On Thursday, March 6, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be having a webinar. The webinar will start with an overview of the agency's policymaking agenda but the main event will be an extended Q&A session.
The presenters will be OFCCP Deputy Director David Frank and Lynn Clements, Acting Director of OFCCP's Division of Policy, Planning, and Program Development.
Reasons to care:
- They oversee several laws relating to recruiting and hiring
- They go after employers (PDF file)
- A little something called the Internet Applicant Rule
You can sign up here.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
HEXACO personality model receives more support
Although the Big 5 model of personality (generally broken into Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) has received wide empirical support, not everyone agrees it's the final word on a taxonomy for normal adult personality.
One camp believes (with reason) that honesty and humility play a consistent role in differentiating people and predicting behavior, and should be added to the Big 5 and the most recent issue of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology contains a research report that lends credence to this view.
In the article, the authors describe three results of their research:
1. Honesty-Humility was found to be distinct from the Big 5 using data from an actual selection situation.
One camp believes (with reason) that honesty and humility play a consistent role in differentiating people and predicting behavior, and should be added to the Big 5 and the most recent issue of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology contains a research report that lends credence to this view.
In the article, the authors describe three results of their research:
1. Honesty-Humility was found to be distinct from the Big 5 using data from an actual selection situation.
2. Honesty-Humility scores were found to predict scores on an integrity test and a business ethical decision-making task--adding predictive value beyond the Big 5.
3. Perhaps most interestingly, this result was replicated when honesty-humility was judged by those acquainted with the target person.
Implications? This adds weight to the argument that the Big 5 may need to be expanded to include additional personality dimensions--particularly if we're using it to predict behavior such as job performance.
There are other good articles in this issue, including ones on job performance ratings, counterproductive behavior in a service environment, post-retirement work, and others.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Feds to increase fines for hiring undocumented workers
Just in case you needed another reason to fill out the I-9 when you hire someone, the federal government announced on Friday it will soon increase fines 25% against employers that hire undocumented workers.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
New HR Tests feature: Shared items
I read a lot of blogs and other websites. I try to include links to the most interesting things here, but I don't always get around to it.
So I've created a Shared Items site using Google Reader that's available here. If you're interested in receiving links to articles I found interesting, it is now available to you either through the webpage, by signing up to receive e-mails, or by using the feed.
If you use Google Reader, it's a simple click to add the feed to your list. If you don't, copy this shortcut and add it to your feed reader. I've also added the ability to sign up via e-mail and feed on my main page.
I'll still be referencing content here but I'm going to try to stick as much as possible to original content and analysis. This is just a way for those of you out there, like me, who have an unhealthy addiction to information.
Thanks for reading!
So I've created a Shared Items site using Google Reader that's available here. If you're interested in receiving links to articles I found interesting, it is now available to you either through the webpage, by signing up to receive e-mails, or by using the feed.
If you use Google Reader, it's a simple click to add the feed to your list. If you don't, copy this shortcut and add it to your feed reader. I've also added the ability to sign up via e-mail and feed on my main page.
I'll still be referencing content here but I'm going to try to stick as much as possible to original content and analysis. This is just a way for those of you out there, like me, who have an unhealthy addiction to information.
Thanks for reading!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Acting Quotient
Think about your favorite actor or actress. Think about their performances and the different characters they've played.
Now think about what you know about that person given their performances:
- How quickly would they learn?
- How good of a team player would they make?
- What are their customer service skills like?
- Would they show up to work punctually?
Do you have any idea what the answers to these questions are? Probably not. That's because they're good at what they do--modifying their behavior to fit different roles.
Why do I bring this up? Because lately I've been thinking about how much stock people place in the most common screening mechanisms--applications, resumes, and interviews. These selection mechanisms all allow enormous opportunities for candidates to alter their behavior to fit what they think you want to hear, or to downright fib. Another up-and-coming selection method, on-line training and experience (T&E) measures, offer similar opportunities.
