Big research update

It's been a while since I provided a research update, so let's take a look at some recent highlights:

The March 2017 issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment (IJSA) (free right now!):

•  Some support for individual psychological assessment in a sample of middle- and senior-level civil service managers in the UK
• Concerns about personality measures that are non-contextualized (i.e., not tailored to the job)
• A study of the personality traits of high potentials (conscientiousness came out #1)
• Support for the equivalence of GMA tests on multiple devices, including mobile

The June IJSA:

• A fascinating twin study that found support for a strong relationship between counterproductive work behaviors in personal life and work.
• Applicants higher in conscientiousness and emotional stability may be more likely to re-test and improve their GMA scores
• A study of undergrads suggesting that Big 5 score results from internet-based tests and in-person tests are equivalent
• You may be able to decrease the number of candidates that withdraw from selection by engaging them more fully and ensuring your processes are fair
• Other-reports of personality appear to be fakable, but less so than self-reports

Vol 2(1) of Personnel Assessment and Decisions:

• Trusting, intelligent raters may be more able to pick up on impression management during interviews
• A study using the limited data available suggests applicants prefer in-person over technology-mediated interviews; interview ratings were also lower. Beware varying interview mode across applicants!
• A study of unproctored internet cognitive ability tests suggests cheating is common, and the researchers strongly suggest implementing technological precautions
• Hiring managers may resist standardized testing in part because they feel it reduces their usefulness/impact
• Free personality test items that can be used and mapped to the PPRF, a personality-based job analysis tool

April Psychological Bulletin:

• A meta-analysis showing that reaction time measures can be useful in detecting deception, but are themselves susceptible to counter-measures

March Journal of Applied Psychology:

•  A review of 100 years of selection and recruitment research in this journal

May Journal of Applied Psychology:

• A study of a large group of applicants suggests that recruiting candidates earlier (e.g., high school), and with more diagnostic methods, can influence their investment in their career and make them better candidates
• Using several computer simulations, researchers found that incumbent-based estimates of range restriction may be downwardly biasing criterion-related validity values, and can produce evidence of differential validity were none exists

March Journal of Organizational Behavior:

• The Big 5 factors of neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness may prevent supervisors from turning frustration into abusive supervision

May Journal of Organizational Behavior:

• Big age differences between subordinates and supervisors can negatively impact firm performance—if they're discussed

June Journal of Business and Psychology:

• Is the KSAO of communicating via computer just another version of face-to-face communication? According to this study, they are distinct.
• Do millennials have a worse work ethic than older employees? It appears not based on this meta-analysis

That's it for now!

Research update

Well, it's that time of year again.  No, not the holidays.  No, not winter (or summer, depending on where you are!).  Research update time!  And I think you will agree with me that there is a lot of interesting research being reported, on traditional topics as well as emerging ones.

First, the November issue of JOB:

- Do transformational leaders increase creative performance and the display of OCBs?  Well, that may depend on how much trait affectivity they had to begin with. A reminder to not make blanket statements like "X type of leadership causes Y type of behavior."

- There is seemingly endless debate about the utility of personality inventories.  This study reminds us--again--that in assessment research there are few simple answers.  The authors describe how a particular combination of personality measures correlated with task performance among professional employees, but not non-professionals.  (yes, I said task performance)


Next, the Winter issue of Personnel Psychology (free right now!), much of which is devoted to corporate social responsibility (CSR):

- Do perceptions of CSR drive job pursuit intentions?  It may depend on the applicant's previous justice experiences and their moral identity.

- Oh, and it may also depend on the extent to which applicants desire to have an impact through their work.

- There is a debate in the assessment center literature about whether competency dimensions are being measured or if it's purely a function of the assessment type.  This study suggests that previous research has been hamstrung by a methodological artifact and that measured properly, assessment centers do in fact assess dimensions.


Let's switch to the November issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology:

- Engagement is all the rage, having seemingly displaced the age-old concept of job satisfaction (we'll see).  This study reminds us that personality plays an important role in predicting engagement (so by extension our ability to increase engagement may be bounded).

- Here's another good one and it's related to internal motivations.  The authors developed an instrument that helps organizations measure the "perception of the extant motivational climate."  What does that mean?  As I understand it, it's essentially whether most people are judging their performance against their peers or their own internal standards.  It seems the latter may result in better results, such as less burnout.

