Chapter 6Selection, Placement, and Job Fit Learni.docx

Chapter 6
Selection, Placement,
and Job Fit
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the
following:
• Identify a wide range of criteria that employers use to
select the right employees.
• Recognize the benefits and risks associated with effective
or ineffective employee
selection.
• List, describe, and assess commonly used employee
selection tools.
• Apply the concepts of validity and reliability to various
selection methods.
• Identify approaches to increasing the validity and
reliability of the selection process.
• Identify emerging trends, opportunities, and challenges in
selection.
6
Gary Waters/Ikon Images/Getty Images

Pre-Test Chapter 6
Pre-Test
1. refer(s) to a wide range of personal traits that tend to be
stable across
situations and over time.
a) Attitudes
b) Human capital
c) Social capital
d) Individual differences
2. A computer programmer who enjoyed working alone on
autonomous projects has been
promoted to a managerial position and finds that she is not as
happy being responsible
for a team. Her new position is an example of poor:
a) person-job fit.
b) psychological contract.
c) person-organization fit.
d) selection criteria.
3. refers to problem-solving ability and the capacity for
abstract reasoning;
refers to the ability to apply past learning to new situations.

a) Fluid intelligence; crystallized intelligence
b) Crystallized intelligence; fluid intelligence
c) Ability; aptitude
d) Aptitude; ability
4. Concurrent validity of a selection tool is established through
assessing potential employ-
ees using the tool in question and then correlating their scores
to their subsequent per-
formance after they are hired.
a) True
b) False
5. Linking planning, work design, and employee compensation
with selection and the entire
staffing process ensures that all processes have a unified goal
and mesh effectively.
a) True
b) False
6. Losing competitive advantage and equalizing unique talent
are two outcomes for organi-
zations that promote workforce diversity.
a) True
b) False

Answers
1. d) Individual differences. The correct answer can be found in
Section 6.1.
2. a) person-job fit. The correct answer can be found in Section
6.2.
3. a) Fluid intelligence; crystallized intelligence. The correct
answer can be found in
Section 6.3.
Introduction Chapter 6
4. b) False. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.4.
5. a) True. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.5.
6. b) False. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.6.
Introduction
Outside of hiring for positions within its own function, the
HRM function seldom makes
any other hiring decisions within an organization. That is, the
final decision regarding whom
to hire is made by a manager (or, in some cases, representatives
of a work team) who has
obtained the necessary hiring requisition that initiates the
recruitment process discussed in
Chapter 5 and leads to the selection process discussed in this
chapter. It is not the role of the
HRM function to hire employees, but rather to consult and
advise the hiring manager in mak-
ing a final decision that will ultimately be in the best interest of
the firm. In fulfilling that role,

the HRM function may at times seem to a hiring manager to be
hindering the hiring process.
On the one hand, HRM must act as an ambassador to the labor
market because disrespect-
ful and unprofessional behavior toward any applicant, qualified
or non-qualified, can have
detrimental effects on the reputation of the firm (Muller &
Baum, 2011). Thus, a hiring man-
ager may at times be “put off” by what might seem to be
excessive attention by HRM to the
“niceties” accompanying the procedures and protocols necessary
to arrive at a hiring decision.
Alternatively, ensuring the selection of the right employees is
one of the most crucial HRM
processes and one of the most challenging decision-making
processes in an organization.
Whereas the ultimate goal of the recruitment process discussed
in the previous chapter is to
generate as large a pool as possible of applicants having the
requisite knowledge, skills, abili-
ties, and other characteristics associated with the focal job, the
goal in the selection process is
to assist the hiring manager in selecting for consideration from
that pool those who not only
fit the focal job but also fit the organizational culture. Much
like a crime scene investigator,
the HRM function attempts to work closely with the hiring
manager in finding evidence about
an applicant’s character, credibility, competence, motivation,
and cultural fit (Muller & Baum,
2011). At times, a seeming obsession by the HRM function with
securing information and fol-
lowing up on details may exasperate a hiring manager who
simply wants to get the job filled
and get on with the work to be done. However, failing to hire

the right people will negatively
impact performance, quality, and productivity while increasing
the turnover rate. It could also
lead to litigation and compromise the organization’s reputation
if the selection process were
to be challenged as discriminatory. The cost of a wrong hire has
been estimated to be 1.5
to 5 times the annual cost of the employee (Muller & Baum,
2011). On the other hand, HR’s
success in assisting a hiring manager to choose the right people
will enable the organization
to compete more effectively and help it to attain its goals and
objectives. Selecting the right
candidate for the job and the organization is critical to creating
a human-based competitive
advantage because many organizations may have ready access to
that the same applicant
pool and information, especially now that most recruitment
efforts are mediated through
technology. Figure 6.1 summarizes the selection process as a
component of strategic human
resource management and outlines the topics discussed in this
chapter. As a common theme
throughout this textbook, the top portion of the figure outlines
the entire strategic HRM pro-
cess. The bottom portion focuses on the details of the particular
HR function discussed in the
chapter. This chapter focuses on selection and job fit.
Introduction Chapter 6
Figure 6.1: Selection and job fit
f06.01_OMM618.ai

Bene�ts and
bene�ts
administration
Selection
and
job �t
Determining
selection
criteria
Choosing
selection
tools and
procedures
Assessing
validity and
reliability
Ensuring
legal
compliance
Enhancing
employee
motivation,

productivity,
and retention
Achieving
organizational
and job �t
Strategic HR
planning
Compensation
Attraction and
recruitment of
talent
Performance/
appraisal
management
Job analysis
and job design
Training and
development
Selection Factors Chapter 6
6.1 Selection Factors
Many employers have the unrealistic expectation that an ideal
candidate can be found to fill

the job if the organization uses the right recruitment tools and
then offers the candidate a
package that he or she cannot refuse. However, this is rarely the
case. Instead, an organization
first needs to determine the specific factors that are critical for
success on the job in ques-
tion and then direct its recruitment and selection efforts
accordingly. Applicants can then be
evaluated based on those factors, and those who rank highest on
these factors should be
selected.
Also important to choosing and prioritizing employee selection
criteria is the distinction
between states and traits. Traits are more permanent. They tend
to be stable over one’s
lifespan, particularly in adults. They cannot be readily learned,
trained, or developed. Thus,
if particular traits are needed on the job, it is critical that
employees are selected for those
traits. Examples include intelligence and height. On the other
hand, states are more malleable.
Opening Case Study: Amazon Is Hiring . . . Big Time!
Access the following link:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/29/news/companies/amazon-
hiring/index.html
Hiring 7,000 new employees is not an easy task. HR
professionals and hiring managers need to
spend many hours weeding through hundreds, sometimes
thousands, of resumes and application
forms—verifying qualifications, interviewing applicants,
conducting assessments, and negotiating
job offers. Selecting the wrong candidate for the job can be

detrimental to subsequent performance
and morale. If the employee leaves, the hiring cycle has to be
repeated to find a replacement, which
is often time-consuming and disruptive to operations. That is
why it is critical to have the right selec-
tion criteria and to follow a systematic approach in finding the
right candidate that best fits each
job opening. In many respects, selection resembles a marriage.
The more diligent both sides are in
learning about each other and considering their unique
characteristics before they commit, the more
likely the relationship is to thrive and the more headaches that
can be spared later.
Discussion Questions
1. What would cause an organization like Amazon to hire 7,000
new employees within the same
time frame?
2. Is it a good idea to hire 7,000 new employees within the same
time frame? Why? Why not? What
are some of the benefits and risks of hiring “binges”? What are
some alternatives?
3. Excluding the new hire’s salary and benefits, how much does
it cost to hire one employee? Make
a list of all the people involved and how many hours each
person will likely spend. Estimate the
costs of their pay and benefits per hour. What other tools or
resources may be needed, and how
much do they cost?
4. If Amazon announces 7,000 openings, how many applicants
will likely apply? How many will
probably be short-listed for further consideration? How many

job offers will be extended but
turned down?
5. How long should it take a warehouse worker to get up to
speed and become an average per-
former? Make a list of all the people and resources involved in
bringing each new employee up to
speed and estimate their costs.
6. Based on your answers, what is a realistic cost figure for
hiring 7,000 new employees, excluding
their pay and benefits?
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/29/news/companies/amazon-
hiring/index.html
They change over time, and they can
show significant improvement even as a
result of brief training and development
interventions. Examples include moods
or attitudes (Luthans & Youssef, 2007).
It is important to select for desired states
if possible, but because they are likely to
change over time a more developmental
approach through frequent training initia-
tives may be more realistic. Some of the
most important selection factors include
individual differences; knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSAs); social capital, psycho-
logical capital, and attitudes. This section
will describe each of these factors and
also provide advice for prioritizing the
selection criteria.

