Recruitment and Selection: A Review of

Recruitment and Selection: A Review of Developments i n the 1980s by Neil Anderson and Viv Shackleton, Aston University Management Centre

Introduction Developments in personnel recruitment and selection "technology" have been both varied and extensive in the 1980s, and a number of overlapping and simultaneous developments are immediately apparent. Here, "technology" refers to methods, strategies, techniques, theories and practices of staff resourcing. This review[1] focuses on published developments in recruitment technology. Such specialisation is intentional and is justified in the view of the authors by the pressing need to highlight the many recent advances in industrial and occupational psychology in the light of current recruitment and selection practices. This review attempts, therefore, to overview, as concisely as possible, the critical trends and themes in the academic and management literature through the 1980s, with particular reference to the findings of pertinent research studies. The method adopted by the authors for reviewing this literature included: • a review of the journals, centrally relevant to, or allied with, occupational psychology and personnel management, and • an analysis of other types of published material — i.e. books, reports, theses, etc. The sources of material, it should be noted, originate from the US and continental Europe as well as the UK, although emphasis has been placed on developments in this country. Also, where appropriate, key articles published prior to 1980 have been referred to, or quoted, for the sake of clarity and comprehensiveness of coverage. The review is sectionalised to cover: the recruitment process, self-evaluation, biodata, the interview, testing, assessment centres, graphology, references and other recent developments in selection technology. The Recruitment Process There has been growing recognition that recruitment is a twoway process (e.g. Torrington and Chapman[2], de Wolff and van den Bosch[3], Herriot[4]) with more research being conducted into the, effects on the applicant of the procedures used by employers. Herriot and Rothwell[5] found that career information issued by organisations to engineering students had a significant impact on their intentions to apply. Quaglieri[6], however, found that applicants tended to obtain more specific and accurate information through informal sources, such as discussions with friends already employed by the organisation. The actual extent to which recruitment procedures affect applicants' intentions is, however, clouded by contradictory

findings. Powell[7] concluded that this influence may have been overstated in the literature, but Boudreau and Rynes[8] argued that recruitment procedures alter the characteristics of applicants to whom selection procedures are ultimately applied. This is an interesting contention in view of the concentration of current research on selection techniques to the virtual exclusion of recruitment procedures. Significantly, in a review of previous studies into the relative influence of administrative procedures, assessment methods, and recruiter behaviour on candidates' reactions, Rynes et al.[9] concluded that recruiter behaviour is the most important. Thus, in general, the quality of new recruits depends on an organisation's recruitment practices. If one also considers the conclusions of research into interviewer behaviour (to be dealt with later), the quality of selection also influences the calibre of candidate willing to accept an offer of employment. It is patently obvious that recruitment procedures should be conceptualised as a two-way process, but it remains uncertain as to why research in this area has for so long been predominantly one-sided. Another recent development in recruitment technology is the use of computers in the process of candidate screening. Reports in the popular press (e.g. Fortune International[10]) as well as in the academic literature (e.g. Casper[11]) increase in frequency. Briefly, such systems perform the task of comparing applicant details against established screening criteria to produce a candidate short-list. However, such methods fall under the provisions of the Data Protection Act (1984). As will be recognised, this statute regulates the storage of personal information on computerised systems and also confers rights on the applicant. For example, the applicant has the right to demand a copy of the details held on file and, more importantly, knowledge of the criteria of assessment. The area of impression formation has also received attention in the literature. Recent research has begun the mammoth task of unveiling the cognitive processes of the recruiter as a function of impression formation resulting from the application form or resume. Oliphant and Alexander[12] reported that ratings of applicant characteristics made by 12 personnel professionals (six male, six female) on the basis of CVs were influenced by the specificity of information presented and by sex of rater. Specific details generally resulted in more favourable ratings, but the ratings of the female recruiters tended to be more stringent than those of the males. Herriot and Wingrove[13] obtained verbalised positive and negative perceptions of seven recruiters as they reacted to application form details (n=722). It was found that although significant inter-recruiter differences emerged (see, also,

PR 15,4 1986 • 19

Wingrove et al.[14]), the tendency was for inferences to be made more frequently towards the end of applications than during the initial review stages. Further, it was found that the inferences drawn by individual recruiters were more accurate predictors of hiring decisions than were application form items. Herriot and Wingrove argue that the use of a "decision aid" at this stage, which forces the recruiter to rate application characteristics against established criteria, may prove to be an effective control mechanism.

