Employer branding made easy

There's been a lot of discussion over at ERE these days about employer branding, so it was nice to see IPMA-HR get into the swing of things in its most recent edition of IPMA-HR News (unfortunately not available to non-members but keep reading).

There were several good articles in this edition, including:

"Can HR Have a Brand Image, and If So, How Can One Determine HR's Current Reputation?"

"Attracting Talent to Government: Marketing the Mission"

Another article that really stood out was Mark Hornung's, titled "The Benefits of Employer Branding for Government Agencies: What Reglators May View as a Luxury Is a Necessity in Today's Tight Labor Market."

Mark did a great job summarizing the challenges organizations face when thinking about branding, how to assess your current brand, how to communicate it, and playing to your strengths. Targeted at the public sector, but applicable to any organization.

Although this publication isn't available to non-members (although if you join you get access to the newsletter back to November '04), Mark's employer, the Bernard Hodes Group, has some great information on their website, including a branding game (!) and an interview with Mark.

----

...By the way, feel free to let me know what you're interested in by responding to the survey posted on my main page. I had been running a similar survey using Sparklit but switched to PollDaddy after seeing how easily Joel Cheesman integrated it into his blog postings.

MSPB Releases Report on Practice of Merit

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) last week released a report that chronicles proceedings from a conference it held last year titled, "The Practice of Merit: A Symposium."

Contents of the proceedings are available by topic here, including a session devoted to hiring.

A report of the entire proceedings, including all comments, is available here.

Topics include:

- How the Department of Veterans Affairs recruits, assesses, and retains health care professionals and shies away from written tests

- How the State Department recruits and assesses Foreign Service professionals, including brand establishment and relying on test results over resumes

- How the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recruits, screens, and retains intelligence professionals

Each contributor emphasized the importance of establishing and maintaining relationships with educational institutions and maintaining a commitment to a merit-based system when given more flexibility in hiring.

Yahoo Pipes in Powerful New Search Tool

I don't normally post about things not totally related to personnel selection and recruiting. But I do make exceptions, particularly when I think it will become relevant.

One of the big stories yesterday was that Yahoo was forced to take down one of its websites because it received so much traffic--the day it was introduced. What was this new site? It's called Yahoo Pipes, and it's worth taking a look at even if you don't know your RSS from your URL.

In a nutshell, Pipes allows novices (okay, semi-novices) to aggregate/ mash-up/ recombine information from several sources and have all kinds of fun with it. Examples include a Pipe that takes content from the New York Times homepage and searches Flickr for related photos. Another allows the user to search for apartments within a certain range of a feature--such as a park, a grocery store, etc. Once you run the Pipe, you can subscribe to the feed results.

So how is this relevant for us? Several ways, I think. One possibility is taking job search results from multiple sites and allowing the job seeker to filter the results in a variety of different ways (location, duties, etc.) Another is for recruiters to source talent from several sources simultaneously, filtering for experience, competencies, etc. A third use is simply to keep up to date on a topic of particular interest to you or your organization, giving you a bit more control than the typical feed reader. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's not perfect--one problem I ran into is aggregating and searching jobs is limited because of the limited number of results that are presented on each results/RSS page. And although it's quite user friendly, it could be better--and likely will get there.

Google has been shelling out innovative tools left and right these days (e.g., Base, Co-op, Alerts, Docs). Yahoo must be doing quite a bit of preening right about now.

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.

The Conference Board reports online job ad statistics

The Conference Board has released an analysis of U.S. online job advertising trends for January of 2007 and it's got some really juicy numbers for us.

Highlights:

- There were 3,141,800 vacancies posted online, a drop of 6% from December of 2006 (primarily seasonal). This includes nearly 2 million jobs that were not posted in the previous month.

- California had the largest drop by far in posted vacancies--not surprising given that it is the state with the largest labor market and the highest overall number of job postings (532,000 in January).

- Over the entire year there was an increase of 12% in the number of postings.

- Maine and Oklahoma outpaced other states with the largest increase in posted vacancies over the last year (+68% and +50%, respectively).

-Four states -- Hawaii, Virginia, Delaware, and Utah -- had more advertisements than job seekers (!). Top cities in this category include Washington DC, Salt Lake City, and San Jose.

- Occupations in the highest demand were Management, Business and finance, Office and admin support, Computer and mathematical, and Healthcare. With the exception of Office jobs, these are also some of the highest paid jobs available.

- New York and Los Angeles had the highest number of posted vacancies.

This is just the tip of the iceberg--the report includes voluminous information breaking these numbers down. Good stuff.

Ninth circuit affirms class action status in Wal-Mart case

The U.S. Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court's approval of class action status for plaintiffs in Dukes V. Wal-Mart, an employment discrimination lawsuit that claims the company discriminated against women in compensation and promotion opportunities in violation of Title VII.

Good summaries are available at EASI-HR Blog and Ross' Employment Law Memo.

Can grumpy workers lead to better organizational performance?

One of the most interesting findings in industrial/organizational psychology is that the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance isn't particularly strong (although we have people looking into it).

Now, new research from Dr. Jing Zhou at Rice University may help us understand why.

Dr. Zhou gathered survey responses from 161 employees (granted, not a large sample) of a large oil-field services company and their supervisors. What she found was that people who experienced periodic bad moods tended to be more focused on detail, more analytical, and more creative--partially because they're motivated to get out of their bad mood.

Overly happy people, on the other hand, aren't likely to see potential problems until it's too late.

