6
SCHWERPUNKT
_INTERVIEW
PERSONALquarterly 04/17
PERSONALquarterly:
From your point of view, what are the core
concepts of recruitment and selection? How do they differ from
the all-embracing buzzword “employer branding”?
Filip Lievens:
There are some important differences between
these various terms. Recruitment is much broader than emplo-
yer branding is. Recruitment is defined as all activities that an
organization undertakes with the primary aim to identify po-
tential employees and to attract these employees. Basically, rec-
ruitment contains three stages: attracting potential applicants,
ensuring that applicants remain in the application process and,
finally, influencing applicants towards choosing the job.
Employer branding is more specific because it refers to pro-
moting internally and externally what makes a company attrac-
tive and distinct. Therefore, if employer branding is successful,
it might influence these three stages in recruitment, namely
attracting potential applicants, making sure that applicants
stay in the application process, and influencing them that they
accept the job offer. Employer branding might be seen as one
strategy to increase and improve recruitment.
Conversely, selection is very different. Selection deals with
estimating the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characte-
ristics of candidates to predict their job performance and or-
ganizational fit. By assessing people’s competencies, we are
trying to predict that they will be competent and committed
(engaged) employees with high integrity.
PERSONALquarterly:
What do you like most when you think about
research on recruitment and selection and why?
Filip Lievens:
One of the most important aspects about research
on recruitment and selection is that it is evidence-based and
practical. It has an impact on what organizations do and can
do to be more effective. That is one of the things I always liked
about research on recruitment and selection. I notice this
when I speak to practitioners. I feel I can actually address key
questions for people and for organizations. The second aspect
I like about research on recruitment and selection is that
there are always two parties involved. Thus, all implications of
my research have implications for both: candidates and orga-
nizations. This makes it an interesting domain to do research
on because you always have to make sure that the research
Recruitment and selection have effects on
firm performance
Das Interview mit
Prof. Dr. Filip Lievens
führte
Dr. Marius Wehner
evidence that you put forward to organizations is not only im-
portant for the organization but also for the people involved.
For instance, you might design a selection process that is va-
lid, but applicants might not like it. Even though the process
is valid, it will score lower in terms of promoting the employer
brand of the organization. Another example is that you might
design a selection process which is valid, but it might reduce
diversity. That is, it might generate adverse impact. In those
cases, then you have to adjust your selection strategy that you
offer to organizations.
This shows that this research domain is both evidence-based
and practical at the same time. Moreover, it is a domain where
you have to find a solution which is both profitable for organi-
zations and suitable for the applicants.
PERSONALquarterly:
Experienced recruiters might argue that
their personal feeling or impression about candidates is more
reliable for predicting organizational fit or job performance
than credentials, job references, tests or assessment centers.
What would you say?
Filip Lievens:
This is indeed a question that often pops up
when you talk to people in practice. There is also a lot of re-
search that shows the stubborn resistance among selection
and recruitment professionals to use more structured and
standardized instruments in their selection practice. The
best example is the resistance among interviewers to use
structured interview questions even though research shows
that structured interviews are more reliable and valid than
unstructured interviews. Research also revealed that we
seem to have an innate tendency to trust ourselves in ma-
king judgments about people.
I acknowledge that there might be people who are very expe-
rienced in judging people and that they might have a good gut
feeling which enables them to make adequate assessments
about the competencies of people, their future job perfor-
mance, and their fit to the organization. Definitely, there are
people who can do this job well. On the other hand, the main
question is: What is gut feeling? How do we train people in
this? When I teach selection to young people, it is often much
better to teach them how to judge people in a more structured
