BAD 84263 Fall 2009 Knapp
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYEE SELECTION & APPRAISAL
B AD 84263—Section 001—FALL 2009—Call Number 22031
TUESDAYS, 1:00-3:30 PM, BSA A404
Instructor: Dr. Deborah Knapp
Office: College of Business Administration, BA A424
Telephone: 330.672.1147
E-mail: dknapp1@kent.edu—the best way to get a quick response!
Office Hours: Tuesdays, 3:00-6:00pm, Wednesdays, 4:00-6:00pm, or by appointment
Course Objectives: To familiarize doctoral students with theory and empirical research in employee selection and appraisal and the application/contribution of this research to the better management of human resources. Students will read numerous academic articles for each of the topics discussed in class. The articles are designed to provide students with an overview of the important research questions that human resource scholars are attempting to answer through theoretical and empirical research. The course will focus on helping students understand the relevant theories and analytical techniques used to answer HR-management-related research questions in order to prepare interested students for dissertation work in the field of HR.
Course Requirements: There are three main course requirements: involvement in class discussion of the assigned articles, a theoretical paper, and a final exam. First, students are required to read and be prepared to discuss the assigned articles for each week. The students will rotate as the “discussion leader.” The discussion leader is required to develop a list of questions and future research ideas related to each of the assigned articles. These questions and future research ideas will guide the class discussion. Second, each student will write a theoretical paper related to one of the topics discussed during the semester. Third, students will take a final exam. This final exam is designed to prepare students for the comprehensive exams.
Grades will be determined as follows:
Class discussion and discussion leader role 40%
Theoretical Paper 40%
Final Exam 20%
Each course requirement will be assigned a letter grade from A to C. In extreme cases of inadequate performance, a student will receive a grade of F.
Theoretical Paper: A theoretically rigorous paper that holds the potential to advance theory, research, and practice in human resources management and or strategic management is required. This paper may be (a) a comprehensive literature review with an agenda for future research (see for example Sullivan, 1999, JOM, under career success), or (b) a proposal of a new conceptual, integrative model with propositions for future investigation (see for example Black et al., 1991, AMR, under international HRM). The paper should not exceed 35 double-spaced pages of text (including references, tables, and figures). Your theoretical paper is due December 8th during class. However, you may continue to make changes or edit the paper until the date of the final examination (December 15th). This paper must be an HR- or strategy-related topic, but I encourage you to choose an appropriate topic that has potential for your dissertation and/or submission to a national academic conference.
Exam: You will be provided with two comprehensive exam-type questions. You are to answer the questions based on your knowledge of the course readings. The exam will be graded on the basis of conceptual insight/understanding, coverage of the relevant literature, and originality. You will be allowed to bring the course reading list and your notes to the exam. You will have 2 ½ hours to complete the exam. The purpose of the exam is to give you a “first impression” of the content and expectations of comprehensive exam questions.
Class Readings & Discussion: Each week we will discuss the 2-3 articles that are listed under each topic. You should critically read each article and be prepared to discuss your opinions, observations, insights, and inspirations from each article. The students will rotate as the “discussion leader.”
The discussion leader is required to
(a) provide a brief summary of the article and describe its major contribution(s);
(b) develop a few questions for each article;
(c) provide some insights as to how the collection of articles informs the topic in general; and
(d) provide suggestions for future research in this area.
Registration: Students have responsibility to ensure they are properly enrolled in classes. You are advised to review your official class schedule (using Student Tools on FlashLine) during the first two weeks of the semester to ensure you are properly enrolled in this class and section. Should you find an error in your class schedule, you have until Sunday, September 6, 2009 to correct the error. If registration errors are not corrected by this date and you continue to attend and participate in classes for which you are not officially enrolled, you are advised now that you will not receive a grade at the conclusion of the semester for any class in which you are not properly registered.
Course Withdrawal Deadline: The course withdrawal deadline is Sunday, November 8, 2009.
CLASS PROCEDURES
1. If my office hours are not convenient for you, please feel free to call for an appointment. Also, the most efficient way to communicate with me is via e-mail. I strongly encourage you to take advantage of the electronic messaging capabilities made available to you by the university!
2. Please tell me about any problems you are having while there is still time to do something about them!
3. Each student must turn in an original piece of work (copies will not be accepted; however, you may work together on your case/exercise assignments).
