The Amazing Diversity of Thought: A Qualitative Study on How Human Resource Practitioners Perceive Selection Procedures

Abstract

Purpose: In the field of personnel selection, a great deal of evidence shows a gap between what scientists think practitioners should do and which procedures practitioners actually use. To build a basis for an intensified dialog between practitioners and researchers, there is a need for better knowledge about how practitioners think about selection procedures. Approach: The authors used the repertory grid technique, a well-established interview method that elicits cognitions. Forty human resource practitioners were interviewed. Findings: The results highlight the diversity of the individual ways in which practitioners think about selection procedures. First, none of the constructs elicited was mentioned by two-thirds of the interviewees or more, and only five were mentioned by half or more of the interviewees. Second, interviewees often did not agree which construct pole they preferred. Third, individual maps of the constructs and procedures revealed many differences. Sample constructs were whether a procedure reveals something about the status quo or something about a candidate's past, whether the human resource department has an active or a passive role in the selection process, and whether or not a procedure is fakable. Implications: The results suggest many new research questions and will hopefully foster the dialog between scientists and practitioners. Originality/Value: This is one of the first studies to explore practitioners' cognitions regarding selection procedures, and represents a rare application of the repertory grid technique to the selection field

Highlighting Tensions in Recruitment and Selection Research and Practice

“…Results from the trend analysis, however, showed that researchers seem to pay more attention to applicant reactions than practitioners do ( z = −3.56, p < .01). This was much more often a topic of focus in research than its rank by practitioners might indicate, which is consistent with findings of König, Jöri, and Knüsel () who found that Swiss practitioners did not mention ‘applicant reactions’ in their cognitive maps of selection. In this case, we think this may be because research is lagging practice – attending to applicant reactions is already seen as important by practitioners and not a trend.…”

“…According to Rousseau, this is about ‘taking professional decisions away from personal preference and unsystematic experience toward those based on the best available scientific evidence’ (Rousseau, , p. 256). To do so, researchers could continue to identify trends and gaps by using surveys or more qualitative approaches (e.g., König et al, ). Greater discussion of how to manage tensions by both practitioners and researchers would be most useful.…”

“…Doing such adaptive assessment at the test rather than item level may have downsides (i.e., lack of standardization and potential adverse impact) but could have upsides associated with both validity and efficiency. Interestingly, König et al () addressed customization as a key way practitioners think about selection, that is, whether a procedure is useful for certain jobs and not others, whether it should be given early in a process or later. They noted that one unanswered question is why specific beliefs about ‘to whom’ and ‘when’ arise; we think they might be upended by thinking of customization more broadly.…”

“…We should also note that the desire for standardization, despite being a basic element of procedural justice and often advised for legality, ease of administration, and validity reasons, is not universal in practice. König et al () noted that about one third of the practitioners they interviewed preferred unstandardized selection processes. Hence, understanding when and under what aspects and for what purposes the desire for standard approaches does and does not exist (e.g., evaluating CEO candidates) can be important to understand how this tension highlighted here plays a role or not.…”

Different Worldviews Explain Perceived Effectiveness of Different Employment Tests

“…Even many human resources (HR) professionals appear to hold negative views about the usefulness of some tests (Lodato, Highhouse, & Brooks, ; Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, ). Although estimates of test use in private organizations are difficult to find, cognitive ability tests appear to be rarely used in most countries, including the United States (Benit, Mojzisch, & Soellner, ; König, Jöri, & Knüsel, ; König et al, ; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, ) . With regard to personality testing, only 18% of HR professionals reported using them (in any capacity) in a recent survey of members of the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM, ).…”