CH-9-10 Selection III: Interviewing – Recruitment and Selection in Canada : Book Guide

This Document Contains Chapters 9 to 10 CHAPTER 9 Selection III: Interviewing SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, EXERCISES, AND CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Describe the multiple phases of the employment interview. Answer: • Interview questions are derived from a job analysis. • Interview questions are standardized. • Prompting, follow-up questioning, probing, and elaborating on questions are limited. • Interview questions focus on behaviours or work samples rather than on opinions or self-evaluations. • Interviewer access to ancillary information is controlled. • Questions from the candidate are not allowed until after the interview. • Each answer is rated during the interview using a rating scale tailored to the question. • Rating scales are anchored with behavioural examples to illustrate scale points. • The total interview score is obtained by summing across scores for each of the questions. • Detailed notes are taken during the interview. 2. What factors affect employment interview decisions? Answer: Employment interviews are complex interactions between applicants and interviewers that occur in the context of a larger selection system. Figure 9.1, A Model of the Core Processes of the Interview and Its Contexts, discusses the influencing factors in more detail. Employment interview decisions are influenced by a wide range of factors, both explicit and implicit. Here are the key factors that can affect these decisions: 1. Candidate Qualifications and Experience Relevance to Job Requirements: ● Educational Background: The level and field of education in relation to the job. ● Work Experience: The amount and relevance of prior work experience. ● Skills and Competencies: Specific technical and soft skills that match the job description. 2. Interview Performance Behavior and Communication: ● Body Language: Non-verbal cues such as eye contact, posture, and facial expressions. ● Verbal Communication: Clarity, conciseness, and appropriateness of responses. ● Confidence: How confidently a candidate presents themselves. Response Quality: ● Relevance: How well the answers address the questions posed. ● Specificity: Use of concrete examples and experiences to demonstrate skills and competencies. ● Articulation: The ability to clearly and effectively communicate ideas. 3. First Impressions Appearance and Presentation: ● Professional Attire: Suitability of the candidate’s dress for the interview setting. ● Punctuality: Arriving on time for the interview. ● Politeness: Courteous behavior towards everyone in the organization, from receptionists to interviewers. 4. Interpersonal Fit Cultural Fit: ● Values and Attitudes: Alignment with the company’s culture and values. ● Team Compatibility: How well the candidate is likely to work with existing team members. Rapport: ● Interpersonal Skills: Ability to build a positive relationship with the interviewer during the conversation. 5. Psychological Biases Halo Effect: ● When a positive impression in one area (e.g., appearance) influences perceptions in other areas. Confirmation Bias: ● Interviewers may focus on information that confirms their initial impressions or preconceptions about the candidate. Similarity Attraction Bias: ● Preference for candidates who are similar to the interviewer in terms of background, interests, or personality. Recency Effect: ● Greater weight given to information presented later in the interview or to the last candidates interviewed. 6. Contextual Factors Interview Structure: ● Structured vs. Unstructured: Structured interviews, with predefined questions and evaluation criteria, tend to be more objective and reliable. ● Panel vs. One-on-One: Multiple interviewers can provide a broader perspective and reduce individual biases. External Influences: ● Economic Conditions: The state of the job market can influence the urgency and criteria for hiring. ● Organizational Needs: Specific needs of the organization at the time, such as immediate project demands or long-term strategic goals. 7. Non-Verbal Cues and Paralinguistics Tone of Voice: ● The tone, pitch, and pace of the candidate’s speech can influence perceptions of confidence and competence. Gestures and Posture: ● Open and relaxed body language can convey confidence and approachability. 8. Preparation and Knowledge Knowledge about the Company: ● Demonstrating an understanding of the company’s products, services, culture, and industry. Preparation for the Interview: ● Evidence of having prepared thoughtful questions and well-considered answers. Conclusion Employment interview decisions are multi-faceted and influenced by a combination of candidate-specific factors, interviewer perceptions, and contextual elements. Structured interviews and awareness of psychological biases can help mitigate some subjective influences and lead to more objective and fair hiring decisions. 3. What are the different errors or biases that commonly occur as part of a traditional employment interview? Answer: The following are common errors or biases: the halo effect, the similar-to-me and contrast effects, and leniency and severity errors. A good interviewer will make the applicant feel comfortable during the interview process by setting up an agenda, asking appropriate open-ended and behavioural questions, discussing the job description, giving more information about the organization, and allowing the applicant to ask questions. 4. What is a situational interview? What role does a critical incident play in formulating situational questions? Answer: A situational interview is a highly structured interview in which hypothetical situations are described and applicants are asked what they would do. The assumption underlying the situational interview approach is that intentions are related to subsequent behaviours. 5. What is a behaviour description interview? What does it have in common with a situational interview? How does it differ? Answer: A behaviour description interview (BDI) is a structured interview in which the applicant is asked to describe what he or she did in given situations in the past. The BDI approach is based on the premise that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Critics of this approach have argued that people learn from past mistakes and that situational factors constrain behaviour. 6. What is an experience-based interview? How do experience-based interviews differ from behaviour description interviews? Answer: Experience-based interviews assess applicant qualifications, such as work experience and education, by asking questions about job knowledge or using work sample questions. A behaviour description interview is a structured interview in which the applicant is asked to describe what he or she did in given situations in the past. 7. How do structured interviews compare to traditional interviews in terms of reliability and validity? Answer: According to the research evidence available to date, validity coefficients for the situational interview (SI), comprehensive structured interview, and behaviour description interview seem to be reasonably similar. More research is needed to investigate the relative merits of the BDI and SI in various situations relative to traditional interviews. One of the hallmarks of structured interviews is the standardization of interview questions. When interviews are standardized, applicants can be compared on the basis of the same criteria, and the interviewer obtains a better picture of the merits of each applicant relative to other applicants. This leads to increased interview reliability and validity. 8. Why is a scoring guide crucial to the success of a structured interview? Answer: A scoring guide is a critical component of a structured interview process, and its importance cannot be overstated. Here are the key reasons why a scoring guide is crucial to the success of a structured interview: 1. Ensures Consistency Standardization: ● A scoring guide provides a standardized framework for evaluating all candidates, ensuring that each interview is conducted and assessed in a consistent manner. ● This standardization helps reduce variability in how different interviewers might interpret and evaluate candidate responses. Objective Measurement: ● By using predefined criteria, a scoring guide allows interviewers to rate candidates objectively based on specific, job-relevant factors rather than subjective impressions. 2. Enhances Fairness Reduces Bias: ● A scoring guide helps minimize conscious and unconscious biases by focusing interviewers on predetermined, relevant criteria rather than personal preferences or irrelevant factors. ● This can lead to a more equitable evaluation process, giving all candidates a fair chance based on their actual competencies. Legal and Ethical Compliance: ● By providing a documented, consistent approach to evaluating candidates, a scoring guide helps organizations comply with legal and ethical standards in hiring, reducing the risk of discrimination claims. 3. Improves Reliability and Validity Inter-Rater Reliability: ● When multiple interviewers use the same scoring guide, the reliability of the ratings increases, as the guide helps ensure that different interviewers evaluate candidates using the same criteria. ● This consistency in ratings across different interviewers improves the overall reliability of the selection process. Predictive Validity: ● Structured interviews with scoring guides are more likely to predict job performance accurately because they focus on assessing the specific competencies and behaviors that are critical for success in the role. ● The use of job-relevant criteria enhances the validity of the interview as a selection tool. 4. Facilitates Clear Communication and Feedback Structured Feedback: ● A scoring guide provides a clear basis for giving feedback to candidates. Interviewers can explain their ratings and provide specific examples of where candidates met or fell short of the required standards. ● This structured feedback can be valuable for candidates' development, whether they are hired or not. 5. Supports Decision-Making Comparative Analysis: ● A scoring guide makes it easier to compare candidates quantitatively. Scores can be aggregated and compared to determine which candidates best meet the job requirements. ● This helps interviewers and hiring managers make more informed, data-driven decisions rather than relying on gut feelings or anecdotal impressions. Documentation and Justification: ● Having a detailed scoring guide and recorded scores provides documentation that can justify hiring decisions. This is useful for explaining decisions to stakeholders and for maintaining transparency in the hiring process. 