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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Preliminary Issues Logic of prediction Types of predictors
Selection plan

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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 : Sample Assessment Rating Form

20. 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

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

22. Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods
Exh : 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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