See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317342227

Personnel Selection and Personality

Chapter · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 881

2 authors:

Ioannis Nikolaou Konstantina Foti

Athens University of Economics and Business Newcastle University
38 PUBLICATIONS   1,300 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Game Based Assessment in Recruitment and Selection View project

Applicant Reactions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ioannis Nikolaou on 04 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personnel Selection and Personality

Ioannis Nikolaou 1 and Konstantina Foti 2

1
Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece
2
Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Chapter to appear in: Zeigler-Hill, V. & Shackelford, T. (in press). The SAGE Handbook of

Personality and Individual Differences.

Correspondence Details:

Ioannis Nikolaou

Department of Management Science and Technology

School of Business

Athens University of Economics and Business

Athens, Greece 10434

inikol@aueb.gr
 Personnel Selection and Personality

Introduction

The field of employee recruitment and selection has traditionally been one of the most

energetic and active domains of research and practice in the field of Work and Organizational

Psychology. Numerous psychology graduates are employed in human resource management

(HRM) consultancies, HRM departments, and specialized work psychology/psychological

testing firms that are involved in recruitment, selection, and assessment. Moreover, it has also

been one of the first fields to attract the attention of researchers and practitioners in both

Europe and the United States (Salgado, Anderson, & Hülsheger, 2010). Therefore, the current

book would not be complete without a chapter devoted to the role of personality in the field

of employee recruitment and selection.

In the most recent review of employee selection research published in the Annual

Review of Psychology, Ryan and Ployhart (2014) claimed, however, that “despite the long-

standing employee selection research and practice, the field is still full of controversies,

exploring ‘settled’ questions, working on ‘intractable’ challenges, expanding into literatures

and organizational levels far removed from those historically investigated, and constantly

being pushed by practitioners, who continually are confronting questions to which

researchers have not yet produced answers” (pp. 694-695). In order to describe the current

state of affairs, Ryan and Ployhart (2014) describe employee selection research as a “highly

active senior who has not been slowed down by age” (p. 695).

The development of the field is also evident in the increasing number of studies

appearing in both mainstream Work and Organizational Psychology Journals but also in

specialized journals (e.g., Personnel Psychology, International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Personnel Assessment & Decisions). Also, a

number of influential handbooks have recently been published both in the United States and

Europe and the number of conference papers and symposia presented at international

conferences, such as the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology

(EAWOP), the Academy of Management (AoM) and the International Congress of Applied

Psychology (ICAP) – apart from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Annual Congress, which has traditionally attracted most selection research – dealing with

issues related to employee recruitment, selection, and assessment has been steadily increasing

during the last few years. Another recent development in the field, with a European focus,

has been the creation of the European Network of Selection Researchers (ENESER). The

ENESER’s objective (http://www.eneser.eu) is to advance personnel selection research, bring

together researchers carrying out applied research in the field of employee recruitment,

selection, and assessment, and act as a network for Work and Organizational Psychologists

conducting research in this field.

What is personnel selection?

Employee recruitment and selection is one of the most important Human Resource

Management processes in organizations (Farr & Tippins, 2010). It deals with the effective

attraction, screening, selection, and onboarding of employees in an organization. Although

we often assume that personnel selection deals only with external candidates, organizations

use employee recruitment and selection practices for internal employees as well (e.g., when

an organization has to make a decision regarding the re-allocation, transfer, or promotion of

employees).

Personnel selection also forms the basis for a number of other important Human

Resource Management functions, such as employee appraisal, training, development, and

succession planning. The successful selection and onboarding of an employee assists

organizations in providing appropriate and effective training and also improves the chances
of the employee being promoted or succeeding senior staff within the organization. However,

most personnel selection research has focused on exploring the organizational outcomes of

successful employee selection. For example, how successful selection leads to increased job

performance; better fit of the employee to the team, department, and the organization as a

whole; and the prediction of a number of desirable (and undesirable) work-related behaviors

(e.g., employee satisfaction and engagement, extra-role performance and citizenship

behaviors, customer service, absenteeism, counterproductive behaviors).

However, recent research in employee selection has also shifted its focus from the

traditional selection paradigm (i.e., the relationship between the predictor [the different

selection methods or the constructs evaluated with these methods] and the criterion [the

outcomes we try to predict via the selection methods, such as job performance]) toward other

important issues. For example, there has been an increased interest in various issues including

different selection methods (e.g., situational judgment tests), the role of technology and the

Internet in recruitment and selection (e.g., gamification in selection, video resumes and the

effect of social networking websites), the perspectives of applicants (e.g., trust, fairness), the

use of new statistical and methodological approaches (e.g., multi-level analysis and diary

studies), ethical issues and adverse impact, and high stakes selection.

The Personnel Selection Process

The personnel selection process is an essential part of a company’s Human Resources

procedures, especially in large organizations. A basic cornerstone of employee selection is

the job analysis procedure. It refers to the detailed analysis of a position which is used to

identify its key components and the behaviors necessary for a job incumbent to perform

successfully. The job analysis consists of two major components: job description and job

specification. Job description is often the most “apparent” outcome of job analysis and it

includes the key job characteristics and its main elements (e.g., procedures, methods,
standards of performance), whereas job specifications suggest the necessary requirements the

employee needs to bring into his/her position in order to perform successfully (e.g., necessary

knowledge, skills, qualifications, abilities and other personal characteristics) which are also

referred to as person specifications (Voskuijl, 2005).

Job analysis is both a tactical and a strategic human resources procedure for an

organization. It is tactical and essential in the sense that it provides the organization with

information on the current state of affairs for a position but it is also strategic in that it should

be linked with an organization’s strategy. Today’s job requirements or person specifications

may not be necessary or required tomorrow, or a position necessary for an organization’s

progress may not exist yet, but the potential employees to fill this position may already be

part of the organization. Therefore, job analysis must be both backward and forward looking,

if it needs to be really useful for an organization. Job analysis is also necessary for other

essential human resource procedures, such as training and development, performance

appraisal, rewards management, succession planning.

