Social media for talent selection? a validity test of inter-judge agreement and behavioral prediction

Abstract

Individuals have a large amount of personal information on social media (SM), which provides companies with new opportunities for talent selection. However, researchers’ understanding of the effectiveness of assessments based on SM is relatively ambiguous, and the conclusions of empirical studies remain controversial. The Realistic Accuracy Model provides theoretical and methodological support for the application of SM information in zero-acquaintance contexts. Accordingly, we collected and matched 160 sets of Chinese SM assessment (other-assessment) and employee self-assessment data. Through a two-step data analysis, we conducted a consistency check and verification of behavioural predictions. The results suggested that in terms of general suitability, as well as knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs), the other-assessments and self-assessments were consistent. Furthermore, the general suitability and KSAOs of the other-assessments were predictive of behavioural intention (i.e., openness to change). This study empirically tested the accuracy of SM talent assessments, and finally, the research limitations and future trends were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Benitez-Amado J, Llorens-Montes FJ, Fernandez-Perez V (2015) IT impact on talent management and operational environmental sustainability. Inf Technol Manage 16(3):207–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Davison HK, Bing MN, Kluemper DH, Roth PL (2016) Social media as a personnel selection and hiring resource: reservations and recommendations. In: Landers RN, Schmidt GB (eds) Social Media in Employee Selection and Recruitment. Springer, Newyork

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Zhi L, Hong L (2017) The application of social media evaluation in the personnel selection. Foreign Econ Manag (in Chinese) 39(12):100–111

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Van Iddekinge CH, Lanivich SE, Roth PL, Junco E (2016) Social media for selection? Validity and adverse impact potential of a facebook-based assessment. J Manag 42(7):1811–1835

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Tifferet S, Vilnai-Yavetz I (2018) Self-presentation in LinkedIn portraits: common features, gender, and occupational differences. Comput Hum Behav 80:33–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kluemper DH, Rosen PA, Mossholder KW (2012) Social networking websites, personality ratings, and the organizational context: More than meets the eye. J Appl Soc Psychol 42(5):1143–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Richey M, Gonibeed A, Ravishankar MN (2018) The perils and promises of self-disclosure on social media. Inf Syst Front 2:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Funder DC (1995) On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realistic approach. Psychol Rev 102(4):652–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Roth PL, Bobko P, Van Iddekinge CH, Thatcher JB (2016) Social media in employee-eelection-related decisions: a research agenda for uncharted territory. J Manag 42(1):269–298

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    El Ouirdi M, El Ouirdi A, Segers J, Pais I (2016) Technology adoption in employee recruitment: the case of social media in Central and Eastern Europe. Comput Hum Behav 57:240–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Roulin N, Levashina J (2019) LinkedIn as a new selection method: psychometric properties and assessment approach. Pers Psychol 72(2):187–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chamorro-Premuzic T, Akhtar R, Winsborough D, Sherman RA (2017) The datafication of talent: how technology is advancing the science of human potential at work. Curr Opin Behav Sci 18:13–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sackett PR, Lievens F, Van Iddekinge CH, Kuncel NR (2017) Individual differences and their measurement: a review of 100 years of research. J Appl Psychol 102(3):254–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Yu M-C, Wu Y, Alhalabi W, Kao HY, Wu WH (2016) ResearchGate: an effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Comput Hum Behav 55:1001–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wang W, He L, Wu YJ, Goh M (2021) Signaling persuasion in crowdfunding entrepreneurial narratives: the subjectivity vs objectivity debate. Comput Hum Behav 114:106576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Zheng W, Wu Y, Lv Y (2019) More descriptive norms, fewer diversions: boosting Chinese Researcher Performance through social media. Libr Hi Tech 37(1):72–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Yu C, Zhang Z, Lin C, Wu Y (2020) Can data-driven precision marketing promote user AD clicks? evidence from advertising in Wechat moments. Ind Mark Manage 90:481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hall JA, Back MD, Nestler S, Frauendorfer D, Schmid Mast M, Ruben MA (2018) How do different ways of measuring individual differences in zero-acquaintance personality judgment accuracy correlate with each other? J Pers 86(2):220–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    He W, Wang FK, Chen Y, Zha S (2017) An exploratory investigation of social media adoption by small businesses. Inf Technol Manage 18(2):149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Park G, Schwartz HA, Eichstaedt JC, Kern ML, Kosinski M, Stillwell DJ, Ungar LH, Seligman MEP (2015) Automatic personality assessment through social media language. J Pers Soc Psychol 108(6):934–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Schmidt GB, Lelchook AM, Martin JE (2016) The relationship between social media co-worker connections and work-related attitudes. Comput Hum Behav 55:439–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Becton JB, Walker HJ, Schwager P, Gilstrap JB (2019) Is what you see what you get? Investigating the relationship between social media content and counterproductive work behaviors, alcohol consumption, and episodic heavy drinking. Int J Hum Resour Manage (online) 30(15):2251–2272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lievens F, Schollaert E, Keen G (2015) The interplay of elicitation and evaluation of trait-expressive behavior: evidence in assessment center exercises. J Appl Psychol 100(4):1169–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Adkins CL, Russell CJ, Werbel JD (1994) Judgments of fit in the selection process: the role of work value congruence. Pers Psychol 47(3):605–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Huffcutt AI (2011) An empirical review of the employment interview construct literature. Int J Sel Assess 19(1):62–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    König CJ, Steiner Thommen LA, Wittwer AM, Kleinmann M (2017) Are observer ratings of applicants ’ personality also faked Yes, but less than self-reports. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 25(2):183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Imran MK, Iqbal SMJ, Aslam U, Fatima T (2019) Does social media promote knowledge exchange? Qual Insight Manage Decis 57(3):688–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Korzynski P, Paniagua J, Rodriguez-Montemayor E (2019) Employee creativity in a digital era: the mediating role of social media. Manag Decis 58(6):1100–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Carr CT, Walther JB (2014) Increasing attributional certainty via social media: learning about others one bit at a time. J Comput-med Commun 19(4):922–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Funder DC (2012) Accurate personality judgment. Current Dir Psychol Sci 21(3):177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hirschmüller S, Egloff B, Nestler S, Back MD (2013) The dual lens model: a comprehensive framework for understanding self-other agreement of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. J Pers Soc Psychol 104(2):335–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Davison HK, Maraist C, Bing MN (2011) Friend or foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions. J Bus Psychol 26(2):153–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Punj GN (2019) Understanding individuals’ intentions to limit online personal information disclosures to protect their privacy: implications for organizations and public policy. Inf Technol Manage 20(3):139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Human LJ, Biesanz JC, Parisotto KL, Dunn EW (2012) Your best self helps reveal your true self: positive self-presentation leads to more accurate personality impressions. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 3(1):23–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wanberg CR, Banas JT (2000) Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. J Appl Psychol 85(1):132–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Zheng W, Yuan CH, Chang WH, Wu YCJ (2016) Profile pictures on social media: gender and regional differences. Comput Hum Behav 63:891–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Markoulli M, Lee CI, Byington E, Felps WA (2017) Mapping human resource management: reviewing the field and charting future directions. Hum Resour Manage Rev 27(3):367–396

