¿Cómo perciben los candidatos los procesos de selección?Una aproximación desde el modelo de Justicia Procedimental de Gilliland (1993)

  1. García-Salmones Fernández, Lourdes
  2. Osca Segovia, Amparo
Revista:
Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

ISSN: 1576-5962

Any de publicació: 2004

Volum: 20

Número: 2

Pàgines: 225-248

Tipus: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccés obert editor

Altres publicacions en: Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

Resum

This paper examines applicant perception of selection processes and its relation on the onehand with a number of sociodemographic variables, including gender, age and education,and on the other hand with career variables such as unemployment time, assessment of experience and to stop looking for a job. The starting point is the Spanish version of the SelectionProcedural Justice Scale by Bauer, Truxillo, Sánchez, Craig, Ferrara and Campion (2001)based in its turn on Gilliland’s (1993) ten procedural justice rules. Results show that applicants perceived consistency in test administration, open communication, fair treatment, and two-way communication. Results were poorer in chance to perform and reconsiderationopportunity. Education is negatively associated with process assessment but age and unemployment time are not. Unexpectedly, being selected or not in the end does not affect justiceperception, although among selected applicants the relationship between tests and job doesinfluence their self-confidence after the selection process. Finally, none of Gilliland’s factor sexplain either applicant assessment of the selection process or his/her looking for a job. Some recommendations are given about how to improve applicant’s perception of selection processes

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. En L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Psychology (Vol.2, pp. 267-299). Nueva York: Academic Press.
  • Anderson, N., Born, M. y CunninghamSnell, N. (2001). Recruitment and selection: applicant perspectives and outcomes. En N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil y Ch. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 1, pp. 200-218). Londres: Sage.
  • Arvey, R.D. y Sackett, P.R. (1993). Fairness in selection: current developments and perspectives. En N. Schmitt y W. Borman (Eds.). Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Baños, R. M. y Guillén, V. (2000). Psychometric characteristics in normal and social phobic samples for a Spanish version of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. Psychological Reports, Vol 87(1), pp. 269- 274.
  • Bauer, T., Maertz, C.P., Dolen, M.R. y Campion, M.A. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 83(6), pp. 892-903.
  • Bauer, T.N., Truxillo, D.M., Sanchez, R.J., Craig, J.M., Ferrara, Ph. y Campion, M.A. (2001). Applicant reactions to selec- tion: Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology, Vol 54(2), pp. 388-420.
  • Bell, B.S., Ryan, A.M. y Wiechmann, D. (2004). Justice Expectations and Applicant Perceptions. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, Vol 12(1-2), pp. 24-38.
  • Bies, R.J. y Moag, J.S. (1986). International justice: communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in organizations, vol. 1, 43-55.
  • Chan, D. y Schmitt, N. (2004). An Agenda for Future Research on Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: A Construct-Oriented Approach. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, Vol 12(1-2), pp. 9-23.
  • Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R.P., Clause, S. y Delbridge, C. (1997). Reac- tions to cognitive ability tests: The relationships between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 82(2), pp. 300-310.
  • Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J.M. y DeShon, R.P. (1998). Understanding pretest and post-reactions to cognitive ability and personality test. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 83, 471-422.
  • Cropanzano, R. y Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 74(2), pp. 293- 299.
  • Cropanzano, R. y Randall, M.L. (1993). Injustice and work behavior: A historical review. En R. Cropanzano (Ed.) Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 3-20). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cunningham-Snell, N.A. (1999). Alternative perspectives on selection: social impact and validation of graduate selection within a multinational oil company. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Londres.
  • Derous, E. y De Witte, K. (2001). Looking at selection from a social process perspective: Towards a social process model on personnel. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, Vol 10(3), pp. 319-342.
  • Elkins, T.J. y Phillips, J.S. (2000). Job context, selection decision outcome, and the perceived fairness of selection tests: Biodata as an illustrative case. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 85(3), pp. 479- 484.
  • Gilliland, S.W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, Vol 18(4), pp. 694- 734.
  • Gilliland, S.W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 79(5), pp. 691-701.
  • Guion, R.M. (1965) Synthetic validity in a small company: A demonstration. Personnel Psychology, Vol 18(1), pp. 49-63.
  • Harris, M. Lievens, F. y Van Hoye, G. (2004). "I Think They Discriminated Against Me": Using Prototype Theory and Organizational Justice Theory for Unders- tanding Perceived Discrimination in Selection and Promotion Situations. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, Vol 12(1-2), pp. 54-65.
  • Iles, P. y Robertson, I. (1989). The impact of personal selection procedures on candidate. en P. Herriot (Ed.) Handbook of Assessment in Organizations, pp. 257-271. Londres: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Kluger, A.N. y Rothstein, H.R. (1993). The influence of selection test type on applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol 8(1), pp. 3-25.
  • Maass, A. y Volpato, Ch. (1994). Theo- retical perspectives on minority influence: Conversion versus divergence? En S. Moscovichi y A. Mucchi-Faina (Eds.). Minority Influence (pp. 135-147). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
  • Macan, Th., Avedon, M.J., Paese, M. y Smith, D.E. (1999). The effects of applicants´ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, 715-735.
  • Ployhart, R.E. y Magan, A.M. (1998). Toward an explanation of applicant reactions: an examination of organizational justice and attributions frameworks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 72, 308-335.
  • Ployhart, R.E. y Ryan, A.M. (1998). Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 83(1), pp. 3-16.
  • Ployhart, R.E., Ryan, A.M. y Bennett, M. (1999). Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants' reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 84(1), pp. 87-106.
  • Robertson, I.T. y Smith, M. (1989). Personnel selection methods. En M. Smith e I.T. Robertson (Eds) Advances in selection and assessment (pp. 89-112). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Rosenberg, M. (1965). The association between self-esteem and anxiety. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1(2), pp. 135-152.
  • Rynes, S.L. y Connerley, M.L. (1993). Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures. Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol 7(3), pp. 261-277.
  • Schmit, M.J. y Ryan, A.M. (1997). Applicant withdrawal: The role of testtaking attitudes and racial differences. Personnel Psychology, Vol 50(4), pp. 855- 876.
  • Schuler, H. (1993). Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. En H. Schuler y J.L. Farr (Eds.) Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 11-26). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Seymour, S. (1988). The making of an American psychologist: An autobiography. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Smither, J., Reilly, R., Millsap, R., Pearlman, K. y Stoffey, S. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, Vol 46(1), pp. 49-76.
  • Terpstra, D.E., Mohamme, A. y Kerthley, R.B. (1999). An analysis of federal court cases involving nine selection devices. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, Vol 7(1), pp. 26-34.
  • Thorsteinson , T.J. y Ryan, A.M. (1997). The effects of selection ratio on perceptions of fairness of a selection battery. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 5(3), 159-168.
  • Truxillo, D.M. y Bauer, T.N. (1999). Applicant reactions to test scores banding in entry-level and promotional contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 84(3), pp. 322-339.
  • Van Vianen, A., Taris, R., Scholten, E. y Schinkel, S. (2004). Perceived Fairness in Personnel Selection: Determinants and Outcomes in Different Stages of the Assessment Procedure. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, Vol 12(1- 2), pp. 149-159.
  • Viswesvaran, Ch. y Ones, D.S. (2004). Importance of Perceived Personnel Selection System Fairness Determinants: Relations with Demographic, Personality, and Job Characteristics. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, Vol 12(1-2), pp. 172-186.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet