Search results

Interest in the nature of influence attempts in the performance evaluation process has increased in recent years. Researchers have conducted a number of important and revealing cross‐sectional investigations, but there remains virtually no longitudinal work in this area. The present study attempted to address this need by conducting a multi‐period investigation of influence tactics use and affect that addressed three questions: (1) Are individuals consistent in their use of influence tactics across evaluation periods? (2) Are prior‐period performance ratings reflected in subsequent influence tactic use? (3) What role does affect, both supervisor and subordinate, play in this process? A latent variable structural model was tested using longitudinal data from managers and employees of food services units. Our results indicated that there is a cycle of continued influence tactic use across time periods, performance ratings help to determine subsequent tactic use, and both supervisor and subordinate affect play a role in the influence‐evaluation process. Implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.

This issue marks a clear transition issue for this journal: This transition will, we hope, provide new directions which aid the development of the journal into a more recognized and used journal. These changes include a name change; a new group of editors; the re‐establishment of the journal's time‐line for publication; changes in the editorial board; and some information on new directions in the journal. We would like to describe some of these developments and provide you with information on the new directions for the journal in this year and upcoming years.

State and local public pension plans cover a significant number of workers and represent a major component of the nation's retirement system. This study examined the size‐administrative cost relationship of public pension plans to ascertain whether cost savings can be realized by increasing pension plan size. The results indicated that while the consolidation of smaller plans will generate administrative cost savings, the consolidation of larger plans will generate savings only up to an optimal membership size at which point cost savings will end. In addition, optimal size was found to differ for active and beneficiary members indicating that membership composition needs to be considered when assessing the potential for cost savings.

This paper examines the necessity of making compensation changes concurrently with information technology implementation that increases the requirements of incumbent jobs. The paper reviews several theoretical frameworks that highlight corollary effects of technology change on other organizational elements and underscore that organizational change programs do not occur in isolation. Following, organizational justice literature is reviewed as a theoretical background for assessing employee evaluations of, and reactions to, the absence of compensation adjustments in technology change. An organizational field study, utilizing a pretest-posttest control group design, was conducted to test a number of hypothesized effects resulting from a failure to adjust compensation for affected jobs during the implementation of a new human resource information system. The results indicated increases in perceptions of procedural injustice, distributive injustice, and dissatisfaction with the structure and administration of the compensation system. A discussion of the results and implications of the study are presented.

We review the literature on individual acceptance of technology to show how organizations can improve the effective use of human resource web-based technologies. Integrating and expanding several theoretical models of technology acceptance, we develop a perceptual model of employee self-service (ESS) acceptance and usage. Based on this model, we propose several key individual, technological, and organizational factors relevant to individual intentions to use ESS technology. We summarize these in several testable propositions and also discuss implications for organizational researchers and practitioners.

M. Ronald Buckley is a Professor of Management and a Professor of Psychology and the holder of the JC Penney Company Business Leadership Chair in the Michael F. Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Auburn University. His research interests are diverse and include decision making in the employment interview, performance evaluation, organizational entry processes, and the issues surrounding unethical behavior in organizations. He has published over 70 refereed journal articles in, among others, the Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Applied Psychological Measurement, Journal of Management, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes on topics related to human resource management issues.