Article Abstract:
Evaluation of applicants for middle-and upper-level managerial positions and recommended starting salaries were examined in a sample of 44 male and 24 female line and staff managers. We postulated hypotheses that (a) managers would use job-relevant and job-irrelevant variables in evaluation of applicants, (b) the managers' selection decision models would involve configural cue processing, (c) managers' demographic characteristics would affect their evaluations of applicants for managerial positions, and (d) applicant sex and race would affect starting salary recommendations, after controlling for human capital variables. Subjects viewed videotaped presentations by 16 applicants and evaluated them for the job for which they were applying. Variables of applicant age, sex, race, experience education, and level of job for which they were applying were manipulated. The results supported four of the five hypotheses. Job-irrelevant variables were used heavily in selection decisions, and decision models were complex, with multiple interactions among the decision cues. Subject demographic characteristics were the strongest predictors of starting salary recommendations. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The most effective method for aggregating the conflicting opinions of experts is a subject of active debate in the literature. Task differences are most often used to explain differing results among studies. Alternatively, we suggested that the characteristics of the interacting groups themselves determine whether they outperform or underperform their equivalent composites. Expert loan officers serving in ad hoc and practiced groups, on average, performed equally well as did their composite and most influential individual. However, whether a particular group outperformed or underperformed its composite could be explained by variation in group members' performances and abilities to recognize differential expertise. These findings suggest the circumstances in which alternative social decision schemes are likely to be more effective. They also support the usefulness of conceptualizing group judgment as a weighted combination of the opinions of group members whereby the allocation of weights to members is the critical issue. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The impact of issue agendas, decision rule, and power balance on the quality of negotiated agreements in small groups was examined. Three-person groups negotiated an agreement on three issues, with each issue having five alternative levels. Groups using sequential agendas were less likely to achieve mutually beneficial agreements than groups using package agendas. Groups following sequential agendas under majority rule achieved significantly less beneficial agreements than did groups following sequential agendas-unanimous rule, package agendas-majority rule, or package agendas-unanimous rule. As the predetermined alternative to a negotiated agreement increased, so did individual profit. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the quality of decision making in mixed-motive small groups. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: