Methodology: Too many subjective decisions Methodological concerns related to Sackett et al. (2022, 2023) meta-analysis were already raised by Oh, Le, and Roth (in press). I would like to concentrate here on the conceptual discussion of the two focal methodological decisions of Sackett et al., which, in my view, results in the lowering of the general mental ability (GMA) validity estimates. First, to not attempt a correction for range restriction and, second, to not control for job complexity. Sackett et al. (2022, 2023) propose that range restriction is an issue mainly if the predictor in question was used in selecting the validation sample, and they argue that this would virtually never be the case in validation studies on GMA included in their meta-analysis, as this is unlikely that the same or similar GMA test scores used in validation procedures were also a part of the selection process. But, GMA was and still is considered one of the most important job performance predictors, as Kuncel, Ones, and Sackett (2010, p. 333) notice: “Cognitive ability is the workhorse of employee selection.” So why it is unlikely that GMA tests of some sort were used as a basis of selection procedures in validation studies? This is unclear to me and not explained sufficiently. But even if we assume that GMA tests were never used as a part of selection procedures in studies analyzed by Sackett et al. (2022, 2023), this still does not mean that employees were not directly and indirectly selected based on GMA. It seems that Sackett et al. (2022) misinterpret the GMA test score with GMA as a construct itself, but it is not cognitive ability tests that predict performance but cognitive ability. It is important to notice that various GMA tests scores to a large extend reflect a common construct (Johnson et al., 2008), which “involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience” (Gottfredson, 1997a, p.13). This seems to be an ability developed in a time of the test, not the genetic potential or hereditary talent (see Schmidt, 2002). Assuming that it is unlikely that employees are directly hired based on their GMA is as assuming that it is unlikely that during selection procedures the abilities to plan, solve problems, reason, and learn from experience are directly taken into account by employers, but if these are not the basis for selection in most jobs, then what is? I argue that because of GMA’s nature and importance in our lives (Brown et al., 2021), GMA as a construct is a vital criterion for selecting employees for jobs even if there is no formal GMA test in recruitment procedures. Jobs vary in cognitive complexity (https://www. onetonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/1.A), and job incumbents are not randomly assigned to jobs, but applicants take different jobs and occupy different positions based on the fit between their cognitive abilities and the complexity of the job (Gottfredson
方法论：太多的主观决策与Sackett等人有关的方法论问题。（2022、2023）Oh、Le和Roth（出版中）已经提出了荟萃分析。我想在这里集中讨论Sackett等人的两个重点方法论决定的概念，在我看来，这导致了一般心理能力（GMA）有效性估计的降低。首先，不尝试对范围限制进行校正，其次，不控制作业复杂性。Sackett等人（2022023）提出，范围限制是一个问题，主要是如果在选择验证样本时使用了有问题的预测因子，他们认为，在他们的荟萃分析中包括的GMA验证研究中，情况几乎永远不会如此，因为验证程序中使用的相同或相似的GMA考试成绩不太可能也是选拔过程的一部分。但是，正如Kunsel、Ones和Sackett（2010，第333页）所指出的那样，GMA过去和现在都被认为是最重要的工作表现预测因素之一：“认知能力是员工选择的主力。”那么，为什么GMA测试不太可能被用作验证研究中选择程序的基础呢？这一点我不清楚，也没有充分解释。但即使我们假设在Sackett等人分析的研究中，GMA测试从未被用作选拔程序的一部分。（2022022023），这仍然不意味着员工没有根据GMA直接或间接被选拔。Sackett等人（2022）似乎将GMA考试成绩误解为GMA本身的一个结构，但预测成绩的不是认知能力测试，而是认知能力。值得注意的是，各种GMA考试成绩在很大程度上反映了一个共同的结构（Johnson et al.，2008），它“涉及推理、计划、解决问题、抽象思考、理解复杂想法、快速学习和从经验中学习的能力”（Gottfredson，1997a，p.13），而不是遗传潜力或遗传才能（见Schmidt，2002）。假设员工不太可能根据GMA直接被雇佣，就像假设在选拔过程中，雇主不太可能直接考虑计划、解决问题、推理和从经验中学习的能力一样，但如果这些不是大多数工作的选拔基础，那又是什么呢？我认为，由于GMA的性质和在我们生活中的重要性（Brown et al.，2021），GMA作为一种结构是选择员工工作的重要标准，即使招聘程序中没有正式的GMA考试。工作的认知复杂性各不相同(https://www.oneonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/1.A），在职者并不是随机分配到工作中的，而是根据他们的认知能力和工作复杂性之间的匹配程度，申请者从事不同的工作并占据不同的职位（Gottfredson，1997b）。个人倾向于与他们的认知能力相一致的工作（Judge等人，2010；Wilk和Sackett，1996），因此如果
