Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in France and the United States.

Abstract

The authors examined the bases for fairness reactions to different selection practices and considered cross-cultural differences in these reactions by comparing respondents from 2 cultures. College students (A r = 259) from France and the United States rated the favorability of 10 selection procedures and then indicated the bases for these reactions on 7 procedural dimensions. Selection decisions based on interviews, work-sample tests, and resumes were perceived favorably in both cultures. Graphology was perceived more favorably in France than in the United States, but even French reactions toward graphology were somewhat negative. The perceived face validity of the selection procedure was the strongest correlate of favorability reactions among both samples. Beyond comparing the results from each culture, the discussion addresses implications for multinational companies establishing selection systems in foreign countries.Applicant reactions to specific selection procedures have had a research tradition in the United States for at least two decades (Dodd, 1977;Ryan & Sackett, 1987;Schmitt & Coyle, 1976). More recently, research has compared the favorability or the acceptability of different selection procedures (e.g., Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993), and researchers have begun to identify the bases for these reactions. For example, Rynes and Connerley (1993) found that beliefs regarding scoring and the organization's need to know were the strongest predictors of reactions to a variety of selection procedures. The limited research to date on the bases of selection reactions has identified determinants through inductive or empirical means. One of the principal purposes of our study was to examine these bases from a more systematic, theoretical perspective. Gilliland (1993) approached this issue by using organizational justice theories and developed a justice-based

Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures: The Role of Selection Information, Belief in Tests, and Comparative Anxiety

“…In the uninformed condition each selection procedure was only briefly described. These descriptions were taken from previous studies (e.g., Harris, Dworkin and Park 1990;Steiner and Gilliland 1996) and from personnel selection textbooks (e.g., Gatewood and Feild 1998). For example, cognitive ability tests were described as`paper-and-pencil tests that evaluate your intelligence on reasoning, verbal and mathematical skill'.…”

“…Consistency in scoring has also been identified as a major determinant of overall procedural fairness (see Arvey and Sackett 1993;Gilliland 1993). Besides these effects on overall fairness, we also expect that the provision of information about the predictive validity and reliability of selection procedures will enhance specific fairness facets such as perceived scientific value (Steiner and Gilliland 1996) and job relatedness. All of this leads to the following hypotheses:…”

Job applicants’ attitudes towards cognitive ability and personality testing

“…Job applicants generally view personality tests as more controllable than cognitive ability tests, which may contribute to self-serving bias manifesting as a negative TA towards a cognitive ability test that is perceived as particularly difficult and consequently less valid (Van Vianen et al, 2004). Steiner and Gilliland (1996) argue that people judge implicitly that widely used testing techniques must be valid, resulting in a favourable view of tests (belief in tests). So far, almost universally positive applicant reactions have been reported for Internet-based testing batteries, which in all likelihood has had an equally positive influence on TM and attitudes, also with respect to the motivation and attitudes of this study's job applicants as regards the personality and cognitive ability tests they completed (Anderson, 2003;Mead, 2001;Sylva & Mol, 2009).…”

“…Steiner and Gilliland (1996) argue that people implicitly judge widely used testing techniques to be valid, resulting in a favourable view of tests (belief in tests). Lievens et al (2003) indicate a significant relation between the belief in tests and the perceived scientific value of cognitive ability tests but not of personality tests.…”

Current Status and Future Directions

“…Steiner and Gilliland (1996) conducted the first study that examined applicant reactions to selection procedures in an international context. Specifically, they compared how people in the U.S. and France perceived various selection procedures.…”