- On to something more closely tied to assessment: letters of recommendation (LORs).  There's surprisingly little research on these, but this study adds to our knowledge by suggesting that gender and racial bias can occur in their review, but requiring a more thorough review of them may reduce this (I don't know how likely this is for the average supervisor).

- Finally, a study looking at the evaluation of job applicants who voluntarily interrupted their college attendance.  Unfortunately this does not appear to have been perceived as a good thing, and the researchers found a gender bias such that women with interrupted attendance had the lowest evaluations.


Next, the November issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, where the second focal article focus on eradicating employment discrimination.  This article looks pretty juicy.  I haven't received this one yet in the mail, so I may have more to say after digesting it.  There are, as always, several commentaries following the focal article, on topics including background checks, childhood differences, and social networks.


Okay, let's tackle the 800-pound gorilla: the December issue of IJSA:

- Are true scores and construct scores the same?  According to this Monte Carlo study, it seems how the scales were constructed makes a difference.

- Can non-native accents impact the evaluation of job applicants?  Sure seems that way according to this study.  But the effect was mediated by similarity, interpersonal attraction, and understandability.

- Here's a fascinating one.  A study of applicants for border rangers in the Norwegian Armed Forces showed that psychological hardiness--particularly commitment--predicted completion of a rigorous physical activity above and beyond physical fitness, nutrition, and sensation seeking.

- Psst....recruiters...make sure when you're selling your organization you stay positive.

- Spatial ability.  It's a classic KSA that's been studied for a long time, for various reasons including its tie to military assessments and the finding that measures can result in sex differences.  But not so fast, spatial ability is not a unitary concept.

- Another study of assessment centers, this time in Russia and using a consensus scoring model.

- And let's round it out with one that should rock some worlds: the authors presents results that suggest that subject matter expert judgment of ability/competency importance bore little relation to test validity!  Okay, I'm really curious about what the authors say about the implications, so if anyone reads this one, let us know!


Last but not least, the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology:

- Another on personality testing, this one underlining the important distinction between broad and narrow traits.  This is another article I'm very curious about.

- Here's on one leadership: specifically, on the impact of different power distance values between leader and subordinates on team effectiveness

- And another on nonnative speakers!  This one found discriminatory judgments made against nonnative speakers applying for middle management positions as well as venture funding.  Interestingly, it appears to be fully mediated by perceptions of political skill--a topic that is hot right now.

- Okay, let's leave on a big note.  This meta-analysis found an improvement in performance prediction of 50% when a mechanical combination of assessment data was used rather than a holistic (judgment-based) method.  BOOM!  Think about that the next time a hiring supervisor derides your spreadsheet.

Until next time!

May '10 J.A.P.

Summer journal madness continues with the May issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology. It's a diverse issue, check it out:

- Taras et al. conducted a very large meta-analysis of the association between Hofstede's cultural value dimensions (e.g., power distance, masculinity, individualism) and a wide variety of individual outcomes. One interesting finding is the stronger relationship between these values and emotions (organizational commitment, OCBs, etc.) compared to job performance.

- Are high performers more likely to stay or leave? In a study of over 12,000 employees in the insurance industry over a 3-year period, Nyberg found the answer was: it depends. Specifically, it depends on the labor market and pay growth.

- Think g (cognitive ability) is just related to job performance? In a (albeit small) study by Judge, et al., it turns out it was also related to physical and economic well-being. Maybe their next study will address my personal hypothesis: g is related to choice of car.

- A study by Lievens, et al. (in press version here) found with a sample of 192 incumbents from 64 occupations that 25% of the variance in competency ratings (like you might find in a job analysis) was due to the nature of the rater's job, such as level of complexity. Not surprisingly, the greatest consensus was reached for jobs that involved a lot of equipment or contact with the public.

- Self-efficacy (i.e.., confidence) has been proposed as an important predictor of job performance. In a study by Schmidt & DeShon, the authors found that this relationship depends on the ambiguity present in the situation--in situations high in ambiguity, self-efficacy was negatively related to job performance; in situations low in ambiguity, the opposite was true.

- Finally, for anyone citing Ilies, et al.'s 2009 study of the relationship between personality and OCB, there have been a couple corrections.

