Organizations are frequently investing time and money in preparing to develop the leaders within their organizations. Past research has shown that individual differences are generally related to participation in leader development activities, and past research has confirmed that individual difference factors are related to individual propensity to accept feedback. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that participation and attention to feedback are important. The purpose of this dissertation was to explore two alternative measures of leader development effectiveness (e.g., the quality of leader development goals; correspondence between leader development feedback and leader development goals), and to examine potential dispositional antecedents of these criteria (e.g., core self-evaluation; goal orientation; narcissism). Several control variables were also included in the study (e.g., critical thinking ability; responsibility; and past feedback and development experience). The data used in this study was archival in nature, and came from 119 individuals enrolled in a leader development program associated with an Executive MBA degree at a Southeastern university. Multiple conclusions were drawn based on the results. First, goal quality and feedback-goal correspondence are not redundant variables; individuals who submit goals that appear difficult and specific are not necessarily incorporating the feedback they received into the goals. Second, performance-prove goal orientation, performance-avoid goal orientation, and narcissism are each negatively related to feedback-goal correspondence. Third, variables that tend to predict the choice to participate in leader development (e.g., core self-evaluation; goal orientation) do not necessarily predict quality of developmental goals once enrolled in leader development. Fourth, critical thinking ability was positively related to both goal quality and feedback-goal correspondence, and past participation in developmental activities was positively related to goal quality, lending validity to the goal quality and feedback-goal correspondence measures.

Frame-of-reference (FOR) training has been shown to be an effective intervention for improving the accuracy of performance ratings (e.g., Woehr & Huffcutt, 1994). Despite evidence in support of the effectiveness of FOR training, few studies have empirically addressed the ultimate goal of FOR training, which is to train raters to share a common conceptualization of performance (Athey & McIntyre, 1987; Woehr, 1994). The present study tested the hypothesis that FOR-trained raters would possess schemas of performance after training that are more similar to an expert schema than would control-trained raters. It was also hypothesized that schema accuracy would be positively related to rating accuracy. Results supported these hypotheses. Implications for FOR training research and practice are discussed.

Recent leadership research has focused on the importance of implicit leadership theory (ILT) for organizational outcomes (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997). Specifically, when followers perceive their leader’s trait profile to be closer to the ILTs they endorse (i.e., leadership schema congruence), this results in a number of positive outcomes (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Hains et al., 1997; Martin & Epitropaki, 2001). Although recent leadership research has highlighted the need for multilevel examinations of leadership (Hall & Lord, 1995; Lord & Hall, 1992), no multilevel models of leadership schema congruence have been examined to date. The social identity theory of leadership (SITL) offers potential insight into how a multilevel model of leadership schema congruence can be examined (Hains et al., 1997; Hogg, 2001b; Hogg et al., 2006). Using multilevel analysis, this study indicated that self-concept clarity, cohesion, and group identification were positively related to leadership schema congruence. Likewise, belongingness climate strength was positively related to leadership schema congruence agreement within teams, but climate strength did not have an affect on individual leadership schema congruence. Results of this analysis failed to support the SITL, thereby raising questions about the central theoretical tenets of the SITL. Alternatively, the results of this study support the influence of self- and group-related perceptions at multiple levels when examining leadership emergence. The implications of this study relate to the motivational mechanisms inherent in leadership endorsement. Future research directions in emergent leadership, including an increased use of multilevel models, are outlined.

Research has shown that the traditional conceptualization of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) is not tenable because some employees perceive OCBs to be part of their job or in-role behaviors (Morrison, 1994). Conceptualizing behaviors as in-role has been shown to increase the frequency of the behaviors but no study has investigated whether conceptualization of these behaviors influences the manner in which they are conducted. This study combined findings from OCB research with the Judgment and Decision Making literature in order to identify the impact that role conceptualization had on an ambiguous decision making exercise where the act of making the decision could have been considered an OCB. It was hypothesized that role conceptualization would influence the decision-making process used and outcomes associated with the decision. This influence was hypothesized to result in decisions that are more systematic if participants perceived the task as part of their job. Additionally, it was hypothesized that personal characteristics or work context would influence decisions and that effect would be moderated by role conceptualization. Results indicate that role conceptualization was not significantly related to the use of relevant student characteristics. Teachers who considered the decision-making task as an important part of their jobs were actually less consistent in their decisions to recommend college. Finally, while there was evidence that personal and work characteristics influenced the decision outcomes and processes, there was no support for the moderating effects of role conceptualization.

The overarching goal of this study was to clarify what constructs are being measured by assessment centers (ACs). ACs have been used and studied for years, yet have measurement problems that generally center on the use of information at the dimension-level. However, a necessary step in examining this issue has been neglected: a proper delineation of what constructs ACs actually measure. In an attempt to address this issue, this study‟s primary purpose was to explore the factor structure of AC dimensions. Several a priori models from both the AC and job performance literature were examined as frameworks for explicating the constructs representing dimensions. Data from two sources were used to address this question: Intercorrelations from primary studies were synthesized using meta-analysis (k = 57) and used as input for a series of confirmatory factor analysis models. In addition, the extent to which subject matter experts perceived these broader categories to operate as a summary framework was evaluated by asking experienced AC raters to categorize primary dimensions into the categories of each model. The results showed that Arthur et al.‟s (2003) framework provided a good fit to the data, offering additional evidence in support of this model. When compared against several alternative frameworks, Arthur et al.‟s (2003) model also provided a better fit to the data than the alternatives. Hence, these seven categories provide a viable framework for explaining what constructs underlie AC dimension ratings. In addition, subject matter experts had the highest level of agreement when classifying primary dimensions into this framework. In addition, several hierarchical models were tested based on the a priori models examined in the study. Of these models, a hierarchical three-factor model fit the well, indicating that a set of higher-order summary categories may also explain variance in the seven factors of Arthur et al.‟s (2003) framework. Overall, this study provides some clarity on what constructs underlie AC dimension ratings. These findings are expected to make contributions for AC research and practice. Implications for these results, as well as limitations of the study and future directions for research are discussed.