It depends on the job

Bob Hogan, of Hogan Assessment Systems, rightly points out that the type of person you want depends on the job. If you're hiring in advertising or product development, you might look for someone who gets agitated when confronted with a problem. On the other hand, if you're hiring for a call center, grumpy shouldn't be high on your list--instead you want the bright cheerful person who can withstand a lot of negativity.

And on the organization

Zhou and Hogan also both point out that it's not enough to have the right person--the organization must support the expression of these types of emotions and encourage change. If a frustrated person is constantly squashed or told to cheer up, those innovative ideas may never bubble to the top. There's also a tie here to perceptions of organizational justice, of which being able to voice your opinion is an important aspect.

There's grumpy, then there's GRUMPY

Of course you don't want someone who's grumpy all the time. As Zhou points out, there's not much you're able to do with someone like that. Chances are that's not a good job-person fit (although it always warrants a little investigation).

In addition, there's a distinction between grumpy and angry--after all, we want people expressing themselves appropriately, not with office furniture.

More about Dr. Zhou's research can be found in this interview.

EEOC releases charge statistics for 2006

The EEOC has released statistics describing the types of charges filed and resolutions for FY 2006.

Highlights:

- A total of 75,768 charges were received, the first increase since 2002.

- Charges based on race, sex, and retaliation were most common, as in previous years.

- All charge categories were up except age (surprisingly) and equal pay.

- A record 15% of sexual harassment charges were filed by men.

- The EEOC had a record high "merit factor rate" of 22% (charges resolved with favorable outcomes for the plaintiffs).

- A record high 8,201 cases were resolved through mediation.

- $274M in monetary benefits was obtained (including litigation), down from $376M in 2005.

Johnson v. City of Memphis decision available

Thanks to Lance Seberhagen, the U.S. District Court decision in Johnson v. City of Memphis is now available in IPMAAC's library.

Why is this case important? Because it's a rare example of a plaintiff prevailing in a Title VII disparate impact case by arguing that (even though the exam process was judged to be valid), there existed another process with similar validity but with less adverse impact that the employer should have used, per the Albemarle decision, 42 U.S.C. 2000-e2(k)(1)(A) and Section 3B of the Uniform Guidelines.

This is an area where many folks think there will be increased litigation, which makes it that much more important that when we're designing selection systems we take a very broad view of what methods are available and their likely features (validity, adverse impact, practicality, etc.). I presented on this issue with some colleagues a few years ago.

If you want to skip to the meat of the case, read pages 16-27, including this gem:

"Plaintiffs are not required to have proposed the alternative. The requirement is only that the alternative was available. The Court reads "availability" in this context to mean that Defendant either knew or should have known that such an alternative existed."

If you'd like to cause your eyebrows to raise a little higher, read the remedies on pages 37-38.

No word yet on whether the City will appeal.

5-point, 7-point, 9-point, oh my!

One of the most common questions that comes up in assessment is: What type of rating scale should I use? (Followed closely by: What is it exactly that you do again?)

Usually when people ask this question, they're putting together an interview and (bless their hearts) are taking the time to think about how to grade candidate responses. But it doesn't have to be for an interview--rating scales are used for other types of tests, most notably work sample/performance tests. And then there's that whole "performance evaluation" thing.

So what does the research say?

Well, that depends on who you ask. Let's take a look at what some folks much smarter than me have said:

Nunnally (1978): "[the increase in reliability] tends to level off at about 7, and after about 11 steps there is little gain in reliability..."

Landy & Farr (1980): "...the format should require the individual to use one of a limited number of response categories, probably less than nine..."

Cascio (1998): "...4- to 9-point scales [are statistically optimal]..."

Pulakos, in Whetzel and Wheaton (1997): "A generally accepted guideline is somewhere between four and nine."

So what do we take from this? That generally we should shoot for between 4 and 11 scale points.

Does it really matter?

Probably not. Some of the most comprehensive studies of the topic have determined that when all is said and done, the number of points probably doesn't make that big of a difference. For example:

Wigdor & Green (1991): "...the consensus of professional opinion is that variations in scale type and rating format do not have a consistent, demonstrable effect on halo, leniency, reliability, or other sources of error or bias in performance ratings..."

Landy & Farr (1980), again: "...about 4%-8% of the variance in ratings can be explained on the basis of format."

Guion (1998): "The 5-point scale is so widely used that is seems as if it had been ordained on tablets of stone...there is little evidence that the number of scale units matters much..."

I suspect that if the problem is with the rating format, in most cases it's not because there are too few/too many categories, but that the categories aren't anchored very well. Have you ever had to rate an answer with a scale like this: Excellent - Satisfactory - Poor ? What the heck does "Satisfactory" mean? That doesn't help the rater, doesn't lend itself to reliable and valid measurement, and certainly won't look good in court.

The other big problem is rater training. Some organizations do a great job of training raters. Many don't. Without extensive rater training, you're just asking for all kinds of errors to enter into the equation. Panel members should pre-test the interview, try to poke holes in it, and generally discuss.

Bottom line

Back in 1956 a little article was published that you may have heard of. It was titled, "The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information." In this article, George Miller argued forcefully that humans seem to have a natural limit of dealing with around 7 (+/- 2) pieces of information simultaneously.

51 years later, we don't seem to have changed our mind much.

NPR piece on Jobs 4.0

Good, brief piece this morning on NPR about Jobs 4.0, a job site devoted to opportunities for those age 40 and over.