6. Aligns with Organizational Goals Job Relevance: ● Scoring guides are typically developed based on a thorough job analysis, ensuring that the criteria used in the interview are directly related to the skills, knowledge, and abilities required for the job. ● This alignment with job requirements ensures that the selection process supports the organization’s strategic goals by identifying candidates who are most likely to succeed in the role. Conclusion A scoring guide is crucial to the success of a structured interview because it ensures consistency, fairness, reliability, and validity in the evaluation process. It reduces bias, enhances legal compliance, facilitates clear feedback, supports informed decision-making, and aligns the selection process with organizational goals. By providing a standardized and objective framework for assessing candidates, a scoring guide helps organizations identify the best candidates for the job, leading to better hiring outcomes. 9. Why is a structured employment interview likely to be more defensible than other types of employment interviews? Answer: One of the hallmarks of structured interviews is the standardization of interview questions. When interviews are standardized, applicants can be compared on the basis of the same criteria, and the interviewer can obtain a better picture of the merits of each applicant relative to those of other applicants. This leads to increased interview reliability and validity. The standardized treatment of applicants is perceived as being fairer than non-standardized treatment in today’s society. This interview type also exclusively uses job-related questions based on a formal job analysis, which appear to have a strong impact on the organization’s ability to defend itself against litigation. 10. Which is more effective—a situational interview or a behaviour description interview? Answer: A few competitive tests of the BDI and SI approaches have been conducted. Unfortunately, the results are conflicting and inconclusive and, taken together, do not suggest that either approach has an advantage in terms of predictive ability. A recent study found that both the SI and BDI are equally effective. The statements/questions in Table 9.1, Example of a Situational Interview Question and Table 9.2, Example of a Behaviour Interview Question, were used to interview undergraduate students for admission into a fictitious academic program. Both types of structured interview questions predicted academic success and accounted for incremental validity over and above that provided by cognitive ability and experience. The effectiveness of situational interviews versus behavior description interviews depends on the context and specific goals of the hiring process. Both types of interviews have their own strengths and can be highly effective if used appropriately. Situational Interview Definition: In a situational interview, candidates are asked to describe how they would handle hypothetical scenarios related to the job they are applying for. Advantages: 1. Predictive Validity: Situational interviews are designed to predict how candidates might behave in future job-related situations, which can be particularly useful for roles that require quick thinking and problem-solving. 2. Standardization: The hypothetical scenarios can be standardized across candidates, ensuring that each candidate is evaluated on the same basis, which can enhance fairness and consistency in the hiring process. 3. Focus on Job-Relevant Skills: These interviews can be tailored to assess specific skills and competencies that are directly relevant to the job. Challenges: 1. Speculative Responses: Candidates’ responses are based on what they think they would do, which might not accurately reflect their actual behavior in real-life situations. 2. Less Insight into Past Behavior: Since the questions are hypothetical, they may not provide insights into how candidates have actually handled similar situations in the past. Behavior Description Interview Definition: In a behavior description interview, candidates are asked to describe past behavior and experiences that demonstrate their skills and competencies. Advantages: 1. Evidence-Based: By focusing on past behavior, these interviews can provide concrete examples of how candidates have acted in real situations, which is often a good predictor of future behavior. 2. Depth of Insight: These interviews can reveal detailed information about candidates’ experiences, problem-solving abilities, and interpersonal skills. 3. Behavioral Consistency: Past behavior is generally considered a reliable indicator of future behavior, especially in similar contexts. Challenges: 1. Relevance: Candidates’ past experiences may not always be directly relevant to the new job’s requirements, especially if they are changing industries or roles. 2. Varied Experiences: Differences in candidates’ previous job roles and contexts can make it harder to compare responses directly. Comparison and Contextual Effectiveness Job Type and Industry: The nature of the job and the industry can influence which type of interview is more effective. For instance: ● Situational Interviews may be more suitable for roles that require creative problem-solving and the ability to handle unique, unpredictable situations. ● Behavior Description Interviews may be better for roles that rely heavily on consistent behavior and established skills, such as managerial positions. Candidate Experience Level: ● For entry-level positions, situational interviews can be effective since candidates may not have extensive past experience to draw from. ● For more experienced candidates, behavior description interviews can leverage their work history to predict future performance. Hybrid Approach: Many organizations find that a combination of both types of interviews can be most effective. By incorporating both hypothetical scenarios and questions about past behavior, interviewers can get a more comprehensive view of a candidate’s potential and actual performance. In conclusion, neither situational interviews nor behavior description interviews are universally superior. The choice depends on the specific context, job requirements, and the competencies being assessed. Using a blend of both approaches often yields the best results in a comprehensive hiring process. 11. Why do many high-tech organizations use puzzle interviews? Are puzzle interviews effective for employee selection? Why or why not? Answer: Puzzle interviews ask applicants to solve puzzles or unusual problems. These interviews require applicants to use their creativity and problem-solving skills to demonstrate quick thinking. Puzzle interviews are usually administered in an unstructured format and do not use formal scoring keys. Given the scant amount of research available on the properties of puzzle interviews, they are not recommended for use at this time. Their unstructured nature and the difficulty in scoring the less solvable problems give cause for concern. Considerably more research needs to be done before puzzle interviews can be recommended for employee selection. 12. How might Multiple Mini-Interviews be used effectively by employers? In what situations are they most likely to be most effective? Answer: Multiple Mini-Interviews (MMI) are potentially useful for employee selection in organizations in general. This approach would most likely be useful when an organization needs to interview a large number of applicants in a short time. More research is needed regarding the effectiveness of the MMI for predicting job performance in organizational settings before any strong recommendations can be made. 13. Why do many employers resist using structured interviews? How would you encourage more employers to use structured interview techniques? Answer: It takes time to design interview questions and to design valid and reliable scoring keys for structured interviews. Managers need formal training on how to conduct a structured interview and must learn how to justify the decision-making process regarding the applicant. Employers should be encouraged to use structured interviews because this type of interview has been proven to be valid and reliable. EXERCISES INTERVIEW CONSTRUCTION 1. Several of the websites that are listed in this chapter provide guidance on how to write SI and BI questions (e.g., http://apps.opm.gov/ADT/ContentFiles/SIGuide09.08.08.pdf). You might find these sites helpful for the following exercises. a. Select a job you have done or know well. Identify the five most important tasks for this job. b. For each of the five tasks, think of examples of both effective and ineffective performance that you have observed or have been a part of (e.g., critical incidents). c. For each task, write an SI or a BI question. Use the critical incidents to develop a three-point scoring guide (e.g., of a poor answer, a typical answer, and a good answer). Answer: a. Job: Customer Service Representative Five most important tasks: 1. Responding to customer inquiries: This involves answering phone calls, emails, or messages from customers regarding product information, order status, complaints, or general inquiries. Providing accurate and timely responses is crucial to maintaining customer satisfaction. 2. Resolving customer issues: Customer service representatives must effectively address customer concerns or complaints, troubleshoot problems, and find suitable solutions to ensure customer loyalty and retention. 3. Processing orders: This task involves accurately processing customer orders, including entering orders into the system, verifying payment information, and coordinating with other departments such as shipping or inventory to ensure timely delivery. 4. Providing product support: Customer service representatives often assist customers with product-related questions, troubleshooting technical issues, and offering guidance on product usage or features. This helps customers make informed decisions and enhances their overall experience with the product. 