According to a 2013 survey from insurance provider AIG, negative organizational culture is the number one barrier to patient safety in the healthcare industry. While preventable medical errors is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., it is also one of the highest expenses for healthcare providers –“half of every dollar spent on healthcare costs is related to a medical error,” said Emily Rinehart, a registered nurse and vice president and division manager for healthcare risk consulting at AIG.

There are three main ways company culture can impact patient safety:

• Staff buy-in – How committed is your workforce?
• Communication breakdown – Is your medical staff communicating patient care effectively?
• Compliance vs. commitment – Are you more interested taking disciplinary action or correcting the problem?

Our comprehensive approach to personality assessment provides the depth and detail
you need to understand your people.

What drives individuals to betray their coworkers,
and what companies can do to identify them?

No one has time to read every new piece of research that could impact our field. As a result, it is hard to know what important new findings might pass us by. Luckily, the Hogan Research Division is here to help (and we welcome your contributions in return). Below are a handful of articles we found interesting.

• Helping others might make us feel better about ourselves, but is this a universal phenomenon? Akin et al. found that spending money to help others makes people happy regardless of whether they live in rich or poor countries. They argue that the positive feelings we get from helping others might be ingrained in human nature regardless of country or culture.
• Jansen et al. examined the validity of structure interviews and assessment centers with a unique twist. They found that individuals who were better at identifying what was being measured (e.g., Communication, Problem Solving, etc.) not only did better but their scores were more predictive of job performance. They call this ability the assessment of situational demands. Why, then, is it called faking in the personality literature?
• The debate over bandwidth in personality continues with recent work from Salgado et al. In a large sample of police officers, they found that individual facets of Conscientiousness did not show incremental validity over the scale-level measure, thereby supporting the notion that broad scales work just as well as facets. Why, then, have so many researchers over the years found that facets are often more predictive? Perhaps it has something to do with all of the different samples and/or measures that have been used over the years to example this issue.
• McAbee & Oswald reported meta-analytic results examining relationships between personality and GPA. But perhaps more importantly, the compared results aggregated across different personality instruments to those when treating each personality instrument separately. With Conscientiousness, results were fairly consistent across measures, but results varied for other FFM personality measures. So, when reviewing research examining relationships between personality and other outcomes of interest, keep in mind that all personality assessments cannot be treated equally.

Be sure to check out Part 1 and Part 2 of our review in case you missed them.

And again, we invite you to provide information relating to any other articles from the first three months of 2013 that we failed to include here.

In the world of I/O Psychology, we are often presented with statistical results on a daily basis. Although useful, this can be a problem if we don't understand how to interpret results presented to us or know what questions we should ask to make sure those results are accurate.

This pocket guide is a quick reference for individuals who are confronted with statistical or research terminology regularly used in I/O Psychology. It provides an overview of common statistical terms, techniques, and processes for your reference. With this information, you can be a better consumer of research results and, therefore, make better data-based decisions.

To purchase Statistics: A Pocket Guide for I/O Psychologists, visit the bookstore. 

First, do no harm – a phrase typically associated with the Hippocratic oath medical students take before transitioning into a licensed professional. While nurses and doctors pledge to uphold the highest standard of medical care possible, in corporate healthcare, some aspects of patient safety fall through the cracks.

Nursing and clinical staff face demanding work environments that, when mishandled, can devastate patient care. Long hours, heavy patient loads, and high turnover all contribute to putting patient safety at risk. When it comes to performing in such a high-stakes atmosphere, all applicants are not created equal. Our research shows that there are six personality-based competencies that accurately predict an individual’s ability to perform his or her job safely.

Download our newest safety ebook, First, Do No Harm, to learn what they are and find out how to minimize the risks of patient safety, starting first with your people.

Good empirical studies examining coaching and development are always hard to find. But here two from Q1 we thought coaches might enjoy:

• In an effort to determine what influences a client's perception of coaching effectiveness, de Haan et al. examined a number of potential factors using data from over 150 client-coach pairs. They found the perceived quality of the client-coach relationship, or working alliance, was most critical in determining how clients perceive coaching effectiveness.  
• Do you know someone who is dealing with emotional exhaustion or low job satisfaction? If so, research conducted by Hulsheger et al. on the effects of mindfulness might be the answer. In general, employees who are attentive to and accepting of what is going on around them are generally more satisfied with their jobs. The article provides a brief review of and references to additional information concerning mindfulness training.