This paper was aimed at investigating the interplay of multiple facets of personenvironment fit with individual readiness for change; and to expose potential moderators of this relationship, namely organizational support and quality of relationship with supervisors. The extant research on the relationships between person-environment fit and a number of individual- and organization-level outcomes reveals considerable discrepancies, mainly attributed to the measurement of person-environment fit and to potential moderators. With this in mind, moderated multiple regressions (MMR) were conducted in order to test the hypotheses of existing interaction effects. The results revealed no significant interactions between facets of personenvironment fit and the moderators proposed. However, the significant correlations found between tenure and readiness for change dimensions led to a series of post hoc analyses to explore whether different tenure groups exhibited different relationship patterns across the variables measured in this study, and to investigate a potential moderating effect of tenure on the relationship between person-environment fit and readiness for change. The results indicated that tenure significantly increased the prediction of readiness for change by person-environment fit, underscoring the importance of workforce composition on readiness for change research. The findings obtained hold interesting implications for both research and practice concerning the measurement of person-environment fit, and with respect to the impact of individual- and organization-level variables on the relationship between person-environment fit and readiness for change. These implications, along with limitations of the present study, are discussed.

The present study investigated differences in the conceptualization of teamwork and leadership in two countries with culturally diverse backgrounds, Romania and the United States. We expected to find between-culture differences in the conceptualizations of teamwork and leadership based on cultural antecedents (collectivistic societal and in-group values). We also investigated a potential cultural shift in the Romanian nation, based on age. The conceptualizations of teamwork and leadership were examined and compared using Pathfinder. The Romanian sample displayed higher collectivistic values than the U.S. sample. A cultural shift was observed in the Romanian nation, such that the younger participants reported lower collectivistic in-group values and higher collectivistic societal values when compared to the older Romanian participants. Unexpectedly, the younger U.S. participants reported higher collectivistic in-group values than the older U.S. participants. The older Romanian participants’ teamwork schemas displayed lower coherence than the older U.S. participants’ teamwork schemas. However, a comparison of the younger groups’ (Romanian and U.S.) teamwork schema structure revealed that their average coherences did not differ. A comparison of leadership schemas revealed that the younger Romanian’s schema structure was less coherent than that of the younger U.S. participants. Similarly, the older Romanian participants’ leadership schema displayed lower coherence than that of the older U.S. participants’. In the present study, collectivistic societal and in-group values did not correlate significantly with either teamwork or leadership schema coherence.

Current leadership theory and research has centered on the attributes, behaviors, and relationships of a single leader. However, researchers now recognize the team as an alternative source of leadership. Theories of shared leadership propose that leadership is a process that can be shared among team members, and that this behavior is beneficial to team performance. The purpose of this study was not only to examine the performance benefits of shared leadership, but also to explore factors that may facilitate its development. Moreover, a social network analysis was used to measure the distribution of leadership among team members and the degree of leadership within the team, providing a richer source of information about shared leadership than the more traditionally used aggregation measurement approach. Results indicated that intragroup trust was a key predictor of both dimensions of shared leadership, which were positively related to team effectiveness. Moreover, the interaction between the two dimensions of shared leadership was significantly related to team viability. However, contrary to expectations, the direction of this interaction suggested that the distribution of leadership within the team was more strongly positively related to team viability when the degree of leadership was low rather than high. These empirical findings are among the first on the relatively new concept of shared leadership, and they draw attention to the need for further research to more fully understand the causes and consequences of shared leadership and its measurement.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) is a 567-item questionnaire used by psychologists to help diagnose mental disorders. The effectiveness of the MMPI-2 validity scales (F, Fp, F-K, and Ds-r2) were evaluated by asking college students to respond honestly or fake bad on the MMPI-2. Each scale was scored in the usual manner, but as a group they were evaluated in a noncompensatory fashion. That is, failing even one scale was interpreted as a faked response. MMPI-2 protocols of all participants were analyzed to determine if the validity scales were able to accurately identify which subjects faked and which answered honestly. Participants were randomly assigned to a faking bad or honest condition. The participants in the faking group were given brief instruction regarding the symptoms of schizophrenia and were informed of the detection system built into the test. The four validity scales (F, Fp, F-K, and Ds-r2 were able to correctly identify a significant percentage of the test takers as either answering honestly or faking bad.

Currently, there is a debate in progress over which standard is appropriate for use when evaluating hostile work environment sexual harassment. Traditionally the "reasonable person" has been used as the viewpoint from which to evaluate potentially harassing behavior. However, the historical 1991 federal court case Ellison vs. Brady introduced the "reasonable woman" standard due to the belief that the traditional standard may unwittingly be biased toward men. Most research to date has focused on the benefits and/or disadvantages of utilizing one standard over the other. The present research represents an attempt to discover whether the implementation of a standard truly makes a difference; that is, if invoking a particular standard results in altering the evaluation of hostile work environment sexual harassment by a juror. Results indicated that standard had no effect on an individual's interpretation of hostile environment sexual harassment, whether the data were examined as males, as females, or the group.