Studies into the validity of biodata have continued to show impressive results

Overall, however, the trend has been one of a growing emphasis on research into the perceptions, attitudes, reactions and rights of the applicant in the recruitment process. This trend is also indicative of the ethical ramifications and implications for personnel specialists being seen to be working with applicants rather than on applicants. Self-evaluation There is some controversy over whether self-evaluation (or self-assessment) can be recommended as a valid and reliable technique. It is a truism that there is, and always has been, self-evaluation by the applicant in the early stages of recruitment — on the basis of advertisement details, for instance — with only those considering themselves to be competent applying. More recently, this technique has been conducted, both in the later stages of recruitment (e.g. by self-score tests prior to interviews) and in the selection interview and subsequent decision-making process itself. In a review of 55 studies comparing self-evaluation with, for the most part, tests or supervisors' ratings, Mabe and West[15] obtained a mean validity coefficient of r=0.29 with a standard deviation of r=0.25. Conversely, Shrauger and Osberg[16] reviewed 43 predictive studies, of which 29 found results which favoured self-assessment, ten favoured other methods (interviews, etc), while in three studies, the two approached tied, and in the remaining study, the outcome was indefinite. However, the conditions under which self-evaluation is carried out vary widely (see, Heneman[17]) and this may fundamentally determine the effectiveness of this technique. Fletcher[18] supported the viability of self-evaluation as long as certain conditions are fulfilled. These conditions were synthesised from Shrauger and Osberg and from Mabe and West. They centre on eliciting an honest assessment from the individual through informing him/her of the objectives of the assessor and ultimately through cross-validating any assessment with information gained from other sources and through feedback to the individual. Fletcher argues that selfevaluation would also appear to be most effective with intelligent applicants who have a high internal locus of control. Intuitively, self-evaluation seems to have considerable potential, presently under-researched and under-exploited. It is the authors' contention that Reilly and Chao's conclusion[19] that "based on the research available, self-

20

• PR 15,4 1 9 8 6

evaluation cannot be recommended as a promising alternative" (p. 33) is erroneous. The balance of existing evidence supports Fletcher's opinion[18] that "we should make more use of self-assessment or, at the very least, experiment with its use" (p. 10). Biodata Muchinsky[20] has said that if Academy Awards were given for the most consistently valid predictor, biodata would be the winner. Biodata (short for biographical data) can be defined as historical and verifiable pieces of information about an individual (Asher[21]) in a selection context, usually reported on application forms. Studies into the validity of biodata have continued to show impressive results, supporting the statements by Muchinsky quoted above. Reilly and Chao[19] reviewed a large number of different selection procedures, and concluded that only biodata and peer evaluation had validities to match those of tests. Two rather different ways of using biodata exist in Britain (Savage[22]). One relies on statistical modelling and prediction equations, based on multiple regression, factor analysis and the interaction of moderator variables to link individual responses to criterion measures. A problem with this method is that the equations frequently prove much less valid when cross-validated (Zedeck[23]). An alternative approach, described by Matteson[24] and Brush and Owens[25], is less rigorously empirical and has a simpler method of assigning item weights. It sets behavioural criteria of job performance and designs the questionnaire on similar patterns of behavioural factors. This makes the results more intuitively understandable and the questionnaire more adaptable. Mitchell and Klimoski[26] reported that this method is equally valid, although the problem of cross-validation remained. The combined effects of a large number of young people coming on to the job market, coupled with very favourable selection ratios resulting from high levels of unemployment, have encouraged some industrial and commercial organisations to conduct biodata studies in Britain since 1980. However, hardly any of these studies are reported in journals. Presumably, this is because there is little incentive for such organisations to publish. Also, perhaps they fear that publicity concerning predictor items may lead to cheating, with applicants making use of the information to pick the answer most likely to get them selected. One exception to this lack of published work is the article by Savage[22]. He reported impressive validity results from 13 studies conducted in Britain between 1982 and 1985 involving 969 people. Savage concluded that with thorough job analysis and a framework of behavioural categories, biodata validates continue to live up to their earlier promise. On this basis, it seems reasonable to argue that candidate screening, through biodata methods, may be a viable technique for many organisations currently not utilising such an approach. The Selection Interview Despite numerous reviews spanning several decades which consistently concluded that the interview has unacceptably low validity and reliability (e.g. Wagner[27], Ulrich and Trumbo[28], Wright[29], Schmitt[30], Arvey and Campion[31]), it is still overwhelmingly popular in this country (Gill[32], Robertson and Makin[33]). Over the last 30 years, the overall trend in published interview research has been for studies to become more microanalytic in approach. Monahan and Muchinsky[34] reported

a marked decline since the 1950s in studies adopting a macroanalytic strategy — in other words, studies addressing the question of the ultimate outcome of the predictive validity of the interview. There are four major themes in interview research published in the 1980s: (1) Validity Guion[35] provided the classic article applying the principles of psychological measurement to personnel selection, particularly to test validation. It is clear that this perspective underlies the approach of certain selection techniques in which the acid tests of statistical validity and reliability form the cornerstones of justifying usage. The relevance of this perspective to the interview was, nevertheless, counter-attacked by Herriot[36]. In a major departure from the previously accepted approach to validating the interview primarily by actuarial means, Herriott advocated a wider perspective. Through applying attribution and role theory to the interview, he argued that the interview should "not be conceptualised as a psychometric device...(but)...as a social episode with somewhat ambiguous rules" (p. 77). Low interview validity coefficients (e.g. Reilly and Chao[19]) result from "confusion about rules and objectives" (p. 81). Certainly, other research supports Herriot's argument that the expectations of both parties may differ considerably (e.g. Fletcher[37], Taylor and Sniezek[38]). Herriot and Rothwell[39] concluded that both parties expected the other to talk for a greater proportion of the time than they actually did, and so, as a result, their expectations were commonly not met. For Herriot[36], the interview should be conceptualised as an encounter and should be validated as a social negotiation, not as a psychometric tool. Despite the perspective propounded by Herriot, Arvey and Campion[31] outlined reasons why the interview remains so popular regardless of the adverse validity study findings. These include the suggestion that the interview fulfils wider purposes than merely assessment, such as selling the job to the candidate, as well as the faith of the interviewer in his/her own judgment. Due to these perceptions of "faith validity" and usefulness of the interview, it seems probable that the popularity of this method of candidate assessment will not diminish for the foreseeable future. (2) Interviewer-interviewee Interaction Recent literature on the interview itself contains a more interactive (or "two-way") approach with a few texts (e.g. Bayne[40], Webster[41], Shackleton and Fletcher[42]) and several studies adopting this focus. Previous studies suggested the importance of the candidate's verbal and non-verbal behaviour on the outcome of the interview (e.g. Imada and Hakel[43], McGovern and Tinsley[44], Forbes and Jackson[45], Rasmussen[46]) but, as Keenan and Wedderburn[47] and Keenan[48] concluded, the behaviour of the interviewer is also significantly influential. More recentfindingsindicate that any positive non-verbal behaviour emitted by the interviewer tends to increase the desire of the candidate to accept a job offer and, importantly, is often construed by the candidate as being indicative of his/her chances of success (Campion[49], Rynes and Miller[50]). Snyder[51] and Snyder and Simpson[52] have proposed the construct of "self-monitoring". This is defined by Snyder as "self-observation and self-control guided by situational cues to social appropriateness" (p. 526). It seems likely that selfmonitoring would enhance both the interviewer's and the in-