The segment raises some important points about the U.S.'s aging workforce, age discrimination, potential advantages of older workers, and the subjective feelings involved with not being able to find work.

Steven Greenberg, the founder of Jobs 4.0, also has a blog.

Hewitt study quantifies value of high performers

In a recent press release, Hewitt Associates (a large HRO and consulting firm) reported results of a study that underlines the importance of attracting and retaining top talent.

Here's the key line from the press release:

Results showed that the flow of pivotal employees--defined as employees in the top quartile of their peers in pay progression--into and out of an organization is a strong predictor of changes in Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI) and shareholder value.

Here's the CliffsNotes version: After analyzing data from more than 1,000 employers and 20 million employees, Hewitt found that for the average Fortune 500 company a 10-point increase in their "Talent Quotient" (TQ) adds approximately $70-160m to its bottom line over the next "few" years.

Sounds similar to some previous research you've seen, right? Like...oh...McKinsey or Watson Wyatt, or heck you might as well go back to Brogden.

So what exactly does this study tell us? Well, first we need to understand what a "Talent Quotient" is.

According to Hewitt, there are two forms of TQ:

"TQ Attract" is the proportion of pivotal employees joining an organization to the total number of new hires in a given period. So essentially the percentage of your new hires that turn out to be stars.

"TQ Retain" is the proportion of pivotal employees leaving an organization to the total number of employees leaving in that period. So pretty much the percentage of folks leaving that you don't want leaving.

Hewitt uses both of these concepts and links them statistically (along with employee satisfaction) to firm performance. I'm thinking this is another way of slicing utility analysis, and to the extent that it links sound HR practices to the bottom line, I'm all for it. As long as folks don't forget that fighting the "War for Talent" may lead to myopia.

FYI, Samir Raza and Mark Ubelhart of Hewitt discuss TQ in Chapter 3 of Workforce Wake-up Call. Wayne Cascio's book Costing Human Resources is a great source for information on demonstrating the value of HR.

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!

Wonderlic releases revised Personnel Test

Any day I get a chance to post about the testing company with my favorite name, it's a good day.

That day is today, and that company is Wonderlic.

Many of you are no doubt familiar with Wonderlic, one of the oldest testing companies around. It's also one of the most famous or infamous depending on how you look at it. The Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT), a test of cognitive ability (intelligence if you prefer) has been around since the 1930s and has been used by many organizations, including the military and (more recently) professional football teams.

In 1971, the Wonderlic received some unwelcome media (along with the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test) when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power that the company had misused the test (essentially they didn't do the leg work to tie WPT scores to successful job performance). And yes, Griggs is also the case where the Supreme Court articulated the "adverse impact" theory of employment discrimination. In fact, if you haven't read Griggs, I highly recommend it, for historical purposes if nothing else.

Anyhoo, Wonderlic recently announced the release of a revised version of the WPT, appropriately named the WPT-R. What's new? Some changes to content, and some changes to format. It's still a 12-minute test, available via bubble sheet or online, scored by Wonderlic.

Click here to see some sample questions from the WPT-R.

Mystery video

Have you ever had a great candidate on the hook but lost them?

Maybe the process took a little too long, maybe the engagement just wasn't as strong as it could be?

What could you do to prevent situations like this?

Well, I have a challenge for you.

Take a look at this video. And after you do, ask yourself these questions:

1) Did you figure out what the "punchline" was before you saw it? (this is more for my own curiosity, since I didn't!)

2) How could you use something like this?

3) If you already create job preview videos, why aren't you doing something like this?

Feel free to share your answers!

ATP Conference in Palm Springs

Tired of cold weather?

Feel like being spontaneous?

Then maybe you should consider the 2007 Association of Test Publishers Conference in Palm Springs, CA.

The conference takes place February 5-7 and has some tantalizing presentations, such as:

Converting from Paper-Based Tests to Computer-Based Tests: The Practical Issues

Head to Head: Online Technology Vendors Sound Off

Creating Computerized Performance Assessments

Video, Audio, and Simulations Over the Web

Cross-Cultural Testing: Issues and Practice

That's just a very small sample of the all the conference goodness. Another highlight is Dr. Frank Schmidt receiving the Career Achievement award. Full conference program is available here.

Cost? A mere $695 for ATP members, $750 for non-members.

I don't know about you, but sunny and mid-70s sounds heavenly right now!

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?

Goodyear discrimination complaint costs $925K+

Goodyear Tire & Rubber has entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) over a sex discrimination complaint.

I wrote about the complaint last year. The OFCCP claimed that Goodyear was discriminating against females applying for entry-level operative and labor positions in violation of Executive Order 11246.

So what's it gonna cost? Goodyear will pay out $925,000 in back wages and interest to 800 women.

What else will it cost them (aside from bad press)?

- Goodyear will hire 60 women from the class, as long as they make it through a re-designed selection process.

- The company will conducted annual training for managers at one of its plants on EEO and affirmative action (I'm thinking training company-wide would be a good call?).

...and last but not least:

- Goodyear will submit semi-annual compliance reports to the OFCCP for at least two years and will report on any adverse impact the new selection procedures have.

Ouch.

New legal feeds

The Employment Law Information Network has created several new feeds broken into two groups:

Federal feeds, with several categories, including:
- Affirmative action
- Age discrimination
- Disability discrimination
- National origin
- Race discrimination
- Religious discrimination
- Sex discrimination
- Title VII
- Employment law verdicts

And state law feeds for:
- California
- New Jersey
- New York

Hopefully new states coming soon!