The next major step in the personnel selection procedure, following job analysis, is

employee recruitment. Employee recruitment is defined as “an employer’s actions that are

intended to (1) bring a job opening to the attention of potential job candidates who do not

currently work for the organization, (2) influence whether these individuals apply for the

opening, (3) affect whether they maintain interest in the position until a job offer is extended,

and (4) influence whether a job offer is accepted” (Breaugh, 2013, p. 391). This definition is

focused on external candidates but the recruitment process often deals with internal

candidates (i.e., employees who already work for the organization and wish to move or

transfer to another position/location or are being considered for promotion). Employers use

an array of resources to advertise a job opening which include traditional and well-

established approaches (e.g., press-media, referrals) as well as new channels (e.g., the internet
or social media; Acikgoz & Bergman, 2016; Nikolaou, 2014). Recruiters are also heavily

interested in improving the company image and its attractiveness as an employer. Therefore,

they make strong efforts to build a positive image of the company both internally and

externally in order to improve the quality of the candidates applying to the company, but also

to improve the company image. These efforts might include participation in competitions

(e.g. Best Workplace Awards), employee engagement survey, and employer branding

initiatives.

Following recruitment, the next and most crucial stage in the employee selection

process is the use of various selection methods in order to select the appropriate candidate for

the job. Many researchers and practitioners distinguish between initial and advanced

selection methods (e.g., Heneman, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). The aim of the

former is to reduce a large (potentially hundreds or even a few thousands) number of

applicant into a smaller, more manageable number in order to apply the initial selection

methods. It is impossible for an organization to have personal interviews, for example, with

every applicant applying for a job (especially if it is advertised externally). Therefore, a

number of initial methods are applied at this stage, in the so-called screening process. These

methods include mainly resume/cover letter screening, application forms, biodata, social

media screening, telephone/skype interview, reference checking, or even serious games and

gamification more recently (Collmus, Armstrong & Landers, 2016). It is also a quite common

practice more recently, due to the advances in technology and on-line assessment, that

psychometric tests (e.g., ability and personality tests) are employed earlier during the

screening process. The main selection methods used among organizations in order to reach a

final selection decision include work samples, assessment centers, situational judgment tests,

and of course the interview (Ryan & Ployhart, 2014). In the following sections, we will focus

on personality testing and its role in employee selection.

Personality testing and employee selection

Meta-analytic evidence

Personality tests are being used as a selection method in organizations by companies

and their Human Resources representatives worldwide (Ryan, Mcfarland, Baron, & Page,

1999; Ryan et al., in press). Numerous studies have been conducted examining the validity

and quality of such methods in order to explore and ensure their usefulness. But even after a

century of extensive research on personality assessment and its association with job

performance, understanding this relationship still remains a topic of controversy.

This issue began to receive interest from academics and researchers more than half a

century ago and numerous studies and meta-analyses have been conducted. In particular, a

number of studies suggested that personality can be a valid predictor of job performance

(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough & Oswald, 2000; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Ones,

Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993), whereas others concluded that the validity of personality

questionnaires is only moderate (Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011; Rothstein & Goffin, 2006) and

expressed their hesitation about the use of the Five-Factor model (FFM) of personality in

employee selection (e.g., Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1991).

The beginning of the 21st century brought along new studies based on the FFM or the

"Big Five" (i.e., Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and

Openness to Experience). The development of the FFM provided selection researchers and

practitioners with a well-defined and useful model to structure the personality dimensions in

a clear and understandable way (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006). More specifically, the FFM

represented a reasonable taxonomy for personality dimensions and also offered a coherent

system where researchers can categorize the plentiful personality trait names that existed
(Rothstein & Goffin, 2006) providing support that personality is playing a significant role in

job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).

Another series of studies suggested that personality is structured under three levels,

whereas the "Big Five" is the third level or the global/broad personality parallel. The second

level is the sub-dimensions of personality or facets of the FFM and the primary level is

consisted of the items of the personality inventories (Salgado, Moscoso, Sanchez, Alonso,

Choragwicka, & Berges, 2014). However, the meso-structure of the FFM seems to be a

subject of controversy among researchers due to the existence of a number of different

alternatives about the sub-dimensions of personality traits (Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, &

Crawford, 2013; Salgado et al., 2014; Salgado, Moscoso & Alonso, 2013). Therefore,

research suggests that broad personality traits or the global factors of personality (the third

level of FFM) can accurately predict job performance, whereas the meso-structure of FFM

does not show sufficient incremental validity (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Salgado et al,

2014).

Along with the specific levels in personality structure, there was also some debate

whether the broad or the narrow personality traits are better in predicting high performing

candidates in the working environment: the so-called bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in

employee selection and personality psychology. Therefore, the broad five factors are

compared with specific (narrow) personality traits in order to identify the most effective

predictor. A recent meta-analysis suggests that the FFM personality traits tend to be weak

predictors of job performance, due to a lack of scientific evidence as well as the gap between

performance criteria and the corresponding personality characteristics (Murphy &

Dzieweczynski, 2005). According to the meta-analysis of Barrick and Mount (2003), there is

no strong evidence in favor of narrow or broad personality characteristics as the preferable

predictors of job performance. The outcomes of previous studies are still mixed in that both
narrow and broad personality traits can be suitable predictors of job performance, depending

on the type of the criterion; narrow personality characteristics seem to predict better narrow

performance criteria and the opposite for broad personality characteristics (e.g., Bergner,

Neubauer, & Kreuzthaler, 2010; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996).

