The Autumn 2007 issue of Personnel Psychology is out with plenty for us to sink our teeth into, particularly for you personality testing fans out there. Let's take a look:
First up, Luthans et al. present the results of a study that focuses on positive psychology, which is gaining more and more interest these days. The authors describe support for a survey instrument that purports to measure four aspects of "positive psychological capital"--hope, resilience, optimism, and efficacy--and then looked at whether results predicted job performance and satisfaction. Results? A "significant positive relationship", with the composite of the four aspects outperforming each individually. (Side note: two of the authors published a book last year that focuses on this topic)
Next, Judge & Erez look at how two of the Big 5 personality dimensions--emotional stability and extraversion--predicted job performance at a health and fitness center. Not only did both predict performance on their own, but they did even better in combination. The authors suggest that the combination of emotional stability and extraversion reflects a "happy" or "buoyant" personality that may be more important to predicting performance than each trait in isolation. Great study that goes beyond the "which of the Big 5 are the best" mentality.
Next up, Buckley et al. with a study of race and interview panels. Ten White and ten Black raters viewed videotaped responses of 36 White and 36 Black police officers applying for a promotion. Results? Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that there was a same race bias (i.e., White raters rated White applicants better, Black raters rated Black applicants better) and a significant difference between the panels depending on the ethnic makeup. Good news? The effect size was small and "net reconciliation" (the difference between initial and final scores) was significant (but small) only among Black raters.
Pay attention to the next study, recruiters: Zhao et al. present the results of a meta-analysis on the impact of psychological contract breach on 8 work-related outcomes, including attitude and individual effectiveness. An example of contract breach: telling an applicant you have great work-life balance policies and then never approving leave. So what did they find? Breach was related to all eight outcomes except for actual turnover. Affect mediated this relationship, which suggests to me that if you have to break a contract, you may be able to somewhat manage the impact by being smart about how you present it and being sensitive about the reaction.
Next up, a bevy of big names in the field (let's just call them "Morgeson, et al.") drop a bombshell on personality testing: they argue that because of the low validities associated with self-report personality measures, they should be discontinued for personnel selection! They don't write personality tests off completely, but suggest that alternatives to self-report measures need to be developed (someone may want to tell Judge & Erez; see article above). What might this look like? Conditional reasoning tests are mentioned as a possibility. And, (this is just me talkin') "ability" type measures could be developed (e.g., if you're conscientious you should be able to demonstrate certain behaviors) or we could integrate personality measurement into the reference checking process (hey, I didn't say it would be easy). Oh and hey, here's the article if you're interested; thanks to Dr. Morgeson for making so much of his work available.
Ironically (or is it coincidentally? curse you, Alanis Morissette), the very next article is about the development of a new self-report personality measure, the Five Factor Model Questionnaire. Gill & Hodgkinson criticize existing measures (e.g., they contain too many generic items, they use culture-specific language) and find support for their measure using five separate diverse samples, including close convergent and divergent validity with the NEO PI-R.
So that's the end of the research articles, but not the end of this journal issue. It also contains reviews of several books, including:
- Using individual assessments in the workplace: A practical guide for HR professionals, trainers, and managers by Goodstein and Prien (which looks to be a very useful introductory guide, along the lines of Aamodt et al.'s statistics book)
- Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (2nd ed.) by McIntire and Miller, which is designed for an undergraduate-level course.
- and for those of you looking for something a little more advanced, a review is also included of Dr. Viswanathan's Measurement error and research design.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Are individuals liable for employment discrimination?
A common question I hear from supervisors and HR professionals is: "Am I personally liable for employment discrimination when I make a hiring decision?"
This recent article deals with a California Supreme Court decision but covers the answer to this question generally.*
* Short answer: it's rare (except for Section 1981 or 1983 claims** and failing to verify employment eligibility***) but you may be named anyway as a tactic on the part of the plaintiff.
** Which can be particularly nasty since there is no cap on damages and no administrative requirement (like filing with the EEOC). On the other hand it is more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in these cases, and it's only relevant in cases of disparate treatment.
*** Okay, this might be nastier because you could face jail time. Don't forget those I-9s!
This recent article deals with a California Supreme Court decision but covers the answer to this question generally.*
* Short answer: it's rare (except for Section 1981 or 1983 claims** and failing to verify employment eligibility***) but you may be named anyway as a tactic on the part of the plaintiff.
** Which can be particularly nasty since there is no cap on damages and no administrative requirement (like filing with the EEOC). On the other hand it is more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in these cases, and it's only relevant in cases of disparate treatment.
*** Okay, this might be nastier because you could face jail time. Don't forget those I-9s!
Monday, September 17, 2007
September '07 Issue of JOOP
The September, 2007 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology is out and has several articles worth taking a look at. Let's look at some of them:
The first article, by Ng et al., presents an overview of the different theories of job mobility. Specifically, they look at the impact of "structural" factors (e.g., the economy), individual differences, and decisional factors (e.g., readiness for change, desirability of the move). Good stuff to keep in mind when thinking about why people get and change jobs.
