Friday humor: SME meetings

I swear I've had a SME meeting like this one before. Happy Friday!

What does your selection process say about your culture?

Organizational culture is important. The typical ways of making decisions, of communicating, and responding to events, say things about "the way things are done."

So what does your selection process say about your culture? Scott Adams makes a good point that things like trust and respect are frequently claimed, but what happens when your actions don't necessarily match your words?

Solution: communicate, communicate, communicate. Let applicants know why you put them through what you do.

Oh, and while we're at it, be careful who you ask to do your selection.

Poking fun at personality tests

Scott Adams pokes fun at personality tests in today's Dilbert (link here after Sunday), but there is some truth behind the jabs.

For instance:

- It's too easy to make and distribute employment tests, and no governing or approval body to assist consumers in separating the rare wheat from the mostly chaff (e.g., "SIOP Certified").

- Tests can make it easy to label people--heck, I bet half of you reading this know what your Myers-Briggs type is. And that's not good--both because no test is perfect and because no one should be known simply by a test score.

- Often the questions on personality tests frustrate the taker--the scales aren't continuous and sometimes force what seem like bizarre comparisons (e.g., "Do you prefer pancakes or walks in the park?").

These are problems that have plagued tests, particularly personality tests, for a long time. What are we going to do about them?

Content of the year

At the end of this, the first full year of this blog's existence, I decided to take a look back at 2007 and give you my Top 5 most popular posts of the year:

1. Jobfox plays matchmaker (there continues to be significant interest in Jobfox and their non-traditional approach to matching applicants with employers)

2. Reliability and validity--it's okay to Despair(.com). Whether it's the statistics words or Despair, I'll never know. But people sure like those little posters (and remember, you can make your own).

3. Personality testing basics (Part 2). As you can see from the sidebar survey, folks continue to be very interested in personality testing.

4. Wonderlic revises their cognitive ability test. Wonderlic, one of the oldest and most famous testing companies, continues to generate interest.

5. Checkster and SkillSurvey automate reference checking. There's further development to be had, but I do believe these tools could be a boon to HR and supervisors alike.

Okay, so enough about me. What about what everyone else is writing about? Here are my nominations for content of the year:

1. Morgeson et al. fired a shot across the bow of personality testing with their piece in Personnel Psychology that resulted in multiple, shall we say, not so thrilled responses. I don't know where this debate is going (although I suspect alternate measurement methods will play a part) but it sure is fun to watch!

2. There were some great books I came across this year. Particular props for Understanding statistics, Evidence-based management, and Personality and the fate of organizations. Yes, they were all published in 2006...are you saying I'm behind?

3. Dineen et al.'s great little piece of research on P-O fit and website design in the March issue of J.A.P. that I wrote about here. Take a look at your career website with these results in mind.

4. The Talent Unconference was a big success, and I'm very thankful that many of the presentations were videotaped; I put up links to some of them here

5. McDaniel et al.'s meta-analysis of situational judgment test instructions. Not only is this a great piece of research, it's (still) free!

So what about my New Years wish from last year? I'm still waiting. Although if people search databases like Spock eventually get up enough steam...perhaps I'll get my wish?

Here's to hoping 2008 is filled with interesting and useful things!

Help Wanted

Sometimes the ad writes itself

A funny employment lawyer

Of course they exist. If you don't know one, you do now.

Mark Toth is the Chief Legal Officer at Manpower and he's just started a blog on employment law that so far is highly amusing.

For example, he sings a song about employment law.

A song.

About employment law.

I mean, you gotta be into this stuff to go that far.

He's also got a REALLY BAD hiring interview up for you to watch, along with his top 10 "employment law greatest hits."

My personal favorite? #6: "Communicate, communicate, communicate (unless you communicate stupidly)"

One of the more creative blogs I've seen. Here's to hoping it lasts.

And no, I won't be singing a song about assessment. Unless you really want me to (and trust me, you don't want me to).

Hat tip.

De-motivators

Humor break.

I've posted before about Despair.com's "de-motivational" posters. They're a (funny) version of the ubiquitous "motivational" posters you see all over the place that mostly make you roll your eyes.

Well, Despair.com now has Do It Yourself posters. Here are the three that I've done so far:
































The only thing I don't get is why they don't offer printing of these. Seems like a natural money maker.

Anyhoo, hope you enjoy!

The Daily Show does Video Resumes

You know something's hit it big when it's on The Daily Show.

So it was with great amusement that I saw a piece yesterday on video resumes...check it out...

Oh, there's the talent!

A little Friday fun for ya. Just finished a trip up and down the west coast on I-5, and happened upon the little town of Talent, Oregon.

Saw some interesting road signs, snapped a couple, thought you might find them amusing (I tried to add these to my blog layout and failed miserably!):

























Have a great weekend!

Reliability and validity--it's okay to Despair(.com)

One of the key concepts in personnel assessment is the distinction between reliability (sometimes called consistency) and validity. I'll say a brief word about both, then get to the fun part of this post.

Reliability

There are several different "kinds" of reliability. One kind (test-retest) looks at whether someone gets the same score if they take the test at different points in time. Another kind (internal) refers to the extent parts of the test "hang together." For example, if we split your test of Knowledge of Basket Weaving into two halves, would scores on the first half pretty much mirror scores on the second half?

Validity

Similar to reliability, there are several "kinds" of validity when it comes to tests. Without boring you to tears, validity essentially refers to the extent to which the results of the test can be interpreted the way you want. If you're looking for someone's math skill, is that what the test is measuring? That's the most common layperson definition of "validity", although there are the traditional concepts of content validity, criterion-related validity, construct validity, and face validity.

Having fun yet? Two final points: you can't have validity without reliability. You can't have a test that measures what you want it to measure if someone gets a wildly different score every time they take it. And the corollary: just because a test is reliable doesn't mean it's valid (more on this in a sec).

The fun part of the post

Okay, so we've done the requisite introductions. The real part of this post has to do with a company called Despair, Inc. If you haven't heard of them, Despair sells "de-motivational" products that mock the traditional motivational posters you've no doubt seen in offices everywhere.

The company recently introduced some new products and one of them is related to my discussion above above. Take a look:











Although I suspect this relates more to individual performance, the point is the same when applied to tests--a consistent (reliable) test is good only if it's measuring what you intend it to.

I may need to get this one, although I already have three of their other posters hanging in my office. I use them to gauge sense of humor:

Genetic discrimination, the old fashioned way

Legislation has been introduced again this year in the U.S. Congress to prohibit (among other things) employers from discriminating against applicants and employees based on genetic information.

Some people are concerned that specific conditions in someone's genetic profile (susceptibility to cancer, etc.) would be used against them. But Dogbert reminds us that discrimination can be much more basic.

This "similar-to-me" bias is just one of many biases that can crop up during candidate and employee evaluation, such as interviews. Some things to keep in mind!

Life on the stand

The most recent issue of TIP (The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist) has an article written by the always-entertaining Frank Landy. Dr. Landy frequently provides testimony in cases of employment discrimination and in this article gives us a peak into a day into the life of an expert witness.

For example, in the very first case he was retained for as an expert witness (race discrimination in fire fighter promotions), the chief lawyer for the other side (a U.S. attorney) followed him into the bathroom and whispered that he would destroy Frank's career. Frank, being the card that he is, asked the attorney which career and told him his wife would buy him flowers or candies to destroy one, preferably two or three of his careers.

In the same case, it turned out that there were some errors made in data input/analysis, and even though they represented approximately .01% of the data, the other side claimed that Dr. Landy had done it intentionally and it was unethical, illegal, disrespectful, etc.

Sounds like fun, huh?

How about this exchange between a defense attorney (DA) and Dr. Landy (DL), who was providing testimony regarding the effect of stress on driver behavior:

DA: Dr. Landy, I have examined you (sic) resume and it's really impressive. Let me see if I have this right. You went directly from college to graduate school, right?
DL: Right.

DA: And then you were in graduate school for 5 years, right?
DL: Right.

DA: And then you obtained a position at Penn State and rose to the level of professor, right?
DL: Right.

DA: And you have written books, and taught classes, and done research and published papers, right?
DL: Right. (I'm feeling pretty good by now!)

DA: Well here's my question Dr. Landy: Have you actually had a real job since high school?
DL: Excuse me?

DA: What part of that didn't you understand Dr. Landy?
DL: Well, I guess the word "real."

DA: You don't know what I mean by a real job?
DL: Not exactly.

DA: Let me make it simple for you. Have you worked at any job since high school where you actually got dirt on your hands?
DL: (Pregnant pause by me.)

DA: Dr. Landy?
DL: (Smile by me.)

DA: Dr. Landy?
DL: Actually, when you define it that way, No, I haven't had a job where I got my hands dirty.

Now here would be one of my cross-examination questions for their witness:

Dr. X, what relationship is there between getting one's hands dirty and knowledge of the effect of stress on driving behavior?

Still, a fascinating window into what it can be like on the stand. If this seems as unpleasant to you as it does to me, let's use it as another reason to avoid discrimination claims at all costs. If you don't find this unpleasant, well....have you considered a career as an attorney?

Hiring for attitude

There are very few Dilbert cartoons that make it to my bulletin board, but this is going to be one of them. Great illustration of the perils involved with hiring strictly based on attitude (versus, say, I dunno, knowledge, skills, and ability).

Unusual job advertisements south of the border

While anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. are visible and enforced often at significant cost to employers, in Mexico there have been examples of U.S. companies advertising jobs in a blatantly discriminatory manner.

Consider:

- An automotive supplier advertised for a "female ... aged 20 to 28 ... preferably single ... with excellent presentation."

- A Chicago law firm advertised for a real estate attorney -- a male one. According to a firm recruiter in Mexico, clients prefer male attorneys.

Although Mexico has anti-discrimination laws, they are rarely enforced, and lawsuits are long and expensive propositions. In addition, the scarcity of jobs serves to discourage complaints.

Reminds me of job advertisement featured in Cascio's book from Hong Kong:

"Obedient Young Secretary
Very obedient young woman required by American Director for position as Secretary/Personal Assistant. Must be attractive and eager to submit to authority, have good typing and filing skills and be free to travel. Knowledge of Mandarin an advantage. Most important, she should enjoy following orders without question and cheerfully accept directions. Send handwritten resume on unlined paper and recent photo to..."


Wonder which job analysis procedure they were using.