Employee Selection

Abstract

At one time or another, virtually every organization needs to select and hire new employees. Selecting the wrong employee for the job can be costly in terms of the time and funds required for the selection process and training of new employees. Therefore, the tools used to select new employees need to be demonstrably related to the job and must help the organization select those employees with the appropriate knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics necessary for job success. Selection tools (including application forms, interviews, referrals, references, psychometric tests, and work samples) need to be empirically validated to determine the degree to which they are related to the requirements of the job. This process also helps the organization meet the various legal requirements prohibiting discrimination in selection procedures.

No matter what product or service an organization offers, a good human resources function is essential to its success. The human resources function comprises the activities and tasks associated with recruiting and managing the organization's personnel. Strong human resources capabilities are necessary in order to attract, hire, and manage the human capital necessary for successfully performing the business of the organization. One of the basic—and most important—responsibilities of the human resources function is the selection of new employees.

From an applicant's perspective, employee selection can often seem like a subjective or even random process. However, done correctly, employee selection is based on empirical data and the application of scientific method not only so the organization is able to hire those individuals best suited to the tasks of the position but also so that the organization can ensure it is meeting both the letter and spirit of employment law.

The Job Analysis. All selection procedures should be based on a systematic, thorough, empirically based job analysis that is used to determine the actual requirements of the job. To be useful, a job analysis needs to be behavior-centered and describe the type of behavior expected of the employee. For example, a clerk in a retail clothing store will need a "good" personality or provide "good" customer service in order to successfully interact with customers. However, that description does little to state what the clerk must actually be able to do. A good job analysis helps to operationally define the specific characteristics that make up a "good" personality by stating that a sales clerk needs to possess several abilities, such as:

• Being observant and noting when customers enter the store
• Being able to multitask or switch tasks in order to determine when a customer needs help
• Patiently helping the customer find what he or she is seeking
• Successfully resolving customer problems without losing her or his temper, and so forth

The job analysis would further break down this information to the level of knowledge, skills, abilities, or other characteristics (KSAOs) that an employee needs in order to do the job well. This information can be used to show the job-relatedness of selection decisions and provide the organization with the logical, empirical information necessary to support personnel decisions by providing a structure for determining the job-relatedness of these decisions.

Selection Tools. Performing a thorough job analysis and developing empirically based criteria for use in differentiating between applicants is one part of the employee selection equation. Equally important is the development of selection instruments that adequately and accurately measure these criteria. There are a number of commonly used categories of job selection instruments, including application forms, written psychometric instruments, interviews, work samples, and assessment centers. For any of these instruments to be meaningful, however, they need to be tied to the results of the job analysis.

As shown in Figure 1, there are several steps to developing a meaningful selection battery. The first is to perform a thorough job analysis to determine and operationally define what the criteria of success on the job are (e.g., ability to produce a minimum of widgets in an hour) and what KSAOs the employee needs in order to meet or exceed these criteria (e.g., ability to lift 20 pounds, ability to read 10-point type). The next step in developing a battery of selection tools is to choose instruments that will help the organization determine if the applicant has the appropriate level of the necessary KSAOs to do the job. This may involve choosing an off-the-shelf psychometric instrument (e.g., a reading comprehension test or personality test) or determining or developing other ways to measure the applicants' KSAOs (e.g., work product, simulation).

Assessing the Predictors. Once the predictors of job success have been selected or developed through the job analysis, the next step in developing an adequate and accurate employee selection battery is to measure how well people perform on the predictors and how well they perform on the actual tasks. This can be done in several ways, including collecting data on how well existing employees do on the predictors and measuring how well they do on the job or collecting data on how well applicants do on the predictors and then—after job training and experience—measure how well they do on the job. Whichever method is chosen, the next step is to statistically determine the degree to which scores predict how well the person will do on the job. Typically, this is done through correlation, a statistical technique that allows the organization to determine the degree to which the score on the predictor (the test) is consistently related to performance on the job.

Correlation. Correlation may be positive (i.e., as the score on the predictor increases, job performance also increases), negative (i.e., as the score on the predictor increases, job performance decreases), or zero (i.e., the values of the predictor score and job performance are unrelated). When there is a strong correlation (whether positive or negative) between the predictor and performance, the predictor is said to be valid. This is the degree to which a survey or other data collection instrument measures what it purports to measure. In addition to being valid, the predictor must also be reliable. It must consistently measure what it measures (i.e., consistently yield the same scores). If a predictor is not reliable, it cannot be valid.

If the correlation between the predictor(s) (tests or selection instruments) and the criterion (i.e., performance on the job) is found to be statistically significant, it can be used to help predict job success as part of a selection battery. However, jobs change from time to time, and it is important to periodically review the selection instrument(s) and statistically determine that they are still valid and reliable. If so, it is appropriate to continue to use them to choose applicants for a job. If not, then the organization needs to develop and validate another instrument for use in the selection process.

