chapter 10 flashcards recruitment

PAST PERFORMANCE PREDICTS FUTURE PERFORMANCE

Recall that in many of our assessment methods, we are attempting to evaluate prior performance indicators in order to infer how an employee will perform in the future.

On the plus side, with internal employees, we often have much more in-depth information on their prior performance and consistent behaviors

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Logic of prediction

• Indicators of internal applicants' degree of success in past situations should be predictive of their likely success in new situations.

Types of predictors

• There is usually greater depth and relevance to the data available on internal candidates relative to external selection.

Selection plan

• Important for internal selection to avoid the problems of favoritism and gut instinct that can be especially prevalent in internal selection.

Advantages of internal over external selection

• Greater depth and relevance of data available on internal candidates.

• Greater emphasis can be placed on work samples and criteria (performance)

INITIAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

Just like with External selection methods, we want to use something quick and cost effective first.

Major methods to consider include

1. Talent Management Information

2. Peer Assessments

3. Self Assessments

4. Managerial Sponsorship

5. Informal Recommendations

TALENT MANAGEMENT SUCCESSION SYSTEMS

Keep ongoing records of skills, talents, and capabilities of employees

Primary goal is to facilitate internal selection systems through up-to-date, accurate records on employees

Potential uses

• Performance management.

• Recruitment needs analysis.

• Employee development.

• Compensation and career management.

PEER ASSESSMENTS

Methods include peer ratings, peer nominations, peer rankings

Strengths

• Rely on raters who presumably are knowledgeable of applicants' KSAOs.

• Peers more likely to view decisions as fair due to their input.

Weaknesses

• May encourage friendship bias.

• Criteria involved in assessments are not always clear.

These are more common in the military and less common in industry.

Peer evaluations may be requested for external accolades in industries where reputation is seen as being important.

INITIAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

Self-assessments

• Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to determine promotability.

• Minimal value, because candidates more often over-estimate themselves.

Managerial sponsorship

• Higher-ups given considerable influence in promotion decisions.

• May be other employee advocates, not just managers.

Informal discussions and recommendations

• May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job performance.

Coach

Provides task-related and professional support.

: May recommend specific developmental opportunities.

Sponsor

Provides task-related and professional support.

• Guides person's career rather than simply informing them of opportunities; creates opportunities to develop the skills of the employee.

• A sponsor who chooses to advocate for an employee likely has built an effective exchange relationship with that employee.

Mentor

• Provides task-related, professional, and personal support.

• Can be informal or formally appointed.

• Mentors and protégés are expected to help each other, and the mentorship experience may be similar to a friendship.

OVERVIEW OF SENIORITY AND EXPERIENCE

Seniority

• Length of service with organization, department, or job.

Experience

• Not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has undertaken.

Why used?

• Assume direct experience reflects an accumulated stock of KSAOs necessary to perform job.

• Information is easily and cheaply obtained.

• Promoting senior or experienced employees is socially acceptable

• viewed as rewarding loyalty.

Job knowledge tests

Job knowledge includes elements of both ability and seniority

Measured by a paper-and-pencil test or a computer

Holds great promise as a predictor of job performance

• Reflects an assessment of what was learned with experience.

• Also captures cognitive ability.

Many supervisors / managers are expected to have better job knowledge to support their lower-level personnel

• As long as these tests are seen as testing job relevant knowledge, they tend to be good.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

A possible predictor of future job performance is past job performance collected by a performance appraisal process

Advantages

• Readily available.

• Probably capture both ability and motivation.

Weaknesses

• Potential lack of a direct correspondence between requirements of current job and requirements of position applied for

• "Peter Principle" → rise to level of incompetence.

Questions to ask in using performance appraisal as a method of internal staffing decisions

• the performance appraisal process reliable and unbiased?

• Is present job content representative of future job content?

• Have the KSAOs required for performance in the future job(s) been acquired and demonstrated in the previous job(s)?