Next, Kenny and Briner provide an overview of 54 years worth of British research on ethnicity and behavior. A very broad article that includes discussion of research on recruitment/assessment (draft here).
Third, a fascinating study of the impact of job insecurity on behavior by Probst, et al. Using data gathered from both students and employees, the authors found that perceptions of job insecurity tended to have a negative impact on creativity (I'm thinkin' because your brain's busy thinking about the upcoming unemployment) but seems to have a moderately positive impact on productivity ("maybe if I work hard enough they won't fire me"?).
Next up, Hattrup, Mueller, and Aguirre analyzed data from the International Social Survey Programme on work value importance across 25 different nations. The authors found that conclusions about cross-cultural differences in work values will vary depending on how "work values" are operationalized. Why is this important? Because oftentimes sweeping statements are made about how people in certain countries view work-life balance, the importance of job security, interesting work, etc. This research reminds us to pause before adopting those conclusions.
Last but not least, Lapierre and Hackett present findings from a meta-analytic structural equation modeling study of conscientiousness, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), job satisfaction, and leader-member exchange. If this makes you say, "Huh?" then here's the bottom line: (with this data at least) conscientious employees demonstrated more OCBs, which enhanced the supervisor-subordinate relationship, leading to greater job satisfaction. Job satisfaction also seemed to result in more demonstration of OCBs. More evidence to support the value of assessing for conscientiousness, methinks. Also more support for expanding the measure of recruitment/assessment success beyond simply "productivity."
The first article, by Ng et al., presents an overview of the different theories of job mobility. Specifically, they look at the impact of "structural" factors (e.g., the economy), individual differences, and decisional factors (e.g., readiness for change, desirability of the move). Good stuff to keep in mind when thinking about why people get and change jobs.
Next, Kenny and Briner provide an overview of 54 years worth of British research on ethnicity and behavior. A very broad article that includes discussion of research on recruitment/assessment (draft here).
Third, a fascinating study of the impact of job insecurity on behavior by Probst, et al. Using data gathered from both students and employees, the authors found that perceptions of job insecurity tended to have a negative impact on creativity (I'm thinkin' because your brain's busy thinking about the upcoming unemployment) but seems to have a moderately positive impact on productivity ("maybe if I work hard enough they won't fire me"?).
Next up, Hattrup, Mueller, and Aguirre analyzed data from the International Social Survey Programme on work value importance across 25 different nations. The authors found that conclusions about cross-cultural differences in work values will vary depending on how "work values" are operationalized. Why is this important? Because oftentimes sweeping statements are made about how people in certain countries view work-life balance, the importance of job security, interesting work, etc. This research reminds us to pause before adopting those conclusions.
Last but not least, Lapierre and Hackett present findings from a meta-analytic structural equation modeling study of conscientiousness, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), job satisfaction, and leader-member exchange. If this makes you say, "Huh?" then here's the bottom line: (with this data at least) conscientious employees demonstrated more OCBs, which enhanced the supervisor-subordinate relationship, leading to greater job satisfaction. Job satisfaction also seemed to result in more demonstration of OCBs. More evidence to support the value of assessing for conscientiousness, methinks. Also more support for expanding the measure of recruitment/assessment success beyond simply "productivity."
Friday, September 07, 2007
A hiatus and government blogging
I'll be taking a brief hiatus from blogging as I move from the Pacific Northwest to California. There's plenty more blogging to come, it just may be a few weeks as I get settled in.In the meantime, for those of you interested in learning more about blogs--how to make them and how to use them--you should check out an IBM study that came out recently titled The Blogging Revolution: Government in the Age of Web 2.0 by David Wyld. It's chock full of info, and not just for those of you in the public sector. Topics include:
- How do I blog?
- Touring the blogosphere
- Blogging policy
If this is a topic that interests you, don't forget to check out Scoble & Israel's Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers.
Oh, and if you look at the bottom of my homepage you might just see a link to an article that a certain someone (okay, me) wrote recently about how to use blogs for recruitment, assessment, and retention.
Thanks for reading & I'll be back soon!
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The Corporate Leavers Survey
This just in from the Level Playing Field Institute: a new study, sponsored by Korn/Ferry, that finds that corporate unfairness, in the form of "every-day inappropriate behaviors such as stereotyping, public humiliation and promoting based upon personal characteristics" costs U.S. employers $64 billion annually.
This sum, based on survey responses from 1,700 professionals and managers, is an estimate of "the cost of losing and replacing professionals and managers who leave their employers solely due to workplace unfairness. By adding in those for whom unfairness was a major contributor to their decision to leave, the figure is substantially greater."
Examples of the type of behavior they're talking about:
- the Arab telecommunications professional who, upon returning from visiting family in Iraq, is asked by a manager if he participated in any terrorism
- the African-American lawyer who is mistaken THREE TIMES for a different black lawyer by a partner at that firm
- the lesbian professional who is told that the organization offers pet insurance for rats, pigs, and snakes, but does not offer domestic partner benefits
What does this have to do with recruiting? Aside from the obvious (turnover-->need to backfill), check this out:
One of the top four behaviors most likely to prompt someone to quit: being asked to attend extra recruiting or community related events because of one's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Not only that, but 27% of respondents who experience unfairness at work in the last year said this experience "strongly discouraged them" from recommending their employer to other potential applicants.