You can subscribe to them individually or all at once. I've been a big fan of ELIN for a long time and find their newsletters to be very good summaries. I have high hopes for these feeds!

"Hiring for attitude"

One of the most common pieces of advice given to hiring supervisors is "hire for attitude." This phrase is often used by consultants as a key "ah-ha" part of their sell because it just makes so much intuitive sense.

But what exactly does that mean? The core idea usually is that since things like knowledge and skills are trainable, you should focus your hiring efforts on looking for things about people that aren't likely to change--their persistent habits, ways of looking at things, and attitude. You may have seen something like this:









So assuming we buy this argument (more on that later) how do we hire for attitude? There are many ways to approach this question, but it becomes somewhat easier if we replace "attitude" with "personality." Personality can be thought of as the persistent way individuals think, feel, and behave, and is a topic that's been red hot in assessment circles for the last 15 years, ever since Barrick & Mount's study.

What do we know about personality testing? We know that it can work, particularly when you match the job needs to the aspect of personality you're testing. In fact, personality tests can work even better than the vaunted intelligence test depending on the type of job (the more complex the job, the better intelligence tests do at predicting performance).

We know that personality tests tend to have less adverse impact than some other forms of testing, like intelligence or physical agility tests. This tends to lower your exposure to discrimination lawsuits.

We know that not all personality tests are created equal--like any other kind of test. There are really only a handful of time-tested personality inventories that I would recommend.

We know that personality testing isn't something you should just try your hand at--for two main reasons: (1) you'll need to understand theories of personality that have been supported (e.g., Big 5), and (2) if your hiring practices are challenged in court, the level of evidence you'll need to defend a personality test is higher than, say, a simulation that mirrors actual job behavior. Bottom line: unlike interviews, personality tests are something you should let someone else put together.

Finally, we know that you shouldn't immediately go with a personality test regardless of the job. You wouldn't recommend a typing test, regardless of the position, would you? Then why recommend a personality test when maybe, just maybe, there are other aspects of the job that are more important (writing ability, oral presentation skill, learning ability)? Some people would argue that things like writing ability and oral presentation skill can be taught--I say, maybe. I think it depends a lot on the person. And what sort of training operation does your organization have? You can train on these things, but will you?

When it comes to hiring right, there are no magic pills. It takes work to figure out what selection approach is best given the needs of the job, the organization, the available labor pool, etc. It's not rocket science, but it ain't color-by-numbers either. Can "hiring for attitude" work? Yep. Just make sure to look before you leap.

New Journal of Applied Psychology (v92, #1)

There's a new issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology (one of the most read research-focused journals related to recruitment/assessment) out, so let's see what it's got! Caution: this issue is a whirlwind smorgasborg, so there's a lot to look at.

First up, an study of conditional reasoning tests (CRTs) and how "fakeable" they are. Don't know what a conditional reasoning test is? Here's an example. Anyway, this study found that CRTs were fakeable when the purpose of the assessment was given. On the plus side, no differences were found between student, incumbent, and applicant samples. Will we ever figure out the faking problem? That's one of the big questions in assessment right now.

Next, a meta-analysis that looked at the unique contribution self-efficacy measures might make to the prediction of job performance after accounting for personality (Big 5), general mental ability, and job/task experience. Results? Not a big contribution after accounting for the other factors. Self-efficacy did predict performance in low-complexity jobs, but not medium- or high-complexity jobs. It also predicted task performance, but not job performance.

On a related note, the third article relevant for us reviewed the research on goal orientation (GO) and whether it predicts performance. (GO is essentially how you view performance--are you focused on learning or on completing, or not completing, the task? More details here) The authors of the current study found that having a learning orientation or avoiding performance predicted performance (in opposite ways) and state GO tended to out-predict trait GO. (State being related to the task at hand, trait being a persistent aspect of someone) Even more interesting, state GO added predictive power above and beyond cognitive ability and personality. I may have to get this one.

The next article is, I must confess, one of those that you really need to read in order to fully understand. And by "you", I mean me, because I can't get the whole gist from just the abstract. Essentially what the researchers found is that bias against Black men can be reduced through a structured free recall intervention. Donations to the "get Bryan more subscriptions to research journals" are accepted with gratitude.

Speaking of articles I need to actually read, the next study looks at how we might group college-bound individuals beyond simply looking at standardized test scores. After studying over 2,700 entering college students, the researchers found that individuals could be grouped into one of five categories based on factors such as biographical data and scores on situational judgment tests. To be honest, the press release does a better job of describing this than I can.

Next one up is a doozie. Dr. Collins, who has done other work in the area of employer knowledge and applicant behavior, found that when applicants aren't very knowledgeable about an employer's products or services, less information (e.g., a banner ad, a sponsorship) is better in terms of generating interest. On the flip side, when products and services are well known, more information is required to attract applicants (e.g., brochures, employee endorsements). I'm thinking an employee blog would be an example of the latter, as well? Good stuff, with a more readable summary here.

Next, an examination of what predicts workplace aggression. This meta-analysis of 57 research studies found that both individual and situational factors predict aggression and the pattern is specific to the target of said aggression. A must for those interested in predicting workplace violence, I'm thinking. A previous article by some of the same authors is available here.