• Is the organizational or job environment stable such that what led to past job success will lead to future job success?

PROMOTABILITY RATINGS

Assessing promotability involves determining an applicant's potential for higher-level jobs

• Promotability ratings often conducted along with performance appraisals.

Useful for both selection and recruitment

Caveat

• When receiving separate evaluations for purposes of appraisal, promotability, and pay, an employee may receive mixed messages.

Promotion panels and review boards: use multiple raters, which can improve reliability and can broaden commitment to decisions reached

OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT CENTERS

Elaborate method of employee selection

• Involves using a collection of predictors to forecast success, primarily in higher-level jobs (Executives, upper level managers)

Objective

• Predict an individual's behavior and effectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial.

Incorporates multiple methods of assessing multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors.

EVALUATION OF ASSESSMENT CENTERS

Assessment centers have Moderate positive validity

Validity is higher when:

• Multiple predictors are used.

• Assessors are psychologists rather than managers.

• Peer evaluations are used.

Possess incremental validity in predicting performance and promotability beyond personality traits and cognitive ability tests

Potential drawbacks

• High expense.

• Questions about what is being measured

• Role-play:

• candidate must play work related role with interviewer.

• Decision making in real-time

• Fact finding:

• candidate needs to solicit information to evaluate an incomplete case.

• Examines investigative skills / knowledge of procedures /decision making

Oral presentation

• candidate must prepare and make an oral presentation on assigned topic.

• Demonstrates preparation skills as well as presentation skills.

DISCRETIONARY ASSESSMENT METHODS

Narrows list of finalists to those who will receive job offers

Decisions often made on basis of

• Organizational citizenship behavior Staffing philosophy regarding EE0 / AA

Differences from external selection

• Previous finalists not receiving job offers do not simply disappear

• Multiple assessors generally used

• Perceptions of Favoritism, Nepotism, or other policies can have lasting impacts.

• Discrimination may be easier to prove based on internal selection due to increased knowledge of the job, candidates, and outcome.

LEGAL ISSUES- The Glass Ceiling and the Glass Cliff

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)

• Employ greater use of selection plans.

• Minimize use of casual, subjective methods and use formal, standardized, job-related assessment methods.

• Implement programs to convey KSAOs necessary for advancement to aspiring employees.

Internal selection refers

to the assessment and evaluation of employees from within the organization as they move between jobs via transfer and promotion systems. Internal selection is of considerable practical value to an organization because one nearly always knows one's own employees better than external applicants, and effective internal selection decisions can motivate valued employees in any organization. One study of a US investment banking firm found that promoted employees were better performers and less likely to leave the organization or be terminated than those externally hired. However, this does not mean external selection is without benefit: external hires tend to have higher levels of experience and education, are promoted faster, and tend to be paid more.! As another example, a comparison between thousands of internally and externally hired quick-service retail managers found that the internally hired managers performed better, commanded lower salaries, and had stores that had higher levels of customer service performance, compared with external hires.?

Preliminary issues we will discuss to guide

the use of assessment methods include the logic of prediction, the nature of predictors, and the development of a selection plan. Initial assessment methods are used to select candidates from among the internal applicants. Methods that will be reviewed include talent management systems, peer assessments and self-assessments, managerial sponsorship, and informal discussions and recommendations. The criteria used to choose among these methods will be discussed.

Substantive assessment methods

are used to select finalists from among the internal candidates. Various methods will be reviewed. including seniority, job knowledge tests, performance appraisals, promotability ratings, assessment centers, interview exercises, and promotion panels and review boards. The criteria used to choose among the substantive assessment methods will also be discussed.

The Logic of Prediction

described in the external selection chapters, is equally relevant to the case of internal selection. Specifically, indicators of internal applicants' degree of success in past situations should be predictive of their likely success in new situations.

Importantly, past situations include not only the current job but also previous jobs held by the applicant within the organization. The new situation is the internal vacancy the applicant is seeking via the organization's transfer or promotion system.