Individual Differences
Individual differences refer to a wide range of personal traits
that tend to be stable over
time and across situations. These traits can be genetically
determined. They can also be “hard-
wired” in the brain at an early age through the influences of
cultural background, upbringing,
early childhood and adolescence experiences, or a combination
thereof. Among the stable
characteristics and related assessments considered significant
for HR are 1) general mental
abilities, 2) the “Big Five” personality traits, 3) core self-
evaluations, and 4) emotional intel-
ligence. Ensuing each is discussed in more detail.
General mental abilities (GMA) or simply raw intelligence is
measured by recognized intel-
ligence quotient (IQ) tests (Schmidt, 2009). GMA is a powerful
predictor of job performance
in that GMA has been estimated to account for as much as 30%
of the variance in job per-
formance across individuals (Schmidt, et al., 2007). As a result,
GMA has proven to be one
of the most persuasive methods of selecting among job
applicants because individuals with
greater cognitive ability are likely to learn faster, to have
greater absorptive capacity, and to
generalize their knowledge more effectively across dissimilar
situations (Jensen, 1998). Most
importantly, the validity of GMA tests and their predictive
validity has been shown to be gen-
eralizable across various occupations, with more complex jobs
showing a stronger relationship
between GMA and performance (Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso,

Bertua, de Fruyt, & Rolland,
2003). Finally, in a study that followed participants from early
childhood to retirement, GMA
was shown to predict career success across the lifespan (Judge,
Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick,
1999).
The “Big Five” personality traits have been identified as
conscientiousness, extroversion,
neuroticism/emotional stability, agreeableness, and openness to
experience (Barrick & Mount,
1991). The value of assessing personality traits such as the Big
Five appears to stem from a
tendency to predict the choice to perform or “will-do” qualities
of an applicant, whereas most
other common selection methods predict a capacity to perform
or “can-do” attributes of the
applicant (Richard & Allison, 2009). Specifically, these traits
are:
• conscientiousness—being dependable as well as
hardworking, achievement-oriented,
and persevering
Hero Images/SuperStock
▲▲ The best candidate for a job should be chosen based on a
set of
factors specific to the job in question.
• extroversion—being sociable, gregarious, assertive,
talkative, and active (the opposite

of introversion)
• neuroticism—being anxious, depressed, angry,
embarrassed, worried, and insecure (the
opposite of being emotionally stable)
• agreeableness—being curious, flexible, trusting, good-
natured, forgiving, and tolerant
• openness to experience—being imaginative, cultured,
curious, original, broad-minded,
and artistic
Conscientiousness and emotional stability have been found to
predict performance in a wide
range of jobs, while extroversion, agreeableness, and openness
to experience are more spe-
cific to the types of jobs where these traits can be leveraged.
For example, extroversion is
essential in sales jobs, agreeableness in teamwork and
negotiation, and openness to experi-
ence in jobs with a lot of change requiring continuous learning
and adaptation (Barrick &
Mount, 2009).
Core self-evaluations of self-esteem, generalized confidence,
neuroticism (the opposite of
emotional stability), and locus of control (Judge & Bono, 2001)
can be important predictors
of job success. Individuals with high core self-esteem are better
at identifying and pursuing
opportunities as they emerge, viewing their circumstances and
experiences in a positive light
and being less sensitive to negative information (Chang et al.,
2012).

Emotional intelligence is the ability to accurately (a) perceive
emotions, (b) integrate emo-
tions to facilitate thought, (c) understand emotions, and (d)
manage and regulate emotions to
promote personal growth and social relations (Mayer, Salovey,
Caruso, & Sitarenious, 2001).
Emotional intelligence has been shown to predict job
performance (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran,
2004). However, it is debatable whether emotional intelligence
is a stable personality trait or
a set of skills and competencies that can be learned. For
example, Goleman (1998) views emo-
tional intelligence as a set of five competencies that may be
based on innate traits but that
can also be trained and developed. These competencies are self-
awareness, self-regulation,
social skill, empathy, and motivation. The validity of emotional
intelligence has been heavily
criticized, primarily due to its inconsistency with scientific
understanding of intelligence in
general, lack of measurement rigor (Locke, 2005), and limited
contribution beyond GMA and
personality to predicting work outcomes (Landy, 2005).
More recently, various character strengths and virtues have also
been identified in the emerg-
ing field of positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Individual differences are important for employee selection
because they can contribute to or
limit one’s potential for growth and development. Because they
are stable in adults, individual
differences are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to change
through HR initiatives such
as training and motivation. Thus, organizations need to
determine the traits that are criti-

cal for success in various positions and then ensure that they
select employees who possess
those traits. For example, extroversion is supported as a critical
success factor for sales jobs.
However, because extroversion is an individual difference, it is
difficult to increase someone’s
level of extroversion. Therefore, an organization should hire
extroverted individuals to fill sales
jobs because it cannot effectively turn introverted employees
into more extroverted ones
through training, rewards, or other approaches.
Personality-oriented job analysis (Goffin et al., 2011) and
competency-based job analysis
(discussed in Chapter 4) can contribute to accurately
determining the right traits for each
position. To determine the extent to which applicants possess
these desired traits, HRM uses
various tools to measure individual differences. Most of these
tools are based on what is called
individual differences psychology or differential psychology,
which mainly focuses on analyz-
ing and interpreting the behavioral tendencies that distinguish
one individual from another
by recognized traits. Personality tests are the most commonly
used individual differences
assessments.
Examples of well-researched personality tests are the Big Five
personality test and the Core
Self-Evaluations inventory. Unfortunately, these are not the

most commonly used tests. Instead,
many organizations design their own tests or purchase
commercially available assessments,
which may or may not be backed up by sufficient research. For
example, many organizations
use the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory. This assessment tool has
its proper uses; however, its
effectiveness, and thus the legality of its use for selection
purposes, is questionable. This is
due to its questionable psychometric support and limited
predictive validity. Many assess-
ments are also costly to buy and administer, further highlighting
the importance of selecting
the most effective selection tools—a topic that will be revisited
later in this chapter.
Human Capital
Job applicants also vary in education, experience, prior training,
and physical, mental, and
emotional abilities. These factors are not necessarily based on
individual differences but can
be determined by the applicants’ current achievements. Such
knowledge, skills, and abilities
are collectively referred to as KSAs. Although KSAs are not
stable personality traits, develop-
ing them can be costly and time-consuming; many organizations
therefore require some level
of the necessary KSAs as qualifications for each job.
A recent article in the New York Times (Rampell, 2013) stated
that an undergraduate college
degree is becoming the “new high school diploma” in that it is
now constituting a minimal
requirement to obtain even the lowest-level job. In a recent
survey of 2,600 hiring managers,

66% said they were now hiring college graduates for jobs that
previously were filled with high
school graduates (Kristof, 2013). There is reason to assume that
educational credentials have
gone from being, if not irrelevant, certainly supplemental to
actual job experience to now
constituting a dominant consideration in the hiring process for a
majority of jobs in the United
States (Baker, 2011). However, there is reason to be cautious
about arbitrarily setting a college
degree as a screening device for what has traditionally been a
low-skilled job requiring only a
high school diploma. Perhaps the greatest potential liability for
U.S. employers is to run afoul
of the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Act. Since the landmark
decision in Griggs v. Duke Power,
if an educational requirement such as a postsecondary degree
for employment in a job has a
discriminatory impact on minorities or other protected classes
and exceeds what is required
for the job, it will likely be considered a violation of Title VII
of the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights
Act (EEOC, 2006). Moreover, cases that have applied
educational criteria to unskilled jobs
have experienced increasing serious legal challenges (UCLA,
2013).
For a particular job, the organization must first determine the
KSAs required to perform the
job’s tasks and responsibilities. This determination usually
takes place at the stages of job
analysis and job design, but recent developments in the
application of data-mining techniques
suggest that frameworks based on decision trees and associated
rules may also generate
extremely useful insights regarding the requirements for

successful job performance (Chien &
Chen, 2008). Then the organization needs to employ valid and
reliable assessment techniques
to accurately measure the extent to which job applicants possess
the desired KSAs. The fol-
lowing are examples of assessments for various fields:
• licensure exams assess knowledge for fields such as
medicine, engineering, and law
• certification exams assess skills such as those often
completed by teachers, electricians, plumbers, and
others
• physical fitness tests assess physical ability, such
as the ability to lift a certain amount of weight or
stand for a given period of time
Social Capital
Social capital is the value added through interpersonal
relationships, interactions, and networking (Adler & Kwon,
2002; Luthans & Youssef, 2004). In an organizational con-
text, social capital emphasizes building a positive orga-
nizational culture in order to achieve the organization’s
ultimate goals and objectives. Organizational investment
in practices that generate social capital has demonstrated
a strong positive relationship with overall employee com-
mitment to the firm, job performance, and organizational
citizenship behavior (Ellinger et al., 2013). HR practices
that build social capital include the following:

• selecting qualified employees and placing them in
jobs that fit their qualifications
• using motivational tools and reward systems
• promoting a positive work environment and an
organizational culture that focuses on such collab-
orative work practices as team-based organizational design,
mentoring, coaching, and
employee participation and empowerment
Organizations can also select a candidate for the social capital
he or she possesses. For exam-
ple, many contracting jobs favor candidates who have
established connections with potential
clients. Candidates who possess social capital also find it easier
to locate and land job offers
than those who lack these connections. Despite its importance,
social capital tends to be
subjective, vaguely defined, or defined differently from
organization to organization. These
factors make social capital difficult to measure and therefore
difficult to leverage for HR selec-
tion purposes.
Positive Psychological Capital
Employees’ psychological states have a direct impact on
shaping the organizational culture
and environment. Unlike traits, psychological states are
cognitive, affective, and social capa-
bilities that are open to growth, development, and change over
time and across situations.
One psychological state that is recognized as being particularly
relevant for the workplace is
positive psychological capital, a multidimensional concept that

encompasses four psycho-
logical capabilities:
• confidence (self-efficacy): the ability to take on
challenging tasks and make the efforts
necessary to accomplish them successfully
AP Photo/Bob Bird
▲▲ Knowledge and skill assessments can include
certification exams such as those completed by
teachers, medical technicians, and electricians.
• optimism: attributing positive reasons and causes to
present events and future success
• hope: persevering toward goals and redirecting paths as
necessary
• resiliency: bouncing back from adversity (Luthans,
Youssef, & Avolio, 2007, p. 3)
Psychological capital has been shown to positively relate to
many desirable employee atti-
tudes, behaviors, and performance (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, &
Mhatre, 2011), which in turn
can translate into human-based competitive advantages. Similar
to KSAs, psychological capi-
tal can be trained and developed. However, organizations may
also want to select applicants
based on their psychological capital if they have limited time or
resources to develop employ-

ees, or if the organization is seeking to make the culture more
positive.
For example, Seligman (1998) conducted a fascinating set of
studies on the sales force of
Metropolitan Life Insurance. At the time, the company was
basing selection decisions on
the results of an industry-recognized test that measured
applicants’ technical knowledge.
However, Seligman believed that being a successful salesperson
requires high levels of positiv-
ity, and he suggested that positivity might be even more
important than technical skills. To
test this notion, Seligman convinced Metropolitan Life to hire a
“special force” of applicants
who actually failed the industry test but who scored well on a
test that he had designed to
measure optimism, a recognized dimension of positivity.
Interestingly, optimists who failed
the industry test outperformed pessimists who passed it,
indicating that positivity may be
more important to job performance than skills!
Attitudes
Employees’ attitudes towards their jobs, their co-workers, and
the organization can shape
their behavior, performance, and success in their jobs. A
positive attitude is often mani-
fested through a high energy level and enthusiasm, passion for
learning, curiosity to explore
and experiment, motivation to succeed, and desire to do what is
good for the organization.
Employees with positive attitudes have a more constructive
influence on the success and ful-
fillment of organizational goals and objectives than employees

who have more education and
experience but also have a negative attitude (Sartain, 2003).
Further, employees with positive
attitudes are generally rated higher on subjective measures of
job performance and organiza-
tional citizenship. A negative attitude can often be observed
through an employee’s feelings
of guilt, fear, anxiety, and nervousness. Measures of negative
attitudes have demonstrated an
ability to predict, beyond random chance, employee withdrawal
behaviors, counterproductive
work behaviors, and occupational injury (Kaplan, 2009).
Attitudes are difficult to change because they are affected by a
myriad of factors that may
be beyond the organization’s control, such as satisfaction with
other life domains (Judge &
Ilies, 2004). Although attitudes are not considered fixed traits
or individual differences, many
organizations will select an applicant with the “right” attitude
that fits the organization’s
goals, culture, and job requirements instead of attempting to
develop the right attitude in
another new hire with other assets. Organizations use many
tools to assess such attitudes as
job satisfaction, work engagement, and organizational
commitment in potential and current
employees (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Surveys are the
most commonly used assess-
ments to determine attitudes. However, many of the available
attitude assessments must be
administered carefully, with special measures, because
applicants can fake attitudes to profess
socially desirable traits or gain jobs (Mueller-Hanson,
Heggestad, & Thornton, 2003).

For example, many organizations regularly administer “climate
surveys,” asking employ-
ees to report on their satisfaction with their jobs, supervisors,
and co-workers, and their
Job Fit Chapter 6
intentions of staying with the organization. However, many
employees would be reluctant
to respond truthfully (or at all) to those surveys unless
anonymity is guaranteed. Examples of
well-designed attitude assessments are Allen and Meyer’s
(1990) Organizational Commitment
scale and Gallup’s Q12 scale for measuring work engagement
(Harter et al., 2002). Gallup’s
scale has been found to be an effective measure, but its costs
should also be considered as it
is a proprietary product.
Prioritizing Selection Criteria
The goal of the selection process is to identify the best
candidates who possess the most
influential qualities a job requires and who fit the
organizational culture well. These qualities
include a combination of critical knowledge, skills, and
abilities; appropriate experience and
education; and personal characteristics, traits, and attitudes.
However, assessing too many
criteria can be costly and time-consuming. It may also result in
too few qualified applicants
and thus in unfilled positions. On the other hand, assessing too
few criteria can yield too many
qualified applicants to sift through, which can also be costly

and time-consuming. This sifting
can also result in subjective, legally questionable decisions.
Thus, it is wise for an organization to prioritize its selection
criteria based on the results of its
HR planning, job analysis, and job design. A recruiting team is
often assembled to contrib-
ute to the prioritization, including HR representatives, the
hiring manager, successful future
co-workers, direct reports, and internal and sometimes even
external customers. Employee
selection is a balancing act and a process of optimizing across
multiple criteria, rather than
maximizing one criterion at the expense of others.
It is prudent at this point to once again make reference to the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures (1978). Although the Uniform Guidelines
are not in and of themselves
law, they have been identified by the courts as a source of
technical information and over the
years have been given deference in litigation involving charges
of disparate impact and unfair
employment practices. They are designed to provide a
framework for determining the proper
use of tests and other selection procedures. The Uniform
Guidelines pertain to any and all
selection procedures used as the basis for employment
decisions, including hiring, promotion,
demotion, referral retention, licensing and certification,
training, and transfer. As discussed
in the previous chapter, a prima facie case (i.e., a case accepted
as correct until proved oth-
erwise) of disparate impact resulting in discrimination (intended
or unintended, it matters
not) is recognized by the courts when a hiring practice results in

the ratio of applications to
actual hires of a legally protected class falls below four-fifths
(80%) of the ratio of applicants
to actual hires of the majority class of employees. Once the
prima facie case has been estab-
lished, an employer’s defense must demonstrate that the hiring
practice in question conforms
to the standards defined in the Uniform Guidelines.
6.2 Job Fit
Hiring the best candidates is important, yet compatibility
between a candidate, the organiza-
tion, and the position is critical for the candidate to be
successful and for the organization
to be able to leverage the candidate’s talent and achieve its
goals and objectives. Thus, it is
necessary but not sufficient to select a candidate on the above
criteria. It is also important
to focus on the fit between a person and an organization and the
fit between a person and
a job. Both these focuses optimize the match between the
characteristics of candidate, the
organization, and the job. Person-organization and person-job
fit are discussed next in more
Job Fit Chapter 6
detail. Other forms of fit that have been explored in the
literature, but with less definitive sup-
port, include person-supervisor fit, person-person fit, and
person-environment fit.
Person-Organization Fit

It is very important for organizations to recruit qualified
individuals with the optimum skill
sets matching the organizational goals and objectives (Chuang
& Sackett, 2005). To attract
and retain these qualified individuals, companies must match an
applicant’s personality with
the organizational environment or culture and then maintain that
match during the term of
employment.
Person-organization fit (PO) can be
defined as the extent of resemblance
between the personal core values and
beliefs of individuals and the norms, rules,
regulations, and values of the organizations
where they work. Many theories and stud-
ies establish as a fact that employees are
mentally and physically more sound when
they are comfortable with the organiza-
tional environment. A strong employee-
organization fit has been demonstrated to
relate to increased performance, job sat-
isfaction, and organizational commitment
as well as decreased strain and intention
to quit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, &
Johnson, 2005). Person-organization fit is
therefore an important selection consid-
eration. For example, an individual who is
willing to take risks would find an organization that values
creativity and innovation to be a
good fit, while an individual who prefers stability and structure
would find an organizational
culture that emphasizes predictability to be a better fit.
Similarly, an extroverted individual will
be more likely to fit in an organizational culture that

emphasizes teamwork and collaboration,
while an introvert would be a better fit where there are
opportunities for working alone.
Person-Job Fit
It is also important for companies to establish and promote a
robust fit between an employee
and a job. According to Edwards (2008), person-job fit (PJ)
occurs when the demands of the
job are compatible with the capabilities of the job’s incumbent
and when the needs and pref-
erences of the incumbent are met by the job. Recruits come to
organizations with different
combinations of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). It is
the organization’s responsibility to
match those KSAs with the job needs, requirements, and
necessary qualifications. This match
ensures that all the duties, responsibilities, and tasks associated
with the job will be accurately
and efficiently accomplished.
From an employee’s perspective, a job is deemed satisfactory
when it lives up to his or her
expectations and seems to fulfill most of his or her professional
needs and desires. Employees
are believed to pursue and accept job offers much less in
accordance with objective evalua-
tions than with subjective evaluations and personal perceptions
of whether or not a job fits
Oli Kellett/Taxi/Getty Images
▲▲ The selection process should take into account a
candidate’s
ability to fit in with organizational culture, as well as his or her

skills
and abilities.
Selection Methods Chapter 6
them well (Caplan, 1987). Person-job fit, like person-
organization fit, has also been shown
to relate to a number of desirable work attitudes, behaviors, and
performance outcomes.
Person-job fit is therefore critical for effective selection
(Kristof-Brown et al., 2005)
Recent research suggests that decision makers are more likely to
reject an applicant on the
basis of a low-level PJ fit than a low-level PO fit. Because PJ
fit has solid legal support under
the Uniform Guidelines, rejecting a job applicant on the basis of
a low-level PJ fit can be easily
justified. On the other hand, decision makers appear likely to be
much more tolerant of job
applicants who have a high level of PJ fit but a low level of PO
fit because making a hiring
decision based on PO fit has less legal support under the
Uniform Guidelines (Sekiguchi &
Huber, 2011).
6.3 Selection Methods
Common selection methods that organizations use to gain
information about and to nar-
row down potential candidates are resumes, application forms,
testing, interviews, reference
checks, honesty tests, medical exams, and drug testing. For the
purposes of the Uniform
Guidelines, selection procedures include the full range of

