Advertisement

Impact of Selection and Training Research on Productivity, Quality of Work Life, and Profits

  • Wayne F. Cascio

Abstract

This chapter is not a comprehensive review of the research literature relevant to personnel selection and training research. Rather it attempts to place the subjects of selection and training in perspective--that is, in terms of their partial contribution to employee productivity, quality of work life, and profits. Then we will present examples of the contribution of four types of behavioral science interventions: an absenteeism control program, an employee assistance program, a goal setting and feedback program, and an assessment center selection program. Let us begin by defining our terms.

Keywords

Goal Setting Selection Program Assessment Center Personnel Selection Employee Assistance Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. America makes gains in productivity. ( 1987, January 9). Business Times, p. 5.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (1987). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures ( 3rd ed. ). College Park, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Society for Training and Development. (1986). Serving the new corporation. Alexandria, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Boudreau, J. W. (1983). Economic considerations in estimating the utility of human resource productivity improvement programs. Personnel Psychology, 36, 551–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brogden, H. E. (1949). When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology, 2, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cascio, W. F. (1986). Managing human resources. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Cascio, W. F. (1987). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations ( 2nd ed. ). Boston: Kent.Google Scholar
  9. Cascio, W. F., & Ramos, R. A. (1986). Development and application of a new method for assessing job performance in behavioral/economic terms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions ( 2nd ed. ). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dennis, E. F. (1979). Accounting for slower economic growth--The United States in the 1970s. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  13. Eaton, N. K., Wing, H., & Mitchell, K. J. (1985). Alternate methods of estimating the dollar value of performance. Personnel Psychology, 38, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaeta, E., Lynn, R., & Grey, L. ( 1982, May-June). AT&T looks at program evaluation. EAP Digest, pp. 22–31.Google Scholar
  15. Greer, D. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1987). Is cost accounting the answer? A comparison of two behaviorally-based methods for estimating the standard deviation of job performance with a cost accounting approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 588–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically-based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helping workers to work smarter. ( 1987, June 8). Fortune, pp. 86–88.Google Scholar
  18. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating Research finding across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Lawler, E. E. III. (1982). Strategies for improving the quality of work life. American Psychologist, 37, 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Packer, M. B. ( 1983, February-March). Measuring the intangible in productivity. Technology Review, 86, 48–87.Google Scholar
  22. Schlotzhauer, D. L., & Rosse, J. G. (1985). A five-year study of a positive incentive absence control program. Personnel Psychology, 38, 575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1983). Individual differences in productivity: An empirical test of estimates derived from studies of selection procedure utility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., & Muldrow, T. W. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures on work force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Outerbridge, A. N., & Trattner, M. H. (1986). The economic impact of job selection methods on size, productivity, and payroll costs of the federal work force: An empirically-based demonstration. Personnel Psychology, 39, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. D., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thornton, G. C. III, & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial performance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne F. Cascio
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessUniversity of ColoradoDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations