Lievens&Chapman_Recruitment and Selection

[12:34 14/4/2009 5298-Wilkinson-Ch09.tex] Job No: 5298 Wilkinson: The SAGE Handbook of Human Resource Management Page: 133 133154

PART II

Fundamentals of HumanResource Management


9Recruitment and Selection

F i l i p L i e v e n s a n d D e r e k C h a p m a n

RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION

Few people question that recruitment andselection are key strategic domains in HRM.At the same time, recruitment and selectionalso have an image problem. First, recruitmentand selection are often viewed as oldingrained HRM domains. It seems like thetraditional recruitment and selection proce-dures have been around for decades, whichis at odds with the ever changing internaland external environment of organizations.Hence, practitioners often wonder whetherthere are any new research-based ways forrecruiting and selecting personnel. Anotherimage problem for recruitment and selectionis that a false dichotomy is often createdbetween so-called macro HR (examiningHR systems more broadly) and micro HR(examining individual differences). It isfurther sometimes argued that organizationsshould value macro approaches and writeoff micro approaches as not being relevantto the business world. We posit that theseimage problems and debates only serve todistract and fracture the field and hide thefact that excellent HR research and practiceneeds to take both macro and micro issues

into consideration. For example, creating aneffective recruiting strategy (some woulddescribe this as a macro process) requiresconsiderable understanding of the decisionmaking processes of potential applicants(viewed as micro processes). The same canbe said with respect to designing effectiveselection systems, etc.

The challenge for many researchers thenhas been to demonstrate how scientificallyderived recruiting and selection practices addvalue to organizations. Unfortunately, whenthe quality and impact of recruitment andselection procedures for business outcomesare investigated, they are often describedin rather simplistic terms. For example, inlarge-scale HR surveys (e.g., Becker andHuselid, 1998; Huselid, 1995; Wright et al.,2001; 2005) sound selection practice isoften equated with whether or not formaltests were administered or whether or notstructured interviews were used. Similarly,effective recruitment is associated with thenumber of qualified applicants for posi-tions most frequently hired by the firm.Although such questions tackle importantaspects of recruitment and selection we alsofeel that such descriptions do not capture

ovidiu.stroescuHighlight


136 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

the sophisticated level that recruitment andselection research and practice has attained inrecent years. This oversimplification in large-scale HR surveys is understandable due to thedifficulty of getting usable survey data acrossa diverse set of companies. However, thegoal of demonstrating the utility of recruitingand selection systems may be underminedby this practice and risks setting the fieldback if the results are interpreted out ofcontext.

In light of these issues, the aim of thischapter is to highlight key new researchdevelopments in recruitment and selection.The general theme of this chapter is: Whichnew research developments in recruitmentand selection have occurred that advancerecruitment and selection practice? In termsof time period, our review primarily focuseson developments between 2000 and 2007.Given the huge volume of work publishedduring this time frame we do not aim to beexhaustive. Instead, we aim to cover broadthemes and trends that in our opinion havechanged the field.

OVERVIEW OF KEY RESEARCHFINDINGS IN PERSONNELRECRUITMENT

In this section, we review recent develop-ments in the field of recruiting since 2000.For an excellent and comprehensive reviewof earlier recruiting research, we recommendBarber (1998) or Breaugh and Starke (2000).Tight labor markets in North America havehelped fuel interest in recruiting researchand considerable progress has been madein the recruiting field over the past sevenyears. As noted above, we especially focuson research that has practical implications fororganizations.

The impact of technology onrecruiting

Organizations have had to adjust to thenew reality of online recruiting. These

technologies have created both problemsand opportunities for organizations. Orga-nizations can significantly reduce costs toadvertise positions by using third partyjob boards (e.g., Monster.com) or throughcompany websites. The inexpensive natureof online recruiting permits the conveyanceof large amounts of information to potentialapplicants at a minimal cost relative to tradi-tional advertising venues such as newspapers.Media content can be substantially richerincluding graphics, photos, interactive text,and video (Allen et al., 2004). The potentialalso exists for the immediate tailoring ofrecruiting information to target the needs ofprospective applicants (e.g., Dineen et al.,2002; 2007). For example, after completinga needs questionnaire online, a prospectiveapplicant could conceivably be providedwith targeted information about the organiza-tion, its benefit programs, and opportunitiesthat addresses their individual needs. Alongthese lines, Dineen et al. (2007) discoveredthat customized information about likelyfit (combined with good web aesthetics)decreased viewing time and recall of low-fitting individuals, suggesting a means toavoid these individuals of being attracted tothe organization. Clearly, customized real-time recruiting approaches are within therealm of existing technologies.

Despite the benefits and efficiencies ofonline recruiting, a downside is that manyemployers complain about the flood ofunqualified applicants that can result fromonline advertising (Chapman and Webster,2003). This deluge of applicants can inflictconsiderable costs on the organization if theonline recruiting process is not accompaniedby an effective and efficient screening tech-nology. The importance of integrating effi-cient screening tools and online recruitmentneeds to be emphasized to a greater extent inHR practice.

Researchers have also begun to focusmore specifically on what makes an effec-tive company website for recruiting pur-poses (e.g., Cober et al., 2004; 2003;Lee, 2005). Specifically, these authors sug-gest that web site content (e.g. cultural


RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION 137

information), appearance (e.g., use of colorsand pictures) and navigability (e.g. linksto job applications and useable layout) areall important for recruiting purposes. Coberet al. (2003) found that perceptions of thewebsite aesthetics and usability accountedfor 33 per cent of the variance in pursuitintentions and 31 per cent of the variance inrecommendation intentions. Clearly, invest-ing resources in web site aesthetics such asthe use of pleasing colors, pictures of smilingemployees, and easy to navigate functionssuch as direct links to application formscan have appreciable benefits for recruiting.A study of Williamson et al. (2003) providedanother practically important finding. Theydiscovered that setting up a recruiting-oriented web site (instead of a screening-oriented web site) was associated withsignificantly higher attraction by prospectiveapplicants.

Applicant quality as recruitingoutcome

Traditional recruiting outcomes have beencategorized into four major constructs:Job pursuit intentions, organizational attrac-tion, acceptance intentions, and job choice(Chapman et al., 2005). Breaugh and Starke(2000) presented a large number of potentialorganizational goals that recruiters couldstrive to reach from shortening recruiting pro-cessing to reducing turnover. More researchis emerging on these additional outcomes.For example, although recruiters have alwaysbeen concerned about the quality of applicantsattracted, few researchers have focused onthis area. This area has perhaps becomemore popular recently due to the concernsabout online applicant quality noted inthe technology section. Specifically, Carlsonet al. (2002) argued that assessing thequality of the applicants attracted is a usefultool in assessing the overall utility of therecruiting/selection system. To this end, theyprovided a useful assessment framework.This outcome has become an importantfocus of recruiting research (e.g., Collins andHan, 2004; Turban and Cable, 2003).

The renewed importance of therecruiter

A longstanding debate in the recruitment fieldhas examined the role that recruiters playin influencing applicant decisions. Earlierwork suggested that recruiters play eitherno role or a minor one in determiningapplicant decisions. However, research since2000 has confirmed that recruiters in fact,do play a significant role in applicant jobchoice (Chapman et al., 2005). In theirmeta-analytic review, Chapman et al. testedseveral models to account for how recruitersinfluence job choice. Their best fitting modelinvolved job and organizational character-istics as mediators of recruiter influenceon attraction and job choice. In otherwords, recruiters appear to influence jobchoices by changing applicant perceptionsof job and organizational characteristics.Even more importantly, this influence wasmost pronounced for the best candidates-those with multiple job offers (Chapman andWebster, 2006).

Ironically, there is little guidance in theselection literature regarding how to identifyand select individuals well suited for recruit-ing. Early studies showed that applicants payattention to and are positively influenced byrecruiter behaviors such as being informativeand expressing warmth (Chapman et al., 2005)but we know little about individual differencesthat may be associated with recruiting success.A recent meta analysis demonstrated thatsimple demographic factors (e.g., recruiter sexor race) are not good predictors (Chapmanet al., 2005). However, there are potentiallymany more individual differences such aspersonality traits and cognitive ability thatmay predict recruiting outcomes. We believethat more work on individual differences inrecruiting success is critical.