One goal of reliable and valid selection procedures is to make an optimal match between the new employee and the organization. Having the right employee in place can help ensure that the organization has the necessary human capital to perform its tasks and activities and to help it become a high-performing organization. A good employee-organization match also helps ensure that the employee will be satisfied in the position and have the motivation to perform the tasks of the organization at a level that will help it succeed.

Following the Law. It is important to do a thorough and objective job analysis and to develop valid, reliable selection criteria to help ensure that human resources policies and procedures are fair and also to show that the criteria used to make selection decisions are job-related. There are a number of federal laws that require employers not to discriminate on the basis of various non-job-related characteristics, such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Title VII), age when a candidate is over forty years old (Age Discrimination in Employment Act), or disability (Americans with Disabilities Act). The Equal Pay Act of 1963 also requires that equal pay be given for equal work regardless of gender. In some situations, other laws require that various types of businesses take steps for affirmative action to hire various types of people that may be underrepresented in the workplace.

Applications

Types of Selection Tools. A number of different types of selection tools are commonly used in the hiring process in order to determine which applicant best suits the needs of the organization. Among the most commonly used tools are:

• Interviews
• Application forms
• Psychometric instruments
• Work samples
• Assessment centers

Interviews. The most frequently used selection tool is the interview, which is typically intended to gather as much job-relevant information about the applicant as possible. Some interviews are very informal; the interviewer has only a general idea of what questions need to be asked and uses the applicant's responses to help shape the direction of the interview. In general, however, this type of interview has not been found to be very reliable. As discussed above, if a selection instrument is not reliable, it also is not valid. To overcome this problem, some organizations use a structured interview format. In this type of interview, the interviewer uses a list of questions that need to be covered using the exact wording and without leeway for follow-up. Although this latter type of interview is thought by some to yield more reliable results than less structured interviews, others believe that the structured interview suppresses spontaneity and may not allow the interviewer to probe for additional job-relevant information that would be helpful in making the selection decision.

Employment Applications. Another common selection tool is the application form, which may or may not include the request for biographical information. When one submits a résumé for a job, one is often also asked to fill out an application form. Although this is not universally done, application forms that gather job-related information can be quantified by assigning values to the various questions. The resulting data can then be used in the same way a psychometric test is used to compare scores between applicants. For example, if the organization is hiring for a position that has a long learning curve, it may want to hire an applicant who has a track record for staying on the job for an extended period of time. In this way, the organization can be more confident that the applicant, if selected, will remain at the organization long enough to be a contributing employee and that the time and money invested in the applicant's training will not be wasted.

Although an application form can provide the organization with additional data concerning the applicant's qualifications, it does have limited utility. Applicants may be reluctant to answer questions that are not directly job-related, and the defense of the use of such questions in court may be difficult. In general, the best single predictor of success on the job is the applicant's work history. Some applicants make up or exaggerate answers to questions in order to appear more qualified than they are. Since such data may be difficult to confirm, answers to such questions are often not very helpful in making selection decisions.

Psychometric Instruments. Psychometric tests are used in many selection situations. These instruments allow the organization to collect a sample of behavior evoked in a standardized setting. There are several general kinds of standardized tests that are used. Mental abilities tests include tests of general intelligence or specific types of intelligence needed for the job. Ability and aptitude tests measure if an applicant can currently perform a task (i.e., has the current ability to do so) or will be able to learn a task (i.e., has an aptitude to be trained for the task). Examples of ability and aptitude tasks include typing tests that measure speed and accuracy or mechanical aptitude tests. A third type of test often used in career counseling and sometimes used in selection situations is interest inventories. These tests compare the likes and dislikes of the applicant with those of individuals in various professions. Based on these profiles, judgments can be made as to whether or not the applicant is likely to be successful or satisfied in the position. Personality tests can also be used to determine how people will interact with others in the job environment.

Although they can provide useful data, psychometric tests are not a foolproof measure. Many intelligence tests have been found to discriminate against people from minority cultures. Aptitude tests may actually test ability to some degree but can similarly discriminate against those who have not had specific experience with certain situations. Personality tests allow the applicant to respond in a way that he or she thinks is required for the job rather than the way that he or she actually feels. More generally, tests are often promoted as being able to distinguish between applicants in ways that they were never designed to do. Only those tests that have been validated in the specific job situation should be used.

The competence of the person giving the test can also affect how well the applicant performs. For example, most tests are designed to be accomplished under a time constraint. A tester who allows the applicant additional time in an effort to be nice is undermining the standardization and utility of the test.