5. Maintaining customer records: Customer service representatives are responsible for documenting interactions with customers, including inquiries, complaints, resolutions, and any follow-up actions taken. Keeping accurate records helps track customer history and preferences, enabling personalized service and targeted marketing efforts. b. Lecturing: Ineffective—reading from the textbook; effective—explaining the material clearly without relying on notes Grading: Ineffective—no feedback on how to improve answers; effective—lots of feedback on how to improve answers Supervising group work: Ineffective—observing without giving feedback; effective—interacting, with lots of feedback and guidance Creating PowerPoint Slides: Ineffective—no graphics, too much text, not posted online; effective—good use of graphics, simple text, posted online for student access Maintaining office hours: Ineffective—not showing up for office hours; effective—being on time for all appointments and holding extra meetings when necessary c. (student answers will vary; students should be directed to Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 for direction on creating SI or BI questions): Example for maintaining office hours (SI): You are an instructor of introductory business at a local university. It is halfway through the term and you are preparing to conduct your weekly office hours, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. You are not expecting many students—in fact, you have only seen two students throughout the entire term during regularly scheduled office hours. No one has emailed you telling you that they plan to visit you during your office hours today. Suddenly, a colleague calls you and invites you to a guest lecture in another department. The guest lecturer does research in your area and might make a good contact for future collaboration. The talk is scheduled for 10:30–11:30 a.m., conflicting with your office hours. What would you do? 1—I would leave right away and attend the guest lecture; I would not leave any notice on my door telling students when I will return. 3—I would wait until 10:20 a.m. to see if anyone shows up; if not, I would place a “Be back at 11:30 a.m.” note on my door and attend the lecture. I would send out an email notice to students telling them that I am delayed this morning and cannot meet until 11:30 a.m. 5—I would stay in my office and complete my office hours. I would send an email to the guest lecturer asking them if they could meet for a coffee at 12:00 p.m. to discuss possible research collaboration. Customer Service Representative job: 1. Task: Responding to customer inquiries SI Question: Imagine you receive a call from an irate customer who has been waiting for a delayed shipment. How would you handle this situation? BI Question: Describe a time when you successfully handled a challenging customer inquiry. What was the issue, and how did you resolve it? Scoring Guide: ● Poor Answer: Demonstrates inability to handle customer frustration, lacks empathy, or fails to provide a satisfactory resolution. ● Typical Answer: Shows basic ability to address customer inquiries but may lack depth or creativity in problem-solving. ● Good Answer: Exhibits strong communication skills, empathy, and effective problem-solving abilities, resulting in a positive outcome for the customer. 2. Task: Resolving customer issues SI Question: You receive a complaint from a customer about receiving a damaged product. How would you proceed to resolve this issue? BI Question: Can you discuss a time when you successfully resolved a customer complaint? What steps did you take to address the issue and ensure customer satisfaction? Scoring Guide: ● Poor Answer: Fails to acknowledge the severity of the issue, lacks initiative in resolving the problem, or does not prioritize customer satisfaction. ● Typical Answer: Describes a basic approach to resolving a customer issue but may lack detail on proactive steps taken or the impact on customer satisfaction. ● Good Answer: Demonstrates proactive problem-solving skills, initiative in addressing the issue, and a commitment to ensuring the customer's needs are met. 3. Task: Processing orders SI Question: You notice an error in a customer's order after it has been processed. How would you rectify this situation? BI Question: Describe a time when you had to ensure accurate processing of customer orders under tight deadlines. How did you prioritize tasks and maintain accuracy? Scoring Guide: ● Poor Answer: Shows negligence in order processing, fails to address errors, or lacks attention to detail. ● Typical Answer: Describes a routine approach to order processing without demonstrating problem-solving skills or adaptability. ● Good Answer: Highlights ability to multitask, prioritize tasks effectively, and maintain accuracy in order processing even under pressure. 4. Task: Providing product support SI Question: A customer contacts you with a technical issue regarding a product. How would you assist them in troubleshooting the problem? BI Question: Can you give an example of a time when you provided technical support to a customer? How did you diagnose the issue and guide the customer through the solution? Scoring Guide: ● Poor Answer: Lacks technical knowledge, fails to effectively troubleshoot the issue, or provides inadequate support to the customer. ● Typical Answer: Demonstrates basic understanding of technical support but may lack depth in problem-solving or customer communication skills. ● Good Answer: Exhibits strong technical expertise, effective problem-solving abilities, and clear communication in guiding the customer to resolve the issue. 5. Task: Maintaining customer records SI Question: How do you ensure accuracy and organization in documenting customer interactions and inquiries? BI Question: Describe a time when you had to manage a large volume of customer records. How did you ensure accuracy and accessibility of the information? Scoring Guide: ● Poor Answer: Demonstrates disorganization in record-keeping, lacks attention to detail, or fails to prioritize accuracy in documentation. ● Typical Answer: Describes a basic approach to managing customer records but may lack examples of efficiency or accuracy in documentation. ● Good Answer: Shows strong organizational skills, attention to detail, and the ability to manage customer records efficiently, ensuring accuracy and accessibility for future reference. This exercise can be completed individually or in small groups of three to five. The product of the exercise is used in the role-play that follows below. An alternative to selecting a job with which participants are familiar is to have participants develop an interview for the job of “Course Instructor.” INTERVIEW QUESTION WRITING 2. Are the following good interview questions? If not, how would you change them? a. “How did you get along with your supervisor?” b. “Do you follow policies, rules, and procedures carefully?” Answer: a. This question is quite general. It should be more specific to get at actual behaviours. For example, “Can you think of a time when you disagreed with your supervisor about a rule or procedure? What did you do?” Alternatively, you could ask, “What do you think your supervisor would say if they were asked if you get along well with others?” b. This question is not ideal because it is in a yes/no format. It should be adjusted to get details about behaviours from the candidate. For example, “Can you think of a time when following a specific organizational rule or procedure conflicted with your planned solution to a customer satisfaction issue? What did you do and why?” a. “How did you get along with your supervisor?” Analysis: ● Problem: This question is broad and may elicit a subjective, general response that lacks specific, actionable information. It may also lead to socially desirable answers rather than an honest assessment of the candidate's past relationships with supervisors. ● Improvement: The question should be more specific and focused on behaviors and outcomes to provide clearer insights into the candidate's interactions with their supervisor. Improved Question: ● Behavioral Version: "Can you describe a time when you had a disagreement with your supervisor? How did you handle it, and what was the outcome?" ● Rationale: This version prompts the candidate to provide a specific example, highlighting their problem-solving skills, communication abilities, and professionalism in handling conflicts. b. “Do you follow policies, rules, and procedures carefully?” Analysis: ● Problem: This is a closed-ended question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no," providing little insight into the candidate's actual behavior or thought process. It also encourages a socially desirable response. ● Improvement: The question should be open-ended and seek specific examples to better understand the candidate's approach to policies and procedures. Improved Question: ● Behavioral Version: "Can you provide an example of a situation where you had to follow a strict policy or procedure? How did you ensure compliance, and what challenges did you face?" ● Rationale: This revised question asks the candidate to share a specific experience, demonstrating their attention to detail, understanding of policies, and ability to navigate challenges in adhering to procedures. Conclusion Improving interview questions by making them more specific and behavior-focused helps elicit detailed, concrete responses that offer deeper insights into a candidate’s past behavior and suitability for the role. By asking for examples of past experiences, interviewers can better assess how candidates handle real-life situations, which is more predictive of future performance. 3. “Are you an organized worker?” is obviously not a good interview question because it is transparent and requests a self-evaluation. Is the following wording satisfactory? If not, why not, and how would you change it? “Can you give me an example of how organized you are?” Answer: The revision is better than the original question. An alternative might be “Can you think of a specific example of being disorganized at work and how it impacted your performance?” The question “Can you give me an example of how organized you are?” is an improvement over the original, but it can still be refined for clarity and effectiveness. Here are some considerations and a suggested improvement: Analysis: 1. Specificity and Clarity: ● While the revised question asks for an example, it remains somewhat vague. Candidates might provide a very general response that doesn't fully demonstrate their organizational skills. 2. Behavioral Focus: ● A well-crafted behavioral question should prompt the candidate to describe a specific situation, the actions they took, and the results of those actions (Situation, Task, Action, Result ● STAR method). Suggested Improvement: To elicit a more detailed and informative response, the question can be framed to guide the candidate through a specific scenario. Improved Question: ● Behavioral Version: "Can you describe a time when you had to manage multiple tasks or projects simultaneously? How did you organize your work to ensure everything was completed on time and to a high standard?" ● Rationale: This question is more specific and encourages the candidate to think about a particular instance where their organizational skills were put to the test. It prompts them to explain the context, their approach, and the outcomes, providing a more comprehensive view of their organizational abilities. Example of a Good Response Using STAR: Situation: "In my previous job, I was responsible for managing multiple client accounts and several internal projects simultaneously." Task: "I needed to ensure that all client deliverables were met on time while also progressing internal projects." Action: "I created a detailed project plan using a project management tool, prioritized tasks based on deadlines and importance, and set aside specific time blocks each day to focus on different projects. I also held weekly check-ins with my team to monitor progress and address any issues promptly." Result: "As a result, all client deliverables were completed ahead of schedule, and internal projects were finished on time. My manager commended me for my effective organization and time management skills." Conclusion By refining the question to focus on a specific scenario and prompting the candidate to use the STAR method, interviewers can gather richer and more relevant information about the candidate's organizational skills. This approach helps in making a more informed and objective assessment of the candidate's abilities. 