There may also be similarities between internal and external selection in terms of the effectiveness of selection methods. As you may recall from the chapters covering external selection, two of the most valid external selection measures are cognitive ability tests and personality tests. These methods also have validity in internal selection decisions. Personality measures have been found to be a valid predictor of promotion, with conscientious, extraverted, proactive, and emotionally stable employees receiving promotions more often. Research indicates that cognitive ability is predictive of promotion and career advancement. Although they are not very valid as an initial assessment method, training and skill development experiences, education, and experience with the organization are also moderate predictors of promotion.? In this chapter we focus on processes and methods of selection that are unique to promotion and transfer decisions. However, in considering these methods and processes, it should be remembered that many of the techniques of external selection might be relevant as well.

Although the logic of prediction and the likely effectiveness of selection methods are similar for external and internal selection, internal selection has several potential advantages over external selection in practice. In particular, the data collected on internal applicants in their previous jobs often provide greater depth, relevance, and verifiability than the data collected on external applicants. This is because organizations usually have much more detailed and in-depth information about internal candidates' previous job experiences.

Total management

despite being defined in several different ways," are generally designed to enable organizations to strategically

Page 525

anticipate and meet talent needs, especially for critical positions. Although TM has expanded to include external selection, most of the traditional practices are directed toward existing employees. Broadly speaking, TM systems focus on sourcing, identifying, managing, and retaining the organization's talent pool. To further these aims, TM systems often involve routinely keeping an organizational record of the skills, talents, and capabilities of an organization's employees to inform human resource (HR) decisions. TM systems can be used to attain many goals, including performance management, succession and replacement planning, recruitment needs analysis, employee development, retention, compensation, and career management. However, one of the primary goals of such systems is to facilitate internal selection decisions by keeping an organized, up-to-date record of employee skills, talents, and capabilities. 12

As logical as TM systems seem, recent surveys and benchmarking reports reveal that between roughly 20% and 30% of employers have such a system in place. Organizations may not use a TM system for three reasons. First, it may be perceived as too costly. However, the cost of a TM system should be considered against the cost of not using a system: what are the costs of making selection decisions based on incomplete knowledge of the skills and capabilities of current employees? Second, the expertise to develop a system may not be available.

This problem can be mitigated by working with a vendor that specializes in TM software. According to one recent estimate, the TM Software market will continue to grow by 16% over the next several years. 13 TIM sofiware is often integrated within a vendors human resource information systems (HRISs). For example, the two largest HRIS providers-SAP and Oracle/PeopleSoft-include TM systems in the HRIS packages they market to organizations. The third and most likely reason is due to increases in labor demand uncertainty.

Demand uncertainty has led to difficulties in forecasting KSAOs needed, turnover, and consumer demand (which leads to the creation of positions). This has led to external selection becoming a default option for many organizations (despite limitations associated with this practice, such as being at the mercy of the labor market). Considering these relatively modern challenges, organizations should realize that these are not either-or decisions, and the staffing approach should consider costs and predictable aspects of market demand to make

Peer nominations rely

on voting for the most promotable candidates. Peers receiving the greatest number of votes are the most promotable. Finally, peer rankings rely on a rank ordering of peers. Those peers with the highest rankings are the most promotable.

Peer assessments

have been used extensively in the military over the years and to a lesser degree in industry. A virtue of peer

Page 527

assessments is that they rely on raters who presumably are very knowledgeable of the applicants' RSAOs due to their day-to-day contact with them. A possible downside to peer assessments, however, is that they may encourage friendship bias and may undermine morale in a work group by fostering a competitive environment.