terviewee's performance. We can probably expect research to be forthcoming on its application to the selection interview in relation to the social skills of self-presentation and the intentional biasing of interpersonal behaviour. Keenan[53], on the other hand, concluded that interviewees who tended to resist opportunities to be manipulative or to use manipulative tactics were more likely to receive an offer of a follow-up interview. Lewis[54] considered a counselling skills approach to be an effective interview style. He argued that interviewers should be both "supportive" and "confronting" in their behaviour. Lewis[55], in a significant contribution to the range of available texts on employee selection, described three major interviewer qualities of empathy, genuineness and sincerity as being of the utmost importance. On the other hand, Herriot[36] suggested that if interviewers are too informal, the role expectations of the interviewee are not fulfilled and thus an interactive barrier is created. In sum, the trend of research in this area hints at two major sets of necessary but perhaps incompatible interviewer skills — firstly, those of maintaining the informal element of the social interaction, and, secondly, those of simultaneously retaining a degree of formality with the candidate needed to uphold role relationships and thus facilitate expert judgments as to the applicant's employability. Clearly, research in this area is in its early stages of development, but such studies hold considerable academic promise as well as extensive practical applications.

consistently lower evaluations were given to female candidates than to male

(3) Discrimination Rather surprisingly, racial and sexual discrimination by interviewers has received scant attention by UK researchers in spite of wide-ranging legislative provisions. In the US, both Arvey[56] and Mullins[57] found coloured applicants received no less favourable ratings at interviews than white applicants. However, Arvey found that consistently lower evaluations were given to female candidates than to male, and this finding has been replicated by Cann et al.[58]. In the UK, Keenan and Logue[59] reported that female engineers were often subject to discriminatory questioning by interviewers. Other areas of interviewer bias remain virtually unresearched, such as the effects of age of the applicant and physical or mental disabilities. We would agree with Arvey that this is an area badly in need of more research. (4) The Situational Interview One final development in interviewing techniques shows particular promise. This is the so-called "situational interview" (Latham et al.[60], Latham and Saari[61]). Through systematic job analysis, critical incidents of job behaviour are identified. On the basis of these incidents, questions are then formulated of the "what would you do in this situation?" type. Candidates' hypothetical answers are rated by

PR 15,4 1986 • 21

the interviewer on five-point scales. The Latham and Saari study indicated a significant validity coefficient between candidates' answers and their subsequent behaviour on the job. The "situational interview" would therefore seem to hold considerable potential as an alternative to the widely used historical and biographical interview.

Testing in Britain has not been stifled in the same way it was in the US. . .

In a similar vein, Fletcher[18] questioned the almost ubiquitous model adopted by interviewers in which the candidate's explanations and justifications of past behaviour are deemed to be indicative (or "predictive") of future job-related behaviour. His doubts over the validity of this model stem from the probable inability of many interviewees accurately to remember past events, the certainty that most will bias their subsequent answers to suit the present situation, and, thirdly, the real possibility that segments of past behaviour are in fact generally not in any case predictive of future job performance. His calls for more emphasis on future-related questioning strategies by interviewers would undoubtedly entail some fundamental changes to the current style of interviewing favoured by many personnel specialists. Testing Testing in Britain has not been stifled in the same way as it was in the US following legal cases on fairness. On the other hand, it has never played quite as large a part in selection as it has in the US. Sneath et al.[62] reported that 72 per cent of a sample of 281 British organisations used tests in their selection procedures, but only half had tried to estimate the tests' validity in their situation and only five per cent had used statistical methods to do so. Yet interest in psychometrics in selection has grown steadily in recent years. One reason is doubtless the relatively large number of unemployed with the pre-selection problem of screening large numbers of applicants. Secondly, the influential figure of Michael Edwardes may have contributed. He is an enthusiast for testing. This was well publicised in the management literature, as well as in his book about BL, Back from the Brink[63]. Finally, the legal framework surrounding the dismissal of employees makes it a very difficult exercise, and this has undoubtedly focused attention on ways of making selection more effective through a professional and scientific approach. A notable addition in the last five years to the armoury of tests available to practitioners is the publication of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire by occupational psychologists Saville and Holdsworth. This, too, may stimulate interest in psychometrics further. Assessment Centres An assessment centre (AC) has been defined by Fletcher[64] as consisting of the "assessment of a group of individuals by a team of judges using comprehensive and integrated series of techniques" (p. 92). An essential feature of ACs is