{"title":"It takes more than meta-analysis to kill cognitive ability","authors":"K. Kulikowski","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.36","url":null,"abstract":"Methodology: Too many subjective decisions Methodological concerns related to Sackett et al. (2022, 2023) meta-analysis were already raised by Oh, Le, and Roth (in press). I would like to concentrate here on the conceptual discussion of the two focal methodological decisions of Sackett et al., which, in my view, results in the lowering of the general mental ability (GMA) validity estimates. First, to not attempt a correction for range restriction and, second, to not control for job complexity. Sackett et al. (2022, 2023) propose that range restriction is an issue mainly if the predictor in question was used in selecting the validation sample, and they argue that this would virtually never be the case in validation studies on GMA included in their meta-analysis, as this is unlikely that the same or similar GMA test scores used in validation procedures were also a part of the selection process. But, GMA was and still is considered one of the most important job performance predictors, as Kuncel, Ones, and Sackett (2010, p. 333) notice: “Cognitive ability is the workhorse of employee selection.” So why it is unlikely that GMA tests of some sort were used as a basis of selection procedures in validation studies? This is unclear to me and not explained sufficiently. But even if we assume that GMA tests were never used as a part of selection procedures in studies analyzed by Sackett et al. (2022, 2023), this still does not mean that employees were not directly and indirectly selected based on GMA. It seems that Sackett et al. (2022) misinterpret the GMA test score with GMA as a construct itself, but it is not cognitive ability tests that predict performance but cognitive ability. It is important to notice that various GMA tests scores to a large extend reflect a common construct (Johnson et al., 2008), which “involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience” (Gottfredson, 1997a, p.13). This seems to be an ability developed in a time of the test, not the genetic potential or hereditary talent (see Schmidt, 2002). Assuming that it is unlikely that employees are directly hired based on their GMA is as assuming that it is unlikely that during selection procedures the abilities to plan, solve problems, reason, and learn from experience are directly taken into account by employers, but if these are not the basis for selection in most jobs, then what is? I argue that because of GMA’s nature and importance in our lives (Brown et al., 2021), GMA as a construct is a vital criterion for selecting employees for jobs even if there is no formal GMA test in recruitment procedures. Jobs vary in cognitive complexity (https://www. onetonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/1.A), and job incumbents are not randomly assigned to jobs, but applicants take different jobs and occupy different positions based on the fit between their cognitive abilities and the complexity of the job (Gottfredson","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"366 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45777850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Valenzuela and Bernardo (2023) propose the benefits of adopting a polycultural framework for diversity management in organizations. On the surface, the authors offer a diversity incognito approach, where a commitment to diversity drives organizational practice but is not readily visible or marked by pro-diversity language and labels. It is a seemingly attractive approach, particularly because it could mitigate defensive routines related to the experience of identity threat (Dover et al., 2020; Leslie et al., 2020). However, it also has some real limitations that may short-circuit the goals of diversity management. We discuss the benefits alongside the critical challenges that ultimately limit the use of polyculturalism.