Lessons from NYC Fire case - part 2

Part 2 of 2

Last time I discussed five important lessons we can take away from recent rulings in the Vulcan v. City of New York case. In this post I'll review the remaining lessons and also discuss the relief order.

----

6) The city failed to provide sufficient evidence that the exam(s) tested for a sufficient number of the critical KSAs. They also failed to explain why they chose not to measure several KSAs identified as critical.

Lesson: the courts do not require employers to measure every single critical KSA. But there is an expectation that employers attempt to measure a sufficient number that represent a significant portion of the job requirements. In this case, that included non-cognitive abilities such as resistance to stress, teamwork, and conscientiousness, that were not measured.

7) The city failed to adequately consider how to measure a significant number of essential KSAs. While some of their concerns were valid (e.g., structured interviews for all applicants would be an operational nightmare), there are many different forms of testing that should have been considered, including situational judgment tests (SJTs) and biodata, which can be used to measure non-cognitive components.

Lesson: triers of fact expect employers to be up on the various assessment methods available and be able to explain why they chose not to use certain ones. This includes tests that are relatively easy to develop (e.g., SJTs) as well as ones that require substantial resources and statistical expertise (e.g., biodata).

8) The city failed to conduct a reading level analysis on the exams to ensure that it was not "pointlessly high." The plaintiff introduced evidence suggesting the reading level was above 12th grade; in addition, it appeared to exceed the reading level of materials at the academy.

Lesson: never forget that every assessment method is in some sense measuring additional KSAs beyond those you intend. For written exams, reading comprehension is always a requirement (barring accommodation). It's quite easy to conduct a reading level analysis (MS Word has it built in) to ensure that the level is reasonable and matches other job-related material.

9) The city failed to show that the cutoff scores (pass points) established for the exams were based on adequate rationale, namely "the necessary qualifications for the job of entry-level firefighter." Instead, the cutoff scores were based on operational need (the number of job openings expected). This is particularly important in multiple-hurdle selection processes such as in this case, where a failure on one exam component precludes an applicant from participating in the rest of the (potentially compensatory) assessment process.

Lesson: ultimately applicants have to pass the test(s) to be considered for employment. Cutoff scores should be established using the expertise of both SMEs and test developers and should be based on the minimum competency levels required upon entry to the job. At a minimum (and I would not rely solely upon this), the scores should be analyzed to identify any logical "break-points."

----

After ruling for the plaintiffs on both the adverse impact and disparate treatment claims, the judge issued a relief order on 1/10/10. In it, he imposes several things, including the following:

1) The city must develop a new testing procedure for entry-level firefighter in conjunction with the relevant parties. Following the development of the test, there will be a hearing to determine if this test should be used rather than the current test (developed in 2007 and not at issue in this litigation).

2) The court shall develop a process by which the approximately 7,400 applicants covered by this case can file a claim for monetary relief.

3) The city will identify 293 black candidates on the eligibility list and offer them priority hiring. (No quotas are being imposed, although the judge leaves this possibility open)

4) Retroactive seniority for those hired.

In addition, several other issues are up for debate, including the appointment of a special master or monitor, standards that will be relied upon in constructing the new exam, and the need for additional relief.

---

So what did we learn from all this? If you follow--fairly closely--best practices when developing and administering exams, you will be on solid ground defending them. If you don't, and your exam has a discriminatory effect, you may be called on it--and it's not a pleasant process. I'll leave you with this quote from the January ruling on disparate treatment:

"The history of the City's efforts to remedy its discriminatory firefighter hiring policies can be summarized as follows: 34 years of intransigence and deliberate indifference, bookeneded by identical judicial declarations that the City's hiring policies are illegal."

Lessons from the NYC Fire case - part 1

Part 1 of 2

New York City, like the cities of New Haven and Chicago, has a long history of employment discrimination litigation related to its firefighter testing.

Since the 1970s and cases like Guardians, the city has been under scrutiny for its woefully low number of black firefighters.

In 2007 the city found itself faced with another lawsuit over its firefighter hiring practices, and in July of 2009, a U.S. District Court judge found that the city had violated Title VII by administering written exams from 1999-2007 that had high levels of adverse impact. The city marshaled an inadequate defense. In January of 2010, the same judge (Nicholas Garaufis) found the city liable for a pattern and practice of disparate treatment for those same exams. An adverse impact finding, particularly for written exams, and especially for public safety tests, is not earth-shattering. But a finding of disparate treatment in this situation is less common.

This case, while only one example and limited in its impact, has some valuable lessons for test users and sheds some light on how judges look at our field. In particular, I describe below nine points the judge specifically made and what lessons we can draw from them:

1) While the city conducted a job analysis with an "extensive" list of tasks and surveyed incumbents, the city offered "no evidence of 'the relationship of abilities to tasks.'" They conducted a linkage, but the judge found that the SMEs were confused about what they were supposed to do and didn't understand several of the abilities they were rating.

Lesson: simply having subject matter experts (SMEs) link essential tasks and knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) is not sufficient. You need to ensure they understand the statements they are linking as well as how exactly they are supposed to be linking them.

2) In conducting the job analysis, the city inappropriately retained tasks and KSAs that could be learned on the job. It is quite clear (e.g., per the Uniform Guidelines) that only tasks and KSAs that are required upon entry to the job should be identified as critical in terms of exam development.

Lesson: make sure that when you are developing exams based on job analysis results that you focus only on those tasks and KSAs that are required upon entry to the job. This should be determined by your SMEs.

3) The city relied to some extent upon the work of a previous test developer, Dr. Frank Landy (who sadly recently passed away). In addition to a tenuous link between Dr. Landy's work and the current exams, the judge makes it clear that "reliance on the stature of a test-maker cannot stand in for a proper showing of validity." At the same time, the judge emphasizes that exams should be constructed by "testing professionals."

Lesson: tests should be developed by people who know what they're doing. This means HR professionals with the requisite background in test validation and construction in conjunction with job experts. Do not rely solely on previous efforts, particularly when (as in this case) the results of those efforts were either incomplete or not fully relevant to your current situation.

4) The city performed no "sample testing" to ensure that the questions were reliable as well as "comprehensible and unambiguous."

Lesson: few steps in the test development process are as easy--or as valuable--as pilot testing. I have yet to see an exam that didn't benefit from a "trial run" with a group of incumbents. Not only will you catch unintended flaws, you will verify that the exam is doing what you claim it is.

5) There was insufficient evidence that the exams actually measured the (nine cognitive) KSAs the city claimed they intended to measure. Plaintiffs were able to suggest the opposite through analyzing convergent and discriminant validity as well as by conducting a factor analysis.

Lesson: there are two linkages of primary importance in test development. The first was describe in #1. The second is the link between critical KSAs and the exam(s). At the very least, you must be able to show evidence that there is a logical link between the two. When you claim to be measuring cognitive abilities, you incur an additional responsibility, which is gathering statistical evidence that supports this claim.

Next time: more lessons and the relief order.

Latest IJT and PP

The latest issue of the International Journal of Testing has some good stuff in it, particularly if you're in education. Here's a sample of what's available:

Correcting fallacies in (construct) validity, reliability and classification


Then head on over to Personnel Psychology to check out the Autumn issue. Here's some of what it covers:

Conscientiousness and KSAs predicts leadership in the military

Job component validation, meta-analysis, and DOT ratings

Personality variables and job search behavior and success

The importance of specificity and observability in job analysis ratings

Summer '09 Personnel Psychology

The Summer 2009 issue of Personnel Psychology covers a lot of ground. Take a look:

Kuncel & Tellegen demonstrate (with undergrads) that when inflating on personality inventories, people don't always max out their self-presentation; in fact for some traits a moderate level of endorsement is seen as more desirable.

Bledow & Frese describe how a situational judgment test can be used to predict not only overall job performance, but a particular construct--in this case, initiative. Participants were employees and supervisors at six banks in Germany.

This one particularly caught my eye. Yang & Diefendorff discovered (using ~200 employees in Hong Kong), among other things, that agreeableness and conscientiousness seem to moderate the relationship between negative emotions and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Implication? If you're hiring for a job prone to negative emotions (e.g., customer service), consider adding a personality inventory to your screeening process to prevent CWBs.

De Pater, et al. studied both students and employees to determine that challenging job experiences reported by participants predicted promotability ratings above and beyond current job performance and job tenure. This has implications for both career development and performance management.