4. Attendance at class is expected. If you miss a class, YOU are responsible for obtaining lecture notes and other material from another student. To succeed in this course, you must complete your reading assignments and attend class. Also, please do not e-mail me asking me “what you missed” or “will we be doing a case tonight?”—you need to come to class, if you cannot attend, reread the beginning of #6. Moreover, missed classes will negatively affect your participation grade.
5. Major grammatical or spelling errors on any written work could result in a significant penalty with respect to the grade you receive. Carefully proof your papers for errors (you may even want to have a friend read your work). Use grammar and spell check!
6. You must use the internet and World Wide Web to communicate with me and receive an acceptable grade. You must update your FlashLine account as this is the e-mail address to which I will be sending all class correspondence.
7. While I have attempted to create a course that will be both fun and informative, please do not mistake the levity and humor that will characterize much of our class time as an indication that this is not a serious course or that I don’t take my responsibility as your professor seriously. Occasionally our discussions may veer from a direct path as your fellow students may have questions or interests that may appear to be tangentially related to the topic being discussed. These discussions are important to our exploration of leadership and therefore, I ask that you are respectful of your fellow students’ desire for increased knowledge. Everyone (including me) can benefit from such improvisation.
POLICY ON ACADEMIC HONESTY
Academic honesty: Cheating means to misrepresent the source, nature, or other conditions of your academic work (e.g., tests, papers, projects, assignments) so as to get undeserved credit. In addition, it is considered to be cheating when one cooperates with someone else in any such misrepresentation. The use of the intellectual property of others without giving them appropriate credit is a serious academic offense. It is the University's policy that cheating or plagiarism result in receiving a failing grade for the work or course. Repeat offenses result in dismissal from the University.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
University policy 3342-3-01.3 requires that students with disabilities be provided reasonable accommodations to ensure their equal access to course content. If you have a documented disability and require accommodations, please contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester to make arrangements for necessary classroom adjustments. Please note, you must first verify your eligibility for these through Student Accessibility Services (contact 330-672-3391 or visit www.kent.edu/sas <http://www.registrars.kent.edu/disability/> for more information on registration procedures).
CLASS SCHEDULE
Week of Topic
Sept 1 Course Overview, Introduction, Dissertation Process, Research Methodology
Journal Review Process/Research Issues
Sept 7-Dec 8 Class Readings and Discussion
Dec 15 Final Exam and PAPERS DUE —TUESDAY, Dec 15th, 1:00-3:00pm
Initial Reading List—HR articles
SELECTION AND APPRAISAL
B AD 84263- Section 001—FALL 2009
Journal review process/research issues
1. Gilliland, Stephen W.; Beckstein, Brenden A. Procedural and distributive justice in the editorial review process. Personnel Psychology, Autumn96, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p669, 23p
2. Gilliland, Stephen W.; Cortina, Jose M. Reviewer and editor decision making in the journal review process. Personnel Psychology, Summer97, Vol. 50 Issue 2, p427, 26p, 6 charts, 2 graphs
3. Russell, Craig J.; Gilliland, Stephen W. Why meta-analysis doesn't tell us what the data really mean: Distinguishing between moderator... Journal of Management, 1995, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p813, 19p
EEOC, Diversity and Related Issues in HRM
1. Greenhaus, J.H., & Parasuraman, S. (1993). Job performance attributions and career advancement prospects: An examination of gender and race effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273-297.
2. Powell, G. N. & Butterfield, D. A. (2002). The influence of decision makers’ gender on actual promotions to top management. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 55, 397-428.
RECRUITMENT/JOB SEARCH/SELECTION
Recruitment
1. Bretz, R.D., & Judge, T.A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20, 531-551.
2. Gilliland, Stephen W.; Groth, Markus; Baker IV, Robert C.; Dew, Angela F.; Polly, Lisa M.; Langdon, Jay C. Improving applicants' reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology, Autumn2001, Vol. 54 Issue 3, p669, 35p, 4 graphs
3. Rynes, Sara L.; Bretz Jr., Robert D. The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, Autumn91, Vol. 44 Issue 3, p487, 35p, 4 charts
Job Search
1. Barber, Alison E.; Daly, Christina L. Job search activities: An examination of changes over time. Personnel Psychology, Winter94, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p739, 28p, 6 charts
2. Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (2001). Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of job search among employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 54, 25-50.
Selection
1. Bauer, Talya N.; Truxillo, Donald M.; Sanchez, Rudolph J.; Craig, Jane M.; Ferrara, Philip; Campion, Michael A. Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology, Summer2001, Vol. 54 Issue 2, p387, 34p
2. Bretz Jr., Robert D.; Ash, Ronald A.; Dreher, George F., Do people make the place? An examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis.; Personnel Psychology, 1989, 42, p561, 21p
3. De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types and big five traits as predictors of employment status and nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52, 701-727.
