SIOP Leading Edge Consortium

Feel like going to Denver in October?

That's when SIOP is going to have its annual Leading Edge Consortium. Previous consortiums have focused on executive coaching, innovation, talent, and leadership. This time we're fortunate that they've chosen to focus on Selection and Assessment in a Global Setting.

Speakers include individuals from companies like Cisco, Google, and Merck as well as consulting firms like SHL, Previsor, HumRRO, DDI, and Valtera.

Here are some of the session titles:

- "Global trends in HR"

- "Interviewing across cultures"

- "Cross border hiring"

- "Computerized adaptive testing"

Sure to be interesting stuff, particularly for anyone interested in attracting individuals from other countries and cultures.

Turn off qualified applicants in one easy step

Looking for a way to turn off qualified applicants in one easy step? The City of Bozeman, MT may have put its finger on it.

Turns out they have had--for several years--a requirement that all applicants seeking a position with the City must, after a conditional job offer that required a background check, turn over their ID and passwords for all social networks they're on, including Facebook and Twitter. After a firestorm of criticism, they decided to suspend the policy pending "a more comprehensive evaluation."

With all due respect to city officials...what were they thinking?

Put aside for the moment the potential problems of violating the terms and conditions of the social networking sites (which generally prohibit sharing passwords), and the potential legal issues inherent in finding information you shouldn't, what high-potential applicant worth her/his salt is going to give over their password information? Its akin to asking someone for their diary--and about as valid and relevant to job performance.

According to the City Manager, "choosing not to disclose log-in information did not hurt candidates’ chances of getting the job." Somehow I find that hard to believe.

I can appreciate wanting to perform your due diligence as part of the hiring process, and gathering as much information as you can, but there are tried and true methods of doing this, including detailed reference checks for every hire.

Maybe the proximity to great fishing interfered with judgment making.

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).

Fast Company disses interviews

Those of you who know about research in personnel selection know that while interviews have been shown to be predictive of job success, several other types of selection mechanisms often out-perform them. Cognitive ability is often mentioned as the holy grail of predictors, but in terms of overall utility and defensibility, I recommend work sample exams. So do the authors of a recent article in Fast Company.

As the authors (who also penned Made to Stick) point out, interviewers are often snowed by candidate interview skills. Often only when you make them demonstrate their skills do their true strengths and weaknesses reveal themselves. (Of course if you're going to interview--and almost everyone does--make sure it's structured)

A couple strengths the authors leave out: work sample (sometimes called "performance") tests are easier to defend legally, since you're measuring an observable KSA rather than a construct like intelligence, and they give candidates a more realistic preview of the job. Heck, after doing a work sample a candidate may decide the job's not for him/her. Finally, they tend to be well received by candidates, more so than many other types of assessment.

This is my favorite quote:

"...figure out whether candidates can do the job. Research has consistently shown that one of the best predictors of job performance is a work sample. If you're hiring a graphic designer, get them to design something. If you're hiring a salesperson, ask them to sell you something. If you're hiring a chief executive, ask them to say nothing -- but reassuringly."

Enthusiasm? I'd rather see cautious optimism.

"I'm really excited about this job. Hurry up and pick me."

How would you feel if a candidate said that to you? A bit...confused? Well that's essentially what Paul Westphal told his new bosses in winning his bid to become the Sacramento King's new head coach.

Granted, Westphal had several things going for him:

1) He has been an NBA coach (Suns, Supersonics).

2) He's led a team to a winning season, something the Kings sure could use.

3) He's coached at the college level and also been an assistant coach; this should add some depth to his experience.

4) To his credit, he seemed to know what his new bosses wanted--i.e., enthusiasm and a reasonable salary. This could pay off in terms of his ability to get along with management (more about this below).

So what's the problem? Several, potentially. Here's how the article summed up the selection: "Westphal won the job largely on his NBA experience and enthusiasm for the job itself."

Here are my concerns:

1) Enthusiasm is not a proven predictor of job performance, yet his active pursuit of the job seems to have been a deciding factor. We know pure interest in the job does a horrible job of prediction. Pure experience isn't a great predictor either.

