ON THE INTERCHANGEABILITY OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE MEASURES OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS

A meta-analysis of studies containing both objective and subjective ratings of employee performance resulted in a corrected mean correlation of .389. This value, although significantly greater than zero, indicates that objective and subjective performance measures should not be used interchangeably. Moreover, in no moderator subgroup examined did the correlation suggest convergent validity. After discussing issues related to resolving the previous anomalies of primary and meta-analytic results, a secondary analysis suggested that objective and subjective measures of the same construct at the same level may be used inter-changeably. The secondary analysis, however, was based on a very limited sample. Future research should address the appropriate dimensionality of employee performance.     

Stroke patients' well-being as a function of caregiving spouses' helpful and unhelpful actions

This study examined the perceptions that 55 older married stroke patients had about themselves and about the motivations of their caregiving spouses when they judged their spouses' actions to be helpful and when they judged them to be unhelpful. It also examined how these perceptions were related to patients' well-being (depression, positive affect, marital satisfaction). Patients had more negative perceptions of themselves and of their spouses when they judged the actions to be unhelpful than when they judged them to be helpful. The hypothesis that perceptions about unhelpful actions would be more strongly related to patients' well-being than would perceptions about helpful actions was only partially supported. Perceptions about unhelpful actions were related to patients' depression, but perceptions about helpful actions were related to positive affect. Both kinds of perceptions were related to marital satisfaction. Findings begin to explicate the complex relationship between perceived helpfulness of actions and well-being.     

EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: A VIEW TOWARD THE FUTURE

This article reviews recent changes in evidentiary standards in employment discrimination litigation as they relate to disparate impact theory. Precedents established in Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio , altering the employee's and the employer's responsibilities in discrimination cases are analyzed. In reaction to these and other Supreme Court rulings, Congress introduced a civil rights bill which was eventually signed into law after numerous compromises. The debate surrounding the development of the 1991 Civil Rights Act and the legislation itself are reviewed. With respect to disparate impact, the Act addresses the criteria for establishing a prima facie case (causation), burden of proof standards, and a definition of business necessity. However, a close reading of the Act and a review of recent disparate impact cases suggest the causation and business necessity issues are not fully resolved. Potential implications for managing personnel decision systems in this new environment are discussed.     

Marx,Housework, and Alienation

For different feminist theorists, housework and child rearing are viewed in very different ways. I argue that Marx gives us the categories that allow us to see why housework and child care can be both a paradigm of unalienated labor and also involve the greatest oppression. In developing this argument, a distinction is made between alienation and oppression and the conditions are discussed under which unalienated housework can become oppressive or can become alienated.     

The Quest For Certainty In Feminist Thought

In this paper I argue that the essentialism/antiessentialism debate among feminists is a variety of the idealist/realist split that Dewey addressed in The Quest for Certainty. I attempt to use Dewey's thought to subvert this opposition so that we can remove the feminist discussion from the structure of an idealist/realist either/or.     

The effect of incidental experiences of regulatory fit on trust

Two experiments provide support for the hypothesis that when people assess how much they trust another person, feelings of rightness from an initial, brief experience of regulatory fit (consistency between prevention or promotion regulatory focus of goals and strategic means) can suggest the other person is trustworthy, relative to feelings of wrongness from regulatory nonfit. This regulatory-fit effect on trust was stronger for acquaintances than for individuals participants knew well (Experiment 1) and was eliminated by drawing participants' attention to how right the earlier, trust judgment-irrelevant event made them feel (Experiment 2). Implications are discussed for regulatory-fit theory, possible applications to applied settings and to other populations, and possible effects of other types of regulatory fit.