MGT467

Stedham
December 4 or 6
Rynes at el. "Seven common misconceptions about human resource practices"
1. Explain to what extent "conscientiousness" is a better predictor of performance
than intelligence?
2. What are the main reasons for the gap between HR knowledge and HR practice?
3. Are integrity tests effective? Explain.
4. Which of the seven misconceptions were you most surprised about?
Title: Seven common misconceptions about human resource practices: Research findings versus
practitioner beliefs, By: Rynes, Sara L., Brown, Kenneth G., Colbert, Amy E., Academy of
Management Executive, 1079-5545, August 1,2002, Vol. 16, Issue 3
Database: Business Source Premier
Seven common misconceptions about human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner
beliefs
Executive Overview
Recent research suggests that HR practices can have considerable impact on both individual and
organizational performance. These findings strongly suggest that not knowing this HR research can be
costly to organizations. In this article, we pinpoint areas where HR practitioners seem to be most unaware
of research findings related to effective HR practices, based on responses by a large sample ofHR
managers. The seven questions that exhibited the greatest disagreement between current research findings
and respondents' beliefs are explored, along with their management implications and suggestions for
implementing the findings.
Managers as a class are anything but stupid. But there is evidence that the job-specific knowledge bases
of many, and perhaps most, executives are quite substandard. In turn, low knowledge bases may lead
executives to make decisions that are less than optimal-and sometimes not even satisfactory.[I]
Considerable research demonstrates that most organizations do not employ state-of-the-art human
resource (HR) practices.[2] One reason for the gap between research and practice is that very few
practicing HR managers read the research literature.[3] Two major explanations have been offered as to
why this is the case. The first is that HR research has become excessively technical, thus discouraging
practitioners from attempting to keep up with the latest research findings.[4] This view assumes that
practicing HR managers regard research findings as potentially useful, but inaccessible. The less sanguine
view is that HR practitioners do not read the research because they see it as irrelevant or impractical for
their needs.[5]
Whatever HR managers may feel about academic research findings, evidence is accumulating that certain
HR practices are consistently related to higher individual performance, organizational productivity, and
firm financial performance.[6] At least two research trends over the past two decades have increased our
ability to detect relationships between HR practices and performance. The first is the development of
statistical techniques which allow aggregation of many studies in or<:ierto reach more reliable conclusions
about both average effects and contextual moderators.[7] The second is the emergence of the Strategic
HR literature, which has stimulated much more research into the relationships between HR practices and
performance at the level of the firm rather than the individual.[8] This last step means that we no longer
have to wonder about the degree to which relationships found at the individual level are mirrored at
higher levels of aggregation.
As one example of such firm-level research, a study by Welboume and Andrews found that new
companies that placed a high value on HR (as assessed by content oftheir prospectuses) and that included
high levels of organizationally based pay-for-performance had a five-year survival rate of 92 percent as
compared with 34 percent for companies that were low on both dimensions.[9] As another example,
Huselid found that an increase of one standard deviation in scores on a "highperformance HR practices"
scale (which included such practices as employee attitude surveying, paying for performance, formal
communication programs, and use of employment tests) was associated with a 23 percent increase in
accounting profits and an 8 percent increase in economic value.[lO]
With research showing bottom-line effects of certain HR practices, the lack of research knowledge can
. clearly be costly to HR managers and their organizations. Indeed, although a direct causal link cannot be
drawn, Terpstra and Rozell found that companies whose HR professionals read the academic research
literature have higher financial performance ,than those that do not.[11]
Although the results of HR research are clearly relevant to practicing managers, not so clear is the extent
.to which HR managers' current beliefs are consistent (or inconsistent) with the latest findings. The areas
of greatest inconsistency should dominate efforts to inform managers about HR research. We therefore
conducted a survey to determine which particular areas of research findings most need more effective
dissemination to practicing HR managers.
Research Findings versus Managerial Beliefs: Assessing the Gap HR professionals are most directly
responsible for acquiring and disseminating knowledge about best practices in "people management"
throughout the organization. Although much of the day-to-day implementation of HR practices resides
with line managers, it is the HR function's role to help executives develop a human resource strategy that
is at once consistent with both the organizational business strategy and with best practices revealed by
empirical research.[12]
To examine the extent to which the beliefs ofHR professionals are consistent with established research
findings, a 35-item questionnaire was constructed. [13] Content of the questionnaire was based on the
major categories contained in the Human Resource Certification Institute's (HRCI) Professional in
Human Resources (PHR) certification exam. However, in contrast to the certification exam (which
focuses heavily on definitional, legal, and procedural issues), the present survey focused on research
findings regarding the effectiveness of particular HR practices. Items were constructed that were based on
up-to-date r~search results. Respondents indicated whether they agreed, disagreed, or were uncertain
about each item, allowing us to determine where practitioner beliefs diverge most sharply from research
findings.
The survey was sent to a stratified random sample of 5,000 Sodety for Human Resource Management
members whose titles were at the manager level and above. This sampling strategy was designed to
ensure that respondents would be among the most seasoned HR professionals, with significant
responsibilities for HR policy and implementation. Responses were received from 959 recipients before
the cutoff date, for a response rate of 19 percent. Nearly half the respondents (49 percent) were HR
managers, while 26 percent were directors, 18 percent vice presidents, and 7 percent from other
functional areas. The average respondent had 14 years of experience in HR. These high levels of
experience and job responsibility suggested that our respondents should be relatively well-informed
members of the HR profession.
The Seven Most Common Misconceptions
For the remainder of this article, we discuss the seven HR re~earch findings that were least believed by
our responding group of HR managers. The first four of these findings pertain primarily to issues of
selection (i.e., employee traits that are most strongly associated with performance and effective means of
assessing them). The next two pertain to issues of effective performance management-performance
appraisal and performance improvement. The final item concerns problems with relying on survey data to
determine the importance of pay (and other potential motivators) in people's behavior.
1. On average, conscientiousness is a better predictor of employee performance than intelligence.
Although 72 percent of participants agreed with this statement, a substantial amount of research suggests
that it is incorrect. A recent meta-analytic summary of nineteen different selection methods reported a
predictive validity coefficient of.51 for tests of intelligence (or general mental ability, GMA), as
compared with an average validity of .31 for measures of conscientiousness. [14] This means that, on
average, GMA explains roughly 25 percent of the variance in employee performance, while
conscientiousness explains only 9 percent. The authors conclude:
Research evidence for the validity of GMA measures for predicting job performance is stronger than that
for any other method ... literally thousands of studies have been conducted over the last nine decades ....
Because of its special status, GMA can be considered the primary personnel measure for
hiring decisions. [15]
Not only is GMA the single best overall predictor of likely performance, but the positive economic
effects of assessing it in selection can be very substantial. For example, based on estimates derived from
comparing the productivity of the most-and least-productive workers. Jack Hunter estimated that the use
of rank-ordered ability scores in the federal government would increase productivity by more than $13
billion relative to simply using a minimum cutoff score at the 20th percentile. Similarly, he estimated an
increase of $12 million per year for a much smaller unit, the Philadelphia police department. [16]
Given the strength of these findings, why do so many managers-especially ones trained in HR
management-assume the opposite? Although many explanations are possible, we think two are
particularly likely.
First, as a culture, Americans have long held negative stereotypes about highly intelligent people.[17]
One such stereotype is that intelligent people are brilliant but impractical ("ivory tower intellectuals"),
while a second views them as capable, but socially inept ("nerd, geek, egghead"). A third stereotype
likens intelligent people to the hare in Aesop's fable-erratic performers who are brilliant on occasion but
who generally underperform the "slow and steady" in the long run.[18] A final stereotype portrays
intelligent people as rude, arrogant, and difficult to manage. For example, in his recent book Working
with Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman repeatedly gives examples of intelligent people with
extremely negative social traits, such as being "unbelievably arrogant" or "brutally acerbic, socially
awkward, with no social graces or even a sociallife."[19]
The resilience of such stereotypes suggests that many people hold implicit theories of intelligence that
associate high levels of GMA with a variety of unattractive personal characteristics. Conscientiousness,
on the other hand, is viewed positively by most people, and the stereotype of a conscientious person is
nearly always good. In reality, however, intelligence is virtually uncorrelated with such personality traits
as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability.[20] Thus, for every highly intelligent
introvert there is a highly intelligent extrovert; for every brilliant neurotic, there is someone who is both
higWy intelligent and emotionally stable.