Although there is limited evidence supporting that the FFM personality characteristics

can predict job performance (Salgado et al., 2014), they appear to have strong correlations

when this relationship is mediated by specific occupational groups or criteria, an issue we

will discuss later in this chapter. On the other hand, a few meta-analytic reviews have shown

that both Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability turn out to be predictors of job

performance without any limitations on specific occupational groups or other performance

criteria (Hogan & Ones 1997; Hough & Oswald, 2000; Salgado, 1997, 1998), which is not

the case for the other three personality characteristics, namely Extraversion, Openness to

Experience, and Agreeableness (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, et al., 2014; Tett, Jackson,

& Rothstein, 1991).

However, there are a number of academics and researchers who claim that the

correlations between personality traits and job performance are weak. This argument suggests

that personality tests are an unreliable selection method due to the lack of evidence and

academic rigor (Guion & Gottier, 1965; Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy,

& Schmitt, 2007; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). It is worth mentioning though

that most of these studies are quite outdated. For example, Guion and Gottier (1965) and

Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, and Kirsch (1984) suggested that limited evidence exists to support

the validity of personality tests as a selection method exercising thus pressure to researchers

to intensify research on this topic.

There has been a lot of criticism concerning meta-analysis itself and the methodology

that researchers used to conduct the aforementioned reviews (Bobko & Stone-Romero, 1998;
Murphy, 2000; Rothstein & Goffin, 2006). Murphy (2000) pointed out that there are several

issues in methodological procedures that need to be managed and addressed in order for

meta-analytic reviews to be accurate and valid. Some key points are the quality of the data or

whether the tests and studies used in the meta-analysis are representative of the population of

existing tools and studies (Murphy, 2000). They suggest that researchers should follow

detailed and clear guidelines in order to evaluate and produce meta-analytic reviews

(Murphy, 2000; Rothstein & Goffin, 2006).

Another issue is the FFM and how it is being conceptualized and measured in the

existing meta-analytic reviews (Barrick & Mount, 2003; Rothstein & Goffin, 2006; Salgado

et al., 2014). Even though the FFM has been a helpful taxonomy for researchers, the model

seems to be challenged methodologically for its accuracy and validity (Block, 1995).

Rothstein and Goffin (2006) found that from 1994 until 2006, when their paper was

published, 57% of the studies available at that time used the FFM to measure personality.

This result questions the validity of the studies that, according to a body of researchers, are

based on a taxonomic system that does not represent accurately the personality traits that are

examined in the personality-performance relationship. At the same time, a number of

alternative models offering new theories of personality structure appeared in the literature

(Rothstein & Goffin, 2006).

Predictors

A number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on personality and selection has

explored different predictors associated with effective job performance, especially broad

personality characteristics that can be used in personnel selection. Examples include

questionnaires, which assess broad personality traits (e.g., the NEO Personality Inventory, the

Personality Research Form, and the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire). Moreover, a

different approach is also followed when more focused, work-related personality traits are
being used, which aim to measure narrower and unique personality characteristics (Ones &

Viswesvaran, 2001). These scales are referred to as “occupational personality scales” and

more specifically “job-focused occupational scales” (JOBS) that examine personality traits

for particular job families and “criterion-focused occupational scales” (COPS) that examine

specific criteria and their role as predictors in the working environment (Ones &

Viswesvaran, 2001). According to the meta-analytic review of Ones and Viswesvaran (2001)

COPS are more accurate predictors of overall job performance, especially if they are

combined with cognitive ability tests, compared to general FFM personality traits. At the

same time, incremental validity increases when COPS are associated with the

Conscientiousness dimension from the FFM.

The incremental validity of a selection method above and beyond another method is

an important issue in employee selection, since recruiters often combine a number of

different methods. This is especially the case for personality tests (Day & Silverman, 1989;

Goffin, Rothstein, & Johnston, 1996; McManus & Kelly, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998),

which are often used in combination with other selection methods. For example, Goffin and

colleagues (1996) found that evaluations of managerial potential by an assessment center

provided incremental validity, over and above personality tests. These results state clearly the

importance of incremental validity in selection methods and in the successful prediction of

job performance. Although incremental validity of personality seems to be an important

predictor from which human resources practitioners can benefit, in order to adopt relevant

measurements in their selection procedures, only a few relevant studies have been conducted

(Rothstein & Goffin, 2006).

Moderators and Mediators of the Personality-Performance relationship

Another issue attracting increased interest is the examination of moderators and

mediators in the relationship between personality and job performance (Rothstein & Goffin,
2006; Sackett & Lievens, 2008). Moderating and mediating variables seem to be important,

since they are considered to underline and sometimes determine the role of personality tests

as an employee selection method (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006). Barrick and Mount (1991)

found that Conscientiousness predicted job performance for the criteria of job proficiency,

training proficiency and personnel data, among all the different occupation groups examined

(professionals, police, sales, managers, and skilled/semi-skilled), while the rest of the

personality traits demonstrated also significant predictive effects depending on the

performance criterion and occupational group (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006). Another example

is autonomy at work as a moderator between personality and job performance. Research

suggests that individuals with high scores in Conscientiousness and Extraversion and low

scores in Agreeableness are better performers in jobs where autonomy is high (Barrick &

Mount, 1993). At the same time a number of studies supported that personality has indirect

effects on work related performance which leads to the conclusion that mediating variables

are the ones that have an effect on job performance rather than personality directly (Barrick,

Mount & Strauss, 1993; Rothstein & Goffin, 2006; Rothstein & Jelly, 2003).