What can employers do to prevent this? Aside from the tried and true methods (good and regular training for all supervisors, prompt and thorough investigations), the report offers other suggestions, which vary depending on the group (e.g., more/better benefits for gay and lesbian respondents, better managers for people of color).
Definitely some things to ponder.
Summary here
This sum, based on survey responses from 1,700 professionals and managers, is an estimate of "the cost of losing and replacing professionals and managers who leave their employers solely due to workplace unfairness. By adding in those for whom unfairness was a major contributor to their decision to leave, the figure is substantially greater."
Examples of the type of behavior they're talking about:
- the Arab telecommunications professional who, upon returning from visiting family in Iraq, is asked by a manager if he participated in any terrorism
- the African-American lawyer who is mistaken THREE TIMES for a different black lawyer by a partner at that firm
- the lesbian professional who is told that the organization offers pet insurance for rats, pigs, and snakes, but does not offer domestic partner benefits
What does this have to do with recruiting? Aside from the obvious (turnover-->need to backfill), check this out:
One of the top four behaviors most likely to prompt someone to quit: being asked to attend extra recruiting or community related events because of one's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Not only that, but 27% of respondents who experience unfairness at work in the last year said this experience "strongly discouraged them" from recommending their employer to other potential applicants.
What can employers do to prevent this? Aside from the tried and true methods (good and regular training for all supervisors, prompt and thorough investigations), the report offers other suggestions, which vary depending on the group (e.g., more/better benefits for gay and lesbian respondents, better managers for people of color).
Definitely some things to ponder.
Summary here
Friday, August 31, 2007
More games
I've posted before (here and here) about how Google and other companies are literally using boardgames as part of their applicant screening process, and how I'm not a big fan of this technique.
The September, 2007 issue of Business 2.0 has an article titled "Job Interview Brainteasers" that highlights another type of game employers play--this time, it's asking "creative" questions during the interview.
Let's take a look at some interview questions from the article and who's asked them:
How much does a 747 weigh? (Microsoft)
Why are manhole covers round and not, say, square? (Microsoft)
How many gas stations are there in the United States? (Amazon.com)
How much would you charge for washing all the windows in Seattle? (Amazon.com)
You have 5 pirates, ranked from 5 to 1 in descending order. The top pirate has the right to propose how 100 gold coins should be divided among them. But the others get to vote on his plan, and if fewer than half agree with him, he gets killed. How should he allocate the gold in order to maximize his share but live to enjoy it? (eBay, and, similarly, Pirate Master)
You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and your mass is proportionally reduced so as to maintain your original density. You are then thrown into an empty glass blender. The blades will start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do? (Google)
These questions have been around for quite a while and are used to measure things like creativity and estimation ability. The question is: Are they any better than board games? Probably. But they're still a bad idea.
Why do I say that? Well, first of all, a lot of people find these questions plain silly. And this says something about your organization. Sure, some people think they're fun or different. But many more will scratch their head and wonder what you're thinking. And then they'll wonder if they really want to work with you. Particularly folks with a lot of experience who aren't into playing games--they want to have a serious conversation.
Second, there are simply better ways of assessing people. If you want to know how creative someone is, ask them a question that actually mirrors the job they're applying for.
Want to know how they would tackle a programming question? Ask them. In fact, you can combine assessment with recruitment, as Spock recently did.
Want them to estimate something? Think about what they'll actually be estimating on the job and ask them that question. And so on...
Another advantage of these types of questions? The answers give you information you can actually use. (Hey, you've got them in front of you, why not use their brains)
If you don't really care about the assessment side of things, and in reality are just using these questions as a way to communicate "we're cool and different" (as I suspect many of these companies are doing) there are better ways of doing this. Like communicating in interesting and personal ways (e.g., having the CEO/Director call the person). Like talking about exciting projects on the horizon. Like asking candidates what THEY think of the recruitment and assessment process (gasp!).
My advice? Treat candidates with respect and try your darnedest to make the entire recruitment and assessment process easy, informative, and as painless as possible. Now THAT'S cool and different.
The September, 2007 issue of Business 2.0 has an article titled "Job Interview Brainteasers" that highlights another type of game employers play--this time, it's asking "creative" questions during the interview.
Let's take a look at some interview questions from the article and who's asked them:
How much does a 747 weigh? (Microsoft)
Why are manhole covers round and not, say, square? (Microsoft)
How many gas stations are there in the United States? (Amazon.com)
How much would you charge for washing all the windows in Seattle? (Amazon.com)
You have 5 pirates, ranked from 5 to 1 in descending order. The top pirate has the right to propose how 100 gold coins should be divided among them. But the others get to vote on his plan, and if fewer than half agree with him, he gets killed. How should he allocate the gold in order to maximize his share but live to enjoy it? (eBay, and, similarly, Pirate Master)
You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and your mass is proportionally reduced so as to maintain your original density. You are then thrown into an empty glass blender. The blades will start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do? (Google)
These questions have been around for quite a while and are used to measure things like creativity and estimation ability. The question is: Are they any better than board games? Probably. But they're still a bad idea.
Why do I say that? Well, first of all, a lot of people find these questions plain silly. And this says something about your organization. Sure, some people think they're fun or different. But many more will scratch their head and wonder what you're thinking. And then they'll wonder if they really want to work with you. Particularly folks with a lot of experience who aren't into playing games--they want to have a serious conversation.
Second, there are simply better ways of assessing people. If you want to know how creative someone is, ask them a question that actually mirrors the job they're applying for.
Want to know how they would tackle a programming question? Ask them. In fact, you can combine assessment with recruitment, as Spock recently did.
Want them to estimate something? Think about what they'll actually be estimating on the job and ask them that question. And so on...
Another advantage of these types of questions? The answers give you information you can actually use. (Hey, you've got them in front of you, why not use their brains)
If you don't really care about the assessment side of things, and in reality are just using these questions as a way to communicate "we're cool and different" (as I suspect many of these companies are doing) there are better ways of doing this. Like communicating in interesting and personal ways (e.g., having the CEO/Director call the person). Like talking about exciting projects on the horizon. Like asking candidates what THEY think of the recruitment and assessment process (gasp!).
My advice? Treat candidates with respect and try your darnedest to make the entire recruitment and assessment process easy, informative, and as painless as possible. Now THAT'S cool and different.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Georgia-Pacific fined by OFCCP for using literacy test
In a display of "See? It's not just the EEOC you need to worry about", the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has fined the Georgia-Pacific Corp. nearly $750,000.
Why? During a "routine audit of the company's hiring practices", the OFCCP discovered that one of Georgia-Pacific's paper mills was giving job applicants a literacy test that resulted in adverse impact against African-American applicants (saw that one coming a mile away). The $749,076 will be distributed to the 399 applicants who applied for a job while the mill was using the test.
The test required applicants to read "bus schedules, product labels, and other "real-life" stimuli." The OFCCP determined that the test was not backed by sufficient evidence of validation for the particular jobs it was being used for.
The company defended itself by saying it promotes heavily from within and wanted workers to be able to move around easily.
A sensible policy, but completely irrelevant in terms of defending the legality of a test. In fact it works against an employer, since (as one of the attorneys points out) you're in effect testing people for higher-level positions, which is a no-no.
Several attorneys are quoted in the article, and they mention the importance of the Uniform Guidelines, which really only apply when a test has adverse impact, as in this case. It does make me wonder what sort of validation evidence G-P collected (if any)...
Note: the article states incorrectly that "all federal contractors" are subject to OFCCP rules. Actually only certain ones are, and details can be found here.
Hat tip.
Why? During a "routine audit of the company's hiring practices", the OFCCP discovered that one of Georgia-Pacific's paper mills was giving job applicants a literacy test that resulted in adverse impact against African-American applicants (saw that one coming a mile away). The $749,076 will be distributed to the 399 applicants who applied for a job while the mill was using the test.
The test required applicants to read "bus schedules, product labels, and other "real-life" stimuli." The OFCCP determined that the test was not backed by sufficient evidence of validation for the particular jobs it was being used for.
The company defended itself by saying it promotes heavily from within and wanted workers to be able to move around easily.
A sensible policy, but completely irrelevant in terms of defending the legality of a test. In fact it works against an employer, since (as one of the attorneys points out) you're in effect testing people for higher-level positions, which is a no-no.
Several attorneys are quoted in the article, and they mention the importance of the Uniform Guidelines, which really only apply when a test has adverse impact, as in this case. It does make me wonder what sort of validation evidence G-P collected (if any)...
Note: the article states incorrectly that "all federal contractors" are subject to OFCCP rules. Actually only certain ones are, and details can be found here.
Hat tip.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
A funny employment lawyer
Of course they exist. If you don't know one, you do now.
Mark Toth is the Chief Legal Officer at Manpower and he's just started a blog on employment law that so far is highly amusing.
For example, he sings a song about employment law.
A song.
About employment law.
I mean, you gotta be into this stuff to go that far.
He's also got a REALLY BAD hiring interview up for you to watch, along with his top 10 "employment law greatest hits."
My personal favorite? #6: "Communicate, communicate, communicate (unless you communicate stupidly)"
One of the more creative blogs I've seen. Here's to hoping it lasts.
And no, I won't be singing a song about assessment. Unless you really want me to (and trust me, you don't want me to).
Hat tip.
Mark Toth is the Chief Legal Officer at Manpower and he's just started a blog on employment law that so far is highly amusing.
For example, he sings a song about employment law.
A song.
About employment law.
I mean, you gotta be into this stuff to go that far.
He's also got a REALLY BAD hiring interview up for you to watch, along with his top 10 "employment law greatest hits."
My personal favorite? #6: "Communicate, communicate, communicate (unless you communicate stupidly)"
One of the more creative blogs I've seen. Here's to hoping it lasts.