4. McDaniel, Michael A.; Schmidt, Frank L.; Hunter, John E. A meta-analysis of the validity of methods for rating training and experience in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 41, p283, 32p
5. Murphy, Kevin R.; Shiarella, Ann Harris. Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection... Personnel Psychology, Winter97, Vol. 50, p823, 32p
6. Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
7. Schmitt, Neal; Gilliland, Stephen W. Computer-based testing applied to selection of secretarial applicants. Personnel Psychology, Spring93, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p149, 17p, 3 charts
New Employee Socialization
1. Chatman, J.A. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, Sep91, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p459, 26p, 5 charts
2. Jones, Gareth R. Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, Jun86, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p262, 18p
Interviewing
1. Campion, Michael A.; Palmer, David K. A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, Autumn97, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p655, 48p, 3 charts
2. Cortina, Jose M.; Goldstein, Nancy B.; Payne, Stephanie C.; Davison, H. Kristl; Gilliland, Stephen W. The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, Summer2000, Vol. 53 Issue 2, p325, 27p
3. Dreher, G. F.; Ash, R.; Hancock, P, The Role of the Traditional Research Design in Underestimating the Validity of the Employment Interview.; Personnel Psychology, 1988, 41, p315, 13p
4. Harris, Michael M. Reconsidering the employment interview: A review of recent literature and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, Winter89, 42, p691, 36p
5. Liden, Robert C. INTERVIEWER AND APPLICANT BEHAVIORS IN EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWS. Academy of Management Journal, Apr93, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p372, 15p
6. McFarland, L. A.; Ryan, A. M.; Kriska, S. D., Field Study Investigation of Applicant Use of Influence Tactics in a Selection Interview.; Journal of Psychology, Jul2002, Vol. 136 Issue 4, p383, 16p
7. Rynes, Sara; Gerhart, Barry Interviewer assessments of applicant `fit': An exploratory investigation. Personnel Psychology, Spring90, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p13, 23p, 4 charts
Performance Appraisal
1. Bretz Jr., R. D.; Milkovich, G. T.; Read, W. The Current State of Performance Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications. Journal of Management, 1992, 18, p321, 32p
2. Dobbins, Gregory H.; Cardy, Robert L.; Facteau, Jeffrey D.; Miller, Janice S. Implications of situational constraints on performance evaluation and performance management; Human Resource Management Review, Summer93, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p105, 24p
3. Dulebohn, James H.; Ferris, Gerard R. The Role of Influence Tactics in Perceptions of Performance Evaluations' Fairness. Academy of Management Journal, Jun99, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p288, 16p
4. Judge, T. A. & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 36, 80-105.
5. Miller, C.S., Kaspin, J.A., & Schuster, M.H. (1990). The impact of performance appraisal methods on age discrimination in employment act cases. Personnel Psychology, 43, 555-578.
6. Taylor, M. Susan; Masterson, S. S.; Renard, M. K.; Tracy, K. B. Managers' reactions to procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management Journal, 1998, 41, p568, 12p
7. Welbourne, Theresa M.; Johnson, Diane E.; Erez, Amir The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, Oct98, Vol. 41, p540, 16p
Fairness/Commitment/Employer-Employee Relationship
1. Gilliland, Stephen W. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, Oct93, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p694, 39p, 1 chart, 1 diagram
International HRM and Expatriate Management
1. Black, J.; Mendenhall, M.; Oddou, G. Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 1991, 16, p291, 27p
2. Ryan, A. M.; McFarland, L.; Baron, H.; Page, R., An International Look at Selection Practices: Nation and Culture As Explanations for Variability in Practice.; Personnel Psychology, 1999, 52, p359, 33p
3. Sundaram, Anant K.; Black, J. Stewart., The environment and internal organization of multinational enterprises.; Academy of Management Review, Oct92, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p729, 29p
Perspectives on HRM Activities
1. Selden, Sally Coleman; Ingraham, P. W.; Jacobson, Willow., Human Resource Practices in State Government: Findings from a National Survey.; Public Administration Review, 2001, 61, p598, 10p
2. Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., Snell, S. A. & Gerhart, B. (2001). Comparing line and HR executives’ perceptions of HR effectiveness: services, roles, and contributions. Human Resource Management, 40, 111-123.