Last but definitely not least is a study of the impact that emotions (affect) have on perceptions of organizational justice. As we know, perceptions of organizational justice (e.g., procedural justice) are strongly correlated with important behaviors like likelihood of applying for a job, referring the employer to others, and filing lawsuits. So what does this study have to tell us? That both state and trait affect influence justice perceptions, with state effects (get it? affect, effect?) generally slightly stronger.

Why is this last study so important? Because people generally don't file lawsuits because they believe Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, has been violated and the employer will fail to show that the selection process was job-related and consistent with business necessity. No, they are honked off because they were treated poorly or the process seemed squirrelly. They talk to other people who feel the same way, and BAM!, class action lawsuit. So take your time when coming up with your assessment process, and treat your applicants with respect, if not because they're human beings, then because you're likely saving yourself thousands of dollars and countless hours defending a lawsuit.

Whew! What an issue. Shelley Zedeck (the editor) must have had a busy last few months!

Survey reveals hiring ramp-up for public sector agencies

According to the IPMA-HR HR Bulletin, their 2007 Hiring Outlook Survey revealed that public sector agencies plan on doing a substantial amount of hiring this year.

The survey of 656 IPMA-HR members was conducted from 1/10-1/17/07.

Highlights:

• 75% of respondents plan on hiring this year, up from 68% in 2006
• Employers are planning on hiring in larger numbers
• As with previous years, most new positions will be in public safety
• Need will also be strong in public works and finance & management
• Only 12% of respondents plan on conducting layoffs this year, down from 16% in 2006 and 18% in 2005
• 89% of respondents indicated they currently have vacancies
• Fewer organizations are purposely leaving positions unfilled for budgetary reasons

I'll put up a link to survey results once (if) they're posted.

The power of family-friendly policies

According to the IPMA-HR HR Bulletin,

"A bill, S. 80, has been introduced by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) to give federal employees paid family leave for the birth or adoption of a child. The “Family Leave Act” would provide new birth mothers with up to eight weeks of paid leave and new fathers with five paid days of leave. Employees who adopt would be entitled to at least five days of paid leave.

“This measure will provide hardworking American families with the necessary flexibility to care for their newborn and newly adopted children,” said Senator Stevens. “It will provide time for mothers to recover after childbirth without having to worry about the financial burdens that come with unpaid leave. Thousands of Alaska women work for the federal government and could benefit under this new program.” The measure would also provide for what Stevens calls “responsible parenting leave”—eight hours of paid leave to attend a child’s educational activity and/or to take children to the doctor."

As a father-to-be, I can tell you that anytime someone mentions "paid family leave", my ears perk up. Idiosyncrasies of the bill aside (e.g., 8 weeks for the mom but only 5 days for the dad and only 5 days for adopting), what is the recruiting power of a policy like this? A lot of people assume there is paid maternity/paternity leave, but in my experience this is uncommon.

California recently enacted a paid family leave program that is paid 100% by employees (estimated average cost of $46 a year per worker). It's not perfect, but it's a start.

I'll tell you one thing--I would consider a policy like this to be a big plus in the employer attractiveness column. And I'm bettin' I'm not the only one.

Weddle's top 30 job boards

According to Weddle's, the top 30 job boards in 2007 according to readers (some 50,000 recruiters and job seekers) are:

6FigureJobs (executive careers)
Absolutely Health Care
AllRetailJobs.com
America’s Job Bank
Best Jobs USA
CareerBuilder.com
CareerJournal.com
CollegeRecruiter.com
ComputerJobs.com
craigslist
Dice (IT)
DiversityInc.com/careers
EmploymentGuide.com
ExecuNet
Experience
HEALTHeCAREERS Network
HRJobs (SHRM.org)
Indeed (vertical search)
Jobing.com
JobsintheMoney (financial jobs)
TheLadders (jobs that pay $100k+)
LatPro (Latino and Hispanic jobs)
LocalCareers.com
MilitaryHire.com
Monster
Net-Temps
USAJOBS (jobs with U.S. government)
Vault.com
VetJobs
Yahoo! HotJobs

Assessment conference in Delhi, India

The Defence (sic) Institute of Psychological Research (DIPR) in Delhi, India is organizing a conference on assessment in personnel selection that will take place in Delhi on November 23-25, 2007.

According to the conference website, the conference will cover "psychological aspects of job analysis, criterion oriented personnel selection, psychometric properties, issues in transition of selection systems, systems approach to psychological assessment, and ethical issues related to personnel selection."

Important dates:

5/30/07 - last day for submission of full paper
8/15/07 - last day to register for the conference

Contact is Dr. S. Subramony of DIPR; email is subramonyvaikom@yahoo.co.in or sbraj2002@yahoo.co.uk

Reference checking

Good, if a little laundry-list-like, post over at ERE on reference checking by John Sullivan.

Given how spotty reference checks are (in my experience), this is an area where we can generate a lot of improvement. It's sad that what should be the most rich, relevant source of information about a candidate--their previous experience--is marred in most cases by fear of lawsuits (which are highly exaggerated), unstructured questions, and an overall lack of rigor.

I still think MSPB's reference checking report is one of the best I've seen. Don't let the word "federal" in their reports turn you off.

Q&A #2: David Hamill

My Q&A with thought leaders in recruitment and assessment continues with David Hamill. David is currently the Director of Workforce Development for Marriott International. David is also Past President of IPMAAC and a former senior research psychologist for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

I think if you read David's responses and compare them to Dennis Doverspike's, you'll see some recurring themes...

