Comparing hiring strategies in a committee with similarity biases

Manuscript

Abstract

We present an organizational model that develops organizational expertise and socialization with a hiring process informed by the inherent biases of individuals. We present factors that we believe critically impact candidate selection, literature related to these factors, and our resulting equations. We discuss the model, and present two virtual experiments. The first virtual experiment was used to validate the new model by comparing the implementation with an existing reference implementation—we found similar patterns—which established relational equivalence. The second virtual experiment compared organizations with and without a stochastic selection process and with various selection strategies. Organizations that stressed socialization tended to need to review more (otherwise equally qualified) applicants than organizations that did not, and organizations that were able to deliberate more thoroughly found turnover less effective at maintaining organizational performance. Larger committees reduced the number of applicants that needed to be reviewed in firms that valued diversity, but offered no particular benefit to other organizations.

Keywords

Individual Differences Organizational models Behavioral moderators Organizational performance 

References

  1. Axtell R, Axelrod R, Epstein JM, Cohen MD (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:123–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branham L (2005) The seven hidden reasons people leave: how to recognize the subtle signs and act before it’s too late. In: AMACOM Google Scholar
  3. Caplan G (1974) Support systems and community mental health: lectures on concept development. Behavioral Publications, New York Google Scholar
  4. Chekroun RB, Brauer M (2002) The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. Eur J Soc Psychol 32(6):853–867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) Focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(6):1015–1026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinter E (1985) Hero or coward: pressures facing the soldier in battle. Frank Cass, Totowa Google Scholar
  7. Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7(2):117–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grossman DL (1995) On killing: the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. Little, Brown, New York Google Scholar
  9. Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP (1998) Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface and deep level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad Manag J 41(1):96–107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Latane B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  11. Lee TW, Maurer SD (1999) The effects of family structure on organizational commitment: intention to leave and voluntary turnover. J Manag Issue 11:4 Google Scholar
  12. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McFadden D (1980) Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. J Bus 53(3):S13–S29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L (1987) Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. Am Sociol Rev 52:370–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ, Erez M (2001) Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Acad Manag J 44(6):1102–1121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morgan JH, Morgan GP, Ritter FE (2010) A preliminary model of participation for small groups. Comput Math Organ Theory 16:246–270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Park RE (1924) The concept of social distance as applied to the study of racial attitudes and racial relations. J Appl Sociol 8:339–344 Google Scholar
  18. Parker LE (1993) When to fix it and when to leave: relationships among perceived control, self-efficacy, dissent, and exit. J Appl Psychol 78(6):949–959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perloff RM (1993) Third-person effect research 1983–1992: a review and synthesis. Int J Public Opin Res 5:167–184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schneider B (1987) The people make the place. Pers Psychol 40(3):437–453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Slater PE (1958) Contrasting correlates of group size. Sociometry 21:129–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith ER, Mackie DM (1995) Social psychology. Worth, New York Google Scholar
  23. Terborg JR, Castore C, DeNinno JA (1976) A longitudinal field investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. J Pers Soc Psychol 34:782–790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science, Institute for Software ResearchCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations