Ch. 7: Selective recruitment and selection

Chapter 7 discusses the first high performance work practice: selective recruitment and selection. It covers the difference between recruitment and selection, different employee groups (Baron and Kreps; Lepak and Snell), what employers need to know (which group, fishing in the right pond, unconscious bias, criteria and protocols), what employees need to know (realistic job preview, signalling, employer branding, e-recruitment), person-environment fit, the most valid selection techniques, and the causes and consequences of mismatches.

1. Recruitment versus selection

Recruitment and selection are part of everyday life in organizations. Hiring happens often, for example in case of turnover (people moving up within the organization or moving out) and expansion of the company.

Selecting the right people is important for organizational success, both for the well-being of employees and for the organization's financial performance. This calls for a balanced approach and a strategic approach (selective recruitment).

2. Different employee groups: Baron and Kreps (1999)

• Stars: core employees who create added value (e.g., top researchers, key account managers). Their performance can create large upside.
• Guardians: core employees who are mainly needed for minimizing risks and avoiding losses (e.g., pilots, safety officers, accountants). Excellent performance adds little, but mistakes are very costly.
• Foot soldiers: peripheral employees (e.g., routine production or service workers). Not all organizations have all of these groups.

3. The HR architecture: Lepak and Snell (2007)

Lepak and Snell classify employees on two dimensions: strategic value (low to high) and uniqueness (low to high). This gives four quadrants, each with its own employment mode and HR configuration:

The high-uniqueness row has a relational employment relationship (long term, trust); the low-uniqueness row a transactional one (short term, economic exchange). The left column is externalized (outside the organization), the right column internalized.

The model in relation to recruitment and selection:

• Alliance partners: recruited through networks or online search; job pitching.
• Knowledge employees: recruited through headhunting; less-defined tasks.
• Contract workers: recruited through temp agencies.
• Job-based employees: recruited through job advertisements; well-defined tasks.

Overlap between the models: foot soldiers (Baron and Kreps) can be external, like alliance partners and contract workers (Lepak and Snell). When they are internal, they resemble job-based employees. A critical question: do foot soldiers, contract workers and job-based employees require less attention from HR? From the perspective of expertise development and employability, the answer may be no: these groups also need to stay employable, and neglecting them may harm their careers and in the long run the organization's flexibility.

HR differentiation towards employee groups (treating groups differently) involves economic considerations (where does investment pay off?), strategic considerations (which groups create competitive advantage?), legal issues (equal treatment, labour law) and ethical considerations (fairness, inclusion).

4. What do employers need to know?

• What employee group are you hiring for? (stars, guardians, foot soldiers; which Lepak and Snell quadrant).
• Are we fishing in the right pond?
• Unconscious bias: implicit associations and stereotypes that influence decisions without the decision maker being aware of them (e.g., preferring candidates who are similar to oneself).

Fishing in the right pond. Because recruitment is an everyday practice, there is a risk of 'slacking off' and always using the same channels. Questions to ask:

• Are we recruiting employees from all age groups? (age stereotyping)
• Are we focused on recruiting both women and men, and are we genuinely open to recruit transgender and non-binary staff? (gender sensitivity)
• Are we focused on employees with different cultural backgrounds? (cultural diversity)

4a. Importance of good selection criteria and protocols

A delicate problem arises when you already know who you want to hire but still have to meet the requirement of open recruitment. Criteria and protocols can easily be manipulated:

• Writing the job advertisement based on selection criteria with a specific person in mind (manipulation in recruitment);
• Making a criterion important for one candidate but not for another (manipulation in selection).

Van den Brink (2010) studied the recruitment and selection of professors in the Netherlands. Interview quotes show both mechanisms: a committee wants 'Mr. Smith', lists what he is good at (A, B, C, D), writes a job advertisement with exactly those requirements, and then, of the 40 applicants, 'what a surprise', Mr. Smith fits best. In another case, a candidate was not an inspiring teacher, but he had plenty of publications, and teaching was suddenly considered not that important. Such practices reproduce existing (often male) networks and harm gender equality and fairness.

5. What do employees need to know?

Three instruments help applicants get the right information: the realistic job preview, signalling and employer branding.

A violation of the employee's expectations can have an impact on employee satisfaction, trust, motivation, absence due to illness, affective commitment and turnover. The RJP helps applicants to self-select out when the job does not suit them, and lowers early turnover. Critical questions: when does it hurt to tell the truth? Is it always necessary to be honest (e.g., when the truth scares away good applicants in a tight labour market)? And are applicants always honest themselves?

Signalling with salary: an organization can offer a salary below the average at the start (t = 0), with a jump to above-average pay after a first period (t = 1) and a steeper growth path afterwards. This signals that the organization rewards those who stay and perform, and it attracts applicants who are confident about their abilities and committed to a long-term relationship (self-selection), while less motivated applicants are discouraged by the lower starting salary.

Web-based organizing: e-recruitment. Is it the future? Advantages: it costs less, standardizes information and the process, allows the use of automated filters, and makes it easier to disseminate job advertisements. (Risks: automated filters may exclude good candidates or reproduce bias.)

6. How do employer and employee need to match? Person-environment fit

Person-Environment fit (P-E fit) is the overall compatibility between a person and the work environment. Main forms: Person-Job fit (P-J), Person-Organization fit (P-O) and Person-Culture fit (P-C).

P-J fit has two components: (1) does the candidate possess the right qualities for desirable job performance (demands-abilities fit)? and (2) is the job in line with the interests of the candidate (needs-supplies fit)?

Effects of P-J and P-O fit on HR outcomes:

• P-J fit affects job satisfaction and retention (in contrast to intent to leave).
• P-O fit affects organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour (going the extra mile, extra-role behaviour).
• P-J and P-O fit positively affect each other.

7. Most valid selection techniques

The validity coefficient is the correlation between the selection score and later job performance (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998):

Perhaps best is a combination of techniques (e.g., an assessment centre). Surprisingly bad predictors are employee age and years of experience.

Criteria to consider when choosing selection techniques (always taking into account the context and the goal): cost, utility (the added value relative to cost), sensitivity (ability to discriminate between good and weak candidates), reliability, practicality, and fairness and acceptability (for candidates and society).

8. Mismatch between job/organization and candidate

Possible causes:

• The organization: inadequate selection technique; no realistic job preview; an unforeseen critical incident (e.g., a reorganization or crisis).
• The candidate: dishonesty; a change in private life.

Possible consequences:

• Low motivation, satisfaction, commitment and citizenship behaviour of the newly recruited employee;
• Deteriorating relationships between the new employee and colleagues;
• Deteriorating relationship with the direct supervisor;
• The new employee leaves the organization (turnover);
• Potentially high costs for terminating the contract;
• Labour intensification for those who stay (the work has to be done by others);
• Potential reputation damage;
• New costs for recruiting and selecting a new employee.

Key take-aways

• Recruitment attracts applicants; selection chooses among them.
• Differentiate between employee groups (Baron and Kreps; Lepak and Snell), with attention to economic, strategic, legal and ethical considerations.
• Fish in the right pond and guard against unconscious bias and manipulation of criteria.
• Use RJPs, signalling and employer branding to attract the right candidates.
• Aim for P-J fit (satisfaction, retention) and P-O fit (commitment, OCB).
• Work samples, GMA tests and structured interviews are the most valid; combine methods; age and experience are poor predictors.