Explain the theory behind assessment centers

Staffing Activities: Selection

Chapter 10:

Internal Selection

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Staffing Policies and Programs

Staffing System and Retention Management

Support Activities

Legal compliance

Planning

Job analysis

Core Staffing Activities

Recruitment: External, internal

Selection:
Measurement, external, internal

Employment:
Decision making, final match

Staffing Organizations Model

10-*

10-*

Chapter Outline

Preliminary Issues
Logic of Prediction
Types of Predictors
Selection Plan
Initial Assessment Methods
Talent Management/ Succession Systems
Peer Assessments
Self-Assessments
Managerial Sponsorship
Informal Discussions and Recommendations
Choice of Methods
Substantive Assessment Methods
Seniority and Experience
Job Knowledge Tests
Performance Appraisal
Promotability Ratings
Assessment Centers
Interview Simulations
Promotion Panels and Review Boards
Choice of Methods
Discretionary Assessment Methods
Legal Issues
10-*

Learning Objectives for This Chapter

Compare how the logic of prediction applies to internal vs. external selection decisions
Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the five initial assessment methods used in internal selection
Consider the merits and pitfalls of using seniority and experience for internal selection decisions
Describe the main features of assessment centers
Understand the advantages and disadvantages of using assessment centers for internal selection decisions
Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the seven substantive assessment methods used in internal selection
10-*

Discussion Questions for This Chapter

Explain how internal selection decisions differ from external selection decisions.
What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings?
Explain the theory behind assessment centers.
Describe the three different types of interview simulations.
Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority, assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures.
What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?
10-*

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
10-*

Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future Performance

Advantages of internal over external selection
Greater depth and relevance of data available on internal candidates
Greater emphasis can be placed on samples and criteria rather than signs
*

10-*

Discussion Questions

Explain how internal selection decisions differ from external selection decisions.
10-*

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
10-*

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
10-*

Ex. 10.1: Peer Assessment Methods

10-*

Initial Assessment Methods

Self-assessments
Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to determine promotability
Exh. 10.2: Self-Assessment Form
Managerial sponsorship
Higher-ups given considerable influence in promotion decisions
Exh. 10.3: Employee Advocates
Informal discussions and recommendations
May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job performance
10-*

Exhibit 10.4 Choice of Initial Assessment Methods

10-*

Discussion Questions

What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings?
10-*

Substantive Assessment Methods

Seniority and experience
Job knowledge tests
Performance appraisal
Promotability ratings
Assessment centers
Interview simulations
Promotion panels and review boards
10-*

Overview of Seniority and Experience

Definitions
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 so widely used?
Direct experience in a job content area reflects an accumulated stock of KSAOs necessary to perform job
Information is easily and cheaply obtained
Protects employee from capricious treatment and favoritism
Promoting senior or experienced employees is socially acceptable -- viewed as rewarding loyalty
10-*

Evaluation of Seniority and Experience

Employees typically expect promotions will go to most senior or experienced employee
Relationship to job performance
Seniority is unrelated to job performance
Experience is moderately related to job performance, especially in the short run
Experience is superior because it is:
a more valid method than seniority
more likely to be content valid when past or present jobs are similar to the future job
Experience is unlikely to remedy initial performance difficulties of low-ability employees
is better suited to predict short-term rather than long-term potential
10-*

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
10-*

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”
10-*

Performance Appraisal

Ex. 10.5: Questions to Ask in Using Performance Appraisal as a Method of Internal Staffing Decisions
Is 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?
10-*

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
10-*

Overview of Assessment Centers

Elaborate method of employee selection
Involves using a collection of predictors to forecast success, primarily in higher-level jobs
Objective
Predict an individual’s behavior and
effectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial
Incorporates multiple methods of assessing multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors
10-*

Ex. 10.7 Assessment Center Rating Form

Participants take part in several exercises over multiple days
In-basket exercise
Leaderless group discussion
Case analysis
Trained assessors evaluate participants’ performance
10-*

Characteristics of Assessment Centers

Participants are usually managers being assessed for higher-level managerial jobs
Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion of program
10-*

Evaluation of Assessment Centers

Validity
Average validity  ŕ = .37
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
Research results
“Crown prince/princess” syndrome
Participant reactions
10-*

Other Substantive Assessment Methods

Interview simulations
Role-play: candidate must play work related role with interviewer
Fact finding: candidate needs to solicit information to evaluate an incomplete case
Oral presentations: candidate must prepare and make an oral presentation on assigned topic
Promotion panels and review boards: use multiple raters, which can improve reliability and can broaden commitment to decisions reached
10-*

Exhibit 10.8 Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods

10-*

Discussion Questions

Explain the theory behind assessment centers.
Describe the three different types of interview simulations.
Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority, assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures.
10-*

Discretionary Assessment Methods

Narrows list of finalists to those who will receive job offers
Decisions often made on basis of
Organizational citizenship behavior and
Staffing philosophy regarding EE0 / AA
Differences from external selection
Previous finalists not receiving job offers do not simply disappear
Multiple assessors generally used
10-*

Legal Issues

Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures (UGESP)
Shattering the glass ceiling
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
10-*

Discussion Questions

What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?
10-*

Ethical Issues

Issue 1
Given that seniority is not a particularly valid predictor of job performance, do you think it’s unethical for a company to use it as a basis for promotion? Why or why not?
Issue 2
Vincent and Peter are both sales associates, and are up for promotion to sales manager. In the last five years, on a 1=poor to 5=excellent scale, Vincent’s average performance rating was 4.7 and Peter’s was 4.2. In an assessment center that was meant to simulate the job of sales manager, on a 1=very poor to 10=outstanding scale, Vincent’s average score was 8.2 and Peter’s was 9.2. Assuming everything else is equal, who should be promoted? Why?