Want to know more about what executive coaches do? Then check out Bono et al.'s study of similarities and differences between practicing coaches that are also I/O psychologists versus those that aren't. (Turns out they do a lot of the same things)

Last but definitely not least, Aguinis et al. describe a web-based frame of reference training they used to decrease the amount of bias inherent in personality-based job analysis. The article describes in detail how the training was implemented, and it had quite dramatic effects. Useful stuff for anyone looking to add this tool to your assessment procedure (in this case they used Raymark et al.'s personality-related personnel requirements form, which they describe as superior to Hogan & Rybicki's performance improvement characteristics tool (which I've actually used and found quite user friendly).

What's hot in I/O?

You can often get a sense of what's hot in a field by looking at conference presentations or workshops.

Recently I got the registration materials for the 2009 SIOP conference, and it includes a description of the seminars and workshops. Here's a sample:

Frontiers of personality research and practice

Making HR measurement strategic (by the authors of this book)

Reliability, ratings, and reality: Oh my!

Development in place: Leveraging the other 90% of your organization's talent

The future of HR metrics: It's a brave new world

O*NET products and tools: What's new and what's useful for your research and practice (O*NET is here)

Selection of first-line supervisors: What we know

Exploring new frontiers in test security: Approaches for protecting your testing program

Hmmm....sounds like metrics are here! As always, I'm sure the conference will be a great learning and networking opportunity. Feel like going to New Orleans in April?

Old school competencies part 2

I seem to have a thing for noticing signs in museums that remind me of a job analysis. Either I'm developing an appreciation for our nation's history or I'm obsessed with my subject matter. Maybe a bit of both.

Anyway, this weekend I visited the California State Railroad Museum and happened to notice this sign:


It reminded me of several things:

(1) Analyzing job requirements, whether you want to call them KSAs, KSAOs, KSAOPs, competencies, or whatever, is not new.

(2) Despite this, and despite efforts of the feds and well-known vendors, we still don't have a common language when we talk about job requirements. Non-HR folk tend to be more attracted to the words used in this poster--words like "people skills" and "perseverance." We need to seriously de-jargon ourselves.

(3) Many HR professionals are still stuck in the paradigm of (1) analyze job, (2) test for few relevant competencies, (3) choose person with best score. As the last paragraph of this picture points out, we need to remember that many different competencies go into job performance and very few jobs are identical. If a highly competent person drops in your lap, are you able to plug them in where you need them, or do you shunt them to a website where they spend 30 days going through your application process? Are you looking for competencies or people?

(4) I really need to stop using my phone to take pictures.

Predicting turnover

Turnover can be caused by many things. Inadequate supervision/ leadership. Too much work. Not enough work. Insufficient career growth opportunities.

According to many surveys (e.g., salary.com's recent one), these are the types of things people report as primary motivators driving them to change employers.

But these are all factors outside of the employee. What about aspects of employees themselves that might contribute to turnover? We know that people are changing jobs more frequently these days (every 2-3 years in the U.S.), and there seems to be a persistent dissatisfaction among the Gen Xers with their careers, but what about someone's personality? Might there be individual differences between people when it comes to changing jobs?

You bet, according to a new study published in the Summer 2008 issue of Personnel Psychology. After meta-analyzing 86 studies, author Ryan Zimmerman found that personality factors, particularly emotional stability and agreeableness, play a big role in predicting turnover. Emotional stability best predicted intent to quit, while agreeableness best predicted actual turnover.

In fact, personality traits predicted turnover better than did non-self report measures such as job complexity and job characteristics.

Implications? Many initiatives designed to reduce turnover may disappoint because it's not the job, it's the person. The next time you design an exit interview or turnover study, make sure to add this reason for why the person left: It had nothing to do with the job, it was just me.

This also provides more support for using personality tests to predict important outcomes.

...

The other study in this issue we should look at provides some support for all you O*NET fans out there. You know...O*NET? The replacement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles? Developed by the Department of Labor? A fount of job analysis knowledge? If you don't know it, you should.

Anyway, in this study, the authors used O*NET data to predict literacy requirements across a wide variety of occupations compared to scores on the national adult literacy survey (NALS). Results? O*NET did well--quite well in fact, with correlations around .80.

What does this mean? It means that occupational requirements listed in O*NET just got a big boost in terms of their validity. When it comes to job analysis, don't leave O*NET out.

2008 PTC-NC Conference, Day 1

On March 20th and 21st I was lucky enough to attend (and present) at the 2008 PTC-NC Conference. There were several great presentations and I'm going to break the summary up into two days for ya.

The conference started off with Michael Harris, professor of International Business at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, with an update on what the courts have been saying in the area of adverse impact and employment testing. Some major points:

- Although criterion-related validity has been discussed a lot lately, Dr. Harris predicted that a content validation strategy will continue to be the most popular choice of employers.

- They're not perfect, but courts will continue to rely on the Uniform Guidelines when judging employers' efforts to validate their tests.

- Employers should be prepared to answer what alternative tests they considered before choosing the ones they did (the third prong of this type of case).

The next session was a breakout, with Chris Wright and Louis Xavier (SF State) presenting on stereotype threat while I went over the results of a demographic analysis I conducted on applicants to an on-line T&E system. Bottom line of my presentation: there were some clear demographic differences in the jobs applied for but actual instances of adverse impact (using 4/5ths rule) were rare.

Next up was another breakout, with Jim Kuthy (Biddle) presenting on AutoGOJA while Shelley Langan (CPS) presented on succession planning. I attended Shelley's, which focused on the importance of workforce planning given current demographics and provided some practical tips on how to put together a successful plan. Some key takeaways: limit succession planning to certain positions, consider inviting everyone to apply, and conduct a future-oriented job analysis as part of your planning process.

The last breakout featured an introduction to competency modeling by Nathan Ainspan (independent consultant) and a presentation on using personality testing by Shelley Langan and Howard Fortson (CPS). I attended the latter, where we had a spirited discussion of the state of personality testing and how to introduce personality testing to your selection process (hint: rhymes with job analysis). Example business measures they mentioned included the CPI, HPI, NEO, and 16-PF. They also mentioned an upcoming article by Hough & Oswald where the authors list all of the various outcomes that personality tests have been able to successfully predict.

Last but not least that day was an outstanding keynote address by James Outtz, president of Outtz and Associates and international expert on employment testing and discrimination. Dr. Outtz went over a wide range of issues related to those subjects, including the balance between validity and adverse impact (so well covered in the most recent issue of Personnel Psychology). He introduced some fascinating research that showed that while multiple choice formats showed adverse impact against African Americans and Hispanics (favoring Caucasians and Asians), the opposite was the case for multiple list (divergent) items. Perhaps most interesting was his description of a questionnaire he developed called the Job Perception Index that served as both a realistic job preview and a selection device for firefighter positions. Some great stuff from a fabulous speaker.

That's it for now--those of you that attended, feel free to comment or add! Tomorrow: Day 2.

Old-school competencies

Recently I went with family to the old Empire Mine in the gold country of California. It's one of the oldest, deepest, and richest mines in California. It produced 5.6 million ounces of gold before it closed in 1956.

In the display cases I happened to notice a brief description of the typical tasks and competencies required of a miner (a mini-job analysis if you will):











How would you have selected people for this job? Physical ability test? How about some type of personality test that measured flexibility and stress resistance? Might a realistic job preview have been a good idea?

Note it includes the traditional "what would happen if this job was done incorrectly..." question. This takes on increased meaning when you look at the shaft that the miners traveled down every day on their "way to work":











You may not be able to tell, but that sucker's pretty much straight down.

Suddenly my cubicle's looking a lot better.

Podcasting and jobs

Podcasts are one of the technology tools de jour. Whether it will stick around for the long haul is up for debate, but for right now there are a number of ways they can be used effectively.

Advertise your opportunities

One way is to use podcasts as another way to get the word out about your organization and career opportunities. One firm that facilitates this is jobsinpods. Check out this example of how this content is already becoming popular in Google searches.

Gather job information

Another way to use them is to gather information about positions, say as part of a job analysis. Take a listen to this example, "Life as an Escalation Engineer" with Microsoft. I think you'll find it's a rich source of information about typical tasks and job requirements.

Can you think of other ways to podcast?

Job Analysis: An Ounce of Prevention...

Anyone who needs to be convinced of the importance of job analysis might be interested in this settlement announcement from the EEOC. The lawsuit stems from discrimination complaints against Woodward Governor, an engine system and parts company. The complaints claimed Governor was discriminating against certain ethnic groups and women in pay, training, and promotions in violation of both Title VII and Section 1981 of the U.S. Code.