This is one reason why testing doesn't perfectly predict performance--because what you see isn't always close to what you get. What's worse, we tend to think we can spot the fibbers--which just plain isn't true. We're not nearly as good at most things as we think we are.
A person's real performance can be seen as true score or typical performance, and researchers have looked into the extent to which people self-inflate. The academic term for this is impression management. But for our purposes let's just think about an individual's ability to pull the wool over the employer's eyes--their Acting Quotient (AQ).
What causes someone's AQ to be higher?
- The person is a good actor or actress. It's just a natural skill. They know what their strengths are, and the play to them. They're good at reading you, and they modify their behavior to fit the subtle cues you're giving them. In fact people can vary their acting method depending on what kind of question you ask!
- They're very motivated to get your job. This could be good (my skills match your needs), this could be bad (I'm about to get fired).
- They understand what you're looking for. Again, this could be good (they did their homework) or less impressive (they know someone who works for you already).
Okay, now the important part. What can we do to mitigate the impact of someone's AQ?
- Ask difficult technical questions whenever possible. Not all jobs lend themselves to this, but whenever you can ask questions that require job knowledge and aren't easily predictable.
- Conduct extensive reference checks. Rely heavily on off-list checks. Talk to co-workers and customers, not just supervisors.
- Triangulate and be patient. Make application/resume review and interviews a small portion of your selection process. Make no decisions until all the information is in.
- Have a bias for work sample/performance tests. Make someone show you they can do things--not just tell you they can.
Now on the bright side, many if not most people (including myself) aren't very good at acting. Sure, I can put a positive spin on my accomplishments, but I'm not very good at making things up out of whole cloth. Which is good, because it means when I interview, like most people, what you see is generally what you get. But that doesn't mean there aren't Academy Award nominees out there, and it doesn't mean we can't do better at hiring the right person.
Now think about what you know about that person given their performances:
- How quickly would they learn?
- How good of a team player would they make?
- What are their customer service skills like?
- Would they show up to work punctually?
Do you have any idea what the answers to these questions are? Probably not. That's because they're good at what they do--modifying their behavior to fit different roles.
Why do I bring this up? Because lately I've been thinking about how much stock people place in the most common screening mechanisms--applications, resumes, and interviews. These selection mechanisms all allow enormous opportunities for candidates to alter their behavior to fit what they think you want to hear, or to downright fib. Another up-and-coming selection method, on-line training and experience (T&E) measures, offer similar opportunities.
This is one reason why testing doesn't perfectly predict performance--because what you see isn't always close to what you get. What's worse, we tend to think we can spot the fibbers--which just plain isn't true. We're not nearly as good at most things as we think we are.
A person's real performance can be seen as true score or typical performance, and researchers have looked into the extent to which people self-inflate. The academic term for this is impression management. But for our purposes let's just think about an individual's ability to pull the wool over the employer's eyes--their Acting Quotient (AQ).
What causes someone's AQ to be higher?
- The person is a good actor or actress. It's just a natural skill. They know what their strengths are, and the play to them. They're good at reading you, and they modify their behavior to fit the subtle cues you're giving them. In fact people can vary their acting method depending on what kind of question you ask!
- They're very motivated to get your job. This could be good (my skills match your needs), this could be bad (I'm about to get fired).
- They understand what you're looking for. Again, this could be good (they did their homework) or less impressive (they know someone who works for you already).
Okay, now the important part. What can we do to mitigate the impact of someone's AQ?
- Ask difficult technical questions whenever possible. Not all jobs lend themselves to this, but whenever you can ask questions that require job knowledge and aren't easily predictable.
- Conduct extensive reference checks. Rely heavily on off-list checks. Talk to co-workers and customers, not just supervisors.
- Triangulate and be patient. Make application/resume review and interviews a small portion of your selection process. Make no decisions until all the information is in.
- Have a bias for work sample/performance tests. Make someone show you they can do things--not just tell you they can.
