See on Scoop.it – personnel psychology

Workers who spend time on online role-playing games have the edge in the real world of business, according to new research.

A study by Newcastle University Business School and the University of Crete suggests that games such as World of Warcraft, Lineage II and The Lord of the Rings Online could be used to help develop staff training techniques.

Researchers found that massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) can improve leadership skills and make staff into faster learners.

They followed a sample of employees for one month and found that many of the combat-related activities needed to gain points and solve quests have similarities with common work tasks.

These include collaboration, meeting targets, team work, strategic planning, allocating resources and recruiting new players to form groups.

The better the subjects performed in the games, the more these skills spilled over into their work lives.

See on tyneandwear.sky.com

See on Scoop.it – personnel psychology

84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump.com that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to. what’s more, more than one in three resent their husbands for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.

See on www.forbes.com

See on Scoop.it – personnel psychology

When evaluating job applicants, employers want to be sure that they choose the right person for the job. Many employers, from consulting firms to federal agencies, will ask prospective employees to complete extensive tests and questionnaires to get a better sense of what those employees might be like in an office setting. But new research published in Perspectives on Psychological Science suggests that a different factor — employee interests — may be a better way to predict who will perform well on the job.

See on www.psychologicalscience.org

See on Scoop.it – Greek HR

Οι διαρκείς και βασανιστικοί καύσωνες που πλήττουν τη χώρα μας το φετινό καλοκαίρι είναι δεδομένο ότι όχι μόνο ευνοούν κλίμα «ραστώνης» με αναπόφευκτη συνέπεια τη μειωμένη αποδοτικότητα των εργαζομένων, αλλά κάνουν περισσότερο ασαφή τα -ήδη παρεξηγημένα- όρια ανάμεσα στην τεμπελιά και στην «ανία» απέναντι στην εργασία, κάτι που επισημαίνεται ως το νέο σύνδρομο της εργασίας του 21ου αιώνα και φέρει το όνομα «Boreout» (Εκδόσεις Αθ. Σταμούλης).

 

Με διαπιστωμένο -σύμφωνα με ανακοινώσεις σχετικών πανεπιστημιακών ερευνών το 2007 (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory και Helnsiki University of Technology)- ότι «η βέλτιστη σχέση θερμοκρασίας/απόδοσης των εργαζομένων είναι 21,8 °C και ότι η απόδοση αυξάνεται σε θερμοκρασία 21 και 22 °C, ενώ μειώνεται όταν η θερμοκρασία αυξηθεί άνω των 22 και 23 °C», η παρούσα αναφορά μας για τον διαχωρισμό ανάμεσα στην τεμπελιά και στην αδιαφορία επανέρχεται ως απολύτως επίκαιρη, όχι μόνο για να ρίξει μεγαλύτερο «ανάθεμα» στον καύσωνα, αλλά και για τη διάγνωση ενός προβλήματος που ενδημεί στους χώρους εργασίας.

See on news.kathimerini.gr

See on Scoop.it – personnel psychology

Here’s a simple arithmetic question: A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

The vast majority of people respond quickly and confidently, insisting the ball costs ten cents. This answer is both obvious and wrong. (The correct answer is five cents for the ball and a dollar and five cents for the bat.)

 

For more than five decades, Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Laureate and professor of psychology at Princeton, has been asking questions like this and analyzing our answers. His disarmingly simple experiments have profoundly changed the way we think about thinking. While philosophers, economists, and social scientists had assumed for centuries that human beings are rational agents—reason was our Promethean gift—Kahneman, the late Amos Tversky, and others, including Shane Frederick (who developed the bat-and-ball question), demonstrated that we’re not nearly as rational as we like to believe.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/daniel-kahneman-bias-studies.html

 

See on www.newyorker.com