assessment techniques, includ-
ing written exams, performance tests, training programs,
probationary periods, interviews,
reviews of experience or education, work samples, and physical
requirements. Given the legal
weight associated with the Uniform Guidelines, issues such as
reliability and validity discussed
later in this chapter are extremely germane to the following
review of common selection
methods.
Resumes and Application Forms
Job applications and resumes are the organization’s initial
method of collecting information
about potential recruits. A major downside of resumes and job
applications is the consider-
able and unmanageable volume of them that HR departments
receive; in most cases, it is
extremely challenging to control or carefully consider all of
these documents. Application
forms assist in gathering basic information about applicants that
can be categorized into four
main categories: contact information, work experience, and
educational background, as well
as the applicant’s signature validating all the information given
in the application form.
Resumes, on the other hand, are controlled by the applicants
rather than the employers,
which introduces a source of bias and inaccuracy not present in
application forms. Although
sometimes misleading, resumes provide applicants more
freedom in expressing themselves
and highlighting personal experiences that structured
application forms may not permit. A

common form of inaccuracy occurs when an applicant “inflates”
or “enhances” a resume
through inclusion of false information or the use of jargon to
describe job-related experience.
The most common form of resume inflation is claiming a
college or university degree that was
never granted (Samuelson, 2012). However, resumes provide an
economical method for col-
lecting initial information, identifying potential hires with the
basic requirements such as job
experience and educational background, and selecting
applicants for further consideration.
When applicants send print resumes to an organization, it is
generally assumed that the appli-
cant is eager and willing to take the advertised job. With digital
resumes, this is often not
the case because it is easy for applicants to send their resumes
to many different employers
with little effort or cost. In relying on digital resume pools,
HRM professionals are often frus-
trated when they identify a seemingly perfect candidate but then
find that the applicant does
not respond to contact attempts because the applicant’s situation
has changed (Furtmueller,
Wilderom, & Tate, 2011).
Testing
The next logical step after candidates have been initially
screened through resumes and job

applications is to test those applicants in order to further screen
and narrow down the choice
to a few top candidates. Various types of tests are discussed
next.
Aptitude, Ability, and Achievement
Aptitude refers to how quickly or easily one will be able to
learn in the future (Carter, 2007).
Aptitude tests evaluate the test taker’s level of reception,
comprehension, and retention
and are designed to measure fluid intelligence and crystallized
intelligence. Fluid intelligence
involves abstract reasoning and capacity for problem solving. It
is an indicator of one’s poten-
tial to learn new skills and integrate new information.
Crystallized intelligence is a capacity to
learn from past situations and apply that learning to a new
situation. Aptitude assessments
take the form of tests of abstract reasoning, verbal reasoning,
numerical reasoning, and spa-
tial reasoning (Institute of Psychometric Coaching, 2013).
Ability refers to what one can demonstrate at present. The
cognitive ability test is primarily
designed to assess the applicant’s mental abilities, and the
magnitude of the total score can
be interpreted to indicate greater or lesser amounts of mental
ability (Cascio & Aguinis, 2011).
Results from cognitive ability tests may be one of the most
useful selection measures across
jobs in that they are valid for predicting a wide variety of short-
term and long-term job perfor-
mance outcomes (Sackett, Borneman, & Connelly, 2008). Such
tests are particularly relevant
for complicated jobs demanding considerable mental
capabilities (Salagado et al., 2003; Ree,

Earles, & Teachout, 1994).
Making a distinction between aptitude and cognitive ability has
proven difficult in that they
both are considered manifestations of general mental abilities
(GMA). While measures of
GMA have proven to be equally accurate in predicting job
performance across various racial
and ethnic groups (Arvey & Sackett, 1993), average scores can
differ among groups by as
much as one standard deviation (Roth et al., 2001), and this
means that exclusive use of GMA
for selection purposes carries a high risk of disparate impact.
Thus, some organizations fever-
ishly avoid considering any measure of GMA and others
consider GMA only when selecting
for jobs of high complexity. However, it may be possible to
make use of the high predictive
capacity of GMA and at the same time to reduce the potential
for disparate impact by weight-
ing the results of such tests with other predictive indicators of
job performance such as struc-
tured interviews, biodata, and personality inventories (Cascio &
Aquinis, 2011).
There certainly are other distinct types of ability that merit
consideration in special situations.
For example, physical ability tests measure muscular strength,
cardiovascular endurance, and
movement quality; they are generally conducted only for jobs
demanding specific physical job
performance requirements for the purpose of mitigating injuries
related to certain job activities
(Buffardi, Fleishman, Morath, & McCarthy, 2000; Hogan,
1991). Psychomotor tests measure
the correlation of thought with body movement and are often

administered in conjunction
with physical ability tests. For example, the MacQuarrie Test
for Mechanical Ability is a 30-
minute test that measures manual dexterity and requires tracing,
tapping, dotting, copying,
etc. (Heneman II, & Judge 2009). The link below provides an
example of a psychomotor test.
Sensory/perceptual abilities refer to the ability to detect and
recognize environmental stimuli.
For example, the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension test
contains 68 items that measure an
applicant’s knowledge of the relationship between physical
forces and mechanical objects
and is one of the better-known tests of sensory/perceptual
abilities. While tests of this nature
appear to be useful predictors of job performance within their
specific areas, the degree to
which these tests enable prediction beyond assessments
associated with GMA is not known
(Heneman, III, & Judge, 2009).
Achievement tests focus on abilities, knowledge, and skills an
individual has mastered in the
past (Carter, 2007). Achievement tests are qualification
examinations to ensure that applicants
are ready to perform the tasks they are recruited for, and—if job
knowledge is an important
consideration in filling a position—then it is also necessary to
independently verify that infor-
mation. There is reason to assume a strong predictive ability for
results of job knowledge tests

(Dye, Reck, & McDaniel, 1993). Recent research by Van
Iddekinge, Putka, and Campbell (2011)
further demonstrated a strong positive correlation between an
employee’s technical knowl-
edge and ratings of task proficiency.
Performance and Work Sample
A performance test measures what a
person actually does on the job, such as
keyboarding or high-volume machine
operation. Such tests are often associated
with internships, job tryouts, and pro-
bationary periods. A work sample test is
designed to capture parts of a job such as
a drill-press test for machine operators or a
programming test for computer program-
mers. Work sample tests are mostly con-
ducted through simulations of the actual
work setting (Winkler, 2006). Research
indicates that both performance and work
sample tests are useful in predicting job
performance, and while a performance
Web Links
Psychomotor Test
http://www.askcaptainlim.com/aptitude-tests-pilot-75/523-a-
cadet-pilot-sharing-his-experience-in-
the-psychomotor-skills-test.html
This website provides an example of a psychomotor ability test
that is administered to pilots.
1. To what extent is this test a realistic reflection of the actual
job requirements?

2. What are the benefits of using this type of psychomotor test
for selecting pilots?
3. Are there any potential drawbacks or limitations of
psychomotor tests in general or this one in
particular?
Medioimages/Photodisc/Thinkstock
▲▲ Performance tests, such as keyboarding exams, measure
one’s
ability to perform job-specific skills.
cadet-pilot-sharing-his-experience-in-the-psychomotor-skills-
test.html
cadet-pilot-sharing-his-experience-in-the-psychomotor-skills-
test.html
test is more costly to develop than a work sample test it is
usually a better predictor of job
performance (Heneman, III, & Judge, 2009).
Situational Judgment
Situational judgment tests (SJTs) present applicants with work-
related situations and a list of
plausible courses of action. Applicants are asked to evaluate
each course of action for either
the likelihood that they would perform the action or the
effectiveness of the action. The
premise of SJTs is that of behavioral consistency (i.e., that past

behavior is the best predictor of
future behavior). By eliciting a sample of current behavior on
an SJT, one can predict how an
applicant will behave in the future when on a job (Whetzel &
McDaniel, 2009; Jansen et al.,
2013). SJTs are not truly work sample tests because they assess
hypothetical behaviors rather
than actual behaviors, but research suggests that SJTs add to
HR’s ability to predict job per-
formance above and beyond job knowledge, cognitive ability,
and personality traits (Cascio &
Aguinis, 2011). An additional fact making SJTs attractive for
personnel selection is that they
appear to have less race-based adverse impact than tests
associated with GMA (Whetzel &
McDaniel, 2009).
Objective Personality Inventories
Numerous studies conducted and published since the mid-1980s
indicate strong support for
using the Big Five personality measures in making staffing
decisions. In general, research has
suggested that measures of these five traits predict beyond
random chance an applicant’s
overall job performance, counterproductive work behaviors,
organizational citizenship, inter-
personal behavior, and individual teamwork (Ones et al., 2007).
Conscientiousness is the most
predictive of the Big Five personality traits across all types of
jobs. In addition, the predictive
validity increases in more autonomous jobs. More recently,
there has also been support for
Core Self-Evaluations. Thus, there is little argument that
choosing valid and reliable work-
related personality measures on the basis of a thorough job and
organizational analysis is a

fundamental element in an effective selection process (Cascio &
Aguinis, 2011).
Biodata
Biodata pertains to historical events that may have shaped a
person’s behavior and identity.
Acquiring biodata involves asking people to describe job-
relevant behaviors and events that
occurred earlier in their lives or that are still occurring. The
underlying assumption is that a
person’s past behaviors and experiences are a potential
predictor of future behaviors and
experience (Nickels, 1994). Over time, large data sets or
inventories are generated, and from
these inventories emerge scales of behaviors, events, and
experiences that are common and
shared by successful performers in a particular job but are
uncommon among less successful
performers. These scales then become useful in predicting
which applicants are likely to be
most successful in the focal job. While there is extensive time
and cost involved in developing
a biodata scale, such scales have proven fruitful beyond the
predictions possible with other
employment tests (Cascio & Aguinis, 2011), and biodata scales
have been shown to be one of
the best predictors of new employee performance and retention
(Breaugh, 2009). The follow-
ing links provide examples of biodata.
Interviews
Many employers prefer to interact directly with their future
employees, usually face to face,
for a more accurate evaluation of their communication skills,
interpersonal skills, and technical

experience and knowledge. That is why the job interview is one
of the most commonly used
selection tools in employment. There are several types of
interviews that organizations use.
These types of interviews are listed and described below, and as
a selection device they are all
held to the standards of the Uniform Guidelines.
• Unstructured interviews mostly involve open-ended
questions—the interviewee’s
answer to one question determines the interviewer’s progression
to the next question.
Most of the questions associated with nondirective interviews
are related to personal
career objectives and expectations, as well as to points of
strength and weakness. A
major issue with unstructured interviews is their inability to
stand up to scrutiny against
the standards of the Uniform Guidelines if challenged in court.
A review of federal
court cases between 1978 and 1997 involving charges of
discriminatory hiring has dem-
onstrated that unstructured interviews were challenged in court
more often than any
other selection device and that in 41% of cases the unstructured
interview was found
to be discriminatory in nature (Terpstra, Mohamed, & Kethley,
1999).
• Structured interviews follow a set of pre-established
questions that mainly focus on

the interviewee’s knowledge, work experience, and technical
skills. Structured inter-
views provide organizations with more valid and reliable results
under the Uniform
Guidelines compared to nondirective interviews because they
most often result from
job analysis and are designed to assess job knowledge and
skills, organizational fit,
interpersonal and social skills, and application of cognitive
skills (Cascio & Aquinis,
2011).
• Situational interviews depict a real work-related scenario
that interviewers present to
the interviewees to evaluate their problem-solving capabilities
(Clavenger, Perreira,
Weichmann, Schmitt, & Harvey, 2001; McDaniel, Morgeson,
Finnegan, Campion, &
Braverman, 2001). Situational interviews have been found to be
predictive of future job
performance and resistant to claims of racial and gender bias
(Maurer, 2002).
• Behavior description interviews allow the interviewees to
describe how they handled
a certain past situation to assess their experiences (Campion,
Campion, & Hudson,
1994; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995). Both situational interviews
and behavior description
interviews evolve from a job analysis that uses the critical
incident method described
in Chapter 4, and both are legally supported by the Uniform
Guidelines. Research sug-
gests that both are reasonable predictors of job performance
regardless of job com-
plexity (Cascio & Aquinis, 2011).

Web Links
Biodata Questions
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-
selection/examples/biodata
-example.pdf
Biodata Form
http://semioffice.com/forms/biodata-form-format-for-job-
application-free-download/
These websites provide examples of biodata.
1. How are the above two examples similar/different?
2. How is biodata similar to or different from resumes and
application forms?
selection/examples/biodata-example.pdf
selection/examples/biodata-example.pdf
http://semioffice.com/forms/biodata-form-format-for-job-
application-free-download/
• In panel interviews, two or more representatives from the
organization meet in a group
setting with the interviewee. This type of interview has the
advantage of using multiple
raters and thus it is considered to be less biased.

Reference Checks
Application forms often ask applicants to provide reliable
reference sources, such as former
employers, so that organizations can verify applicants’
capabilities and past experiences. In
reality, however, references are not a very reliable source for
verifying information because
applicants are careful to choose only references who are most
likely to present them in a
favorable light.
Providing references for former employees can be risky for
employers due to possible law-
suits. For example, positive references can trigger lawsuits
when new employers claim they
have been misled if an employee’s conduct has not been as
expected after a certain period of
employment (Long, 1997). On the other hand, negative
references can cause former employ-
ees to claim defamation and loss of reputation, even with
limited evidence (Ryan & Lasek,
1991). However, there is legal protection for an employer under
the “qualified privilege doc-
trine,” which protects the previous employer from liability for
defamation if the information
is 1) given to a person who has a legitimate business interest in
the information, 2) con-
veyed in an appropriate manner and circumstance, 3) job-related
and appropriate in its scope,
4) given without malice or intent to harm, and 5) reasonably
investigated or relied upon for
its truthfulness (Stokes, 2001). In short, while organizations
should be cautious in providing
former employees with references, there is legal protection
when the information is carefully

focused on job-related experience and behavior and does not
venture into personal opin-
ions that might be misinterpreted. In firms of more than 100
employees, HRM professionals
generally employ strict control over ex-employee reference
check information (Fenton Jr., &
Lawrimore, 1992).
Web Links
Structured, Unstructured, and Semistructured Interviews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrDONsoVoXE&feature=rela
ted
Situational Interviews
https://na.theiia.org/iiarf/Public%20Documents/Situational%20I
nterviewing%20-%20Chattanooga.
pdf
Panel Interviews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4ofZoN6Zw
1. Which of the above types of interviews have you encountered
in the past? Describe the nature of
the job, the characteristics of the interviewer(s) and the
interviewee, the setting, and the flow of
the interview.
2. As an interviewer, which type of interview are you most and
least comfortable with? Why?
3. As an interviewee, which type of interview are you most and
least comfortable with? Why?

4. Select jobs that may best lend themselves to each type of
interview. Explain your opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrDONsoVoXE&feature=rela
ted
nterviewing%20-%20Chattanooga.pdf
nterviewing%20-%20Chattanooga.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4ofZoN6Zw
Foundational Concepts in Designing and Evaluating Selection
Methods Chapter 6
Honesty Tests, Medical Exams, and Drug Testing
Some jobs involve physically demanding tasks and
responsibilities. Accordingly, many orga-
nizations conduct medical and fitness examinations to ensure
that employees are capable of
successfully performing the assigned job requirements. Another
purpose of these tests is to
determine applicants’ initial physical status, prior to
employment, for future evaluation in case
of a work-related injury or disability. Organizations must
practice extreme caution in applying
for physical examinations for potential recruits in order to avoid
any discriminatory claims.
Employees are often expected to employ honest and safe
behavioral practices inside and
outside the organization—for instance, by never using drugs.
Although reference checks and
interviews can assess honest and safe behavior, some
organizations rely on more direct veri-

fication methods, such as honesty and drug tests. Honesty tests
using the polygraph were
banned in 1988 and replaced with paper-and-pencil integrity
tests, which are similar in form
to personality inventories and aptitude tests. Extensive research
has confirmed that such tests
are meaningful predictors of counterproductive work behavior
(Van Iddekinge et al., 2012),
are significant predictors of overall job performance, second
only to cognitive ability tests
(Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2012), and have not produced
evidence of adverse impact by
gender, age, or national origin (Fine, 2010).
It appears to be a reasonable assumption that a majority of
employers require job applicants
under serious consideration to take a pre-employment drug test
(Leonard, 2011). Drug testing
is considered an accurate and reliable method for exposing
substance abuse. However, many
individuals see drug testing as a controversial invasion of
privacy that can lead to false accusa-
tions of substance abuse. Some organizations avoid these
problems by relying on other types
of testing, such as impairment and fitness tests for duty
programs, which mainly assess mental
abilities in carrying out critical tasks rather than analyzing the
root cause of any impairment.
6.4 Foundational Concepts in Designing and Evaluating
Selection Methods
The goal of the selection process is to accurately and
consistently predict future job per-
formance through assessing a predetermined set of factors that
are believed to be related

to applicants’ ability or motivation to perform the job. For
example, organizations often
hire applicants with the highest scores on a particular test or
those who received the most
favorable ratings on an interview. The underlying assumption
and rationale for this common
approach is that test scores or interview ratings are accurate and
consistent predictors of sub-
sequent job performance.
However, job performance can never be predicted with 100%
accuracy or consistency. The
only way to reach perfect accuracy would be for employers to
hire all the applicants for a
particular job, have them perform the job, and then choose those
with the highest perfor-
mance levels. Of course, this approach is neither practical nor
cost effective. Moreover, even
if an organization could afford to hire a large number of
applicants and retain only those
with the highest performance indicators, performance prediction
is still not perfectly accu-
rate. For example, many organizations have probationary
periods during which the employer
and the employee “try each other out” before a more permanent
arrangement is estab-
lished. However, employees may be motivated to perform at a
much higher level during the
Methods Chapter 6
probationary period in order to secure permanent employment.
Once the probationary period

is over, the employee’s performance level may drop. Moreover,
even if overall job performance
can be predicted accurately, performance may be influenced
over time and across situations
by a myriad of factors that cannot be anticipated or managed.
This variation renders consis-
tency in performance prediction a serious challenge in candidate
selection.
It is impossible to make perfect predictions of job performance.
However, there are many
recognized selection tools and methods that can make
reasonably high-quality predictions
possible by accurately and consistently measuring or assessing
important predictors that are
strongly related to specific job performance criteria. Accurate
prediction of performance crite-
ria is also referred to as high validity. It indicates that a
predictor (e.g., test scores or interview
ratings) is significantly related to desirable performance
outcomes, so that those who measure
favorably on the selection tool or method have a higher chance
of being high performers than
those who do not. For example, if a valid test is used in the
selection process, then those who
score higher on the test are also likely to perform better on the
job.
Consistency, also referred to as high reliability, indicates that a
predictor can be replicated
over time and across situations. For example, a reliable
selection procedure will reflect an
applicant’s aptitude, ability, and motivation to do the job. The
procedure will not reflect the
subjective opinion of the interviewer, the temperature or noise
level of the room where an

employment test took place, or other factors that are not related
to the actual job (factors
that, if different, could have yielded a different score or
decision as to whether or not the
organization should select the applicant).
Validity
Validity is the extent to which a selection tool or procedure can
accurately predict subse-
quent performance. Validity is an extremely important factor to
consider when designing or
evaluating selection methods. There are several reasons why
this is true:
1. The more accurate the testing process is, the more likely it is
that the best candidates will
be selected, promoted, or matched with the right jobs.
2. Invalid or unreliable tests can be costly. Many tests need to
be purchased or a license
of use must be obtained. Moreover, testing is time-consuming
for both the candidate
and for the organization. Tests must be administered and rated,
and the results must be
reported—processes that require departmental managers’ and
HR professionals’ time
and energy.
3. The wrong tests carry such opportunity costs as wasted time
and lower productivity of
the employees hired or promoted because of their invalid test
results.
4. Finally, invalid testing has legal implications. An invalid test
may not be related to perfor-

mance, but it may still be discriminatory by favoring certain
protected classes over others.
For example, younger job applicants may consistently score
higher than older applicants
on a test, and these scores may not be related to job
performance. In such a case, that
test may be found to be discriminatory. While the organization
may have had no intent to
discriminate, the use of invalid, discriminatory tests can result
in what has been discussed
in the textbook as disparate impact, which is also illegal. Other
legal considerations will
be discussed in greater detail later in the chapter.
Furthermore, when designing or evaluating selection methods,
several dimensions of validity
should be taken into account (Robinson, 1981; Schmitt,
Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). Five
Methods Chapter 6
validity dimensions are multiple facets of the same concept and
should be considered in con-
junction, rather than individually:
1. Criterion-related validity
2. Content-related validity
3. Construct validity
4. Face validity

