Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-17T00:19:27.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Intuiting the Selection Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Richard Klimoski*
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Robert G. Jones
Affiliation:
Missouri State University
*
E-mail: rklimosk@gmu.edu, Address: School of Management, Enterprise Hall MSN 1B1, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

School of Management, George Mason University

**

Department of Psychology, Missouri State University

References

Austin, J. T., Klimoski, R. J., & Hunt, S. T. (1996). Dilemmatics in public sector assessments: A framework for developing and evaluating selection systems. Human Performance, 9, 177198.Google Scholar
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizational and human resource management. In Ferris, G. R. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 152). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Gilliland, S. W., & Cherry, B. (2000). Managing “customers” of selection processes. In Kehoe, J. (Ed.), Managing selection in changing organizations (pp. 158196). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333342.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S., & Harris, M. M. (1993). The measurement of assessment center situations: Bem’s template matching technique for examining exercise similarity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 140155.Google Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 13851400.Google Scholar
Johns, G. (1993). Constraints on the adoption of psychology based personnel practices: Lessons from organizational innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46, 569592.Google Scholar
Jones, R. G., Stevens, M. J., & Fischer, D. L. (2000). Selection in team contexts. In Kehoe, J. F. (Ed.), Managing selection in changing organizations (pp. 210241). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. (1975) On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769783.Google Scholar
Klimoski, R. J., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision making: Key issues in matching people and teams. In Guzzo, R. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 291332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Morrison, R. F. (1998). Games raters play: Politics, strategies, and impression management in performance appraisal. In Smither, J. W. (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 163205). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Martin, K. D., Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2007). Deciding to bribe: A cross level analysis of firm and home country influences on bribery activity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 14011422.Google Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M. (2004). When the psychometrics of test development meets organizational realities: A conceptual framework for organizational change, examples, and recommendations. Personnel Psychology, 57, 175209.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. R., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence based practice. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 9871008.Google Scholar