A second (but probably less likely) reason that managers may underestimate the importance of
intelligence to job performance is that people may not believe that employee intelligence varies much
within particular job categories. For example, Goleman has argued that "in professional and technical
fields the threshold for entry is typically an IQ of 110 to 120.... Since everyone [in these fields] is in the
top 10 percent or so of intelligence, IQ itself offers relatively little competitive advantage. "[21] However,
in a very-large-sample study designed explicitly to test this narrow-variability-in-IQ hypothesis, the
average variability of intelligence within each of 80 applicant pools for specific job categories was found
to be only 10 percent less than the full variability exemplified in national norms.[22] Thus, very
substantial differences in intelligence still exist among applicants for any given type of job.
There are several implications of these findings (see Table 1). The first is that because both GMA and
conscientiousness are important predictors of performance in virtually all jobs, both characteristics should
be assessed as thoroughly as possible in the employee selection process. [23] A second implication is that
the higher the level of job complexity, the more selection should be weighted toward GMA (see Endnote
14). How might this be done?
~esearch suggests that the best way to assess GMA is through paper-and-pencil testing. [24] Several good
paper-and-pencil tests are available for such purposes, such as the Wonderlic Personnel Test, which only
takes 12 minutes to administer and which correlates very highly with more intensive methods of
assessing intelligence. [25] Another point in its favor is that its items are not exotic or highly abstract but
rather look like typical items from a junior high or high school exam. In addition, considerable research
suggests that applicants typically view ability tests as valid means of assessment and therefore are not
likely to be put off by companies that require them.[26]
Although direct assessment of ability thus has two important features to recommend it (high validity and
low cost), it also has some liabilities. For example, cognitive ability tests do produce adverse impact
against certain groups and, rightly or wrongly, receive a considerable amount of negative press.[27] Thus,
companies that are trying to balance a number of outcomes (e.g., applicant reactions, workforce diversity)
in addition to achieving validity may choose to assess GMA in less direct ways, but in ways that also
have substantial validity.
For example, research has shown that structured interviews, work samples, and simulations that assess
job knowledge are likely to be moderately correlated with GMA, as well as being good predictors of job
performance.[28] Assessing job knowledge in these ways has the additional advantages of having very
high face validity to applicants and lower levels of adverse impact against minorities, while still retaining
considerable validity. The most important implication, however, is that deliberate attempts to assess and
use GMA as a basis for hiring should be made for all jobs. Failure to do so leaves money on the table.
2. Companies that screen job applicants for va~ues have higher performance than those that screen for
intelligence. A large majority of our responding SHRM managers agreed with this statement (57 percent),
although available research evidence does not support it. At the outset, it should be said that there is far
less research on the effects of selecting for values than there is about selecting for GMA or personality.
Still, much evidence suggests that selecting for GMA leads to higher performance, and very little
evidence suggests the same for values ..
The available research comes in two forms. One stream focuses on values congruence or values fit. The
importance of employee values has frequently been conceptualized in terms of compatibility between
organizational and applicant values, rather than as a matter of positive versus negative values in an
absolute sense.[29] For example, some companies focus very strongly on assessing and rewarding
individual performance (e.g., Lincoln Electric or General Electric), while others motivate and reward
almost entirely on the basis of group efforts and results (e.g., Southwest Airlines, Nucor). Thus, the logic
goes that individualistic values would be an asset at Lincoln or GE, but a serious detriment at Southwest
or Nucor.
Research has generally shown that values fit has positive consequences for employee attitudes and length
of service. [30] However, there is much less evidence of a positive relationship between values fit and
performance.[31] For example, one study found that workers who had congruent values received higher
supervisory ratings when work tasks were interdependent, but lower evaluations when work was not
interdependent.[32] Another found that workers who believed their values were congruent with the
organization's displayed more citizenship behaviors but not higher task performance. [33] Thus, in distinct
contrast to the research on intelligence, the limited evidence on values congruence suggests rather small
and inconsistent effects on performance.
Although researchers have primarily studied the relationship between values and performance in terms of
values fit, a second stream of research focuses on the effect of values on performance indirectly through
research on employee personality. For example, research suggests that when managers and recruiters talk
about the kinds of values they are looking for, they most often mention such characteristics as "work
ethic, teamwork values, desire for improvement, liking pressure, and liking variety and change."[34]
Although managers tend to describe these traits as values, many researchers have studied them as
personality traits. Thus, for example, the values of "work ethic" and "desire for improvement" can be
translated into the personality trait of conscientiousness, while the value of "liking variety and change"
translates into openness to experience.