4. Rewrite the following questions to make them more effective. a. “Are you able to handle stress?” b. “How are you at meeting deadlines?” c. “Do you have problems working closely with others?” d. “When you make a mistake, what do you do to fix it?” e. “How are you at solving problems?” f. “Do have any problems communicating with people?” g. “How do you feel about staying late to finish a project?” h. “Are you a good leader? Can you motivate others?” i. “What do you do when you encounter obstacles to meeting your goals?” j. “Are you a good planner?” Answer: a. “Can you think of an example of when you handled stress well at work? What happened and what did you do?” b. “How do you prioritize multiple deadlines? Can you give examples?” c. “Can you think of a time when you experienced conflict with your coworkers? What did you do to resolve the conflict?” d. “Tell me about the last time you made a mistake at work and what you did to address it.” e. “When was the last time you solved a problem at work, and what did you do to solve it?” f. “Tell me about the last time you had a problem communicating with a client and what you did to address it.” g. “Sometimes meeting deadlines means having to stay late at work. Tell me about the last time you did this as part of your work and what the outcomes were.” h. “Can you think of an example of a time when you motivated another person at work? What did you do and what was the outcome?” i. “Tell me about the last time you met with an obstacle for meeting a goal. What did you do to overcome the obstacle and what was the outcome?” j. “How do you go about meeting goals? Explain the last time you planned to meet a goal and what you did to accomplish it.” PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT 5. Organizations exist in an increasingly dynamic environment. As a result, jobs change and employees are required to move around the organization, to do a variety of tasks, to develop multiple skills, and to “retool” or upgrade themselves on an ongoing basis. Employees are being hired less for specific job skills and more for their abilities to fit themselves to the needs of the organization. Organizations are looking for employees who are innovative, flexible, willing to learn, and conscientious, and who fit into the organizational culture—in other words, those who are good organizational citizens. (You may want to review the sections “Job Performance as a Multidimensional Concept,” “A Multidimensional Model of Job Performance,” and “Predicting Task, Contextual, Adaptive, and Counterproductive Job Performance” in Chapter 5, which address these issues.) a. Can the employment interview be used to assess such personality characteristics effectively? How? b. Are there better selection tools than the interview for assessing these characteristics? If so, what are they and why are they superior? If not, why not? c. Does the assessment of organizational fit and relevant personality attributes pose a danger to human rights? If so, how? If not, why not? How might you reduce the dangers of human rights violations while still pursuing employees who fit into the organizational culture? Answer: a. Yes, interviews can assess personality characteristics. For example, the MMI (pages 434–435) is correlated with the Big Five personality inventory. b. Yes, personality inventories/surveys are superior measures of personality because they have higher levels of reliability and validity than do interviews for assessing personality. Interviews are best suited to the assessment of non-cognitive attributes, such as interpersonal relationships or social skills, initiative, dependability, perseverance, teamwork, leadership skills, adaptability or flexibility, organizational citizenship behaviour, and organizational fit. c. If organizational fit is measured by demographic variables, such as race or culture, for example, then these variables stand to be discriminatory. Considerations of organizational fit should be based upon job requirements and behaviours, and less on cultural background and race. This can be done via structured interviews. Characteristics such as integrity, customer service orientation, teamwork orientation, tolerance for stress, initiative, openness to learning, flexibility/adaptability, and other characteristics that reflect organizational norms and values can all be assessed in both SI and BI interviews. INTERVIEW ROLE-PLAY 6. a. Form small groups of between three and five. Assign the role of applicant to one group member and the role of interviewer to another. The remaining members of the group serve as observers. The applicant is to be interviewed for one of the jobs selected for the Interview Construction exercise (page 438). b. As a group, select five self-evaluation questions from the list in Recruitment and Selection Today 9.5 (page 409). The interviewer is to use these questions to begin interviewing the applicant for the job. c. Next, the interviewer is to use the five job-relevant questions developed in the Interview Construction exercise (page 438). d. While the interviewer is conducting the interview, the observers should record their answers to the following questions: i. How do the answers to the first five questions differ from the answers to the second five questions? ii. Does one set of questions provide better information on which to base a selection decision? If so, which one? iii. Is there a difference between the two question sets in terms of how much time the applicant spends talking? If so, which takes more time and why? iv. Of the second set of questions, are there any questions that don’t seem to work as well as they should? If so, why? How would you improve these questions? v. How useful is the scoring guide? Would you recommend any modifications to the scoring guide? If so, how would you change it? e. After the interview, the observers are to debrief the interviewer and the applicant. How did they perceive the relative effectiveness of the two sets of questions? Where did they experience difficulties? The observers should also provide feedback to both the interviewer and the applicant as to how they might improve their interview performance. This role-play can be conducted as a class demonstration with one interviewer and one applicant as role-players and the remainder of the class as observers. A discussion of the relative effectiveness of the two question sets and the effectiveness of the interviewer and applicant can be held with the entire class. Answer: a. Form small groups: Divide the class into small groups of three to five members. Assign one member as the applicant, another as the interviewer, and the rest as observers. The applicant will be interviewed for one of the jobs selected from the previous exercise. b. Select self-evaluation questions: As a group, choose five self-evaluation questions from the list provided in Recruitment and Selection Today 9.5. These questions will be used by the interviewer to begin the interview with the applicant. c. Use job-relevant questions: The interviewer will then use the five job-relevant questions developed in the Interview Construction exercise to continue the interview. d. Observers' tasks: While the interview is in progress, observers will record their observations and answers to specific questions regarding the effectiveness of the questions, differences between the two sets, time spent on answers, and any improvements or modifications they suggest. e. Debriefing: After the interview, observers will debrief both the interviewer and the applicant, providing feedback on the effectiveness of the questions, the performance of both parties, and areas for improvement. Overall, this role-play exercise aims to simulate a real interview scenario, allowing students to practice both interviewing and observation skills, and facilitating discussion on the effectiveness of different types of interview questions. Role-Play Setup 1. Form Groups: ● Create groups of 3-5 members. ● Assign roles within each group: 1 interviewer, 1 applicant, and the remaining members as observers. 2. Job Selection: ● Choose a job that was previously selected in the Interview Construction exercise. 3. Select Self-Evaluation Questions: ● Refer to Recruitment and Selection Today 9.5 (page 409) and collectively select five self-evaluation questions. 4. Job-Relevant Questions: ● Use the five job-relevant questions developed in the Interview Construction exercise (page 438). Conducting the Interview 1. Introduction: ● The interviewer introduces themselves and explains the structure of the interview to the applicant. 2. Self-Evaluation Questions: ● The interviewer begins with the five self-evaluation questions. 3. Job-Relevant Questions: ● The interviewer then transitions to the five job-relevant questions. Observer Tasks 1. Record Observations: ● Observers should take notes on the following: ● Differences between answers to self-evaluation and job-relevant questions. ● Which set of questions provides better information for making a selection decision. ● Time spent by the applicant talking for each set of questions. ● Effectiveness of each job-relevant question. ● Usefulness of the scoring guide and potential modifications. Debriefing Session 1. Observer Feedback: ● Observers provide feedback on the differences and effectiveness of the two question sets. ● Observers comment on which set provided better information and why. ● Discuss time management and effectiveness of the questions. ● Suggest improvements for ineffective questions and modifications to the scoring guide. 2. Applicant and Interviewer Feedback: ● Discuss their perceptions of the interview process. ● Identify any difficulties encountered. ● Provide suggestions for improving interview performance. Class Discussion 1. Class Demonstration: ● Select one group to perform their interview role-play in front of the class. ● The rest of the class acts as observers. 