How to (and how not to) assess the integrity of leaders

Summary & Commentary by Ian Mondrow, M.A. in Industrial / Organizational Psychology

Ethics and integrity are often used interchangeably but they are clearly differentiated. Ethics are the desirable behaviors established by society that establish “right” and “wrong” for its members (Pojman, 1995 as cited in Kaiser & Hogan, 2010). In contrast, integrity is the moral attribution we apply to one’s observed behavior (Kaiser & Hogan, 2010). Current assessments are unable to measure integrity directly and therefore it is indirectly measured through other constructs, such as the Five-Factor Model of personality. Unfortunately, Personality does not predict future behaviors.  It is suggested that measuring one’s personality results in skewed results and managers tend to be rated higher than they actually are. One’s previous experiences and reputation provide a more reliable source for measuring one’s integrity.

Kaiser & Hogan (2010) decide to research the use of integrity testing in more detail. Data was collected from 672 directors and vice-presidents from Fortune 500 companies and included ratings from approximately 5 subordinates for each individual. Using a 23 item questionnaire with a 5 point likert scale (0 = ineffective and 4 = extremely effective), leaders were assessed on 5 competencies: vision, execution, managerial courage, building talent and integrity. A t-test demonstrated that integrity scores were generally higher than any other construct. The smallest difference (which was statistically significant) occurred between integrity (M = 2.68, SD =.40) and execution ( M = 2.31, SD = .42) with a difference of .92 in standard deviation, t(671) = 22.88,  p < .001. Not one leader received a score of 1, which is considered minimally acceptable. A tukey’s post examination revealed no statistical significance for integrity. This demonstrates that this method does not effectively differentiate those with low integrity from those with high integrity. It continues to reveal that managers are always provided favorable scores when being assessed on integrity.

Following the initial study, Kaiser & Hogan decided to try a new approach of assessing integrity. The approach does not ask evaluators to refer to observed behavior but asks the likelihood that a manager will engage in questionable behavior. 80 students from a southeastern university were recruited to participate in the following study. Participants were asked to rate their current managers using the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBD) – Form XII (Stogdill, 1963) and the shortened version of the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) [focusing on perceived integrity]. Unlike the LBD, higher scores on the PLIS are less desirable as a higher score demonstrates a greater probability of unethical behavior. Additional items were used to measure the perceived effectiveness of a supervisor and job satisfaction. The smallest difference occurred between initiating structure (M = 2.37, SD = .83) and  perceived integrity (M = 2.66, SD = .97), t(79) = 3.48, p < .001. Participants were more comfortable rating managers below the median (2), which did not even occur in the previous method, Therefore, the PLIS is three times less elevated than the previous methodology, which had a standard deviation of .90. The analysis also exposed that the PLIS correlated with job satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of a manager. It can be assumed that if managers are perceived as ethical, employees will generally have higher levels of job satisfaction.

There are several limitations to consider in this study. First off, the samples in both studies are entirely different. Students may rate managers differently as there is less of a chance that they work full-time. They may have also worked for different companies and therefore was a variance in organizational culture.

IMPLICATONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

It is important to mention that if ethical testing is used in any selection process, it must demonstrate validity. Therefore, a company must be able to demonstrate that the test predicts successful performance in case the test experiences adverse impact.

Organizations can now more effectively measure the integrity of their employees by utilizing a system similar to the PLIS. Instead of measuring personality, the assessment can focus on the likelihood that one will perform unethical behavior. There is no need to argue why as the study above provides statistical proof. To increase its creditability, upcoming studies should look at a variety of samples to ensure it is applicable to the real world. 

The study does provide significant findings that are applicable to performance appraisals. Since the perceived integrity is found to increase job satisfaction, which can reduce turnover and increase performance. It is better to be proactive than reactive when battling integrity. By instilling a culture that values ethical behavior, managers are less likely to participate in questionable behavior. Encouraging executives to communicate and model the ethical behaviors can reinforce the culture. Supervisors that are already demonstrating unethical behavior or low levels of integrity can be difficult to develop, especially since their creditability may already be shot.

Source: Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R. (2010). How to (and how not to) assess the integrity of managers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), Dec 2010, 216-234.

The Relationship between Pay and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Summary & Commentary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

The common phrase "money can't buy you happiness" has been proven to be valid. However, does one's pay influence his/her perception of work? Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw and Rich (2010) set out on a mission to determine if salary has an impact on one's job satisfaction.

The researchers used a series of terms on the PsycINFO database to collect 1156 abstracts. Out of this collection of abstracts, it was determined that 86 studies were to be utilized in the analysis. A meta-analysis was conducted to provide estimated correlations between satisfaction and pay level.

Results revealed that pay-level was positively correlated with both job satisfaction ( r = .15, p < .05) and pay satisfaction (r = .24, p < .05). Since zero was not included in the confidence intervals, it can be assumed the mean correlations of job satisfaction and pay satisfaction were not zero. A population correlation showed a stronger relationship between pay level and satisfaction than the correlations with pay level and job satisfaction (Z = -4.01, p < .05). This suggests that pay level has a stronger relationship pay-satisfaction than job-satisfaction. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to be satisfied with his/her pay but not satisfied with his her job.

When analyzing moderators, the country being examined had no effect. The United States showed no difference in pay level and job satisfaction than Great Britain, India Australia and Thailand. In addition, Pay satisfaction did not differ based on the country.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS
While pay may help to determine if an applicant accepts a job offer, salary has little effect on one's job satisfaction. An individual can be satisfied with the amount of pay he/she is receiving but intrinsic rewards and culture-fit have been found to be better predictors of job satisfaction. Pay will not motivate employees and HR Managers need to ensure that managers comprehend this.

When considering job satisfaction, focus on the company culture and reward system. Take Google as an example. Previously, Google has offered employees lower wages but provided a vast amount of benefits. In addition, the culture within google was positively perceived and therefore individuals were more likely to accept the pay cut due to their high levels of job satisfaction (fostered by the culture). Employees should feel as though they are making an impact and their work is appreciated. An intrinsic reward provides one with greater satisfaction because it instills a sense of pride. An extrinsic rewards can be meaningless because it quickly loses its value once the novelty has wore off.

This does not mean that an organization can offer lower wages compared to their competitors. Wages have an impact on the war for talent and therefore, to be competitive, an organization must be able to match wages. It does ensure that an organization does not have to be a pay leader in order for their employees to be happy.




source: Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., Podsakoff, J.C., Rich, B.L. (2010). The relationship between pay satisfaction and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 157-167.

Organizational Predictors of Women on Corporate Boards

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Diversity is crucial for organizational survival. Previous research has demonstrated that diverse teams often generate more alternative solutions to problems as a result of their increased information search and different perspectives. More specifically, gender diversity has been found to increase creativity within the groups. While the positives outweigh the negatives, diversity does have its downfalls. There is the risk of decreased communication, slow decision making, high levels of conflict and narrow-mindedness. Diversity's success thrives on the leaders of the organization and their ability to demonstrate an open mind.


Men have always have an advantage in the business sector and it is easier for men to grow to executive positions. It is not uncommon for men to ride the glass escalator while women encounter the glass ceiling, or the inability to grow past a certain position. In 2005, 37% of the managerial workforce was composed of women but only 14.7% held board seats in Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, 2005 as cited by Hillman & Cannella, 2007). Due to this small distribution, Hillman & Cannella (2007) decide to examine the effects of having a female presence on corporate boards.

The researchers utilized public filings from 950 firms and 9,722 firm-wide observations from 1990 to 2003. The dependent variable for the study was the presense of women on a firm's board. If one or more women were on a company's board of directors, then it was coded as "1". Otherwise it was coded as "0".

Odds ratios were used to test a series of hypothesizes. This represents the degree of change that the likelihood of the dependent variable  as a result of a one-unit change in the independent variable. Odds ratios greater than 1.00 indicate a positive correlation between the variables. Anything below a 1.00 signifies there is no relationship.

