فایل ورد کامل کدامیک بهتر است؟ تفحص عمیق تر یا گردآوری مطالب بیشتر درباره اندازه گیری تلویحی در مدیریت رفتار سازمانی و منابع انسانی؟

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل کدامیک بهتر است؟ تفحص عمیق تر یا گردآوری مطالب بیشتر درباره اندازه گیری تلویحی در مدیریت رفتار سازمانی و منابع انسانی؟،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۳۰ صفحه

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسیعنوان انگلیسی:Digging deeper or piling it higher Implicit measurement in organizational behavior and human resource management~~en~~

Abstract

Organizational researchers can dig deeper into peoples’ thoughts, attitudes, and self-concepts to understand how automatic processes may impact judgment and social behavior in organizations. Measures of these automatic processes, including the Implicit Association Test (e.g., IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), Semantic Priming (e.g., SP; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997), Affect Misattribution Procedure (e.g., AMP; Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005), Word Completion Tasks (e.g., WCT; Johnson & Saboe, 2011), among many others, deserve greater attention as alternatives or supplements to traditional self-report measures of variables important in organizations (e.g., job satisfaction, personality and trait measurement, diversity attitudes). In this paper, we first provide a primer on implicit social cognition and its relationship to automatic and controlled cognitive processes, discussing major types of implicit measures, how these might operate, criticisms of this approach, and how these implicit constructs may give rise to behavior in organizations. Second, we discuss models of automatic processes and explore their validity and how these may predict behavior. Third, we offer advice for selecting, constructing, and improving implicit measurements when used in organizational research to enhance human resources and organizational functioning.

۱ Introduction

Because organizations are social systems, processes in thinking, perceiving others, and understanding behavior are important in understanding organizational processes and effectiveness (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Many people take comfort that their conscious thoughts, declarative knowledge, and deliberate intentions guide their decision-making processes and social behavior. Advances in implicit measurement, however, indicate that some thought processes may be less accessible than one may assume (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), and may operate automatically (e.g., Bargh, 1994). The space between conscious reflection and accurate assessment has motivated researchers to develop measures of these automatic processes for digging deeper into people’s thoughts, goals, and self-knowledge (e.g., Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005). However, with these advances, the question remains how do we impact and improve organizations as we dig deeper into measuring these automatic processes that govern cognition, attitudes, and behaviors Or does this line of research simply pile higher our knowledge of biases, limitations, and criticisms preventing us from further improving organizational behavior and effectiveness

Implicit measurement poses both opportunities and challenges for organizational researchers. In terms of opportunities, digging deeper using implicit measures, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998), Semantic Priming tasks (SP; e.g., Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997), the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne et al., 2005), Name Letter Effects procedure (NLE; Nuttin, 1985), and Word Completion Tasks (WCT; e.g., Johnson & Saboe, 2011; Johnson, Tolentino, Rodopman, & Cho, 2010), among others, may provide additional approaches for assessing thoughts and feelings when social desirability, lack of introspective access, and faking may distort declared or stated beliefs (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Using these measures offers an alternative to understanding and improving organizations because we can now measure a person’s attitudes, stereotypes, and prejudices from two perspectives, one explicit, and one implicit, and link these separately, jointly, and incrementally to each other and organizational phenomena to enhance theory and improve organizations.

In terms of challenges, the routine inclusion of implicit measures in research has not been without criticism, debate, and caution (e.g., Arkes & Tetlock, 2004; Blanton & Jaccard, 2006; Blanton et al., 2009; DeHouwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009; Fazio, 2007; Fazio & Olson, 2003; Gawronski, LeBel, & Peters, 2007; Karpinski & Hilton, 2001; Landy, 2008; McConnell & Leibold, 2009; Ziegert & Hanges, 2009). Many of these arguments (e.g., use of real world criteria) regarding implicit measurement often also apply to the use of explicit or traditional forms of measurement. Further, there remains considerable debate regarding the meaning and usefulness of measures of automatic cognitive processes and the extent to which they provide distinct information about inner thoughts and states that truly relate to important, measureable behaviors in organizations or society at large. Instead of piling higher cautions and admonitions about the use of these measures in organizations, we look at these problems as challenges and as opportunities for future research to fully evaluate the efficacy of such measures to assist us in improving workplaces and organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to review the social cognitive perspective on the measurement of automatic cognitive processes and how these relate to organizational outcomes. We review the theoretical basis and the validity evidence for these measures, and suggest several research strategies for those interested in using, critiquing, and improving implicit measurement in organizational research. We discuss many judgment processes in organizations and how these may be impacted by implicit cognition as we take a deeper, process-oriented, and more critical view of implicit cognition in organizations (Haines & Sumner, 2006; Johnson & Steinman, 2009; Sumner & Haines, 2004). Finally we briefly provide practical advice to organizational researchers interested in exploring implicit measurement and automatic processes to both understand and improve organizational behavior.

$$en!!