2. Discussion: ● Engage the entire class in a discussion about the relative effectiveness of the two sets of questions. ● Discuss the effectiveness of the interviewer and the applicant's performance. ● Gather insights and suggestions from the class for improving interview techniques and question design. Example of Self-Evaluation Questions (from Recruitment and Selection Today 9.5) 1. Can you describe a situation where you had to adapt quickly to a change? 2. How do you handle stress and pressure? 3. What are your greatest strengths and how have they helped you in your career? 4. Describe a time when you had to work as part of a team to achieve a common goal. 5. How do you prioritize your tasks when you have multiple deadlines to meet? Example of Job-Relevant Questions (based on a hypothetical job) 1. How would you approach a project with a tight deadline and limited resources? 2. Describe a time when you had to solve a complex problem without much guidance. 3. How do you ensure accuracy and attention to detail in your work? 4. Tell me about a time when you had to persuade others to accept your idea. 5. How would you handle a disagreement with a coworker about a project direction? Scoring Guide ● Develop a scoring guide based on the competencies required for the job. ● Rate answers on a scale (e.g., 1-5) for each question based on how well they demonstrate the relevant competency. ● Ensure the scoring guide includes clear criteria for each rating to maintain consistency. By following this structured plan, the role-play exercise will effectively simulate a real interview process, providing valuable insights into the effectiveness of different types of questions and overall interview performance. CASE STUDY Attracting and Retaining Millennials 1. Do you agree with the findings of the I Love Rewards survey and the comments by the chief executive and founder of I Love Rewards, Razor Suleman, concerning the motivation and attitudes of millennials? Why or why not? In what other ways do you think millennials differ from older employees? Answer: Different age cohorts (e.g., millennials and baby boomers) appear to value work rewards differently. For example, millennials often extol the virtues of frequent rewards, challenging work, and work–life balance. Alternatively, baby boomers appear to value organizational loyalty to frequent rewards and often report being more satisfied with their jobs than younger workers. As such, the CEO of I Love Rewards is probably accurate to suggest that there are differences between age groups in terms of valuing rewards (though individual preferences within age groups will certainly vary). 2. What measures can Cango take to maximize the likelihood of attracting and retaining millennial employees? What part would the selection system play in these measures? Answer: Cango can use a variety of methods to increase the likelihood of attracting and retaining millennials. For example, it may wish to implement realistic job previews (RJPs) for each of its positions to lower the somewhat inflated expectations of applicants before becoming employed at Cango. The outcome of any staffing model should include evaluations of the effectiveness of the recruiting efforts. 3. Does the fact that millennials are a major recruitment target of Cango now and in the future have implications for how structured interviews should be developed and/or used with this cohort? If not, why not? If so, how might structured interviews be adapted for this group? Answer: The purpose of structured interviews is to provide the same experience to all applicants, regardless of individual differences. As such it may not be worthwhile for Cango to adapt its interviews to a particular age group. Instead, it may wish to focus on the content of the interview that is based upon information gathered from the job analysis, as standards for performance should not change based upon age group membership status. 4. Select one of the occupations available at Cango (i.e., linehaul drivers, couriers, dispatchers, customer service agents, data systems agents, customs brokerage agents, package handling/sorting, warehouse operations) and locate the summary report for the tasks performed and the KSAOs required for the occupation at http://www.onetonline.org. Develop five SI and five BI questions to assess some of the KSAOs relevant to the occupation you selected. Answer: The job chosen for this exercise is dispatcher (except fire, police, or ambulance). According to http://www.onetonline.org, the five skills required for this job are active listening, speaking, coordination, monitoring, and reading comprehension. A sample of a situational interview (SI) question and a behavioural interview (BI) question are provided for the active listening skill. Use these examples to come up with questions for the other four skills. SI: You have just been hired as a dispatcher at Cango and it is your first day on the job. After making a call to a driver, one of the other dispatchers at Cango, who is considerably older than you but has not been on the job very long, questions your judgment. He seems quite convinced that you made a mistake and angrily suggests that making those kinds of calls will get you fired in the long run. The other dispatchers are listening to see what you say. What would you do? Score Guide: 1—I would tell the dispatcher to mind his own business and that it was my call to make. 3—I would acknowledge the advice and tell the other dispatcher that I will try to take it into account on future calls or openly discuss the merits of the suggestion based upon what I know from my training. 5—I would ask to speak with the dispatcher in private at an appropriate time of mutual convenience and ask him not to openly or angrily question me in front of the other dispatchers out of professional respect. If he observes any future mistakes, I would ask him to please let me know, but not in an angry or confrontational manner. I would tell him that I am fairly confident that I was acting appropriately based upon what I know from training, but that I am open to constructive criticism. BI: In this dispatcher job you will certainly encounter situations in which your judgment will be challenged. Tell me about a time when this happened to you. What did you do? Score Guide: 1—I told the person who challenged me to mind his/her own business and that it was my call to make. 3—I acknowledged the advice told the challenger that I would try to take it into account on future calls or I openly discussed the merits of the suggestion based upon what I knew from my training. 5—I asked to speak to the challenger in private at an appropriate time of mutual convenience. I asked them to refrain from angrily questioning me in front of other employees out of professional respect. I told him that if he observed me making a mistake in the future to please let me know, but not in an angry or confrontational manner. I told him that I was confident that I was acting appropriately based upon I knew from training, but that I was open to constructive criticism. Take some time now to develop SI and BI questions for the other four skills listed above. 5. One of the concerns at Cango is employee retention. Develop two or three interview questions that would allow you to assess the likelihood that an applicant is likely to stay at Cango for a longer period of time. Do you believe the questions you developed will result in an honest answer from the applicants? If so, why? If not, why not? How might you assess the concern about employee retention in a less transparent way? Answer: Sample interview questions: • How long have you stayed in your previous jobs? • Tell me about a time when you were frustrated at work in the past and how you dealt with your frustration. What did you learn from the experience? • Tell me about the circumstances surrounding your most recent departure from a job. How did you deal with it? What did you learn? There is no real way of knowing exactly how honest applicants will be. Perhaps you could implement an honesty-integrity test. Faking could occur, but some research indicates that the negative impact of faking may not be as substantial as previously thought. CHAPTER 10 Decision Making SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, EXERCISES, AND CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What are the common decision-making errors made in employee selection? Can these be eliminated? If so, how? If they cannot be eliminated, can they be reduced? If so, how? Answer: A false positive error occurs when an applicant who is assessed positively turns out to be a poor choice. This is a costly error for a variety of reasons. A false negative error occurs when an applicant who is rejected would have been a good choice. Both of these errors tend to go unnoticed because there is usually no obvious negative consequence to the employer. Although it is not possible to entirely avoid or even recognize all errors when making selection decisions, they can be minimized. Valid selection methods and systematic procedures will serve to improve the probability of making correct selection decisions. 2. What is the difference between judgmental and statistical approaches to the collection and combination of applicant information? Answer: The judgmental composite approach is an approach in which judgmental and statistical data are combined in a judgmental manner. The statistical composite approach is an approach in which judgmental and statistical data are combined statistically. 