Before concluding this section, we also note that the progress in research on
deviance/counterproductivity occurs at a relatively slow pace partly because of ‘the
Achilles’ heel of counterproductivity research’ (Sackett 2002 : 7 ). While some forms
of counterproductive behavior are public (e.g. absence), many are acts by employ-
ees who do not wish to be detected (e.g. theft, sabotage, harassment). This means
that employees’ status on the criterion of interest is very diYcult to determine and
that some instances of counterproductive behavior go undetected. Despite this
barrier, continual eVorts to understand negative work behaviors will undoubtedly
improve the capability of future selection systems to increase organizational eVec-
tiveness.
- 6 Additional Current Issues
Those familiar with the selection literature would undoubtedly add other com-
plexities to traditional concerns of criterion-related validity. The following are
some other issues that we believe are important, but for which space considerations
preclude a more extensive discussion. Today’s workforce is often geographically
dispersed and people often work very diVerent schedules (e.g. Martins et al. 2004 ).
ThisXexibility in the manner, time, and place of work require new considerations
when organizations hire people into these positions. Technology has also brought
changes in the way in which selection devices are administered (Potosky and Bobko
2004 ), which in turn has produced interesting research on measurement equiva-
lency and validity, applicant reactions, and test security. The rapid globalization of
major organizations has meant that their staVs are often assigned to work in
foreign countries. Concerns about expatriate selection often involve spousal issues
(e.g. Takeuchi et al. 2002 ) and training to cope in cultures very diVerent from one’s
home country (Lievens et al. 2003 ). Mergers and acquisitions (e.g. CoV 2002) often
create a situation in which the new organizational entity has surplus talent in some
areas, or the merger creates the need for individuals with a new combination of
KSAOs. In the lastWfteen years, interest in the reactions of the employees or
applicants that are the targets of organizations’ selection decisions has burgeoned
(Gilliland 1993 ).
15.4 Conclusion
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
We began with a brief summary of the traditional test validation model that has
guided selection decision-making for over 100 years. While this model is still
314 neal schmitt and brian kim