8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

1/9

C urren t Recruitment and Selection Practices:A National Survey of Fortune 1000 Firm s

Chris PiotrowskiUniversity of West Florida, USATerry Arm strong

Georgetown University, USAThis study reports the findings of survey data on recruitment and pre-employment selection methods in use by human resources departments in, major companies in the USA. In addition, data on use of online pre-employment tests, currently and in the near term future, were alsocollected. The analysis is based on responses from 151 firms. Thefindings indicate that the majority of companies rely on traditionalrecruitment and personnel selection techniques over the use of onlineassessment instruments. Personality testing is popular in about 20% ofthe firms and one-fifth of the respondents plan to implement onlinetesting in the future. Furthermore, screening for honesty-integrity(28.5%) and violence potential (22%) was found to be somewhat popular.It would be helpful if future research could pinpoint the reservations thatcompanies have about online pre-employment tests.Psychological tests and assessment instruments that tap prospectiveemployees' pers on ality , interpe rson al style, and resp ons e to stresssituations have received increased attention from both humanresource professionals and researchers in I/O psychology over the past 20

years (e.g., Gatewood & Feild, 1998; Ryan & Sackett, 1987). Indeed, thenexus between personality factors and personnel selection and p lacementhas spawned major investigatory efforts, conceptual reformulations, andpragmatic applications in both research and practice (Hogan, 2001;Landy et al., 1997). Moreover, to enhance the chances for successfulrecr ui tm en t and long -term benef i ts for em ploy ers, a p leth ora ofresearch studies has investigated and endorsed the utility of the'person-fit' paradigm (Anderson et al., 2004; Chan, 2005; Hollenbeck etal., 2002).However, there has been recent concern and thoughtful discussion on

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

2/9

490 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOG Y

online testing for selection purposes specifically (see Anderson et al.,2004, for a discussion). At the same time, and largely based on thepublic's acceptance of the Internet and related technological applications,both public and private companies, including governmental agencies, arere-thinking traditional personnel selection processes and recruitingmethods (e.g., Mooney, 2002). Yet several feature articles in humanresource publications, while touting the benefits of online testing of jobapplicants, caution that online selection firms are not regulated.Moreover, most person job-fit tests have not been standardized, lacknorms, and developers have not presented predictive validity data ontheir se lection me asures (Ba rbian, 2 00 1; Bates, 2002). Undoubtedly,these concems about personnel testing on the World Wide Web haveattracted the attention of rigorous research efforts by scholars worldwideand the findings are receiving coverage in peer-reviewed journals (e.g.,Bartram, 2004; Ployhart, Weekley, Holtz, & Kemp, 2003). However, inthe contemporary business environment, companies are faced with acritical challenge to recruit and retain qualified employees (Langan,2000).

Thus, it appears that companies now have at their disposal aconceptually sound framework (person job-fit) and a cost-effective,speedy, and convenient system (online testing) to meet their personnelselection needs in a highly competitive environment. However, recentreviews of the literature report that employers continue to rely ontraditional (i.e., general IQ, integrity, structured interviews, wbrk-samples, references, official transcripts) methods for personnel selecition(see Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Wilk & Cappelli, 2003). To obtain aclearer perspective on these issues, the current study was designed toobtain empirical data from major companies in the U.S.A. on the extentof their use of traditional selection techniques and use (if any) of onlinepersonality testing for selection and hiring purposes. Since companiestend to be guarded on sharing information about practices and policyregarding personnel selection, our intent was to keep queries short anddirect. Accordingly, our results, by design, are conceptually limited andthe findings should be considered exploratory in nature.