Another set of potential mediators in the personality-performance relationship are

individuals’ motivational intentions (Barrick, 2005; Hogan, 1996). Mitchell (1997) declares

that motivation is the "arousal, direction, intensity and persistence of voluntary actions that

are goal directed” (p. 60). Focusing on motivation, researchers suggested that there are three

types of motivational intentions that seem to affect work-related behavior (Barrick, Stewart,

& Piotrowski, 2002; Barrick, Mitchell, & Stewart, 2003; Penney, David & Witt, 2011;

Sackett & Lievens, 2008). First is status striving, a term that refers to actions "directed

toward obtaining power and dominance within a status hierarchy " (Barricket al., 2003, p.

66). The FFM trait of Extraversion is related to status striving, since Extraversion

characteristics such as sociability, determination, or high energy are features that are enabling
motivational intentions for status striving (Barrick et al., 2003). Next is communion striving,

which refers to actions "directed toward obtaining acceptance in personal relationships” or

“getting along with others at work" (Barrick et al., 2003, p. 66). Research suggests that the

personality trait that seems to be associated with this motivational intention is Agreeableness

(Penney et al., 2011), since agreeable people tend to be friendly and willing to help others as

well as showing a preference for cooperation rather than competition (Barrick & Mount,

2003; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The last type is accomplishment striving where the definition

refers to "an individual’s intention to accomplish work tasks" (Barrick et al., 2003, p. 66) and

it is linked to Emotional Stability, since unstable individuals are less likely to strive for

accomplishments (Penney et al., 2011). Finally, Conscientiousness is associated with job

performance when this relationship is mediated by goal setting behaviors in the occupational

group of sales representatives (Barrick, Mount & Strauss, 1993). The studies focusing on

mediating effects and their effects on performance are a useful tool for organizations, since

Human Resources Professionals can improve their selection methods by using tools such as

situational judgment tests (SJTs) that can be used to supplement personality tests (Rothstein

& Goffin, 2006; Sackett & Lievens, 2008).

Expanding the performance criterion domain

The majority of research conducted on personality and job performance has focused

on the overall job performance of individuals. However, other research suggests that we

should focus on specific dimensions of job performance, rather than overall job performance

(Penney et al., 2011). Job performance can be divided into three narrower dimensions. One

dimension is task performance which is defined as the activities that “contribute to the

organization's technical core either directly by implementing a part of its technological

process, or indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services” (Borman &

Motowildo, 1997, p. 99). As an illustration, task performance for the position of a salesman
includes closing a sale or knowing the product that one is selling (Borman & Motowildo,

1997) or delivering mail to the right addresses for a mailman (Penney et al., 2011). In other

words, task performance is concerned with in-role duties of a job that are mandatory for an

employee to carry out. Next is contextual performance, which refers to activities that shape

the context in which task performance occurs in a social and psychological way (Borman &

Motowildo, 1997; Penney et al., 2011). Examples that describe this dimension are voluntary

work or helping a colleague (Borman & Motowildo, 1997; Penney et al., 2011). There are

different terms that have been often used to describe contextual performance, such as

organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988). The last dimension of performance is

counterproductive behavior referring to harmful behaviors employees adopt against other co-

workers or the organization itself, such as absenteeism, theft, drug/alcohol use, or

intentionally poor performance (Penney et al., 2011).

From the FFM, it is mainly Conscientiousness and secondly Emotional Stability that

have shown positive associations with all three types of performance (Penney et al., 2011). It

is worth mentioning that Agreeableness also seems to be a strong predictor of contextual

performance and counterproductive behavior, in contrast with Extraversion and Openness to

Experience that appear to have only weak validities with the three performance dimensions

(Penney et al., 2011). Speaking of service-oriented behavior, researchers often refer to the

attitudes and manners an individual should maintain when serving a customer, for example

being polite and fulfilling the requests of customers. Those behaviors are associated with

both communion striving and achievement striving, since people with those motivational

intentions are more likely to adapt in service-oriented performance. Furthermore, personality

in general – and Conscientiousness and Agreeableness in particular – seem to be important in

service-oriented citizenship behaviors at work (Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001). In

addition, researchers are also referring to internal service-oriented behaviors as equally

important as the external ones. In fact, the personality traits of Agreeableness and

Conscientiousness appear to reach high validities for occupations requiring good

communication, collaboration, and similar interpersonal skills which are important when

working in teams (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). Moreover, research suggests that

satisfactory internal services lead to an increase in organizational effectiveness (Penney et al.,

2011). To sum up, in this newly introduced approach, both external and internal behaviors of

service-orientation are strongly related to personality and can improve the validity results of

the FFM traits.

The second trend that Penney and her colleagues (2011) suggested adding in the

criterion domain is adaptive performance which refers to the recognition of opportunities that

lead to change, the proactively enhancement of behavior and competencies in response to

change, and the application of those competencies in the workplace. This type of

performance and the ability of individuals to adapt is found to be highly associated with high

Openness to Experience, although an unexpected correlation also existed with low

Conscientiousness (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000).

Bandwidth-Fidelity dilemma

The bandwidth-fidelity dilemma (BFD) is about whether researchers should use

narrowly defined or broadly defined variables, when exploring the personality-job

performance relationship (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965; Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Ones &

Viswesvaran, 1996). More specifically, bandwidth refers to “the amount of information that

is contained in a message” (Cheng, Wang, & Ho, 2009, pp. 1-2), and "the amount of

complexity of the information one tries to obtain in a given space of time" (Cronbach, 1960,

p. 600). Additionally, fidelity refers to “the accuracy of the information conveyed” (Cheng et

al., 2009, pp. 1-2). Cronbach (1960) was not using the word fidelity but instead was referring
to this concept as accuracy, decision making, validity, and reliability (Hogan & Roberts,

1996).

A number of arguments in favor of each side have been cited. A lot of researchers

have argued that the FFM dimensions of personality have great bandwidth and too much

information is lost when data are aggregated to the level of the FFM. On the other hand, other

researchers and practitioners not only support the appropriateness of broad personality traits

as better predictors of work performance, but also argue that the best predictor of job

performance is a linear combination of a number of broadly defined traits.