(Note: As last time, links are provided by yours truly)

BB: What do you think are the primary recruitment/assessment issues that employers are struggling with today?

DH: Finding and holding onto top talent! There is a war for top talent across all businesses including state and federal government agencies. Organizations must develop and maintain relationships that they can draw talent when needed and put valid selection procedures in place that do not discourage high-potential candidates from pursuing a position. Once a selection is made, organizations need to have a solid engagement strategy that helps to retain, develop, and promote their associates. Employing valid and fair selection practices does not go far enough if employees only leave the organization soon after being hired.

BB: What is an example of an innovative or creative recruitment/assessment practice that you've seen recently?

DH: I’m familiar with a program that was designed to attract hourly associates that offers a complimentary gift cards and free daycare while the candidates apply, take an assessment, and interview with an organization. This often eliminates a barrier to simply applying for a position. I also think the use of online, multi-media or interactive assessments will help to streamline the application process and enable organizations to expedite the on-boarding process.

BB: What is a research topic in this area that you think deserves increased attention?

DH: Unproctored assessments and the use of IRT/CAT assessments is an area that needs much research and thought leadership. We (I/O psychologists/assessment professionals) have successfully converted paper based assessments to the computer. However, this is hardly adequate in leveraging technology to improve prediction. Technology can greatly improve the richness of the test content, minimize the cognitive demand, assess previously un-tapped job domains, improve test security, expedite the hiring process, and provide tailored feedback to applicants. Before organizations can truly embrace online assessments, we need to develop some standard best practices with proven results.

BB: What subjects are you personally interested in, and what are you learning?

DH: I’ll limit this one to my professional interests, since my interests in fly fishing will never pay the bills. On a professional note, I am interested in developing online assessments that are fully integrated with other HR systems like performance management systems, compensation, training/learning platforms, and recruitment initiatives. I am also interested in getting more experience in working with international applicants and colleagues.

BB: Have you read any books or articles lately that you would recommend to the professional community?

DH: The Extraordinary Leader: Turning Good Managers into Great Leaders by John Zenger and Joe Folkman; Love’EM or Lose’EM: Getting Good People to Stay, by Beverly Kaye & Sharon Jordan-Evans.

BB: Is there anything else you think recruiters/assessment professionals should be focused on right now?

DH: Partnering better with key business leaders/strategic business units to develop tools and procedures which help them achieve their mission and business goals. In addition, we need to prepare better for recruiting and assessing international populations who are becoming part of the landscape.

Thank you David!

SIOP Conference Registration open

Registration is now open for the 2007 SIOP Conference, to be held in New York City on April 26-29.

The conference program won't be available until mid-late February, but we do know what the half-day workshops (held on the 26th) will be. Here are some you might be interested in:

- Building Legal Defensibility Into Your HR Processes

- Are We Ready? Strategic Human Resource Management and the Maturing Workforce (including how to recruit and retain older workers)

- Leading a Thriving Consulting Practice: Building the Foundation, Operating Practicalities, Clients, and Their Needs

- The State of the Art in Personality Assessment (focusing on alternatives to multiple-choice self-report surveys)

- An Update on the Science and Practice of I/O Psychology (worth going just to see/hear Frank Landy)

- Early Identification and Development of Senior Leadership Talent: The Secret Insider's Guide

- The Role of E-HR in Human Resource Transformation: Build, Buy, or Outsource, and at Least Twenty More Questions Answered

- Fits about Fit: Can You Have Too Much of a Good Thing and Is There Anything You Can Do About it? (includes a focus on the possible downsides of having too many of the same type of person in an organization)

- Talent Management: The Promise and Paradox of Potential

Cost? Two sessions cost $400 for SIOP members and affiliates, $650 for non-members.

Register here.

I'll try to do a similar summary for the actual conference sessions, but chances are I'll get about 20 sessions in and pass out (there are an unbelievable number of session choices at every SIOP conference. Check out 2006's program).

Q&A #1: Dr. Dennis Doverspike

This is the first in a series of Q&As with experienced professionals and academics in the area of recruitment and assessment.

This Q&A is with Dr. Dennis Doverspike, Ph.D., ABPP. Dr. Doverspike is a professor of psychology and Director of the Center for Organizational Research at the University of Akron, as well as a consultant in I/O psychology and human resource management. He is also the chair of the IPMAAC Scientific and Professional Affairs Committee and a regular contributor to IPMA publications.

(Note: links within answers provided by yours truly)


BB: What do you think are the primary recruitment/assessment issues that employers are struggling with today?

DD: By the time I write this and it appears in print, I will probably change my mind as I have never been good at predicting present or future trends. However, I would argue for two issues:

1. How to mix science and technology in a practical, effective, and legal manner. In particular, how to make the best use of computer and internet based screening and recruitment while still complying with legal requirements. This is especially true in the area of unproctored internet based assessment.

2. How to balance the competing demands of recruitment and assessment (selection). We tend to go through cycles in where the emphasis is placed. For awhile it was almost 100% recruitment, and then we seemed to start shifting back to the assessment process, now the emphasis seems to be about 50%-50%. But the question or challenge remains, how can we recruit large numbers of highly qualified applicants, and how do we know they are really highly qualified.

BB: What is an example of an innovative or creative recruitment/assessment practice that you've seen recently?

