Category Archives: Staffing
Can we select employees with a guarantee they will stay?
Topic: Selection, Staffing, Turnover
Publication: Journal of Vocational Behavior (APR 2011)
Article: Career decision status as a predictor of resignation behavior five years later
Authors: Joanne K. Earl, Amirali Minbashiana, Aun Sukijjakhamina and Jim E.H. Bright
Reviewed By: Allison B. Siminovsky
Every organization has faced the problem of losing a great employee too soon. But what if there was a way to see if an employee is likely to resign within several years of beginning his or her career? A new study attempts to link resignation after five years with career decision status at the onset. Career decision status refers to an individual’s certainty regarding his or her career path. Additionally, career decision status takes into account whether a person has fully considered other options for his or her career path prior to settling on a career.
Using a career decision profile, the researchers examined the statuses of a group of new graduates beginning their careers at a consultancy. These graduates answered questions regarding how much they knew about their occupations, their comfort with their decisions, and their decidedness with their potential careers at that point. Five years later, the researchers observed that those who were more decided on their careers at the onset were less likely to resign over the five-year period. Additionally, those who ranked career choice importance as very salient to their lives were more likely to leave the organization during their first five years of work.
Organizational Attraction – It’s more than the Money!
Topic: Staffing, Culture, Work Environment
Publication: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010)
Article: Fit with What? The Influence of Multiple Self-Concept Images on Organizational Attraction
Authors: K. P. Nolan, C. M. Harold
Reviewed By: Lauren A. Wood
What attracts a potential employee to a specific organization – salary, benefits, promotion opportunities? Yes, in part, but attraction also stems from something deeper – an employee’s own self-image. Self-image consists primarily of two parts: the actual self (or the compilation of traits and attributes that an individual believes him or herself to possess) and the ideal self (or the collection of traits and attributes that an individual would like to acquire).
According to image congruity theory, customers are likely to purchase products that reflect both their actual as well as ideal self-image. Expanding this theory, individuals on the job hunt should favor organizations that emphasize both actual and ideal self-image qualities of the candidate. But, these same candidates should be the most attracted to organizations which emphasize their ideal self-image qualities, because this should inflate self-esteem by making the candidate feel closer to achieving his or her ideal self-image.
Beware of “Where I used to work, we ….” — It may be a sign of poor fit, low motivation.
Topic: Staffing, Selection, Recruiting, Motivation
Publication: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (83)
Article: Disengagement in Work-Role Transitions
Authors: C. Niessen, C. Binnewies, J. Rank
Reviewed By: Lauren A. Wood
Employees are no longer linked to an organization for life, and as a result, there has been an increase in job change in recent years. Researchers studying employees’ adjustment to a job change have suggested that in order to succeed, the new employee must detach or disengage from the previous job and organization. This is especially critical when the employee is psychologically attached to their previous work place and/or work role as is typically the case when the employee has worked in their previous role for a long period of time.
Results from the current study reveal that the more the new employee’s psychologically attachment to their old work-role remains after taking the new job, the less motivated they are to pursue learning in the new position and the less they feel they fit with the new company. However, when an employee actively disengages from their previous job-role, the employee experiences greater perceptions of fit and is more motivated to engage in learning activities on the job.
The Waning Voices of Senior Employees: Does Tenure Reduce Impact Levels?
Topic: Potential, Staffing, Training, Turnover
Publication: Human Resource Management (JAN 2011)
Article: Does voice go flat? How tenure diminishes the impact of voice
Authors: D. Avery, P. McKay, D. Wilson, S. Volpone, and E. Killham
Reviewed By: Allison B. Siminovsky
In this line of research, voice refers to the ability to provide suggestions to the organization and feel that one’s input has some sort of effect. When little control is perceived, the employee will work hard to gain control and the use of voice is one possible means of achieving this goal. However, if an employee has been around for many years and feels his sense of control is compromised, to what extent does he continue to use his voice to impact the organization?
This study addressed this issue utilizing results from surveys of conducted with a variety of workers regarding their perceived voice opportunities at their organizations, their tenure, and their intentions to remain with their organizations. They found that, while any employee, regardless of tenure, values the opportunity to have his or her voice heard, newer employees are more likely to see these opportunities as a means of gaining power and control over their work environments. As more tenured members of the workforce do not feel such a need for control and have higher self-esteem related to the workplace, they do not rely on voice as strongly as do newer employees to gain power.
Managing Assessors’ Workloads in Assessment Centers
Topic: Assessment, Staffing
Publication: International Journal of Selection and Assessment (SEP 2010)
Article: Do assessors have too much on their plates? The effects of simultaneously rating multiple assessment center candidates on rating quality
Authors: K.G. Melchers, M. Kleinmann, and M.A. Prinz
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
Assessment centers (ACs) usually consist of several job-related exercises that tap competencies necessary for the job. ACs are most often used by organizations to select, promote and develop their employees. Like many employee selection and assessment methods (e.g., interviews), ACs require a scorer or assessor to provide an evaluation of candidates’ performance. But here’s where it gets tricky.
