Transcript Lecture for 10/12

Selection 2
MANA 4328
Dr. Jeanne Michalski
[email protected]
Steps in Pre-Employment Screening
1. Screen based on competency


Written or simulation tests generally reliable and valid
Benefits need to be balanced with costs
2. Use structured interviews



Question objectivity and job relatedness
Standardized administration
Multiple raters
3. Verify applicants employment history/background
check
4. Consider “screening-out” tool
Selection Tests and Litigation






Unstructured interviews
Cognitive ability tests
Physical ability tests
Structured interviews
Work sample tests
Assessment Centers
More likely to be
challenged in court.
Substantive Methods









Training and Experience Checklists
Weighted Application Blanks (WAB’s)
Biodata
Interviews
Ability Tests
Proficiency Tests
Assessment Centers
Personality Tests
Integrity Tests
Methods and Applicant Flow
Applicants
Candidates
Offers
Hires
Initial
Substantive
Contingent
Methods to Improve Initial Selection

How can organizations encourage honesty in
applications and resumes?

Training and Experience Evaluations (Checklists)




Holistic Judgment
Point Method
Task-based and KSA-based
Weighted Applications
Validity
Selection Bias
White Sounding Names

The professors at U. of Chicago and MIT sent about 5,000 resumes in
response to want ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune.

“White" names received 1 response for every 10 resumes mailed,
while "black" applicants with equal credentials received 1 response for
every 15.
Texas Accents Y’all

Study by U. of North Texas researchers has found that Texas hiring
managers look favorably on applicants with pronounced Texas
accents.

Speakers from California and Minnesota, whose regional accents are
less distinguishable, generally do better with managers all across the
country.
Developing WAB’s
1.
Choose criterion

2.
Identify groups

3.
5.
6.
Typically high performers and low performers
Select application items and response categories

4.
Performance characteristics of the job
Things that are likely relevant to performance
Determine weights based on group differences
Validate weights using a holdout sample
Set cutoff scores based on validation results
Weighted Application Blanks
High
Tenure
Low
Tenure
Score
Weight
Some H.S.
5%
5%
0
H.S. Diploma
85%
15%
+2
Some College
5%
20%
0
College Degree
5%
60%
0
None
5%
70%
0
1-2 Years
60%
20%
2
2+ Years
35%
10%
1
Education Level
Experience
Biodata Inventories



Reliable – Valid (r = .32 to .37)
Series of questions on a wide variety of subjects

Background (e.g. hobbies, jobs, and education)

Situational questions

Personality and Values
Compared to a profile generated from successful
employees or database for occupations.
Examples of Biographical Questions






How many jobs have you held in the last five years?
Were you ever class president?
Have you ever repaired a broken radio so that it later worked?
While growing up, did you collect coins?
How many hours a week do you spend studying?
By the time you were 18 had you traveled at least 500 miles from home
by yourself?
Profile Matching
D2 = Σ (P(ideal) – P(applicant))2




Develop a set of target or “ideal” scores by sampling
high performers.
For each item subtract the applicant’s scores from
the ideal score and square the result.
Sum the squares of the difference scores.
Smaller D scores more closely resemble the “ideal”
candidate.

Why use Biodata?

Why not use Biodata?
Contingent Assessment
Background Checks

References and education

Criminal record and credit check

Investigative agencies

Reliability and Validity
Integrity / Honesty Tests
Drug Tests

Current vs. previous drug use
Medical Exams

Determine if a person can safely perform the job

Significant and specific risk must exists

“Preventing Injury” not the same as “Job Performance”
Reference Checking





Also relatively low predictive validity
80% - 95% of Organizations attempt
63% of Organizations limit info they will share
Should ask for applicant permission
Legal Concerns


Companies decline to report negative information to
protect from defamation suit.
Failure to conduct reference check may create
negligent hiring liability.
Background Checks

Purposes (1) to verify information and (2) gain
additional information relevant to the job

Types:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Education / Employment verification
References
Criminal record
Credit – Fair Credit Reporting Act requires permission
What positions should require background checks
and to what degree?
“Qualified Privilege”
Aimed at protecting companies that provide “good faith”
reference information




Information must be given without malicious intent
Information can be substantiated
Information given is limited to specific inquiry
Information must be given at proper time, through
proper channels, with proper methods.
Is the employee eligible for rehire?
Decision Criteria
The hiring official will determine on a case-by-case basis whether the
individual is qualified based on factors such as:







Specific duties of the position;
Number of offenses;
Nature of each offense;
Length of time intervening between the offense and the employment
decision;
Employment history;
Efforts at rehabilitation; and
Accuracy of the information that the individual provided on the
employment application
Integrity / Honesty Tests
Two Types:
1. In-direct testing: Personality-based tests
2. Overt testing: Questions on ethical situations or
attitudes towards theft / unlawful activities.



Reliability and Validity depends on test
Can predict bad behavior in certain cases
Subject to manipulation
Drug Testing

Required for only certain jobs



Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988


Federal employees
DOT regulated jobs (trucking, airlines, etc)
Requires all employers with federal contracts of $25k
to engage in drug testing
Current estimates



50% of companies test current employees
61% of companies test applicants
25 million people tested every year
Drug Testing





Urinalysis most common means and least expensive
ADA prohibits pre-employment screening for alcohol
Policies applied carefully and consistently

Companies may not selectively test based on
“appearance”

Have a written policy in place

Written consent needed
Screening test vs. confirmation
Costs

$15 to $100 per test

Time away from work

Administrative time
Negligent Hiring





The person causing harm was an employee.
The person was incompetent (rather than a
competent employee acting negligently).
Employer knew or should have known about the
incompetence.
Injury or harm was a foreseeable consequence of
hiring the incompetent employee.
Hiring of the unfit employee was proximate cause of
the injury or harm.