No abstract

Organizations are undergoing unprecedented transformation in the area of talent management (TM). Companies are rapidly adopting new tools and approaches in a variety of what has traditionally been core areas of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology such as performance management, employee attitudes, recruiting, testing and assessment, and career development. Increasingly, however, these new approaches have little to no research backing behind them, and they do not tend to be the focus of I-O psychology theory and research. We call this trend anti-industrial and organizational psychology (AIO), as we believe these forces to do not advance the field for long-term strategic impact. We present a framework that describes how AIO practices are adopted by organizations, and how I-O psychologists often gravitate away from these practices rather than actively help to separate the wheat from the chaff. We found support for our hypothesis through a brief analysis of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In this analysis, we found that only 10% of the focal articles from 2008 to 2016 represented topics that we call frontier—emerging areas in organizations but where there is no research support for them. We propose a set of recommendations for the field of I-O psychology and call for a more strategic approach to identifying and vetting new TM trends in order to increase the relevancy and impact of I-O psychology for our key stakeholders.

Two studies examined faking of a 25‐item biodata questionnaire. The first study investigated potential and actual faking of the form using three groups: a group told to make themselves look as good as possible, a group told to complete the form honestly, and a group completing the instrument in a real selection situation. Subjects were 58 current employees and 231 job applicants. Results indicated that subjects could fake the instrument when instructed to do so. Also, some faking appeared to be occurring in practice, although results depended upon the composition of the comparison group. Only eight items appeared to be fakable, and only three of these seemed to be faked in practice. In Study 2, 26 business majors rated the biodata items on eight dimensions of item type. Results showed that the three items faked in practice were less historical, objective, discrete, verifiable, and external than other items, and were more job relevant.

No abstract

No abstract