METHOD

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

3/9

Piotrowski & Armstrong CUR RENT REC RU ITMEN T 491

company directly. Thus, the envelope and survey fonn were addressed toa specific person. In addition, it was hoped that this procedure wouldincrease the response rate. In fact, most surveys of Fortune 500compan ies have repo rted very low response rates, i.e., 5-10%, in the past(e.g., Keller & Piotrowski, 1987). Secondly, to increase respondentcompliance, the survey form, questions, and response format were keptvery brief. This involved answering ^/ej or no or providing a short writtenresponse ( a copy of the survey form is presented in Appendix A). Eachcompany's Human Resource office was requested to indicate whatspecific recruitment and personnel selection methods were used in hiringnew employees. A separate question addressed whether or not thecompany used online pre-employment tests as part of its selectionapproach. The final two survey questions assessed whether companiesincluded Honesty-Integrity and/ or Violence-Potential as part of theirselection process. Of the target sample, 151 companies retumed thequestionnaire, for a response rate of 20%. Respondents represented thefollowing industries: Health care (n=19), Pharmaceuticals (n=20).Banking (n=25). Transportation (=26), Temporary services (=18),Hotels/resorts (n=17). Retail (/j=l 1), E-commerce (n=3), others (n=12).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONWhile most of the companies use traditional recruitment and selectionmethods (e.g., resume, reference checks), only 9.3 % rely on online pre-employment screening tests (see Table I). However, 9 out of 10 firmsfavor online job boards and company websites. Another 21.9 % of thecompanies are considering future use of online pre-employmentscreening as part of their selection process. Furthermore, 28.5 % of thecompanies either screen or plan to screen for Honesty-Integrity while21.9 % of the companies either assess or plan to assess for Violence-Potential. Interestingly, only 20% of the respondents include personalitytests as part of the selection process, despite the attention to "Personality"factors in the human resource literature (Hough & Oswald, 2000 ; Roberts& Hogan, 2001; Thumin, 2002). Apparently, the use of online testing bymajor companies, both private and public, is presently in a state ofmetam orphosis. As the current findings indicate, about two-thirds of U.S.firms do not have plans to incorporate online pre-employmentassessment in the near future. Yet, the business literature has seen a high

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

4/9

492 NOR TH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOG Y

factor deterring con^anies from using data from online tests. Moreover,Human Resource decision-makers might have concerns about thelegitimacy of clinical personality tests or personally invasive queries (seeCamara & Merenda, 2000; Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 2000; Wallace &Vodanovich, 2004). In this regard, Naglieri et al. (2004) address anumber of delicate issues, such as proper identification of an applicant, inaddition to ethical and legal concerns that warrant consideration beforeimplementing online testing.

TA BL E ONE Rank Order of Major Recruitment and SelectionTechniques Utilized (N=151)

ResumeApplication blanksReference checksNewspaper/Magazines adsCompany websitesOnline job boardSkills testingBiodataPersonality testingBackground checksOnline pre-enq)loyment testsJobs fairsReferral from current employeesJobs service centersDrug testing

N14814614614513413376382916141310

87

Yes (%)9897979689885025191199755

At the same time, the popularity of personality tests in personnelselection cannot be ignored (Piotrowski & Keller, 1992; Thumin, 2002).In fact, Cascio (1995) argues that well developed measures of personalitycharacteristics can account for additional variance in prediction ofbehavior on the job; however, the key issue for Cascio is whetheralternative technology aids such as computer-based tests and interactive

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

5/9

Piotrowski & Armstrong CURRENT RECRUITMENT 493

online assessment instruments, b) tbe drawbacks and limitations of onlineapproacbes in human resources, c) applicants' attitudes and perceptionsof online selection metbods (see Ebrbart & Ziegert, 2005; Ryan &Ploybart, 2000), d) graduate-level education on selection practices (seeVodanovicb & Piotrowski, 1999), and e) cross-national outcome studieson tbe use of tbe Internet for personnel selection purposes witb a focus ontbe impact on buman resource practices (e.g., Taylor, Keelty, &McDonnell, 2002).

