Critical Review of Selection Practices Across Different Organization Sizes and Industry Sectors
In this paper, it will be argued that Zibarras and woods’ (2010) research of selection practices is a meaningful but problematic piece of research. The argument will be developed by a critical review of Zibarras and woods’ research, discussing in turn its background, methods, results, discussions and implications.
The paper of Zibarras and Woods reports a study examining the selection methods in 579 UK organizations representing a range of different industry sectors and organization sizes. In this paper, Zibarras and Woods aim to discuss the differences across these organizations and indicate the relation to their implications, both in terms of practice and future research. Zibarras and Woods are critical of the established literature on the prevalence of different selection methods. A problem identified by Zibarras and Woods is the increase of small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which caused by the significant growth up before the recent global economic downturn. This study differentiates between two kinds of selection method: unstructured or informal methods and formalized methods which have a clear methodological underpinning in the way candidates are assessed. In order to show that the prevalence of selection method, Zibarras and Woods cited Robertson and Makin (1986) along with Shackleton and Newell (1994)’ found that only a small percentage of organizations used formalized selection method but there was an increase in the use of formalized methods. From Keenan (1995), Hodgkinson and Payne’s (1998) survey, it seems like that interview is a prevalent used selection method. However, it’s no clear whether Zibarras and Woods refer to formal selection method as studies did not clarify whether the interview was structured or unstructured. By cited Barber, Wesson and Rpberson and Taylor, (1999) Zibarras and Woods suggest that large firms and SMEs might differ when it comes to employee selection. They believe large organizations have greater
The paper of Zibarras and Woods reports a study examining the selection methods in 579 UK organizations representing a range of different industry sectors and organization sizes. In this paper, Zibarras and Woods aim to discuss the differences across these organizations and indicate the relation to their implications, both in terms of practice and future research. Zibarras and Woods are critical of the established literature on the prevalence of different selection methods. A problem identified by Zibarras and Woods is the increase of small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which caused by the significant growth up before the recent global economic downturn. This study differentiates between two kinds of selection method: unstructured or informal methods and formalized methods which have a clear methodological underpinning in the way candidates are assessed. In order to show that the prevalence of selection method, Zibarras and Woods cited Robertson and Makin (1986) along with Shackleton and Newell (1994)’ found that only a small percentage of organizations used formalized selection method but there was an increase in the use of formalized methods. From Keenan (1995), Hodgkinson and Payne’s (1998) survey, it seems like that interview is a prevalent used selection method. However, it’s no clear whether Zibarras and Woods refer to formal selection method as studies did not clarify whether the interview was structured or unstructured. By cited Barber, Wesson and Rpberson and Taylor, (1999) Zibarras and Woods suggest that large firms and SMEs might differ when it comes to employee selection. They believe large organizations have greater