Despite the growing role of technology inthe recruiting process, most employers andapplicants continue to value an opportunity forface-to-face interaction at some point in therecruitment process. Employers who imple-ment effective technology-based screeningpractices find that their recruiters are freed





up from the manual sorting of resumes inorder to spend more face time with qualifiedcandidates. Interestingly, this is the oppositeof what most employers fear when theyconsider implementing online recruiting andscreening processes. Rather than becomingcold, sterile places, they actually have moretime to interact with their top prospects toconnote empathy and warmth; exactly therecruiter traits most associated with applicantattraction (Chapman et al., 2005).

Organizational image andemployer branding

It is clear that applicants consider theimage of an organization as an importantfactor for evaluating employers. Chapmanet al.s (2005) meta-analysis on organizationalimage in recruiting found a corrected meancorrelation of 0.50 between image and jobpursuit intentions, 0.40 for attraction, and 0.41for acceptance intentions.

In recent years, a lot of work has emergedon how applicants form images of orga-nizations. One simple mechanism appearsto be familiarity. Applicants are generallymore attracted to companies that have nameor brand recognition (Cable and Graham,2000; Cable and Turban, 2001; Collins andStevens, 2002; Turban, 2001), although itshould be acknowledged that being familiarand having initially negative views of theorganization can have deleterious effects onrecruiting outcomes (Brooks et al., 2003).Efforts then to invest in becoming morerecognized within a targeted applicant pop-ulation are generally likely to prove useful fororganizations. For example, for organizationswho recruit primarily on university campuses,sponsoring events attended by students andadvertising broadly within the campus com-munity should increase both familiarity andattraction.

Beyond brand recognition, Lievens andHighhouse (2003) suggest that in formingimages of organization individuals drawsymbolic associations between the organiza-tion and themselves. This anthropomorphicapproach to conceptualizing organizational

image demonstrated that applicants ascribehuman personality traits such as sincerity,excitement, competence, sophistication, andruggedness to organizations (Aaker, 1997;Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). In general,people seem to be more attracted to orga-nizations whose traits and characteristicsare perceived to be similar to their own(e.g., Slaughter et al., 2004).

Another approach to organizational imagehas focused on the issue of corporate socialresponsibility (CSR), also termed corporatesocial performance (CSP). Applicants havebeen shown to take note of CSR informationsuch as an organizations environmentalpractices, community relations, sponsorshipactivities, and treatment of women andminorities (e.g., Aiman-Smith et al., 2001;Backhaus et al., 2002; Turban and Greening,1997). For instance, Greening and Turban(2000) found that organizational CSP appearsto influence the attractiveness of a companyto applicants, such that all four of theCSP dimensions were significantly relatedto job pursuit intentions and the probabilityof accepting both an interview and a job.Aiman-Smith et al. (2001) conducted a policy-capturing study and found that a companysecological rating was the strongest predictorof organizational attraction, over and abovepay and promotional opportunities. Theseauthors and others (see Greening and Turban,2000; Turban and Cable, 2003; Turban andGreening, 1997) suggest that attraction stemsfrom interpreting company image informationas a signal of working conditions a proxyof organizational values and applicantsdevelop an affective reaction to these signalswhich may manifest in being attracted to thatorganization.

At a practical level, this increased researchinterest in organizational image is paralleledby the approach of employer branding (Averyand McKay, 2006; Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004;Cable and Aiman-Smith, 2000; Cable andTurban, 2003; Lievens, 2007a). Employerbranding or employer brand managementinvolves promoting, both within and outsidethe firm, a clear view of what makes afirm different and desirable as an employer.



According to Backhaus and Tikoo (2004),employer branding is essentially a three-stepprocess. First, a firm develops a concept ofwhat particular value (brand equity) it offersto prospective and current employees. Thesecond step consists of externally marketingthis value proposition to attract the targetedapplicant population. To this end, earlyrecruitment practices have been found tobe particularly useful (Collins and Stevens,2002). The third step of employer brandinginvolves carrying the brand promise madeto recruits into the firm and incorporatingit as part of the organizational culture.Recent evidence has shown that a strongemployer brand positively affected the pridethat individuals expected from organiza-tional membership (Cable and Turban, 2003),applicant pool quantity and quality (Collinsand Han, 2004), and firm performanceadvantages over the broad market (Fulmeret al., 2003).

Addressing aging populations

Whereas traditional recruiting research haspredominantly examined attracting youngemployees from universities and colleges,looming demographic realities involving amajor shift in the age of employees areforcing employers and researchers to learnmore about attracting and retaining olderworkers. Information about attracting olderworkers has just recently begun to emerge.For example, Rau and Adams (2004) exam-ined the growing area of bridge employ-ment whereby older workers seek out asemi-retirement opportunity. This typicallyinvolves part-time employment that can serveto supplement retirement income as wellas serve to fill a variety of social andesteem needs in older workers. Emphasiz-ing equal opportunity for older workers,flexible schedules, and pro older workerpolicies have been shown to interact toimprove attraction of older workers (Rauand Adams, 2005). Other suggestions forappealing to older workers include flexiblecompensation and benefits programs, andjob redesign to accommodate and appeal

to older workers (Hedge et al., 2006).Clearly, more empirical data are needed to testmany of the ideas posited for attracting olderworkers.

Attracting temporary workers

One response to staffing highly volatile workdemands has been to rely more heavily ontemporary workers, interns, and employmentagency employees. This approach represents asignificant recruiting challenge as employersoften offer lower pay, few benefits, andlittle training to these temporary workersas compared to core employees. There hasbeen little empirical work examining theattraction of temporary employees, however,research conducted on cooperative educationprograms show that temporary employeestend to be attracted to many of the sameorganizational and job characteristics asfull time employees. Therefore, employersoffering better pay, prestige, locations, andopportunities for advancement are likely tobe more successful in attracting temporaryemployees. As many of these employees useinternships and temporary work as a steppingstone to full-time employment, employerswould benefit considerably from consideringtheir temporary hires as a potential full-timetalent pool and treat them accordingly.

Applicant reactions toselection procedures

Although recruitment and selection are oftenviewed as separate processes, recent studiesare increasingly showing that the two pro-cesses have considerable interactive effects.Negative reactions to selection procedureshave been shown to correlate with attraction,intent to pursue, job recommendations, andintentions to accept a job offer (see meta-analysis of Hausknecht et al., 2004).Applicantreactions are a complex phenomenon. Forinstance many researchers have emphasizedthe perceptions of injustice as the primary out-come of applicant reactions (e.g., Gilliland,1993; Bauer et al., 2001), whereas othershave called for more behavioral outcomes



such as effects on attraction and job choice(e.g., Chapman and Webster, 2006; Ryan andPloyhart, 2000). What is well establishedis that applicants make inferences aboutorganizations based on how they are treatedduring the selection process. In turn, theseinferences might influence how attracted theyare to the organization. In designing selectionprocedures, HR managers should balancetheir recruiting and selection needs and payattention to the potential effects that theirselection practices can have on applicantattraction and job choice.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHON PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT

Emphasizing proactive approaches

Unlike selection research which has a richhistory of exploring very practical approachesto personnel selection, recruiting research hastended to focus on more distal predictor-attraction relationships. For example, we stilllack simple descriptive information on thespecific recruiting tactics used by employers.As a result, there is a dearth of researchexamining the effectiveness of particularrecruiting tactics and strategies. The growingbody of research on decision processes shouldhelp recruiting researchers make informedpredictions about the likely success ofthese specific tactics and provide potentialmoderators of these approaches. Likewise,incorporating and refining theories of persua-sion from social psychology in the recruitingcontext should provide a rich source ofpredictions about the crafting of recruitmentmessages. For instance, studies incorporatingthe Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) cantell us how to craft recruitment messagesthat are effective for busy job fairs or forquiet deliberation of information from a webpage (e.g., Jones et al., 2006; Larsen andPhilips, 2002).

Another example of such a proactiverecruiting approach might consist of organi-zations seeking to maximize fit perceptionsin order to enhance attraction. For example,

through online assessments it may be possibleto identify that an applicant has higher poten-tial person-job fit than person-organization fit.As a result, a proactive recruiting approachwould be to emphasize the benefits forperson-job fit for that individual throughoutthe recruiting process. This might involvepresenting more detailed information to thatindividual on job characteristics, tasks, roles,etc. The aforementioned studies of Dineen andcolleagues exemplify how such a proactiveand customized fit approach might be accom-plished in early (web-based) recruitmentstages. These studies also go beyond thenotion of fit as being a natural process wherebyapplicants self-select into organizations.