Work Samples. In some situations, the work sample is an appropriate selection tool. Visual artists, for example, might be asked to submit a sample of their work, or musicians might be asked to audition. However, work samples have far greater applicability than just in the arts. For example, applicants for the position of administrative assistant might be given a standardized group of tasks to perform (e.g., draft routine letters, manage a fictional executive's schedule) under a timed condition, and the results of their work later compared. Even many executive tasks can be standardized for use in the selection process. For example, an "in-basket test" might be developed to assess how an executive manages time and deals with the day-to-day decisions that need to be made on the job. Applicants are asked to complete a group of tasks that might be reasonably expected to be in an executive's in-basket (e.g., draft memos, return phone calls or emails, read and comment on white papers). In-basket tests typically include a time-constraint scenario (e.g., need to finish in two hours so that they can catch a plane or meet some other fictional deadline). The applicants' responses to these standardized tasks can then be compared and used in making a selection decision.

Assessment Centers. A special case of the work sample is the assessment center. This is a standardized set of job-related exercises administered to groups of applicants and rated by trained observers. Like other work product techniques, assessment centers include a series of activities that provide a basis for judgments or predictions about behavior that is necessary for the job. However, unlike most work product tools, the assessment center is given to a group of applicants so that their individual responses to the same stimuli can be observed and compared. The performance of the applicants is then rated by a group of observers.

There are a number of different techniques that can be used in an assessment center. One of the most popular approaches is the job simulation. Applicants are placed in a situation similar to one they will find on the job (e.g., the need to write and merge individual sections for a proposal into one seamless document). Observers of this activity can see which applicant naturally (and successfully) takes on the role of leader and which are more likely to follow. Similarly, applicants may be asked to discuss a job-related topic in a technique called the leaderless group discussion. Although technically, all applicants enter the discussion on the same footing, over the course of the exercise, it is likely that one of the applicants will assume the position of leader. This technique also allows observers to test the teamwork skills of the applicants for jobs for which this is an important KSAO. Applicants might also be asked to participate in an unscripted role-play exercise or group problem-solving exercise so that the observers can see how they perform in situations requiring various job-related KSAOs (e.g., leadership ability, problem solving, communication, teamwork, attention to detail).

Conclusion

One of the fundamental and most important tasks of the human resources function in an organization is the determination of what requirements need to be filled to staff the organization and selecting the best applicants to fill open positions. Selecting and training employees costs the organization money. Therefore, it is important that the organization pick the best person available to do the job for the long-term success of the organization. For this reason, as well as to meet legal requirements, any selection procedures used need to be demonstrably related to what the applicant will actually do on the job. Selection tools need to be both valid and reliable for the specific job. Through an empirically based job analysis and rigorously conducted validation, the organization can develop selection procedures that will help determine and select the best candidates for the job.

Terms and Concepts

Assessment Center: A standardized set of job-related exercises administered to groups of applicants and rated by trained observers. Assessment center exercises often include such activities as job simulations, role-playing, leaderless group discussions, and problem-solving exercises.

Correlation: The degree to which two events or variables are consistently related. Correlation may be positive (i.e., as the value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable increases), negative (i.e., as the value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable decreases), or zero (i.e., the values of the two variables are unrelated). Correlation does not imply causation.

Criterion: A dependent or predicted measure that is used to judge the effectiveness of persons, organizations, treatments, or predictors. The ultimate criterion measures effectiveness after all the data are in. Intermediate criteria estimate this value earlier in the process. Immediate criteria estimate this value based on current values.

Empirical: Such theories or evidence that are derived from or based on observation or experiment.

Human Capital: The expertise of the organization's employees, including knowledge, skills, abilities, training, and education.

Human Resources: In general, human resources are any personnel employed by an organization. The field of study is related to recruiting and managing the organization's personnel. A good human resources system needs to consider, at a minimum, human resource planning; recruitment, hiring, and placement; training and development; wages, compensation, and perquisites ("perks"); and employee relations.

Job Analysis: The systematic, empirical process of determining the exact nature of a job, including the tasks and duties to be done; the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to adequately perform these; and the criteria that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable performance. The results of a job analysis are typically used in writing job descriptions and setting standards for use in performance appraisals.

Psychometrics: The science and process of mental measurement. The science of psychometrics comprises both the theory of mental measurement as well as the methodology for adequately and accurately capturing an individual's intangible attitude or opinion.

Reliability: The degree to which a psychological test or assessment instrument consistently measures what it is intended to measure. An assessment instrument cannot be valid unless it is reliable.

Scientific Method: A cornerstone of organizational behavior theory in which a systematic approach is used to understand some aspect of behavior in the workplace by individuals, teams, or organizations. The scientific method is based on controlled and systematic data collection, interpretation, and verification in a search for reproducible results. In organizational behavior theory, the goal is to be able to apply these results to real-world applications.