22 • PR 15,4 1986

their use of multiple assessment techniques, including interviews, psychometric instruments, simulations, such as inbasket exercises, written exercises, group exercises and peer assessment. So it is appropriate that the AC comes towards the end of a review that has already discussed many of the measures. The assessments are used, though, not only for (usually management) selection, but also for training, promotion and career development. One theme in the literature concerns establishing the reliability of ACs. Tenopyr and Oeltjen[65] pointed out that making generalised statements about AC reliability is not a straightforward task, given the variety of different techniques which go to make up a typical AC and its final overall rating of participants. This has resulted in it being a much underresearched area. We are not much further forward than we were after the classic studies of the War Office Selection Board (WOSB) in Britain (Vernon and Parry[66]) and the AT and T studies in the US (Bray and Grant[67], Moses[68], Bray et al.[69]). These, plus a small study by McConnell and Parker[70], have resulted in reliability coefficients in the order of around r=0.7. In fact, such reliability evidence as there is has mostly to come from studies of the separate exercises and ratings which are the component parts of the AC rather than the final overall rating. An inter-rater reliability study of group exercises by Jones[71], for example, yielded coefficients of about r=0.7, though with increases in reliability after discussion suggesting pooling of judgments. A review of simulation or "work sample" literature by Robertson and Kandola[72] quoted little reliability evidence, but what there was suggested coefficients around r=0.3 for in-basket and dyadic role plays. Reliability evidence on the interview has already been cited, though not all ACs use interviews. Reliabilities of psychometric instruments, on the other hand, are likely to be acceptable. Unlike reliability, there is no shortage of validity evidence (e.g. Fitzgerald and Quaintance[73]). There have been a number of excellent reviews of the predictive validity of ACs, such as Finkle[74] and Thornton and Byham[75], although relatively little, if any, of the research comes up to the standard of the AT and T studies, either in scope or methodology. Studies have often relied on supervisors' ratings as the criterion measure, for example. Bray and Campbell[76] earlier commented that "the assessment centre might have been considered not sufficiently accurate for use if supervisory judgment had been relied upon as the sole criterion" (p. 40). Moreover, validity coefficients, though usually quite respectable, have rarely been as high as the AT and T work. Metaanalyses by Schmitt et al.[77] of 21 ACs showed an average validity coefficient of r=0.407. In sum, much work remains to be done into the validity of ACs and we can probably anticipate published research becoming available in future years. Graphology Until recently, graphology (or the interpretation of handwriting to infer personality characteristics) was little used as a selection technique. A survey by Gill[32] reported that 93 per cent of UK responding companies rated graphology as not very useful. In certain continental European countries, though, graphology is more widely used by organisations. However, since 1980, there has been a regrettable upsurge of interest in graphology as a selection technique in the UK, fuelled particularly by personnel consultants, some of whom have added it to their battery of assessment aids. However, there is still a distinct lack of evidence to support its validity

or reliability (e.g. Rosenthal and Lines[78], Williams et al.[79], Lester et al.[80], Klimoski and Rafaeli[81]). Further, many of the studies that do show some validity can be criticised for significant methodological flaws and the use of relatively small sample sizes to generate often widely generalised conclusions. Perhaps typical of the literature advocating graphology as a valid and reliable technique is Lynch[82], in which examples of three scripts were analysed. Based on mainly positive responses by subjects to the analyses, the article recommended the technique as "cost-effective". Fletcher[83], in the same journal volume, urged greater caution in the light of inconclusive validity evidence and the probable capacity of individuals to fake their handwriting to suit their purpose. Some commendable research is at hand, however, showing graphology to be relatively worthless. Rafaeli and Klimoski[84] conducted a detailed comparison between the predictions of ten expert graphologists on 206 scripts written by 103 sales staff. No statistically significant validity coefficients were found, regardless of whether the criterion used was supervisors' ratings or self-ratings. In fact, the professional graphologists achieved no greater accuracy in terms of predictive validity than did a group of undergraduate students who also rated the scripts! Loewenthal[85] concluded that it is less expensive and more reliable for organisations to use psychometric tests and interviews in preference to the services of a graphologist. To summarise, the existing research evidence would indicate that for selection purposes there is virtually no consistent relationship between handwriting and personality. It is therefore logical to conclude that no reliance should be placed on graphology as a selection technique, and the tragedy is that this invalid method is used at all by personnel practitioners. The Reference Letter Recent research findings support the long-suspected view among occupational psychologists and personnel specialists that most references are virtually useless as screening devices. The opinion has been vindicated that reference letters commonly contain little or no specific relevant information and such details that are included are mostly indefinite and inaccurate. Muchinsky[86] considered the question of the value (or the "supplementary validity") of the reference. Quoting Mosel and Goheen's findings[87, 88] of low reliability and predictive validity, he concluded that the reference is of little real value. Similarly, Reilly and Chao[19] calculated an average predictive validity of r=0.14 on the basis of the results of ten studies (n=5,718). Baxter et al.[89] analysed the content of 80 references concerning 40 student applicants for university places and found descriptions to be mainly "non-discriminative, non-consensual and non-differentiative" (p. 301). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the effectiveness of the reference letter as a screening device is highly dubious. Its popularity, however, remains unscathed. Beason and Belt[90] found 82 per cent of responding organisations used references, whilst Kingston[91] reported 88 per cent of those surveyed either contacted previous employers or requested reference details. More recently, Robertson and Makin[33] found that references were used on some occasions by an overwhelming 96.3 per cent of the 108 responding organisations. This is in contrast to the US, for example, where recent legislative developments have restricted the inclusion of personal details in references.