Studies and meta-analytic reviews suggest that the BFD can be better understood via

three main approaches (Salgado et al., 2014). Firstly, researchers suggest that broad

measures, for example the FFM, are the most valid predictors of both broad and narrow

performance criteria (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). A different position supports that narrow

personality measurements are better for predicting narrow performance criteria, and at the

same time narrow measures allow researchers to explain possible variances over global

measures when also broad criteria are examined (Ashton, 1998; Christiansen & Robie, 2011;

Paunonen, Rothstein, & Jackson, 1999; Tett, Steel, & Beauregard, 2003). A third position

claims that the broadness of the criteria used in research are the ones determining the

personality predictors that are suitable and appropriate according to the existing

circumstances (Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Moberg, 1998; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette,

1996).

More supportive evidence regarding the use of broad personality traits in selection are

provided by Mount and Barrick (1995). In a follow-up of their original meta-analysis Barrick

and Mount (1991) examined in more detail the validity of Conscientiousness dimension of

the FFM along with two of its components, achievement and dependability, across a number

of specific criteria. Using as a starting point their previous meta-analysis, but increasing the
total sample by approximately 50%, they were expecting, along with the BFD, that broad

dimensions (i.e., Conscientiousness) would be better predictors of broad criteria (e.g., overall

job proficiency), whereas the best predictors of narrower criteria (e.g., effort, employee

reliability) are expected to be narrower dimensions (i.e., achievement, dependability).

Faking

Another point in favor of those who support the limited importance of personality in

selection settings is the phenomenon of faking and social desirability in personality testing,

and their effect on predictive validity. The tendency for applicants to respond in a socially

desirable way reduces the accuracy of personality tests and their usefulness in employee

selection (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Rothstein & Goffin, 2006).

Research suggests that when candidates are motivated to present a socially acceptable

appearance and personality, they seem to fake their responses when taking a personality test

(Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). However, a number of studies have provided a more optimistic

view, suggesting that faking does not affect the criterion-related validity of personality tests

and therefore are trustworthy and accurate as a selection method (Barrick & Mount, 1996;

Hough, Eaton, Dunette, Kamp, & Mc Cloy, 1990; Ones, Viswesvaran & Reiss, 1996). This

statement however, has received major criticism due to the fact that other studies have

suggested that faking reduce the validity of personality tests (Douglas, McDaniel, & Snell,

1996).

Several approaches have appeared in order for researchers to reduce – and if possible

eliminate – the effect of faking on personality tests. One primary strategy for dealing with

fake responses in a personality test is the design of Social Desirability Scales. When test

takers are scoring high on social desirability scales, then an assumption that responses may be

faked is made. However, research results suggest that this is not the case and often, when this

assumption is made, including social desirability scales can lead to reduced criterion-related
validity (Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton, 2003). Another approach is faking

warning, where test-takers are warned that fake responses can be detected. Meta-analytic

reviews on faking warning concluded that it is effective and fake responses are significantly

reduced and therefore improvement of hiring decisions has been noted (Dwight & Donovan,

2003). The benefits of researchers and practitioners for faking warning is that faking is

reduced, the method is cheap, and it can be easily combined with other existing methods

(Rothstein & Goffin, 2006).

Another method for reducing faking is the use of forced-choice personality tests.

Forced-choice personality assessment was designed by researchers in an effort to minimize

faking and receive more honest and reliable answers by applicants. According to this

approach every personality trait in the test is presented by 2-4 statements, where the

candidate is instructed to choose the statement that describes him/her the most and the least.

The statements used are phrased in a way where social desirability is equally perceived.

Consequently, response distortion is not triggered. The most typical examples of the forced-

choice approach are primarily the "Edwards Personal Preference Schedule" (Edwards, 1959),

the "Gordon Personal Inventory" (Gordon, 1956), the “Occupational Personality

Questionnaire 3.2i” (Jackson, Wroblewski, & Ashton, 2000), and the “Employee Screening

Questionnaire” (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006).

Forced-choice received a lot of support, but also a lot of criticism about its validity in

predicting accurately the personality traits, that it supposed to predict and also about the fact

that response distortion was encouraged (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006). All this criticism was

addressed by Jackson and colleagues (2000), where they overcame poor item development by

designing the “Employee Screening Questionnaire” with high criterion-related validity.

Criticism of these forced-choice personality tests might cause more negative reactions from

candidates than other traditional tests. However, further research is needed in order for this
approach to be evaluated, since until now limited studies have addressed the forced-choice

assessment approach (Christiansen, Burns, & Montgomery, 2005; Jackson et al., 2000;

Martin, Bowen, & Hunt, 2002).

Future trends in personality testing and employee selection

The discussion above has implied that the use of personality testing in occupational

settings has largely remained unchanged during recent decades. Applicants used to complete

a self-report assessment of personality during the selection process, their results were

evaluated, and then a decision was made. Normally, this process was taking place at the

beginning of the selection process, but not for everyone applying, due to cost and

administration reasons. Candidates had to get together in order to complete a paper-and-

pencil version of the test under supervised conditions. Technology and especially the internet

has changed how personality assessment is used in employee selection. Moreover, new

personality constructs have recently appeared, challenging the hegemony of the FFM and

also new modes of assessment are also often being used by organizations to assess

personality constructs.

The role of technology

Technology – especially the internet – has had a major impact on employee

recruitment and selection, probably more than any other Human Resource Management

function. Reynolds and Dickter (2010) claim that the widespread use of computers and

technology in organizations offer a major opportunity for Work and Organizational

Psychologists to become more strategic. For example, most companies use job boards and

social networking websites, such as LinkedIn, to advertise their job openings and attract

candidates or specialized software and platforms, such as applicant tracking systems, to

manage the recruitment process. Similarly, the selection process has also changed rapidly
with most new trends to relate to testing and assessment, such as automated testing,

computer-aided and computer adaptive testing.