{"title":"Polyculturalism: Diversity incognito or diversity made irrelevant?","authors":"Helen H. Chung, Anne E. Kato","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.45","url":null,"abstract":"Valenzuela and Bernardo (2023) propose the benefits of adopting a polycultural framework for diversity management in organizations. On the surface, the authors offer a diversity incognito approach, where a commitment to diversity drives organizational practice but is not readily visible or marked by pro-diversity language and labels. It is a seemingly attractive approach, particularly because it could mitigate defensive routines related to the experience of identity threat (Dover et al., 2020; Leslie et al., 2020). However, it also has some real limitations that may short-circuit the goals of diversity management. We discuss the benefits alongside the critical challenges that ultimately limit the use of polyculturalism.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"398 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42470761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Sackett, Christopher M. Berry, F. Lievens, Charlene Zhang
We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and thought-provoking comments that we have received in reaction to our focal article (Sackett et al., 2023). Generally, the commentaries could be divided into two groups. The largest group of commentaries suggested ways to expand or refine our assertions. This group thus saw our paper as a starting point and offered various new insights. Another smaller group of commentaries was more critical. A few even argued strongly that the original paper was in error and its conclusions were wrong. With very limited page space, this is not the place for a point-by-point response to each of the commentaries. Thus, we first briefly review some of the suggestions of the first group and then focus more on three critical commentaries, given readers likely want to know whether we accept the criticisms offered or have alternative perspectives. We want to emphasize that although we offer our rationales for why we at times take positions that differ from those offered by commentators, we do not claim to be the last word on the issues at hand. We present our rationales to permit the reader to compare the perspectives taken by us and by the commentators. And issues raised by these differing perspectives will, we hope, prompt research to help resolve areas of disagreement.
我们非常感谢对我们的重点文章(Sackett et al.， 2023)所收到的深思熟虑和发人深省的评论。一般来说，评论可以分为两类。最大的一组评论提出了扩展或完善我们断言的方法。因此，这个小组将我们的论文视为一个起点，并提出了各种新的见解。另一小部分评论则更为批评。一些人甚至强烈认为原始论文是错误的，其结论是错误的。由于页面空间非常有限，这不是对每个评论进行逐点回应的地方。因此，我们首先简要回顾第一组的一些建议，然后更多地关注三个关键评论，因为读者可能想知道我们是否接受提供的批评或有其他观点。我们要强调的是，虽然我们提供了我们的理由来解释为什么我们有时采取与评论员不同的立场，但我们并不声称我们对手头的问题有最后的发言权。我们提出我们的基本原理是为了让读者可以比较我们和评论员的观点。我们希望，这些不同观点提出的问题将促进研究，以帮助解决存在分歧的领域。
{"title":"A reply to commentaries on “Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors”","authors":"P. Sackett, Christopher M. Berry, F. Lievens, Charlene Zhang","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.47","url":null,"abstract":"We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and thought-provoking comments that we have received in reaction to our focal article (Sackett et al., 2023). Generally, the commentaries could be divided into two groups. The largest group of commentaries suggested ways to expand or refine our assertions. This group thus saw our paper as a starting point and offered various new insights. Another smaller group of commentaries was more critical. A few even argued strongly that the original paper was in error and its conclusions were wrong. With very limited page space, this is not the place for a point-by-point response to each of the commentaries. Thus, we first briefly review some of the suggestions of the first group and then focus more on three critical commentaries, given readers likely want to know whether we accept the criticisms offered or have alternative perspectives. We want to emphasize that although we offer our rationales for why we at times take positions that differ from those offered by commentators, we do not claim to be the last word on the issues at hand. We present our rationales to permit the reader to compare the perspectives taken by us and by the commentators. And issues raised by these differing perspectives will, we hope, prompt research to help resolve areas of disagreement.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"371 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48286184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We applaud the efforts of Sackett et al. (2023) to update research that is often uncritically cited and discussed in the field of I–O psychology, as well as their sensible recommendations and the overall thoughtfulness of their paper. However, like much published research in this area, we believe it falls short in its aim of informing selection practices in most organizations. Sackett et al.’s (2022) update to Schmidt and Hunter (1998) falls into the same trap as prior metaanalyses in that their statistically corrected results of aggregated studies designed for validating selection measures and subsequent recommendations seem to assume an ideal (perhaps even an imaginary) world. Specifically, as with nearly all academic articles and textbooks on selection, their results are framed in a context where organizations have copious amounts of financial resources, extended periods of time, access to technology, and readily available applicant pools with numerous applicants that vary substantially in terms of their job-relevant characteristics (e.g., personality, abilities, interests, etc.). However, HR practitioners are more frequently faced with limited resources, limited time to make hires, limited available technology (and experience using it), and severely limited applicant pools. Moreover, these limitations are likely to shift over time with changes in the ambient economic climate, the strategic priorities of organizational leadership, the success and reputation of their organization, and technological progress. So, when confronted with optimized models based on corrected estimates making recommendations about best practices in selection, we find ourselves asking not only how an HR practitioner is supposed to make use of this information but whether they should consider it at all. Although such articles are useful for providing hypothetical benchmarks when academics seek to inform practitioner choices, we should not only consider what selection would look like in ideal circumstances but also what is possible in a reality-constrained world. It is our position that I–O psychology would be better served if we study how selection works in practice and try to meet practitioners halfway in terms of making our recommendations reflect the limitations HR practitioners face.1 We freely admit that we don’t have ready-made solution to these real-world limitations and problems, but we hope that this comment can serve as a foundation for a more practice-oriented stream of research in I–O psychology. Therefore, the following represent an incomplete list of issues and considerations that I–O academics may want to address in future research concerning best practices in selection.
{"title":"Ideal solutions don’t necessarily inform reality","authors":"P. D. Harms, J. L. Foster, Bradley J. Brummel","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.39","url":null,"abstract":"We applaud the efforts of Sackett et al. (2023) to update research that is often uncritically cited and discussed in the field of I–O psychology, as well as their sensible recommendations and the overall thoughtfulness of their paper. However, like much published research in this area, we believe it falls short in its aim of informing selection practices in most organizations. Sackett et al.’s (2022) update to Schmidt and Hunter (1998) falls into the same trap as prior metaanalyses in that their statistically corrected results of aggregated studies designed for validating selection measures and subsequent recommendations seem to assume an ideal (perhaps even an imaginary) world. Specifically, as with nearly all academic articles and textbooks on selection, their results are framed in a context where organizations have copious amounts of financial resources, extended periods of time, access to technology, and readily available applicant pools with numerous applicants that vary substantially in terms of their job-relevant characteristics (e.g., personality, abilities, interests, etc.). However, HR practitioners are more frequently faced with limited resources, limited time to make hires, limited available technology (and experience using it), and severely limited applicant pools. Moreover, these limitations are likely to shift over time with changes in the ambient economic climate, the strategic priorities of organizational leadership, the success and reputation of their organization, and technological progress. So, when confronted with optimized models based on corrected estimates making recommendations about best practices in selection, we find ourselves asking not only how an HR practitioner is supposed to make use of this information but whether they should consider it at all. Although such articles are useful for providing hypothetical benchmarks when academics seek to inform practitioner choices, we should not only consider what selection would look like in ideal circumstances but also what is possible in a reality-constrained world. It is our position that I–O psychology would be better served if we study how selection works in practice and try to meet practitioners halfway in terms of making our recommendations reflect the limitations HR practitioners face.1 We freely admit that we don’t have ready-made solution to these real-world limitations and problems, but we hope that this comment can serve as a foundation for a more practice-oriented stream of research in I–O psychology. Therefore, the following represent an incomplete list of issues and considerations that I–O academics may want to address in future research concerning best practices in selection.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"313 - 316"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48303018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sackett et al. (2021) published a disruptive piece that is summarized in Sackett et al. (2023) focal article. As the authors explain in the focal article, not only did their 2021 paper show that rangerestriction overcorrection has led to inflated estimates of validity for selection devices, but that the new corrections actually alter the rank ordering of predictors established in Schmidt and Hunter (1998). Many are celebrating that structured interviews have supplanted general mental ability for the top validity spot. Others, however, were deflated by the generally shrunken effect sizes associated with the new corrections. According to Sackett et al. (2023), many practitioners feel that these revised estimates do not help our traditional predictors compete for success in the marketplace, leaving many wondering how to effectively communicate the relative efficacy of predictors to key stakeholders. We believe that many scientists and practitioners hold unrealistic standards of success. It is time, therefore, for I–O psychologists to adopt and communicate new benchmarks for evaluating predictor effect sizes.