44.21% of the firms did not have female representation on their board. In additional, the odds ratio analysis revealed significant results. An increase in annual sales is found to increase the likelihood of female representation on a directors board by 19.2%, odds ratio = 1.19, p < .001 (Hillman et. al., 2007). Industries with higher amounts of female employees had a relationship with the presence on boards as well, odds ratio = 1.01, p < .05. Diversity within an organization was found to not have an impact on female representation. Organizations that have females on their board of directors were likely to encourage related companies to include women on their boards as well, odds ratio = 1.09, p < .001. Organization age and number of directors were also found to be successful predictors but were not as statistically significant.

While the study findings are not 100% proven, it does demonstrate the presence of relationships between female representation on the board of directors and other factors. Annual sales, "woman-friendly" industries, and competing organizations with female directors may influence the gender composure of an organization's board of directors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS
Times are changing and diversity is crucial for an organization's growth and competitive nature. This study shows that organizations are more likely to have a diversified board of directors based on their employee demographics. In addition, if their competition has female representation on their board, they are more likely to encourage the participation of women. I personally believe that an organization should strive to create a diverse board of directors so that a variety of demographics are represented. This gives each group of people representation and increases the likelihood that voices are heard.

Diversity on the board of directors is also crucial for talent management. People are more likely to join organizations where they share similarities with others. Board of directors are often advertised on company websites and therefore, it is easy for candidates to see what demographics are present. For instance, a woman may be discouraged to apply for a position at an organization if she notices there are no female officers. She may fear  sexual harassment, lacking a voice or the chance that she may be discriminated. This is not true for every individual but cases of this exist. Encouraging diversity within a board of directors can reduce the likelihood that this would occur.

It is best stated in one sentence: Diversity = Innovation = Success






Source: Hillman, A.J. & Cannella, A.A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 941-952.

The Influence of a Manager's Own Performance Appraisal on the Evaluation of Others

 Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Latham, Budworth, Yanar and Whyte (2008) take a unique approach in conducting research. Instead of just conducting an experiment, the authors review a case study, laboratory simulation and two (2) field studies. The article was set out to determine if a manager's past performance evaluation has any influence of the evaluations of his/her team members. Feedback from performance reviews may also affect mood, which could influence the ratings managers provide their team. Dissatisfaction on the job commonly occurs when an appraisal does not provide an accurate reflection of a person's behavior. Therefore, one must consider factors that may cause a bias on performance appraisals.

CASE STUDY
The case study did not contribute to the study as the findings were not significant. In short, it did not support the hypothesis.

LABORATORY SIMULATION
30 managers from the private sector were invited to participate in a study. They were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups were provided hypothetical feedback concerning their performance from the previous year; the feedback differed as one was negative and the other was positive. Please refer to Appendix 1 to view the feedback distributed. After reading the feedback, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) mood assessment scale was administered to each participant. This assessment evaluates mood based on a participants agreement/disagreement with 10 positive terms and 10 negative terms (all terms were emotions). Participants were then provided with a description of the job they will be assessing and watched a videotape demonstrating an employees behavior.

A main effect was present for affectivity based on one's membership in the positive or negative feedback group, F = 18.63, p<.001. Managers who received negative feedback (M = 30.92, SD = 6.65) had higher amounts of negativity (according to PANAS) than managers who were part of the positive feedback condition (M = 15.77, SD = 8.44). Managers who received positive feedback (M = 40.14, SD = 6.98) had a higher level of positivity than managers in the negative feedback condition (M = 23.47, SD = 6.65). When comparing the assessment scores to the performance appraisal completed by participants, no effect was present. Therefore, this study demonstrates that mood does not affect one's ability to evaluate another's performance.

FIELD STUDY 1
27 participants from a manufacturing company were recruited to participate in the field study. All participants had been at the company for at least five (5) years and were familar with the performance appraisal process. Researchers collected the performance appraisals of these participants and a year later, collected the participant's evaluations for their employee (a total of 74). A Spearman Correlation revealed a level of .25, with a significance of p<.05. This study supports the findings in the laboratory study.

FIELD STUDY 2
39 managers and 227 manager subordinate dyads in Istanbul, Turkey participated in the study. The HR manager had provided the performance appraisals to the researchers. The performance appraisal of a manager successfully correlated with their evaluation of their subordinate, r = .57, p<.01.

