character from the classic movie, Casablanca, he has published his work in many of the “usual suspects” including the Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Psychometrika, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Journal of Management and the Journal of Management Inquiry. He has consulted with a number of organizations over the years on such topics as: optimizing employee performance and organizational productivity, sustaining employee commitment, stimulating employee motivation, developing employee recruitment and retention strategies, and enhancing employee health and well being.Angela Young is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management at California State University, Los Angeles. Current research interests include mentoring relationships, organizational relationships, equity and fairness in the workplace, and the interview process. Her work has been published in Journal of Management, Human Resource Management Review, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, and other journals. She has presented her research at numerous conferences including National Academy of Management, American Psychological Association, Western Academy of Management, and Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on adoption of certified management standards, specifically public standards. Such standards play an increasingly important role in today’s business environment. However, to generate adoption benefits, they must be first widely accepted – a situation where they have become viewed as the de facto norms. For this state to occur early adopters play a critical role. Past research has argued that early adopters, in exchange for assuming more risk, are rewarded with higher economic returns. Yet, these findings are based on private, not public standards. With public standards, early adopters do not receive such benefits. There is evidence that public standards are becoming more important. This situation leads to a simple but important question addressed in this study – if early adopters assume the risks of embracing a new public standard without economic benefits, then what is their motivation? To resolve this question, this study draws on agency theory and prospect theory. The authors argue that early adopters embrace such standards because of their desire to minimize risk resulting from failure to support the goal at the heart of the public standards.

Data were obtained from the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) Partners Cost Benefit Survey and analyzed through structural equation modeling.

Early adopters of public standards are not driven by economic benefits but rather by the need to minimize their exposure to the risks associated with failing to satisfy the goals associated with a public standard. In other words, they were motivated by the need to minimize costs. In the case of C-TPAT, these costs are those of failing to provide or improve network security.

This study has shed new light on the standards adoption process by clarifying the specific motivations that drive early adoption of a public standard. In addition to identifying the loss aversion motives of early adopters and economic benefit motives of later adopters, the authors have also elaborated on the notion that standards have differing levels of precedence, particularly when comparing private with public standards.

In a world characterized by increasing demands for outcomes such as improved security and where governmental funding is falling, due to growing deficits and governments that are becoming more conservative, the authors expect the use of public standards to increase.

Different from prior research on private standard, the paper focuses on the organizations involved in the adoption and diffusion of a public standard, with special attention being devoted to the early adopters. The paper provides a theoretical explanation for the actions of early adopters of a public standard through the theoretical lens of prospect theory.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for a sustainability model to be used by industrial companies for establishing a competitive advantage.

Literature is replete with sustainability models for business; however, few of these models are specific to the industrial supply chain market sector. The authors propose a novel approach for comparing/normalizing data from all three components of the Triple Bottom Line (3BL) sustainability model.

A shortcoming of the 3BL sustainability model has been that the data cannot be easily normalized and compared across the three categories of the model. The findings of this paper suggest that it may be possible to develop a model that includes both environmental and social responsibility scales, combined with the more traditional financial data, as a tool for competitive advantage using generalizable data.

As the industrial companies continue to put increasing pressure on both the upstream and downstream suppliers in their supply chain to demonstrate sound sustainability practice, this model could serve to provide a company with competitive advantage.

This paper proposes a novel approach to assessing environmental, social and financial impact as a tool for competitive advantage.

The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of failing to psychometrically test questionnaire instruments when measuring university students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. These issues are highlighted by a psychometric evaluation of a commonly used (but previously untested) plagiarism attitudinal scale.

The importance of psychometric testing is shown through an analysis of a commonly used scale using modern techniques (e.g. Rasch analysis) on 131 undergraduate education students at an Australian university.

Psychometric analysis revealed the scale to be unreliable in its present form. However, when reduced to an eight-item subscale it became marginally reliable.

The main implication of this paper is that questionnaire instruments cannot be assumed to function as they are intended without thorough psychometric testing.

The paper offers valuable insight into the psychometric properties of a previously untested but commonly used plagiarism attitudinal scale.

The paper offers a straightforward and easy to understand introduction to researchers in higher education who use questionnaires/surveys in their research but lack an understanding of why psychometric testing is so critical. While similar papers have been written in other fields which advocate psychometric approaches, such as Rasch analysis, this has not been the case in higher educational research (or mainstream educational research for that matter).

