中文摘要：

传统的人事选拔是以胜任力或者说是人-职匹配为基础的,即强调基于胜任力,但研究者和实践者们越来越多的强调人-组织匹配在人事选拔中的重要性,即强调人事选拔过程中招募者匹配评价的多维性。本研究通过实验运用策略捕捉技术,检验多种职位特征和不同层次的匹配评价对选拔雇佣结果的影响。通过HLM分析结果发现四种匹配类型需要-供给匹配、要求-能力匹配、个性匹配和价值观匹配对雇佣决策都有显著的独立主效应,招募者在长期招募比短期招募中更多依靠个性匹配来评价应聘者,招募者在对管理类职位更多依靠价值匹配来进行评价,而对专业类职位则更多依靠要求-能力匹配进行评价。

英文摘要：

Traditional personnel selection is based on competence, or person-job match, which emphasizes competency base. But researchers and practitioners are laying more and more stress on the importance of people-organization match in personnel selection, i.e. a stress on the multidimentionality of recruiter-matching evaluation. In this study, we used a laboratory design, by simulating the matching situation of different selection decision-making processes for different candidates, to explore the effects of such factors as selected characteristics on job selection and assessment. We divided the work status of job features into 2 different classes, long-term persistence and short-term temporary. We divided the job type into positions for management and positions for professionals. Similarly, the matching evaluation and assessment of the candidates were divided into person-job fitness and person-organization match, in which person-job match included demand-supply match and needs-ability fitness, and person-organization fitness included personality match and value match. This research used the strategy-capture technology and the intra-group design to explore the effect of various position features and different match assessment levels on the results of selection and recruitment decision making. Through the HLM analysis we found that 1） the 4 kinds of match modes, demand-supply match, needs-ability match, personality match and value match, all showed a significant main effect on recruitment decision making （df = 4,1339, F = 199.737, p〈.01）; 2） and recruiters relied significantly more on personality match in the long-lasting recruitment background than the temporary recruitment of short-term （t = 2.744, p = .007）; 3） recruiters relied significantly more on value match in the management positions than in the professional class （t = 2.442, p = .015）, and recruiters relied significantly more on need-ability match in recruiting in the professional class than in the management positions （t =- 2.037, p = .041?