Validity: The degree to which a survey or another data collection instrument measures what it purports to measure. A data collection instrument cannot be valid unless it is reliable. Content validity is a measure of how well assessment instrument items reflect the concepts that the instrument developer is trying to assess. Content validation is often performed by experts. Construct validity is a measure of well an assessment instrument measures what it is intended to measure as defined by another assessment instrument. Face validity is merely the concept that an assessment instrument appears to measure what it is trying to measure. Cross validity is the validation of an assessment instrument with a new sample to determine if the instrument is valid across situations. Predictive validity refers to how well an assessment instrument predicts future events.

Bibliography

Abernethy, M. A., Dekker, H. C., Schulz, A. (2015). Are employee selection and incentive contracts complements or substitutes? Journal of Accounting Research, 53(4), 633–668. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=109077112&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bateson, J., Wirtz, J., Burke, E., & Vaughan, C. (2013). When hiring, first test, and then interview. Harvard Business Review, 91(11), 34. Retrieved from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=91571334

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2011). Applied psychology in human resource management (5th ed.). Pearson.

Dattner, B. (2016). A scorecard for making better hiring decisions. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5. Retrieved December 27, 2016, from EBSCO online database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=118685807&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Dessler, G. (2005). Human resource management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dwoskin, L. B., Squire, M., & Patullo, J. E. (2013). Welcome aboard! How to hire the right way. Employee Relations Law Journal, 38(4), 28–63. Retrieved from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=85350899

Ekuma, K. (2012). The importance of predictive and face validity in employee selection and ways of maximizing them: An assessment of three selection methods. International Journal of Business & Management, 7(22), 115–122. Retrieved from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=83517986

Employee Selection Methods: How to Select the Right Employee. (2022, Sept. 30). Indeed. Retrieved May 27, 2023, from https://ca.indeed.com/career-advice/interviewing/employee-selection-methods

Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Luminita, P. (2009). The assessment center, a new "fashion" in personnel selection. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 18(4), 439–441. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=48589568&site=ehost-live

Muchinsky, P. M. (2003). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Piotrowski, C., & Armstrong, T. (2006). Current recruitment and selection practices: A national survey of Fortune 1000 firms. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(3), 489496. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23452904&site=ehost-live

Thornton, G. C., & Krause, D. E. (2009). Selection versus development assessment centers: An international survey of design, execution, and evaluation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 478–498. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebsco-host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36635332&site=ehost-live

Weaver, A. (2015). Is credit status a good signal of productivity? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 68(4), 742–770. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=108395090&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Suggested Reading

Arthur, W., Jr., Bell, S. T., Vallado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786–801. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=21711351&site=ehost-live

Campbell, D. (2012). Employee selection as a control system. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(4), 931–966. Retrieved from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=78029338

Delmestri, G., & Walgenbach, P. (2009). Interference among conflicting institutions and technical-economic conditions: The adoption of the assessment center in French, German, Italian, UK, and U.S. multinational firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 885–911. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=38595111&site=ehost-live

Garcia, M. F., Posthuma, R. A., & Colella, A. (2008). Fit perceptions in the employment interview: The role of similarity, liking, and expectations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(2), 173–189. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=33241607&site=ehost-live

Grigoryev, P. (2006). Hiring by competency models. Journal for Quality and Participation, 29(4), 16–18. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23965962&site=ehost-live

Ito, A. (2013). Hiring in the age of big data. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4352), 40–41. Retrieved from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=91659277

Malakate, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2007). Assessing job candidates' creativity: Propositions and future research directions. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 307–316. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26253094&site=ehost-live

Marks, S. (2016). The gap between what leaders want and what recruiters deliver. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5. Retrieved December 27, 2016, from EBSCO online database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=118685844&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Nikolaou, I., & Oostrom, J. K., Eds. (2015). Employee recruitment, selection, and assessment: Contemporary issues for theory and practice. New York: Psychology Press.

Oliphant, G. C., Hansen, K., & Oliphant, B. J. (2008). A review of a telephone-administered behavior-based interview technique. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 383–386. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=33886412&site=ehost-live

Scroggins, W. A., Thomas, S. L., & Morris, J. A. (2008). Psychological testing in personnel selection, part I: A century of psychological testing. Public Personnel Management, 37(1), 99–109. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=31579029&site=ehost-live

Scroggins, W. A., Thomas, S. L., & Morris, J. A. (2009). Psychological testing in personnel selection, part III: The resurgence of personality testing. Public Personnel Management, 38(1), 67–77. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=37567514&site=ehost-live

Topor, D., Colarelli, S., & Han, K. (2007). Influences of traits and assessment methods on human resource practitioners' evaluations of job applicants. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 361–376. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24090750&site=ehost-live

Tutor, D. H., & Scarborough, D. (2008). Does job testing harm minority workers? Evidence from retail establishments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(1), 219–277. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=31850092&site=ehost-live

Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2008). Developments in the criterion-related validation of selection procedures: A critical review and recommendations for practice. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 871–925. Retrieved from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35052340&site=ehost-live