Social scientists often estimate models from correlational data, where the independent variable has not been exogenously manipulated; they also make implicit or explicit causal claims based on these models. When can these claims be made? We answer this question by first discussing design and estimation conditions under which model estimates can be interpreted, using the randomized experiment as the gold standard. We show how endogeneity – which includes omitted variables, omitted selection, simultaneity, common-method variance, and measurement error – renders estimates causally uninterpretable. Second, we present methods that allow researchers to test causal claims in situations where randomization is not possible or when causal interpretation could be confounded; these methods include fixed-effects panel, sample selection, instrumental variable, regression discontinuity, and difference-in-differences models. Third, we take stock of the methodological rigor with which causal claims are being made in a social sciences discipline by reviewing a representative sample of 110 articles on leadership published in the previous 10 years in top-tier journals. Our key finding is that researchers fail to address at least 66% and up to 90% of design and estimation conditions that make causal claims invalid. We conclude by offering 10 suggestions on how to improve non-experimental research.

On making causal claims : A review and recommendations

This meta-analytic review responds to promises in the research literature and public domain about the benefits of workplace mindfulness training. It synthesizes randomized controlled trial evidence from workplace-delivered training for changes in mindfulness, stress, mental health, well-being, and work performance outcomes. Going beyond extant reviews, this article explores the influence of variability in workforce and intervention characteristics for reducing perceived stress. Meta-effect estimates (Hedge’s g) were computed using data from 23 studies. Results indicate beneficial effects following training for mindfulness (g = 0.45, p < .001) and stress (g = 0.56, p < .001), anxiety (g = 0.62, p < .001) and psychological distress (g = 0.69, p < .001), and for well-being (g = 0.46, p = .002) and sleep (g = 0.26, p = .003). No conclusions could be drawn from pooled data for burnout due to ambivalence in results, for depression due to publication bias, or for work performance due to insufficient data. The potential for integrating the construct of mindfulness within job demands-resources, coping, and prevention theories of work stress is considered in relation to the results. Limitations to study designs and reporting are addressed, and recommendations to advance research in this field are made. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

/pdf/a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-workplace-448vdu0m18.pdf

A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace mindfulness training randomized controlled trials

Despite legislation on diversity in the workplace, people with disabilities still do not experience the same access to work opportunities as do their counterparts without disabilities. Many employers have been shown to harbor sincere yet ill-founded views about the work-related abilities of people with disabilities; these negative views are often a result of interrelated concerns that permeate the entire employment cycle. In this paper, we provide evidence-based responses to 11 specific concerns that employers have about people with disabilities, from pre-employment and entry experiences to the final dissolution of the employment relationship. At each stage of the employment cycle, we summarize and evaluate the relevant empirical evidence and provide recommendations for organizations committed to creating more effective, equitable, and inclusive workplaces for all individuals. We also suggest avenues for future research.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10869-018-9602-5.pdf

The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle: Employer Concerns and Research Evidence

Do workplace-based mindfulness meditation programs improve physiological indices of stress? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mindfulness-based training interventions for employees: A qualitative review of the literature

In recent years the concept of mindfulness has become increasingly popular, and with good reason. A growing body of research indicates that mindfulness provides a number of physical, psychological, and even performance benefits. As a result, some organizations have started offering mindfulness programs to their employees. But despite growing interest, mindfulness has received little attention from the industrial–organizational community. In this article, we provide an overview of what mindfulness is, where the concept came from, how it has been utilized and studied to date, and what its application in the work setting is. We also propose new directions for researchers and practitioners.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1754942615000413

Mindfulness at Work: A New Approach to Improving Individual and Organizational Performance

Employee Turnover and Strategies for Retention

In their focal article, Lindsey, King, Dunleavy, McCausland, and Jones (2013) make a clear and compelling call to action, identifying various ways industrial– organizational (I–O) psychologists and practitioners can help eradicate employment discrimination. In our response article, we echo this call, focusing specifically on one of the largest diversity groups that we know the least about: employees with disabilities.

Eradicating Discrimination: Identifying and Removing Workplace Barriers for Employees With Disabilities

Abstract In recent years, various I-O psychologists have raised concerns about the state of the field, with some arguing that we are experiencing a collective identity crisis and have lost our way. In this article, I explore why these concerns have emerged by reviewing the development of our field from a philosophy of science perspective. Then I discuss how the concepts of reflection and reflexivity can help us clarify our professional worldviews and find a way forward. I conclude by suggesting ways to incorporate reflection and reflexivity into I-O research and practice. My hope is to spark a conversation about the role that reflection and reflexivity could play in our field.

All we like sheep: The need for reflection and reflexivity in I-O psychology

Saari and Scherbaum (2011) raised a number of practical, scientific, and ethical questions in their focal article. We began grappling with many of these same questions 10 years ago when we were first asked to conduct an identified survey. We have learned a lot since then. In this commentary, we seek to share that learning. We introduce empirical evidence regarding the impact of identified surveys on employee perceptions and behaviors, and we share the assumptions and best practices we believe underlie successful identified surveys.

Patrick K. Hyland

Papers

Mindfulness at Work: A New Approach to Improving Individual and Organizational Performance

Employee Turnover and Strategies for Retention

Eradicating Discrimination: Identifying and Removing Workplace Barriers for Employees With Disabilities

All we like sheep: The need for reflection and reflexivity in I-O psychology

Realizing the Promise and Minimizing the Perils of Identified Surveys: Reports From the Field