2) The search, according to the article, took only 47 days (which sounds quick to me). Yet apparently, "Westphal had grown impatient enough that sources say he was close to pulling out of the race." What does this say about an applicant? Maybe nothing. But it could signal something about personality (or desperation).

3) The screening seems to have relied primarily on interviews and "reputation." Is this the best way to pick a coach? What else might we do? (simulations, role plays, talking to previous players, etc.)

4) There's a big assumption being made here: that he was solely (or primarily) responsible for the wins of previous teams he coached. As we know, team performance doth not lie with leader alone. As one article commenter noted, the General Manager may be the common denominator leading in recent years to less-than-stellar team stats for the King. Will a new coach solve the real problem?

To be honest, I don't really want an applicant to be off the charts enthusiastic. It suggests overconfidence, a frightening lack of self-insight, or an attempt to snow me. Are there times where the enthusiastic candidate is the right one? Absolutely. All I'm suggesting is that we be wary. Personally, I'd rather see cautious optimism, which indicates an understanding that what they bring to the job is only part of the equation.

But heck, enough with the negativity. Here's hoping the Kings make it to the finals next year!

SIOP offers multimedia presentations

As part of its learning center, SIOP is now offering audio and video content from its conferences and events. Price ranges from $100-150 depending on membership status and whether or not you attended the event.

You can hear/see samples here, including presentations on personality in the workplace, reducing turnover using selection, and global talent management.

Good stuff. Hope other professional organizations follow their lead.

Emotional competence

I don't write a whole lot about emotional intelligence (EI), mostly because I still haven't seen a consensus around its conceptualization and measurement, but there continues to be significant interest in it. And on that note, there's an excellent article in a recent issue of JOB that I think is worth discussing.

In a nutshell, Kim, et al. studied nearly 200 matched subordinate-supervisor pairs in four South Korean hotels. The employees worked either at the front desk or were waiters--folks that likely would benefit from emotional competence.

Emotional competence, you say, not emotional intelligence? Yes, the authors prefer the term competence for several reasons:

1) Self-report inventories such as those used in this study may not be appropriate for measuring abilities.

2) Self-report measures usually measure typical behavior rather than maximally possible behavior, which an ability test hypothetically does.

3) Self-report measures of EC have low correlations with tests of cognitive ability.

I commend the authors for distinguishing between these concepts. In fact, it leads me to wonder whether we should go a step further and say emotional confidence or emotional report. However, this does raise some troubling issues with respect to the similarity and differences between the concepts and is a good illustration of why many I/O types shy away from this topic (it may also have something to do with there being many instruments that claim to measure EI).

Anyway, back the study. The measure they used for EC was a 16-item scale using 7-point Likert-type scales. An example question was, "I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others."

The authors found uncorrected correlations of .15 between EC and the two work performance measures of task effectiveness as well as social integration (both p<.05). In addition, they found support for their hypotheses that the relationship between EC and job performance was mediated by "interpersonal proactive behaviors", measured here by supervisors as the extent to which the employee engaged in feedback seeking behavior and relationship development with the supervisor. So not huge correlations, but useful. The strength of the correlation is in line with what we often see for uncorrected self-report measures such as personality inventories.

To their credit, the authors chose employees who likely would have need of some type of emotional awareness. This of course would be one of the big questions if one were considering this type of selection tool, and the decision as always would rest with the results of a detailed study of the job. What the Uniform Guidelines would have to say about supporting this measure using content validation is another story for another day!

Hybrid tests and the June '09 IJSA

What do you get when you combine a structured interview with a performance assessment? Perhaps some sort of hybrid with pieces from both sides. In the June 2009 issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment we find out more.

Morgeson et al. describe the development of a "performance interview" that combines a structured interview with an on-site performance demonstration. Essentially this involved going to the relevant work area (this study was for parts manufacturers) and asking a series of questions to determine promotability, such as "How do you set up this machine?" It's fascinating stuff, and it worked (using concurrent measures), although it might be challenging to use for less observable performance measures. For more details, check out the in press version here; the recipe book starts on page 12, and check out the example on page 41.