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the following decision-making models? a. Rational weighting b. Regression models c. Multiple hurdle d. Multiple cutoff e. Profile matching Answer: a. Simple and easy to use, rational weighting requires managers to think about the relative importance of each predictor and, therefore, makes the weighting process explicit. However, assigning weights in this manner is a fairly subjective process. b. The applicant’s scores on each predictor (e.g., tests, interviews, reference checks) are weighted and summed to yield a total score (e.g., predicted job performance). This method of combining multiple predictors in an optimal manner is efficient and minimizes errors in prediction. Different regression equations can be produced for different jobs even if the same predictors are used for all jobs. c. Applicants must pass the minimum cutoff score for each predictor, in turn, before being assessed on the next predictor. As soon as an applicant has failed to meet the cutoff on a given predictor, the applicant ceases to be a candidate for the job and is not assessed on any of the remaining predictors. This approach is less expensive because fewer applicants need to be assessed at each stage of the selection process. d. Scores on all predictors are obtained for all applicants. All applicants would write the cognitive ability and extroversion tests, all would be interviewed, and reference check information would be scored for all. However, in this model, applicants are rejected if their scores on any of the predictors fall below the cutoff scores. This model assumes that, for successful job performance, a minimum level is required on each of the attributes measured by the predictors. It serves to narrow the pool of applicants to a smaller set of minimally qualified candidates, and it is an easy model for managers to understand. It is probably most useful when minimum levels of certain physical abilities, such as eyesight, strength, and so on, are required for job performance. e. In the profile-matching model, current employees who are considered successful on the job are assessed on several predictors. Their average scores on each predictor are used to form an ideal profile of scores required for successful job performance. One should also try to obtain average predictor scores for current employees who are considered poor or marginal performers. Predictors that do not differentiate between good and poor performers should not be included in the ideal profile of scores. This model permits the ranking of applicants based on their similarities to the ideal profile. It is an appropriate method to use when there is clearly a best type of employee for the job and when it is known that poor employees tend to score higher as well as lower on the predictors than the good employees. 4. Why do organizations tend to use groups to make selection decisions? What are the advantages and disadvantages of group decision making? Answer: Some researchers suggest that groups can be poor decision makers. Power motives, politics, conformity to the group, and a lack of information sharing serve to reduce the objectivity of group decision making. In most organizations, there appears to be an intuitive understanding that groups might make better selection decisions than individuals. Having two or more individuals making the selection decision can reduce the effects of biases. 5. Why is it better to use predictors that are uncorrelated or that have a low correlation with each other than predictors that are highly correlated with each other? Answer: When predictors are used that are relatively uncorrelated with each other but that are correlated with the criterion (e.g., job performance), they assess different aspects of the KSAOs needed for the job, and therefore each predictor provides incremental validity. That is, each predictor adds value to the selection system, and the validity of the system increases. Predictors that are highly correlated with each other (e.g., measurements of cognitive ability and university admission test scores) provide considerable redundant information, and therefore, there is little value in using both. Instead, employers benefit by using predictors that have low intercorrelations. 6. Discuss the differences among cutoff scores, banding, and top-down selection. Is any one of these more advantageous to use than the others? If so, under what circumstances? Answer: Cutoff scores are a threshold: those scoring at or above the cutoff score pass; those scoring below fail. Banding groups applicants based on ranges of scores. Top-down selection involves ranking applicants on the basis of their total scores and selecting from the top down until the desired number of candidates has been selected. Which model or method is best in a given situation depends on a number of factors. The number of applicants expected, the amount of time available before the selection decisions have to be made, and the costs associated with the selection instruments all have to be considered in making a choice. 7. What are the biggest pitfalls that employers need to be concerned about when drafting offer of employment letters or contracts? What steps can be taken to avoid or minimize the likelihood of problems with offers of employment? Answer: Contracts must be an offer of employment to be legally valid and enforceable. There must be an offer and an acceptance of the offer of employment, in return for which the job candidate is promised some form of compensation. The employment offer must not be unconscionable or illegal. All employment offers must comply with federal and provincial human rights legislation, workplace safety legislation, and employment standards. Anything that is not specified in the employment agreement becomes subject to common law. The contract should include details of employment, such as the start date, the position title, work location, reporting relationships, and hours of work, and should be accompanied by a document detailing all rules and regulations. It should include details of compensation and benefits, hiring incentives, conditional offers, probationary period, termination of employment, and restrictive agreements. 8. Discuss the benefits of using best practices in recruitment and selection. Answer: Organizations are undergoing change at an accelerating pace. If they are to survive, they must adapt to unanticipated innovations in technology, global competition, a changing labour force, changing demographics, and increasing government regulation and societal pressures for conformity to ethical, environmental, and human rights standards. Best practices in recruitment and selection are part of an organization’s survival tools. EXERCISES 1. Assume that you occasionally hire cashiers for a small store. You generally do not hire more than two or three at a time. You have five applicants for two positions. You have obtained information from all of the applicants on a set of five predictors, as follows (the regressions weights are validity coefficients multiplied by two): a. Using the information presented in the table, determine which of the applicants would be selected and, where appropriate, what their rank would be under each of the following decision-making models: i. Multiple regression ii. Multiple cutoff iii. Multiple hurdle combination iv. Profile matching (D2 only) b. Which of the selection models discussed do you believe is best suited to this situation? Why? Answer: Ms. Z = 1.1 + 1.1(47) + 0.4(26) + 0.8(18) + 1.0(47) + 0.5(6) = 1.1 + 51.7 + 10.4 + 14.4 + 47 + 3 = 127.6 (1st) Mr. Y = 1.1 + 1.1(36) + 0.4(36) + 0.8(15) + 1.0(45) + 0.5(8) = 1.1 + 39.6 + 14.4 + 12 + 45 + 4 = 116.1 (3rd) Ms. W = 1.1 + 1.1(46) + 0.4(36) + 0.8(16) + 1.0(32) + 0.5(9) = 1.1 + 50.6 + 14.4 + 12.8 + 32 + 4.5 = 115.4 (4th) Ms. V = 1.1 + 1.1(44) + 0.4(30) + 0.8(10) + 1.0(36) + 0.5(7) = 1.1 + 48.4 + 12 + 8 + 36 + 3.5 = 109 (5th) Mr. U = 1.1 + 1.1(39) + 0.4(38) + 0.8(14) + 1.0(41) + 0.5(10) = 1.1 + 42.9 + 15.2 + 11.2 + 41 + 5 = 116.4 (2nd) ii. Ms. Z = reject (below on conscientiousness and reference check) Mr. Y = accept (cognitive test at cutoff) Ms. W = reject (below on structured interview) Ms. V = reject (below on biodata) Mr. U = accept (reference check at cutoff) iii. Mr. Y = 1.1 + 1.1(36) + 0.4(36) + 0.8(15) + 1.0(45) + 0.5(8) = 39.6 + 14.4 + 12 + 45 + 4 = 115 (2nd) Mr. U = 1.1 + 1.1(39) + 0.4(38) + 0.8(14) + 1.0(41) + 0.5(10) = 42.9 + 15.2 + 11.2 + 41 + 5 = 115.3 (1st) iv. Ms. Z = (47 - 40)2 + (35 - 26)2 + (18 - 16)2 + (47 - 39)2 + (8 - 6)2 = 49 + 81 + 4 + 64 + 4 = 202 (5th) Mr. Y = (40 - 36)2 + (36 - 35)2 + (16 - 15)2 + (45 - 39)2 + (8 - 8)2 = 16 + 1 + 1 + 36 + 0 = 54 (2nd) Ms. W = (46 - 40)2 + (36 - 35)2 + (16 -1 6)2 + (39 - 32)2 + (9 - 8)2 = 16 + 1 + 0 + 49 + 1 = 67 (3rd) Ms. V = (44 - 40)2 + (35 - 30)2 + (16 - 10)2 + (39 - 36)2 + ( 8 - 7)2 = 16 + 25 + 16 + 9 + 1 = 67 (3rd) Mr. U = (40 - 39)2 + (38 - 35)2 + (16 - 14)2 + (41 - 39)2 + (10 - 8)2 = 1 + 9 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 22 (1st) b. The multiple hurdle model is likely the most appropriate because minimum levels of KSAOs are necessary for job performance and, in this case, likely cannot be compensated by higher levels on other KSAOs. Moreover, the multiple hurdle approach is most useful when the applicant pool is large and some of the selection procedures are expensive. 2. If the regression weights were 1.2, 0.7, 0.3, 1.5, and 0.5 for the five measures, respectively, who would now be selected (the cutoff scores remain unchanged from the original)? What would be the rank-order under each of the four decision-making models? Answer: Ms. Z = 1.1 + 1.2(47) + 0.7(26) + 0.3(18) + 1.5(47) + 0.5(6) = 1.1 + 56.4 + 18.2 + 5.4 + 70.5 + 3 = 154.6 Mr. Y = 1.1 + 1.2(36) + 0.7(36) + 0.3(15) + 1.5(45) + 0.5(8) = 1.1 + 43.2 + 25.2 + 4.5 + 67.5 + 4 = 145.5 Ms. W = 1.1 + 1.2(46) + 0.7(36) + 0.3(16) + 1.5(32) + 0.5(9) = 1.1 + Ms. V = 1.1 + 1.2(44) + 0.7(30) + 0.3(10) + 1.5(36) + 0.5(7) = 1.1 + Mr. U = 1.1 + 1.2(39) + 0.7(38) + 0.3(14) + 1.5(41) + 0.5(10) = 1.1 + 3. If the cutoffs were 30, 30, 15, 40, and 6, respectively, for the five measures, who would now be selected (the regression weights remain unchanged from the originals)? What would be the rank-order under each of the four decision-making models? Answer: Ms. Z = Reject Mr. Y = Accept (biodata at cutoff score) Ms. W = Reject Ms. V = Reject Mr. U = Accept 4. Discuss the impact that both cutoff scores and regression weights may have on selection decisions. Answer: Both are subject to change based upon the evolving population characteristics of applicants (for cutoff scores) and updates to current research in the published management literature (for regression weights). Cutoff scores are determined by predictor scores of individuals who are successful in the job being selected for or by expert ratings. The multiple regression model is an efficient method of combining multiple predictors in an optimal manner and it minimizes errors in prediction. Moreover, by assigning different weights, different regression equations can be produced for different jobs, even if the same predictors are used for all jobs. So, if applicants are being selected for more than one job, they can be placed in the job for which their total score is the highest or they can be placed in the job where their total score is the farthest above the minimum score necessary for acceptable job performance. 5. You are an HR practitioner trying to improve selection procedures in your organization. Under the current system, application forms are screened by relevant department managers to determine who should be interviewed. References are also collected. The managers do their own interviewing using individual, unstructured interviews and base their selection decisions almost exclusively on these interviews. They tend to have a lot of confidence in their gut feelings about candidates and believe they’ve been doing a pretty good job of selecting the right applicants. a. How would you go about trying to convince them that they should adopt a more structured, objective (i.e., statistical) decision-making system? b. What objections to your suggestion do you anticipate would be raised by the managers? c. How would you address these objections? Answer: Both statistical and legal arguments should underpin your position that your organization should adopt a more structured and objective decision-making system. Your statistical argument should be that reliable, valid tests have been shown to result in the selection of higher performers compared with unreliable, invalid tests. Your legal argument should be that the use of reliable, valid tests result in more favourable decisions to the organization because of lawsuits. b. Most managers object to selection testing based on a consideration of resources, usually money and time. c. Managers should be advised that reliable, valid selection tests should be seen as an investment with a promise of future returns, as opposed to an expenditure. 