This study sought to provide the initial psychometric evidence supporting a new measure of resiliency. In consideration of the shortcomings of previous measures, a more comprehensive measure was developed based on the theoretical model of King and Rothstein (2010) . The resulting measure, the Workplace Resilience Inventory (WRI), encompasses an individual’s personal characteristics, social support network, initial responses to a significant and life changing event, and self-regulatory processes. Following a rigorous, theoretically-based, and empirically-supported procedure for selecting items, the facets of the WRI demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, as well as adequate independence. The WRI demonstrates significant relations with important well-being criteria, such as satisfaction with life, depression, and perceived stress, and demonstrates incremental validity above and beyond a previously validated measure of resiliency, the Psychological Capital (PsyCap) questionnaire.

Team conflict types include task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. Whereas differences in views about the task (task conflict) are often argued to be beneficial, incompatibilities involving personal issues (relationship conflict) and execution issues (process conflict) are often argued to be harmful. However, previous empirical research has tended to treat team conflict types as independent from each other despite their natural coexistence in teams. In two separate studies and one replication study, we identified latent patterns of team conflict, in the form of conflict profiles, that were defined by distinct levels of task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. In Study 1, we investigated whether the conflict profiles had implications for team conflict management and team potency. In Study 2, we examined the generalizability of the conflict profiles to teams with longer life cycles, and we investigated the implications of conflict profiles for team performance. Findings indicated that teams can be reliably assigned to particular profiles of team conflict and that these profiles replicate well. The results also

No abstract

No abstract

Vocational interest surveys have traditionally employed a typology (i.e., the Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional [RIASEC] model) to distinguish individuals. Within this framework, respondents are identified as representing various types of people based on their interests in work-related activities. However, much of the existing literature on vocational interest testing has focused almost exclusively on traditional variable-centered approaches to understanding the nomological network around vocational interest variables. Therefore, the focus of the current article is an application of a person-centered approach, latent profile analysis (LPA). Using LPA, we found evidence of eight qualitatively and quantitatively distinct subgroups or types of individuals differentiated on the basis of interests in the RIASEC variables. Further, across the five-factor model and Dark Triad personality variables, minor, yet theoretically sound, differences across the eight vocational interest subgroups were found. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.