From this perspective, we have already seen that although some values (or personality traits) such as
"work ethic" are assets to performance, they are not as important as intelligence. Thus, from either
perspective (values fit or values per se), the idea that values are more important predictors of performance
than intelligence is not supported by the research evidence. We would suggest, however, that more
research should be done to assess this question, both at the individual and the organizational level.
3. Although there are "integrity tests" that try to predict whether someone will steal. be absent, or
otherwise take advantage of an employer. they don't work well in practice because so many people lie on
them.f351
Only 32 percent of our responding HR managers realized that this was an inaccurate statement. Because
the statement seems highly plausible on its face, analysis of the evidence concerning integrity tests
requires breaking the statement into pieces.
First, research shows that applicants can distort their answers on integrity tests (and other selection
devices such as resumes) in order to make themselves look better to employers.[36] In addition, many
applicants probably do distort their answers to some extent, particularly when they believe the scores will
be used for selection or promotion purposes. [37] Interestingly, however, the fact that applicants can (and
probably do) distort their responses to integrity tests does not make them ineffective as predictors of
performance.[38] In fact, the average corrected validity coefficient for integrity tests is a very respectable
.41, with counterproductive behaviors such as theft, absenteeism, or violence being somewhat better
predicted (.47) than overall job performance (.34).[39]
These findings raise the interesting question of why integrity tests maintain their validity, despite the
potential for deliberate response distortion. One possibility is that most people distort their responses to
roughly the same degree, so that the "faking factor" becomes more or less a constant (and thus a non-
differentiator) in the prediction equation. Another possibility is that the extent of response" distortion may
be correlated with valid predictors such as conscientiousness or emotional stability.[40] Whatever the
reason, to the extent that distortion is occurring, it does not appear to destroy the usefulness of integrity
tests as selection devices.
It should also be noted that integrity tests work very well in conjunction with tests of GMA. This is
because cognitive ability is essentially uncorrelated with the underlying dimensions tapped by integrity
tests, particularly conscientiousness. Because highly intelligent people are no more (or no less) likely to
be honest or conscientious than those with lesser ability, using integrity tests along with ability tests
yields completely unique incremental information. In fact, the highest overall validity for any
combination of two selection methods appears to be obtained by using integrity tests in conjunction with
tests ofGMA.[41] ..
4. One problem with using integrity tests is that they have high degrees of adverse impact on racial
minorities.
Despite their validity, managers may nevertheless be nervous about using integrity tests for a variety of
other reasons. One possibility is that integrity tests, while valid, may eliminate larger proportions of
minority than majority candidates. Although nearly 70 percent of our respondents thought that this might
be true, it is not the case.
Recent large-sample research evidence reveals that differences in integrity test scores across racial and
ethnic groups are trivial (although gender differences are not).[42] Thus, another potential advantage of
using integrity tests in conjunction with cognitive ability tests is that, unlike ability tests, integrity tests
are unlikely to produce adverse impact. Furthermore, although evidence suggests that integrity tests are
not among the best-liked selection devices, they generally are seen by applicants as an appropriate means
of differentiating among candidates.[43]
5. On average; encouraging employees to participate in decision making is more effective for improving
organizational performance than setting performance goals.
Although considerable research has shown this statement to be false, only 17 percent of respondents
clearly disagreed with it. Evidence regarding this issue comes from a number of sources.
First, meta-analysis has been used by Ed Locke and his colleagues to examine the comparative
effectiveness of various performance-improvement interventions.[44] This research suggests that on
average, performance improves by 16 percent following goal-setting interventions, as compared with less
than 1 percent for employee participation. Moreover, the effects of goal-setting appear to be positive in
virtually all cases, whereas increased participation actually leads to decreases in performance in a
substantial minority of cases.
The weak results for participation seem puzzling, given the number of corporate success stories that seem
to have employee participation at their core (e.g., Southwest Airlines, Rosenbluth Travel, or Springfield
Remanufacturing). However, other research suggests that the success of participation programs may
depend on the order in which performance interventions are introduced. Specifically, it appears that in
order for participative management to succeed, employees must first know what they are attempting to
achieve through participation. In other words, goal-setting or some other means of conveying
performance expectations may haveto precede employee participation in order for it to be effective. As
Cusumano and Selby wrote after studying Microsoft for several years: "Although having creative people
in a high-tech company is important, it is often more important to direct their creativity."[45] For this
reason, Microsoft work assignments are characterized by strong emphasis on project deadlines, multiple
milestones on the path to project completion, and frequent merging of different employees' pieces of code
to see how well the project is moving toward completion.