Our contention is that in the light of the research findings, such usage should be limited to factual checks of biographical information (e.g. "Did applicant X hold this position for this period of time as claimed?") to the exclusion of requests for opinions relating to personality characteristics, suitability for the position, and so on. Other Developments One recent development was the proposed use of the polygraph or "lie detector". Use of the polygraph as a screening device has been considered by some British organisations, including Her Majesty's Government, in a highly publicised case concerning GCHQ (the government communications headquarters). The British Psychological Society[92] produced a statement pointing out that there is no sound evidence to support the use of the polygraph in occupational assessment. Similarly, in the US (Gibbons[93]), there have been reports of significant error rates where the polygraph is used for screening purposes (see also Ginton et al.[94] for a US view of the polygraph).

. . .there is virtually no consistent relationship between handwriting and personality

Finally, benefits resulting from basing the recruitment process on systematic and detailed job analyses have continued to be highlighted. Two separate studies using different techniques (Robinson[95], Sparrow et al.[96]) endorsed this approach. As Sparrow et al. observed, two broad approaches have characterised developments in job analysis since the 1960s. Firstly, the "ability requirements approach" centering on the specification of abilities required to perform jobs using behaviourally anchored scales (e.g. Fleishman[97], Fleishman[98], Fleishman and Hogan[99]). Secondly, the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ — McCormick et al.[100]) elicits job elements related to human attributes and has been termed the "job component approach" (Sparrow et al.[96]). Inter-rater reliabilities and the reliability of the PAQ in assessing human attributes have been consistent at around r = 0.80 (Meecham and McCormick[101], Marquardt[102]). The validity of this technique was found by Sparrow et al. to be r=0.91 for the job of setter in the plastics injection moulding industry. Patrick and Moore[103] described a modified British version of the PAQ known as the Job Structure Profile (JSP). Inter-rater reliability for this verson was r=0.90 with retest reliability of r=0.76. This job analysis technique would therefore seem to have considerable promise as a method of anchoring subsequent selection procedures on more dynamic samples of behaviour. Implications The implications of this range of developments in recruitment and selection technology are myriad, but can logically be grouped under those pertaining to the design and operation of recruitment systems, on the one hand, and, on the other, to those relating to future research in this field. Firstly, the implications for organisational recruitment practices — at the beginning of the 1980s, a major survey

PR 15,4 1986 • 23

by the Institute of Personnel Managers (IPM) covering 335 companies (Gill[32]) reported over 90 per cent of respondents relied on the interview to select executives, with an average of two to three interviews being conducted per appointment. Furthermore, only ten per cent used any form of psychometric testing and an almost negligible five per cent replied that their organisation conducted some type of group assessment technique. Twenty-four per cent of those surveyed used no job description as part of their recruitment procedures, whilst 16 per cent did not incorporate career history into their application forms. These responses to the IPM-backed questionnaire are indeed disturbing. This depiction of recruitment and selection practices in the UK being characterised primarily by a notable lack of sophistication and only secondly by considerable differences amongst organisations in terms of sophistication of approach is further exacerbated by the findings of the Kingston survey published in 1971[91] and the recent Robertson and Makin study[33]. Although developments in selection technology over the last 15 years have been myriad, the results published by Robertson and Makin are remarkably similar to those published by Gill, and even those by Kingston. For instance, of the 108 organisations responding to Robertson and Makin, a greater proportion utilised graphology than biodata (7.8 per cent and 5.8 per cent respectively), whilst one large organisation reported it was using astrology to select managerial staff! Typically, though, most organisations still relied on more than one interview and references as the basis of their managerial selection procedures.

. . . the selection technology has been, and is being, developed constantly. . .

In short, over the past 15 years, there appears to have been minimal uptake of the advances in staff resourcing technology into organisational practices. But what of the remainder of the 1980s and the 1990s? Again, as shown in this review, developments in the technology have been extensive. It remains to be seen whether or not it is transferred into practice. It is the authors' belief that responsibility rests with individual personnel specialists, who may be required to justify to their peers within the organisation their exclusive and unquestioning reliance on the interview coupled with the reference as the foundation of any selection procedure. Clearly, other alternatives, including biodata, testing, selfassessment and even a modified approach to employment interviewing may prove more valid, reliable and cost-effective. In sum, the selection technology has been, and is being, developed constantly — it is up to personnel practitioners to avail themselves of these methods. The second set of implications relate to the type, methods and emphasis of future research into recruitment and selection techniques. As such, these are the concern of industrial, work and occupational psychologists specialising in this area. Whilst, undoubtedly, some organisations are responsive to developments in the research, the picture painted by Robertson and Makin is not an encouraging one. It must surely

24 • PR 15,4 1986

remain the responsibility of psychologists working in this discipline to identify and isolate the causal factors underlying the negligible transfer of research developments into wider recruitment and selection practices. Calls for various types of future research have been outlined in several sections of the review. When this and other research is published, it needs to be communicated to personnel practitioners, as well as to fellow academics. Conclusion Developments in recruitment and selection technology in the 1980s have been extensive and research has broken new ground in many areas. It can only be hoped that the advances made will be adopted more readily by personnel practitioners in the future than they have in the past, and that future developments in research are made more accessible to practitioners. References 1. For an elaborated version of this review, see Shackleton, V. J. and Anderson, N. R., "Personnel Recruitment and Selection", in Bass, B. M. et al. (Eds.), Organizational Psychology: An International Review, Sage, Beverly Hills, California, 1987.. 2. Torrington, D. P. and Chapman, J. B., Personnel Management, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall International, London, 1983. 3. De Wolff, C. J. and van den Bosch, G., "Personnel Selection", in Drenth, P. J. D., Thierry, H., Willems, P. J. and De Wolff, C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 1, Wiley, Chichester, 1984. 4. Herriot, P., "Give and Take in Selection", Personnel Management, May 1985, pp. 33-5. 5. Herriot, P. and Rothwell, C., "Organisational Choice and Decision Theory: Effects of Employers' Literature and Selection Interview", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 54, 1981, pp. 17-31. 6. Quaglieri, P. L., "A Note on Variations in Recruiting Information Obtained through Different Sources", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 55, 1982, pp. 53-5. 7. Powell, G. N., "Effects of Job Attributes and Recruiting Practices on Applicant Decisions: A Comparison", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37, 1984, pp. 721-32. 8. Boudrea, J. W. and Rynes, S. L., "Role of Recruitment in Staffing Utility Analysis", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, 1985, pp. 354-66. 9. Rynes, S. L., Heneman, H. G. I. and Schwab, D. P., "Individual Reactions to Organizational Recruiting: A Review", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, 1980, pp. 529-42. 10. Fortune International, Los Angeles, October 1983. 11. Casper, R. E., "On-line Recruitment", Personnel Journal, April 1985, pp. 50-5. 12. Oliphant, V. N. and Alexander, E. R., "Reactions to Resumes as a Function of Resume Determinateness, Applicant Characteristics and Sex of Raters", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, 1982, pp. 829-42. 13. Herriot, P. and Wingrove, J., "Decision Processes in Graduate Preselection", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 57, 1984, pp. 269-75. 14. Wingrove, J., Glendinning, R. and Herriot, P., "Graduate Preselection: A Research Note", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 57, 1984, pp. 169-71. 15. Mabe, P. A. and West, S. G., "Validity of Self-evaluation of Ability: A Review and Meta-analysis", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, 1982, pp. 280-96. 16. Shrauger, J. S. and Osberg, T. M., "The Relative Accuracy of Selfpredictions and Judgments by Others in Psychological Assessment", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 90, 1981, pp. 322-51. 17. Heneman, H. G., "Self-assessment: A Critical Analysis", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, 1980, pp. 297-300. 18. Fletcher, C , "Interviews, Inventories and Insight", Chairman's address, Sheffield, BPS Occupational Psychology Conference, January 1985. 19. Reilly, R. R. and Chao, G. T., "Validity and Fairness of Some Alternative Employee Selection Procedures", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, 1982, pp. 1-62. 20. Muchinsky, P. M., Psychology Applied to Work, Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois, 1983.

21. Asher, J. J., "The Biographical Item: Can it be Improved?", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25, 1972, pp. 251-69. 22. Savage, A., "Biographische Fragebogen als Methode der Personalauswahl", in Schuler, H. and Stehle, W. (Eds.), Beitrage zur Organisationpsychologie, Band 2, Verlag fur Angewandte Psychologie, Stuttgart, 1985. 23. Zedeck, S., "Problems with the Use of 'Moderator' Variables", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 71, 1971, pp. 295-310. 24. Matteson, M. T., "An Alternative Approach to Using Biographical Data for Predicting Job Success", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 51, 1978, pp. 155-62. 25. Brush, D. H. and Owens, W. A., "Implementation and Evaluation of an Assessment Clarification Model for Manpower Utilization", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 32, 1979, pp. 369-83. 26. Mitchell, T. W. and Klimoski, R. J., "Is it Rational to be Empirical? A Test of Methods for Scoring Biographical Data", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 4, 1982, pp. 411-8. 27. Wagner, R., "The Employment Interview: A Critical Summary", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 2, 1949, pp. 17-46. 28. Ulrich, L. and Trumbo, D., "The Selection Interview Since 1949", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63, 1965, pp. 100-16. 29. Wright, O. R., "Summary of Research on the Selection Interview since 1964", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 22, 1969, pp. 391-413. 30. Schmitt, N., "Social and Situational Determinants of Interview Decisions: Implications for the Employment Interview", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 29, 1976, pp. 79-101. 31. Arvey, R. D. and Campion, J. E., "The Employment Interview: A Summary and Review of Recent Research", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 35, 1982, pp. 281-322. 32. Gill, D., Selecting Managers: How British Industry Recruits, Institute of Personnel Management/British Institute of Management, London, 1980. 33. Robertson, I. T. and Makin, P. J., "Management Selection in Britain: A Survey and Critique", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 59, 1986, pp. 45-57. 34. Monahan, C. J. and Muchinsky, P. M„ "Three Decades of Personnel Selection Research: A State-of-the-art Analysis and Evaluation", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 56, 1983, pp. 215-25. 35. Guion, R. M., "Recruitment, Selection and Job Placement", in Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976. 36. Herriot, P., Down from the Ivory Tower: Graduates and their Jobs, John Wiley and Sons, London, 1984. 37. Fletcher, C , "Candidates' Beliefs and Self-presentation Strategies in Selection Interviews", Personnel Review, Vol. 10, 1981, pp. 14-7. 38. Taylor, M. S. and Sniezek, J. A., "The College Recruitment Interview: Topical Content and Applicant Reactions", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 57, 1984, pp. 157-68. 39. Herriot, P. and Rothwell, C , "Expectations and Impressions in the Graduate Selection Interview", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 56, 1983, pp. 303-14. 40. Bayne, R., "Interviewing", in Davey, M. D. and Harris, N. (Eds.), Judging People: A Guide to Orthodox and Unorthodox Methods of Assessment, McGraw-Hill, London, 1982. 41. Webster, E. C., The Employment Interview: A Social Judgment Process, Schomberg, SIP Publications, Ontario, 1982. 42. Shackleton, V. J. and Fletcher, C , Individual Differences: Theories and Applications, Methuen, London, 1984. 43. Imada, A. S. and Hakel, M. D., "Influence of Non-verbal Communication and Rater Proximity on Impressions and Decisions in Simulated Employment Interviews", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, 1977, pp. 295-300. 44. McGovern, T. V. and Tinsley, H. E. A., "Interviewer Evaluations of Interviewee Non-verbal Behavior", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 13, 1978, pp. 163-71. 45. Forbes, R. J. and Jackson, P. R., "Non-verbal Behavior and the Outcome of Selection Interviews", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 55, 1980, pp. 65-72. 46. Rasmussen, K. G., "Non-verbal Behavior, Verbal Behavior, Resume Credentials and Selection Interview Outcomes", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, 1984, pp. 551-6. 47. Keenan, A. and Wedderburn, A. A. I., "Effects of the Non-verbal Behavior of Interviewers on Candidates' Impressions", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 48, 1975, pp. 129-32. 48. Keenan, A., "Effects of the Non-verbal Behavior of Interviewers on Candidates Performance", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 49, 1976, pp. 171-6.

