Employment Qualifications,Person–Job Fit,Underemployment Attributions,and Hiring Recommendations: A three‐study investigation

Using an experimental design across three studies and four samples, we investigated the effects of employment qualification level (i.e., underqualified, adequately qualified, or overqualified) on hiring recommendations, and how the relationship was influenced by person–job (P‐J) fit and underemployment attributions. In Study 1, we tested and found support for the strength and effectiveness of the employment qualification level manipulation. In Study 2, the results demonstrated that overqualified applicants received higher ratings on objective P‐J fit, subjective P‐J fit, and hiring recommendations than underqualified applicants. Also, overqualified applicants were rated higher on objective and subjective P‐J fit than adequately qualified applicants. However, the results indicated no significant differences between adequately qualified and overqualified applicants on hiring recommendations. Finally, P‐J fit was found to fully mediate the employment qualification level–hiring recommendation relationship, but only subjective P‐J fit (i.e., and not objective P‐J fit) was a significant mediator. In Study 3, we assessed the potential effects of underemployment attribution (i.e., internal‐controllable vs. external‐uncontrollable) on interviewer hiring recommendation. Results demonstrated that applicants who made an external‐uncontrollable attribution for their overqualification were perceived negatively and received lower ratings on hiring recommendations than applicants who made an internal‐controllable attribution for their underemployment. Furthermore, the underemployment attribution‐hiring recommendation relationship was found to be fully mediated by subjective (but not objective) P‐J fit. Contributions of these results to theory, research, and practice, strengths and limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.     

Team adaptation to an unforeseen system failure: Limits of the potential aids of shared knowledge and standardized communication

The present study investigates the potential benefits of a team’s shared knowledge and standardized communication in adapting to an unforeseen change by combining literature on adaptation and team performance. Each of 20 teams performed a dynamic team task and was suddenly confronted with a simulated partial system breakdown. Results show that a methodological framework designed to describe performance adaptation to an unforeseen change in individuals can also be used to model performance adaptation in teams. The system failure was followed by a performance drop and a subsequent period of gradual performance recovery. Accuracy of teams’ shared knowledge correlated positively with performance before and after the change, confirming and extending the literature on shared mental models. However, the amount of knowledge similarity did not aid teams in adapting to the unforeseen system breakdown. In addition, improving teams’ standardized communication had no damping effect on the sudden performance drop and neither helped them during the subsequent recovery period. These results show that even though shared knowledge and efficient communication are of high value to team performance and success, these characteristics are limited in aiding adaptive team performance after unforeseen unique changes that force team members to update their strategies.