Advertisement

Das Verhältnis zwischen Praxis und Forschung in der Personalauswahl: Weiß die linke Hand, was die rechte tut?

  • Neil Anderson
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Kapitel werden vier Hauptpunkte und -themen vertreten. Zum Ersten, dass eine natürliche Distanz zwischen den Berufsfeldern des wissenschaftlichen bzw. praktischen Bereichs der psychologischen Personalauswahl besteht. Die absolut wichtige, logische Folge davon ist, dass Vernetzungsmechanismen, die Informations- und Kommunikationskanäle und die strukturellen Mittel zur Gewährleistung einer gegenseitigen Beeinflussung beider Bereiche stark und gesund sein müssen. Zweitens wird argumentiert und illustriert, dass es vier Wissenschaftstypen in der Psychologie der Personalauswahl gibt (popularistische, pragmatische, pedantische und puerile bzw. infantile Wissenschaft), und dass unter Beibehaltung der ursprünglichen Formulierung eines Vier-Quadranten-Modells, die Zukunft beider Bereiche unserer Disziplin nur durch die pragmatische Wissenschaft gewährleistet werden kann. Drittens kann man im Verlauf der Geschichte der psychologischen Personalauswahl vier Szenarien in Bezug auf das Forschung-Praxis-Verhältnis identifizieren: Szenario 1, in welchem fundierte Forschung die Praxis auf angemessene Weise beeinflusst, Szenario 2, in welchem unzuverlässige Forschung die Praxis glücklicherweise nicht beeinflussen kann, Szenario 3, in welchem Fortschritte in der Praxis neue Wege für die Forschung anregen, und Szenario 4, in dem fundierte Forschung die Praxis in der Personalauswahl bedauernswerterweise nicht beeinflussen kann. Es werden Beispiele angeführt, um das Bestehen dieser Szenarien zu veranschaulichen, jedoch mit dem Vorbehalt, dass in unserem Bereich das erste Szenario im Laufe der Zeit insgesamt am häufigsten vertreten ist. Ferner wird argumentiert, dass die Forschung zum Inhaltsbereich durch Studien zum Prozessbereich, welche Forschung-Praxis- und Praxis-Forschung-Verhältnisse beleuchten, ergänzt werden sollte. Viertens und abschließend spricht sich dieses Kapitel für zwei Hauptausrichtungen für die zukünftige Forschung zu diesen vernachlässigten Themen in der Personalpsychologie aus: Erstens die Anschauungen der Praktiker und Strategien, wie man Praktiker von Forschungserkenntnissen überzeugen kann, und zweitens Validitätsforschung zum derzeitigen Ansturm auf CPD-Veranstaltungen auf internationaler Ebene.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Anderson, N. (1998). The people make the paradigm. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, N. (2003). Applicant and recruiter reactions to new technology in selection: A critical review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, N., & Ones, D. S. (2003). The construct validity of three entry level personality inventories used in the UK: Cautionary findings from a multiple-inventory investigation. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, N., Lievens, F., Dam, K. v, & Ryan, A. M. (2004). Future perspectives on employee selection: Key directions for future research and practice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 487–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arvey, R. D. (1979a). Fairness in selecting employees. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arvey, R. D. (1979b). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 739–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barber, D. (1973). Basic personnel procedures. London: Institute of Personnel Management.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bartram, D., Lindley, P. A., Marshall, L., & Foster, J. (1995). The recruitment and selection of young people by small businesses. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borman, W. C., Hansen, M., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 299–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boudreau, J. W., Sturman, M. C., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Utility analysis: What are the black boxes, and do they affect decisions? In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Hrsg.), International handbook of selection and assessment (S. 303–321). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cascio, W. F. (1993). Assessing the utility of selection decisions: Theoretical and practical considerations. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Hrsg.), Personnel selection in organizations (S. 310–340). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis of change over time: An integrative approach incorporating longitudinal means and covariance structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Organizational Research Methods, 1, 421–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalogue to classification: Murray’s needs and the five factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Fruyt, F., & Salgado, J. F. (2003). Applied personality psychology: Lessons learned from the IWO field. European Journal of Personality, 17, 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dipboye, R. L. (1997). Structured selection interviews: Why do they work? Why are they underutilized? In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Hrsg.), International handbook of selection and assessment (S. 455–473). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunnette, M. D. (1990). Blending the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology: Where are we now and where are we going? In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Hrsg.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2. Aufl., Bd. 1, S. 1–37). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eder, R. W., & Harris, M. M. (1999). Employment interview research: Historical update and introduction. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Hrsg.), The employment interview handbook (S. 1–27). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ferguson, E., Payne, T., & Anderson, N. (1994). Occupational personality assessment: An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldstein, H. W., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (2002). Is this your final answer? Human Performance, 15, 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldstein, I. L. (1997). Interrelationships between the foundations for selection and training systems. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Hrsg.), International handbook of selection and assessment (S. 529–542). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herriot, P. (1989). Selection as a social process. In M. Smith & I. T. Robertson (Hrsg.), Advances in staff selection (S. 171–187). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (1997). Selecting for change: How will personnel and selection psychology survive? In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Hrsg.), International handbook of selection and assessment (S. 1–34). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Highhouse, S. (2002). Assessing the candidate as a whole: A historical and critical analysis of individual psychological assessment for personnel decision making. Personnel Psychology, 55, 363–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hodgkinson, G. P., & Payne, R. L. (1998). Graduate selection in three European Countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 359–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (2001). Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of Management, 12, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hogan, R. T., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Introduction: Personality and industrial-organizational psychology. In B. W. Roberts & R. T. Hogan (Hrsg.), Personality psychology in the workplace (S. 3–16). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hough, L. M. (2001). I/Owes its advances to personality. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Hrsg.), Personality psychology in the workplace (S. 19–44). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huffcutt, A. I., Roth, P. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). A meta-analytic investigation of cognitive ability in interview evaluations: Moderating characteristics and implications for incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hyatt, D., Cropanzano, R., Finder, L. A., Levy, P., Ruddy, T. M., Vandeveer, V., et al. (1997). Bridging the gap between academics and practice: Suggestions from the field. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 35(1), 29–32.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johns, G. (1993). Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from organizational innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46, 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krause, D. E. (2011). Trends in der internationalen Personalauswahl. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2. Aufl.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (1994). The futility of utility analysis. Personnel Psychology, 47, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Levy-Leboyer, C. (1988). Success and failure in applying psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 779–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lievens, F., & Harris, M. M. (2003). Research on Internet recruitment and testing: Current status and future directions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Hrsg.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (S. 131–165). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lievens, F., Dam, K. van, & Anderson, N. (2002). Recent trends and challenges in personnel selection. Personnel Review, 31, 580–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mayfield, E. C. (1964). The selection interview: A re-evaluation of published research. Personnel Psychology, 17, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behaviour in organizations. Much more than g. In K. R. Murphy (Hrsg.), Individual differences and behaviour in organizations (S. 3–30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ones, D. S., & Anderson, N. (2002). Gender and ethnic group differences on personality scales in selection: Some British data. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advancement of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rice, E. E. (1997). Scenarios: The scientist-practitioner split and the future of psychology. American Psychologist, 52, 1173–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Robertson, I. T., & Makin, P. J. (1986). Management selection in Britain: A survey and critique. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 441–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565–606.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rynes, S. L., Bertunek, J. M., & Draft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rynes, S. L., Brown, K. G., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). Seven common misconceptions about human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner beliefs. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sackett, P. R. (1994). The content and process of the research enterprise within industrial and organizational psychology. Nashville, presidential address to the society for industrial and organizational psychology conference.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Salgado, J. F. (2001). Some landmarks of 100 years of scientific personnel selection at the beginning of the new century. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Salgado, J. F., & Anderson, N. (2002). Cognitive and GMA testing in the European Community: Issues and evidence. Human Performance, 15, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Salgado, J. F., & Anderson, N. (2003). Validity generalization of GMA tests across countries in the European Community. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2002). Comprehensive meta-analysis of the construct validity of the employment interview. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Predictors used for personnel selection: An overview of constructs, methods and techniques. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Hrsg.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (S. 165–199). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities as predictors of work behaviours: A European contribution and comparison with American findings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., De Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2003). A meta-analytic study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1068–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection research methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 402–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Shackleton, V. J., & Newell, S. (1994). European management selection methods: A comparison of five countries. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tenopyr, M. L. (2002). Theory versus reality: Evaluation of g in the workplace. Human Performance, 15, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Torrington, D., & Chapman, J. (1979). Personnel management. London: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Viswesvaran, C., Sinangil, H. K., Ones, D. S., & Anderson, N. (2001). Introduction to the handbook and volume 1 – Personnel psychology: Where we have been, where we are, (and where we could be). In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Hrsg.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (S. 1–9). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wagner, R. (1949). The employment interview: A critical review. Personnel Psychology, 2, 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wright, O. R. (1969). Summary or research on the selection interview since 1964. Personnel Psychology, 22, 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yang, K., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brunel University LondonUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations