MSc in Human Resource Management
University of Manchester, Manchester
Academic Year 2001/2002

Human Resource Management:
Classical Selection Methods and Alternatives

von: Marco Köster

Content

1. Introduction

2. Assessing Selection Methods

3. The ‘Classic Trio’

.1 Application Forms
.2 References
.3 Interviews

4. Alternative Methods

.1 Personality Questionnaires
.2 General Mental Ability and Aptitude Tests
.3 Biodata Inventories
.4 Work Sample Tests
.5 Peer Assessments
.6 Assessment Centres

5. Job Analysis Data and the Choice of Selection Methods

6. Resistance to the Introduction of Alternative Selection Methods

7. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Two simple facts force any organisation to carefully select the people it employs. Firstly, people differ widely in their abilities, knowledge, interests and personality. Secondly, the jobs provided by the organisation vary in their demands (Robertson and Smith 1986). Thus, choosing the ‘right’ person for a job becomes a crucial factor in ensuring an effective workforce and competitive advantages.

The objective of selection processes is finding the most capable and suitable candidate, i.e., that candidate who is most likely to deliver the best performance on the job. To achieve this objective, a wide range of selection methods has been developed. But despite a variety of methods, many organisations, if not the majority of organisations, stick to the “classic trio” of selection (Cook 1993: 15) and rely on application forms, references and unstructured interviews only. Certainly, there is every reason to believe that there are some undeniable adva ntages in making the ‘classic trio’ attractive to many organisations. But at the same time, the ‘classic trio’ is criticised for a number of considerable shortcomings and a low efficiency compared to other selection methods. In the following the advantages and disadvantages of the ‘classic trio’ will be briefly sketched. The main criteria guiding the analysis will be reliability, validity, practicality, generality, fairness and costs of the selection methods. Afterwards some alternative selection methods will be reviewed, and their competitive advantages over the ‘classic trio’ will be outlined. We will analyse how job analysis data can help organisations to choose appropriate selection methods. Finally, a number of possible reasons for resistance to the implementation of alternative selection methods will be considered and an approach to overcome this resistance will be briefly sketched.

2. Assessing Selection Methods

Although the popularity of the ‘classic trio’ as organisations’ first choice selection procedure seems to be unbroken, Cook predicts the future demise of these “old-fashioned, inefficient methods.” (1993: 26) He maintains that the recruitment procedure successively composed of application forms, free-form references and unstructured interviews is simply less efficient than alternative selection methods. To understand this criticism we will have a look at the reliability, validitiy, practicality, generality, fairness, and costs of the three classical steps of recruitment. The reliability of a selection method refers to its “consistency of measurement” (Arvey 1979: 26). The underlying question is: do we get the same results, when we measure the same thing twice? If yes, the reliability of the test method is high. If the results of the two measurements vary considerably, the test reliability is low.

A high validity on the other hand assures that the selection test actually measures what it is supposed to measure, that it predicts what it claims to predict. Various types of validity can be found in literature, of which the most important ones are “face validity”, “content validity”, and “criterion validity” (Cook 1993: 197-199).1 Face validity indicates the extent to which a test appears to non-experts as plausible and related to the job (Arve y 1979: 34). Content validity reflects the direct correspondence between the test’s content and the specific job tasks and requirements. A test method is content valid “if the items on the test directly reflect observed behavior skills and knowledge considered essential for adequate job performance.” (Arvey 1979: 34)The correspondence between test and job content must not necessarily be obvious to the non-expert.

[...]

1 Further types of validity mentioned by Cook are “faith validity“, “construct validity”, “factorial validity”, and “synthetic validity” (1993: 196-204).