Has your organization given up on rigorous assessment?

I'd like to hear from you:

Has your organization given up on rigorous assessment? Given in to the incessant demands for "faster, cheaper"? Sold its soul to the T&E gods? Failed to replace seasoned, trained, and passionate assessment experts and replaced them with generalists?

Or have you gone the opposite direction--are you innovating and experimenting with new forms of assessment (like the feds are)? Are you selective in whom you choose to work on assessment? Do you resist efforts by management to "dumb down" your selection processes?

Credit scores: Useful for selection, but not for the reason you think

Many employers use credit scores as part of their hiring process, despite the lack of evidence regarding their usefulness, the unpopularity of this practice with applicants, and the fact that the EEOC is not a fan.

Adding to our understanding of the issue, in the March 2012 issue of Journal of Applied Psychology (which I will review fully in my March research update), Jeremy Bernerth and his colleagues describe the results of their study where they found:

1) A significant positive relationship between credit scores and task performance

2) A significant positive relationship between credit scores and OCBs

most likely due to

3) Credit scores being positively related to conscientiousness

because there was

4) No significant relationship between credit scores and workplace deviance, such as theft

Interestingly, credit scores were negatively correlated with agreeableness, which the authors say suggests that more agreeable people are more likely to do things like co-sign on questionable loans.

So the bottom line is credit scores may be valuable because they link to performance ratings and OCBs (likely through personality), not because they predict things like theft.

Which leaves the obvious question: why not just use a personality inventory, which is designed to measure conscientiousness and has little adverse impact (unlike credit scores)?

February 2012 research update: Facebook; hope; 3-option items; cognitive ability and racism

So this month the big buzz is over a research article in JASP on using Facebook profiles to judge personality and predict job performance. So let's tackle that one first:

Kluemper, et al. had three trained university students judge Big Five personality factors (using the IPIP) based on over 200 public Facebook profiles of other students. A much smaller sample (56) was used to determine links between evaluator judgments and job performance as rated by supervisors.

So what did they find? Well, among other things:

(1) inter-rater reliability ranged from .48 to .72 which seems low to me but apparently is typical for other-ratings of personality;

(2) two of the other-ratings (emotional stability and agreeableness) significantly correlated with supervisory ratings (around .30), as did one of the self-ratings (extraversion), suggesting to me the two methods might vary in constructs being measured;

(3) the same two other-ratings added incremental validity beyond self-ratings, whereas the opposite was not true.

To their credit, the authors caution readers (those that actually go beyond the mainstream press articles) about using their results to support hiring decisions based on Facebook. In fact, I'd like to quote them:

"Our findings should not be used by organizations as unbridled support for using SNWs [Social Networking Websites] in employment selection. Without more evidence of criterion-related validity and comparability with established employment selection methods, the use of SNW information for hiring purposes is tenuous. In addition to the potential for employment discrimination, there are privacy rights and ethical issues associated with accessing personal information. Clearly, research investigations of such issues lag current informal HR practices."

So bravo to them for researching this issue, and double-bravo (that's a technical term) for cautioning those with Facebook fever.


Let's move to other research out there...

The March issue of IJSA is chalk-full of great research, so let's take a look:

- Much hay is made over the "type" of validity exhibited by cognitive ability tests (don't get me started). To the extent this distinction makes sense to you, you might enjoy Frank Schmidt's argument that ability tests in certain instances can demonstrate content validity. The article is followed by several commentaries and a response.

- Next up is O'Neill, et al. with a critical review of Stevens and Campion's Teamwork-Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Test.

- Reeder, et al. investigate individual differences as they relate to the perception of cognitive ability tests.

- Now here's somethin': Edwards, et al. argue that the three-option multiple choice item is underutilized. This should be read by everyone who has nightmares about writing distractors.

- Hoffman and Meade argue that score differences across assessment center exercises reflect true differences rather than measurement artifact.

- Got hope? Zysberg shows that, through problem-solving-oriented coping, hope is related to success in a selection process.


We already know that people generally aren't very good at accurately describing their skills and abilities, but in the March Psychological Bulletin, Freund and Kasten provide an illuminating meta-analysis indicating that while the relationship between self-estimated and psychometrically measured cognitive ability is modest (.33), it varies depending upon scales and dimensions.


For anyone measuring contextual performance, consider the relationship between role expectations and OCBs as described by Dierdorff, et al.

Speaking of OCBs, Nielsen et al.'s study suggests when measuring OCB expression in a group setting, consider the level of task interdependence.

On the other hand, if you are interested in job performance ratings, be aware that there may be gender bias, and it differs in direction between performance ratings and promotability ratings (with the latter favoring males), according to a recent meta-analysis by Roth, et al.


Last but definitely not least, research by Hodson and Busseri suggest that individuals lower in cognitive ability may be predisposed to exhibit more racism. This suggests that using ability tests may not only increase the validity of your selection process but lower your chances of discriminatory behavior.

****

On a side/editorial note, I find it fascinating and somewhat frustrating that the research energy still seems to be about teasing out major constructs such as cognitive ability and personality. As a practitioner, I gotta tell ya I'm happy when hiring supervisors use any sort of structured assessment beyond their standard interview. I'd love to see more energy behind increasing the validity of the entire selection process. I doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.

January 2012 research update

Okay, we've got a lot of ground to cover so let's jump right in...

- For you stats fans: Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal response data

- And more: Effect size: Don't just report it, describe it

- And still more: A confidence interval approach to testing comparability of groups

- Shifting gears: CWBs: There's more than one type

- Femininity and military leadership

- Increasing HR's strategic participation

- HR practices do have an influence on organizational attractiveness

- IQ scores may be influenced by test motivation (in low-stakes settings)

- Learning agility is an important factor in identifying high-potentials

- Slicing and dicing the Big Five

- Extraversion, intelligence, and genetics

- Apparently being agreeable won't make you rich (especially if you're a man)

- Need scientists or engineers? Consider innovativeness and internal LOC

- What if you're looking for leaders of scientists or engineers? Consider three important criteria.

- Increase diversity cues to increase recruitment website stickiness

- Does transformational leadership relate to proactive behavior? Depends on the situation.

- Core self evaluations: More complicated than you might think

- No, seriously, it's much more complicated and involves general versus specific measures

- Speaking of complicated, the relationship between personality traits (Big 5) and performance isn't as simple as many make it out to be

That's all for now! See you in February.

Final research update of 2011

Welcome to the last HR Tests research update of 2011! This year has been filled with research developments, building on previous thinking as well as venturing out into new areas. Let's see what the end of the year brings us (hint: a lot)...

We'll start with the Winter 2011 issue of Personnel Psychology:

- If you're looking for executives who excel at strategic thinking, you'll want to pay attention to not only their cognitive ability but their accumulated work history, according to Dragoni, et al.

- I tend to think of realistic job previews (RJPs) as occurring pre-hire, but research by Earnest, et al. suggests that an effective technique is to conduct an oral and written RJP post-hire--and be as honest as possible.

- Meta-analyses are relied upon heavily as summaries of large bodies of research. Roth, et al. point out ways we can make them better, particularly with respect to estimates of validity and group differences.

- One of the downsides of cognitive ability tests is they're not always perceived very well by applicants. Sumanth & Cable show how this perception is influenced by the status of the organization as well as individual status.

- Next, a fascinating description of a scale to measure the idea of calling by Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas. What I found most interesting was how the measure was associated with different criteria for different domains (e.g., art, music, management). You can read a draft version here.


Let's turn now to the January issue of JOB:

- Political skill is a hot topic, and Gentry, et al. demonstrate how the perception of promotability related to this skill varies between bosses, peers, and direct reports. Long story short: it differs, and also depends on behavior (attitude will only take you so far, right?). You can read the full version (at least right now!) here.

- Anyone that's worked with (or has in their family) engineers or scientists knows that they often share some strong traits. This suggests leading these groups that engage in creative activity may require specific attributes, which is what Robledo, et al. set out to describe.


On to the January issue of JOM:

- Core self-evaluation (CSE) is another hot topic, and Chang, et al. provide an important review of 15 years of research, including the meta-analytic support for CSE predicting in-role and extra-role performance.

- Boswell, et al. provide an integrative review of the concept of job search across different situations (e.g., following job loss, while employed).

- One area that deserves more attention is selection into the highest positions within organizations. Withers, et al. provide a review of the process of selecting a director for a board.


Let's not forget v41(2) of Personnel Review:

- Hoglund delves into the topic of talent management as a strategic HRM practice. A fascinating topic that reinforces the importance of HRM as an influence over employee perceptions and behavior.

- The wording of job ads can have important impacts on applicant perceptions and behavior. De Cooman and Pepermans analyze the differences between for-profit and non-profit job ads, and show how only a fraction of the information potentially relevant for job-person match is published.

- Another topic that deserves additional attention is the motivation to expatriate. Altman and Baruch describe results of a qualitative study that may be useful to organizations thinking about attracting and selecting for positions that require this substantial move.


Don't forget this one:

- Johnson, et al. with an important reminder that when looking at the issue of discrimination, using single categories to define groups is probably not the best strategy.