And no, I won't be singing a song about assessment. Unless you really want me to (and trust me, you don't want me to).
Hat tip.
Monday, August 27, 2007
National Work Readiness Credential
Have you heard about the National Work Readiness Credential?It's a 3-hour pass-or-fail assessment delivered over the web that is designed to measure competencies critical for entry-level workers, and consists of four modules:
1. Oral language (oral language comprehension and speech)
2. Situational judgment (cooperating, solving problems, etc.)
3. Reading
4. Math
I love the idea of a transferable skills test; kinda like the SAT of the work world. I think this approach, combined with assess-and-select-yourself notions are two of the truly creative directions we're going in.
Downsides?
(1) Right now it's not available in all areas of the country.
(2) A searchable database (either as a recruiting tool or as a verification) would be great.
(3) Last but not least, employers have to be cautious that the position they're hiring for truly requires the competencies measured by this exam.
But all that aside, a promising idea. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Here are links to some of the many resources available:
Brochure
Training guide
Candidate handbook
Assessment sites
Appropriate uses
FAQs
Friday, August 24, 2007
Links a go-go for 8-24-07
Good reading for August 24, 2007:
OFCCP issues final regulations implementing Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 (job banks for postings listed here), and...
OFCCP also posts interim guidance on use of race and ethnic categories (direct link here)
Are you sure you know where your hires are coming from? (hint: beware drop-down boxes)
Jobmatchbox does the 50 top recruiting blogs
Interview questions you can ask--and those you can't (includes simplistic video!)
Tracking adverse impact
Favorite defense motions in limine for employment cases
Does harassment training lead to more lawsuits? (hat tip)
The housing market and its relationship to recruiting
New regulations on no-match letters: Ho-hum?
OFCCP issues final regulations implementing Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 (job banks for postings listed here), and...
OFCCP also posts interim guidance on use of race and ethnic categories (direct link here)
Are you sure you know where your hires are coming from? (hint: beware drop-down boxes)
Jobmatchbox does the 50 top recruiting blogs
Interview questions you can ask--and those you can't (includes simplistic video!)
Tracking adverse impact
Favorite defense motions in limine for employment cases
Does harassment training lead to more lawsuits? (hat tip)
The housing market and its relationship to recruiting
New regulations on no-match letters: Ho-hum?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Big Disability Discrimination Decision for California Employers
On August 23, 2007, the California Supreme Court published an important decision in the case of Green v. State of California. The decision should be reviewed by any employer covered by California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
What'd they say? Rather than muddy the waters, I'll quote directly from the case:
"The FEHA prohibits discrimination against any person with a disability but, like the ADA, provides that the law allows the employer to discharge an employee with a physical disability when that employee is unable to perform the essential duties of the job even with reasonable accommodation. (§ 12940, subd. (a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).) After reviewing the statute's language, legislative intent, and well-settled law, we conclude the FEHA requires employees to prove that they are qualified individuals under the statute just as the federal ADA requires." (pp. 1-2)
"...we conclude that the Legislature has placed the burden on a plaintiff to show that he or she is a qualified individual under the FEHA (i.e., that he or she can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation)." (p. 5)
What does this mean? It means employers covered by FEHA can breathe a little easier, and employees bringing suit under FEHA for a disability claim may have a slightly more uphill battle. The court has now made clear that in these cases it is the plaintiff/employee who has the burden of showing they are "qualified" under FEHA, not the defendant/employer. And if the plaintiff can't satisfy this "prong" of their case, they won't win.
...unless this case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court...
What'd they say? Rather than muddy the waters, I'll quote directly from the case:
"The FEHA prohibits discrimination against any person with a disability but, like the ADA, provides that the law allows the employer to discharge an employee with a physical disability when that employee is unable to perform the essential duties of the job even with reasonable accommodation. (§ 12940, subd. (a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).) After reviewing the statute's language, legislative intent, and well-settled law, we conclude the FEHA requires employees to prove that they are qualified individuals under the statute just as the federal ADA requires." (pp. 1-2)
"...we conclude that the Legislature has placed the burden on a plaintiff to show that he or she is a qualified individual under the FEHA (i.e., that he or she can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation)." (p. 5)
What does this mean? It means employers covered by FEHA can breathe a little easier, and employees bringing suit under FEHA for a disability claim may have a slightly more uphill battle. The court has now made clear that in these cases it is the plaintiff/employee who has the burden of showing they are "qualified" under FEHA, not the defendant/employer. And if the plaintiff can't satisfy this "prong" of their case, they won't win.
...unless this case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court...
Stop playing games
First, Google and PricewaterhouseCoopers have prospective candidates playing with Lego blocks.
Now, another company has candidates playing Monopoly (see minute 1:50) to judge multi-tasking ability.
C'mon people. You don't need to play games. Spend just a little time putting together a good assessment. Just follow these simple steps:
1. Study the job. Figure out what the key KSAs/competencies needed day one are. And spend more than 5 minutes doing it.
2. Think about what JOB TASK you could re-create in a simulation that would measure the required competencies.
3. Spend some time putting together the exercise and how you will rate it. Spend some more time on it. Practice it. Then spend some more time preparing.