Research by McKinsey and Company on high-performing work teams also suggests the value of
challenging goals for increasing the effectiveness of participation. [46] In their study of factors that
distinguish high-performing teams from mediocre ones, they were surprised to find that the typical
emphasis on building "teamwork" and "teamwork values" was ineffective for producing peak levels of
team performance. Rather, the true distinguishing factor was the existence of a challenging, meaningful
task that inspired team members and stretched their capacities. Although the concept of teamwork is
different from that of participation, the pre-eminent role of a challenging goal in focusing employee
efforts appears to be common to both.
In summary, participative management strategies are unlikely to be effective unless employees are clear
about performance goals and objectives. However, for most employees, the major source of information
about what is expected and how they are performing is the annual performance review. This is
unfortunate because previous research suggests that when performance appraisal is the major vehicle for
communicating information about performance, confusion about goals and objectives appears to be more
common than not. [47] Therefore, other performance management strategies that incorporate both
objective targets and supra-individual goals (e.g., project milestones or group incentive systems) would
appear to provide a better chance of producing coordinated, effective participation (see Table 1).
6. Most errors in perfoffi1ance appraisals can be eliminated bv providing training that describes the kinds
of errors managers tend to make and suggesting ways to avoid them.
Although 70 percent of our HR respondents agreed with the preceding sentence, research clearly shows it
to be false. A long line of research shows that performance appraisal is one of the most problematic HR
practices, as well as one of the most difficult to improve.[48] In particular, rater training of the type
described above (simply describing errors and suggesting ways to eliminate them) has been found to be
notoriously ineffective for improving appraisal accuracy.[49] For one thing, many managers do not
believe that they, personally, make the errors described by the trainer.[50] In addition, research has
shown that training to reduce certain kind~ of errors can actually increase inaccuracy by introducing other
types of errors. [51]
Rather, improvement of performance appraisal appears to require a fairly intensive set of activities. These
include active participation in rating videotaped performers against performance specifications, providing
written justifications of their ratings, (usually) making several errors in relation to "correct" appraisal
ratings, having group discussions of ways to overcome the errors, and providing further practice sessions,
spaced over time.[52] Even so, it should be emphasized that studies that have shown rating improvements
as a result of these methods have assessed rater accuracy by using carefully constructed videotape
scenarios, where the correct rating can be known and where raters are not personally involved with the
"picture-people" they are rating. Thus, it is still unclear whether managers who are able to correctly
evaluate videotaped performances by unknown actors actually transfer this learning to subsequent ratings
of their own employees.
When dealing with "real employees," it is generally believed that getting rid of appraisal errors-
particularly leniency-requires very substantial monitoring of appraisals and clear statements by top
management that leniency or other forms of inaccuracy are not acceptable. [53] For example. General
Electric found that they were unable to eliminate excessive leniency from performance appraisals until
they began to insist that managers rank employees on a bell curve and attached substantial penalties' to
managers for failure to do so. Although this system appears to be working well at GE, it should be noted
that this strong ratings differentiation is accompanied by many other supportive actions, such as three
thorough performance reviews of managers each year, very aggressive career planning, highly
differentiated monetary rewards linked to appraisal distributions, and refusal to promote managers who
will not make the distinctions. Although one can certainly debate whether you can truly have accurate
appraisals when every unit is required to rate on the same bell curve (this recently became a major issue
at the Ford Motor Company), one positive feature is that measurement studies have shown that it is in
fact easier to make accurate rankings than accurate ratings.[54]
7. Surveys that directly ask employees how important pay is to them are likely to overestimate pay's true
importance in employees' actual decisions.
Although 56 percent of the HR managers responding agreed with this statement, the fact is that people are
more likely to under-report the importance of pay than to over-report it. Moreover, this tendency has been
known for quite some time. As far back as 1966, researchers cautioned that self-reports of pay importance
are likely to provide underestimates due to people's tendency to answer surveys in socially desirable
ways.[55] That is, people are likely to understate the importance of pay due to norms that view money as
a somewhat crass source of motivation.
