Employers, are you implementing the correct selection method(s)?

Read this post if you are deciding on which selection methods to implement in recruiting the most suitable candidate(s) for a job! Beware- although, a lot of text and theoretical evidence provided, this post highlights some of the key advantages and drawbacks of certain selection methods. Enjoy! 

INTERVIEWS

-most commonly used selection method. Regarded as the single most effective selection method for groups ranging from managers to semi and unskilled workers. (IRS Employment Review 2004).

Types of interviews:

-One on One interview-  relatively informal, encouraging rapport, generates more frank and open discussions.  However suffers from interviewer bias (i.e. Halo and Satan effects), low levels of reliability and lack of coverage of the subject matter. Usually interviewers make their minds up about the candidate in the first few minutes and spend the rest of the interview trying to justify their decision.

-Small Group/Tandem interview-  2-3 people interview one person, making their judgement on the basis of the same interaction. E.g. line manager and the HR specialist explore technical job elements and key competencies sought after.

-Panel Interview- different parts of the organisation consist of the panel, eliminates bias to some extent (HOWEVER- can still be an issue because some panel members exert a sizeable influence over the decision, yet this is often hidden and covert).

Structured interviews are seen as a means to improve reliability and validity of selection decisions (Cooper). Several features differentiate them from traditional interviews: i.e. questions should be developed from the job analysis, each candidate should be asked standard, though not necessarily identical, questions; and a systematic scoring procedure is used (preferably on a behaviourally anchored rating scale).

Key advantages/arguments for structured interviews:
1. Tied into the job analysis and competency profiles

2. Increased focus on job related questions

3. Multiple interviewers

In order to reduce gender/race bias, applicants asked same questions, in same order and answers are rated in a systematic manner.  However such methods may not be suitable to senior decision makers because they prefer to avoid rigid, fixed and standardised processes. Further issues are that reliability is improved but validity issues remain. E.g. some individuals may be very good at impression management tactics ( Posthuma et Al) articulating their achievements and plans with ease but poor at putting these into effect.

-DIS: criticised for unacceptable levels of reliability, poor predictive validity and low sensitivity, legal issues (bias, equal opportunities for all in terms of race, gender, age.) the drawbacks of interviews can be overcome if it is implemented in conjunction with other methods.

-ADV: relatively cheap, two ways interaction process between employer and applicant.

If interviews are generally rated low on validity, why does it remain a popular selection method???
-there appears to be some generalised intuitive appeal about seeing people “in the flesh” before extending them a job offer. (Muchinsky)

-Applicability: interviews are highly applicable to all job types. It is their universal applicability in fact, that contributes to its high frequency of use.

-It is not advisable (due to low validity) to solely base decisions depending on interviews only. If we could only find a way of minimising the key problems of interviews e.g. bias, impression management techniques,etc. then it would be revealed just how good a judge of human talent interviews are.

-Fairness: studies have found that minorities and women receive lower evaluations than non-minorities with comparable credentials. However the nature of such studies make it risky to generalise. Furthermore interviews criticised about being highly subjective. i.e. The nature of the interview process itself, skills of the interviewers.  Interviewers have a tendency to select candidates who display attributes that they regard as important, or behave/look like others whom they may have positive feelings for, or who say something early in the interview with which the interviewer agrees (Taylor). Further Bias issues are recency effects whereby the earlier candidate clouds proper current assessment of the candidate at hand. Such fairness issues can be overcome by a panel of assessors or by structured interview techniques.

-Costs of interviews: relatively inexpensive but we need to consider costs in terms of: travel expenses of job candidates, the number of interviewees, group interviews with high ranked company officials can make it an expensive method. Furthermore the time that interviewers spend evaluating candidates outside of their regular work presents and opportunity cost. It is usually advisable to reduce the list of candidates for an interview via some other method of evaluation prior to the interview stage of assessment.

Selection testing 

-Tests enhance levels of validity.

-The type of test used will vary according to occupational group.

-HR practitioners recognise the limits of their own expertise and know when to seek advice on test usage and from which suppliers. (Acting beyond their own professional competence can have serious consequences).