REFERENCESAnderson, N., Lievens, F., van Dam, K., & Ryan, A.M. (2004). Futureperspectives on employee selection: Key directions for future research andpractice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 487-50LBarbian, J. (2001). Getting to know you. Training, June, 60-63.Bartram, D. (2004). Assessment in organizations. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 53, HI-159.Bates, S. (2002). Personality counts. HR Magazine, February, 28-34.Cam ara, W.J., & Merenda, P.F. (2000). Using personality tests in preemploymentscreening. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 1164-1186.Casio, W.F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in achanging world of work. American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.Chan, D. (2005). Current directions in personnel selection research. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 73(4), 220-22 3.Ehrhart, K.H., & Ziegert, J.C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted toOTganizations'f Journal of Management, 31, 901-919.Gatewood, R.D., & Feild, H.S. (1998). Human resource selection (4th ed.). FortW orth, TX : Harcourt Brace.Hollenbeck, J.R., et.al. (2002). Structural contingency theory and individualdifferences: Examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal ofApplied P sychology, 87, 599-606.Hough, L.M., & Oswald, F.L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward thefutu re- remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 631 -664.Keller, J., & Piotrowski, C. (1987). Career development programs in Fortune 500firms. Psychological Reports, 61, 920-922.Landy. F.J., & Shankster, L.J., & Kohler, S.S. (1997). Personnel selection andplacement. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 261-296.Langan, S. (2000). F inding the needle in the haystack: The challenge of recruitingand retaining sharp employees. Public Personnel Management, 29,A6\ -464.Mooney, J. (2002). Pre-employment testing on the Internet: Put candidates a click

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

6/9

494 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

biodata,, and situational judgment tests comparable? Personnel Psychology,56, 733-752.Roberts, B.W., & Hogan, R. (Eds.). (2001). Personality psychology in theworkplace. Washington, D C: Am erican Psychological A ssociation.Ryan, A.M., & Polyhart, R.E. (2000). Applicants' perceptions of selectionprocedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journalof Managem ent, 26, 565-606.Ryan, A.M., & Sackett, P.R. (1987). A survey of individual assessment practicesby I/O psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 40,455-488.Schmidt, F.L., & Hunters J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selectionmethods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.Taylor, P., Keelty, Y., & McDonnell, B. (2002). Evolving personnel selectionpractices in New Zealand organisations and recruitment firms. New ZealandJournal of Psychology, J/, 8-18.Thumin, F.J. (2002). Comparison of the MMPI and MMPI-2 among jobapplicants. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 73-86.Vodanovich, S. J., & Piotrowski, C. (2000). An Internet-based approach to legalissues in industrial-organizational psychology. Journal of EducationalTechnology Systems, 28, 67-73.

Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (1999). Training in personnel selectionassessment: Survey of graduate I/O programs. Journal of InstructionalPsychology, 26,201-205.Wallace, J.C, & Vodanovich, S.J. (2004). Personnel application blanks:Persistence and knowledge of legally inadvisable application blank items.Public Personnel Managem ent, 33, 331-349.Wilk, S.L., & Cappelli, P. (2003). Understanding the determinants of employeruse of selection methods. Personnel Psychology, 56, 103-124.

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

7/9

Piotrowski & Armstrong CURR ENT RECR UITME NT 495

APPENDIX ASurvey Form

Directions: Circle Yes or No1. Please indicate wbetber your company uses tbefollowing personnel selection metbods:Newspaper/Magazine Yes NoCompany W ebsite Yes NoOnline Job Boards Yes NoOtber:2. To assist in biring, wbat type(s) of data do you usually obtain on jobapplicants?Biodata Yes NoSkills Testing Yes NoResume Yes No

Personality Testing Yes NoApplication Form Yes NoReference Cbecks Yes NoOtber:3. Do you use online pre-employment tests in your biring process?Yes No

> If YES, list tbe name of tbe test and its most prominentstrengtb and w eakness:

Name ofOnlineTest1.

3 .

Strength W e a k n e s s

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

8/9

496 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOG Y

Are jo b applicants assessed for "Honesty-Integrity"?(Circle Only One) Yes No Plan ToAre job applicants assessed for "Violence-Potential"?(Circle Only One) Yes No Plan To

8/9/2019 Current Recruitment and Selection Practices

9/9