4. Give it. Rate it. Treat candidates with respect throughout the process.
5. Gather performance data once people are on the job and see if it predicts job performance.
6. Hire a professional to fix your mistakes. No, I'm kidding. If you've done the other steps right, you should be golden.
Stop playing games and stop making candidates play them. If you want to know how well an Office Manager candidate multi-tasks, put them in a scenario that matches what they would really face on the job. Phones ringing, Inbox filling up, managers at your door. Not playing with phony money.
Now, another company has candidates playing Monopoly (see minute 1:50) to judge multi-tasking ability.
C'mon people. You don't need to play games. Spend just a little time putting together a good assessment. Just follow these simple steps:
1. Study the job. Figure out what the key KSAs/competencies needed day one are. And spend more than 5 minutes doing it.
2. Think about what JOB TASK you could re-create in a simulation that would measure the required competencies.
3. Spend some time putting together the exercise and how you will rate it. Spend some more time on it. Practice it. Then spend some more time preparing.
4. Give it. Rate it. Treat candidates with respect throughout the process.
5. Gather performance data once people are on the job and see if it predicts job performance.
6. Hire a professional to fix your mistakes. No, I'm kidding. If you've done the other steps right, you should be golden.
Stop playing games and stop making candidates play them. If you want to know how well an Office Manager candidate multi-tasks, put them in a scenario that matches what they would really face on the job. Phones ringing, Inbox filling up, managers at your door. Not playing with phony money.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
August ACN
The August, 2007 issue of Assessment Council News is out and Dr. Mike Aamodt provides his usual great writing, this time in article titled, "A Test! A Test! My Kingdom for a Valid Test!" where he goes over what you need to look for when selecting a commercially available test...in two easy steps!
Some of my favorite quotes:
"Previously, [the] clients had their supervisors create their own tests, and we advised them that this was not a good idea." (I just like the idea of saying that to clients, aside from the fact that it's true 99% of the time)
"Creating a reliable, valid, and fair measure of a competency is difficult, time consuming, frustrating, costly, and just about any other negative adjective you can conjure up. Think of the frustration that accompanies building or remodeling a home and you will have the appropriate picture." (So it ISN'T a coincidence that I enjoy testing and home remodeling. Whew.)
"...it is essential to remember that no test is valid across all jobs and that criterion validity is established by occupation, and depending on who you talk (argue) with, perhaps by individual location." (Just don't tell this to Schmidt and Hunter.)
More info about ACN, including links to past issues, here.
And by the way...major kudos to Dr. Aamodt for offering so much of his work online. This is rare and to be commended.
Some of my favorite quotes:
"Previously, [the] clients had their supervisors create their own tests, and we advised them that this was not a good idea." (I just like the idea of saying that to clients, aside from the fact that it's true 99% of the time)
"Creating a reliable, valid, and fair measure of a competency is difficult, time consuming, frustrating, costly, and just about any other negative adjective you can conjure up. Think of the frustration that accompanies building or remodeling a home and you will have the appropriate picture." (So it ISN'T a coincidence that I enjoy testing and home remodeling. Whew.)
"...it is essential to remember that no test is valid across all jobs and that criterion validity is established by occupation, and depending on who you talk (argue) with, perhaps by individual location." (Just don't tell this to Schmidt and Hunter.)
More info about ACN, including links to past issues, here.
And by the way...major kudos to Dr. Aamodt for offering so much of his work online. This is rare and to be commended.
Monday, August 20, 2007
OPM Has New Assessment Website
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) continues to show what a professional assessment shop should be doing with it's new personnel assessment page.
There's some great stuff here, including:
- A very detailed decision guide, including a great overview of pretty much all the major topics
- Reference documents
- Assessment resources
There's even a survey built in to gather feedback on the guide, as well as a technical support form.
Major tip 'o the hat.
There's some great stuff here, including:
- A very detailed decision guide, including a great overview of pretty much all the major topics
- Reference documents
- Assessment resources
There's even a survey built in to gather feedback on the guide, as well as a technical support form.
Major tip 'o the hat.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
September 2007 issue of IJSA
The September, 2007 issue (vol. 15, #3) of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment is out, with the usual cornucopia of good reading for us, particularly if you're into rating formats and personality assessment. Let's skim the highlights...First, Dave Bartram presents a study of forced choice v. rating scales in performance ratings. No, not as predictors--as the criterion of interest. Using a meta-analytic database he found that prediction of supervisor ratings of competencies increased 50% when using forced choice--from a correlation of .25 to .38. That's nothing to sneeze at. Round one for forced choice scales--but see Roch et al.'s study below...
Next up, Gamliel and Cahan take a look at group differences with cognitive ability measures v. performance measures (e.g., supervisory ratings). Using recent meta-analytic findings, the authors find group differences to be much higher on cognitive ability measures than on ratings of performance. The authors suggest this may be due to the test being more objective and standardized, which I'm not sure I buy (not that they asked me). Not super surprising findings here, but it does reinforce the idea that we need to pay attention to group differences for both the test we're using and how we're measuring job performance.