In two studies, Melchers et al. found that assessor ratings of candidates decrease in accuracy as the number of candidates they assess simultaneously increases. While this finding may seem like a “no-brainer”, meta-analytic research (Woehr & Authur, 2003) has demonstrated that ACs with higher candidate-to-assessor ratios (i.e., fewer assessors evaluating more candidates) tend to be more valid than ACs with lower candidate-to-assessor ratios. However, as Melchers et al. point out, the candidate-to-assessor ratio in an AC is not the issue here, its how many candidates an assessor must observe and evaluate simultaneously that apparently decreases rating accuracy.
Unfortunately, Melchers et al. do not provide specific recommendations for the ideal number of candidates assessors should be assigned to assess simultaneously in an AC exercise.
How Important are First Impressions at the Job Interviews?
Topic: Interviewing, Recruiting, Staffing
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (AUG 2010)
Article: Initial Evaluations in the Interview: Relationships with Subsequent Interviewer Evaluations and Employment Offers
Authors: M.R. Barrick, B.W. Swider, and G.L. Stewart
Reviewed By: Allison B. Siminovsky
The answer: Very! And in today’s increasingly competitive job market, candidates are constantly trying to make themselves stand out as being the best of the bunch. Considering the challenge in answering interview questions well, it’s easy for a candidate to forget about the impression that he or she makes during the first few minutes of small talk with the interviewer. However, this seemingly idle chat might have more of an effect on employment decisions than one might think.
In a recent study, Barrick, Swider, and Stewart (2010) examine whether the first impressions that interviewers get while exchanging pleasantries with candidates have any relationship with the likelihood of being called back to a second interview or later receiving a job offer. The researchers found that interviewers’ initial impressions of candidate competence, perceived similarity to the candidate, and the degree to which they find the candidate likable are predictive of future employment outcomes. As likability and similarity may not be not job-related, it is clear that factors other than competence weigh into whether a candidate gets called back for a second interview — or even gets a job offer.
With this information in mind, should interviewers be barred from chatting with job candidates about life, the weather, and yesterday’s big game? No, according to the researchers.
Hiring Tools and Applicant Reactions
Topic: Staffing
Publication: International Journal of Selection and Assessment (SEP 2010)
Article: Applicant reactions in selection: Comprehensive meta-analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity
Authors: N. Anderson, J.F. Salgado and U.R. Hulsheger
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
While organizations should certainly be concerned about the ability of their selection tools to predict future performance on the job, they should also be concerned with job applicants’ perceptions of their experience during the hiring process. For example, for organizations whose job applicants are also potential customers, it’s vital that candidates who do not get hired (which most of them will not) have a positive experience. This is also a particularly important issue for multinational organizations since there has been speculation that applicants in different cultures may react very differently to the same hiring tool.
Anderson et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis on job applicant reactions to selection tools reveals that overall, job applicants tend to react most favorably to work samples (candidates are evaluated on their performance in a job-related activity) and job interviews. Notably, these hiring tools are often viewed as the most job-relevant and “face valid” (they seem to measure what they intend to measure).
Less popular than these tools, but still favorably rated by applicants overall were cognitive tests, personality inventories, biodata (basic information about a candidate), references, and resumes. The least favored selection tools investigated by Anderson et al. were personal contacts, honesty tests and graphology (i.e., hand writing analysis).
Perhaps most importantly, this pattern of results was relatively consistent across different countries.
Facebook Fun or Selection Suicide?
Topic: Staffing
Publication: International Journal of Selection and Assessment (June 2010)
Article: Who’s posting Facebook faux pas? A cross-cultural examination of personality differences
Authors: K. Karl, J. Peluchette, and C. Schlaegel
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
Recent research suggests that a sizeable number of recruiters and organizations have reported eliminating applicants from consideration because of information posted on applicants’ personal profiles on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. Karl et al. (2010) investigated personality and cultural differences that help explain which people are more likely to post what they refer to as “Facebook faux pas” (e.g., content and pictures related to sex, drug/alcohol use) which can ultimately put them at risk for not receiving a job offer. Karl et al. surveyed 346 American and 290 German undergraduate business students about their use of social networking sites, the type of information they willingly post on these sites, and their personalities.
The authors found that those people high in conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness to be less likely to post “Facebook faux pas” than those lower in these personality traits. Interestingly, there was also a general trend toward American participants reporting be more likely to post “Facebook faux pas” than German participants. The authors speculate that this is due to Americans being more individualistic and less concerned with rules and conventions than Germans.
From an organization’s perspective, social networking sites such as Facebook are a free and easily accessible source of information about job applicants’ attitudes, values, and volitional behaviors. Employers may reason that applicants who post inappropriate content on these sites may be more likely to have performance problems on the job (e.g., inappropriate use of the internet, lack of integrity, incongruent values with the organization, etc.). Indeed, just as this study suggests that people low in conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability are more likely to post inappropriate content, research suggests that these individuals are also more likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).
Organizations Beware:
While social networking sites may provide a realistic view of a job applicant’s typical behaviors and attitudes (while NOT at work), if this information is irrelevant to the job, then it cannot legally be used to make hiring decisions.
Job Applicants Beware:
Whether fundamentally “right” or “wrong”, inappropriate information about oneself on social networking sites such as Facebook can potentially lead to not getting a job!
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Schlaegel, C. (2010). Who’s posting Facebook faux pas? A cross-cultural examination of personality differences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(2), 174-186.
The Pearls and Perils of Work Sample Exams
Topic: Assessment, Staffing
Publication: International Journal of Selection and Assessment (JUN 2010)
Article: Work sample exams and gender adverse impact potential: The influence of self-concept, social skills, and written skills
Authors: P.L. Roth, M.A. Buster, and J. Barnes-Farrell
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
Work sample exams are employee selection tools that represent actual or highly similar job task characteristics (i.e., writing a sample response email to a customer for a customer service job). These selection tools are good predictors of job performance, and job applicants tend to respond favorably to them (largely because they are easily linked to the job).
Another reason work sample exams are highly regarded is that they show less racioethnic-based adverse impact than other popular selection tools such as cognitive ability tests. A potential problem with work sample exams, however, is that they may lead to gender-based adverse impact against women.
According to a recent article by Roth et al. (2010) the likelihood of gender-based adverse impact due to work sample exams depends on the specific skills they measure. Roth et al. conducted two studies employing job applicants for a civil engineer manager and a civil engineer administrator position for which each utilized several work samples measuring various skills necessary for the job to select incumbents.
The results suggest that adverse impact against women was most likely to occur for work sample exams of technical skills (but only for the civil engineer manager position; Roth et al. speculate that the vast majority of people qualified to apply for the administrator position had high levels of technical expertise regardless of gender). Interestingly, however, women scored substantially higher on work samples of interpersonal skills and writing skills. Taken together, Roth et al. conclude that the potential for adverse impact against women is unlikely especially if work samples involving social skills and writing skills are employed in conjunction with technical skills. Clearly then, work sample exams do not disadvantage women across the board.
Perhaps the biggest drawback to work sample exams is their cost. Roth et al. also reported on the cost of using work sample exams, and estimated that the battery of work samples employed in their study of civil engineer manager jobs would cost an organization a whopping $1500 per applicant tested! So the big question is: are the advantages of work sample exams worth their cost?
The Good News about Structured Interviews
Topic: Staffing
Publication: Personnel Psychology (SUMMER 2010)
Article: Are highly structured job interviews resistant to demographic similarity effects?
Authors: J.M. McCarthy, D.H. Van Iddekinge, and M.A. Campion
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger
Interviews are by far one of the most commonly used personnel selection tools and for good reason: They work (at least when they’re structured)!
One potential problem with interviews is that irrelevant personal characteristics of interviewees (i.e., gender, race) may affect interview ratings; interviewees who are similar (race, gender) to interviewers will receive higher ratings in an interview than those who are dissimilar to the interviewers. This can ultimately lead to illegal practices and failing to hire the best applicants. This potential problem is known as demographic similarity. The underlying reason this may occur is that people view others who are similar to themselves more favorably than those who are different (e.g., She is just like me so she must also be awesome!).
McCarthy, Van Iddekinge and Campion (2010) explored the existence of demographic similarity effects in highly structured interviews, which are known to be more valid than unstructured interviews. McCarthy et al. found that the demographic similarity effect was completely non-existent in highly structured interviews. In fact, their results suggest that there is no such thing as a demographic similarity effect when highly structured interviews are used.
Impressively, McCarthy et al.’s study was conducted on a total of 207 interviewers and nearly 20,000 entry level employees applying for professional level positions with the U.S. government. Moreover, McCarthy et al.’s findings were consistent across three common types of structured interviews: (1) past-behavioral based interviews, (2) interviews focusing on a person’s past experiences and education, and (3) situation-based interview (e.g., In hypothetical situation “X,” what would you do?).
So not only are highly structured interviews legally defensible and able to effectively target high future performers and weed out poor performers (i.e., criterion validity), we now know that they are highly resistant to demographic similarity effects! So here are a few quick tips for ratcheting up the structure of a job interview: (1) keep the questions of all applicants consistent and avoid shooting from the hip, (2) base interview questions off of a formal job analysis, (3) include ratings that have anchors with behavioral examples, (4) have interviewers take thorough notes during an interview, (5) avoid discussing applicants between interviews, and (6) include a panel of interviewers/raters as opposed to a single interviewer. For more information on how to increase the structure of a job interview, see the comprehensive list presented in McCarthy et al.’s article.