Demonstrating value toorganizations

To date, recruiting researchers have largelyhad to rely on logical arguments to demon-strate the value of recruiting to organizations.For example, utility analyses can demonstratethe theoretical return to the company ofemploying an effective recruiting system overa weak recruiting system (e.g., Boudreauand Rynes, 1985). We can also argue thateffective recruiting is necessary in order togenerate the types of selection ratios neededto make our selection systems more effective(Murphy, 1986). However, we believe that thetime has come for recruiting researchers tocapture organizational level outcomes suchas firm performance, organizational trainingcosts, and turnover expenditures to moredirectly demonstrate the utility of recruit-ing practice in organizations. Along theselines, Breaugh and Starke (2000) provided acomprehensive framework for examining thetypes of recruiting goals that organizations canalign with their overall corporate strategies.For example, as a cost-reduction strategy HRdepartments could design recruiting practicesaimed at attracting experienced employeeswho need little training, thereby saving train-ing costs. Alternatively, a company emphasiz-ing success through teamwork would benefitfrom recruiting practices that attracted indi-viduals who are comfortable and motivated



in team environments. Recruiting materialsthen would display photos of employeesengaged in team-based tasks, advertisingoutlets could include publications that attracta team focused audience, and benefits andrewards should emphasize rewards for teamperformance. Other demonstrations of valueto organizations can be seen in an exemplarpaper by Highhouse et al. (1999) whichshowed how recruiting image information(i.e., an image audit) can be applied toreal world recruiting issues (in this case,the fast food industry). Understanding howyour organization is viewed by potentialemployees is a first and necessary step towarddetermining recruiting strategy. Generatingeffective strategies to address these images(such as hiring popular students to work inyour fast food restaurant in order to attractmore students), can flow from studying theseissues empirically.

Disentangling content from method

In order to better determine recruiting effects,researchers are urged to design multiplemanipulations for various recruiting tactics.Too frequently, recruiting researchers havesingle manipulations of information whichmakes it difficult to determine whether theapproach to recruiting is driving any observeddifferences or whether the content of thesingle manipulation is causing the effects. Forexample, in designing a study examining therole of a recruiting tactic such as compar-ing the job opening to a competitors offeringversus a tactic involving simply providingadditional information about the company,researchers should endeavor to provide sev-eral examples of each manipulation so that thecontent of the manipulation is not confoundedwith the tactic. Accordingly, we can gaugethe relative effects of the recruiting tacticsindependent of the job and organizationalcontent used in the manipulation.

Focusing on job choice

We know a lot less about behavioral outcomessuch as actual job choice than we do about

attitudinal outcomes such as attraction, jobpursuit intentions, and job acceptance inten-tions. What is clear from the few studies exam-ining actual job choice is that our traditionalrecruiting predictors are much weaker in theirpredictions of behaviors then they are of theirpredictions of attitudes. We need to pay moreattention to multiple outcomes, longitudinaloutcomes and behavioral outcomes if we areto provide organizations with information thatwill be practical.

OVERVIEW OF KEY RESEARCHFINDINGS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION

In this section, we review recent develop-ments with regard to personnel selection.Due to space constraints, we refer readers toSchmidt and Hunter (1998) and Hough andOswald (2000) for excellent overviews of thestate-of-the art of personnel selection until2000. Note too that this section deals onlywith developments with respect to predictors(although we acknowledge there have alsobeen substantial developments in the criteriondomain).

Rapid technological developmentsin personnel selection

In the last decade, the face of personnelselection has changed substantially due tothe increased use of information technology(the internet) for administering, delivering,and scoring tests (Chapman and Webster,2003).Actually, use of the internet in selectionis nowadays a necessity for firms to staycompetitive. The efficiency and consistencyof test delivery are some of the key benefitsof internet-based selection over computer-ized selection. Extra cost and time savingsoccur because neither the employer nor theapplicants have to be present at the samelocation.

The good news is that research generallylends support to the use of the internet asa way of delivering tests. Both between-subjects (Ployhart et al., 2003) and within-subjects studies (Potosky and Bobko, 2004)



have provided evidence for the equivalenceof internet-based testing vis--vis paper-and-pencil testing. For example, Potoskyand Bobko (2004) found acceptable cross-mode correlations for noncognitive tests.Timed tests, however, were an exception.For instance, cross-mode equivalence of atimed spatial reasoning test was as low as0.44 (although there were only 30 minutesbetween the two administrations). As a mainexplanation, the loading speed inherent ininternet based testing seems to make the testdifferent from its paper-and-pencil counter-part (Potosky and Bobko, 2004; Richmanet al., 1999).

Research with regard to transformingface-to-face interviews to videoconferencinginterviews reveals a more mixed picture.While considerable cost savings are real-ized from using these technologies, ratingshave been shown to be affected by themedia used (e.g., Chapman and Rowe, 2001;Chapman and Webster, 2001). The increasedefficiency of technology mediated interviews(e.g., videoconferencing interviews, tele-phone interviews, interactive voice responsetelephone interviews) seems also to leadto potential downsides (e.g., less favorablereactions, loss of potential applicants) ascompared to face-to-face interviews, althoughit should be mentioned that actual jobpursuit behavior was not examined (Chapmanet al., 2003).

One of the more controversial techno-logical developments relates to unproctoredinternet testing. In this type of testing, atest administrator is absent. Accordingly,unproctored internet testing might lead tocandidate authentication, cheating, and testsecurity concerns. To date, there seems to berelative consensus that unproctored testing isbest suited for low-stakes selection (Tippinset al., 2006). As a possible solution, someorganizations have moved toward a two-tieredapproach whereby unproctored internet-basedtests are administered for screening purposesonly, followed by on site proctored admin-istration of a parallel test for those passingthe online version. Sophisticated verificationprocedures are then used to examine whether

the same person completed both tests, oralternatively, only the proctorered test is usedfor final hiring decisions. Other organizationscombine this two-tiered approach with itemresponse and item generation techniques sothat candidates seldom receive the same testitems. This requires considerable sophisti-cation as large databases of questions mustbe generated and the difficulty level ofeach item must be determined to ensureparallel tests are generated each time. Onceconstructed, however, the organization canreap the benefits of unproctored testing andextend the life of the system by makingfraudulent activity less damaging.

The growing international face ofpersonnel selection

The face of personnel selection has changednot only due to rapid technological develop-ments. The globalization of the economy hasalso considerably affected personnel selectionpractice and research. This internationaliza-tion causes organizations to move beyondnational borders, as reflected in interna-tional collaborations, joint ventures, strategicalliances, mergers, and acquisitions. Onewell-known HR consequence of this rapidinternationalization is the need to developselection procedures that can be validly usedto predict expatriate success. Research has along history here (going back to the PeaceCorps studies). One of the problems is thatthe selection of people for foreign assign-ments has traditionally been based solelyon job knowledge and technical competence(Schmitt and Chan, 1998; Sinangil and Ones,2001). However, a recent meta-analysis ofpredictors of expatriate success (Mol et al.,2005) revealed that there are many morepossibilities. In this meta-analysis, four ofthe Big Five personality factors (extraver-sion, emotional stability, agreeableness, andconscientiousness), cultural sensitivity, andlocal language ability were predictive ofexpatriate job performance. A problem withthe large body of research on predictors ofexpatriate success is that research has mainlytried to determine a list of (inter)personal



factors responsible for expatriate adjustmentversus failure (e.g., Mendenhall and Oddou,1985; Ones and Viswesvaran, 1997; Ronen1989). Unfortunately, there is little research ondesigning a comprehensive selection systemto predict expatriate success in overseasassignments.

