Stephen W. Gilliland

Procedural Justice in Personnel Selection: International and Cross-Cultural Perspectives

This article considers the relationships between culture and reactions to personnel selection procedures. The limited international research that has examined perceptions of procedural justice of different selection techniques is reviewed. The consistency in reactions and underlying procedural dimensions associated with those reactions is noteworthy across the countries that have been studied. We also propose a model of cross-cultural influences on procedural justice in personnel selection by identifying those cultural dimensions that are most likely to influence the salience of different distributive and procedural justice rules. The discussion addresses whether cultural dimensions can adequately capture the international dimensions that most centrally influence reactions to selection procedures and how knowledge of cultural influences on reactions can aid the implementation of selection procedures that are unfamiliar to a particular country.

Why we do the things we do: a discussion and analysis of determinants of just treatment in layoff implementation decisions

Abstract We present a model to explain the variation that exists in how individuals are treated (e.g., notice and explanation provided) during corporate layoffs. Propensity to treat individuals justly and costs and constraints that limit just treatment in a layoff situation are discussed at the organizational and managerial levels. A survey of human resource (HR) managers (n=543) was used to examine predictors of layoff informational justice (e.g., advanced notice, method of informing, and amount of information) and interpersonal justice (e.g., manager demeanor, concerns for sabotage, and escorting layoff victims off the premises). Responses demonstrated more justice in the implementation of layoffs than is suggested from anecdotal “downsizing horror stories” found in the popular press. Informational justice dimensions were predicted by both organizational and managerial factors. For example, less advanced notice was provided when the reason for the layoff was exogenous, such as an economic downturn, then when it was endogenous, such as an organizational restructuring. Additionally, although many companies used individual meetings when informing victims of a layoff, group notification was used more as the size of the layoff increased. There was also much variation in layoff implementation that was not readily explainable by organizational and managerial factors, particularly with regard to interpersonal justice.

Why Meta-Analysis Doesn’t Tell Us What the Data Really Mean: Distinguishing between Moderator Effects and Moderator Processes

Traditional approaches to detecting the presence of moderators in meta-analyses involve inferences drawn from the residual variance in criterion-related validities (a) after correcting for sampling error and statistical artifacts. James, Demaree, Mulaik, and Ladd (1992) argued that these residualized interpretations of meta-analytic results may be spurious when statistical artifacts covary with true moderators. We extend their model to suggest that situational moderators might also covary with sample size and content (i.e., nonrandom sample selection error), causing meta-analysis to be uninterpretable and a significant correlation between criterion-related validities and ni. We investigate this possibility on studies examining criterion-related validities ofpeer nominations originally reported by Kane and Lawler (1978). Application of residualized meta-analysis suggests the presence of moderator effects, but a significant correlation between ri and ni precludes interpretation of the moderator process behi...

Canadian and American Reactions to Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs in the Workplace

We investigated U.S. and Canadian reactions to workplace drug and alcohol testing programs. Canadian truck drivers (n = 183) deemed drug and alcohol testing policies less fair, and were less accepting of these policies, than their American counterparts (n = 153). We also compared the perspectives of recipients versus third-party observers with regard to their reactions to a drug testing program. Unlike the pattern observed among American observers, the responses by Canadian observers were highly similar to those of the recipients. Canadian observers were more inclined to file a formal protest regarding the implementation of a drug and alcohol testing program than were U.S. observers. The results also showed that procedural and interactional justice principles contributed to the programs fairness, acceptance, and lower levels of protest intentions in both Canada and the United States. We propose that scholars and practitioners can gain a better understanding of multinational reactions to drug and alcohol testing by considering not only cultural but also historical, social, political, and other environmental factors that can shape reactions to personnel practices.

Selection in the wrkplace: Whose rights prevail?

The selection process involves a very difficult balancing act for employers who have to weigh the rights and concerns of applicants, current employees, the organization itself, and society as a whole. Each of these perspectives brings with it its own set of concerns and issues that need to be considered in the broader hiring arena. Applicants assert the right to be treated fairly while being evaluated for a position; current employees assert the right to productive coworkers who will not harm them on the job, organizations assert the right to hire qualified employees while remaining cognizant of the legal issues that surround the hiring process; and society as a whole asserts the right to a process that benefits the greater good. But, with each of these groups pursuing these rights, an important question arises as to whose rights prevail when there is a conflict. This paper, through the use of a true scenario, explores the difficult balancing act between rights and concerns of applicants, current employees, organizations, and society as a whole and discusses whose rights should take priority when they conflict.

The Motive Expression-Attribution Model of Pro-Customer Rule Breaking

Service employees sometimes break rules to enhance service quality, however efforts to define and conceptualize these behaviors have resulted in constructs that have proven to be both overlapping and insufficient. In this paper, we organize previous research into pro-customer rule breaking (PCRB) behavior, and introduce the Expression-Attribution model of PCRB to explain how a PCRB event is experienced by the employee and the customer. PCRB is an expression of an employee’s motivational orientations toward the organization and the customer, while customer reactions to PCRB stem from impression-based attributions made about these motivational orientations. PCRB thus contains implicit meaning for the customer beyond the transfer of material benefits.