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Baer M (2012) Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Acad Manag J 55(5):1102–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lievens F, Van Iddekinge CH (2016) Reducing the noise from scraping social media content: some evidence-based recommendations. Ind Organ Psychol 9(03):660–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Vazire S (2010) Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J Pers Soc Psychol 98(2):281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Gevers JMP, Demerouti E (2013) How supervisors’ reminders relate to subordinates’ absorption and creativity. J Manage Psychol 28(6):677–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    De Kock FS, Lievens F, Born MP (2018) The profile of the ‘Good Judge’ in HRM: A systematic review and agenda for future research. Human Resource Management Review (online)

  43. 43.

    Scopelliti I, Min HL, McCormick E, Kassam KS, Morewedge CK (2017) Individual differences in correspondence bias: measurement, consequences, and correction of biased interpersonal attributions. Manage Sci 64(4):1879–1910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ryan AM, Derous E (2019) The unrealized potential of technology in selection assessment. J Work Organ Psychol (Online) 35(2):85–92

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    McFarland LA, Ployhart RE (2015) Social media: a contextual framework to guide research and practice. J Appl Psychol 100(6):1653–1677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kluemper DH (2013) Social network screening: pitfalls, possibilities, and parallels in employment selection. Advanced Series in Management, vol 12. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Fujian (Grant No. 2019J01069).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wu Yenchun.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: the measuring tool

Appendix: the measuring tool

General suitability

1. I can see how this person would be an attractive applicant to an opening at an organization.

2. I would further consider this person for employment if they had the skills to fill an open position.

3. I would be hesitant to pursue this person as an applicant after viewing their WeChat profile.

4. I would give the candidate a good suitability score.

5. I think the candidate is suitable for an organization undergoing change.

KSAOs:

1. The applicant (employee) is able to handle internal and external relationships (with superiors, subordinates, colleagues, etc.)

2. The candidate is honest and not hypocritical.

3. The candidate is competent and willing to take responsibility for his or her job.

4. The candidate is able to improve the organization’s efficiency and to attempt change in the organization at minimal cost.

5. The applicant follows basic professional ethics.

6. The candidate is trustworthy and reliable.

7. The applicant can understand organizational changes and try to solve problems that occur as a result of changes.

8. The candidate has the competency to generate new ideas and to discover and create new things.

9. When faced with organizational change, the candidate can prepare for it, such as obtaining the necessary knowledge and skills.

Openness to change

  1. 1.

    I hold an open and accepting attitude towards organizational change.

  2. 2.

    I think organizational change would engender positive effects on the manner in which I complete my work.

  3. 3.

    Overall, organizational change aims to improve the organization.

  4. 4.

    I think organizational change will have a positive impact on our customers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wenzhi, Z., Yenchun, W., Chuangang, S. et al. Social media for talent selection? a validity test of inter-judge agreement and behavioral prediction. Inf Technol Manag (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00321-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social media
  • Talent selection
  • Zero acquaintance
  • Total suitability
  • KSAOs