Evidence that people under-report pay importance comes from two different types of studies. One type
compares individuals' direct self-reports of pay importance with importance as inferred from their
preferences for various job descriptions. By measuring each job in terms of its underlying characteristics
(i.e., different levels of pay, promotion potential, work duties, job security, and the like) and then
comparing jobs with subjects' overall assessments of job attractiveness, the importance of each
underlying job characteristic to overall assessments can be inferred without asking direct questions about
importance. In such studies, pay has generally been found to be a substantially more important factor
when inferred from participants' overall evaluations of job attractiveness than from their direct reports of
pay importance.[56]
A second type of study uses the psychological principle of projection to infer how people evaluate
characteristics that are heavily laden with social desirability. In the largest study of this kind, a
Midwestern utility assessed the relative importance often job characteristics (including pay) to 50,000
applicants over a thirty-year period.[57] Based on applicants' self-reports, pay appeared to be the fifth
most important characteristic to men and seventh to women. However, when asked to rate the importance
of those same ten attributes to "someone just like yourself-same age, education, and gender," pay jumped
to first place among both men and women. [58] In other words, people seem to believe that pay is the
most important motivator to everyone except themselves.
Recognizing that employees are likely to understate the significance of pay is important, so that managers
are not lulled into a false sense of complacency about their pay policies. More generally, this survey item
calls attention to the broader need for managers to un~erstand the limitations of rating and ranking survey
methodologies. Although such surveys are not entirely useless as a basis for managerial decision making,
they do have very serious limitations in terms of designing HR policies. For example, survey findings are
likely to be highly unstable across minor variations in method, such as the number of job characteristics
included, specific terminology used to describe the various characteristics (e.g., "high pay" versus "fair
pay"), purpose of the survey (pure research versus policy making), and whether or not respondents are
assured anonyrnity.[59]
For these reasons, managers are likely to benefit more from research that examines how employees
actually behave differently under alternative employment practices than from studies of perceived
importance. Studies of this type in the compensation area suggest that pay is indeed an important
motivator of behavior. [60] For example, Locke and colleagues' meta-analysis found the introduction of
monetary incentives to produce the largest and most reliable "increases injob performance (median = 30
percent)-almost twice as large as the effects of goal setting or job enrichment. Thus, Locke et al.
concluded, "Money is the crucial incentive ... no other incentive or motivational technique comes even
close to money with respect to its instrumental value."[61]
Putting Research into Practice
Previous academics and practitioners have documented a variety of reasons why research findings are not
implemented in organizations. [62] However, our survey ofHR managers suggests that one of the main
reasons is lack of knowledge. Although this might seem unsurprising, some argue that improved
mechanisms of information dissemination have made lack of knowledge a trivial problem. For example.
Pfeffer and Button argue: "We now live in a world where knowledge transfer and information exchange
are tremendously efficient, and where there are numerous organizations in the business of collecting and
transferring best practices. So, there are fewer and smaller differences in what firms know than in their
ability to act on that knowledge."[63]
Our results belie the assertion that knowledge transfer is "tremendously efficient." Indeed, what is
particularly striking about our results is that with the exception of the research on integrity tests and
values, all the other findings (i.e., regarding goal-setting, performance appraisal, intelligence, and
conscientiousness) have been known for at least a decade and, in some cases, considerably longer than
that. Moreover, our respondents are HR practitioners who have the most to gain from knowing this
research: mid- to high-level HR managers and executives. In addition, our results also suggest that
differences in knowledge across firms are likely to be large rather than small; some executives in our
sample believed only 9 of the 35 research findings (26 percent), while others believed 30 of the 35 (86
percent).
One obvious solution to this problem would be for practitioners to read more of the research literature.
Indeed, in our sample, practitioners who usually read academic research journals tended to agree with 23
of the research findings, as compared with the sample mean of 2D-an improvement of 15 percent.
However, the problem with this strategy is that very few practitioners appear to read this literature.
Specifically, feWer than 1 percent of our sample indicated that they usually read the academic literature,
while 75 percent reported that they never do so.