CONCLUSIONS
While the case study does not support the initial hypothesis of the researchers, the field studies and laboratory study have demonstrated that a manager's previous performance does indeed influence how they rate their subordinates. It is possible that a manager's performance appraisal sets their standards of performance and managers may have the expectations that their subordinates cannot outperform them. Although its a cynical notion, the stats of the study could support that this bias exist.

However, take this study with a grain of salt. The publication provides limited statistical information and provides no tables to expand on their findings. There is a possibility that the researchers are only presenting the information they would like to show.

HR IMPLICATIONS
If this research is true, what can HR professionals do to prevent this bias from occurring? I have 3 recommendations:

• Training -- Inform managers that this bias does exist. Managers who are aware of this bias may be more cautious in their ratings. Some may argue that training managers on biases only causes an individual to label their behaviors instead of improving it. I have a belief that it can do no harm and therefore conducting training would not be counterproductive. 
• Provide In-Depth Tools -- Put detail into your organization's performance appraisal. Define each attribute that is being assessed. Then anchor the rating scale to create consistency among evaluators. Once these tools are developed, provide workshops for managers that allow them to test the system and create interrater reliability. 
• Examine - Quickly review a managers' rating for their team. Examine the managers score from the previous year to determine if they used their previous scores to set the bar. This is not an ideal method for a large organization with large teams and many managers.

Further research is required on this topic and one should not assume that the results are trustworthy.

APPENDIX 1

Negative Feedback
"Your boss is disappointed with your progress and needs to see significant improvement in your performance in the near future. There is widespread agreement that you have poor management skills. Moreover, your interpersonal skills are lacking. Your peers find your abilities to be mediocre at best. They complain that they are constantly ‘cleaning up your mess'. our subordinates do not respect you and find it difficult to take your direction seriously. They always double check your instructions with your boss. In summary, you need to improve significantly in order to ensure a future with the company. Your overall rating is 1 on a seven-point scale."

Positive Feedback

"You have exceeded your boss’s expectations and everyone is extremely pleased with your progress. You have outstanding management skills that are only surpassed by your interpersonal skills. Your peers find your performance to be highly effective. They look to you for direction, and they respect your opinion greatly. Your subordinates think of you as a mentor, and look to you for direction on matters beyond the scope of your portfolio. In summary, you are performing well above average. You have a strong and secure future with the company. Your overall rating is 7 on a seven-point scale."










Source: Latham, G.P., Budworth, M.H., Yanar, B., Whyte, G. (2008). The influence of a manager's own performance appraisal on the evaluation of others. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16 (3), 220-228.

Survey Results: Resume Objectives

Summary and Analysis by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

An online survey was conducted examining the importance of resume objectives. Participants were gathered using LinkedIn and Twitter. Overall, there was a total of Twenty-two (22) participants. Fourteen (14) participants held a recruiter position (7 internally and 7 externally).  Five (5) HR employees and three (3) hiring managers were also included. Seventeen (17) of the participants had more than 5 years of experience. Unfortunately, job-seekers were not permitted to complete the survey as their answers could have altered the results and provided inaccurate information. Please see the appendix for the frequencies of each question (Fair warning: Blogger is not chart friendly and therefore formatting maybe off in the appendix). 


Participants were asked the following questions:
(Quantitative - Participants rated the questions on a scale from 1-5)
What role do you play in your organization?
How many years of experience do you have in this position?
Objective statements on resumes are redundant.
Objectives help me understand the goals of a job candidate.
Most recruiters do not understand the value of an objective statement.
Most of the candidates that I select will have an objective statement in their resume.
I rarely take the time to consider an applicant's objective on their resume.
Objective statements are just advice that college career centers give students.
Every resume should have an objective statement.
I will not look at a resume if there is no objective.
I quickly skim objectives as I scan resumes.
There are other options that candidates can use instead of objectives that are far more appealing.


(Qualitative Questions)
What do you want to hear from job applicants in a an objective?
What is the most memorable objective that you have read?
Do you feel objectives are beneficial on resumes? Why or why not?


