The authors tested a model of antecedents and outcomes of newcomer adjustment using 70 unique samples of newcomers with meta-analytic and path modeling techniques. Specifically, they proposed and tested a model in which adjustment (role clarity, self-efficacy, and social acceptance) mediated the effects of organizational socialization tactics and information seeking on socialization outcomes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, intentions to remain, and turnover). The results generally supported this model. In addition, the authors examined the moderating effects of methodology on these relationships by coding for 3 methodological issues: data collection type (longitudinal vs. cross-sectional), sample characteristics (school-to-work vs. work-to-work transitions), and measurement of the antecedents (facet vs. composite measurement). Discussion focuses on the implications of the findings and suggestions for future research.

Research shows that perceived overqualification is related to lower job attitudes and greater withdrawal behaviors but to higher supervisor ratings of performance. Drawing upon relative deprivation theory, the authors proposed and tested empowerment as a moderator of the relationship between perceived overqualification and job satisfaction, intentions to remain, voluntary turnover, and objective sales performance to examine if negative outcomes could be lessened while stimulating even higher performance. Hierarchical linear modeling results from a sample of 244 sales associates working in 25 stores of a Turkish retail chain show that empowerment ameliorated the negative effects of perceived overqualification on job satisfaction, intentions to remain, and voluntary turnover. Empowerment did not affect the positive relationship between perceived overqualification and objective sales performance.

This paper describes research that fills a void in the applicant reactions literature by developing a comprehensive measure of Gilliland's (1993) procedural justice rules, called the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). Five separate phases of scale development were conducted. In Phase 1 we generated and refined the items. For Phase 2 we reduced the items through exploratory factor analysis using data gathered from 330 applicants for the job of court officer and found higher‐order factors consistent with Greenberg (1993a, 1993b). In Phase 3 we confirmed the factor structure using a separate sample of 242 applicants and trainees for the court officer job. In Phase 4 we assessed the initial convergent and divergent validity of the scale. In Phase 5 we tested the generalizability of these items in general and for those receiving positive and negative selection outcomes using 2 student samples. The results demonstrated the usefulness of the SPJS in differentiating each of Gilliland's procedural justice rules and relating them to outcomes included in his model of applicant reactions. A copy of the SPJS is included in the Appendix.

No abstract

Following a justice framework, the present study examined actual candidates taking selection tests to gain full-time employment. The reactions of 144 applicants for an entrylevel accounting job were examined in a real employment testing context at 3 time periods: before testing, after testing but before feedback on whether they passed or failed the test, and after test performance feedback. With controls for pretest perceptions, several of the 5 procedural justice measures (information known about the test, chance to perform, treatment at the test site, consistency of the test administration, and job relatedness) predicted applicant evaluations regarding the organization, perceptions of employment testing, and applicant test-taking self-efficacy. Test outcome favorability (passing or failing the employment test) predicted outcomes beyond initial reactions more consistently than procedural justice perceptions. Procedural justice perceptions explained incremental variance in some analyses after the influence of outcome favorability was controlled. The selection process is a two-way interaction where applicants and organizations gather information about one another and react to this information while making employment decisions. Written employment tests are frequently used to make such decisions. It is estimated that 15-20% of all organizations use written ability tests to help them select applicants (Rowe, Williams, & Day, 1994). Unfortunately, as Schmit and Ryan (1997) pointed out, more than a third of Americans seem to have unfavorable attitudes toward pre-employment testing. This may be because applicants do not believe that paper-and-pencil ability tests capture a person's true ability to do the job