Sackett et al.(2021)发表了一篇颠覆性的文章，总结在Sackett et al.(2023)焦点文章中。正如作者在重点文章中解释的那样，他们2021年的论文不仅表明，距离限制过度校正导致了对选择设备有效性的高估，而且新的校正实际上改变了Schmidt和Hunter(1998)中建立的预测因子的排名顺序。许多人都在庆祝，结构化面试已经取代了一般的心理能力，成为最有效的面试。然而，另一些人则因与新修正相关的效应大小普遍缩小而泄气。根据Sackett等人(2023)的说法，许多从业者认为这些修订后的估计并不能帮助我们的传统预测器在市场上竞争成功，让许多人想知道如何有效地将预测器的相对功效传达给关键利益相关者。我们认为，许多科学家和实践者对成功持有不切实际的标准。因此，对于I-O心理学家来说，是时候采用和交流评估预测效应大小的新基准了。
{"title":"Interpreting the magnitude of predictor effect sizes: It is time for more sensible benchmarks","authors":"Scott Highhouse, Margaret E. Brooks","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.30","url":null,"abstract":"Sackett et al. (2021) published a disruptive piece that is summarized in Sackett et al. (2023) focal article. As the authors explain in the focal article, not only did their 2021 paper show that rangerestriction overcorrection has led to inflated estimates of validity for selection devices, but that the new corrections actually alter the rank ordering of predictors established in Schmidt and Hunter (1998). Many are celebrating that structured interviews have supplanted general mental ability for the top validity spot. Others, however, were deflated by the generally shrunken effect sizes associated with the new corrections. According to Sackett et al. (2023), many practitioners feel that these revised estimates do not help our traditional predictors compete for success in the marketplace, leaving many wondering how to effectively communicate the relative efficacy of predictors to key stakeholders. We believe that many scientists and practitioners hold unrealistic standards of success. It is time, therefore, for I–O psychologists to adopt and communicate new benchmarks for evaluating predictor effect sizes.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"332 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43623471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“But unspoken as it may be, the expectation for many women is that at a time when you’re just trying to hold it all together, you must somehow figure out how to pick up where you left off. Some of the pressure is societal: for women fortunate enough to have time off, once you go back to work, you’re right back in it. The fact that your baby is cluster feeding or staging a sleep strike is not really an excuse for missing a deadline. But the haze of new motherhood has a way of warping your own perception of what you should be able to handle. When getting through the day requires a certain amount of autopilot (and coffee), there’s not a ton of time to reflect on what caring for a new life while meeting the demands of your own is doing to you.”
{"title":"Making the invisible visible: Recrafting the discourse surrounding women caregivers in academia","authors":"Nitya Chawla, Kristie M. Rogers, Beth S. Schinoff","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.19","url":null,"abstract":"“But unspoken as it may be, the expectation for many women is that at a time when you’re just trying to hold it all together, you must somehow figure out how to pick up where you left off. Some of the pressure is societal: for women fortunate enough to have time off, once you go back to work, you’re right back in it. The fact that your baby is cluster feeding or staging a sleep strike is not really an excuse for missing a deadline. But the haze of new motherhood has a way of warping your own perception of what you should be able to handle. When getting through the day requires a certain amount of autopilot (and coffee), there’s not a ton of time to reflect on what caring for a new life while meeting the demands of your own is doing to you.”","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"267 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43290367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Equality is giving everyone a shoe, equity is giving everyone a shoe
平等是给每个人一双鞋，公平是给每个每个人一只鞋
{"title":"When equal isn’t equal: Contrasting equity and equality perspectives in supporting female professors","authors":"K. Chheda, J. Beckel, Danielle M. Gardner","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.17","url":null,"abstract":"Equality is giving everyone a shoe, equity is giving everyone a shoe","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"248 - 251"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46195967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Putting the APA code to practice and developing a moral awareness","authors":"Esther Unger-Aviram","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"179 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47306479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Diversity in organizations is a recurring and increasing reality of vast importance. The diversity management literature describes different types of organizations based on their treatment and management of diversity, including plural and multicultural organizations. However, recent research suggests the added value of considering polycultural organizations in diversity management. Based on a polycultural ideology that sees values, traditions, and norms inherently and dynamically intertwined and mixed, polycultural organizations emphasize the value for and “connectedness” to diversity among organizational members. Contributing to the diversity management literature, this paper conceptually describes and compares polycultural organizations with other types of organizations in the diversity management literature. It argues the potential benefit of including a polycultural ideology to current perspectives in diversity management to further advance our understanding of how diversity can be effectively managed in organizations. Additionally, practice implications and strategies to foster polycultural organizations are provided.
