Part 4 Staffing Activities: Selection Chapter 10: Internal Selection McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

Staffing Organizations Model 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 10-2

Chapter Outline Preliminary Issues 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 Legal Issues

Learning Objectives for This Chapter Compare how the logic of prediction applies to internal vs. external selection decisions Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the five initial assessment methods used in internal selection Consider the merits and pitfalls of using seniority and experience for internal selection decisions Describe the main features of assessment centers Understand the advantages and disadvantages of using assessment centers for internal selection decisions Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the seven substantive assessment methods used in internal selection

Discussion Questions for This Chapter What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings? Explain the theory behind assessment centers. Describe the three different types of interview simulations. Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority, assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures. What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?

Preliminary Issues Logic of prediction Types of predictors indicators of internal applicants’ degree of success in past situations should be predictive of their likely success in new situations Types of predictors there is usually greater depth and relevance to the data available on internal candidates relative to external selection Selection plan important for internal selection to avoid the problems of favoritism and gut instinct that can be especially prevalent in internal selection

Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future Performance Advantages of internal over external selection Greater depth and relevance of data available on internal candidates Greater emphasis can be placed on samples and criteria rather than signs

Discussion Questions Explain how internal selection decisions differ from external selection decisions.

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

Skills Inventory Traditional Customized List of KSAOs held by each employee Records a small number of skills listed in generic categories, such as education, experience, and supervisory training received Customized Specific skill sets are recorded for specific jobs SMEs identify skills critical to job success

Peer Assessments Methods include peer ratings, peer nominations, peer rankings 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

Ex. 10.1: Peer Assessment Methods

Initial Assessment Methods Self-assessments Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to determine promotability Exh. 10.2: Self-Assessment Form Managerial sponsorship Higher-ups given considerable influence in promotion decisions Exh. 10.3: Employee Advocates Informal discussions and recommendations May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job performance

Exhibit 10.4 Choice of Initial Assessment Methods

Discussion Questions What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings?

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 Not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has undertaken 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 Employees typically expect promotions will go to most senior or experienced employee Relationship to job performance Seniority is unrelated to job performance Experience is moderately related to job performance, especially in the short run Experience is superior because it is: a more valid method than seniority more likely to be content valid when past or present jobs are similar to the future job Experience is unlikely to remedy initial performance difficulties of low-ability employees is better suited to predict short-term rather than long-term potential

Job Knowledge Tests Job knowledge includes elements of both ability and seniority Measured by a paper-and-pencil test or a computer Holds great promise as a predictor of job performance Reflects an assessment of what was learned with experience Also captures cognitive ability

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”

Performance Appraisal Ex. 10.5: Questions to Ask in Using Performance Appraisal as a Method of Internal Staffing Decisions Is the performance appraisal process reliable and unbiased? Is present job content representative of future job content? Have the KSAOs required for performance in the future job(s) been acquired and demonstrated in the previous job(s)? Is the organizational or job environment stable such that what led to past job success will lead to future job success?

Promotability Ratings Assessing promotability involves determining an applicant’s potential for higher-level jobs Promotability ratings often conducted along with performance appraisals 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

Ex. 10.7 Assessment Center Rating Form Participants take part in several exercises over multiple days In-basket exercise Leaderless group discussion Case analysis Trained assessors evaluate participants’ performance

Characteristics of Assessment Centers Participants are usually managers being assessed for higher-level managerial jobs Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion of program

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

Other Substantive Assessment Methods Interview simulations Role-play: candidate must play work related role with interviewer Fact finding: candidate needs to solicit information to evaluate an incomplete case Oral presentations: candidate must prepare and make an oral presentation on assigned topic Promotion panels and review boards: use multiple raters, which can improve reliability and can broaden commitment to decisions reached

Exhibit 10.8 Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods

Discussion Questions Explain the theory behind assessment centers. Describe the three different types of interview simulations. Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority, assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures.

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

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

Discussion Questions What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?

Ethical Issues Issue 1 Issue 2 Given that seniority is not a particularly valid predictor of job performance, do you think it’s unethical for a company to use it as a basis for promotion? Why or why not? Issue 2 Vincent and Peter are both sales associates, and are up for promotion to sales manager. In the last five years, on a 1=poor to 5=excellent scale, Vincent’s average performance rating was 4.7 and Peter’s was 4.2. In an assessment center that was meant to simulate the job of sales manager, on a 1=very poor to 10=outstanding scale, Vincent’s average score was 8.2 and Peter’s was 9.2. Assuming everything else is equal, who should be promoted? Why?