Recruitment and Selection W1

Recruitment and Selection W1

1. ASA Framework (1995). Past research has neglected the interaction of organisations and people, relevant differences b/w org that can't be explained w/out taking into account peoples' influence. Different perspectives on an organisation include Situationist perspective (emphasis on situational conditions), interactional psy perspective (behaviour fn of personal & situational attributes, situation is moderator), person perspective (ASA assumption: people make the environment hence structure, process and culture are outcome of people in the org), population ecology model (emphasis influence of larger environment) and person-environment (P-E) fit (interactional b/w people and the job, job design is moderator) model. Different approaches to this perspective include organisational demographics (gender, race, age) and personal characteristics.

   • ASA Framework (see picture). Criticism: vague terminology and how can "fit" b/w P-O be defined? It doesn't take the outsider perspective. Evidence of the model is the assumption that founders shape org through their goals and these choices shape the structure. Also assuming homogeneity of org is valid since org tend to homogeneity as a function of job and org; people choose jobs that fit their values and value congruence b/w person and job so org tend to look for homogenous people. Important to note org have subcultures at various levels which limits influence of leaders and some individuals. Diversity is also increasingly important since need to change with the demands of the environment.

2. P-O & P-J fit (2000) Perceived applicant fit. To assess whether recruiters’ can form distinguishable perceptions of the P-J & P-O fit. Two studies were conducted, the first study consisted of a grid methodology with actual recruiters and mock applicants. It found KSAs are used to assess P-J fit and values/personality traits are used to assess P-O fit. The second study found both fit types make unique predictions of hiring recommendations. Recruiters’ discriminate between applicants P-O and P-J fit in early interviews. Hypotheses: 1.Recruiters will use applicant KSAs more frequently to assess applicants’ P-J than P-O fit. 2/3.Recruiters will use applicant values and personality traits more frequently to assess applicants’ P-O than P-J fit. 4.W.r.t recruiters’ perceptions of fit, a 2-factor model representing P-J and P-O fit, will better fit the data than 1-factor. 5.Both perceived P-O & P-J fit will explain unique variance in recruiters’ hiring recommendations.

   • Study 1: 31 recruiters of 4 consulting org. All full-time recruiters with avg of 3.3 days py, limited recruitment training (M=1.7h, SD=3.5h). Post hoc analyses conducted to see if representative sample. Grid methodology; participants watched videos of application asking them questions, assess better P-O or P-J fit and participants asked to recall characteristics leading to a choice of fit. Study 2: 46 recruiters, time spent recruiting each year: M=2.5 days, SD=3.5. Training was similar to study 1. Screening interviews with choosing at least one suitable and one unsuitable candidate. Additional comments: Supplementary/complementary fit. More likely to recommend applicants sharing org values → strength of org culture → higher org performance. Recruiters would benefit from greater guidance in what makes an applicant a good fit, companies may benefit from expanding recruiter training to include what makes applicant a good cultural fit.
   • Limitations: the categorization scheme used to differentiate between KSAs, values and personality traits in study 1 is only one way but sufficient reason to believe scheme used are meaningful and adequate. Hypothesis in study 2 tested using cross-sectional, self-report data opening possibility common method variance may influence result by artificially increasing relationships between variables. Generalisation since sample sizes were low and representative of recruiters in only four companies. Strengths: Two methodologies used, assessing recruiters’ perceptions after they interacted with real applicants using natural interview strategy increased likelihood of true applicant perceptions. Video tapes of actual mock interviews and resumes used.
   • Results: •100% recruiters used KSAs for both P-O and P-J fit but the mean KSAs used for P-J fit was significantly higher than P-O fit. KSAs were mentioned more frequently as indicators of P-J rather than P-O. •Values were used for both P-O and P-J fit but the mean values used for P-O fit was significantly higher than P-O=J fit. Values were mentioned more frequently as indicators of P-O rather than P-J. •Personality traits were mentioned more frequently as indicators of P-O rather than P-J. •Hypotheses 1-3 supported. •2 -factor model is a better fit than 1-factor model → P-J and P-O are best treated as separate variables. •Hypotheses 4 and 5 are supported. •Evidence that recruiters’ fit perceptions form two discriminable factors. •P-J fit was found to have a stronger relationship with recruiter recommendations consistent with previous research.

3. Corporate Social Performance (2014) Jones & Willness.

4. WRITE AUTHOR NAMES

Images and files in the map