4.2 Article

Selection Tool Use in Canadian Tech Companies: Assessing and Explaining the Research-Practice Gap

Publisher

CANADIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/cbs0000263

Keywords

personnel selection; research-practice gap; selection tools; technology companies

Funding

  1. Lazaridis Institute for the Management of Technology Enterprises

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hiring the right people at the right time is crucial for the successful growth of any organization. Many tech companies are not following the most reliable selection methods, instead prioritizing efficiency and maintaining the status quo. Future research directions and practical advice are provided to help these companies better acquire talent.
Hiring the right people at the right time is essential for the successful growth of any organization. Although organizational researchers have identified the most reliable and valid methods for selecting employees, many companies are not following these recommendations and are missing out on top talent as a result. In the present research we focus on the selection methods of tech companies using a two-study, mixed-methods design. In Study 1 we surveyed 120 tech company representatives who were knowledgeable about their company's hiring practices (e.g., HR professionals, CEOs, CODs). It was found that tech companies are far behind the science and tend to use selection practices known to be poor predictors of performance. In Study 2 we interviewed 18 tech company representatives (17 of which were from organizations that participated in Study 1) about the reasons their company uses their selection practices. We found that tech companies are not particularly concerned with reliability or validity and, instead, value efficiency and maintaining the status quo. Future research directions and practical advice to help tech companies better acquire talent are provided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available