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.
Adverse Impact, quantitative example
Caucasian
100 applicants
60 are hired
SR = 60/100 = .6
Latino
100 applicants
20 are hired
SR = 20/100 = .2
.2 /.6 = .33 < .80 (4/5s) = Adverse Impact
Section 106
Section of the law that prohibits the adjustment of test scores on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Implications for:
-Item choice (no Golden Rule adjustments)
-Race Norming
-Banding (if race is the basis for the selection decision within a band)
Race Norming
To reduce adverse impact scores of tests producing adverse impact were standardized within each protected group
Results in percentages that do not have equivalent raw scores
Reduces adverse impact
Unfairly impacts high scoring applicants
Essentially “curved” scores for minorities
Banding
ADA of 1990
Gutman, 2000
ADA of 1990 Major issues
Definition of disability
-someone who has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities, has a record of this impairment, and is regarded as impaired
Reasonable accommodation scenario
-Testing
-On the job
Pre-hire questions
ADA of 1990, Major hurdle for plaintiffs
Disabled and qualified to perform the job
-Most people lose cases
3 part definition of a disability
-Physical or mental impairment that substantially interferers w/ a major life activity
–E.g. Walking, hearing, speaking…
–Record of an impairment
-Perceived as having an impairment
Qualified to perform
-Prerequisites for the job’s essential duties
-Perform the essential functions w/ or w/out reasonable accommodation
–Insurmountable barrier
Adverse employment decision because of the disability
Physical or mental impairment that substantially interferers w/ a major life activity
- until relatively recently not working (Sutton v. United Airlines, 1999), but work now counts
ADA 1990, Reasonable Accommodations
Defined: the organization is required to make changes in the work process (ramps, modified training materials, altering work schedules, etc.) for an otherwise qualified individual, unless they impose an undue hardship.
-Cost and the financial state of the company are considered for undue hardship
Insurmountable barrier if request are made to alter essential job functions
Organizations should always flexibly interact with employee
No preference in selection
-Disabled and qualified does not necessarily mean they are the most qualified for the position
ADA of 1990, Hiring Practices
Prohibited pre-hire practices
Questions:
-That might result in info about a disability
-Major life activities
-Medical exams or mental history
-Personality test that make inferences about an applicant’s mental impairment
Permitted pre-hire practices
Questions:
-About accommodation if the disability is obvious or request had been made
-Essential job functions
-Ask if the individual can perform the job
-Current/past casual drug use
-Physical test that simulate essential job functions
-Physicians certification that a person can perform the training or test
After a conditional job offer
-Medical exams
-Nature and severity of the disability
-Questions about accommodations
Accommodations during testing
Must inform potential applicants specifics about the test so they will know if they might need to request some accommodation.
Develop equivalent tests that tap the same KSAs (can be tough)
If equivalent measures can’t be developed, alternative measures are acceptable
Equal Pay Act of 1963
ADEA of 1967
Privacy
The courts have recognized the constitutional right of the people to be protected against intrusion by the government into their private lives.
Testing, and particularly personality and attitude testing, is often the object of legal scrutiny.
Personality Measures
Between 40 and 70% of American employers use some form of personality test, and the number is increasing.
Are they legal ?
That depends…
Many factors that determine whether a personality test will be legal and useful
Case law
Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corporation
Class action challenging practice of requiring Target Store security officer applicants to pass a psychological screening
Not armed, but carries handcuffs and may use force against a suspect in self- defense
Used a “Psychscreen” to screen out applicants who are emotionally unstable
Combination of the MMPI and the California Psychological Inventory
704 true-false questions
Example Questions
The test includes questions about an applicant’s religious attitudes, such as:
-I feel sure that there is only one true religion.
-I have no patience with people who believe there is only one true religion.
-My soul sometimes leaves my body.
-A minister can cure disease by praying and putting his hand on your head.
-Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would.
-I go to church almost every week.
-I believe in the second coming of Christ.
-I believe in a life hereafter.
-I believe my sins are unpardonable.
-I believe there is a God.
-I believe there is a Devil and a Hell in afterlife.
The test includes questions that might reveal an applicant’s sexual behavior, such as:
-I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex.
-I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior.
-I have been in trouble one or more times because of my sex behavior.
-My sex life is satisfactory.
-I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex.
-I have often wished I were a girl. (Or if you are a girl) I have never been sorry that I am a girl.
-I have never indulged in any unusual sex practices.
-I am worried about sex matters.
-I like to talk about sex.
-Many of my dreams are about sex matters.