-Cognitive tests are designed to measure mental ability. They measure degree of knowledge/skill a person has. Secondly, tests of general intelligence are designed to assess the “capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning within a range of different contexts and media.” The third set of cognitive tests measure spatial abilities, such as verbal/numerical ability.

-Issues:
i. The CIPD and the BPS worry about the emergence of disreputable providers and untrained assessors who don’t know how to interpret the results of the tests.

ii. Worries tests could discriminate against certain groups of people, particularly ethnic 

minorities and women (Schmitt and Chan)

iii. When firms are facing financial difficulties they may be encouraged to take short cuts in the use of tests/ inconsistencies in their usage

iv. Used in isolation, tests are not particularly good indicators of job behaviour (Newell et Al) because strong situational pressures lead to alternative solutions in practice.

Personality tests

-Common types of personality questionnaires are the SHL Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) and the Myers-Brigg Type indicator.

-evidence that these are cross cultural and each dimension i.e. Extraversion, Neuroticism, openness to experience is associated with success across diverse occupations i.e. customer service, sales, managers.

-they are believed to be associated with motivation

-in past reviews there is little evidence for the validity of PT’s HOWEVER,
validities for managerial positions may be greater than these semi-skilled and skilled occupations. Motivation and interpersonal skills are likely to be more relevant for managerial and professional jobs compared to jobs at lower levels. (evidence- Bentz, 1984).

Work Sampling

-can have high predictive validity and high face validity e.g. Useful when nature of job is typing test for clerical work, practice calls for call centre staff, behind the wheel tests for motor licences.

-Robertson and Smith (2001)- of other selection techniques, work sampling offers the highest likelihood of success, closely followed by intelligence tests and structured interviews.

-very appropriate method as there is a high degree of correspondence between content of the work sample and the job content. However mainly useful in jobs which involve mechanical components. Not very applicable to jobs such as social workers or receptionists. 

-issues- very expensive (Salary, training) in terms of time, resources etc.

-another issue is that they can more accurately assess a candidates current capacity to perform a job as opposed to the capacity to learn the job.

-Although actual performance between subgroups tend to be small, the potential for bias exists on performance rating (Guion, 1978)

-Costly to implement as they are administered individually, can take time especially when many candidates to be tested. If the work sample involves usage of existing tools/resources/equipment normally used in production, such forgone productivity is a cost.

Biodata

-Where candidates are asked about past accomplishments, family circumstances, tenure, promotions, etc. these information indicators are believed to be best predictors of future behaviour and performance. They are org and job specific, having low construct validity. (0.32 validity ranking, cooper)

-Data collection can be very intrusive- downside

-Fairness of bio data for different sub groups? E.g. postcode as an indicator. – Owens 1991 demonstrated biographical data could be used to group individuals with homogenous backgrounds and the validity of these sub groups could be established.

References

-widely used but very low validity (0.13, cooper). Validity can be improved if specific questions were asked regarding motivational/interpersonal skills specific to the job

-Assessment Centres
Check out my older post on Assessment Centres as a crucial selection method!

CONCLUSIONS

-An implicit assumption is that those who are hired make a difference to the welfare of an organisation. Many factors contribute to organisational efficacy, the calibre of the workforce being just one of them.

-Just having good people does not mean organisation success. However the converse is also true i.e. without good people it is difficult to imagine long term viability and solvency of any firm.

-Each method operates trade-offs between advantages and disadvantages. First, in order to enhance relevance of selection, it can be wise for a firm to combine various selection methods as long as the cost-benefit analysis is positive. Ultimately we come back to the key understanding: “At the outset, no single technique regardless of how well it is designed and administered is capable of producing perfect selection decisions that predict with certainty which individuals will perform well in a particular role” (Mick 2005).

-Second, it is worth taking into account the context when choosing among selection methods.  It seems that there is no best way of hiring employees.  The most discerning method varies depending upon the nature of work, a firm’s size, sector, country…

-Industrial psychologists are making major inroads into enhancing both the practice and science of selecting good people. Only time will tell....!


Image source : ewelinacim.blogspot.com