What else is in the issue? Take a look:

Predicting managerial readiness in Chinese workers

Is inflation in personality inventories necessarily a bad thing?

Do occupations tend to have their own personality? (yep)

Leadership effectiveness: Self- versus other-ratings (check out who tends to inflate)

CWBs: The organization plays a role

Biodata continues to shine (this time in healthcare organizations)

Is handwriting analysis popular among European employers? Not so much.

Can you predict military performance using personality inventories? Seems so.

Job experience v. personality measures in a small sample

Does going green matter to applicants?

A lot of people have recommended that organizations explicitly communicate an environmental (green) message to applicants in order to make the organization more attractive to applicants, particularly younger ones. But is this advice sound? Some new research suggests it may be.

In a recent article in the Journal of Business and Psychology, Behrend et al. had 183 participants view a printout of web pages that either did or didn't have a message expressing the organization's support of environmental causes.

First significant finding: the green web page was linked to more job pursuit intentions.

Second significant finding: the link was mediated by organizational reputation.

Third (and perhaps most important) finding: the link was not impacted by individual stance on the environment.

So there may just be something to the advice that greening up your career page can help you attract applicants. Assuming you want to attract more applicants.

Free monograph on test validation

IPAC (the International Personnel Assessment Council) is making available, free of charge, a monograph by Dr. Charles Sproule titled Rationale and research evidence supporting the use of content validation in personnel assessment.

Having seen a copy, I can tell you it's chalk full of great content, spanning much of the field of personnel assessment, including updated information on validity coefficients and special sections for several different types of tests (e.g., interviews, training and experience exams).

It's a great primer for anyone who wants to learn more about what it means to "validate" an exam, and it's a worthy addition to the library of any seasoned professional.

The monograph can be accessed here if you are a member, or you can request a copy here if you are not. Check it out!

Exploring the wild west of staffing

Last week I gave a presentation at the WRIPAC meeting in Burlingame, CA. The topic was "Using the Internet to effectively attract and screen the right applicants." Here are a few observations given my conversations with a very engaging group of participants:

1. There is immense interest in using the Internet for more than just posting jobs. But many folks are unsure how to start or what's out there. For individuals new to Web 2.0 concepts (e.g., social networking sites) there is a healthy--not necessarily unwarranted--skepticism.

2. Our worlds can shift relatively rapidly from "how do we get more applicants?" to "how do we get fewer applicants?" and then back again. As recruitment and assessment professionals we need to be able to pivot quickly and make sure our organizations are up to snuff in both realms.

3. In order to use the Internet effectively, most of us need to work with our IT staff. But this can be challenging given built-in resistances to change, security concerns, and assumptions. My advice was to push them as long as you have a good business case.

4. We have a lot of work to do on the most basic use of the Internet for recruitment and self-screening: our career portals. Many are cluttered and most likely have not been reviewed critically. More white space, more links, more pictures and video.

5. Most folks have some type of applicant tracking system, but many are unsure what its capabilities are and are not 100% sure how to use it to screen applicants. Oftentimes we rush to use built-in training and experience questionnaire functionality without first understanding the best way to use them. I just hope we move away from time-in-grade.

6. People seem to be moving away from the big job boards and towards cheaper--and usually more effective--alternatives, like craigslist or more targeted postings. People are also taking a harder look at whether their advertising dollars are really bringing in the candidates they need.

7. The balance of power has shifted in some ways from the employer to the applicant. They're not just responding to our (often uninspired) job postings, they're asking their friends, looking us up on glassdoor, connecting to people through LinkedIn, etc. As partial keepers of the organization's reputation, we need to be aware of all the different ways applicants research us.

8. These are exciting times. At several points in the presentation I mentioned that right now we are in the Wild West of staffing. Technology changes constantly, and along with them so do expectations placed upon us. We learn as we go. And it's challenging, but opportunities abound for those that are willing to take some risks.