On 24th January this year the new and long‐promised legislation for public libraries in England and Wales made its bow in the shape of the Public Libraries and Museums Bill. Its first reading took place in the House of Commons on that day, and the unopposed second reading was on 5th February. As we write, future timing is uncertain, and it may be that by the time our readers are perusing these pages that the Bill will hare been passed in all its stages. The 23 clauses of the Bill occupy only 12½ pages. Briefly, the Bill will place the development of the public library service under the superintendence of the Minister of Education, and will set up two advisory councils as well as regional councils for interlibrary co‐operation. Non‐county boroughs and urban districts of less than 40,000 population which are existing library authorities will have to apply to the Minister for approval to continue as such. Clause 7 states that every library authority has a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, while the succeeding clause provides that, apart from certain exceptions, no charges shall be made by public library authorities. The Bill places considerable powers upon the Minister. Like most Bills, there is much in it which is open to interpretation. Does, for instance, clause 8, subsection (1) mean that those library authorities which are at present charging for the issue of gramophone records will have to cease doing so? This would seem to be the case, and we hope it is the case. On the other hand, which precise facilities are meant in subsection (4) of the same clause? Librarians will be disappointed that there is no reference to the need for library authorities to appoint separate library committees, nor is there a duty placed upon them to appoint suitably qualified persons as chief librarians. The Minister is given the power of inspection, and few library authorities or librarians will fear this. On the other hand no state financial assistance to library authorities is mentioned. In the 1930s and 19405 many wanted state aid but feared the consequential inspection. Now we have got the inspection without the money! When the Bill appeared, The Library World asked several librarians for their brief first impressions and in the following symposium will be found the views of a city librarian, a county librarian, two London librarians, a Welsh librarian, the librarian of a smaller town, and a member of the younger generation whose professional future may well be shaped by this new legislation.

Entrepreneurial profits flow from differences in expectations between buyers and sellers regarding the future value of resources. This article investigates whether differences in expectations can be influenced by an entrepreneur to produce greater profits. It is argued that there are several points in the entrepreneurial process where such interventions can occur and that the use of these techniques should be associated with superior wealth creation. The article also explores the ethical implications of influencing stakeholders in this way.

Gary R. Albrecht, Ph.D., North Carolina is an economist at Albrecht Economics located in Winston-Salem. He specializes in economic forecasting and forensic economics. He has been an Assistant and Adjunct Associate Professor at Wake Forest University, and he was the Director of Econometric Modeling at the University of Kansas. He is a past vice president of the National Association of Forensic Economics. His research has been published in the Journal of Forensic Economics, Journal of Legal Economics, Trial Briefs, and The Earnings Analyst, in addition to his authoring various economic research reports and book chapters. He holds a Ph.D. degree in Economics from Indiana University.

That ice‐creams prepared with dirty materials and under dirty conditions will themselves be dirty is a proposition which, to the merely ordinary mind, appears to be sufficiently obvious without the institution of a series of elaborate and highly “scientific” experiments to attempt to prove it. But, to the mind of the bacteriological medicine‐man, it is by microbic culture alone that anything that is dirty can be scientifically proved to be so. Not long ago, it having been observed that the itinerant vendor of ice‐creams was in the habit of rinsing his glasses, and, some say, of washing himself—although this is doubtful—in a pail of water attached to his barrow, samples of the liquor contained by such pails were duly obtained, and were solemnly submitted to a well‐known bacteriologist for bacteriological examination. After the interval necessary for the carrying out of the bacterial rites required, the eminent expert's report was published, and it may be admitted that after a cautious study of the same the conclusion seems justifiable that the pail waters were dirty, although it may well be doubted that an allegation to this effect, based on the report, would have stood the test of cross‐examination. It is true that our old and valued friend the Bacillus coli communis was reported as present, but his reputation as an awful example and as a producer of evil has been so much damaged that no one but a dangerous bacteriologist would think of hanging a dog—or even an ice‐cream vendor—on the evidence afforded by his presence. A further illustration of bacteriological trop de zèle is afforded by the recent prosecutions of some vendors of ice‐cream, whose commodities were reported to contain “millions of microbes,” including, of course, the in‐evitable and ubiquitous Bacillus coli very “communis.” To institute a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act upon the evidence yielded by a bacteriological examination of ice‐cream is a proceeding which is foredoomed, and rightly foredoomed, to failure. The only conceivable ground upon which such a prosecution could be undertaken is the allegation that the “millions of microbes ” make the ice‐cream injurious to health. Inas‐much as not one of these millions can be proved beyond the possibility of doubt to be injurious, in the present state of knowledge; and as millions of microbes exist in everything everywhere, the breakdown of such a case must be a foregone conclusion. Moreover, a glance at the Act will show that, under existing circumstances at any rate, samples cannot be submitted to public analysts for bacteriological examination—with which, in fact, the Act has nothing to do—even if such examinations yielded results upon which it would be possible to found action. In order to prevent the sale of foul and unwholesome or actual disease‐creating ice‐cream, the proper course is to control the premises where such articles are prepared; while, at the same time, the sale of such materials should also be checked by the methods employed under the Public Health Act in dealing with decomposed and polluted articles of food. In this, no doubt, the aid of the public analyst may sometimes be sought as one of the scientific advisers of the authority taking action, but not officially in his capacity as public analyst under the Adulteration Act. And in those cases in which such advice is sought it may be hoped that it will be based, as indeed it can be based, upon something more practical, tangible and certain than the nebulous results of a bacteriological test.

The present study investigated whether questionnaires using explicit midpoints produce different results for different cultural groups. We hypothesized that managers from China, Japan, and Hong Kong (CJH) respond differently to Western management scales than do managers from the US., Germany, and United Kingdom (UGU). We found differences in central tendency (the likelihood of choosing the midpoint in overall variance between these groups). Using scales with even numbered response categories (thus removing the explicit midpoint) decreases the central tendencies of the CJH group and increases the variance in the responses to Western management questionnaire. Results suggested that when survey questionnaires are used in CJH cultures, careful consideration should be given to the choice between scales with even‐numbered response categories and those with odd‐numbered response categories.