The purported advantage of a strong corporate culture presumes that positive outcomes result when peoples' values are congruent with those of others. This was tested by using a design that controlled for artifacts in prior studies. Participants, 191 production workers, their supervisors (N = 17), and 13 managers at a large industrial products plant, completed questionnaires containing measures of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work values. Responses were later matched with the attendance and performance records of the production workers in the sample. Results showed that workers were more satisfied and committed when their values were congruent with the values of their supervisor, \felue congruence between workers and their supervisors was not significantly correlated with workers' tenure; however, its effect on organizational commitment was more pronounced for longer tenured employees.

Work values were examined as an antecedent of recruiters' judgments of applicant fit with the organization. Data were collected on the work values of recruiters, their organizations, and job applicants in actual job interviews conducted through the placement center of a large university. Following the interviews, recruiters evaluated applicants' general employability and organization-specific fit. Approximately 4 months following the interviews, data on whether the applicants were invited for a second interview were also obtained. Work value congruence between the applicant and the recruiter was found to be related to judgments of general employability and organization-specific fit. Congruence between the applicant and the organization (as perceived by the recruiter) was not related to judgments of employability and organization-specific fit. Recruiter ratings of employability were related to the decision to invite the applicant for a second interview. Work value congruence was not related to second interview decisions. It is concluded that if work values and judgments of applicant fit influence the personnel selection process, they are more likely to do so at later stages when job offer decisions are made. Work values and judgments of applicant fit seem to have minimal impact on decisions to retain the applicant for additional consideration in early stages of the selection process.The personnel selection literature has traditionally focused on person-job fit (P-J fit), defined as the individual having the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to perform the job (e.g., Hedge & Teachout, 1992; O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Mirable, 1992). Personorganization fit (P-0 fit) extends both the predictor and criterion domains to broadly define fit as congruence of the personality traits, The authors made equal contributions to this study, order of authorship is alphabetical. We wish to thank Stephen Gilliland, Karl Kuhnert, Bruce M. Meglino, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft. Randy Settoon assisted with data analysis. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Cheryl L. Adkins, Department of Management, Coflege of Business, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. COPYRIGHT 0 1994 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC.

SummaryLittle is known about the effectiveness of family-friendly policies (FFPs) in reducing interrole conflicts involving work and family. The present study examined the influence of FFPs, work-family culture, and family characteristics on salient job outcomes, and multiple dimensions of work-family conflict (WFC) and family-work conflict (FWC). Results from a survey of 564 workers, indicate that FFPs exert minimal effects on felt conflict, and that a positive work-family culture and family support may be more instrumental in helping employees balance work and home roles. Findings also suggest that sources of conflict varied among workers, as did the mechanisms used to address WFC and FWC. This study underscores the importance of examining WFC as a multi-dimensional phenomenon affecting employees in a variety of family structures, as well as considering the impact of FFPs in conjunction with work-family culture.

The discussion regarding questionable research practices (QRPs) A recent spate of high profile scandals in the social sciences, some of which occurred within management, has shaken the confidence of those within and outside of the profession, leading to calls for greater transparency and oversight into the research process (Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2015;Matlack, 2013;Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). Adding to concerns about the veracity of management research is evidence that our field and closely related fields may be susceptible to questionable research practices (QRPs; Bosco, Aguinis, Field, Pierce, & Dalton, in press;Francis, Tanzman, & Matthews, 2014;Franco, Malhotra, & Simonovits, 2014; O'Boyle, Banks, & Gonzalez-Mule, in press; Open Science Collaboration, 2015).QRPs operate in the ambiguous space between what one might consider best practices and academic misconduct. Some examples of QRPs can include presenting post hoc findings as a priori, "cherry picking" fit indices, and selectively deleting outliers for the purpose of achieving statistical significance. The occurrence of these practices is not always questionable; in fact, some of these approaches are beneficial to management research under the right circumstances. For instance, exploratory data analysis has led to numerous discoveries in both the physical and social sciences (for a review, see Locke, 2007). Furthermore, certain fit indices are objectively better than others, and outliers should be examined and, at times, dropped from further analysis (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013). However, those who see QRPs as a problem point to when the practices are either misreported or not reported rather than the practices themselves (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011).The purpose of this commentary is to highlight the wide-ranging perspectives about QRPs in terms of their possible causes, their prevalence, and journal policies that may prevent them.Editors' Note: This paper was originally submitted as a regular submission. However, the JOM editorial team thought the overall theme and set of issues were better addressed via an editorial commentary aimed at spurring dialogue concerning ethical research practices in our field. We are pleased that the authors have included the full write-up of the five studies that inform this work (downloadable as Supplemental Material; please have a look). As with all journals' editorial policies, JOM's own editorial policy on data transparency, reporting, and other practices discussed in this piece continues to evolve. We have signed on to the Editor's Code of Ethics (https://editorethics.uncc. edu/), are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/), have recently made changes to our review policy in ways that increase reviewer accountability to professional standards, and are considering adopting additional practices and/or partnering with other groups that focus on developing high standards for science and ethics. The current commentary is not an official reflection of JOM's officia...

No abstract