Hang on, we're in for a heck of a ride.

April 2009 Issues of Merit

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) recently released their April 2009 Issues of Merit, with several interesting articles, including:

- Using Internet technology to recruit (public sector employers, are you on GovLoop?)

- Improving hires through multiple hurdles (e.g., accomplishment records)

- HR practices to increase employee engagement (supervisor selection, orientation, etc.)

- How to prepare a structured interview

Also, a very interesting note on the last page about OPM removing the time-in-grade requirement for promotions in competitive service!

Is your test the 40-yard dash?

A fascinating article came out in the last couple days about how the 40-yard dash is used to evaluate NFL prospects. And while I'm not a huge fan of equating sports teams with other organizations, sometimes the comparison works.

The article starts by describing the story of Brice McCain, a former defensive back from Utah. McCain was considered "too small" by football scouts until they came to town and saw him run the 40-yard dash; he did it in 4.30 and 4.34 seconds. As the article states, "Suddenly, his size (5-foot-9) was less of concern."

Consider these other points from the article:

- McCain's 40-yard dash time wasn't his only strength; he got high marks in other drills that assess quickness rather than overall speed (multiple-method convergence, anyone?)

- Scouts often feel you can teach things like catching, but teaching prospects to run faster is difficult (abilities vs. skills?)

- The 40-yard dash is considered more relevant for evaluating receivers and defensive backs than linemen, where scouts are looking more at foot speed and agility (job analysis informs assessment choice)

- Times for the dash vary with surface (grass v. artificial surface) and runners are never clocked wearing their uniform (beware fidelity of the test instrument)

- The importance of the test is debated given that few players ever run 40 yards during a game (some criterion-related validation might be in order)

- Businesses have sprouted up that provide physical training to prospects to help them perform better in front of scouts (test prep industry expands its reach)

There's quite a lot here that overlaps with assessment in general.

Where doesn't the comparison work? Well, non-sports organizations almost never have the wide variety of statistics available to them to use in judging applicants that sports scouts do. Many organizations also don't have recruiters constantly traveling around the country evaluating groups of applicants. And course there's that whole draft thing.

Still, an example of how assessment can be found in all kinds of situations, and how sticking to best practices pays off in a variety of situations.

The state of UIT

Many recruiters and assessment professionals believe that the future of employment testing lies with screening applicants over the Internet (rather than in person). And while there are substantial benefits associated with this method (e.g., convenience, speed), there are plenty of concerns as well (e.g., cheating, validity). Research in this area is in its infancy, which is why it is refreshing to see a full half of the March 2009 issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology is devoted to describing the state of unproctored internet testing (UIT).

What struck me most about when reading these articles is the variety and excitement surrounding this field but even more, the tremendous lack of consensus in the professional community has about important issues related to UIT.

The articles start off with an updated summary by Nancy Tippins, who with her colleagues provided a heavily cited summary in 2006. This focal article is followed by twelve response articles and a final summary by Tippins.

Here's a (very) brief summary of some of the important points raised by the authors:

1. Cheating happens. But let's not forget that proctored tests have always been susceptible to some degree of cheating (e.g., via test question memorization).

2. There are many ways to mitigate the risks associated with cheating. This includes retesting, identity verification, and response pattern analysis. But it's not clear how successful these measures are, or even how needed they are.

3. Although there are potential legal risks (e.g., lack of standardized administration), UITs have not been directly evaluated in court.

4. The choice of whether or not to use UIT is influenced by many factors, not the least of which is the organizational reality communicated by upper management.

5. Some applicants may be turned off by an organization that uses assessments so obviously prone to cheating. But this may be balanced by increased convenience, speed, and immediate feedback.

6. Although cheating and response distortion occurs, it's unclear to what extent it impacts validity.

As an interesting note, the most common types of tests delivered via UIT seem to be biodata, personality, situational judgment, and T&E and preference questionnaires. There are also those who are administering cognitive ability tests in this way, sometimes adaptive.