Whew! And last but certainly not least, in the December issue of IOP, Michael McDaniel and colleagues present an argument (similar to ones made elsewhere) that the Uniform Guidelines are outdated and, worse than that, a detriment to the field of selection. The commentaries are many and range from support to passionate disagreement, with a healthy dose of caution (and dare I say...intransigence?) thrown in. Worth a read, particularly for those following the Guidelines literally and those engaged in related litigation. You can read a draft version here.


I hope everyone has a great New Years; here's to a wonderful 2012!

Forget leadership assessment centers: Use the fat face test

All that time your organization spends on leadership assessment? Throw it out. New research indicates that CEOs with fat faces perform better, so just get out your measuring tape.

Okay, I'm oversimplifying. But this research by Wong and her colleagues is fascinating.

They looked at 55 photos of male CEOs and linked facial width to firm performance. Results? CEOs with higher "facial ratios" (face width relative to face height) led organizations that had "significantly greater firm financial performance."

Why facial width? Previous research has indicated this characteristic is related to aggression and sense of power. People who feel powerful tend to focus more on the big picture rather than little details, and tend to be better at staying on task.

Why men? The relationship between face ratio and behavior has been found to be important only in men. Something to do with testosterone.

But wait, don't throw out your work sample tests quite yet. The researchers also found that the relationship between facial ratio and firm performance was moderated by the style of the leadership team. The relationship was stronger in teams that were "cognitively simple" and saw things in black-or-white terms, apparently due to deference to authority. Not exactly something most organizations dream of. Presumably leadership teams with more nuanced views of the world rely on things beyond what shape their leader's head is.

Yes, I'm being tongue-in-cheek here. But if nothing else, this type of research reinforces the complex and important relationships between genetics, perceptions, and behavior.

Bad hires in hindsight

Lately I've been thinking about hires I've seen that went bad. What seemed like the right selection at the time turned into a huge disappointment, or worse--a total nightmare. This is particularly the case when selecting for supervisors and managers.

Looking back at those decisions, what happened? So far I've identified several classic cases:

1) Smallville Syndrome. While the individual may have had success in a smaller role, they were completely unfit to take on the bigger scope of the new job. The strategies that worked before are no longer adequate in the new position. This is similar to thinking your strongest specialist will make the best supervisor, but it can happen even with people that are currently in a similar role.

2) The Loch Ness Monster Effect. On the surface, everything seems fine with the applicant. But lurking below is a monster, just waiting to rear its head. Once in the right position, you will see a side of them you weren't anticipating--and it won't be good.

3) Gumby Complex. A supreme lack of flexibility leads the individual to spurn suggestions to do things differently or be open to new ideas. This often results in a toxic combination of alienating their bosses as well as their subordinates.

4) Prima donna-itis. A hard-charging and competitive individual contributor who consistently performs at the top of their group can yield big returns. But this typically isn't what you're looking for in a supervisor or manager. Instead what can happen is they build their own island where subordinates either conform or get kicked out.

5) Iwannajob condition. The individual wants a job--any job. And they don't care what they do as long as it pays. Except they do. And sooner or later they will realize this, start disengaging, and you've lost valuable training, relationships, and resources.

Turning these around, we see some ideas for improving the selection process:

1) Dig, dig, dig. Resist the urge to hire quickly. Do your homework and gather as much information as you can about potential hires--particularly ones going into leadership positions. Have the courage to not hire anyone if you don't like your candidate pool.

2) Pay attention to the minor details. Something may seem like a minor personality quirk that is overshadowed by the person's strengths. But that quirk may end up making their strengths irrelevant if their new environment causes the quirk to grow into a full-blown condition. Think about how a personality trait might exhibit itself in a new environment.

3) Focus on the job at hand. It's trendy to focus on someone's performance history. And many times this can predict performance in a new job. But when the new position requires new competencies--or a whole new level of them--what happened in the past may not be so instructive. Use a variety of strong assessment devices tied to the position, not the applicants.

4) Consider personality inventories. Yes, they can be challenging to adopt, administer, and interpret. But a lot of organizations use them successfully to help get underneath the shiny exterior. Just be very careful when selecting the particular tool to use.

5) When hiring for a supervisor or manager position, spend 80% of your time looking at personality and communication style, 20% on technical competencies. People want to be led, motivated, and engaged, not micromanaged by someone who feels like they can do the job better than you can.

6) Try to find out why the person wants the job. This isn't easy, and generally won't be had by simply asking, "So...why do you want this job?" You can start with that question, but follow it up with a bunch more that get at whether the person has really thought about their fit and what they hope to accomplish in the position.

This is of course just a sample of what can go wrong and some quick suggestions. As those of you that have been doing this a while know, hiring the right person is usually not quick and easy--particularly for leadership positions. But boy is the effort spent up front worth it. Just ask anyone who's ever had a bad boss.