49. Campion, M. A., "Relationship between Interviewers' and Applicants' Reciprocal Evaluations", Psychological Reports, Vol. 47, 1980, pp. 1335-8. 50. Rynes, S. L. and Miller, H. E., "Recruiter and Job Influences on Candidates for Employment", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, 1983, pp. 147-54. 51. Snyder, M., "Self-monitoring of Expressive Behavior", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 30, 1974, pp. 526-37. 52. Snyder, M. and Simpson, J. A., "Self-monitoring and Dating Relationships", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, 1984, pp. 1281-91. 53. Keenan, A., "Candidate Personality and Performance in Selection Interviews", Personnel Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, 1984, pp. 20-2. 54. Lewis, C , "Investigating the Employment Interview: A Consideration of Counselling Skills", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, 1980, pp. 111-6. 55. Lewis, C , Employee Selection, Hutchinson, London, 1985. 56. Arvey, R. D., "Unfair Discrimination in the Employment Interview: Legal and Psychological Aspects", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, 1979, pp. 736-65. 57. Mullins, T. W., "Interviewer Decisions as a Function of Applicant Race, Applicant Quality and Interviewer Prejudice", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 35, 1982, pp. 163-74. 58. Cann, A., Siegfried, W. I. and Pearce, L., "Forced Attention to Specific Applicant Qualifications: Impact of Physical Attractiveness and Sex on Applicant Biases", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, 1981, pp. 65-75. 59. Keenan, A. and Logue, C , "Interviewing Women", Personnel Management, April 1985, p. 59. 60. Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D. and Campion, M. A., "The Situational Interview", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, 1980, pp. 422-7. 61. Latham, G. P. and Saari, L. M., "Do People Do What They Say? Further Studies of the Situational Interview", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, 1984, pp. 569-73. 62. Sneath, F., Thakur, M. and Medjuck, B., Testing People at Work, Institute of Personnel Management, London, 1976. 63. Edwardes, M., Back from the Brink: Apocalyptic Experience, Collins, London, 1983. 64. Fletcher, C , "Assessment Centres", in Davey, D. M. and Harris, M. (Eds.), Judging People, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1982. 65. Tenopyr, M. L. and Oeltjen, P. D., "Personnel Selection and Classification", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 33, 1982, pp. 581-618. 66. Vernon, P. E. and Parry, J. B., Personnel Selection in the British Forces, University of London Press, London, 1949. 67. Bray, D. W. and Grant, D. T., "The Assessment Center in the Measurement of Potential for Business Management", Psychological Monographs, No. 80, whole no. 625, 1966. 68. Moses, J. L., "The Development of an Assessment Center for the Early Identification of Supervisory Potential", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 26, 1973, pp. 569-80. 69. Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J. and Grant, D. T., Formative Years in Business:A Long-term AT and T Study of Managerial Lives, Wiley, New York, 1974. 70. McConnell, J. J. and Parker, T. C , "An Assessment Center Program for Multi-organizational Use", Training and Development Journal, March 1972, pp. 6-14. 71. Jones, A., "Inter-rater Reliability in the Assessment of Group Exercises at a UK Assessment Centre", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 54, 1981, pp. 79-86. 72. Robertson, I. T. and Kandola, R. S., "Work Sample Tests: Validity, Adverse Impact and Applicant Reaction", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 55, 1982, pp. 171-84. 73. Fitzgerald, L. F. and Quaintance, M. K., "Survey of Assessment Center Use in State and Local Government", Journal of Assessment Center Technology, Vol. 5, 1982, pp. 9-21. 74. Finkle, R. B., "Managerial Assessment Centers", in Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976. 75. Thornton, G. C. and Byham, W. C., Assessment Centres and Managerial Performance, Academic Press, London, 1982. 76. Bray, D. W. and Campbell, R. J., "Selection of Salesmen by Means of an Assessment Center", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, 1968, pp. 3-9.