5. External validity
First, criterion-related validity is the predictive, empirical
(number-based) link between a
predictor and an actual measure of job performance.
Statistically, it is the correlation between
applicants’ scores on the predictor and their subsequent job
performance scores. This correla-
tion ranges from 0 to ±1.00. Tests that yield validity
coefficients ranging from ±.35 to ±.45 are
considered useful for employment decisions, while tests with
validity coefficients of less than
±.10 probably have little relationship with job performance.
For example, there are numerous valid measures of individual
differences—of human, social,
and psychological capital, and also of the job attitudes
discussed earlier. Organizations should
make sure that only valid measures are used for selection
purposes. For the reasons listed
above, “interesting” personal or interpersonal characteristics
should not be considered if they
cannot be validly related to job performance. They are costly,
time-consuming, and distract-
ing, and if challenged they can be found to be discriminatory.
Criterion-related validity is established by building a track
record for a selection tool. For
example, current employees can be assessed using the selection
tool in question, and their
current performance can then be correlated to their scores on
the selection tool. If the cor-
relations are sufficiently high and statistically significant, then
the tool can be used for selec-
tion. This correlation is referred to as concurrent validity.
Alternatively, a new or experimental

selection tool can initially be administered to applicants but not
be considered for selection.
Selected applicants’ performance can then be measured and
correlated to their initial scores
on the selection tool. If the correlation is sufficiently high and
statistically significant, then the
selection tool can become incorporated into the selection
process and scores can be taken
into consideration for selection decisions. This correlation is
referred to as predictive validity.
Second, content-related validity is the logical connection
between the selection procedure
and the actual job. For example, interview or test questions
should be directly related to the
important requirements and qualifications for a job—the
rationale being that if an interview
or test includes samples of actual job behaviors, then
individuals who perform well on the
interview or test will also be able to perform well on the job.
Content-related validation stud-
ies rely heavily upon information gathered in job analysis. If
test questions are directly related
to the specific skills needed to perform a job, then the test will
have high content-related
validity.
Third, construct validity is the extent to which a selection tool
accurately reflects the abstract
personal attributes, or constructs, that a tool intends to measure.
For example, while there
are valid measures of many personality traits, numerous invalid
measures of the same traits
can be found in magazines or on the Internet. Sometimes,
invalid measures are even sold to
organizations by consultants. Creators of those measures claim

that they are beneficial, and
the measures may seem to make sense on the surface and to ask
the right questions, but they
Methods Chapter 6
should not be used for the purposes of employment selection
because their predictive power
is questionable.
Face validity is related to content and construct validity. Face
validity is not a form of validity
in a technical sense—it refers to the subjective impressions of
applicants, organizations, or
observers regarding the relevance of a predictor to a job. For
example, a bank teller would
find nothing strange about taking an employment test that dealt
with numerical ability or
money-counting skills because these skills are obviously related
to job performance. On the
other hand, the teller applicant may not see the job relevance of
a personality test. This test
would thus have low face validity for this job. While it can be
irrelevant in a scientific sense,
organizations should still pay close attention to the face validity
of their selection procedures
because low face validity can result in poor perceptions of the
organization. If an organization
has a choice between multiple tools that are otherwise equally
valid, the tool with higher face
validity should be used.
Finally, external validity refers to the

degree to which a selection tool or proce-
dure can be generalized across the selec-
tion process. For example, an interview
protocol or employment test may be more
valid for some job positions, departments,
organizations, industries, regions, or
countries than for others. Thus, predictors
of performance need to be “revalidated”
if the context in which they will be used is
sufficiently different. On the other hand, if
there are significant situational similarities,
then the predictive capacity of a selection
process can be generalized. For example,
many industries rely on the fact that appli-
cants have passed recognized licensing
exams or obtained certifications in order
to deem these applicants qualified for
technical jobs within those industries.
Reliability
Reliability is the extent to which it is possible to replicate the
results obtained from a predic-
tor such as a selection tool, method, or procedure. For example,
a reliable interview protocol
should yield the same conclusion about the same applicant,
regardless of such irrelevant fac-
tors as these:
1. Which interviewer was the applicant assigned to? If some
interviewers are more lenient,
or if the interview protocol allows for subjective evaluations,
then the interview protocol
is unreliable.
2. In which room did the interview take place? If some rooms

are known to be more com-
fortable or conducive to higher-quality interactions than others,
then all interviews should
be scheduled in the same (or in a comparable) room to increase
reliability.
3. What time of the day did the interview take place? If
interviewers get more tired toward
the end of the day, this time may bias their evaluations of the
applicants interviewed at
that time.
AP Photo/Mel Evans
▲▲ The more accurate the testing process, the more likely the
best
candidates will be selected. What kind of validity does a fitness
test
have in determining police recruit selection?
Increasing the Validity and Reliability of the Selection Process
Chapter 6
4. What was the sequence of applicants? Interviewers may
become more lenient or more
stringent over time. For example, an average applicant may be
at a significant advantage
if interviewed after a number of mediocre applicants, but the
same applicant may be at a
significant disadvantage if interviewed immediately after an
exceptionally good applicant.
5. Was the applicant in his or her normal state of being? If an
applicant is interviewed while

he or she is ill, exhausted, agitated, anxious, or frightened, the
results are likely to be
unreliable.
In other words, reliability is a reflection of the
degree of error in a measurement, which also con-
veys the stability of that measurement’s outcomes
(Nunnally, 1994). Typically, assessing reliability
involves gathering scores for a particular predictor
twice, then calculating the correlation between the
two sets of scores. This correlation is referred to as
the reliability coefficient, and it ranges from 0 to
+1.00. The closer the score sets approach a perfect
+1.00 correlation, the more reliable the predictor
is said to be. For selection purposes, the two sets
of scores can come from scoring the same group
of applicants or current employees twice on the
same procedure while varying certain factors. For
example, a test can be administered at two differ-
ent times, or an interview can be conducted twice
using different interviewers, and the scores can then be
correlated to assess reliability. These
approaches are respectively referred to as test-retest reliability
and inter-rater reliability.
6.5 Increasing the Validity and Reliability of the
Selection Process
Selecting candidates for employment entails the use of valid and
reliable methodologies for
the selection process, ensuring that selected applicants fit the
jobs they have been selected
for and fit the general organizational culture. Many
organizations continually look for ways to
improve their methodologies, including creating and using more
valid and reliable methods,

instituting better training, and linking selection to the HRM
process.
Creating and Using More Valid and Reliable Methods
Selection tools vary in their validity and reliability. For
example, resumes may be more valid
than application forms because resumes allow applicants to
expand on their job-relevant
qualifications, which may be more predictive of job
performance than the many unrelated
pieces of information on generic job applications. On the other
hand, application forms may
be more reliable because their structured format makes it harder
for applicants or employ-
ers to overlook or intentionally omit relevant information. This
reliability is one reason many
organizations require applicants to submit a resume and also
complete an application form.
Similarly, unstructured interviews may be valid since they allow
interviewees to elaborate on
their unique capabilities and experiences. However,
unstructured interviews are less reliable
Web Links
Valid and Reliable Psychological
Assessments
www.mindgarden.com
This website provides validity and reliability infor-
mation on a number of assessments suited for
evaluating various personality traits and devel-
opmental characteristics, many of which are well
suited to the workplace. The site also provides

contact information to obtain permission to use
various tools and measures, many of which are
free of charge.
www.mindgarden.com
Chapter 6
than structured interviews, especially in inter-rater reliability,
because each interview may vary
in the topics covered or the questions addressed, and thus in the
conclusions that interview-
ers may reach about each applicant. It is crucial to investigate
the validity and reliability of
various selection tools and procedures before using them. Using
a variety of selection tools
and procedures is also one of the best ways to increase the
overall validity and reliability of
the selection process.
Training Those Who Select and Overcoming Personal Biases
Selecting the right candidates usually involves some
subjectivity, which may compromise the
validity and reliability of the selection process. Since
unstructured interviews are commonly
used in selection, it is logical for organizations to prepare a
well-equipped team of interview-
ers. It is also essential that interviewers are trained to determine
the most relevant questions
to ask based on their evaluation of the background and
experience of the applicant in ques-
tion. Interviewers must exercise extreme caution in selecting
questions. Each question must