With almost 60% of companies using some kind of tests, especially in entry-level

management positions (Ryan et al., 2015), it is reasonable to expect that technology will have

a major impact in the use of tests. In recent years, companies have started to integrate the

testing process earlier in the whole selection process, with candidates completing the

questionnaire(s) remotely via the web, either in a proctored or unproctored way. Proctored

testing requires some kind of supervision and is especially important for cognitive ability

tests. However, personality tests are often completed remotely in an unproctored way (e.g.,

the applicant takes a test at home or some other convenient location without supervision,

since they do not include the same type of problems associated with cognitive tests, such as

person identification, test security and most importantly cheating; Karim, Kaminsky &

Behrend, 2014). Unproctored testing has a series of advantages for both employers and

applicants and therefore it has become extremely popular recently in many employee

selection procedures. These tests offer massive economic savings to companies, and also the

opportunity to assess large numbers of their applicant pool. There are even a lot of companies

where all candidates applying for a job or registering their resume into their database go

through an on-line assessment.

For most organizations, unproctored testing has now become the standard method by

which they evaluate candidates’ profiles. Similarly, for many test publishers and consulting

firms it has become the primary method of delivering their tests (Schmitt, 2014). However,

the most significant issue regarding the use of on-line testing is the equivalence between on-

line tests or computer testing and the traditional paper-and-pencil tests. Although there is

limited research exploring this issue with satisfactory findings (Bartram & Brown, 2004;

Ployhart, Weekley, Holtz, & Kemp, 2003; Salgado & Moscoso 2003), it has only focused on
proctored-testing due to its importance for cognitive ability tests. Therefore, an important

area of future research is to explore the equivalence between un-proctored and traditional,

paper-and-pencil personality tests, as a selection method (Reynolds & Dickter, 2010).

New constructs and modes of assessment

Although the FFM remains undeniably the most well-studied and widely used

personality model in employee selection research, it is not the only one out there. For

example, a number of researchers have explored broader constructs than the five factors,

many of which are especially applicable in personnel selection. For example, a widely-used

construct and testing method, especially in the United States, is integrity testing. In one of the

first critical evaluations of integrity tests, they were defined as “paper-and-pencil instruments

for personnel selection that are used to predict dishonesty or counterproductivity. These tests

are composed of items that query job applicants about their attitudes toward theft and inquire

about any past thefts” (Camara & Schneider, 1994, p. 112). Since then, the field of integrity

testing has developed even more, not only with the appearance of online integrity testing but,

most importantly, with the increased capacity of integrity tests to predict other performance-

related criteria and not only counter-productive work behavior. For example, Van Iddekinge,

Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012), in a recent meta-analysis, demonstrated that

integrity tests can be valid predictors of overall job performance and training performance as

well, providing further support for their usefulness as a valid selection method.

Emotional Intelligence (EI) is another concept that is often linked with personality

and has created major disputes among practitioners. Although there is limited research

linking EI with employee selection, it is a concept that has attracted interest, especially

among practitioners and the popular management and psychology literature. A major issue

concerning EI research in relation to employee selection is how EI is measured. When EI is

measured with an ability-based measure, it often demonstrates moderate to high correlations

with intelligence tests and, as a result, with overall job performance. However, when it is

measured with personality-type questionnaires, EI demonstrates low to average correlations

with personality factors, is susceptible to social desirability and faking, and demonstrates

poor correlations with job performance (Cherniss, 2010). A few studies (e.g., Blickle et al.,

2009; Christiansen, Janovics, & Siers, 2010; Iliescu, Ilie, Ispas, & Ion, 2012) have provided

evidence for the usefulness of EI for predicting important work-related outcomes, such as job

performance, but as many authors have noted, we need to be careful with the interpretation of

these results, since researches often use student samples and not real applicants in real-life

selection settings, with a few exceptions (e.g., Lievens, Klehe, & Libbrecht, 2011).

The general factor of personality (GFP) has also received increased attention recently

in the academic literature. The GFP supports the notion that there is an inherent hierarchical

structure within the FFM and reflects a mix of socially desirable characteristics. Individuals

with high scores on the GFP tend to be open-minded, conscientious, sociable, emotionally

stable, and possess high levels of self-esteem and mental health (Linden, Te Nijenhuis,

Cremers, Ven, & Van Der Heijden-Lek, 2014). The concept of the GFP seems to offer

promising avenues for employee selection research and practice in the future, despite the

small number of studies exploring its predictive validity (Van Der Linden, Te Nijenhuis, &

Bakker, 2010). A similar-broad construct to the GFP is the construct of Core Self-Evaluations

(CSE). CSE is a broad personality construct consisted of four specific traits: self-esteem,

generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge,

Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). According to Judge, Van Vianen, and De Pater (2004)

“Individuals with positive core self-evaluations appraise themselves in a consistently positive

manner across situations; such individuals see themselves as capable, worthy, and in control

of their lives” (pp. 328-329). Limited studies have explored the CSE in recruitment and

selection settings (e.g., Anderson, Ahmed, & Costa, 2012; Nikolaou, 2011), therefore, as
Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, and Tan (2012) proposed, the incremental prediction of CSE

ought to be directly evaluated, above and beyond the effect of conscientiousness and

cognitive ability. They also propose that two other important issues, should be explored

further, if CSE is going to be a useful construct in employee selection research and practise;

the issue of faking and the possibility of CSE leading to adverse impact.