Choice of Initial Assessment Methods

As was discussed, there are several formal and informal methods of initial assessment available to screen internal applicants to produce a list of candidates. Research has been conducted on the effectiveness of each method, which will now be presented to help determine which initial assessment methods should be used. The reviews of this research are summarized in

Use refers to how much or how often the predictor is utilized. Cost refers to expenses incurred in using the predictor. Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement. Validity refers to the strength of the relationship between the predictor and job performance. Low validity ranges from about .00 to .30, moderate validity ranges from about 31 to .50, and high validity is .51 and above. Utility refers to the monetary return, minus costs, associated with using the predictor.

Employee applicant reactions refers to whether employees are expected to react positively or negatively to the predictor. Finally, disparate

Use refers to

how much or how often the predictor is utilized. Cost refers to expenses incurred in using the predictor. Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement. Validity refers to the strength of the relationship between the predictor and job performance. Low validity ranges from about .00 to .30, moderate validity ranges from about 31 to .50, and high validity is.51 and above. Utility refers to the monetary return, minus costs, associated with using the predictor.

Employee applicant reactions refers to whether employees are expected to react positively or negatively to the predictor. Finally, disparate impact refers to the possibility that a disproportionate number of women and minorities will be rejected using this predictor.

Two points should be made about the effectiveness of initial internal selection methods. First, managerial sponsorship and informal methods are used most extensively, suggesting that many organizations continue to rely on closed rather than open internal recruitment systems. Certainly this is a positive procedure when administrative ease is of importance. However, it must be noted that talented applicants may be overlooked in these approaches. Also, there may be minor disparate impact on women and minorities.

The second point is that peer assessment methods are very promising in terms of reliability and validity (especially when

Page 532

combined with self-assessments). They are not frequently used, but more organizations should consider using them as a screening device.

Perhaps this will take place as organizations continue to decentralize decision making and empower employees to make business decisions historically made only by the supervisor.

Seniority

Initially, the concepts of seniority and experience (as introduced in the external selection chapters) may seem the same. However, they are quite different. Seniority typically refers to length of service or tenure with the organization, department, or job. For example, organizational seniority is measured as length of continuous employment in an organization-the difference between the present date of employment and the date of hire. Thus, seniority is a purely quantitative measure that has nothing to do with the type or quality of job experiences; it represents how long you have been in your position, been with your team, or been at the company.

Performance Appraisal

One possible predictor of future job performance is past job performance. This assumes, of course, that elements of the future job are similar to those of the past job. Data on employees' previous performance may be routinely collected as part of the performance appraisal process and thus available for use in internal selection.43

One advantage of performance appraisals over other internal assessment methods is that they are readily available in many organizations.

Another desirable feature is that they likely capture both ability and motivation. Hence, they can offer a complete look at the person's qualifications for the job. Care must be taken in using performance appraisals, because there is not always a direct correspondence A between the requirements of the current job and the requirements of the position applied for." Performance appraisals should only be used as predictors when job analysis indicates a close relationship between the current job and the position applied for.

For example, performance in a highly technical position (e.g., scientist, engineer) may require certain skills (e.g., quantitative skills) that are required in both juniorand senior-level positions. Thus, using the results of the performance appraisal of the junior position is appropriate in predicting performance in the senior position. It is not, however, appropriate to use the results of the performance appraisa for the junior-level technical job to predict performance in a job requiring a different set of skills (e.g., planning, organizing, and staffing). such as that of manager.

Although there are some advantages to using performance appraisal results for internal selection, they are far from perfect predictors.

They are subject to many influences that have nothing to do with the likelihood of success in a future job. 45 For example, using performance evaluation data to make promotion decisions may lead to disparate treatment of women when they are not perceived to be a good "fit" for the upper-level job because of stereotypes or because past displays of competence misalign with traditional gender stereotypes.46 Therefore, staffing professionals should take care in ensuring that promotion decisions made from performance appraisal

In addition, decision makers appear to be swayed not only by a person's level of performance but also by their trajectory, that is, whether the person's performance has increased or decreased over time. One study found that NBA players whose performance was on a positive trajectory received higher levels of compensation than those whose trajectory was not as positive, even controlling for their average level of performance.

Role Play.