Third, Konig et al. set out to learn more about whether candidates can identify what they are being tested on. Using data from 95 participants who took both an assessment center and a structured interview, the authors found results consistent with previous research--namely, someone's ability to determine what they're being tested on contributes to their performance on the test. Moreover, it's not just someone's cognitive ability (which they controlled for). So what is going on? Perhaps it's job knowledge?
Roch et al. analyzed data from 601 participants and found that absolute performance rating scales were perceived as more fair than relative formats. Not only that, but fairness perceptions varied among each of the two types. In addition, rating format influenced ratings of procedural justice. The researchers focus on implications for performance appraisals, but we know how important procedural justice is for applicants too.
Okay, now on to the section on personality testing. First up, a study by Carless et al. of criterion-related validity of PDI's employment inventory (EI), a popular measure of reliability/conscientiousness. Participants included over 300 blue-collar workers in Australia. Results? A mixed bag. EI performance scores were "reasonable" predictors of some supervisory ratings but turnover scores were "weakly related" to turnover intentions and actual turnover. (Side note: I'm not sure, but I think the EI is now purchased through "getting bigger all the time" PreVisor. I'm a little fuzzy on that point. What I do know is you can get a great, if a few years old, review of it for $15 here).
Next, Byrne et al. present a study of the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), an instrument designed to measure emotional intelligence. Data from over 300 students from three universities showed no relationship between ECI scores and academic performance or general mental ability. ECI scores did have small but significant correlations (generally in the low .20s) with a variety of criteria. However, relationships with all but one of the criteria (coworkers' ratings of managerial skill) disappeared after controlling for age and personality (as measured by the NEO-FFI). On the plus side, the factor structure of the ECI appeared distinct from the personality measure. More details on the study here.
Last but not least, Viswesvaran, Deller, and Ones summarize some of the major issues presented in this special section on personality and offer some ideas for future research.
Whew!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
De-motivators
Humor break.
I've posted before about Despair.com's "de-motivational" posters. They're a (funny) version of the ubiquitous "motivational" posters you see all over the place that mostly make you roll your eyes.
Well, Despair.com now has Do It Yourself posters. Here are the three that I've done so far:
The only thing I don't get is why they don't offer printing of these. Seems like a natural money maker.
Anyhoo, hope you enjoy!
I've posted before about Despair.com's "de-motivational" posters. They're a (funny) version of the ubiquitous "motivational" posters you see all over the place that mostly make you roll your eyes.
Well, Despair.com now has Do It Yourself posters. Here are the three that I've done so far:
The only thing I don't get is why they don't offer printing of these. Seems like a natural money maker.
Anyhoo, hope you enjoy!
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Great July 2007 Issues of Merit
The U.S. Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) puts out a great newsletter focused on staffing called Issues of Merit.
The July 2007 edition has some great stuff in it, including:
- Risks inherent with using self-assessment for high-stakes decisions, such as hiring (hint: people are horrible at it)
- Tips for workforce planning
- How to write good questions
- Analyzing entry hires into the federal workforce
- An introduction to work sample tests
Good stuff!
The July 2007 edition has some great stuff in it, including:
- Risks inherent with using self-assessment for high-stakes decisions, such as hiring (hint: people are horrible at it)
- Tips for workforce planning
- How to write good questions
- Analyzing entry hires into the federal workforce
- An introduction to work sample tests
Good stuff!
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Class certified in Novartis gender discrimination suit
Bad news for Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
On July 31, 2007 Judge Gerald Lynch of the Southern District of New York granted class certification status to "[a]ll women who are currently holding, or have held, a sales-related job position with [Novartis] during the time period July 15, 2002 through the present."
The plaintiffs are seeking $200 million in compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages, claiming that Novartis discriminates against women in a variety of ways, including compensation, promotions, performance appraisals, and adverse treatment of women who take pregnancy leave.
The case in instructive for us because of how the judge viewed expert opinion in this case. One of the plaintiffs' experts noted that Novartis' performance evaluation system was flawed because ratings were subject to modification by higher-level supervisors and because ratings had to fit into a forced distribution. In addition, appeals by employees went to either the manager who made the original rating or an HR person with no real authority to change ratings.
Another plaintiffs' expert noted that male sales employees are 4.9 times more likely to get promoted to first-line manager than female sales employees. In addition, 15.2% of male employees were selected to be in the management development program compared to only 9.1% of eligible female employees--a difference of 6.0 standard deviations.
What these statistics really signify and whether the plaintiffs end up ultimately winning the suit is anyone's guess. The important thing here is to keep in mind that what you may think is a logical way to make promotion decisions may look "subjective" to others and riddled with potential for bias to enter the equation.
Bias (and risk) can be reduced by implementing practices such as:
1 - Having raters undergo intensive training, including a discussion of potential biases and several "dry runs" of the process.
2 - Having a standardized rating form with clear benchmarks based on an analysis of job requirements.
