fulWllment of higher-level needs. Although the Wrst section of this chapter
suggested that selection decisions and general HR practices must be compatible,
this section provides a closer look at how individuals can be selected to fulWll needs
beyond their speciWc job.
From a selection perspective, some theories imply that individuals perform
behaviors (e.g. citizenship; Borman and Motowidlo 1997 ) both to increase the
eVectiveness of higher-level units and to accomplish speciWc job tasks. Ehrhart and
Naumann ( 2004 )oVered one way of viewing citizenship behaviors in the aggregate
to explain how norms of cooperation and altruistic behavior are developed. Having
similar objectives, DeShon et al. ( 2004 ) proposed a multilevel model of goal-setting
as it moves from the individual to the team level, and Stewart et al. ( 2005 ) explored
the use of team member roles for explaining how individual personality traits aVect
team cohesion and performance.
From the perspective of team performance researchers, the vast literature on
team/group processes shows that communication and coordination, culture and
norms, Wt, and many other behaviors and attitudes are important for group
eVectiveness. However, only a few studies have directly linked individual charac-
teristics to team-level processes. Miller ( 2001 ) and McClough and Rogelberg ( 2003 )
provided evidence to support earlier validation work (Stevens and Campion 1994 )
that a test of teamwork KSAs could predict group eVectiveness and individual
performance within teams, respectively. The most recent study using the test
showed that teamwork KSAs mediated the eVect of job autonomy on team
performance and job strain (Leach et al. 2005 ).
Still, more work on the generalizability of such characteristics is needed, espe-
cially considering the many types of teams that exist (Sundstrom et al. 1990 ) and
the varied tasks (i.e. disjunctive and conjunctive) they must accomplish. Once valid
individual- and team-level KSAs are identiWed, multilevel perspectives also suggest
that the conWguration of existing personnel may determine group eVectiveness.
Work on team conWgurations and the distribution of member KSAs (e.g. structural
contingency theory; Hollenbeck et al. 2002 ) suggests that gaps in team capabilities
can beWlled either by selecting replacement personnel or by reconWguring team
processes or structures.
Perhaps the most important implication of adopting a multilevel perspective for
selection is that incompatibilities between organizational subsystems can reduce
overall eVectiveness. OstroV( 2002 ) notes that plant-level practices may conXict
with organization-wide policies. Similarly, Ployhart and Schneider ( 2002 a) use an
example of the trade-oVbetween validity and diversity to illustrate how maximiz-
ing individual performance with cognitive selection measures can have harmful
eVects on organizational policies regarding diversity. Hence, higher-level outcomes
(like diversity) may result only when lower-level units perform at a subpar level,
particularly when the units are competing for the same organizational resources.
Yet, this assertion also implies that organizations can achieve certain outcomes by
310 neal schmitt and brian kim