The most used assessment center exercise is the role play. Of a number of US organizations that use the

Page 540

assessment center method, 76% included a role-play exercise. For example, an exercise for an assessment center for promotion to a sales manager position might have the participant imagine being in a situation where they need to persuade a skeptical client to purchase an enterprise-level software system. The participant would role-play the sales manager (often with a trained actor playing the client), and an assessor would observe the participant's behavior during the role play." Introducing a role player, however, adds a whole new level of complexity: research shows that the role player and their portrayed personality have an effect on the reliability and accuracy of role-play performance ratings. 68 Thus, staffing professionals should make sure to properly train role players (just as intensively as assessors) so that they know the exercise instructions and role-play prompts thoroughly. Darden Restaurants (the company behind Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and a number of other full-service restaurant brands), for example, utilizes the assessment center method for its managers for both promotion and development purposes.

Dysfunctional Aspects of Assessment Centers

Relevant for Designers

• Ask assessors to work long hours without breaks

• Do not offer training and practice opportunities to assessors

• Ask assessors to take part in assessment center evaluations at the last minute, with no time to prepare

• Do not standardize or randomize candidate or exercise order (which can lead to order effects)

Relevant for Assessors

• Do not have enough observation opportunities or scores per candidate (due to rushed exercise experience)

• Receive insufficient time to evaluate and score candidates

• Are rushed in post-exercise meetings with other assessors

• Are under pressure to quickly make dimension ratings

• Have less time to discuss candidates at the end of the post-exercise meeting than those discussed at the beginning of the meeting

• Engage in unnecessary and unproductive discussion during post-exercise meetings

Relevant for Candidates

• Receive unclear guidance on exercise instructions and, potentially, what they will be scored on (if transparent)

• Receive insufficient feedback during the assessment center exercises

• Have negative reactions to poorly designed exercises

Interview Exercises

Interview exercises mimic the oral communication required on the job. They may be included as predictors within an assessment center.

They may also be used as a predictor separate from the assessment center (this is true of any of the previously discussed exercises). There are several different forms of interview exercises, which vary in their degree of usage. The most frequently used interview exercise (and the second most frequently used exercise in assessment centers, with 64% of organizations adopting it) is the presentation. Situational interviews (48%), background interviews (35%), and fact-finding interviews (29%) are also used to a lesser extent.?8

Given the importance of interpersonal skills in many jobs, it is fortunate that more organizations are using interview exercises. This is especially true with internal selection, where the organization knows whether the person has the right credentials (e.g., company experiences, education, and training) but may not know whether the person has the right communication or influence skills to be successful in a higher-level position. To be effective, these interviews need to be structured and evaluated according to observable behaviors identified in the job analysis as necessary for successful performance.

In this section, we will discuss presentations and fact-finding interviews. Situational and background interviews most closely align with the structured interview methods discussed in the external selection chapter. Furthermore, although these types of structured interviews are included as exercises in assessment centers, current guidelines dissuade against this practice as they (a) do not necessarily match the behavioral predictor definition of assessment center exercises and (b) have been shown to be empirically distinct from other assessment center exercises (e.g., the behaviors assessed by interviews appear to be conceptually different from those assessed by other exercises).º9 Beyond presentations and fact-finding interviews, we discuss performance interviews as one interview exercise that shows promise for internal selection.

Oral Presentations

In many jobs, presentations need to be made to customers, clients, or even boards of directors. To select someone to perform this role, an oral presentation can be required. This approach would be useful, for example, for seeing what sort of "sales pitch" a consultant might make or for seeing how an executive would present their proposed strategic plan to a board of directors. One study of the use of presentations for sales managers, however, found relatively weak correlations (ranging from .06 to 13) between the presentation and sales performance.

Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods

Along with research on initial assessment methods, research has also been conducted on substantive assessment methods. The reviews of this research are summarized in

Exhibit 10.8. The same criteria are applied to evaluating the effectiveness of these predictors as were

used to evaluate the effectiveness of initial assessment methods.