DD: I will answer this question in three ways. First, devil's advocate, I have not seen any innovative or creative approaches. We have a new technology, but the approaches themselves come out of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Many of our "innovative" approaches consist of the computerization of very old approaches. The one truly new advancement, Schmidt and Hunter's utility and meta-analysis theories, has still not had much of an influence on practice, especially on legal guidelines.

Second, I guess this would be angel's advocate, there has been a shift to 1) a greater concern with fairness and justice and the perceptions of the applicant 2) with seeing HRM as being an advocate for the employee. I see these trends as related in that they both reflect a great concern with human factors, especially the view of the applicant or future employee.

Third, especially in the public sector, I believe the innovation has not been so much in product as in process. That is, some of the innovations in recent years have not had so much to do with new approaches or methods of assessment, as much as they have had to do with finding new ways to do bigger, more complex projects, in less time and at lower cost.

BB: What is an area of research in this area that you think deserves increased attention?

DD: The science, or art, of recruitment is less developed than the science of assessment. I believe there is a real need for research of all types on how to target recruitment so as to more effectively deliver a large number of high quality applicants.

Going one step further, and there are obvious exceptions, as a field we have tended to look for solutions that work across jobs. In a sense, we assume that our solutions will work across all types of jobs. Meta-analysis would tend to support that finding, but I think it is an overstatement. I believe our field could advance substantially if we devoted more time to the study of specific individual jobs. In the 1980s we tried to do this with a series of studies that involved detailed protocol analyses of jobs followed up by the development of very specific computerized tests based on the identified cognitive requirements. I still believe that the in-depth analysis of specific jobs accompanied by the development of very specific tests of job-related information processing abilities would contribute to both science and practice.

BB: What subjects are you personally interested in, and what are you learning?

DD: My time is limited so it does not matter what I am interested in or want to learn. Usually what I look at is driven by the projects I am working on. But in an attempt to answer the question, I believe that one area that may contribute to advances in selection is "taxometrics." Taxometrics is fairly complicated statistically, so it does take a lot of time to start to understand its possible implications. I remain very interested in the concept of basic fairness in testing, including what that means in terms of the difference between individual and organizational utility. I have always been interested in gerontology, although as I grow older I find I cannot accept aging, so maybe that is not the best area for me. However, it is clear that with our aging workforce, we need to know a lot more about dealing with older workers.

Finally, and this is a big shift for me, recently I have started to work with our Engineering Department in the areas of MEP (Minority Engineering Programs), STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education), and SLD (Significant Learning Disabilities). This has included working with children who are in the autism spectrum. This has been a very enlightening experience and returned me to my clinical roots.

BB: Have you read any books or articles lately that you would recommend to the professional community?

DD: Malcolm Gladwell's books--blink and The Tipping Point. blink in particular is an excellent book that takes a huge body of social cognitive research and presents in a style that is both interesting and engaging. He also does a good job of being faithful to the original research. In addition, especially in the case of blink, there is a great deal that is applicable to the interview and selection.

Most of my reading is research articles or textbooks, and I am not sure those are books or articles I would recommend to the professional community. That is why I recommended Gladwell's books.

If you are a golfer, save your money and take lessons instead of buying books.

BB: Is there anything else you think recruiters/assessment professionals should be focused on right now?

DD: Focused on? Sure:

1. How to appeal to the ipod generation?
2. How to appeal to baby boomers?
3. The impact of the new OFCCP rules on applicants, and when they come out, the new EEOC rules on applicants.
4. The rapidly changing field of unproctored internet-based testing.
5. Making sure that HR is seen as a profession.

========

Thank you, Dr. Doverspike!

Maternity store discriminates against moms

In what has to be one of the most bizarre cases I've heard lately, Motherhood Maternity (which also owns Mimi Maternity and Pea in the Pod) settled a lawsuit filed by the EEOC that claimed the company failed to hire women because they were pregnant and retaliated against a woman who complained about it.

In addition to monetary relief ($375,000 total), the company must adopt an anti-discrimination policy, provide training, post a notice regarding the lawsuit, and report to the EEOC twice annually regarding pregnancy discrimination complaints.

Discriminating against qualified job applicants because of pregnancy status is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and complaints about violations of this law have risen in recent years, along with the monetary benefits awarded to plaintiffs.

Manpower and the changing temp landscape

Good article in the latest Economist about employment-services giant Manpower.

The article covers a lot of ground, including company history, acquisitions, and changes in strategic focus.

Highlights:

- Only 13% of Manpower's revenue comes from America. France is the company's biggest market and source of about 1/3 of its revenues.

- Traditional temp work now accounts for 70% of its profits, down from 96% in 1999. CEO Jeff Joerres expects this to drop to 50% within five years.

- As providing temps has become a low-margin business, Manpower has expanded into placing permanent employees and training/coaching (dovetailing with its purchase of Right Management in 2004). A newer development is training employed individuals who are hoping for a promotion.

- The article references a 2006 survey of 32,000 employers in 26 countries Manpower conducted where it found 29% of respondents said they would have hired more professional staff if candidates had had the necessary skills. That figure was 45% for U.S. employers.

- Finally, this juicy and spot-on quote:

"...once people have been hired, the attrition rate can be expensively high--particularly for the most talented. This owes as much to the lack of training and career development opportunities as to salaries...the leading Indian firms, such as Infosys, have been addressing the skills gap and high turnover rates by establishing in-house universities."

p.s.: Just a thought: I wonder if they've ever considered changing their name. Manpower reminds me of the old Ace Hardware tune ("Ace is the place with the helpful hardware man") or the Culligan motto ("Hey! Culligan man!"). Mmm....discrimination...

