Week 5, Selection II, Key Terms Flashcards
Executive Selection
Hollenbeck (2009)
Who is an executive? Silzer (2002) includes general managers, corporate officers, and heads of major organizational units*
I/O psychologists have been less involved in Exec Selection
Implicit assumption that executive performance is unpredictable (because of the nature of the position)
Whats wrong with executive selection
Little data on the rate of failure
High profile failures and availability heuristic
However, Drucker (1985) stated execs ‘‘batting average is no better than .333”
Hogan (2003) ‘‘we know for a fact . . . that perhaps two thirds of the people currently in leadership positions in the Western world will fail; they will be fired, demoted, or kicked upstairs’’
Hogan et al. (2009) estimates of the base rate of managerial failure . . . range from 30 to 67 percent
How execs are selected
The task of selecting executives is reserved for executive recruiters and more senior executives (Howard, 2001)
Why?
I/O has always had an uncomfortable relationship with individual assessment
Search firms suggest that we are producing “irrelevant findings” in our research.
Our model is correlational, and relies on large N sizes
successful exec selection
Collins (2001) examined successful companies and their leaders
Suggested that ‘‘successful companies placed greater weight on character attributes than on specific educational background, practical skills, specialized knowledge, or work experience.’’
Hollenbeck suggest we should focus our selection models on the 3 “C”s
Character, Competence, Competencies
Hollenbeck suggest that focusing too tightly on competencies (the prevailing model) doesn’t work because behaviors are too loosely coupled with results
No prescription of behaviors that will lead to success
An Exec may change the way a job is done in order to capitalize on his own propensities, strengths, & weaknesses
Equifinality
In an assembly job I can show you how to perform, and then you do it. It doesn’t work that way with executive jobs.
executive character
Must view selecting executives not as a selection problem but as a problem in decision making and judgment
Must ask ‘‘what does the executive making this judgment want to know?’’
Hollenbeck suggests that character is a relatively stable characteristic.
Assessed using already available tools
Also advocates examining an executive’s past judgments as data
-Easier for internal candidates
methods of exec selection
Interviews
-Board of Directors involvement
Non-traditional tests (projective measures)
360 feedback reviews
Assessment Centers &
Business simulations
Session C discussions
Behavior Competency Modeling
Day (2009)
Should not be considered a stand-alone decision
Part of a comprehensive succession management process
Talent Management
Succession planning
Viewed as one of the most important issues by top execs
However, less than 30% of companies surveyed reported having a formal succession plan (Fegley, 2006)
Little research on succession planning
Little formal education on the topic
Internal/External candidate paradox
Firms increasingly hiring externally (external bias), but these candidates have higher failure rates
Internals have advantages
Succession management process has generated a wealth of data on internal candidates
“live fire” exercise or living assessment center
-performance in stretch assignments,
-a record of developmental activities,
-reports from superiors and subordinates (360)
External bias - a reliance on a ‘‘savior complex’’ Apparently, the devil you don’t know is preferable to the one you do.
Selection and the Law
Developing a selection system is hard work
Job Analysis
Knowledge of different predictor constructs
Knowledge of psychometrics (reliability and validity)
+
Knowledge of the Law
General emphasis is on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
Title VII
Title VII as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 has been the principal body of federal legislation in the area of fair employment.
It states that it shall be an unlawful employment practices for an employer
“to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race/color, religion, sex, or national origin”
Protects classes of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
It is illegal to make personnel decisions based on race/color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability.
Forms the basis of discrimination claims
Discrimination
Procedure having adverse impact constitutes discrimination unless justified (validated in accordance with the guidelines)
Consideration of suitable alternative selection procedures
User should use the procedure which has been demonstrated to have the lesser adverse impact
Whenever a validity study is conducted an investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures should be included
Disparate Treatment
Disparate treatment occurs where members of a race, sex, or ethnic group have been denied the same employment, promotion, membership, or other employment opportunities as have been available to other employees or applicants.
Different standards for different groups
When discrimination is intentional (if not always explicit)
Ex. Only men get promoted
Selection Standards are applied uniformly
However the system produces differences in the selection of the groups
Ex. Physical agility
Will exclude more women
Burden of proof
Different depending on how discrimination is defined (disparate treatment vs. impact)
First step is for plaintiff to provide prima facie evidence
Then burden of proof shifts to the defendant (the organization)
Burden of proof, Disparate treatment
McDonnell Douglas Rule
-Belongs to a protected class
-Applied and was qualified for job
-Were rejected
-Company still sought applicants
Intention must be demonstrated
Company must then demonstrate a legit non-discriminatory rationale (just has to be plausible, not the actual reason)
Plaintiff must then show that the given rationale is pretense
Burden of proof, Disparate Impact
Focus is more on the selection impact on protected groups
Relies on stats (less on intention)
If adverse impact is found prima facie evidence exists
Company must then demonstrate the job relatedness of the selection procedure
Business necessity
BFOQ
VALIDITY!
Business necessity - chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=lawreview
Walt Disney Company has been successful in using the BFOQ doctrine to uphold hiring policies at its Epcot country pavilions that restrict employment to people from those countries. Moreover, Disney has been successful in resisting challenges to its hiring practices at its ‘themed’ park areas, such as the African village of Harambe in the Animal Kingdom, where in order to obtain a job with customer contact an applicant must be from Africa.
Hooters claimed that they were providing “vicarious sexual recreation”. Hooters attempted to use female sexuality as a BFOQ, which would have worked if they were in the entertainment business. However, Hooter’s markets itself as a family restaurant. In this case, the courts looked at the essential nature of the business. Hooters, portrays itself to the public as a restaurant, not a sex business, therefore Hooter’s BFOQ did not hold up in court.
Adverse Impact
Labor market comparisons
Determining Adverse Impact
4/5s rule
If the data shows that the total selection process for a job has an adverse impact, the individual components of the selection process should be evaluated for adverse impact
Adverse impact refers to the impact on a class of a given selection practice, defined in terms of selection ratios of the protected class and the majority group.
Adverse impact occurs when the selection ratio for the protected class is less than 80% of the group with the largest selection ratio.
It is not illegal to use a selection device with adverse impact. But to be legal it must be job-relevant, assessing a KSAO necessary for job success.
That is, if 60% of male applicants were offered a job, there would be adverse impact against females if fewer than 48% of them (80% of 60%) were offered a job.
Organization should be prepared to defend itself legally.
Banding
ADA of 1990
Gutman, 2000
Equal Pay Act of 1963
ADEA of 1967