DISCRETIONARY ASSESSMENT METHODS

Discretionary methods are used to narrow down the list of finalists to those who will receive job offers. Sometimes all finalists will receive offers, but other times there may not be enough positions to fill for each finalist to receive an offer. As with external selection, the same issues of favoritism, cronyism, nepotism, and various political influences apply-and perhaps even more so, given that the finalists have a

"history" with the organization.

Two areas of discretionary assessment differ from external selection and need to be considered in deciding job offers.

First, multiple assessors, who may personally know the candidates up for the promotion, are generally used with internal selection. Thus, not only can the hiring manager's opinion be used to select who will receive a job offer but so can the opinions of others (e.g., previous manager, top management) who are knowledgeable about the candidate's profile and the requirements of the current position. As a result, in deciding which candidates will receive job offers, evaluations by people other than the hiring manager may be accorded substantial weight. Depending on the political context and relationships among the manager, assessors, and the candidate, this may pave the way for nepotism, cronyism, or favoritism to creep into the decision.

Second, previous finalists who do not receive job offers do not simply disappear. They might remain with the organization in hopes of securing an offer the next time the position is open, although meta-analytic research suggests that they are slightly more likely to leave than stay. 107 At the margin, this may be a factor in decision making because being bypassed a second time may create a disgruntled employee.

Indeed, "left behind" employees who feel that the promotion decisions were unjust may experience diminished mental and physical health outcomes, a lowered self-concept, poorer job attitudes, less of a desire to engage in OCBs, and perhaps even motivation to engage in CWBs.

Second, previous finalists who do not receive job offers do not simply disappear. They might remain with the organization in hopes of securing an offer the next time the position is open, although meta-analytic research suggests that they are slightly more likely to leave than stay. 107 At the margin, this may be a factor in decision making because being bypassed a second time may create a disgruntled employee.

Indeed, "left behind" employees who feel that the promotion decisions were unjust may experience diminished mental and physical health outcomes, a lowered self-concept, poorer job attitudes, less of a desire to engage in OCBs, and perhaps even motivation to engage in CWBs.

-108

Many may consider these "left behind" employees to be a fact of organizational life. However, the organization can employ several measures to show that the promotion decisions are fair. For example, research shows that transparent, equitable, standardized, and job-related promotion procedures (and the predictors that inform those decisions) improve perceptions of fairness. l09 Furthermore, it is likely that opportunities for retesting, offering appeals, explanatory and developmental feedback, and opening two-way communication between those "left behind" and upper management are ways in which fairness reactions can be improved. I10 One approach that shows promise is all in the framing: focus more on the career growth and goals of the employee and less on the more mechanical aspects of job and vacancy. l'It may be that when employees view the denied promotion as a challenge or opportunity for growth, they become more engaged in their work, become more proactive about their career, and even develop resilience in their career, even if the new framing results in them leaving the job. 112

The trouble does not stop when underrepresented groups do break through the glass ceiling. First, evidence for the "queen bee"

Page 552

phenomenon suggests that some women who are promoted into leadership positions do not support the advancement of junior women into leadership positions, and thus they end up "reinforcing" the glass ceiling. 115 Second, sometimes underrepresented groups may be promoted into positions that are more risky, precarious, or "set up to fail." l16 For example, women may be promoted into these positions because of a "think

crisis-think female" stereotype: when teams or the organization is in crisis, women are seen as better "people managers" or are more willing to take the blame for organizational failure.!? Finally, even without a glass cliff, underrepresented groups can face discrimination in their new position: a study of NBA head coaches from 2003 to 2015 found that minority coaches were less likely to be nominated for awards and more likely to be terminated than their White counterparts. 118

The policy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on nondiscriminatory promotions is (1) the KSAOs to be assessed must be job related and consistent with business necessity, and (2) there must be uniform and consistently applied standards across all promotion candidates.