Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-j4fss Total loading time: 0.448 Render date: 2022-10-05T13:21:11.773Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Tempering Hard Times: Integrating Well-Being Metrics Into Utility Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

Aharon Tziner*
Affiliation:
Netanya Academic College
Erich C. Fein
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland
Assa Birati
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University
*
E-mail: atziner@netanya.ac.il, Address: Schools of Behavioral Sciences and Business Administration, Netanya Academic College, Netanya 4223587, Israel

Abstract

This article highlights the virtue of integrating well-being metrics (e.g., psychological well-being, perceived meaning) into aspects of utility analysis for the purpose of enhancing human resource management strategies and worker performance. We present the reader with a review of conceptual and practical developments in this field and examples of utility analysis calculations, while we advocate for the necessity of including well-being metrics in utility analysis for the 21st century. The basic thrust of this effort is to encourage the greater employment by managers of quantitative models that allow decision makers to generate all the factors needed to estimate long-term financial gains and/or losses before any intervention strategy is implemented in the workplace. As indicated, the use of quantitative models to estimate the net financial gains of using particular intervention strategies, accompanied with the value estimation of certain types of employee states (e.g., psychological well-being) and worker behaviors (e.g., employee turnover), can ultimately save companies from making gross tactical errors and, more positively, can assist management in promoting the organization's long-term economic goals in conjunction with the enhanced well-being of employees.

Type
Focal Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berra, R. L., & Whitford, D. T. (1995). Analytical financial tools and human resource management. In Ferris, G. R., Rosen, S. D., & Barnum, D. T. (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management (pp. 8399). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Birati, A., & Tziner, A. (1999). Economic utility of training programs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 155164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, J. W. (1983). Economic considerations in estimating the utility of human resource productivity improvement programs. Personnel Psychology, 36, 551576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, J. W. (1988). Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management (CAHRS Working Paper #88-21). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.Google Scholar
Boudreau, J. W. (1991). Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management. In Dunnette, M., & Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 621745). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2003). Strategic HRM measurement in the 21st century: From justifying HR to strategic talent leadership. In Goldsmith, M., Gandossy, R. P., & Efron, M. S. (Eds.), HRM in the 21st century (pp. 7990). New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Boudreau, J. W., Sturman, M. C., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Utility analysis: What are the black boxes, and do they affect decisions? In Anderson, N., & Herriot, P. (Eds.), Assessment and selection in organizations: Methods and practice for recruitment and appraisal (pp. 7796). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Brogden, H. E. (1949). When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology, 2, 171183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrera, E. F., & Raju, N. S. (2001). Utility analysis: Current trends and future directions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 92102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (1991). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (1993). Assessing the utility of selection decisions: Theoretical and practical considerations. In Schmitt, N., & Borman, W. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 310340). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. I. (1985). A cost-benefit analysis of industrial training. Economics of Education Review, 4, 327339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Glezer, G. C. (1965). Psychological testing and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Cronshaw, S. F., & Alexander, R. A. (1991). Why capital budgeting techniques are suited for assessing the utility of personnel programs: A reply to Hunter, Schmidt, and Coggin (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 19, 395412.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2013). The four faces of happiness. In Weiss, H. M. (Ed.), Handbook of work attitudes and affect. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De George, R. (2010). Business ethics (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., & Eldridge, B. (2009). Calling and vocation in career counseling: Recommendations for promoting meaningful work. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 625632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2012). Psychosocial safety climate moderates the demand-resource interaction in predicting work stress. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 694704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W., & Newman, J. R. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited.” Organization Science, 15(3), 364369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (1998). Human resource selection (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 7298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1982). Fitting people to jobs: The impact of personnel selection on national productivity. In Dunnette, M., & Fleishman, E. (Eds.), Human performance and productivity: Human capability assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., Lievens, F., Kleinmann, M., Brändli, M., Fraefel, L., & König, C. J. (2013). Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 326341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klaas, B. S., & McClendon, J. A. (1996). To lead, lag, or match: Estimating the financial impact of pay level policies. Personnel Psychology, 49, 121141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossek, E. E., & Lambert, S. (Eds.) (2005). Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavis, F. R. (1960). The great tradition (New ed.). London, England: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
Martin, S. L., & Raju, N. S. (1992). Determining cutoff scores that optimize utility: A recognition of recruiting costs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShane, S. L., Olekalns, M., & Travaglione, A. (2013). Organisational behaviour: Emerging knowledge, global insights (4th Asia-Pacific ed.). North Ryde, Australia: McGraw Hill Australia.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. P., Maltin, E. R., & Thai, S. P. C. (2012). Employee Commitment and Well-being. In Houdmont, J., Leka, S., & Sinclair, R. R. (Eds.), Employee commitment and well-being, in contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 1935). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America, a hard look at spirituality, religion, and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Morrow, C. C., Jarrett, M. Q., & Rupinski, M. T. (1997). An investigation of the effect and economic utility of corporate-wide training. Personnel Psychology, 50, 91119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. (1986). When your top choice turns you down: Effects of rejected offers on selection test utility. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 133138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. (2009). Validity, validation and values. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 421461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2012). How the unintended consequences of organizational interventions complicate the assessment of economic utility. Economics and Business Letters, 1, 3342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50, 823854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, G. A., Edwards, J., & Raju, N. (1989). Organizational development interventions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other variables. Personnel Psychology, 42, 461489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmar, B., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 403445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, R. D. (1990). Measuring and improving organizational productivity. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 6993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, P. L. (1994). Multi-attribute utility analysis using the ProMES approach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 6980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, C. J. (2013). Is it time to voluntarily turn over theories of voluntary turnover? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 156173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1999). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Mack, M. J., & Hunter, J. E. (1984). Selection utility in the occupation of U.S. Park Ranger for three modes of test use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 490497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, A. W. (1912). Some problems in market distribution. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 26, 706765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, H. C., & Russell, J. T. (1939). The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 565578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tziner, A. (2002). Human resource management and organization behavior: Selected perspectives. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Tziner, A., & Birati, A. (1996). Assessing employee turnover costs: A revised approach. Human Resource Management Review, 6, 113122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tziner, A., & Fein, E. C. (2012). Modeling employees' deviant behavior and employers' reactions: An interdisciplinary approach using principal-agent and prospect theories. Economics and Business Letters, 1, 1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tziner, A., Fein, E. C., & Oren, L. (2012). Human motivation and its outcomes. In Cooper, C. L., & Quick, J. C. (Eds.), Downsizing – Is less still more? (pp. 103133). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, S., Köenig, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Single-attribute utility analysis may be futile, but this can't be the end of the story: Causal chain analysis as an alternative. Personnel Psychology, 63, 10411065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (1997). The role of pleasantness and activation-based well-being in performance prediction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 212219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well-being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 93104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longitudinal tests of the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 123.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Tempering Hard Times: Integrating Well-Being Metrics Into Utility Analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Tempering Hard Times: Integrating Well-Being Metrics Into Utility Analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Tempering Hard Times: Integrating Well-Being Metrics Into Utility Analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *