Internal Selection CHAPTER TEN Screen graphics created by: Jana F. Kuzmicki, PhD Troy State University-Florida and Western Region

Staffing Organizations Model Vision and Mission Goals and Objectives Organization Strategy HR and Staffing Strategy Staffing Policies and Programs Support Activities Core Staffing Activities Legal compliance Recruitment: External, internal Planning Selection: Measurement, external, internal Job analysis Employment: Decision making, final match Staffing System and Retention Management

Chapter Outline Preliminary Issues Initial Assessment Methods Logic of Prediction Types of Predictors Selection Plan Initial Assessment Methods Skills Inventory Peer Assessments Self-Assessments Managerial Sponsorship Informal Discussions and Recommendations Choice of Methods Substantive Assessment Methods Seniority and Experience Job Knowledge Tests Performance Appraisal Promotability Ratings Assessment Centers Interview Simulations Promotion Panels and Review Boards Choice of Methods Discretionary Assessment Methods Applicant Reactions Legal Issues

Preliminary Issues Logic of prediction Types of predictors Selection plan

Logic of Prediction HR Outcomes Previous job(s) Current job Nonjob Past Situations Attraction Performance Satisfaction Retention Attendance HR Outcomes New Situation (job) Person KSAOs Motivation Sample Predict

Preliminary Issues Logic of prediction Types of predictors Similarities exist between internal and external selection in terms of effectiveness of selection methods Advantages of internal over external selection - Data often provide greater depth, relevance, and verifiability Types of predictors Content - Greater depth and relevance of data available on internal candidates Greater emphasis can be placed on samples and criteria rather than signs Selection plan

Initial Assessment Methods Skills inventory Peer assessments Self-assessments Managerial sponsorship Informal discussions and recommendations

Skills Inventory Traditional Upgraded Customized List of KSAOs held by each employee Upgraded Managers systematically enter latest skills acquired by employees in database as soon as they occur Customized Specific skill sets are recorded for specific jobs SMEs identify skills critical to job success Exh. 10.1: Customized Skill Inventory

Peer Assessments Methods include peer ratings, peer nominations, peer rankings Exh. 10.2: Peer Assessments Methods Strengths Rely on raters who presumably are knowledgeable of applicants’ KSAOs Peers more likely to view decisions as fair due to their input Weaknesses May encourage friendship bias Criteria involved in assessments are not always clear

Initial Assessment Methods Self-assessments Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to determine promotability Exh. 10.3: Self-Assessment Form Managerial sponsorship Higher-ups given considerable influence in promotion decisions Exh. 10.4: Employee Advocates Informal discussions and recommendations May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job performance

Choice of Initial Assessment Methods Exh. 10.5: Evaluation of Initial Assessment Methods Effectiveness of initial internal methods Skills inventories and informal methods used extensively Peer assessments methods very promising in terms of reliability and validity

Substantive Assessment Methods Seniority and experience Job knowledge tests Performance appraisal Promotability ratings Assessment centers Interview simulations Promotion panels and review boards

Overview of Seniority and Experience Definitions Seniority - Length of service with organization, department, or job Experience - Includes not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has undertaken Among the most prevalent methods of internal selection Why so widely used? Direct experience in a job content area reflects an accumulated stock of KSAOs necessary to perform job Information is easily and cheaply obtained Protects employee from capricious treatment and favoritism Promoting senior or experienced employees is socially acceptable -- viewed as rewarding loyalty

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

Job Knowledge Tests Job knowledge includes elements of both ability and seniority Measured by a paper-and-pencil test Holds promise as a predictor of job performance Reflects an assessment of previous experiences of an applicant and an important KSAO - Cognitive ability Example - Federal Express Developed an interactive video test to assess employees’ ability to deal with customers - QUEST A 90% competency level is expected for minimum performance

Performance Appraisal A possible predictor of future job performance is past job performance collected by a performance appraisal process Advantages Readily available Probably capture both ability and motivation Weaknesses Potential lack of a direct correspondence between requirements of current job and requirements of position applied for “Peter Principle” Validity of using performance appraisal depends on several factors Exh. 10.6: Questions to Ask in Using Performance Appraisal as a Method of Internal Staffing Decisions

Promotability Ratings Assessing promotability involves determining an applicant’s potential for higher-level jobs Promotability ratings often conducted along with performance appraisals Exh. 10.7: Promotability Rating Form Useful for both selection and recruitment Caveat When receiving separate evaluations for purposes of appraisal, promotability, and pay, an employee may receive mixed messages

Overview of Assessment Centers Elaborate method of employee selection Involves using a collection of predictors to forecast success, primarily in higher-level jobs Objective Predict an individual’s behavior and effectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial Incorporates multiple methods of assessing multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors Exh. 10.8: Selection Plan for an Assessment Center

Characteristics of Assessment Centers Length of assessment - 2 to 5 days Exh. 10.9: Assessment Center Program Schedule Participants take part in several exercises In-basket exercise Leaderless group discussion Case analysis Trained assessors evaluate participants’ performance Participants are usually managers being assessed for higher-level managerial jobs Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion of program Exh. 10.10: Sample Assessment Rating Form

Evaluation of Assessment Centers Validity Average validity --> ŕ = .37 Validity is higher when Multiple predictors are used Assessors are psychologists rather than managers Peer evaluations are used Possess incremental validity in predicting performance and promotability beyond personality traits and cognitive ability tests Research results “Crown prince/princess” syndrome Participant reactions

Substantive Assessment Methods Interview simulations Role-play Fact finding Oral presentations Promotion panels and review boards

Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods Exh. 10.11: Evaluation of Substantive Assessment Methods Effectiveness of substantive methods No single best method to narrow down candidate list to finalists Job knowledge, promotability ratings, and assessment centers are strong in terms of reliability and validity Interview simulations appear to be a promising technique for public contact jobs

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

Applicant Reactions Minimal research on internal selection methods Companies less likely to use a negatively perceived selection method for internal applicants Employees who feel unfairly treated restore equity with various behaviors Reducing work Stealing Perceptions of an unfair process exert more influence on attitudes/behaviors than negative feelings of rejection

Legal Issues Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) Shattering the glass ceiling Employ greater use of selection plans Minimize use of casual, subjective methods and use formal, standardized, job-related assessment methods Implement programs to convey KSAOs necessary for advancement to aspiring employees