colleagues (Campbell et al. 1993 ) proposed a popular, multidimensional perform-
ance model, as have Borman and Motowidlo (Motowidlo 2003 ), who are con-
cerned with contextual performance. In addition, Organ ( 1997 ) and others have
written about citizenship behavior, and Pulakos and colleagues (Pulakos et al.
2000 ) have investigated adaptive performance. A third area that continues to
receive attention both in legal venues and psychological research is aYrmative
action and its impact on organizations and their members (Aguinis 2004 ; Bell et al.
2000 ). Fourth, some small amount of attention is being directed to the consider-
ation of how individual diVerences in the aggregate contribute to organizational
eVectiveness. This requires that we build and evaluate theories of staYng that link
individual, intermediate, and organizational levels (Ployhart 2004 ; Ployhart and
Schneider in press). The need for multilevel theories of job performance and
organizational eVectiveness is underscored by the increasing use of teams and by
research on team composition and eVectiveness (e.g. Carpenter et al. 2004 ).
Perhaps spurred in part by the 9 / 11 tragedy and recent corporate scandals, aWfth
topic that organizations have become increasingly concerned about is employee
deviance and counterproductivity (Ones 2002 ).
The traditional selection model outlined at the beginning of this chapter has
served organizational researchers well over most of theWrst century in the appli-
cation of personnel selection research. TheWve issues mentioned above complicate
or expand the concerns inherent in this traditional approach to selection decision-
making. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to each of these concerns in more
detail and the relevant, recent research (primarily studies published since 2000 ).
The concluding section of the chapter outlines the implications for organizations
and describes some of the questions that we believe warrant more attention.
- 1 Selection and Organizational EVectiveness
In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in establishing that selection
procedures and the human capital attracted by an organization have an impact on
organizational-level outcomes such as proWtability and productivity. Studies have
also attempted to show what combinations of human resource interventions, as
well as other organizational inputs, have such impact. Early approaches that
examined the impact of selection decision practices at the organizational level
did so in isolation of other human resource (HR) functions (e.g. Terpstra and
Rozell 1993 ). These studies were soon replaced by studies looking at the eVect of
multiple HR functions (Huselid 1995 ) and speciWc combinations of functions,
sometimes thought to represent ‘high-performance work systems’ (Becker and
Huselid 1998 ).
Terpstra and Rozell ( 1993 ) reported correlational data supporting the conclusion
that organizations using a wide variety of selection procedures (such as interviews,
selection decision-making 303