However, not only new constructs seem to appear, but also new modes of assessing

traditional and new personality dimensions have also appeared. Situational judgement tests

(SJTs) have been one of the methods used recently to assess aspects of personality. The SJTs

consist of a series of job-related situations/scenarios delivered mainly via different means,

(e.g., written, on-line, video-based format). Clevenger, Pereira, Wiechmann, Schmitt, and

Harvey (2001) have claimed that the SJTs are often correlated with conscientiousness and

neuroticism and that they can also successfully predict job performance, above job

knowledge, cognitive ability, job experience, and conscientiousness. Mcdaniel and Nguyen

(2001) have provided evidence that SJTs are also correlated with agreeableness and similar

findings were also obtained in the meta-analysis of Mcdaniel, Hartman, Whetzel, and Grubb

(2007), who also supported the significant impact of SJTs on predicting job performance

above and beyond the effect of personality and cognitive ability tests.

More recently, another form of assessment has also appeared which is the use of

serious games or gamification as an attempt to improve applicant reactions toward traditional

selection methods and improve the company’s image among highly sought after applicants.

One such example of this is Insanely Driven (http://insanelydriven.archive.lessrain.co.uk/)

which is an interactive selection game in which each job applicant is placed into a series of

unusual situations and asked to make a variety of decisions. Another similar example, where

the first author is also involved is Owiwi (http://www.owiwi.co.uk) which is a serious game

application assessing a number of soft skills and soon also personality characteristics based
on the FFM (Georgiou & Nikolaou, 2017). The benefit of these “games” is that they can

provide immediate feedback to participants, in a simple form, when they complete the game.

Although research is still limited in the field (Armstrong, Landers, & Collmus, 2016), this is

a promising area of research and practice for the future, attracting already a fair amount of

media coverage.

Concluding Remarks

Personality has been a major part of research and practice from the early ages of

psychology. It could not be otherwise in one of the most applied psychology fields, such as

work and organizational psychology. From the early stages of personality testing through

modern developments (e.g., on-line testing and gamification), personality is an important part

of most selection settings that has remained a vibrant and exciting area of research. However,

personality research and practice in employee selection has to remain up-to-date and keep up

with the recent developments in other close scientific areas, such as personality psychology

and human resources management, if it wants to remain useful both for researchers and

practitioners.
 References

Acikgoz, Y., & Bergman, S. M. (2016). Social media and employee recruitment: Chasing the

run away bandwagon. In R. N. Landers & G. B. Schmidt (Eds.), Social media in

employee selection and recruitment (pp. 175-195). New York, NY: Springer.

Anderson, N., Ahmed, S., & Costa, A. C. (2012). Applicant reactions in Saudi Arabia:

Organizational attractiveness and core-self evaluation. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 20, 197-208.

Armstrong, M. B., Landers, R. N., & Collmus, A. B. (2016). Gamifying recruitment,

selection, training, and performance management: Game-thinking in human resource

management. In H. Gangadharbatla & D. Z. Davis (Eds.), Emerging research and

trends in gamification (pp. 140-165). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.

Barrick, M. R. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters.

Human Performance, 18, 359-372.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships

between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 111-118.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-

deception on the predictive validity of personal constructs. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 261-272.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2003). Impact of meta-analysis methods on understanding

 personality-performance relations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A

critical review (pp. 197-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of

sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 715-722.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance:

test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.

Bergner, S., Neubauer, A. C., & Kreuzthaler, A. (2010). Broad and narrow personality traits

for predicting managerial success. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 19, 177-199.

Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude,

personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of applied Psychology, 86, 29-41.

Blickle, G., Momm, T. S., Kramer, J., Mierke, J., Liu, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Construct

and criterion-related validation of a measure of emotional reasoning skills: A two-

study investigation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 101-118.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Psychological Bulletin, 177, 187-215.

Bobko, P., & Stone-Romero, E.F. (1998). Meta-analysis may be another useful research tool,

but it is not a panacea. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human

resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 359-397). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in

job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, S5-s18.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance:

The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.

Breaugh, J. A. (2013). Employee recruitment. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 389-416.

Camara, W. J., & Schneider, D. L. (1994). Integrity tests: Facts and unresolved issues.

American Psychologist, 49, 112-119.

Chang, C.-H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-

evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38,

81-128.

Cheng, Y. Y., Wang, W. C., & Ho, Y. H. (2009). Multidimensional Rasch analysis of a

psychological test with multiple subtests: A statistical solution for the bandwidth-

fidelity dilemma. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 369-388.

Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 3, 110-126.

Christiansen, N. D., & Robie, C. (2011). Further consideration of the use of narrow trait

scales. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du

comportement, 43, 183-194.

Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice

item format for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18, 267-307.

Christiansen, N. D., Janovics, J. E., & Siers, B. P. (2010). Emotional intelligence in selection

contexts: Measurement method, criterion-related validity, and vulnerability to

response distortion. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 87-101.

Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Harvey, V. S. (2001).

Incremental validity of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

410-417.
Collmus, A. B., Armstrong, M. B., & Landers, R. N. (2016). Game-thinking within social

media to recruit and select job candidates. In R. N. Landers & G. B. Schmidt (Eds.),

Social media in employee selection and recruitment (pp. 103-124). Zurich: Springer.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and

Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.

Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper

& Row.

Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions.

Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of

incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25-36.

Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1996). The validity of non-cognitive

measures decays when applicants fake. Paper presented at the Academy of

Management Conference, Cincinnati, OH.

Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human

Performance, 16, 1-23.

Edwards, A. L. (1959). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule manual. New York, NY:

Psychological Corporation.

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? —Criteria for a taxonomic

paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790.

Farr, J. L., & Tippins, N. T. (2010). Handbook of employee selection. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Georgiou, K. & Nikolaou, I. (2017). Serious gaming in employees’ selection process. In I.

