Reasons for Being Selective When Choosing Personnel Selection Procedures

The scientist–practitioner gap in personnel selection is large. Thus, it is important to gain a better understanding of the reasons that make organizations use or not use certain selection procedures. Based on institutional theory, we predicted that six variables should determine the use of selection procedures: the procedures' diffusion in the field, legal problems associated with the procedures, applicant reactions to the procedures, their usefulness for organizational self-promotion, their predictive validity, and the costs involved. To test these predictions, 506 HR professionals from the German-speaking part of Switzerland filled out an online survey on the selection procedures used in their organizations. Respondents also evaluated five procedures (semi-structured interviews, ability tests, personality tests, assessment centers, and graphology) on the six predictor variables. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze the data. The results revealed that the highest odd ratios belonged to the factors applicant reactions, costs, and diffusion. Lower (but significant) odds ratios belonged to the factors predictive validity, organizational self-promotion, and perceived legality.

[1]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  3 Staffing Twenty‐first‐century Organizations , 2008 .

[2]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Perceived Causes and Solutions of the Translation Problem in Management Research , 2007 .

[3]  Ann Marie Ryan,et al.  AN INTERNATIONAL LOOK AT SELECTION PRACTICES: NATION AND CULTURE AS EXPLANATIONS FOR VARIABILITY IN PRACTICE , 1999 .

[4]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Winfred Arthur,et al.  Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. , 1994 .

[6]  Gershon Ben-Shakhar,et al.  The predictive validity of graphological inferences: A meta-analytic approach , 1989 .

[7]  J. Lepine.  Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  Neil Anderson,et al.  Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: An International Comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Singapore , 2008 .

[9]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: changes, choices, and trends. , 2008, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  John E. Hunter,et al.  THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF JOB SELECTION METHODS ON SIZE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND PAYROLL COSTS OF THE FEDERAL WORK FORCE: AN EMPIRICALLY BASED DEMONSTRATION , 1986 .

[11]  Cornelius J. König,et al.  Integrating Theories of Motivation , 2006 .

[12]  Neil Anderson,et al.  The practitioner‐researcher divide revisited: Strategic‐level bridges and the roles of IWO psychologists , 2007 .

[13]  D. D. Steiner,et al.  Fairness Reactions to Selection Methods: An Italian Study , 2007 .

[14]  L. D. Milia.  Australian Management Selection Practices: Closing the Gap between Research Findings and Practice , 2004 .

[15]  T. Judge,et al.  Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in Greece: The Role of Core Self-Evaluations , 2007 .

[16]  Kenneth G. Brown,et al.  The Very Separate Worlds Of Academic And Practitioner Periodicals In Human Resource Management: Implications For Evidence-Based Management , 2007 .

[17]  H. Schuler,et al.  Die Nutzung psychologischer Verfahren der externen Personalauswahl in deutschen Unternehmen Ein Vergleich über 20 Jahre , 2007 .

[18]  Alan G. Walker.  Maximizing journal impact: Moving from inspections of topics to scans for techniques, populations and actions , 2008 .

[19]  R. Daft,et al.  Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics , 2001 .

[20]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  A Speculative Perspective on the Transfer of Behavioral Science Findings to the Workplace: “The Times They are A-Changin'” , 2007 .

[21]  Daniel M. Cable,et al.  Organizational Hiring Patterns, Interfirm Network Ties, and Interorganizational Imitation , 2003 .

[22]  Diana L. Deadrick,et al.  An examination of the research–practice gap in HR: Comparing topics of interest to HR academics and HR professionals , 2007 .

[23]  G. Dean.  The bottom line: Effect size. , 1992 .

[24]  Richard A. Posthuma,et al.  APPLYING U.S. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS TO INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYERS: ADVICE FOR SCIENTISTS AND PRACTITIONERS , 2006 .

[25]  A. Ryan,et al.  Applicant self-selection: correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[27]  William R. Dillon,et al.  Offending Estimates in Covariance Structure Analysis: Comments on the Causes of and Solutions to Heywood Cases , 1987 .

[28]  A.J.P. de Paepe,et al.  An empirical investigation of interviewer-related factors that discourage the use of high structure interviews , 2004 .

[29]  Michel Lander,et al.  Structure! Agency! (And Other Quarrels): A Meta-Analysis Of Institutional Theories Of Organization , 2009 .

[30]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Competing pressures for human resource investment , 1997 .

[31]  Xianggui Qu,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis , 2007, Technometrics.

[32]  B. Beyerstein,et al.  The write stuff: Evaluations of graphology, the study of handwriting analysis. , 1992 .

[33]  John P. Hausknecht,et al.  Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[34]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance , 2002 .

[35]  D. Spini,et al.  Measurement Equivalence Of 10 Value Types From The Schwartz Value Survey Across 21 Countries , 2003 .

[36]  Michel Lander,et al.  Structure! Agency! (And Other Quarrels): Meta-Analyzing Institutional Theories of Organization , 2009 .

[37]  David E. Terpstra,et al.  Human Resource Executives' Perceptions of Academic Research , 1998 .

[38]  C. Oliver.  STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[39]  Neil Anderson,et al.  The practitioner‐researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? , 2001 .

[40]  Tapabrata Maiti,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.) , 2006 .

[41]  F. Schmidt,et al.  The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. , 1998 .

[42]  S. Rynes,et al.  Understanding Managers' Agreement With Human Resource Research Findings , 2005 .

[43]  J W Hedge,et al.  Personnel selection. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[44]  Kenneth G. Brown,et al.  HR professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. , 2002 .

[45]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[46]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[47]  Hayagreeva Rao,et al.  Institutional activism in the early American automobile industry , 2004 .

[48]  H. Schuler,et al.  Improving Participants' Evaluations while Maintaining Validity by a Work Sample-Intelligence Test Hybrid , 2004 .

[49]  Terry C. Blum,et al.  Adoption of Workplace Substance Abuse Prevention Programs: Strategic Choice and Institutional Perspectives , 2005 .

[50]  T. Bauer,et al.  Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: a longitudinal field study. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[51]  Debra J. Cohen,et al.  The Very Separate Worlds of Academic and Practitioner Publications in Human Resource Management: Reasons for the Divide and Concrete Solutions for Bridging the Gap , 2007 .

[52]  P. Taylor,et al.  Evolving Personnel Selection Practices in New Zealand Organisations and Recruitment Firms , 2002 .

[53]  Michael M. Harris,et al.  Preemployment screening procedures: How human resource managers perceive them , 1990 .

[54]  L. Zucker.  The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. , 1977 .

[55]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review , 2002 .

[56]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Knowledge for Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[57]  U. Klehe,et al.  Choosing How to Choose: Institutional Pressures Affecting the Adoption of Personnel Selection Procedures , 2004 .

[58]  Jeffery A. LePine,et al.  The Adequacy of Repeated-Measures Regression for Multilevel Research , 2006 .

[59]  Steven F. Cronshaw,et al.  International Perspectives on the Legal Environment for Selection , 2008, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[60]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Time Discounting : A Critical Review , 2001 .

[61]  David L. Deephouse,et al.  Does Isomorphism Legitimate? , 1996 .

[62]  P. Drenth.  Psychology: Is it applied enough? , 2008 .

[63]  Scott Highhouse.  Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection , 2008, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.