1. Recruiting and Retaining People Lecture 6: Evaluating Recruitment and Selection

2. Evaluating Recruitment Recruitment should source / attract suitable candidates for selection stage (but ‘poor relation’ – Watson, 1994) Time / speed, cost, effectiveness issues can be evaluated in a variety of ways: –Response rates: Overall response (initial enquiries / completed applications) Numbers of suitable candidates / numbers short-listed & Numbers who accept job offers / recruited/appointed Numbers of wasted replies –Equal opportunities / diversity breakdown –Turnover post-appointment / in post 3 months later… –Induction / training needs analysis (gaps/problems) –Supervisor reports / appraisal / peer / self-evaluation……

3. Evaluating Selection Selection should aid decision on suitable candidate to fit with job/peers/organisation (Torrington et al. 2008: 168) Selection procedure / methods can be evaluated via: –Induction / training needs analysis (gaps/problems) –Supervisor reports / appraisal / peer / self-evaluation –Cohort data analysis e.g. all graduate trainees –Resignations / exit interviews –Absences / dismissals ….. Quantitative (e.g. sales volume, complaints) / qualitative (e.g. good customer relations, quality of work) data Reliability and validity aspects need consideration Torrington et al. (2008: 188) warn a simple evaluation / validation system is better than no system at all

4. Evaluating Selection 4 Basic Requirements Smith (1991: 32, cited by Price, 2004: 417-418) 1. Practicality Methods need to be practical in particular situations e.g. cost, convenience, time issues Employer / candidate attitudes relevant too 2. Sensitivity Ability of a method to differentiate one candidate from another (i.e. to discriminate fairly) Interviews may rank many candidates quite closely / tests may give wide range of scores

5. Evaluating Selection 3. Reliability Is the method consistent? –Comparison hold over time (test-retest / intra-rater reliability)? –Inter-rater reliability/degree of agreement between raters? –Internal consistency (do items in a test / different methods used produce close ratings on assessed characteristic e.g. IQ?) 4. Validity Does the method distinguish the most suitable applicant(s) from the others? –Face validity (relevant items / questions/methods) –Construct validity (extent to which construct actually measured) –Predictive validity (extent to which items / questions / methods predict suitable candidates i.e. who perform well in the job)

6. Comparative Validity of Methods (Smith, 1991) Method Work sample tests Ability tests Biodata, Assessment centres Structured interviews Personality tests, Typical interviews, References Graphology Astrology Rating Good to excellent (0.4 to 0.5+) Acceptable (0.3 to 0.39) Poor (Less than 0.3) Pure chance (0)

7. Problems in Establishing Predictive Validity Research shows neglected in UK (Price, 2004): –Usual evaluation practicalities / variables, and –Employer would need to engage large number of good / bad applicants, and –Then compare their job performance with performance predicted by selection method(s) but….. –Do we deliberately employ ‘bad’ applicants? i.e. will never know how the ones not selected would have performed, so… –Danger of losing out on ‘the one that got away’?

8. Concurrent Validity An alternative to predictive validity (Price, 2004: 418): –Selection methods used on existing employees during selection process –Existing employee scores correlated with predicted scores of methods, but also Rarely occurs due partly at least to difficulty of obtaining accurate performance measures for many jobs

9. Other Recruitment and Selection Considerations (Price, 2004: 418) Fairness / Equity Aspects Candidates form their own perceptions of the fairness (or unfairness) of the process Strong candidates more likely to accept job offer if they perceive process as ‘fair, effective and considerate’ Full / Accurate Information Candidates need clear impression of the job and their prospects in the organisation Misleading impressions can lead to turnover sooner rather than later (especially so for younger recruits) –E.g. young graduates tend to lack ‘vocational maturity’ & awareness of own skills & career needs (Herriott & Fletcher, 1990)

10. Post-Script on Interview Validity Price (2004: 418-420) cites research suggesting validity of interview can be improved: Dependent on type of interview –Unstructured / traditional (0.2 validity score) –Structured / esp. based on job analysis (0.63 validity) Structured interviews use a format: –E.g. criterion referenced interviews that investigate job relevant experience / skills to predict performance –E.g. situational interviews based on job-related critical incidents / elicit responses on hypothetical problems (then rated against pre-determined scores)

11. Post-Script on Interview Marchington and Wilkinson (2008: 252): Interview blamed in place of real issue that interviews often carried out by untrained / poorly prepared interviewers But, various legal implications arise from interviews –E.g. biases/equality, data protection, human rights infringements So, structuring interview, training of / preparation by interviewers and use of interview along with other relevant methods makes obvious sense, but Wider notion of interview as ‘a two-way decision-making process’ for organisation / candidate also needs thought –I.e. not just as technical device for organisation to make ‘perfect selection decision’ / find the most suitable candidate for the post