PR 15,4 1986 • 25

77. Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A. and Kirsch, M., "Metaanalyses of Validity Studies Published between 1964 and 1982 and the Investigation of Study Characteristics", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37, 1984, pp. 407-22. 78. Rosenthal, D. and Lines, R., "Handwriting as a Correlate of Extraversion", Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 42, 1975, pp. 45-8. 79. Williams, M., Berg-Cross, G. and Berg-Cross, L., "Handwriting Characteristics and their Relationship to Eysenck's Extraversionintroversion and Kagan's Impulsivity-reflectivity Dimensions", Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 41, 1977, pp. 291-8. 80. Lester, D., McLaughlin, S. and Nosal, G., "Graphological Signs for Extroversion", Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 44, 1977, pp. 137-8. 81. Klimoski, R. and Rafaeli, A., "Inferring Personal Qualities through Handwriting Analysis", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 56, 1983, pp. 191-202. 82. Lynch, B., "Graphology: Towards a Hand-picked Work Force", Personnel Management, March 1985, pp. 14-8. 83. Fletcher, C , "Comments on: Graphology: Towards a Hand-picked Work Force, by Lynch,B.",Personnel Management, March 1985, p. 18. 84. Rafaeli, A. and Klimoski, R. J., "Predicting Sales Success through Handwriting Analysis: An Evaluation of the Effects of Training and Handwriting Sample Content", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, 1983, pp. 212-7. 85. Loewenthal, K., "Handwriting as a Guide to Character', in Davey, D. M. and Harris, N. (Eds.), Judging People: A Guide to Orthodox and Unorthodox Methods of Assessment, McGraw-Hill, London, 1982. 86. Muchinsky, P. M., "The Use of Reference Reports in Personnel Selection: A Review and Evaluation", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52, 1979, pp. 287-97. 87. Mosel, J. N. and Goheen, H. W., "Agreement amongst Replies to an Employment Recommendation Questionnaire", American Psychologist, Vol. 7, 1982, pp. 365-6. 88. Mosel, J. N. and Goheen, H. W., "The Employment Recommendation Questionnaire: III. Validity of Different Types of References", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 12, 1959, pp. 469-77. 89. Baxter, J. C , Brock, B., Hill, P. C. and Rozelle, R. M., "Letters of Recommendation: A Question of Value", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, 1981, pp. 296-301. 90. Beason, G. and Belt, J. A., "Verifying Applicants' Backgrounds", Personnel Journal, Vol. 55, 1976, pp. 345-8. 91. Kingston, N., Selecting Managers: A Survey of Current Practice in 200 Companies, British Institute of Management, London, 1971. 92. British Psychological Society, "The Use of the Polygraph for Personnel Screening", a statement by the society issued by the Scientific Affairs Board, London, June 1984. 93. Gibbons, J. H., "Testing before the Sub-committee on Legislation and National Security", Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, Committee on Government Operations, US House of Representatives, 9 October 1983. 94. Ginton, A., Gaie, N., Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G., "A Method for Evaluating the Use of the Polygraph in a Real-life Situation", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, 1982, pp. 131-7. 95. Robinson, D. D., "Content-oriented Personnel Selection in a Small Business Setting", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, 1981, pp. 77-87. 96. Sparrow, J., Patrick, J., Spurgeon, P. and Barwell, F., "The Use of Job Component Ahalysis and Related Aptitudes in Personnel Selection", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 55, 1982, pp. 157-66. 97. Fleishman, E. A., "Performance Assessment Based on an Empirically Derived Task Taxonomy", Human Factors, Vol. 9, 1967, pp. 349-66. 98. Fleishman, E. A., "Related Individual Differences to the Dimensions of Human Factors", Ergonomics, Vol. 21, 1978, pp. 1007-19. 99. Fleishman, E. A. and Hogan, J. C., "A Taxonomic Method for Assessing the Physical Requirements of Jobs: The Physical Abilities Analysis Approach", Advanced Research Resources Organization, Washington DC, 1978. 100. McCormick, E. J., Denisi, A. S. and Shaw, J. B., "Use of the Position Analysis Questionnaire for Establishing the Job Component Validity of Tests", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, 1979, pp. 51-6. 101. Meecham, R. C. and McCormick, E. J., "The Rated Attribute Requirements of Job Elements in the Position Analysis Questionnaire: Report Number 1", Occupational Research Center, Purdue University, 1969. 102. Marquardt, L. D., "The Rated Attribute Requirements of Job Elements in a Structured Job Analysis Questionnaire: The Position Analysis Questionnaire", MSc. thesis, Purdue University, 1971. 103. Patrick, J. and Moore, A. K., "Development and Reliability of a Job Analysis Technique", Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 58, 1985, pp. 149-58.

26

• PR 15,4 1 9 8 6