Nikolaou (2017): Alliance for Organizational Psychology Invited Symposium-The

Impact of Technology on Recruitment and Selection: An International Perspective.

 32nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Orlando, USA.

Goffin, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., & Johnston, N. G. (1996). Personality testing and the

assessment center: Incremental validity for managerial selection. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 746-756.

Gordon, L. V. (1956). Gordon personal inventory. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel

selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.

Heneman, H. G., Judge, T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Staffing organizations (7th

ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J.

Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 849-870). San

Diego, CA: Academic.

Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627-637.

Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the Five-Factor model. In J. Wiggins (Ed.),

The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163-179). New

York, NY: Guilford.

Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future--

Remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631-664.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990).

Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response

distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.

Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., Ispas, D., & Ion, A. (2012). Emotional intelligence in personnel selection:

Applicant reactions, criterion, and incremental validity. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 20, 347-358.

Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on

employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13, 371-

388.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem,

neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common

core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710.

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013).

Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job

performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical

perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875-925.

Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self-

evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future

research. Human Performance, 17, 325-346.

Karim, M. N., Kaminsky, S. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and

performance in remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 555-572.

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts:

Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.

Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-593.

Lievens, F., Klehe, U. C., & Libbrecht, N. (2011). Applicant versus employee scores on self-

report emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 89-95.

Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., Cremers, M., Ven, C., & van der Heijden-Lek, K. (2014). The

general factor of personality (GFP) relates to other ratings of character and integrity:

Two validity studies in personnel selection and training of the Dutch armed forces.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 261-271.

Martin, B. A., Bowen, C. C., & Hunt, S. T. (2002). How effective are people at faking on

personality questionnaires? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 247-256.

Mc Manus, M. A., & Kelly, M. L. (1999). Personality measures and biodata: Evidence

regarding their incremental predictive value in the life insurance industry. Personnel

Psychology, 52, 137-148.

McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice

and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 103-

113.

McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational

judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 60, 63-91.

Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 57-150.

Moberg, P. J. (1998). Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity

and the five factor model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 258-285.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt,

N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts.

Personnel Psychology, 60, 683-729.

Mount, M. K. & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for

research and practice in human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),

 Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 153-200). London: JAI

Press.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and

performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11,

145-165.

Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton III, G. C. (2003). Faking and selection:

Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 88, 348-355.

Murphy, K. R. (2000). Impact of assessments of validity generalization and situational

specificity on the science and practice of personnel selection. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 8, 194-206.

Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczysnki, J. L. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of

personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18,

343-357.

Nikolaou, I. (2011). Core processes and applicant reactions to the employment interview: An

exploratory study in Greece. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

22, 2185-2201.

Nikolaou, I. (2014). Social networking web sites in job search and employee recruitment.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 179-189.

Oh, I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor

model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762-

773.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality

measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-

626.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on

personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human performance, 11,

245-269.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Personality at work: Criterion-focused occupational

personality scales used in personnel selection. In B. W. Roberts & R. T. Hogan (Eds.),

Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 63-92). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality

testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,

660-679.

Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity

test validities findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use

of broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 20, 389-405.

Penney, L. M., David, E., & Witt, L. A. (2011). A review of personality and performance:

Identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions. Human

Resource Management Review, 21, 297-310.

Reynolds, D. H., & Dickter, D. N. (2010). Technology and employee selection. In J. L. Farr

& N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 171-194). New York,

NY: Taylor & Francis.

Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2000). The assessment of personality constructs in

industrial-organizational psychology. In R. D. Goffin, & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems

 and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp.

215-248). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel

selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management

Review, 16, 155-180.

Rothstein, M. G., & Jelly, R. B. (2003). The challenge of aggregating studies of personality.

In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 223-262).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). A century of selection. Annual Review of

Psychology, 65, 693-717.

Ryan, A. M., Inceoglu, I., Bartram, D., Golubovich, J., Grand, J., Reeder, M., . . . Yao, X.

(2015). Trends in testing: Highlights of a global survey. In I. Nikolaou & J. K.

Oostrom (Eds.), Employee recruitment, selection, and assessment: Contemporary

issues for theory and practice (pp. 136-153). Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.

Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L., Baron, H., & Page, R. (1999). An international look at selection

practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel

Psychology, 52, 359-391.

Ryan, A. M., Reeder, M., Golubovich, J., Grand, J., Inceoglu, I., Bartram, D., . . . Yao, X. (in

press). Culture and Testing Practices: Is the World Flat? Applied Psychology.

Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59,

419-450.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the

European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.

Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five personality dimensions and job performance in army and civil

occupations: A European perspective. Human Performance, 11, 271-288.

Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Alonso, P. (2013). The sub-dimensional structure of the

Hogan personality inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21,

277-285.

Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., Sanchez, J., Alonso, P., Choragwicka, B., & Berges, A. (2014).

Validity of the Big Five and its facets for predicting performance: Testing three

competing hypotheses. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

24, 1-25.

Salgado, J., Anderson, N., & Hülsheger, U. (2010). Employee selection in Europe:

Psychotechnics and the forgotten history of modern scientific employee selection. In

J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of personnel selection (pp. 921-941).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbraum Associates.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in

personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research

findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Schmitt, N. (2014). Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of effective performance at

work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,

45-65.

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, 407-422.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broad sided by broad traits: How

to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17,

639-655.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job

performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.

 Tett, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on both

sides of the personality-job performance relationship. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 24, 335-356.

Van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor of

personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related

validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315-327.

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N. (2012). The

criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 97, 499-530.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications

for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-

210.

Voskuijl, O. (2005). Job analysis: Current and future perspectives. In A. Evers, N. Anderson,

& O. Voskuijl (Eds.), Handbook of personnel selection (pp. 27-46). Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing.

View publication stats