In addition to having to pay class members a total of $5 Million and be under the watchful eye of a court-appointed expert, the consent decree:

"requires that Woodward utilize an industrial organizational psychologist to perform an analysis of production jobs."

Do you have to be an I/O psychologist to conduct job analysis? Nope. Do you want to be mandated to conduct job analysis after being sued? Nope. Be prepared, make sure you have studied and documented your job requirements.

Measuring quality of hire

I attended a pretty darn good little HCI webcast on January 30th presented by Taleo and Dell.

The title was, "Measuring quality of hire: You can't improve what you can't measure." Taleo gave an overview of why quality is important and how to improve it, Dell provided a case study of how they implemented a quality measurement system.

Highlights:

- Intangibles, such as the skills and abilities your workforce brings to the table, are an increasingly important aspect of firm value

- According to a staffing.org survey, only about 20% of organizations define successful worker characteristics (i.e., perform a job analysis) prior to hire

- Measuring quality doesn't have to be difficult; for example, surveys can easily be distributed to hiring managers [e.g., through SurveyMonkey]

- Provides cost-of-mishire data for a variety of occupations, including Management, Computers, Legal, Protective Service, Construction, and Transportation [worth looking at just for this]

- Throughout the presentation, they present numerous ideas for metrics to use when measuring quality (e.g., time to fill, cost per hire, retention)

You can view the slides here.

Recruiting 24-7

In a competitive employment market, you have to be ready to jump on any opportunity to recruit qualified applicants. In this post I'm going to look at two methods of recruiting that help you take full advantage of ready job candidates.

Method 1: Surfing layoffs

Are you prepared to jump at the chance to recruit workers who get laid off?

One of the most common suggestions for organizations is to focus on passive candidates. These folks are demonstrating skills similar to what you need and verifying employment and conducting reference checks is much easier.

Individuals that have just been laid off (as long as it's not for performance reasons) are pseudo-passive: they've been demonstrating transferable skills and are likely highly motivated to find similar work elsewhere.

Case in point: recently a coal mine shut down near here and 600 miners lost their jobs. Within 24 hours other mines across the country started calling in, expressing interest in hiring those that had been laid off.

Will you be ready to do the same when these situations present themselves?

Method 2: Recruiting customers

This method of recruiting has gotten increasing emphasis during this holiday season, but like surfing layoffs it's a strategy that should be used year-round.

The idea here is, again, to identify individuals who have transferable skills. The best customer recruiting is done on the spot. Although these folks aren't always passive, you are getting a chance to see them in action, demonstrating job-related competencies (e.g., patience, curiosity, product knowledge) and not in the "this is my maximum performance" interview setting.

This isn't just for retailers. It's for any organization that has "customers"--people calling for information, people signing up for services, etc.


These techniques should supplement your primary recruiting technique--establishing a reputation as an employer of choice--but they can be valuable tools in your belt, particularly in crunch times.

New issue of JOOP

The December issue of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology is out so let's take a look.

First up, an article about reactions to performance feedback. Unfortunately the sample is not described (nor the measures) but the results were that leaders who received numerical/normative feedback responded better than did leaders who received text feedback--regardless of the source. Support, perhaps, for the typical practice in assessment of providing numerical scores; I'm guessing more important than type is whether feedback is provided at all, which we know is so important for feelings of procedural justice.

The next article that looks interesting is a study of teams and whether a multidisciplinary group is necessarily the best bet in all cases. The study of health care workers found that having a multidisciplinary team was related to success if defined as quality of innovations generated but not number of innovations generated.

Next up is a study of almost 52,000 school teachers in Israel. The research question? The impact of promotions on absences. The findings? The higher the person was promoted (in terms of level), the greater the decrease in absences. This impact was stronger for individuals with less tenure. Conclusion? If someone's having an abscene problem, promote them as high in the organization as you can (a little Thanksgiving Day humor for you, there).

Last but not least is a longitudinal study of 54 British symphony orchestra members (apparently a notoriously difficult group to study). Looks to me like the qualitative interview data yielded some rich information regarding the musicians' motivations and commitments. I'm always looking for good job analysis information; if you're sourcing or hiring for musicians this could give you some fresh perspectives.