Search results

The use of game-based assessments (GBAs) is growing in selection contexts, yet test-takers have varying reactions to such assessments, which have important implications for applicant behavior. This paper reviews the literature on applicant reactions and explores classic assessment models in the context of GBAs, identifying best practice recommendations and pitfalls for enhancing the candidate experience.

A sample of 374 participants from MTurk completed cognitive GBAs and questionnaires regarding test-taker reactions (job-relatedness, perceived opportunity to perform, provision of selection information, face validity, task engagement, task motivation and willingness to refer others to the company), technology self-efficacy, and game/technology experience.

Fairness mediated the relationship between procedural justice rules and willingness to recommend the company to others. Technology self-efficacy was significantly related to fairness perceptions and procedural justice perceptions. Males had significantly higher procedural justice perceptions of GBAs than females.

The study underscores the importance of considering fairness perceptions and individual differences in reactions to GBAs. Future research should study participants within high-stakes hiring situations and examine other individual difference factors such as ethnicity.

GBAs are a viable assessment method for personnel selection, yet organizations must recognize that individuals are more likely to respond positively to GBAs if they perceive such assessments as fair and job-related, and perceive themselves as capable of performing well on the assessment.

This study tests a classic model of procedural fairness in a novel and timely assessment context.

Purpose: We critically examine the idea of neurodiversity, or the uniqueness of all brains, as the foundation for the neurodiversity movement, which began as an autism rights movement. We explore the neurodiversity movement's potential to support cross-disability alliances that can transform cultures.

Methods/Approach: A neurodiverse team reviewed literature about the history of the neurodiversity movement and associated participatory research methodologies and drew from our experiences guiding programs led, to varying degrees, by neurodivergent people. We highlight two programs for autistic university students, one started by and for autistics and one developed in collaboration with autistic and nonautistic students. These programs are contrasted with a national self-help group started by and for stutterers that is inclusive of “neurotypicals.”

Findings: Neurodiversity-aligned practices have emerged in diverse communities. Similar benefits and challenges of alliance building within versus across neurotypes were apparent in communities that had not been in close contact. Neurodiversity provides a framework that people with diverse conditions can use to identify and work together to challenge shared forms of oppression. However, people interpret the neurodiversity movement in diverse ways. By honing in on core aspects of the neurodiversity paradigm, we can foster alliances across diverse perspectives.

Implications/ Values: Becoming aware of power imbalances and working to rectify them is essential for building effective alliances across neurotypes. Sufficient space and time are needed to create healthy alliances. Participatory approaches, and approaches solely led by neurodivergent people, can begin to address concerns about power and representation within the neurodiversity movement while shifting public understanding.

Calls for corporate social responsibility are widespread, yet there is no consensus about what it means; this may be its charm. However, it is possible to distinguish the fi duciary obligations owed to shareholders, as expressed by Milton Friedman, from all other paradigms of corporate responsibility. Friedman maintains that: “ ...there is one and only one social responsibility of business‐to‐use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.” All other paradigms argue that corporations have social responsibilities that extend beyond the pursuit of shareholder benefits to stakeholders. The list of cited stakeholders is ill‐defined and expanding, including non‐human animals and non‐sentient things. This paper defends the intellectual and ethical merits of fiduciary duties, and compares and contrasts it to the stakeholder paradigm. The fiduciary duty to firms’ owners is the bedrock of capitalism, and capitalism will wither without it.