6. Table 10.2 on page 473 presented hypothetical data for four predictors used to hire sales representatives. For the purpose of the illustration, arbitrary cutoffs were set for each of the predictors. For this exercise, we want you to develop actual cutoff scores that you might assign to each of the four measures. Retain the maximum possible score stated in Table 10.2 for each measure. First, obtain the requirements for a sales representative by going to the National Occupational Classification or other job analysis procedure discussed in Chapter 4. Next, follow the Public Service of Canada guidelines (https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/staffing-assessment-tools-resources/human-resources-specialists-hiring-managers/management-toolkit/assessing-competence-series/setting-off-scores-matterjudgement.html) to develop cutoff scores for each measure. The cognitive ability and extraversion measures are generic; however, you may want to use the resources identified in Chapter 8 (e.g., Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook) to select specific cognitive ability and personality measures. Use the information from these specific tests, such as any normative data that is provided, to help set your cutoffs. a. What are your new cutoffs for each of the tests? b. Using your new cutoffs, reanalyze the data in Table 10.2, following the procedures in Table 10.3 (pages 476–477), for each of the decision-making models. Compare your rank-ordering of the four candidates under each model to that obtained from using the Table 10.2 cutoffs. Are there differences in who would be hired? c. Discuss the importance of setting cutoffs with respect to hiring decisions. Answer: a. Setting cutoff scores should include a consideration of the selection ratio for the position. For example, if you are hiring 5 people and the applicant pool is 100, the selection ratio would be 0.05; cutoff scores should be set at the 95th percentile. This might suggest that for each category, the minimum required score would be 47.5/50 (95%). However, according to the information available on the PSC website mentioned above, expert judgement should also influence the setting of cutoff scores. Because cognitive ability and structured interviews are generally more predictive of job performance than extraversion and reference checks, experts may recommend setting higher cutoffs scores for their tests. Students may find data for the relationship between these variables and performance from available meta-analyses online. Alternatively, they may use normative data, such as average scores from current employees on each of the measured dimensions. For example, imagine that the Mean Scores results in Table 10.2 are the average scores from current employees, not from applicants as presented. The new cutoff scores would be: Cognitive ability: 24 Extraversion: 37 Structured interview: 38 Reference check: 37 To establish new cutoff scores for each measure, we would first obtain the requirements for a sales representative through job analysis procedures. Then, following the guidelines provided by the Public Service of Canada, we would use a combination of empirical data, expert judgment, and the nature of the job to determine appropriate cutoff scores for each measure. For example: Cognitive Ability: If the job analysis suggests that problem-solving and critical thinking are crucial for success as a sales representative, we might set a cutoff score based on the 75th percentile of scores from a specific cognitive ability test. Extraversion: Given the social nature of sales roles, we might set a cutoff score based on the 80th percentile of scores from a validated personality assessment focusing on traits related to extraversion. b. Depending on the judgements used to calculate the cutoff scores and on the size of the potential applicant pool, there may be large differences in terms of who would be hired. After establishing new cutoff scores, we would reanalyze the data in Table 10.2 using the procedures outlined in Table 10.3. This involves calculating the total scores for each candidate based on their performance on each measure and comparing those scores to the new cutoffs. Depending on the decision-making model used (e.g., multiple hurdles, compensatory), candidates would be ranked accordingly. c. Cutoffs are important for jobs where there are minimum levels of certain physical abilities required for successful performance. For example, some occupations, such as law enforcement, firefighting, or heavy manufacturing, have minimum specifications for eyesight, colour vision, or strength. Applicants who do not meet the minimum standards should not be hired because they would not likely successfully perform their job, possibly putting themselves and/or members of the public in harm’s way. Setting cutoff scores is critical in ensuring that only candidates who meet the minimum requirements for the job are considered further in the hiring process. It helps streamline the selection process by focusing attention on candidates who possess the necessary qualifications and attributes. Additionally, cutoff scores provide consistency and fairness in candidate evaluation, reducing the risk of bias or subjectivity in hiring decisions. However, it's important to regularly review and update cutoff scores to ensure they remain relevant to the job requirements and reflect changes in the workforce or industry standards. CASE STUDY Selection System at Google 1. Why did Google change its selection system? How was the selection system changed? Answer: Google changed its selection system because its management was not satisfied with the outcomes of the previous system, which required successful applicants to have a grade-point average (GPA) of at least 3.7. The new system dropped this requirement and replaced it with online biographical information blanks (BIB). Google changed its selection system to improve the effectiveness of its hiring process and ensure that they were selecting the best candidates who would thrive in the company's unique culture and work environment. The company recognized the need to evolve its approach to hiring to meet the demands of a rapidly growing and evolving organization. Reasons for Change: 1. Focus on Attributes and Skills: ● Google aimed to shift its focus from traditional markers of success, such as academic pedigree and technical expertise, to identifying candidates with attributes and skills that aligned with the company's values and culture. 2. Emphasis on Diversity and Inclusion: ● The company sought to foster a more diverse and inclusive workforce by broadening its criteria for evaluating candidates and reducing biases in the selection process. 3. Adaptation to Changing Industry Needs: ● As the technology landscape evolved, Google recognized the importance of hiring individuals who demonstrated agility, adaptability, and a willingness to learn new skills to stay competitive in the industry. Changes to the Selection System: 1. Implementation of Behavioral Interviews: ● Google introduced behavioral interviews, which focus on candidates' past experiences and behaviors rather than hypothetical scenarios or technical questions. This approach helps assess candidates' problem-solving skills, communication abilities, and cultural fit. 2. Use of Structured Interview Frameworks: ● The company adopted structured interview frameworks with predefined questions and evaluation criteria to ensure consistency and fairness in the evaluation process. Interviewers received training to conduct interviews effectively and objectively. 3. Assessment of Soft Skills and Leadership Potential: ● Google expanded its evaluation criteria to include soft skills such as collaboration, creativity, and leadership potential, alongside technical skills. The company recognized the importance of these attributes in driving innovation and success within the organization. 4. Incorporation of Job Simulations: ● Job simulations and case studies were introduced to assess candidates' problem-solving abilities and how they would perform in real-world scenarios relevant to their roles. These simulations provide a more accurate representation of candidates' capabilities than traditional interviews. 5. Focus on Culture Fit: ● Google placed a greater emphasis on assessing candidates' alignment with the company's values, culture, and mission. Candidates were evaluated based on their ability to thrive in Google's collaborative, fast-paced, and innovative work environment. Conclusion: Google changed its selection system to align with its evolving needs and values, focusing on identifying candidates with the right mix of skills, attributes, and cultural fit. By implementing behavioral interviews, structured frameworks, soft skills assessment, job simulations, and a focus on culture fit, Google aimed to improve the effectiveness and fairness of its hiring process and build a diverse, inclusive, and high-performing workforce. 2. Do you think the changes are an improvement compared with Google’s previous selection system? Why or why not? Answer: Yes, the changes to Google’s selection system likely represent an improvement compared with the previous system. The changes allow Google to find more “well-rounded” candidates by using online biographical information blanks (BIBs), telephone screening interviews, and elements of realistic job previews (RJPs). Google also likely lowered the financial and human costs associated with interviewing. 3. Do you agree that using an online biographical information blank (BIB) is the best way for Google to manage the large volume of applications? Why or why not? Answer: Yes, BIBs have been shown to be effective tools for using past behaviours as indirect indicators of future behaviours. They are effective, mostly non-invasive, and legally defensible. BIBs should be used in cases like Google’s, where organizations select from large number of employee applicants for similar kinds of jobs (see Chapter 7). Finally, BIBs tend to have relatively high validity coefficients for job performance. 