Another consequence of the increasinginternationalization is the need for selectionsystems that can be used across multiplecountries while at the same time recognizinglocal particularities (Schuler et al., 1993). Thisis not straightforward as differences acrosscountries in selection procedure usage aresubstantial. This was confirmed by a 20-country study of Ryan et al. (1999).Apart fromcountry differences, differences grounded incultural values (uncertainty avoidance andpower distance) also explained some of thevariability in selection usage. Another large-scale study showed that countries differedconsiderably in how they valued specific char-acteristics to be used in selection (Huo et al.,2002; Von Glinow et al., 2002). Countriessuch as Australia, Canada, Germany, and theUS assigned great importance to proven workexperience in a similar job and technical skillsfor deciding whether someone should have thejob. Conversely, companies in Japan, SouthKorea, and Taiwan placed a relatively lowweight on job-related skills. In these countries,peoples innate potential and teamwork skillswere much more important. We need morestudies to unravel factors that might explaindifferential use of selection practices acrosscountries. In addition, we need to know howone can gain acceptance for specific selectionprocedures among HR decision makers andcandidates. Clearly, this is complicated dueto tensions between corporate requirementsof streamlined selection practices and localdesires of customized ones.

A final pressing issue for organizations thatuse selection procedures in other culturesdeals with knowing whether a specific selec-tion procedure is transportable to anotherculture and whether the criterion-relatedvalidity of the selection procedure is gener-alizable. So far, there is empirical evidencefor validity generalization for cognitive ability

tests (Salgado et al., 2003a; b) and personalityinventories (Salgado, 1997) as the criterion-related validity of these two predictors gener-alized across countries. Research dealing withthe criterion-related validity of other selectionprocedures in an international context isscarce. One exception is a study of Ployhartet al. (2004) who examined whether thecriterion-related validity of various predictors(measures of team skills, work ethic, commit-ment, customer focus, and cognitive ability)differed across 10 countries. They foundthat criterion-related validity was largelyconstant across countries and unaffected byculture.

Unfortunately, no studies have examinedconditions that predict when the criterion-related validity of selection procedures willgeneralize across countries. Along these lines,Lievens (2007b) highlighted among othersthe importance of matching predictor andcriteria in an international context. Theimportance of predictor-criteria matchingcan be illustrated with assessment centerexercises. The dimensions and exercises thatare typically used in assessment centersin North America and Europe might beless relevant in other countries. Perhaps, ina high power distance culture, candidatesare extremely uncomfortable engaging inrole-plays. This does not imply that suchexercises will be invalid in these cultures.The question is: Are these exercises indeedrelevant for the criterion domain that onetries to predict in these cultures? Empiricalresearch supports this logic. Lievens et al.(2003) examined whether two assessmentcenter exercises were valid predictors ofEuropean executives training performance inJapan. They found that a group discussionexercise was a powerful predictor of futureperformance as rated by Japanese supervisorslater on. The presentation exercise, however,was not a valid predictor. According toLievens et al. (2003), one explanation isthat the group discussion exercise reflectedthe Japanese team-based decision makingculture.

Another hypothesis put forth by Lievens(2007b) is that the predictor constructs



(especially cognitive ability) will oftenbe very similar across cultures, but thatthe behavioral content and measurement ofthese predictors will vary across cultures.For example, Schmit et al. (2000) developeda global personality inventory with inputfrom a panel of 70 experts around theworld. Although all experts wrote items intheir own language for the constructs asdefined in their own language, constructvalidity studies provided support for the sameunderlying structure of the global personalityinventory across countries. This might alsomean that ratings in non-personality situationssuch as assessment centers or interviewsmight be prone to cultural sensitivity becausethere is ample evidence that the behavioralexpressions and interpretations for commonconstructs measured might differ from oneculture to another. Future research should testthese hypotheses about possible moderatorsof the cross-cultural generalizability of thevalidity of selection procedures.

Development and validation of newselection procedures

One of the questions at the start of this chapterwas whether in recent years new selectionpredictors have been developed. We believethat three relatively new selection proce-dures have gained increased interest fromresearchers and practitioners alike. First, emo-tional intelligence measures have come underscrutiny in personnel selection. Although theconcept of emotional intelligence has fuelleda lot of criticism (Matthews et al., 2004;Landy, 2005), a breakthrough is the divisionof emotional intelligence measures into eitherability or mixed models (Zeidner et al.,2004). The mixed (self-report) model assumesemotional intelligence is akin to a personalitytrait. A recent meta-analysis showed thatemotional intelligence measures based onthis mixed model overlapped considerablywith personality trait scores but not withcognitive ability (Van Rooy et al., 2005).Conversely, emotional intelligence measuresdeveloped according to the ability (emotionalintelligence as an ability to perceive emotions

of oneself and of others) model correlatedmore with cognitive ability and less withpersonality.

Second, situational judgment tests (SJTs)are another emerging selection procedure.SJTs present applicants with (written or video-based) work-related situations and possibleresponses to these situations. Applicants haveto indicate which response alternative theywould choose. Granted, SJTs are not newselection procedures (the first situationaljudgment tests were already used in the1930s). Yet, they have recently becomeincreasingly popular in North-America. SJTsare somewhat of a misnomer because they donot measure situational judgment. Instead,SJTs are measurement methods that canmeasure a variety of constructs. For example,SJTs were recently developed to capturedomains as diverse as teamwork knowledge(McClough and Rogelberg, 2003; Morgesonet al., 2005; Stevens and Campion, 1999),aviation pilot judgment (Hunter, 2003),employee integrity (Becker, 2005), call cen-ter performance (Konradt et al., 2003), oracademic performance (Lievens et al., 2005;Oswald et al., 2004).

One reason for the growing popularityof SJTs is that they enable to broaden theconstructs being measured. Research hasshown that SJTs had incremental validityover cognitive ability, experience, and per-sonality (Chan and Schmitt, 2002; Clevengeret al., 2001). McDaniel et al. (2001) meta-analyzed 102 validity coefficients (albeitonly 6 predictive validity coefficients) andfound a mean corrected validity of .34.Another reason is that SJTs can be usedto test large groups of applicants at onceand over the internet. Finally, research onapplicant reactions to SJTs showed thatSJTs were perceived as favorable and thatvideo-based interactive SJT formats evenresulted in more positive perceptions thanwritten SJT formats (e.g., Chan and Schmitt,1997; Kanning et al., 2006; Richman-Hirschet al., 2000). Given these advantages, SJTsconstitute an attractive alternative to moreexpensive predictors such as assessmentcenter exercises or structured interviews



because SJTs can be used in early selectionstages as an inexpensive screen for measur-ing interpersonally-oriented competencies. Apossible downside of SJTs is that theymight be prone to faking. Along these lines,recent research has shown that the type ofresponse instructions affects the cognitiveloading and amount of response distor-tion in situational judgment tests (Nguyenet al., 2005). Behavioral tendency instructions(e.g., What are you most likely to do?)exhibited lower correlations with cognitiveability, lower adverse impact but higherfaking than knowledge-based instructions(e.g., What is the best answer?). In addition,a recent meta-analysis of McDaniel et al.(2007) reported that SJTs with knowledgeinstructions correlated more highly withcognitive ability measures (0.35) than SJTswith behavioural tendency instructions did(0.19). Conversely, SJTs with behaviouraltendency instructions correlated more highlywithAgreeableness (0.37), Conscientiousness(0.34), and Emotional Stability (0.35) thanSJTs with knowledge instructions did (0.19,0.24, and 0.12, respectively). These resultsconfirm that SJTs with knowledge instructionsshould be considered maximal performancemeasures, whereas SJTs with behaviouraltendency instructions should be consideredtypical performance measures.

Third, implicit measures of personalityhave been developed as a possible alternativeto explicit measures of personality (e.g., thetypical personality scales). One example ofthis is Motowidlo et al.s (2006) measureof implicit trait theories. They theorize,and then offer evidence, that individualpersonality shapes individual judgments ofthe effectiveness of behaviors reflecting highto low levels of the trait in question. Thus, itmay prove possible to make inferences aboutpersonality from individuals judgments of theeffectiveness of various behaviors. Anotherapproach to implicit measurement of person-ality is conditional reasoning (James et al.,2005) based on the notion that people usevarious justification mechanisms to explaintheir behavior, and that people with varyingdispositional tendencies will employ differing

justification mechanisms. The basic paradigmis to present what appear to be logicalreasoning problems, in which respondents areasked to select the response that follows mostlogically from an initial statement. In fact,the alternatives reflect various justificationmechanisms. James et al. present validityevidence for a conditional reasoning measureof aggression. Other research found thata conditional reasoning test of aggressioncould not be faked, provided that the realpurpose of the test is not disclosed (LeBretonet al., 2007).

Improvements in existingselection procedures

In recent years, some interesting develop-ments with respect to existing selectionprocedures have emerged. One developmentconsists of increasing the contextualization ofsign-based predictors (cognitive ability tests,aptitude tests, and personality inventories).Although contextualization has also been usedin aptitude tests (Hattrup et al., 1992), thistrend is best exemplified in personality inven-tories. Contextualized personality inventoriesuse a specific frame-of-reference (e.g., I payattention to details at work) instead ofthe traditional generic format (e.g., I payattention to details). Recent studies havegenerally found considerable support for theuse of contextualized personality scales asa way of improving the criterion-relatedvalidity of personality scales (Bing et al.,2004; Hunthausen et al., 2003). Yet, somequestions remain. For instance, how fardoes one have to go with contextualizingpersonality inventories. Granted, adding anat-work tag is only a start to a full contextual-ization of personality inventories (e.g., I payattention to details when I am planningmy meetings with customers.). In light ofthe fidelity-bandwidth trade-off, perhaps theanswer is related to what one wants to predict.Narrow contextualized scales might be betterpredictors of narrow criteria, whereas moregeneric scales might be better predictorsfor a more general criterion such as jobperformance.



Another development relates to theincreased recognition that practitionersshould carefully specify predictor-criterionlinkages for increasing the criterion-related validity of selection procedures.As conceptualizations of job performancebroaden beyond task performance to includethe citizenship and counter productivitydomains it is important for organizations tocarefully identify the criterion constructs ofinterest and to choose potential predictorson the basis of hypothesized links to thesecriterion constructs. All of this fits in a generaltrend to move away from general discussionsof predictors as valid to consideration ofvalid for what?. This was first exemplifiedby the taxonomic work on the dimensionalityof performance led by Campbell et al. (1993).This project illustrated, for example, thatcognitive measures were the most validpredictors of task performance, whereaspersonality measures were the best predictorsof an effort and leadership dimension anda counterproductive behavior dimension(labeled maintaining personal discipline;McHenry et al., 1990). Now, it is generallyacknowledged that this mechanism mightincrease the validity of personality inventories(e.g., Hogan and Holland, 2003 as the bestexample), assessment centers (Lievenset al., 2003).

Another recent stream of research withconsiderable value for selection practiceis that one should be aware of potentialinteractions among predictor constructs (com-petencies). For example, interactions betweenconscientiousness and agreeableness (Wittet al., 2002), conscientiousness and extraver-sion (Witt, 2002), and Conscientiousnessand social skills (Witt and Ferris, 2003)have been discovered. In all of these cases,high levels of conscientiousness coupledwith either low levels of agreeableness, lowlevels of extraversion, or inadequate socialskills were detrimental for performance. Ata practical level, these results highlight,for example, that selecting people high inConscientiousness but low in Agreeablenessfor jobs that require frequent collaborationreduces validities to zero.

Finally, recent research is also informativeas to what interventions not to undertake toincrease criterion-related validity. For exam-ple, it is often thought that social desirabilitycorrections (e.g., lie scales) should be usedwhen one gathers self-report ratings (e.g., inthe context of personality measurement). Wehave now compelling evidence that socialdesirability corrections should not be applied.Schmitt and Oswald (2006) showed thatcorrecting applicants scores had minimalimpact on mean criterion performance. Thefutility of using social desirability correctionswas also demonstrated at the individual level(i.e., who gets hired on the basis of applicantrankings, Ellingson et al., 1999). Although itis interesting to know that social desirabilitycorrections are not useful, the questionremains as to what practitioners can do whenapplicants fake (and we know they do). In fact,isnt it awkward that we ask applicants to behonest when responding to self-reports, whilewe know that this will lower their chancesof being selected. Therefore, various fakingreduction approaches have been tried out.However, most of them (e.g., warnings, forcedchoice formats) had only meager effects(Dwight and Donovan, 2003; Heggestadtet al., 2006). One promising approach consistsof requiring candidates to elaborate on theratings provided, although this strategy seemsuseful only when the items are verifiable(Schmitt and Kunce, 2002; Schmitt et al.,2003). Last, it was discovered that faking doesnot seem to be a problem when personalityinventories are used for selecting out candi-dates (i.e., a selection process with a highselection ratio, Mueller-Hanson et al., 2003).

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHON PERSONNEL SELECTION

Disentangling content from method

In the past, selection procedures wereseen as monolithic entities. Recently, thereis increased recognition to make a cleardistinction between predictor constructs(content) and predictor measures (methods).



Content refers to the constructs andvariables (e.g., conscientiousness, cognitiveability, finger dexterity, field dependence-independence, reaction time, visualattention) that are being measured. Methodsrefers to the techniques or procedures(e.g., graphology, paper-and-pencil tests,computer-administered tests, video-basedtests, interviews, and assessment centers,work samples, self-reports, peer reports)that we use to measure the specified content(Arthur et al., 2003; Chan and Schmitt, 1997;Schmitt and Chan, 1998; Schmitt and Mills,2001). Crossing these two features leads todifferent modalities of selection procedures.For example, a specific construct such asextraversion might be measured via variousmethods such as interview questions, self-report items or situational judgment test items.

This division is of paramount importancebecause it impacts on virtually all researchdone on personnel selection procedures. Forexample, incremental validity research ofpredictors (e.g., assessment center exercisesused in addition to structured interviewsand self-report personality inventories) thatfail to take this distinction into accountare misleading and are conceptually difficultto interpret. Unless one either holds thecontent (constructs) constant and varies themethod, or holds the method constant andvaries the content, one does not know what(method or construct) leads to the incrementalvalidity obtained.Another example is researchon adverse impact. For example, Chan andSchmitt (1997) showed that changing themethod of an SJT (video-based instead ofpaper-and-pencil) resulted in less adverseimpact, even though the content of the testwas not changed. Likewise, in applicantreactions research it is important to knowwhether applicants perceive a test favorablyor unfavorably because of the content of thetest or because of the method of measuring thesubstantive content (Hausknecht et al., 2004).

Going beyond validity

Prior selection research has usually takena micro analytical perspective. That is, the

effectiveness of a selection procedure wasexamined for predicting individual perfor-mance. Several authors (Ployhart, 2006;Schneider et al., 2000; Schmitt, 2002) haveargued that future selection research shouldtake a more macro analytical approach toexert a real impact on organizations andorganizational decision makers. This impliesthat the consequences of using specific selec-tion procedures should also be ascertainedat levels other than the individual level.Examples are the team, job (occupational),and organizational level.

To date, only a very limited number ofstudies have taken such an organizationalperspective. For instance, Terpstra and Rozell(1993) correlated HR managers use ofselection procedures with performance of thefirm. As argued by Ployhart (2006), this isonly a first step as this study was based onself-reports of firm performance. In a similarvein, the well-known study of Huselid (1995)demonstrates that use of high performancework practices (e.g., Do companies useemployment tests prior to hiring?) are relatedto better firm performance. Yet, they do notshow that selecting better employees addsstrategic value to the firm.

Future research should use a truly mul-tilevel perspective to demonstrate whethervalidities at the individual level also translateinto differences at other levels (and especiallyat the organizational level). An excellentexample is the recent study of Ployhartet al. (2006). They showed that individual,job, and organizational level means person-ality were positively associated with jobperformance and job satisfaction, whereasjob and organizational level variances wereoften negatively associated with performanceand satisfaction. These results highlight theimportance of personality homogeneity at dif-ferent levels (cf. attraction-selection-attritionframework).

Selling selection innovations

At the start, we mentioned that personnelselection is typically viewed as an oldand narrow domain in HRM. In addition,



it is often viewed in rather simplisticdichotomous terms. One of the aims of ourreview was to illustrate the various excitingdevelopments that have taken place in thisfield in recent years. As demonstrated, manyof these developments have substantial valuefor HR practitioners working in organizations.However, this is only side of the equation.An equally vital issue is to implementthese developments in organizations. Onestumbling block is the lack of awarenessof these new trends. For example, it wastelling that a recent survey revealed amongHR professionals that two of the greatestmisconceptions among these professionalsdealt with personnel selection, namely therelative validity of general mental ability testsas compared to personality inventories (Ryneset al., 2002).

Therefore, future research is needed touncover factors that encourage/impede orga-nizations use of selection procedures. Forexample, a recent study (Wilk and Cappelli,2003) showed that (apart from broaderlegal, economic, and political factors) thetype of work practices of organizationswas one of the factors that might encour-age/impede organizations use of selectionprocedures. Specifically, organizations seemto use different types of selection methodscontingent upon the nature of the work beingdone (skill requirements), training, and paylevel.

In a similar vein, we need to find outways to sell selection practices to practi-tioners and to overcome potential resistance(Muchinsky, 2004). Probably, the provisionof information about the psychometric qualityand legal defensibility of selection proce-dures to decision makers in organizationsis insufficient. An alternative might consistof linking the adoption of sound selectionpractices not only to validity criteria butalso to organizational-level measures ofperformance such as annual profits, sales, orturnover (see the section Going Beyond theValidity of Selection Procedures). Anotherway might be to use more vivid information(case studies) to persuade decision makers.However, even this way of communicating

selection interventions to practitioners mightfail. Along these lines, Johns (1993) positsthat we have typically placed too muchemphasis on selection practices as rationaltechnical interventions and therefore oftenfail to have an impact in organizations(e.g., attempts to sell utility informa-tion or structured interviews). Conversely,practitioners in organizations perceive theintroduction of new selection procedures asorganizational interventions that are subjectto the same pressures (power games, etc.)as other organizational innovations. AlthoughJohns article dates from 1993, we still havelargely neglected to implement its underlyingrecommendations.

One possible approach to improving theuse of scientifically validated recruiting andselection procedures is through the increasingprofessionalization of the field of HR.As moreorganizations insist on hiring HR personnelwith professional training and credentials,the greater the likelihood that research-basedpractices will be valued and adopted inorganizations. For example, Chapman andZweig (2005) and Lievens and De Paepe(2003) found that trained interviewers weremuch more likely to practice structuredinterviews than their untrained counterparts.We are also hopeful that ongoing learningthrough professional development require-ments for maintaining professional creden-tials will further infuse and update practicein the field. Likewise, it is necessary forresearchers and instructors to engage theprofessional community to ensure that theresearch we are conducting is both relevantand timely.

EPILOGUE

The central question of this chapter was:Which new research developments haveoccurred that advance recruitment and selec-tion practice? On the one hand our reviewexemplified many areas wherein both recruit-ment and selection research might havepractical implications for organizations.Akeyexample is the rapid increase of technology in



both recruitment and selection, as showcasedby the tailoring of media rich information inrecruitment and the use of videoconferenc-ing and (un)proctored web-based testing inselection. Other examples are the renewedimportance of recruiter behaviors, the valueof investing in employer brand audits andemployer brand management, specific guide-lines for increasing the validity of extantselection procedures, the development ofnew selection procedures, and the adaptationof selection procedures to a cross-culturalcontext.

On the other hand, a common threadrunning through our review is that wehave difficulty of bringing our messagethat recruitment and selection matter tothe organization across. In both recruitmentand selection, we need to find ways ofdemonstrating the value of recruiting andselecting to organizations. In recruitment, thismight be done by developing frameworksfor assessing the quantity and quality of theapplicant pool. In selection, a macro oriented(multilevel) approach might be needed forshowing the effects of selection procedureson individual, group, and organizationaloutcomes.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality,Journal of Marketing Research, 34: 34756.

Allen, D., Van Scotter, J. and Otondo, R. (2004)Recruitment communication media: Impact on pre-hire outcomes, Personnel Psychology, 57: 14371.

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T.N. and Cable, D.M. (2001)Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? Arecruiting policy-capturing study, Journal of Businessand Psychology, 16: 21937.

Arthur, W., Day, E.A., McNelly, T.L. and Edens, P.S.(2003) A meta-analysis of the criterion-relatedvalidity of assessment center dimensions, PersonnelPsychology, 56: 12554.

Avery, D.R. and McKay, P.F. (2006) Target practice:An organizational impression management approachto attracting minority and female job applicants,Personnel Psychology, 59: 15787.

Backhaus, K.B., Stone, B.A. and Heiner, K. (2002)Exploring the relationship between corporate social

performance and employer attractiveness, Businessand Society, 41: 292318.

Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004) Conceptualizing andresearching employer branding, Career DevelopmentInternational, 9: 50117.

Barber, A.E. (1998) Recruiting Employees: Individual andOrganizational Perspectives. Thousands Oaks, CA:Sage.

Bauer, T.N, Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R., Craig, J.,Ferrara P. and Campion, M.A. (2001) Developmentof the Selection Procedural Justice Scale, PersonnelPsychology, 54: 387419.

Becker, B.E. andHuselid,M.A. (1998) High performancework systems and rm performance: A synthesis ofresearch and managerial implications, in G.R. Ferris(ed.), Research in personnel and human resourcemanagement. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 53101.

Becker, T.E. (2005) Development and validation ofa situational judgment test of employee integrity,International Journal of Selection and Assessment,13: 22532.

Bing, M.N., Whanger, J.C., Davison, H.K. andVanHook, J.B. (2004) Incremental validity of theframe-of-reference effect in personality scale scores:A replication and extension, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89: 1507.

Boudreau, J. and Rynes, S. (1985) Role of recruitmentin stafng utility analysis, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 70: 35466.

Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000) Research onemployee recruitment: So many studies, so manyremaining questions, Journal of Management, 26:40534.

Brooks, M.E., Highhouse, S., Russell, S. and Mohr, D.(2003) Familiarity, ambivalence, and rm reputation:Is corporate fame a double-edged sword?, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88: 90414.

Cable, D.M., Aiman-Smith, L. et al. (2000) Thesources and accuracy of job applicants beliefs aboutorganizational culture, Academy of ManagementJournal, 43: 107685.

Cable, D.M. andGraham,M.E. (2000) The determinantsof job seekers reputation perceptions, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 21: 92947.

Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2003) The value oforganizational reputation in the recruitment context:A brand-equity perspective, Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 33: 224466.

Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2001) Establishingthe dimensions, sources and value of job seekersemployer knowledge during recruitment, in G.R.Ferris (ed) Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management. New York, NY: ElsevierScience. pp. 11563.



Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H. and SagerC.E. (1993) A theory of performance, in N. Schmittand W.C. Borman (eds), Personnel Selection inOrganizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.pp. 3570.

Carlson, K.D., Connerly, M.L. and Mecham, R.L. (2002)Recruitment evaluation: The case for assessing thequality of applicants attracted, Personnel Psychology,55: 46190.

Chan, D. and Schmitt, N. (1997) Video-basedversus paper-and-pencil method of assessment insituational judgment tests: Subgroup differences intest performance and face validity perceptions,Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 14359.

Chan, D. and Schmitt, N. (2002) Situational judgmentand job performance, Human Performance, 15:23354.

Chapman, D.S. and Rowe, P.M. (2001) The impactof videoconference media, interview structure, andinterviewer gender on interviewer evaluations in theemployment interview: A eld experiment, Journalof Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74:27998.

Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin,K.A. and Jones, D.A. (2005) Applicant attraction toorganizations and job choice: A meta-analytic reviewof the correlates of recruiting outcomes, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90: 92844.

Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L. and Webster, J. (2003)Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: A eld investigation, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88: 94453.

Chapman, D.S. and Webster, J. (2001) Rater correctionprocesses in applicant selection using videoconfer-ence technology: The role of attributions, Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 31: 251837.

Chapman, D.S. and Webster, J. (2003) The useof technologies in the recruiting, screening, andselection processes for job candidates, Interna-tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11:11320.

Chapman, D.S. and Webster, J. (2006) Integratingapplicant reactions into the critical contact frameworkof recruiting, International Journal of HumanResource Management, 17: 103257.

Chapman, D.S. and Zweig, D.I. (2005) Developinga nomological network for interview structure:Antecedents and consequences of the structuredselection interview, Personnel Psychology, 58:673702.

Clevenger, J., Pereira, G.M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt,N. and Harvey, V.S. (2001) Incremental validityof situational judgment tests, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86: 41017.

Cober, R.T., Brown, D.J. and Levy, P.E. (2004) Form,content, and function: An evaluative methodology forcorporate employment Web sites, Human ResourceManagement, 43: 20118.

