Monday, December 10, 2007

Lost Articles

I've been asking around to see if anyone knew the name of or had a link to the research article that showed that the personal interview is a poor hiring mechanism (and typically does worse than simply looking at resume, references, and so on). Brian Leiter mentioned it a while back, but neither he nor Frank Arntzenius (who originally pointed it out to me) remember the name or where to find it -- but Prof Leiter did note that it was a psych article.

Given the psych angle, I figured I'd ask Gary, but seeing my limited success I thought maybe better just to throw the question out there in a desperate attempt. Can anyone help?

Also, I'd read a few months ago an article online, probably via some new service, citing a study that said that, on average, 20% of any organization's resources are wasted on ego-projects for the CEO. If anyone else remembers that article and has a link or some help to find it that'd be great. My Google-fu is weak.

2 comments:

gazza said...

I don't know the references off the top of my head, but yes, it's research in social psych. Gil Harman is the main guy in philosophy who's pushed the importance of this research (thus leading to Princeton's Phil. Dept. actually abandoning interviews and fly-outs, as you probably know). So my Google-fu turned up the following blog post discussion where Harman gives a couple of references:

http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2007/01/is_the_eastern_.html#comment-27713190

Why on earth are you interested in this stuff now? Got a script idea about the Eastern APA? I grant you that there's very real potential for a horror flick there. One with zombies, I suspect.

Steve Peterson said...

Dude, you rock!!

For those who don't want to follow the link, this seems to be one of the main sources:

Ziva Kunda Social Cognition: Making Sense of People (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 179-89

For some reason this is just one of those little factoids that stuck in mind my, and I bring up fairly often in discussion -- but I always think it's a lot better if you can actually point to the source research. Same thing for the 20% study I saw.

What I'm trying to do is figure out some relatively permanent way to store links to this sort of fascinating research -- sort of use my Google links list as a prosthetic brain.