Purpose: In the field of personnel selection, a great deal of evidence shows a gap between what scientists think practitioners should do and which procedures practitioners actually use. To build a basis for an intensified dialog between practitioners and researchers, there is a need for better knowledge about how practitioners think about selection procedures. Approach: The authors used the repertory grid technique, a well-established interview method that elicits cognitions. Forty human resource practitioners were interviewed. Findings: The results highlight the diversity of the individual ways in which practitioners think about selection procedures. First, none of the constructs elicited was mentioned by two-thirds of the interviewees or more, and only five were mentioned by half or more of the interviewees. Second, interviewees often did not agree which construct pole they preferred. Third, individual maps of the constructs and procedures revealed many differences. Sample constructs were whether a procedure reveals something about the status quo or something about a candidate's past, whether the human resource department has an active or a passive role in the selection process, and whether or not a procedure is fakable. Implications: The results suggest many new research questions and will hopefully foster the dialog between scientists and practitioners. Originality/Value: This is one of the first studies to explore practitioners' cognitions regarding selection procedures, and represents a rare application of the repertory grid technique to the selection field