3 - Considering carefully the use of a "forced distribution" system. If you do use one, make sure raters and ratees alike understand why--and how--this is being done.
4 - Making performance in the current job only part of the promotional criteria--give applicants a chance to show their stuff through ability tests, work sample tests, personality tests, and the like.
5 - Taking complaints seriously. If someone believes there is an opportunity for abuse of the system, investigate.
6 - Track, track, track those applicant flow statistics, including selection into training programs. Uncover discrepancies before they uncover you.
7 - Get HR involved--not just as gatekeepers but as partners. Hold HR accountable for providing best practices.
8 - If you have something like a management academy, make the criteria for entry transparent and have a point person for questions.
You can read the order here, and read more analysis of the case here.
On July 31, 2007 Judge Gerald Lynch of the Southern District of New York granted class certification status to "[a]ll women who are currently holding, or have held, a sales-related job position with [Novartis] during the time period July 15, 2002 through the present."
The plaintiffs are seeking $200 million in compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages, claiming that Novartis discriminates against women in a variety of ways, including compensation, promotions, performance appraisals, and adverse treatment of women who take pregnancy leave.
The case in instructive for us because of how the judge viewed expert opinion in this case. One of the plaintiffs' experts noted that Novartis' performance evaluation system was flawed because ratings were subject to modification by higher-level supervisors and because ratings had to fit into a forced distribution. In addition, appeals by employees went to either the manager who made the original rating or an HR person with no real authority to change ratings.
Another plaintiffs' expert noted that male sales employees are 4.9 times more likely to get promoted to first-line manager than female sales employees. In addition, 15.2% of male employees were selected to be in the management development program compared to only 9.1% of eligible female employees--a difference of 6.0 standard deviations.
What these statistics really signify and whether the plaintiffs end up ultimately winning the suit is anyone's guess. The important thing here is to keep in mind that what you may think is a logical way to make promotion decisions may look "subjective" to others and riddled with potential for bias to enter the equation.
Bias (and risk) can be reduced by implementing practices such as:
1 - Having raters undergo intensive training, including a discussion of potential biases and several "dry runs" of the process.
2 - Having a standardized rating form with clear benchmarks based on an analysis of job requirements.
3 - Considering carefully the use of a "forced distribution" system. If you do use one, make sure raters and ratees alike understand why--and how--this is being done.
4 - Making performance in the current job only part of the promotional criteria--give applicants a chance to show their stuff through ability tests, work sample tests, personality tests, and the like.
5 - Taking complaints seriously. If someone believes there is an opportunity for abuse of the system, investigate.
6 - Track, track, track those applicant flow statistics, including selection into training programs. Uncover discrepancies before they uncover you.
7 - Get HR involved--not just as gatekeepers but as partners. Hold HR accountable for providing best practices.
8 - If you have something like a management academy, make the criteria for entry transparent and have a point person for questions.
You can read the order here, and read more analysis of the case here.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Links a go-go
Good reading for Friday, August 10th:
How not to improve your employer brand
Family responsibilities discrimination continues to be hot
Sen. Harkin (D-IA) introduces S.1881 to "restore" ADA...
While Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) introduces S.1928 to eliminate caps under CRA 1991
Nike settles race discrimination claim for $7.6 Million
D.C. Circuit upholds FAA Rule re: drug testing of air carrier subcontractors (decision here)
Big 5 accounting firms ramp up recruiting efforts...
While the Army sweetens the pot (again)
How not to improve your employer brand
Family responsibilities discrimination continues to be hot
Sen. Harkin (D-IA) introduces S.1881 to "restore" ADA...
While Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) introduces S.1928 to eliminate caps under CRA 1991
Nike settles race discrimination claim for $7.6 Million
D.C. Circuit upholds FAA Rule re: drug testing of air carrier subcontractors (decision here)
Big 5 accounting firms ramp up recruiting efforts...
While the Army sweetens the pot (again)
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Spock launches
I've posted a couple times about Spock, a new people search engine. I'll be honest, I'm pretty excited about it.
I won't go into (again) why I'm excited, but suffice to say a search engine that gives us rich data about folks that we can use for recruitment and (potentially) assessment is pretty promising.
Yesterday they had their official public beta launch and you can now check it out, although it's so popular that it looks like their servers are struggling.
And no, they're not the only game in town. They compete directly with other sites like Wink and PeekYou, and indirectly with sites including LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, and Xing. Oh yeah, and WikiYou (although that's user-generated).
As I said, I'm pretty excited about it. Maybe it's just the name. And keep in mind I bought Webvan stock, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
I won't go into (again) why I'm excited, but suffice to say a search engine that gives us rich data about folks that we can use for recruitment and (potentially) assessment is pretty promising.
Yesterday they had their official public beta launch and you can now check it out, although it's so popular that it looks like their servers are struggling.
And no, they're not the only game in town. They compete directly with other sites like Wink and PeekYou, and indirectly with sites including LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, and Xing. Oh yeah, and WikiYou (although that's user-generated).
As I said, I'm pretty excited about it. Maybe it's just the name. And keep in mind I bought Webvan stock, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)