Personality Inventories are another tool used in selection processes.

They measure personality characteristics of applicants in relation to future job performance. Personality tests typically measure five major dimensions known as the ‘Big Five’- extraversion, adjustment, agreeableness, conscientiousness and inquisitiveness (Barrick & Mount, 1991). These traits are usually low in validity and generalisability however; conscientiousness is one of the few factors that display any validity across a number of job categories.Many employers rate this trait as one of the most important characteristics they look for employees (Behling, 1998). People with conscientiousness show more stamina at work, which is helpful in many occupations when there is a need to work many hours. Conscientiousness is a good predictor when teamed with tests of mental ability because there is a stronger relationship between this trait and performance when ability is high (Wright, Kacmar et al.

, 1995). There are other contexts where the other traits relate to job performance such as extroversion and agreeableness seem to be related when it comes to sales or management roles especially team environments. It is noteworthy to say that high validity is found on these traits when scores are taken from other people. This is due to the fact that applicants are able to fake their responses to personality items depending what the job is looking for.Assessment Centres are becoming an increasingly popular form of personnel selection for companies. The term is used to describe a wide variety of specific selection programs that employ multiple selection methods to rate either applicants on their work potential (Di Cieri & Kramer, 2003).

Assessment centres have been haunted by lack of validity due to the confusion about constructs being measured, rating errors and participant inconsistencies in behaviour across exercises (Arthur & Tubre, 1999).However, features that can improve assessment centre are; having only a few conceptually distinct constructs, concrete job-related constructs, cross-exercise assessment and several psychology trained assessor (Lievens, 1998). Because of these multiple selection methods, their validity can be quite high.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Research has indicated that one of the best combinations of selection methods includes work-sample tests with a highly structures interview and a measure of general cognitive ability (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). An emerging topic of selection methods is Team Member Selection.Companies are becoming more aware of the importance team-based structures are to their organisations and how important it is to employ a team player (Howard, 1995). Individual characteristics and types of tasks interact within a team to influence the team performance and effectiveness.

Team studies have shown that team decision-making accuracy over time tends to be best when all members are high in conscientiousness and cognitive ability (Le Pine et al 1997). Barrick et al (1998) found that conscientiousness, cognitive ability and extraversion all predicted overall team performance.The selection models discussed above are all applications that have been introduced to help companies select the right candidate for their organisation. However, it is the belief that many employers do not have selection procedures in place or have not wished to update and adapt their processes for the changing needs of their companies.

The aim in this study is to look at the current Human Resource selection strategies of three companies and compare the selection methods they use with the methods discussed above.