AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF POSTTRAINING ON-THE-JOB SUPPLEMENTS FOR ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERPERSONAL SKILLS TRAINING

This study examined the impact of 2 posttraining on-the-job supplements to a training program focused on interpersonal skill development for newly hired managers—self-coaching and upward feedback. Utilizing a sample of 87 trainees from 75 units of a national restaurant chain, the impact of these supplements was assessed by examining posttraining performance across 4 training conditions in a quasi-experimental framework: (1) classroom training only, (2) classroom training with self-coaching, (3) classroom training with upward feedback, and (4) classroom training with self-coaching and upward feedback. The results demonstrated that both supplements are useful extensions to formal classroom training for enhancing trainees' interpersonal performance. These findings are discussed along with directions for future training effectiveness research.     

Protest,Exit, or Deviance: Adjunct University Faculty Reactions to Occupational Rank‐Based Mistreatment1

University faculty hired for short‐term contracts rated occupational rank‐based mistreatment; as well as willingness to protest, leave their position, or engage in workplace deviance. How respondents reacted to mistreatment was shaped by identification with their occupational rank and source of mistreatment (administrators or colleagues). Administrative mistreatment increased willingness to protest and engage in workplace deviance for respondents who were less identified; faculty mistreatment decreased willingness to protest. Respondents who identified more with occupational rank were less sensitive to differences in mistreatment. These data suggest that if the mistreatment source “fits” the intergroup context, people will challenge the situation, but if it does not fit respondent expectations, collective challenge is less likely, particularly among people who identify less with their group.     

Authorship Credit and Ethical Guidelines

This article examines the literature concerning problems in the assignment of authorship credits resulting from collaborative research within and between psychological, counseling, and medical professions. In addition to previously cited reasons for the proliferation of multiauthored articles, we argue that the determination of authorship is correlated with the ethical standards of the professional organization to which a researcher belongs. Thus, possible conflicts between collaborators can spring from two sources: (a) ambiguous language regarding authorship in an ethical code within a discipline and (b) lack of guidelines for working across disciplines, especially if individual collaborators have competing goals and expectations.