Thus, it appears that outlets such as The Executive and other efforts to disseminate research
knowledge[64] to practitioners are sorely needed. In addition, very explicit attempts to turn findings into
"maps for action"[65] may prove useful in helping practitioners to translate research into action. Then, as
they conduct their implementation attempts, researchers can document the successes and failUres via
"action research."[ 66]
In closing, we remind the reader that what we know from a large and growing body of HR research has
become considerably clearer over the past two decades. Failure to be aware of the findings from this
research is likely to put one (and one's company) at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time,
although enhanced knowledge can be an important asset for improving organizational performance, it is
not by itself enough. Rather, improved knowledge acquisition must be paired with effective
implementation. Results from our SHRM managers suggest that the transfer of knowledge from research
to practice remains imperfect, even in this world of increasingly efficient markets for information.
Considerable research demonstrates that most organizations do not employ state-of-the-art human
resource (HR) practices.
Companies whose HR professionals read the academic research literature have higher financial
performance than those that do not.
Not only is GMA the single best overall predictor of likely performance, but the positive economic
effects of assessing it in selection can be very substantial.
Deliberate attempts to assess and use GMA as a basis for hiring should be made for all jobs. Failure to do
so leaves money on the table.
Although some values (or personality traits) such as "work ethic" are assets to performance, they are not
as important as intelligence.
Differences in integrity test scores across racial and ethnic groups are trivial.
General Electric found that they were unable to eliminate excessive leniency from performance appraisals
until they began to insist that managers rank employees on a bell curve and attached substantial penalties
to managers for failure to do so.
Some argue that improved mechanisms of information dissemination have made lack of knowledge a
trivial problem.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge [mancial and administrative support from the SHRM Foundation, as
well as helpful comments from Debra Cohen, Herb Heneman, Ken Pearlman, Lise Saari, Tom Stone, Ray
Weinberg, Gale Varma, and three anonymous reviewers. Any errors of fact or interpretation, however,
remain the sole responsibility of the authors.
Endnotes
[1] Gannon, M. 1. 1983. Managerial ignorance. Business Horizons, May-June: 26(3).
[2] Johns, G. 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from
organizational innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46(3): 569-592.
[3] Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. 1. 1997. Attitudes of practitioners in human resource management
toward information from academic research. Psychological Reports, 80(2): 403-412.
[4] Campbell, J. P., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. L. 1982. What to study: Generating and developing research
questions. Beverly Hills: Sage.
[5] Oviatt, B. M., & Miller, W. D. 1989. Irrelevance, intransigence, and business professors. The
Academy of Management Executive, 3(4): 304-312.
[6] Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. 1996. The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 779-801.
[7] Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 1995. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings. Thousand Oaks: Sage .
.[8] For a good overview of this research, see the 1996 special issue of Academy of Management Journal
edited by Becker & Gerhart, op. cit.
[9] Welbourne, T. M., & Andrews, A. 0.1996. Predicting the performance of initial public offerings:
Should human resource management be in the equation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 891-
919.
[10] Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3): 635-672.
General Electric found that they were unable to eliminate excessive leniency from performance appraisals
until they began to insist that managers rank employees on a bell curve and attached substantial penalties
to managers for failure to do so.
Some argue that improved mechanisms of information dissemination have made lack of knowledge a
trivial problem.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge fmancial and administrative support from the SHRM Foundation, as
well as helpful comments from Debra Cohen, Herb Heneman, Ken Pearlman, Lise Saari, Tom Stone, Ray
Weinberg, Gale Varma, and three anonymous reviewers. Any errors of fact or interpretation, however,
remain the sole responsibility of the authors.
Endnotes
[1] Gannon, M. 1. 1983. Managerial ignorance. Business Horizons, May-June: 26(3).
[2] Johns, G. 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from
organizational innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46(3): 569-592.
[3] Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. 1. 1997. Attitudes of practitioners in human resource management
toward information from academic research. Psychological Reports, 80(2): 403-412.
[4] Campbell, J; P., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. L. 1982. What to study: Generating and developing research
questions. Beverly Hills: Sage.
[5] Oviatt, B. M., & Miller, W. D. 1989. Irrelevance, intransigence, and business professors. The
Academy of Management Executive, 3(4): 304-312.
[6] Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. 1996. The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 779-801.
[7] Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 1995. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18] For a good overview ofthis research, see the 1996 special issue of Academy of Management Journal
edited by Becker & Gerhart, op. cit.
[9] Welbourne, T. M., & Andrews, A. 0.1996. Predicting the performance of initial public offerings:
Should human resource management be in the equation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 891-
919.
[10] Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3): 635-672.