UIT is in many ways the Wild West of employment testing. It's exciting and innovative, but comes with risk and lots of unanswered questions.

Here's hoping our field quickly speeds up the research side because this ship has clearly sailed.

HRE announces best HR ideas for 2009

Recently Human Resource Executive posted their Best HR Ideas for 2009 winners. Among the topics (benefits, HR tech, talent management, and T&D) they highlight some pretty interesting examples related to recruitment and assessment. Here's a sample:

- AlliedBarton Security Services gathered productivity data and discovered many managers were leaving at the peak of their productivity; this allowed them to focus additional resources on targeted retention efforts

- US Cellular uses web-based meeting technology to allow hiring supervisors to communicate about their candidates, ensuring more consistency and enhancing communication

- Proctor and Gamble, working with DDI, moved their cognitive ability testing online and made them adaptive

- SITA developed a leadership development portal where employees can literally "gauge" their competencies and receive targeted instruction

- BPO firm iQor created an online test designed to measure "emotional, intellectual, and conversational skills", reducing the need for interviews, increasing productivity, and reducing turnover

SIOP has a blog!

Well it's been a long time coming, but SIOP finally has a blog, the SIOP Exchange (with feed here).

Right now it's focused on updates from the conference, opening today in New Orleans, but moving forward it will broaden to "news and issues in the I-O community." Definitely a welcome addition to the blogosphere!

And speaking of the blogosphere, IPMA-HR's blog has a new location, along with a feed now. The most recent post is about a topic near and dear to me--social networking and performance management.

March '09 IJSA

The March '09 issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment is out, with a ton of great content. Check it out:

What's your organization's personality?

Does your career site motivate people who fit?

How does applicant personality interact with organizational personality?

More on faking non-cognitive assessments

Yes, we're still debating about group differences on cognitive tests

Oh, and if you're interested in statistics, check out this recent study on corrections for range restriction from PARE.

Biodata in the news

I don't write about biodata inventories very often. Not because they don't work--quite the opposite--but because like personality inventories, they require special knowledge and resources to develop. They also don't tend to be in the news nearly as much as other types of tests like interviews and personality inventories. So I was pleased to see a recent article in the mainstream press about how the FBI uses biodata inventories as part of its hiring process for Special Agents.

For those of you unfamiliar with this type of test, they look at first glance like a job knowledge-type multiple choice exam. The example given in the article is as follows:

To what extent have you enjoyed being given a surprise party?
A. Not at all
B. To a slight extent
C. To a moderate extent
D. To a great extent
E. I have never been given a surprise party

Like a personality inventory, a common reaction to this type of question is sometimes "What does this have to do with hiring someone?" But herein lies the beauty--and complexity--of biodata inventories: each item on the exam has been statistically linked to job performance. So unlike most other types of tests, items are shown to predict performance before being given to applicants.

Other benefits? They are resistant to faking so are great candidates for Internet administration and they typically result in smaller group differences than cognitive tests.

So why don't more organizations use them? A few reasons:

1) They require large sample sizes to develop
2) They require a fair amount of statistical expertise
3) They look a little funky ("why are you asking about my surprise party??")

Those are substantial hurdles for many organizations. But given the rush to online assessment and screening, we may see their usage increase.

What tweeting says about you

Cynical or spot on? Either way, Brian Unger's piece on Twitter is darn funny.

March '09 Journal of Applied Psychology

The March 2009 issue of J.A.P. is out with a lot of great content; for example:

To maximize diversity and validity, try recruiting on cognitive ability and selecting on conscientiousness

In a multistage assessment scenario (which exists for practically every hire), there are several options for maximizing diversity and validity

What determines the success of word of mouth recruitment strategies? Turns out, several things...
(read the draft version here and see Van Hoye's IPAC presentation here)

Interested in improving your T&Es? Check out what this study has to say about self and supervisory agreement of performance ratings.

More clues about what GMA is all about

How P-E fit is related to performance dimensions such as OCB

The importance of job offer negotiation: Subjective value predicts long-term employee outcomes