have a clear and insightful job-related, rather than personal,
purpose.
Although extensive training of inter-
viewers might be costly, it can also help
organizations avoid the substantial costs
associated with the inadequate selection
of employees as well as any potential liti-
gation due to discriminatory selection. The
same consideration applies to all those
involved in screening resumes initially, call-
ing the applicants’ references, preparing
job offers, or conducting other stages of
the selection process. Interviewers are less
likely to operate on personal biases when
they have a clear understanding of the
job and are adequately trained to assess
applicants for their fit with the job and the
organization. Sensitivity training familiar-
izes managers and employees with issues
of diversity, discrimination, and harass-
ment. This training has become common
in many organizations, which helps their staff members become
more aware of their possible
prejudices.
Linking Selection to the HRM Process
As emphasized in every chapter, the purpose of the HRM
process is to help an organization
achieve its goals through enhancing the effectiveness of its
people. This purpose is realized
by aligning the HRM objectives with those of corporate
objectives and strategic plans. Linking
the staffing process—which includes selection—with planning,

employee compensation, and
work design will ensure that all processes mesh effectively and
have a unified goal.
Careful planning, job analysis, job design, and recruitment can
yield a smoother and more
effective selection process because they provide a high-quality
applicant pool to choose from.
AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
▲▲ Applicant pools may be diverse, and hiring managers must
be
able to look past any personal biases to hire the right person for
the job.
Chapter 6
Well-designed compensation and benefits, training and
development opportunities, and per-
formance feedback can also facilitate selection by making the
organization attractive to quali-
fied applicants.
In turn, enhancing the selection process can facilitate other HR
functions. Employees are
more predictable when they are selected using valid and reliable
procedures. Their perfor-
mance level is more likely to be adequate and consistent. When
organizational and job fit
are carefully considered in the selection process, the process is
likely to yield employees who
stay longer, have better attitudes, and are more satisfied with

their jobs (Kristof-Brown et al.,
2005). Planning for, training, and assessing this type of
workforce is significantly easier than
would be the case in an organization with high turnover and
dissatisfied, low-performing
employees.
A M O M E N T I N T H E L I F E O F A N H R M A N A
G E R
You Can’t Really Trust Your Gut Feeling About an Applicant
Most managers believe that they know a good applicant when
they see one. Based on the evidence
cited throughout this chapter, here are some realistic examples
that challenge this notion:
1. Sam hires a sales representative because she has a 4.0 GPA,
extremely high scores on her GRE,
and strong recommendation letters from her former professors.
He believes that if she has done
so well on academics, she can accomplish anything she sets her
mind to do. As soon as she is
hired, it becomes obvious that she is highly introverted, which
makes her miserable on the job
and alienates her clients and team alike.
2. John believes that everyone deserves a second chance. He
hires ex-convicts as repairmen and
resident managers for his rental properties, using these jobs as
opportunities to mentor and reha-
bilitate those men. His efforts positively change many lives, and
he is even publicly recognized by
several philanthropic organizations in his community. One day,
one of his resident managers uses
his master key to gain access to, rape, and kill one of the

residents.
3. Sarah is sitting in the interview room, waiting to interview
Andy for a sales job. Andy is late and
comes in with a big coffee stain on his shirt. Sarah concludes
that Andy would make a terrible
salesperson because he is disorganized and poorly groomed; she
cuts the interview short and
does not recommend Andy for the job. A month later, Andy
graduates with a GPA of 4.0 from a
reputable school and accepts a more attractive job offer with a
competitor. A year later, Andy is
promoted to sales manager at the competing company for
achieving $5 million in sales, which is
unheard of in that industry.
Each of these managers made a critical selection mistake. Sam
used invalid selection criteria. His
selection criteria may have been valid for admission to graduate
school, but they do not necessarily
predict success in a sales position. If he had read the abundant
research on valid predictors of sales
success, he would have known that extroversion is a key success
factor. John had noble intentions,
but knowing the background of his protégés he should have
been more careful with their access
privileges. His actions compromised the safety of his residents
and are considered negligent in the
eyes of the law. As for Sarah, she would have probably hired
Andy had she gone through the entire
interview protocol and heard his amazing answers to the
interview questions—answers that none of
the other applicants would have been able to give. But because
she was too busy staring at the cof-
fee stain and supposing him to be disrespectful, rude, and
undisciplined for being late to the inter-

view, she did not really listen to anything he said.
Opportunities, Challenges, and Recent Developments Chapter 6
6.6 Opportunities, Challenges, and Recent
Developments
Finding the right applicant for the job is a challenging task that
requires a great deal of effort
and dedication. Some of the opportunities, challenges, and
recent developments that orga-
nizations face regarding selection have to do with legal and
regulatory issues; sociocultural
developments; global and competitive factors; employee
motivation; morale, productivity,
and retention; and unions and labor relations.
Legal and Regulatory Opportunities and Challenges in
Employee Selection
In addition to the strategic and administrative responsibilities
associated with selecting and
hiring a candidate, HR managers are bombarded with legal
aspects of employment such as
new legislation, managerial and executive orders, and court
decisions. Maintaining nondis-
criminatory practices while determining employee eligibility
and predicting performance is a
serious challenge that HR managers face on a daily basis. HR
managers must exercise extreme
caution to ensure that selection procedures are appropriately
and purposefully designed to
address only information that pertains to a job.

On the other hand, organizations that successfully promote
diversity in their workforces have
the tremendous opportunity to leverage unique talent and build
a competitive advantage. For
example, diversity is one of the criteria behind Fortune
magazine’s “Best Companies to Work
For” lists. Many successful organizations such as Google pride
themselves in having cultures
that embrace and celebrate diversity, an attribute which attracts
many talented employees
from a wide range of backgrounds.
Since enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986, many employers have
failed to acknowledge the importance of the law in terms of I-9
Form compliance. Under the
law, one of a firm’s first responsibilities upon hiring a new
employee is to secure an I-9 form
to verify the individual’s identity and eligibility to work in the
United States. Follow the link
below for a copy of the I-9 Form.
Web Links
I-9 Form
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf
As shown in the above link, the I-9 is made up of three sections.
The first section must be com-
pleted no later than the first day of employment by the
employee and requires a legal name,
address, date of birth, and Social Security number and
testimony regarding the citizenship status
of the employee and eligibility to work in the United States.
The second section of the I-9 Form
requires the employer to examine with three days of the

employee’s first employment evidence of
his or her identity and eligibility to work. Documents generally
accepted as evidence of identity or
employment eligibility include a U.S. passport, driver’s license
or ID card issued by the federal, state,
or local government, U.S military card, and Social Security
card. The employer does not have to
keep copies of such evidence but must examine them and
determine whether they appear on their
face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.
The third section of the I-9 Form
is used when employers rehire an employee within three years
of the completion of the original I-9
(continued)
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf
Finally, employers seeking to employ foreign nationals in
highly specialized fields through an
H-1B visa should keep in mind the following points. First, the
desired foreign national must
be a member of a specialty occupation, hold at least a
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent, and
be working in a field that requires that type of degree. Second,
the employer must obtain
an approved Labor Condition Application (LCA) from the U.S.
Department of Labor. The LCA
requires the employer to certify that the H-1B employee will be
paid the greater of the pre-
vailing wage or the employer’s actual wage for the position.
Third, the H-1B is a temporary
working visa generally approved for an initial three-year period,

and an H-1B employee must
complete the I-9 Form using the H1-B approval notice as
documentation for eligibility to work
in the United States.
Sociocultural Developments
It is a very challenging process for organizations to attract
qualified candidates for jobs in a
highly competitive and skill-demanding market. Moreover, it is
an even bigger challenge to
retain these talents, skills, and experiences within the
organization. A considerable portion of
employees’ attraction to a certain job and their satisfaction with
it is their personal percep-
tion of how well they fit in that job and in the general
organizational culture. Many factors
govern these perceptions, such as challenging tasks, good
prospects for growth and career
advancement, job stability and security, assignments that carry
interesting and meaningful
responsibilities, the training and development of skills and
talents, reasonable working hours,
favorable working environment with well-matched peers,
recognition, respect, appreciation
and self-actualization, fair treatment, company loyalty, and
recognition and assistance with
employees’ personal needs. However, resources are necessary to
keep this host of factors in
place, and these resources are drying up quickly in light of
today’s cut-throat competition and
economic recession.
Moreover, significant shifts and challenges are expected to
occur as organizations attempt to
attract and retain the Millennial Generation born from the mid-

1970s to the early 2000s. In
Form. The I-9 Forms themselves must be retained for at least
three years or for one year after the
end of the employment relationship. While many small
employers still rely on paper I-9 Forms, larger
employers are increasingly adopting paperless I-9 software for
managing the process and interfacing
with the federal government’s e-verify system (Zielinski, 2011).
Officials with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and
its agency Immigration and Customs
Enforce (ICE) know that most U.S. employers are not fully
compliant, and as part of the agency’s
strategic plan through 2014 and beyond it will continue
targeting employers by pursuing civil and
criminal enforcement of the law (Chichoni, 2011). While fines
can range from $100 to $1,100 for
each I-9 violation, it is prudent to consider that the owner of a
wholesale bakery in California
pleaded guilty to hiring 10 or more illegal aliens during a 12-
month period and was fined $800,000
and given a prison sentence. Further, a donut shop operator in
Maine knowingly employed 18 unau-
thorized workers over an eight-year period and is faced with
five years in prison on false attestation
charges and up to six months for hiring illegal aliens (Bell,
2011).
1. What are some of the challenges in completing I-9 Forms for
all employees within the organiza-
tion? Is it reasonable to burden employers with such a
responsibility?