{"title":"The potential of fostering connections: Insights into polycultural organizations","authors":"M. Valenzuela, Allan B. I. Bernardo","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.23","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Diversity in organizations is a recurring and increasing reality of vast importance. The diversity management literature describes different types of organizations based on their treatment and management of diversity, including plural and multicultural organizations. However, recent research suggests the added value of considering polycultural organizations in diversity management. Based on a polycultural ideology that sees values, traditions, and norms inherently and dynamically intertwined and mixed, polycultural organizations emphasize the value for and “connectedness” to diversity among organizational members. Contributing to the diversity management literature, this paper conceptually describes and compares polycultural organizations with other types of organizations in the diversity management literature. It argues the potential benefit of including a polycultural ideology to current perspectives in diversity management to further advance our understanding of how diversity can be effectively managed in organizations. Additionally, practice implications and strategies to foster polycultural organizations are provided.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"378 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44320856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bhindai Mahabir, Sonal Swain, Joel Hernández, Ho Kwan Cheung
Over the past few decades, women have increasingly attained educational and employment opportunities that were previously unavailable to them (Van de Kaa, 1987). Gabriel and colleagues (2022) demonstrate that there is insufficient support for pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving despite the growing number of female faculty in academia. Although we applaud and agree with the many points raised by Gabriel et al. (2022), one overlooked perspective is how female graduate students experience starting a family while pursuing their academic careers. Depending on individual career trajectory, graduate education often coincides with the ideal time for starting a family. The graduate student population forms the backbone of higher education as instructors and researchers. Therefore, to understand the systemic disadvantages faced by women in academia, graduate students must be included in the discussion. In our commentary, we discuss how perspectives on career pursuit and family planning have evolved, including changes in culture and societal expectations, increased access to higher education for women, and technological advances in family planning. Following that, we discuss the challenges female graduate students may face when starting a family, such as limited financial resources and support. After examining how these challenges can negatively impact academic and professional performance, we suggest some accommodations and resources that may help address the concerns raised.
在过去几十年中，妇女越来越多地获得了以前无法获得的教育和就业机会(Van de Kaa, 1987年)。加布里埃尔及其同事(2022)表明，尽管学术界的女性教师人数不断增加，但对怀孕、母亲和儿童照顾的支持不足。尽管我们赞同Gabriel等人(2022)提出的许多观点，但有一个被忽视的观点是，女研究生在追求学术生涯的同时如何组建家庭。根据个人的职业发展轨迹，研究生教育往往与组建家庭的理想时间相吻合。研究生作为教师和研究人员构成了高等教育的中坚力量。因此，要了解女性在学术界面临的系统性劣势，必须将研究生纳入讨论范围。在我们的评论中，我们讨论了职业追求和计划生育的观点是如何演变的，包括文化和社会期望的变化，女性接受高等教育的机会增加，以及计划生育方面的技术进步。接下来，我们讨论了女研究生在组建家庭时可能面临的挑战，比如有限的经济资源和支持。在研究了这些挑战如何对学业和专业表现产生负面影响之后，我们建议一些住宿和资源可以帮助解决所提出的问题。
{"title":"Changing times, changing resources: Starting a family as a graduate student","authors":"Bhindai Mahabir, Sonal Swain, Joel Hernández, Ho Kwan Cheung","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.2","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past few decades, women have increasingly attained educational and employment opportunities that were previously unavailable to them (Van de Kaa, 1987). Gabriel and colleagues (2022) demonstrate that there is insufficient support for pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving despite the growing number of female faculty in academia. Although we applaud and agree with the many points raised by Gabriel et al. (2022), one overlooked perspective is how female graduate students experience starting a family while pursuing their academic careers. Depending on individual career trajectory, graduate education often coincides with the ideal time for starting a family. The graduate student population forms the backbone of higher education as instructors and researchers. Therefore, to understand the systemic disadvantages faced by women in academia, graduate students must be included in the discussion. In our commentary, we discuss how perspectives on career pursuit and family planning have evolved, including changes in culture and societal expectations, increased access to higher education for women, and technological advances in family planning. Following that, we discuss the challenges female graduate students may face when starting a family, such as limited financial resources and support. After examining how these challenges can negatively impact academic and professional performance, we suggest some accommodations and resources that may help address the concerns raised.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"242 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43882104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：