4. Is invasion of privacy a concern with the kinds of questions used in Google’s online BIB (e.g., “Is your workplace messy or neat?”)? Why or why not? Answer: Comparatively speaking, Canadian privacy laws are relatively strict at the federal and provincial levels. It is therefore possible for certain BIB questions to be developed that may be too private to answer. Google’s HR staff should explain to applicants that they can skip particularly sensitive questions and that their answers will be treated as confidential. More on this topic can be found in Chapter 7. Invasion of privacy can indeed be a concern with the types of questions used in Google's online BIB (Behavioral Interview for Google). While questions like "Is your workplace messy or neat?" may seem innocuous on the surface, they can potentially reveal personal information about the candidate that may not be directly relevant to their ability to perform the job. Here are a few reasons why invasion of privacy might be a concern: 1. Disclosure of Personal Information: Questions about personal habits or preferences, such as the neatness of one's workspace, may lead candidates to reveal details about their personal lives that they may not feel comfortable sharing in a professional setting. 2. Potential for Bias: Answers to questions about personal habits or preferences could inadvertently introduce bias into the hiring process. For example, if a messy workspace is perceived negatively by the interviewer, a candidate who admits to having a messy workspace might be unfairly judged, even if their work performance is excellent. 3. Unrelated to Job Performance: Questions about personal habits or preferences may not be directly related to a candidate's ability to perform the job. Focusing on these aspects could lead to overlooking more important qualifications and skills needed for the role. 4. Legal Implications: Depending on local laws and regulations, asking certain personal questions during the hiring process may be illegal. Questions that delve into areas such as marital status, religion, or political affiliation could potentially open up the employer to legal liability for discrimination. Overall, while behavioral interview questions can be valuable in assessing a candidate's past behavior and experiences, it's essential to ensure that the questions asked are job-related and do not unnecessarily intrude into candidates' personal lives. Employers should focus on questions that directly assess candidates' skills, qualifications, and experiences relevant to the job role to minimize the risk of invasion of privacy and potential bias. 5. Do you think the online BIB could have adverse impact on minority applicants? If so, why? If not, why not? Answer: Yes, as with many selection instruments, BIBs could have an adverse impact on minority applicants because the generalizability of BIBs has not been fully explored by HR researchers. The concern is that BIBs are developed using current employees, not current applicants or future employees. Thus it is possible that Google will develop a BIB that may represent the current ethnic make-up of the work force and that it will thereby continue to exclude ethnicities that are currently not well represented in the company. 6. What alternatives can you suggest for an organization such as Google to manage a large number of applications? Answer: Any alternative selection technique that Google considers should be designed to manage a large number of applicants under conditions where the selection ratio is small. For example, Google may wish to weight certain skills or “units” in their BIB or online application forms, depending on their established relevance to the job in question. Skills such as coding and analytical thinking could be more heavily weighted for technical jobs. Given the large number of applications, Google may wish to improve upon the validity of simple unit weighting by designing a multiple hurdle model or combination model of decision making. Whatever model is chosen, it should be one designed to handle large numbers of applications in relatively short periods of time. 7. Do you think the new system will be more effective at helping Google to hire candidates who will be more “well rounded” (i.e., have demonstrated abilities in leadership, teamwork, creativity, etc.)? Why or why not? Answer: Yes, it is possible for Google’s new staffing system to select larger numbers of “well-rounded” employees compared with its previous system. However, without weighting desirable skills (e.g., teamwork or creativity), the system will not be very nuanced and will not likely greatly reduce the applicant pool by itself. Suggestions for identifying “well-rounded” candidates can be found below in the answer to Question 8. 8. What alternative ways are there of identifying the kind of “well-rounded” candidates Google is looking for? Answer: Google may wish to use alternative decision-making models. For example, if Google were to use a multiple cutoff combination model approach, employees would have to meet a cutoff score for the desired well-rounded skills, such as leadership and teamwork, thereby reducing the pool of applicants. If Google were to choose a multiple hurdle combination model, applicants would first have meet the cutoff scores; then the multiple regression model would be applied. 9. Would an interview question bank such as qDroid be helpful to interviewers in organizations other than Google? Why or why not? Answer: A question bank such as qDroid would be helpful to other organizations if it included clear instructions and connections between the questions and appropriate responses for that particular position and the specific organization. An interview question bank like qDroid could be helpful to interviewers in organizations other than Google, but its utility would depend on various factors specific to each organization. Here are some considerations: Advantages: 1. Access to Diverse Questions: ● An interview question bank offers a wide range of questions covering different competencies, skills, and job roles. This variety can be beneficial for interviewers in organizations of any size or industry looking to diversify their interview questions. 2. Time Efficiency: ● Preparing interview questions from scratch can be time-consuming. Having access to a question bank streamlines the process, saving time for interviewers and enabling them to focus on other aspects of the hiring process. 3. Consistency and Standardization: ● A question bank helps ensure consistency and standardization in the interview process by providing a set of predefined questions. This consistency is valuable for comparing candidates objectively and ensuring fairness in the selection process. 4. Quality Control: ● Interview question banks often include vetted and validated questions, reducing the risk of bias or irrelevant questioning. This can lead to higher-quality interviews and more accurate assessments of candidates. 5. Training and Development: ● Question banks can serve as valuable training resources for new interviewers, providing them with a structured framework for conducting interviews and evaluating candidates. Considerations: 1. Customization and Adaptability: ● While question banks offer a wealth of pre-written questions, interviewers may need to customize and adapt them to suit their organization's specific needs, culture, and job requirements. A one-size-fits-all approach may not always be effective. 2. Risk of Overreliance: ● Relying too heavily on a question bank without considering the unique context of each interview and candidate may lead to robotic or scripted interviews that fail to elicit meaningful insights. 3. Limited Scope: ● Some question banks may have limitations in terms of the range of questions or the depth of coverage for certain competencies or job roles. Organizations with specialized needs may find that a generic question bank does not fully meet their requirements. 4. Quality Assurance: ● The quality of questions in a question bank can vary, and not all questions may be suitable for every organization or interview situation. It's essential for organizations to ensure the reliability and validity of the questions they use. Conclusion: While an interview question bank like qDroid could offer benefits such as access to diverse questions, time efficiency, consistency, and quality control, its effectiveness would depend on how well it aligns with the organization's needs, culture, and job requirements. Organizations considering the adoption of such a tool should assess its suitability, customize questions as needed, provide training and guidance to interviewers, and maintain a balance between standardized questioning and personalized interaction with candidates. 10. Pretend you have been put in charge of staffing at Google. Your job is to review the new selection system and to explore ways of improving the system. a. How would you determine whether the online BIB and interviews are helping Google accomplish its employee selection objectives? b. If you found that the BIB has adverse impact on minority applicants, what would you do to address the problem? c. What suggestions would you make to help Google further improve its selection system? How would you determine whether these suggested changes are effective? d. What decision-making model (e.g., multiple regression, multiple cutoff, multiple hurdle, combination, profile matching) is currently being used by Google? Is this the most appropriate model? If so, why? If not, why not and what alternative model would you recommend? Why? Answer: a. BIB dimensions and interviews should be structured and align with job analyses. b. Any adverse impact uncovered by HR staff should be removed immediately via the appropriate techniques. For example, Google may wish to use fixed or sliding bands based upon the applicants’ scores. c. You may wish to recommend a review of the practical considerations of hiring at Google as discussed in the textbook (see Recruitment & Selection Notebook 10.1). d. Google moved from a system that utilized a form of cutoff (GPA 3.7) before moving to the interview stage to a system using BIB and application forms before conducting interviews. Based upon its use of an algorithm for suitability, one might discern that Google has moved to a system that uses either cutoff scores or multiple regression to determine if an employee is suited for work at the company. Both are appropriate, but it may be advisable to switch to a multiple hurdle combination model to reduce the size of the applicant pool. Alternatively, if Google were to endorse the idea that there are “ideal candidates” for its positions, it could implement the profile matching model. Solution Manual for Recruitment and Selection in Canada Victor M. Catano, Rick D. Hackett, Willi H. Wiesner 9780176764661, 9780176570316, 9780176504373