RESULTS

• Seventeen (17) out of Twenty-two (22) participants agreed that resumes do not require objective statements. 
• Twenty participants (20) continued to show that excluding an objective will not negatively affect an applicant in the process.
• Nineteen (19) participants agreed in some sense that there are no alternatives to a resume objective statement. 
• A resume objective is not viewed as redundant according to eighteen (18) respondents.

When asked what respondents look for in objective statements, most responses centered around what an applicant can bring to the organization and/or the position. Several respondents stated that there is no need that to state that one is looking for a job because that is already obvious. Instead, they are looking for a culture match and characteristics that may be beneficial to the job.


When asked about the most memorable objective statement they have seen, most respondents provided no answer. One participant mentioned that one applicant had done their research on the organization and focused their objective statement on the information he/she have found. When asked what recruiters want in an objective statement, almost all respondents mentioned that they want specified information about their company and the position. Some respondents mentioned that a summary is more useful than an objective statement.


DISCUSSION
The results of this survey reveal helpful advice for jobseekers. First and foremost, an objective on a resume is not required, especially if the objective is vague. Recruiters will often look at objectives but it is not their main focus on a resume. Job applicants should focus their attention on a summary section as the information it is helpful to recruiters.


An objective can be an easy method for applicants to show their value to the potential employer. This can be achieved by researching the company to provide information on how you, as a potential employee, could contribute to the organization. This is the perfect opportunity for candidates to carefully review the job description and determine the employers needs. Think of the objective as a short cover letter with 1-2 sentences and embrace your strengths as they relate to the company and the job.


Thank you for everyone who participated in the survey. Please watch my Twitter account to participate in the next occupational survey.




APPENDIX

Objective statements on resumes are redundant.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	1	4.5	4.5	4.5
	Somewhat disagree	2	9.1	9.1	13.6
	Neither agree or disagree	1	4.5	4.5	18.2
	Somewhat agree	5	22.7	22.7	40.9
	Agree	13	59.1	59.1	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

Objectives help me understand the goals of a job candidate.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	8	36.4	36.4	36.4
	Somewhat disagree	4	18.2	18.2	54.5
	Somewhat agree	7	31.8	31.8	86.4
	Agree	3	13.6	13.6	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

Most recruiters do not understand the value of an objective statement.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	4	18.2	18.2	18.2
	Somewhat disagree	4	18.2	18.2	36.4
	Neither agree or disagree	7	31.8	31.8	68.2
	Somewhat agree	2	9.1	9.1	77.3
	Agree	5	22.7	22.7	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

Most of the candidates that I select will have an objective statement in their resume.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	7	31.8	31.8	31.8
	Somewhat disagree	4	18.2	18.2	50.0
	Neither agree or disagree	5	22.7	22.7	72.7
	Somewhat agree	4	18.2	18.2	90.9
	Agree	2	9.1	9.1	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

I rarely take the time to consider an applicant's objective on their resume.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	4	18.2	18.2	18.2
	Somewhat disagree	5	22.7	22.7	40.9
	Somewhat agree	6	27.3	27.3	68.2
	Agree	7	31.8	31.8	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

Objective statements are just advice that college career centers give students.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	1	4.5	4.5	4.5
	Somewhat disagree	4	18.2	18.2	22.7
	Neither agree or disagree	6	27.3	27.3	50.0
	Somewhat agree	4	18.2	18.2	68.2
	Agree	7	31.8	31.8	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

Every resume should have an objective statement.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	13	59.1	59.1	59.1
	Somewhat disagree	4	18.2	18.2	77.3
	Neither agree or disagree	2	9.1	9.1	86.4
	Somewhat agree	3	13.6	13.6	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

I will not look at a resume if there is no objective.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	19	86.4	86.4	86.4
	Neither agree or disagree	1	4.5	4.5	90.9
	Somewhat agree	1	4.5	4.5	95.5
	Agree	1	4.5	4.5	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0

I quickly skim objectives as I scan resumes.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Disagree	2	9.1	9.1	9.1
	Neither agree or disagree	4	18.2	18.2	27.3
	Somewhat agree	6	27.3	27.3	54.5
	Agree	10	45.5	45.5	100.0
	Total	22	100.0	100.0