• Do you need more evidence indicating that delivery method (e.g., paper and pencil v. internet) does not impact results? If so, recent work by Weigold et al. not only supports previous research finding that both methods produce equivalent results, but provides a nice outline of potential problems with studies that have failed to find equivalence.  
• Are you trying to figure out how to increase survey response rates?  Research by Fauth et al. shows you might be up against than you realize. Aside from job satisfaction, several group-level variables, such as work group size, heterogeneity in tenure, and heterogeneity in gender, significantly influence response rates. One positive takeaway is social influences likely matter, so, when trying to increase participation, peer pressure may help.
• On the statistics front, coefficient alpha continues to be the most widely used reliability estimate. For that reason, it is also probably the most widely criticized. Peterson & Kim examined differences between alpha and a popular alternative, composite reliability. Across thousands of estimates, they found that the average estimates from the two approaches differed by only .02. Based on these results, there is no reason to assume that coefficient alpha won’t continue to rain as the king of reliability estimates in I/O Psychology.

Next up, Part 3 of our review will cover a diverse range of articles we thought were worth sharing. And in case you missed it, be sure to check out Part 1 of our review, which summarized articles dealing with a variety of factors that drive performance in organizations. Again, we invite you to provide information relating to any other articles from the first three months of 2013 that we failed to include here.

The Upside of Narcissism in the Workplace

No one has time to read every new piece of research that could impact our field. As a result, it is hard to know what important new findings might pass us by. Luckily, the Hogan Research Division is here to help (and we welcome your contributions in return).

Below is a quick rundown of several articles from Q1 that examined a variety of individual and organizational characteristics that drive performance. This is not an all-inclusive list. So, if you’ve read any new publications or reports from the last three months we failed to include, feel free to write a comment telling us about them.

• In a review of customer service-related variables, Hong et al. provide a nice outline of how leadership impacts a company’s bottom line. First, leadership practices shape an organization’s service climate, which influences employee behaviors. Behaviors impact customer satisfaction, which then drives financial performance. This research provides an excellent demonstration of the Leadership Value Chain at work.
• In reviewing safety-related variables, Hogan & Foster presents research demonstrating how individual employee personality characteristics predict important work outcomes. Using data from multiple samples representing a variety of jobs, organizations, and industries, we show that personality influences safety-related behaviors, which in turn predict major workplace accidents and injuries. In other words, personality doesn’t influence work outcomes by itself, but does so because of its influence in important work-related behaviors.
• We have all heard that self efficacy and performance are correlated with one another, but does one actually cause the other? Research by Sitzmann and Yeo suggests that performance drives self-efficacy, but not necessarily the other way around. Instead, individuals who are confident in their abilities likely do better on many tasks simply because they’ve done well on similar tasks in the past.  
• Is conflict within teams good or bad? According to research by Bradley et al., it all depends on the personality characteristics of your team. When team members are generally high in Emotional Stability or Openness, conflict can drive good performance, but the opposite is true when either characteristic is generally low. So, when dealing with conflict within teams, it helps to know your team members.  
• Abusive supervision continues to be a hot topic these days. In examining the impact of abusive supervision, Shoss et al. found that when employees identify an abusive supervisor with their company, they are more likely to retaliate against the company itself through both counterproductive behaviors and lower job performance.  

Is there such a thing as being too creative? Although creativity is largely associated with positive work outcomes, our research shows that, in excess, creativity can be a powerful roadblock to career success.

To understand how creativity can harm an individual’s career, we must look at personality from two perspectives: bright-side personality and dark-side personality.

Bright-side personality describes the strengths and weaknesses people display when they are at their best. Dark-side personality describes personality characteristics that are strengths under normal circumstances. Under the increased stress, pressure, or boredom of most work environments, people tend to overuse those strengths, and they can become powerful career derailers.

Creative people often have parents who emphasize their uniqueness and favor creative expression over convention. As adults, their ability to comfortably work outside of societal norms makes creative individuals valuable sources of potentially important ideas. However, highly creative individuals also tend to focus too much on thinking outside the box, often at the cost of their ability to clearly explain their ideas or follow through.

For more on performance implications and recommendations for coaching highly creative individuals, download our white paper, Way Outside the Box.