Cober, R.T., Brown, D.J., Levy, P.E., Cober, A.B. andKeeping, L.M. (2003) Organizational Web sites:Web site content and style as determinants oforganizational attraction, International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 11: 15869.

Collins, C.J. and Han, J. (2004) Exploring applicant poolquantity and quality: The effects of early recruitmentpractices, corporate advertising, and rm reputation,Personnel Psychology, 57: 685717.

Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002) The relationshipbetween early recruitment related activities and theapplication decisions of new labor-market entrants:A brand equity approach to recruitment, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 112133.

Dineen, B.R., Ash, S.R. and Noe, R.A. (2002) A Webof applicant attraction: Personorganization t inthe context of Web-based recruitment, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 72334.

Dineen, B.R., Ling, J., Ash, S.R. and DelVecchio, D.(2007) Aesthetic properties and message customiza-tion: Navigating the dark side of Web recruitment,Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 35672.

Dwight, S.A. and Donovan, J.J. (2003) Do warningsnot to fake reduce faking?, Human Performance, 16:123.

Ellingson, J.E., Sackett, P.R. and Hough, L.M. (1999)Social desirability corrections in personality mea-surement: Issues of applicant comparison andconstruct validity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:15566.

Fulmer, I.S., Gerhart, B. and Scott, K.S. (2003) Are the100 best better? An empirical investigation of therelationship between being a great place to workand rm performance, Personnel Psychology, 56:96593.

Gilliland, S.W. (1993) The perceived fairness of selectionsystems: An organizational justice perspective,Academy of Management Review, 18: 694734.

Greening, D.W. and Turban, D.B. (2000) Corporatesocial performance as a competitive advantage inattracting a quality workforce, Business and Society,39: 25480.

Hattrup K., Schmitt N. and Landis R.S. (1992)Equivalence of constructs measured by job-specicand commercially available aptitude-tests, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77: 298308.

Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V. and Thomas, S.C. (2004)Applicant reactions to selection procedures: Anupdated model and meta-analysis, Personnel Psy-chology, 57: 63983.



Hedge, J.W., Borman, W.C. and Lammlein, S.E. (eds)(2006) The Aging Workforce. Washington, DC,American Psychological Association.

Heggestad, E.D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C.L. andMcCloy, R.A. (2006) Forced-choice assessmentsof personality for selection: Evaluating issues ofnormative assessment and faking resistance, Journalof Applied Psychology, 91: 924.

Highhouse, S., Zickar, M.J., Thorsteinson, T.J., Stierwalt,S.L. and Slaughter, J. (1999) Assessing companyemployment image: An example in the fast foodindustry, Personnel Psychology, 52: 15172.

Hogan, J. and Holland, B. (2003) Using theory toevaluate personality and job-performance relations:A socioanalytic perspective, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88: 10012.

Hough, L.M. and Oswald, F.L. (2000) Personnelselection: Looking toward the future Rememberingthe past, Annual Review of Psychology, 51:63164.

Hunter, D.R. (2003) Measuring general aviation pilotjudgment using a situational judgment technique,International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13:37386.

Hunthausen, J.M., Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, T.N. andHammer, L.B. (2003) A eld study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity, Journalof Applied Psychology, 88: 54551.

Huo, Y.P., Huang, H.J. and Napier, N.K. (2002)Divergence or convergence: A cross nationalcomparison of personnel selection practices, HumanResource Management, 41: 3144.

Huselid, M.A. (1995) The impact of human resourcemanagement practices on turnover, productivityand corporate nancial performance, Academy ofManagement Journal, 38: 63572.

James, L.R., McIntyre, M.D., Glisson, C.A., Green, P.D.,Patton, T.W. and LeBreton, J.M. (2005) A conditionalreasoning measure for aggression, OrganizationalResearch Methods, 8: 6999.

Johns, G. (1993) Constraints on the adoption ofpsychology-based personnel practices: Lessons fromorganizational innovation, Personnel Psychology, 46:56992.

Jones, D.A., Shultz, J.W. and Chapman, D.S. (2006)Recruiting through job advertisements: The effectsof cognitive elaboration on decision making,International Journal of Selection and Assessment,14: 16779.

Kanning, U.P., Grewe, K., Hollenberg, S. and Hadouch,M. (2006) From the subjects point of view Reactions to different types of situational judgmentitems, European Journal of Psychological Assess-ment, 22: 16876.

Konradt, U., Hertel, G. and Joder, K. (2003) Web-based assessment of call center agents: Developmentand validation of a computerized instrument,International Journal of Selection and Assessment,11: 18493.

Landy, F.J. (2005) Some historical and scientic issuesrelated to research on emotional intelligence, Journalof Organizational Behavior, 26: 41124.

Larsen, D.A. and Phillips, J.I. (2002) Effect of recruiteron attraction to the rm: Implications of theelaboration likelihoodmodel, Journal of Business andPsychology, 16: 34764.

LeBreton, J.M., Barksdale, C.D., Robin, J.D. andJames, L.R. (2007) Measurement issues associatedwith conditional reasoning tests of personality:Deception and faking, Journal of Applied Psychology,92: 116.

Lee, I. (2005) The Evolution of E-Recruiting: A contentanalysis of Fortune 100 career web sites, Journal ofElectronic Commerce in Organizations, 3 (3): 57.

Lievens, F. (2007a) Employer branding in the BelgianArmy: The importance of instrumental and symbolicbeliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, andmilitary employees, Human Resource Management,46: 5169.

Lievens, F. (2007b) Research on selection in aninternational context: Current status and future direc-tions, in M.M. Harris (ed.), Handbook of Researchin International Human Resource Management.Lawrence Erlbaums Organizations and ManagementSeries.

Lievens, F., Buyse, T. and Sackett, P.R. (2005) Theoperational validity of a videobased situationaljudgment test for medical college admissions:Illustrating the importance of matching predictorand criterion construct domains, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 90: 44252.

Lievens, F. and De Paepe, A. (2004) An empiricalinvestigation of interviewerrelated factors thatdiscourage the use of high structure interviews,Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 2946.

Lievens, F., Harris, M.M., Van Keer, E. and Bisqueret, C.(2003) Predicting crosscultural training performance:The validity of personality, cognitive ability, anddimensions measured by an assessment center anda behavior description interview, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88: 47689.

Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003) The relation ofinstrumental and symbolic attributes to a companysattractiveness as an employer, Personnel Psychology,56: 75102.

Matthews, G., Roberts, R.D. and Zeidner, M. (2004)Seven myths about emotional intelligence, Psycho-logical Inquiry, 15: 17996.



McClough, A.C. and Rogelberg, S.G. (2003) Selection inteams: An exploration of the Teamwork Knowledge,Skills, and Ability test, International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 11: 5666.

McDaniel, M.A., Hartman, N.S., Whetzel, D.L. andGrubb, W.L. (2007) Situational judgment tests,response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis,Personnel Psychology, 60: 6391.

McDaniel, M.A., Morgeson, F.P., Finnegan, E.B.,Campion, M.A. and Braverman, E.P. (2001) Use ofsituational judgment tests to predict job performance:A clarication of the literature, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86: 73040.

McHenry, J.J., Hough, L.M., Toquam, J.L., Hanson,M.A. and Ashworth, S. (1990) Project a validityresults the relationship between predictor andcriterion domain, Personnel Psychology, 43: 33554.

Mendenhall, M. and Oddou, G. (1985) The dimensionsof expatriate acculturation: A review, Academy ofManagement Review, 10: 3947.

Mol, S.T., Born, M.,Willemsen,M.E. and Van DerMolen,H.T. (2005) Predicting expatriate job performance forselection purposes: A quantitative review, Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 36: 131.

Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H. and Campion, M.A.(2005) Selecting individuals in team settings: Theimportance of social skills, personality characteristics,and teamwork knowledge, Personnel Psychology,58: 583611.

Motowidlo, S.J., Hooper, A.C. and Jackson, H.L. (2006)Implicit policies about relations between personalitytraits and behavioral effectiveness in situationaljudgment items, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:74961.

Muchinsky, P.M. (2004) When the psychometrics oftest development meets organizational realities: Aconceptual framework for organizational change,examples, and recommendations, Personnel Psychol-ogy, 57: 175209.

Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E.D. and Thornton,G.C. (2003) Faking and selection: Considering theuse of personality from select-in and select-outperspectives, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:34855.

Murphy, K.R. (1986) When your top choice turns youdown: Effects of rejected offers on the utility ofselection tests, Psychological Bulletin, 99: 13338.

Nguyen, N.T., Biderman, M.D. and McDaniel, M.A.(2005) Effects of response instructions on faking asituational judgment test, International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 13: 25060.

Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1997) Personalitydeterminants in the prediction of aspects of expatriatejob success, in D.M. Saunder and Z. Aycan (eds),

New Approaches to Employee Management: Expatri-ate Management: Theory and Research. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Oswald, F.L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B.H., Ramsay, L.J. andGillespie, M.A. (2004) Developing a biodatameasureand situational judgment inventory as predictors ofcollege student performance, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89: 187208.

Ployhart, R.E. (2006) Stafng in the 21st century: Newchallenges and strategic opportunities, Journal ofManagement, 32: 86897.

Ployhart, R.E., Sacco, J.M., Nishii, L.H. and Rogg, K.L.(2004, April) The inuence of culture on criterion-related validity and job performance. Poster presentedat the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Ployhart, R.E., Weekley, J.A. and Baughman, K.(2006) The structure and function of humancapital emergence: A multilevel examination ofthe attraction-selection-attrition model, Academy ofManagement Journal, 49: 66177.

Ployhart, R.E., Weekley, J.A., Holtz, B.C. and Kemp, C.(2003) Web-based and paper-and-pencil testing ofapplicants in a proctored setting: Are personality, bio-data, and situational judgment tests comparable?,Personnel Psychology, 56: 73352.

Potosky, D. and Bobko, P. (2004) Selection test-ing via the Internet: Practical considerations andexploratory empirical ndings, Personnel Psychology,57: 100334.

Rau, B.L. and Adams, G. (2004) Job seeking amongretirees seeking bridge employment, PersonnelPsychology, 57: 71944.

Rau, B.L. and Adams, G. (2005) OrganizationalAttraction of Retirees for Bridge Employment, Journalof Organizational Behavior, 26: 64960.

Richman, W.L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S. and Drasgow,F. (1999) A meta-analytic study of social desirabilitydistortion in computer-administered questionnaires,traditional questionnaires, and interviews, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84: 75475.

Richman-Hirsch, W.L., Olson-Buchanan, J.B. andDrasgow, F. (2000) Examining the impact ofadministration medium on examinee perceptionsand attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85:8807.

Ronen, S. (1989) Training the international assignee,in I.L. Goldstein (ed.), Training and develop-ment in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.pp. 41753.

Ryan, A.M.,McFarland, L., Baron, H. and Page, R. (1999)An international look at selection practices: Nationand culture as explanations for variability in practice,Personnel Psychology, 52: 35991.



Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000) Applicantsperceptions of selection procedures and decisions:A critical review and agenda for the future, Journalof Management, 26: 565606.

Rynes, S.L., Colbert, A.E. and Brown, K.G. (2002) HRprofessionals beliefs about effective human resourcepractices: Correspondence between research andpractice, Human Resource Management, 41:14974.

Salgado, J.F. (1997) The Five-Factor model ofpersonality and job performance in the EuropeanCommunity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:3043.

Salgado, J.F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C.and De Fruyt, F. (2003a) International validitygeneralization of GMA and cognitive abilities:A European community meta-analysis, PersonnelPsychology, 56: 573605.

Salgado, J.F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., DeFruyt, F. and Rolland, J.P. (2003b) A meta-analyticstudy of general mental ability validity for differentoccupations in the European Community, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88: 106881.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1998) The validity andutility of selection methods in personnel psychology:Practical and theoretical implications of 85 yearsof research ndings, Psychological Bulletin, 124:26274.

Schmit, M.J., Kihm, J.A. and Robie, C. (2000)Development of a global measure of personality,Personnel Psychology, 53: 15393.

Schmitt, N. (2002) A multi-level perspective onpersonnel selection: Are we ready?, in F.J. Dansereauand F. Yamarino (eds), Research in multi-level issues:The many faces of multi-level issues. Oxford, UK:Elsevier. pp. 15564.

Schmitt, N. and Chan, D. (1998) Personnel selection. Atheoretical approach. London: Sage.

Schmitt, N. and Kunce, C. (2002) The effects of requiredelaboration of answers to biodata questions,Personnel Psychology, 55: 56987.

Schmitt, N. and Mills, A.E. (2001) Traditional tests andjob simulations: Minority and majority performanceand test validities, Journal of Applied Psychology,86: 45154.

Schmitt, N. and Oswald, F.L. (2006) The impact ofcorrections for faking on the validity of noncognitivemeasures in selection settings, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91: 61321.

Schmitt, N., Oswald, F.L., Kim, B.H., Gillespie, M.A.,Ramsay, L.J. and Yoo, T.Y. (2003) Impact ofelaboration on socially desirable responding and thevalidity of biodata measures, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88: 97988.

Schneider, B., Smith, D.B. and Sipe,W. (2000) Multilevelpersonnel selection, in K. Klein and S. Kozlowski(eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods inorganizations. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Schuler, R., Dowling, P. and DeCieri, H. (1993) An inte-grative framework of strategic international humanresource management, Journal of Management, 19:41959.

Sinangil, H.K. and Ones, D.S. (2001) Expatriatemanagement, in N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K.Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook ofindustrial, work and organizational psychology.London, UK: Sage. pp. 42443.

Slaughter, J.E., Zickar M.J., Highhouse, S. and Mohr,(2004) Personality trait inferences about organiza-tions: Development of a measure and assessment ofconstruct validity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89:85103

Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1999) Stafng workteams: Development and validation of a selection testfor teamwork settings, Journal of Management, 25:20728.

Terpstra, D.E. and Rozell, E.J. (1993) The relationshipof stafng practices to organizational level measuresof performance, Personnel Psychology, 46: 2748.

Tippins, N.T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W.M.,Pearlman, K., Segall, D.O. and Shepherd, W.(2006) Unproctored internet testing in employmentsettings, Personnel Psychology, 59: 189225.

Turban, D.B. (2001) Organizational attractiveness as anemployer on college campuses: An examination of theapplicant population, Journal of Vocational Behavior,58: 293312.

Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997) Corporatesocial performance and organizational attractivenessto prospective employees, Academy of ManagementJournal, 40: 65872.

Turban, D.B. and Cable, D.M. (2003) Firm reputationand applicant pool characteristics, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 24: 73351.

Van Rooy, D.L., Viswesvaran, C. and Pluta, P. (2005)An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thingcalled Emotional Intelligence?, Human Performance,18: 44562.

Von Glinow, M.A., Drost, E.A. and Teagarden, M.B.(2002) Converging on IHRM best practices: Lessonslearned from a globally distributed consortium ontheory and practice, Human Resource Management,41: 12340.

Williamson, I.O., Lepak D.P. and King, J. (2003) Theeffect of company recruitment web site orienta-tion on individuals perceptions of organizationalattractiveness, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63:24263.



Wilk, S.L. and Cappelli, P. (2003) Understanding thedeterminants of employer use of selection methods,Personnel Psychology, 56: 10324.

Witt, L.A. (2002) The interactive effects of extraversionand conscientiousness on performance, Journal ofManagement, 28: 83551.

Witt, L.A., Burke, L.A., Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K.(2002) The interactive effects of conscientiousnessand agreeableness on job performance, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 16469.

Witt, L.A. and Ferris, G.R. (2003) Social skill asmoderator of the conscientiousness-performancerelationship: Convergent results across four studies,Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 80920.

Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M., Moynihan, L.M. andAllen, M.R. (2005) The relationship between HRpractices and rm performance: Examining causalorder, Personnel Psychology, 58: 40946.

Wright, P.M., Gardner, T.M., Moynihan, L.M., Park,H., Gerhart, B. and Delery, J. (2001) Measurementerror in research on human resources and rmperformance: Additional data and suggestionsfor future research, Personnel Psychology, 54:875902.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. and Roberts, R.D. (2004)Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A criticalreview,Applied Psychology: An International Review,53: 37199.

Documents

Lievens&Chapman_Recruitment and Selection