2. Why might employers willingly hire workers who are
ineligible for employment? Do the benefits
outweigh the legal risks?
addition to the above expectations, Millennials tend to expect a
lot of flexibility. They tend to
take the norm as being self-directed careers that constitute a
long series of short-term jobs,
multiple income streams, and entrepreneurship. They are as
unlikely to rely on organizational
initiatives for their learning and development as they are to rely
on Social Security to fund their
retirement. In other words, Millennials tend to take matters into
their own hands and work at
their own terms, making it difficult for any one organization to
attract them, let alone retain
them over time without constantly negotiating most of the terms
of employment (Yost, 2011).
Global and Competitive Factors
Global staffing involves making recruiting and selection
decisions for the purpose of hiring
individuals for assignments in other countries. Global recruiting
is extremely challenging, and
the associated costs are usually very high. Accordingly,
accurate selection decisions have to
be carefully considered and validated. Global recruiting also
involves a variety of factors that
HR managers have to adapt and prepare for, such as different
tax laws for different coun-
tries as well as various customs, cultures, and traditions. For

instance, for a successful global
employee selection process to occur, HR managers must exert
themselves to depict the life-
style, work environment, culture, and habits to selected
employees. Only then will employees
be able to deal with such issues as acceptable codes of ethics
and moral and religious values
(Clegg & Gray, 2002).
An example of an organization that has been successful in
global staffing is LivingSocial, a
company based in Washington, DC, that provides its subscribers
worldwide with daily deals.
LivingSocial expanded from 600 to 4,500 employees in 2011,
including 700 global positions
to support services for the company’s 46 million members
outside the United States in 25
countries.
To select the right candidate for a global assignment, HR
managers must carefully examine
aspects such as cultural adjustment abilities, personality traits
and characteristics, knowledge
of global organizational requirements, communication skills,
and other personal and fam-
ily requirements and considerations. Fortunately, despite the
perceived high failure rates of
expatriate assignments in the past, recent studies show that
these perceived trends are in fact
inaccurate (Harzing, 2002). Instead, research has demonstrated
that self-efficacy, frequency
of interaction with host nationals, interpersonal skills, family
support, and discretion can facili-
tate expatriate adjustment. On the other hand, cultural novelty,
role conflict, and ambiguity
are shown to hinder adjustment. Expatriate adjustment is

critical. Well-adjusted expatriates
have higher performance, are more satisfied, experience less job
strain, engage in more orga-
nizational citizenship, and are less likely to quit (Hechanova,
Beehr, & Christiansen, 2003).
Impact of Selection and Job Fit on Employee Motivation,
Morale,
Productivity, and Retention
The last decade has witnessed a movement toward emphasizing
employee talents and
strengths in selection, organizational fit, and job fit.
Organizational and job fit can be influ-
ential factors for employees’ initial acceptance or rejection of
job offers. However, what’s
even more critical is that these factors can also exert significant
influence on work quality,
motivation, morale, productivity, and retention after employees
have been hired. For exam-
ple, as discussed in Chapter 3, Gallup’s employee engagement
methodology considers two
factors—the daily ability to do what one does best at work and
having a best friend in the
workplace—as being critical for having engaged employees. In
turn, this engagement yields
numerous desirable outcomes for employees and organizations
(Harter et al., 2002). These
outcomes are particularly evident after true and unbiased job
expectations are clearly and
precisely communicated to applicants during the recruiting

process.
Individuals approach organizations with many needs, desires,
and expectations. Those indi-
viduals also come from a variety of backgrounds with different
skills, experiences, capabilities,
and personal perceptions. When these individuals are ultimately
hired by organizations, they
expect to find a job environment that will not only fulfill and
satisfy their basic needs but also
utilize, enhance, and promote their abilities and talents. In
addition, significant job involve-
ment and the utilization of maximum talent potential in
prominent activities allow individuals
to be recognized within the organization, which enhances their
sense of self-actualization.
Favorable HR practices can promote a concrete culture of trust
and create a long-term sense
of commitment within the organization for qualified and skilled
human assets (Whitener,
2001).
Selection, Unions, and Labor
Relations
Union activities directly affect HR prac-
tices. For example, unions can impose
pressure on management to give prior-
ity in job selection to union members
rather than outside applicants when a
position opens. Unions also influence
the job selection process through nego-
tiating shorter probationary periods and a
quicker determination of employees’ suit-
ability for positions. These activities can
sometimes result in premature and poor

judgment of individuals, which may ulti-
mately lead to inaccurate selection deci-
sions and unsatisfactory job performance.
Other areas where unions influence HR
decisions include testing, promotions, lay-
offs, and merit-based systems. Organizations often seek
favorable relations with unions, but
such relations can be challenging, as they can compromise the
validity and reliability of the
selection process.
AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
▲▲ Organizations often seek favorable relationships with
unions, as
union activities can influence human resources practices in a
num-
ber of ways. Here, members of the United Food and Commercial
Worker Union prepare to strike over holiday pay.
E Y E O N T H E G O A L
Beyond Validity and Reliability—
Utility Analysis and Return on Investment in Selection
While effective selection can be expensive, the costs of
selection mistakes can be even worse. One
of the recognized scientific approaches to quantifying the return
on investment in effective selection
is utility analysis, which uses statistical formulas to calculate
these returns over time. Utility analysis
takes into consideration several aspects of the selection process;
for example, it accounts for the
predictive capacity (validity) of one selection tool or process
versus another. Utility analysis can also
account for the joint predictive capacities of multiple selection

devices, such as combining structured
(continued)
interviews and personality tests. Furthermore, utility analysis
accounts for the importance of the job
for the organization in terms of the financial impact of more
effective selection in that particular
job. Some jobs may exhibit higher variability in performance,
warranting more accurate selection,
while others may not have as much variation across incumbents,
limiting the scope of improvement
in selection. Utility analysis also accounts for factors such as
labor demand and supply, which the
organization may not be able to control. When the desired talent
is in abundant supply, organiza-
tions can afford to be more selective, which can increase the
return on investment in more effective
selection procedures. On the other hand, the cost may outweigh
the benefits when the organization
intends to select the majority of applicants due to talent
shortages.
As you probably know if you are familiar with accounting
standards, the primary difference between
an investment and an expense is that returns on investments
accrue over more than one year. If
effective selection is indeed an investment, its benefits should
accrue beyond the current year.
Statistical methods such as utility analysis go beyond the costs
of using various selection devices and
even beyond the opportunity costs of effective selection (e.g.,

the redirection of managers’ time
and energy away from other activities). These methods also take
into consideration time-sensitive
factors such as employee flows, which in turn are affected by
the number of employees hired using
one or more selection procedure, as well as these employees’
retention and turnover rates (Cascio &
Boudreau, 2011).
Although calculating returns on investment is a complicated
task, being able to quantify them in
effective selection and other HR practices is an important skill
set for HR professionals. This quan-
tification can help them learn to speak the same language as the
organization’s “C-suite” (senior
management and decision makers at the strategic level) and its
shareholders, whose ultimate goal is
to see the impact on the organizational bottom line. For
example, when HR professionals are able to
show the dollar-value added of adopting more valid and reliable
selection procedures, these invest-
ments can be more readily compared with other more tangible
investments such as those in build-
ings, machinery, equipment, or technology. This calculation
increases the likelihood that valuable HR
initiatives can get the resource allocations, funding, and support
they need to truly make a differ-
ence in achieving strategic organizational goals.
Web Links
The Added Value of HR Initiatives
www.hrcosting.com
This free website allows HR professionals to quantify the
benefits and costs of numerous HR initia-

tives, including enhanced selection tools and procedures.
Decision makers can also use this website
to conduct what-if analyses and compare alternative HR
practices.
S P O T L I G H T O N E V I D E N C E - B A S E D H R M
The Validity Of Interviews
Studies have shown that structured interviews have significantly
higher validity than unstructured
interviews. Recall that validity is the extent to which a selection
tool or procedure can accurately
predict subsequent performance. In other words, structured
interviews are more strongly correlated
(continued)
Summary and Resources Chapter 6
Summary and Resources
Selecting the right employees is one of the most crucial HR
processes, but it is also one of the
most challenging decision-making processes in an organization.
Effective selection requires
a high-quality HR planning process, as well as a successful
recruitment strategy. Selection
helps the organization use valid and reliable tools to objectively
and fairly choose employees
with the skills and characteristics that fit the job and the
organization. As you will learn in
subsequent chapters, effectively selected employees are easier
to train and reward, are higher
performers, and are likely to stay with the organization longer.

Post-Test
1. refer(s) to a wide range of personal traits that tend to be
stable across
situations and over time.
a) Attitudes
b) Human capital
c) Social capital
d) Individual differences
with subsequent performance on the job. More specifically,
meta-analyses demonstrated the valid-
ity of structured interviews to be about .39 for structured
interviews, which means that about 15%
(.392) of the variance in job performance can be accounted for
by structured interviews. In compari-
son, the validity of unstructured interviews is only about .14 for
structured interviews, which means
that they only account for about 2% (.142) of the variance in job
performance (Wright, Lichtenfels, &
Pursell, 1989).
Another meta-analysis compared different types of interviews
across hundreds of studies and found
that situational interviews were the most valid, followed by
behavioral interviews and then psy-
chologically based interviews, and also found again that
structured interviews are more valid than
unstructured ones in predicting performance (McDaniel,
Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994).

Chapter 6Selection, Placement, and Job Fit Learni.docx

Chapter 6Selection, Placement, and Job Fit Learni.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Chapter 6Selection, Placement, and Job Fit Learni.docx

Semelhante a Chapter 6Selection, Placement, and Job Fit Learni.docx (20)

Mais de joyjonna282

Mais de joyjonna282 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Chapter 6Selection, Placement, and Job Fit Learni.docx