Constraints on the Adoption of Psychology‐based Personnel Practices: Lessons From Organizational Innovation

Abstract

Surveys of organizational personnel practices often indicate that techniques advocated by industrial and organizational (YO) psychologists are used with less frequency than might be expected given their technical merit. This article attempts to explain this phenomenon by viewing the adoption of I/O-type personnel practices as organizational innovations that are subject to the mechanisms and processes described in the innovation-diffusion literature. It is argued that the adoption of I/O-type personnel practices constitutes administrative innovation and that such innovation is not strongly influenced by technical merit. Rather, imitation processes, environmental threat, government regulation, and political influence often dominate highly uncertain adoption processes. Recommendations are made for enhancing the adoption rate for psychology-based personnel innovations.Most industriaVorganizationa1 (I/O) psychologists have probably had the experience of encountering personnel practices in place in large, successful organizations that were, on the surface, the very antithesis of what the discipline prescribes. How, one asks, can a successful organization fail to have implemented state-of-the-art I/O practices? This article provides a selective view of some of the factors that constrain the application of I/O psychology in organizations.One does not have to resort to anecdote to confirm that the application of I/O psychology is often thwarted. Surveys of organizational personnel practices provide fairly convincing evidence.Recruiting. Rynes and Boudreau (1986) surveyed the college recruiting practices of 145 Fortune 1000 corporations. They concluded that college recruiting was managed casually by most of these firms and was not

Toward a Unifying Framework for Exploring Fit and Flexibility in Strategic Human Resource Management

“…HR practices often come about not from functional or technological requirements, but from organizational processes such as power and influence, conflict, and contests for control (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1984;Johns, 1993). Assuming that the status quo among a firm's HR practices reflects at least in part the outcome of these political process, changes in HR practices require battling the internal power structure.…”

“…Page 17 contests for control (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1984;Johns, 1993). Assuming that the status quo among a firm's HR practices reflects at least in part the outcome of these political process, changes in HR practices require battling the internal power structure.…”

“…Changes in HR practices result in uncertainty regarding their impact on individuals, and to the extent that the impact can be strong and negative (i.e., risk), individuals will resist the change (Frost & Egri, 1991). This may be particularly true with regard to practices such as performance appraisal and pay that can significantly change the future outcomes likely to accrue to individuals (Johns, 1993). Thus, any model of flexibility of HR practices must consider the theoretical domain of structural inertia (Astley & Van de Ven, 1983) and explore the impact of bureaucracy, institutionalization, and political processes on the inertia of HR practices (Wright and McMahan, 1992).…”

Current Status and Future Directions

“…Even on a national level, we know very little about the organizational factors that enable or hinder implementation of selection procedures. Along these lines, Johns (1993) posited that we have typically placed too much emphasis on selection practices as rational technical interventions (e.g., attempts to "sell" utility information or structured interviews). Conversely, practitioners in organizations perceive the introduction of new selection procedures as an organizational intervention that is subject to the same pressures (power games, etc.)…”

Psychological testing for selection purposes: a guide to evidence-based practice for human resource professionals

“…Concerns have been expressed about the growing schism between science and practice, especially in personnel selection (Johns 1993;Kehoe 2000;Nowicki and Rosse 2002;Klehe 2004;Muchinsky 2004;Ryan and Tippins 2004;Anderson 2005;Rynes et al 2007). Some argue that the research -practice gap can be explained by a lack of knowledge about selection practices (Terpstra and Rozell 1997;Ryan and Tippins 2004;Anderson 2005).…”