Assessment in the mainstream press

The January 2007 issue of Prosper magazine has an article on assessment, and it provides us with a good example of what's written about our area in the popular press.

With apologies to Steven Colbert...

Tip of the hat for:

- Providing so many good examples of the utility of good tests, including: higher caliber of candidates, reduction in drug test failures, higher retention rate, and fewer probation failures.

- Reminding test users to consider language issues (e.g., do you need to have the test translated?).

- Correctly pointing out that medical tests can only be performed post-offer.

- Emphasizing that instruments like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and DiSC Profile are not appropriate personnel selection tools.

- Highlighting the fact that knowing the job (i.e., performing a job analysis) is essential.

- Correctly advising employers not to use a single test as the sole decision maker.

- Reminding readers that understanding test results can be tricky and an I/O psychologist can help in interpretation.

- Cautioning employers about using another organization's benchmarks.

Wag of the finger for:

- Stating that in the U.S. it is a legal requirement to "have the assessment instrument deemed reliable and valid." There is no legal requirement to show evidence of validity unless you're sued (say, for discrimination). That said, it is obviously best practice is to validate your selection instruments.

- Stating that assessment instruments have historically been used "primarily for sales personnel and senior-level executives." Actually serious assessment began in the military and has been used for virtually every type of job. If there's been an interview, there's been an assessment.

- Suggesting that organizational psychologists and psychometricians "avoid using the term 'test'." If this is true word hasn't reached me yet. I can think of several recent publications that used this word.

- Incorrectly stating that drug tests can only be administered post-offer.

- Recommending that employers use tests that ask applicants to compare themselves to others. Actually we know that people do a lousy job of comparing themselves accurately to other people.

- Suggesting that you should always check to see if the test should be in the language of the reader. If the job requires proficiency in the language the test is written in (and you've documented that), then this is not an issue as long as the reading level is appropriate.

Criticism aside, I do appreciate the publicity for our field! (and, honestly, I've seen much worse)

State of Iowa airs dirty laundry

The state of Iowa has made available demographic statistics regarding their hiring practices and it's raised some eyebrows. The data shows that while 20% of whites referred for interviews received one, only 12% of minorities did--a clear violation of the 4/5ths rule.

There's a number of reasons why this event is significant.

First, it shows that none of us are immune to investigation. This data was gathered by request of the governor, which resulted in a task force to investigate claims of discrimination.

Second, it reinforces how important applicant flow statistics are. A lot of folks think disparate treatment when they hear about employment discrimination and forget a little thing called adverse impact.

Third, it's a great source of information for other jurisdictions to use as benchmarks (e.g., 22-23% of individuals interviewed were hired).

Fourth, it reminds us how expensive employment litigation can be, even for the public sector. The state has paid out $850K for discrimination lawsuits since 2000--and I'm betting that doesn't include all the time and money spent defending themselves against the suits.

Fifth, it illustrates how statistics can be interpreted different ways. The data shows that once minorities got to the interview stage they were hired in similar proportions, which seems to indicate something going on at the previous stage. It may be systematic discrimination, it may also be that there is some systematic lack of qualification(s). We won't know until they look at it more carefully.

Last but not least, it brings to light the somewhat, how shall I say, unconventional remedies often sought by plaintiffs. In this case the NAACP wants the state to "test supervisors and managers for subconscious bias."

I almost want this to proceed just so I can see what that test looks like!

More on Google hiring

Another day, another article about Google hiring practices.

I've posted about this before--about how Google recently changed its processes to focus on fewer interviews, triangulate on candidate KSAs, and expand the scope of predictors beyond GPA and college diplomas.

I wish I was as excited about this new article, but truth be told I have some concerns about the messages they're sending.

- Laszlo Bock, their VP of "People Operations" had this to say about interviews:

"Interviews are a terrible predictor of performance."

Hmmmm....I seem to recall reading some evidence that refutes this (granted, it's looking like we need to take another look at the validity coefficients). If by "terrible" Bock is implying that biodata is far superior to structured interviews, I'd like to see what data he's looking at. Perhaps he meant the data Google collected showed poor correlations between their interview scores and subsequent job performance?

- This led to this rather unfortunate quote from the article author:

"...academic research suggests that...grades and interviews...are not an especially reliable way of hiring good people."

Again, research suggests otherwise. Yes, support for using grades to predict performance is limited at best. And yes, unstructured interviews are not only unreliable but unwise from a legal perspective. But structured interviews with well-designed questions and rating scales can be very effective.

That said, I still believe Google is setting the proper example for modern assessment in several ways:

- By focusing on what the data shows. Google collected a substantial amount of data that allowed it to look carefully at which background characteristics predicted job performance--both task-based and citizenship behaviors.

- By tailoring assessment to the needs of the position. Separate "surveys" were developed for different job groups (e.g., engineering, sales, finance, HR).

- By not rushing to embrace point-based T&Es in automated systems but instead taking the time to go with something far better (biodata).

The ROI of blogging

Charlene Li over at Forrester Research does some interesting work. And although Forrester doesn't post all of its content for free, they did post the slides from a recent teleconference that Li did regarding the ROI of blogging.

This is really good stuff for anyone interested in measuring how much bang for their buck they're getting out of blogs, or if you just have an interest in "corporate" blogs.