Developments in Recruitment and Selection Research

Recruitment and selection (R&S) constitute one of the oldest areas in the field of applied psychology and still is one of the most important domains of talent management and human resources (HR), appealing to a large number of researchers and HR practitioners (Ryan & Ployhart, 2014). Times are changing and the area of R&S is also rapidly evolving, pushed forward by strategic issues, societal pressures, and technological developments. Given the so-called ‘war’ for talent that organizations suffer during the last decades in Europe and beyond, R&S has even taken a more central place in the organization’s strategy and talent management in particular. The strategic role that R&S plays in organizations has triggered a host of new developments, and has expanded traditional conceptualizations of R&S practices with insights from other disciplines, like economics and marketing (e.g., organizational branding; Yu & Cable, 2012), information, communication and computer technology (e.g., social media, Van Iddekinge, Lanivich, Roth, & Junco, 2013), and even biology (e.g., biomarkers; Becker & Menges, 2013). Consider for instance ‘recruitment games’ (Marsh, 2011) or serious games that are introduced as a hybrid kind of recruitment and testing tools. Such new tools increase efficiency by simultaneously attracting and screening applicants early in the hiring cycle, thereby creating more compressed hiring and socialization cycles for both individuals and organizations. At the same time, high technological recruitment games have a marketing intent as they might brand the organization’s image, help with public relations, and strategically position the organization in the local job market. Aside from any strategic impetus, diverse societal challenges in Europe also push R&S practices forward. One of the most challenging and pressing drivers are current demographic changes, due to the currently unseen migratory waves in Europe, which in due time may create an even more complex society and diverse labor market (e.g., Artuc, Docquier, € Ozden, & Parsons, 2015). Indeed, given these dynamics, it is our expectation that issues like the assessment of minority groups (regarding age, gender, ethnicity, disabilities, . . .) will become even more important in the forthcoming years and will continue challenging well-established staffing models/tools that fit Westerncentered HR policies and thinking about talented workers. Finally, one of the greatest changes in R&S practices is considered to be ‘technology-linked’ (Ryan et al., 2015). Indeed, technological advancements reshape R&S practices by means of multimedia tools (like mobile testing, video r"esum"es, use of LinkedIn as recruitment platform, etc.) and the use of online applicant tracking systems (as part of human resource information systems) that might increase the efficiency of the recruitment and assessment process to both recruiters and applicants. Although some multimedia applications like social networking websites (e.g., Kluemper, Davison, Cao, & Wu, 2015; Roth, Bobko, Van Iddekinge, & Thatcher, 2013), unproctored/mobile testing (e.g., Burke, Mahoney-Philips, Bowler, & Downey, 2011), and video r"esum"es (e.g., Hiemstra & Derous, 2015) are increasingly used by applicants and practitioners, research is somewhat lagging behind as still not that much is known about the properties (like security of test materials) and efficacy (like test validity) of several technology-enhanced assessments compared to the more traditional recruitment and assessment tools. However and despite the enduring calls for evidencebased approaches in business and management (e.g., Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007), there is a risk that researchers and practitioners drift apart instead of flock together to address new challenges. Much of the debate on the research–practice divide, reminds us of the Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant: By examining different parts of the elephant, and by virtue of one’s physical impairment, one would not be able to see the whole from its parts (‘. . .And so these men of Indostan, Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion, Exceeding stiff and strong though each were partly in the right, And all were in the wrong.’ John Godfrey Saxe). Although, this is not to say that new developments do not come with several tensions,