Organizationally Sensible vs. Legal-Centric Approaches to Employment Decisions With Legal Implications

This article is intended to: 1) alert human resource (HR) professionals to the risk that they, and the managers they serve, are unnecessarily contributing to the impact of legal considerations on the management of employees as a result of “legal-centric decision making”; and 2) provide information and guidance that will assist HR professionals in promoting better informed, more organizationally sensible responses to employment issues that have potential legal implications. The “legal-centric decision making” construct is introduced and illustrated, a model of the primary factors contributing to legal-centric decision making is presented, and keys to avoiding legal-centric decision making are identified and discussed

The Nature of the New Employment Relationship(s): A Content Analysis of the Practitioner and Academic Literatures

This article seeks to provide HRM professionals information and guidance that will assist them in understanding, evaluating, and applying current thinking regarding the new employment relationship. The focus of the article is a study that investigates the extent to which there is a consensus in the literature regarding the nature of the new employment relationship by systematically analyzing the content of relevant articles. The discussion incorporates empirical findings from other studies, notes differences between the articles found in scholarly publications versus those found in trade magazines, provides recommendations for HRM professionals, and suggests areas of future research

Spillover

Discussion of the positive and negative effects of work-family spillover: the transfer of mood, affect, and behavior between work and home

Legally Defensible vs. Organizationally Sensible: Avoiding Legal-Centric Employment Decision Making

Managers and human resource professionals express grave concern about the increasing influence that the law and lawyers are having on their ability to manage employees effectively. Blame is typically placed on growing governmental regulation of the employment relationship, a “litigation mentality” among workers, and overly aggressive lawyers pursuing selfish interests. Much less common, however, is attention focused on the role that organizational decision makers play in contributing to the perceived problem. This article is intended to help address that limitation by alerting managers to the likelihood that they are unnecessarily contributing to the impact of legal considerations on the management of employees as a result of “legal-centric decision making”, and by providing information and guidance that will assist them in formulating better informed, more strategic responses to employment issues that have potential legal implications. Keys to implementing the strategic approach are identified and discussed, and the approach is illustrated by applying it to a decision that American employers continue to confront: how to respond to the eroding employment at-will doctrine. The analysis strongly suggests that the extent of the law’s negative influence on the management of employees can be moderated significantly if organizational decision makers recognize their contribution to “the problem”, focus on what is organizationally sensible rather than what is perceived to be legally defensible, and adopt a more strategic (less legal-centric) approach to the challenges posed by employment decisions that raise legal concerns

“Challenge” and “Hindrance” Related Stress Among U.S. Managers

This study proposes that stress associated with two kinds of job demands or work circumstances, “challenges” and “hindrances,” are distinct phenomena that are differentially related to work outcomes. Specific hypotheses were derived from this general proposition and tested using a sample of 1,886 U.S. managers and longitudinal data. Regression results indicate that challenge related stress is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to job search. In contrast, hindrance related stress is negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to job search and turnover

Obesity discrimination in the workplace : "You're Hired!'"

The purpose of this study is to first identify whether obese people are discriminated against when hiring employees. Employees of workforces that vary due to the physical demand of their job, will rate hypothetical applicants on their suitability for employment using Likert-type responses to a range of questions. Applicants’ curriculum vitae will be manipulated by weight status and gender. Implicit and explicit attitudes towards obese people will also be examined using existing measures with strong psychometric properties as reported in extant research. Second, using focus group discussions with employees of either sedentary or physically active workforces, this study will explore why and in what ways obese people are discriminated against in the workplace

Obesity Discrimination in the Recruitment Process: "You're Not Hired!".

Previous literature reports that obese persons are discriminated in the workplace. Evidence suggests that obese people are perceived as having less leadership potential, and in comparison to normal weight peers, are expected to be less successful. This study examined whether obese people are discriminated against when applying for employment. Three hypotheses were offered in line with previous research: (1) obese people are less likely to be assessed positively on personnel suitability than normal weight people; (2) obese people in active employment are more likely to be discriminated against than people in non-active employment; and (3) obese women are more likely to be discriminated against than obese men. 181 Participants were sampled from sedentary, standing, manual and heavy manual occupations. Participants rated hypothetical candidates on their suitability for employment. Employees also completed measures of implicit and explicit attitudes toward obesity. MANOVA was conducted to examine if obese candidates were discriminated against during the recruitment procedure. Results demonstrated that participants rated obese candidates as less suitable compared with normal weight candidates and when the weight status of the candidate was not revealed for work across the four workplace groups. Participant gender and weight status also impacted perceptions of candidates' suitability for work and discrimination toward obese candidates was higher in participants from more physically demanding occupations. The study findings contribute to evidence that obese people are discriminated against in the hiring process and support calls for policy development

Are Finger Width Palpation, Tape Measure, and Caliper Reliable, Valid, and Accurate to Diagnose Diastasis Recti Abdominis (DRA)?

Purpose: Diastasis recti abdominis (DRA) is a condition where the medial rectus bellies separate at the linea alba. A DRA can negatively impact posture, trunk and pelvic stability, pelvic floor muscular control, respiration, trunk movement, and abdominal viscera support. The purpose of this research is to determine whether tools used in the clinic effectively screen for DRA. Specifically, this study compared the reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy of finger width, tape measure, and calipermeasurements to the clinical best standard, ultrasound imaging. Additionally, the study investigates whether there is a correlation between DRA and low back pain and pelvic floor dysfunction. Participants: A sample of convenience of 49 men and women ranging from 18 to 64 years and female parity ranging from nulliparous to multiparous. Methods: This is a clinimetric, test-retest study. Two examiners measured the distance between the rectus bellies (interrecti distance or IRD) via finger widthpalpation, tape measure, and caliper under two conditions: at rest and during an abdominal crunch. Measurements were taken at two locations, above and at the umbilicus. A sonographer measured the IRD using ultrasound imaging under the same conditions and at the same locations. Participants returned within 7 days and the clinical measures were repeated. Examiners were blinded to measurements taken by the different examiners during the two measurement days. Results: Measurements taken with the tape measure had the strongest interrater reliability (moderate), followed by caliper (fair to moderate), then finger width palpation (poor to moderate). Tape measure also exhibited the strongest intrarater reliability ranging from good to very good (ICC = 0.77–0.83). Finger width palpation followed with good intrarater reliability (ICC = 0.63–0.76) and the caliper ranged from moderate to good (ICC = 0.53–0.61). Concurrent validity was fair to moderate for finger width palpation(ICC = 0.36–0.56) while the other measurement tools were deemed fair (ICC = 0.21–0.39). All three measurement tools had excellent specificity (96.3–100%) but low sensitivity (\u3c 25%). Urinary incontinence and DRA were correlated with a moderate effect size and 4.9 odds ratio. Conclusions: Methods commonly used to screen for DRA have moderate interrater reliability, good to very good intrarater reliability, fair to moderate concurrent validity, and excellent specificity with low sensitivity. DRAand urinary incontinence are correlated