Now on the bright side, many if not most people (including myself) aren't very good at acting. Sure, I can put a positive spin on my accomplishments, but I'm not very good at making things up out of whole cloth. Which is good, because it means when I interview, like most people, what you see is generally what you get. But that doesn't mean there aren't Academy Award nominees out there, and it doesn't mean we can't do better at hiring the right person.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
New MSPB study has gems
A new study out by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), "Attracting the next generation: A look at federal entry-level new hires," while focused on the federal government, has good information for all of us. The study of recent federal hires uses data from over 1,000 survey participants as well as personnel records. Some of the insights include:
- Both those under 30 and those 30+ were most likely to find out about the job through a friend or relative. On the other hand, those 30+ were more likely to use USAJOBs and agency web sites, whereas those under 30 (not surprisingly) were more likely to discover jobs through school job fairs or placement offices. In addition, those under 30 were more likely to use "non-government job sites."
- The most common forms of assessment used were (mostly unstructured) interviews and reviews of transcripts. Narrative statements, written exams, and job simulations were (unfortunately) used much less often--despite evidence of their superior ability to predict job performance.
- Agencies also relied heavily on the "point method" for reviewing training and experience--i.e., the more training/experience you have, the higher your score. This despite evidence that the correlation between experience and performance is complex and peaks fairly quickly, while education does not generally predict performance very well. Not to mention that they make little sense when hiring for entry-level jobs.
- There were very few differences between age groups when it came to what applicants wanted in a job. For both the under 30 and 30+ groups, salary and benefits came out tops. The only significant differences came when looking at pensions (more popular among those 30+) and health insurance and tuition reimbursement (more popular among those under 30). Job security was also mentioned by both groups as a big draw to the federal government.
- Those under 30 were much less likely to predict staying with the feds for their entire career (although still an impressive 45%), and more likely to predict eventually moving to the private sector.
- "Length of the process" was by far the biggest obstacle faced by applicants in their pursuit of a federal job.
MSPB recommends federal agencies make several improvements to their recruiting and assessment efforts, including:
- Use more predictive assessment tools instead of relying on training and experience measures.
- Use a balanced set of recruitment practices to reach all the various segments of the job market. MSPB points out that conducting a proper job analysis and identifying true minimum qualifications can help cut down the number of unqualified applicants.
- Market what is important to applicants. For federal agencies this means job security, benefits, and the ability to make a difference.
- Evaluate the hiring process and remove any obstacles that are unnecessarily lengthening the process.
- Avoid stereotyping based on generational assumptions, since the data indicate substantial similarities between age groups in what they want out of a job.
Again, good information for all of us. There's a lot more information in the report.
- Both those under 30 and those 30+ were most likely to find out about the job through a friend or relative. On the other hand, those 30+ were more likely to use USAJOBs and agency web sites, whereas those under 30 (not surprisingly) were more likely to discover jobs through school job fairs or placement offices. In addition, those under 30 were more likely to use "non-government job sites."
- The most common forms of assessment used were (mostly unstructured) interviews and reviews of transcripts. Narrative statements, written exams, and job simulations were (unfortunately) used much less often--despite evidence of their superior ability to predict job performance.
- Agencies also relied heavily on the "point method" for reviewing training and experience--i.e., the more training/experience you have, the higher your score. This despite evidence that the correlation between experience and performance is complex and peaks fairly quickly, while education does not generally predict performance very well. Not to mention that they make little sense when hiring for entry-level jobs.
- There were very few differences between age groups when it came to what applicants wanted in a job. For both the under 30 and 30+ groups, salary and benefits came out tops. The only significant differences came when looking at pensions (more popular among those 30+) and health insurance and tuition reimbursement (more popular among those under 30). Job security was also mentioned by both groups as a big draw to the federal government.
- Those under 30 were much less likely to predict staying with the feds for their entire career (although still an impressive 45%), and more likely to predict eventually moving to the private sector.
- "Length of the process" was by far the biggest obstacle faced by applicants in their pursuit of a federal job.
MSPB recommends federal agencies make several improvements to their recruiting and assessment efforts, including:
- Use more predictive assessment tools instead of relying on training and experience measures.
- Use a balanced set of recruitment practices to reach all the various segments of the job market. MSPB points out that conducting a proper job analysis and identifying true minimum qualifications can help cut down the number of unqualified applicants.
- Market what is important to applicants. For federal agencies this means job security, benefits, and the ability to make a difference.
- Evaluate the hiring process and remove any obstacles that are unnecessarily lengthening the process.
- Avoid stereotyping based on generational assumptions, since the data indicate substantial similarities between age groups in what they want out of a job.
Again, good information for all of us. There's a lot more information in the report.
Friday, February 15, 2008
2008 PTC-NC Conference
The Personnel Testing Council of Northern California (PTC-NC) is hosting its annual conference on March 20-21 in Concord.
They've lined up quite an agenda with some great presentations. Here's a sample:
- Disparate Impact and Employment Testing by Michael Harris
- Situational Judgment Testing by Jim Outtz
- Personality Assessments by Bob Hogan
Oh yeah, and I'll be doing a session on demographic application patterns and adverse impact of an on-line T&E system.
For more information contact Jerimiah Honer at jhoner@spb.ca.gov
They've lined up quite an agenda with some great presentations. Here's a sample:
- Disparate Impact and Employment Testing by Michael Harris
- Situational Judgment Testing by Jim Outtz
- Personality Assessments by Bob Hogan
Oh yeah, and I'll be doing a session on demographic application patterns and adverse impact of an on-line T&E system.
For more information contact Jerimiah Honer at jhoner@spb.ca.gov
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Providing test information helps reactions
Providing applicants with pre-test information and preparation material may not help them pass, but it helps those that don't pass feel better about the process. These were the results of a study by Burns, Siers, and Christiansen reported in the March 2008 issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment.
Other articles include:
- An analysis of reactions to selection methods in the Netherlands. Interviews, work samples, and resumes came out on top.
- The development of a new measure of test anxiety, the Self- versus Other-referenced Anxiety Questionnaire.
- A study of validity transport statistics.
- A detailed comparison study of the FIRO-B, an assessment of interpersonal relations.
- A similar study of the PAPI-N, a personality measure.
- A study of how attitudes toward rating systems impact peer rating behavior.
- A look at how well multisource feedback on leadership competencies predicted subsequent interview performance (hint: pay attention to your supervisors and peers).
- Last but not least, a verification that "psychological hardiness" is an important facet related to success in high-stress occupations (in this case, U.S. Army Special Forces).
Other articles include:
- An analysis of reactions to selection methods in the Netherlands. Interviews, work samples, and resumes came out on top.
- The development of a new measure of test anxiety, the Self- versus Other-referenced Anxiety Questionnaire.
- A study of validity transport statistics.
- A detailed comparison study of the FIRO-B, an assessment of interpersonal relations.
- A similar study of the PAPI-N, a personality measure.
- A study of how attitudes toward rating systems impact peer rating behavior.
- A look at how well multisource feedback on leadership competencies predicted subsequent interview performance (hint: pay attention to your supervisors and peers).
- Last but not least, a verification that "psychological hardiness" is an important facet related to success in high-stress occupations (in this case, U.S. Army Special Forces).
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Poking fun at personality tests
Scott Adams pokes fun at personality tests in today's Dilbert (link here after Sunday), but there is some truth behind the jabs.
For instance:
- It's too easy to make and distribute employment tests, and no governing or approval body to assist consumers in separating the rare wheat from the mostly chaff (e.g., "SIOP Certified").
- Tests can make it easy to label people--heck, I bet half of you reading this know what your Myers-Briggs type is. And that's not good--both because no test is perfect and because no one should be known simply by a test score.
- Often the questions on personality tests frustrate the taker--the scales aren't continuous and sometimes force what seem like bizarre comparisons (e.g., "Do you prefer pancakes or walks in the park?").
These are problems that have plagued tests, particularly personality tests, for a long time. What are we going to do about them?
For instance:
- It's too easy to make and distribute employment tests, and no governing or approval body to assist consumers in separating the rare wheat from the mostly chaff (e.g., "SIOP Certified").
- Tests can make it easy to label people--heck, I bet half of you reading this know what your Myers-Briggs type is. And that's not good--both because no test is perfect and because no one should be known simply by a test score.
- Often the questions on personality tests frustrate the taker--the scales aren't continuous and sometimes force what seem like bizarre comparisons (e.g., "Do you prefer pancakes or walks in the park?").
These are problems that have plagued tests, particularly personality tests, for a long time. What are we going to do about them?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
IPMAAC Sponsor/Exhibitor Opportunities
Information has been posted on how you can become a sponsor or exhibitor at the upcoming IPMAAC conference in Oakland, California.
IPMAAC is the leading professional organization focused on employee assessment and selection. The annual conference attracts a wide variety of professionals, including individuals at all levels of government, professors and students, and consultants and other professionals from the private sector.
Click here to see a sample of presentations from previous years.
IPMAAC is the leading professional organization focused on employee assessment and selection. The annual conference attracts a wide variety of professionals, including individuals at all levels of government, professors and students, and consultants and other professionals from the private sector.
Click here to see a sample of presentations from previous years.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Using personality tests to prevent turnover
Turnover is costly and a major headache for most employers that becomes an even bigger problem when the labor market tightens. Can different hiring practices help solve the problem?
Perhaps, says Texas A&M professor Ryan Zimmerman, whose work in the area has recently been profiled in various places, including the national press, recruiting websites, and SIOP (article no longer available except cached version).
So what has Dr. Zimmerman found? We'll know more when his meta-analysis research is published in an upcoming Personnel Psychology issue, but in a nutshell his research found that three aspects of the Big 5 have been linked to turnover:
- Agreeableness
- Conscientiousness
- Emotional stability
Zimmerman argues that selecting for people based on these qualities is just as powerful as, say, how the job is designed.
Some things to consider while we wait for the research to be published:
- Survey after survey show that quality of supervision is a powerful retention factor (check out the Gallup 12 to see an example). This suggests selecting good supervisors may be an equally powerful factor.
- Other research, including some by Zimmerman himself, suggests person-organization (P-O) fit may also be a significant contributing factor to turnover. P-O fit is a combination of both the person and the environment, so personality would be just one side of the equation.
- Many people forget there is positive and negative turnover--not all turnover is bad because there are some people who simply aren't a good fit for the job. Simply finding a correlation between one factor and turnover is the beginning of the story, not the end.
- Average job tenure, particularly among younger generations, is around 2-3 years. So is turnover really what we should be focusing on?
Stay tuned here for more details when the research gets published.
Perhaps, says Texas A&M professor Ryan Zimmerman, whose work in the area has recently been profiled in various places, including the national press, recruiting websites, and SIOP (article no longer available except cached version).
So what has Dr. Zimmerman found? We'll know more when his meta-analysis research is published in an upcoming Personnel Psychology issue, but in a nutshell his research found that three aspects of the Big 5 have been linked to turnover:
- Agreeableness
- Conscientiousness
- Emotional stability
Zimmerman argues that selecting for people based on these qualities is just as powerful as, say, how the job is designed.
Some things to consider while we wait for the research to be published:
- Survey after survey show that quality of supervision is a powerful retention factor (check out the Gallup 12 to see an example). This suggests selecting good supervisors may be an equally powerful factor.
- Other research, including some by Zimmerman himself, suggests person-organization (P-O) fit may also be a significant contributing factor to turnover. P-O fit is a combination of both the person and the environment, so personality would be just one side of the equation.
- Many people forget there is positive and negative turnover--not all turnover is bad because there are some people who simply aren't a good fit for the job. Simply finding a correlation between one factor and turnover is the beginning of the story, not the end.
- Average job tenure, particularly among younger generations, is around 2-3 years. So is turnover really what we should be focusing on?
Stay tuned here for more details when the research gets published.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Links a go-go
Good reading for February 1, 2008:
U.S. Government launches photo screening tool to help employers verify employment eligibility
New Monster ads (seen the one with the sun coming up?)
Assessment trends for 2008
Increased use of video-sharing sites in U.S.
Attracting IT talent in 2008 (thank you HR World)
Do you know what you don't know you know?
HR academics vs. practitioners
U.S. Government launches photo screening tool to help employers verify employment eligibility
New Monster ads (seen the one with the sun coming up?)
Assessment trends for 2008
Increased use of video-sharing sites in U.S.
Attracting IT talent in 2008 (thank you HR World)
Do you know what you don't know you know?
HR academics vs. practitioners
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Et tu, HR?
It's easy to give out advice. HR does it all the time.
But how well does HR practice what it preaches?
In the most recent issue of the U.S. Merit System Protection Board's (MSPB) newsletter, Issues of Merit, in an article titled "Taking our own advice", the author describes attempts by MSPB to ensure they are walking the walk when it comes to hiring procedures.
So what did they find?
1) Their job announcements weren't all that attractive. They contained jargon and too much information. Perhaps more importantly, they didn't "sell" the job.
Solutions: Job description was refined and rewritten so qualifications were easier to understand, got rid of excess information, and made easier to read. In addition, they added a job preview component that helps applicants decide if the job is a good fit.
2) They were using questionnaires as an initial screen that had low validity.
Solution: Questionnaires were replaced with an accomplishment record, which they hope (and research suggests) will better predict who will succeed in the job.
3) They were using the "rule of three" for external hires which limited their ability to consider a broad candidate group.
Solution: "Rule of three" replaced with category rating, which allows them to consider more candidates.
4) Recruitment methods weren't as broad as they could be.
Solution: MSPB worked with OPM to feature their jobs prominently through USAJOBS, the federal government's online job posting site. In addition they made greater efforts to actively seek out qualified candidates whose resumes were in USAJOBS. Finally, they used professional organizations to help advertise their opportunities.
An honest review of recruitment and assessment procedures in any organization will undoubtedly result in areas for improvement. Kudos to MSPB for following their own advice.
But how well does HR practice what it preaches?
In the most recent issue of the U.S. Merit System Protection Board's (MSPB) newsletter, Issues of Merit, in an article titled "Taking our own advice", the author describes attempts by MSPB to ensure they are walking the walk when it comes to hiring procedures.
So what did they find?
1) Their job announcements weren't all that attractive. They contained jargon and too much information. Perhaps more importantly, they didn't "sell" the job.
Solutions: Job description was refined and rewritten so qualifications were easier to understand, got rid of excess information, and made easier to read. In addition, they added a job preview component that helps applicants decide if the job is a good fit.
2) They were using questionnaires as an initial screen that had low validity.
Solution: Questionnaires were replaced with an accomplishment record, which they hope (and research suggests) will better predict who will succeed in the job.
3) They were using the "rule of three" for external hires which limited their ability to consider a broad candidate group.
Solution: "Rule of three" replaced with category rating, which allows them to consider more candidates.
4) Recruitment methods weren't as broad as they could be.
Solution: MSPB worked with OPM to feature their jobs prominently through USAJOBS, the federal government's online job posting site. In addition they made greater efforts to actively seek out qualified candidates whose resumes were in USAJOBS. Finally, they used professional organizations to help advertise their opportunities.
An honest review of recruitment and assessment procedures in any organization will undoubtedly result in areas for improvement. Kudos to MSPB for following their own advice.
Friday, January 25, 2008
January '08 issue of J.A.P.
The January 2008 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology is out. Unfortunately there are only three articles directly related to recruitment and assessment, but they're pretty good ones, so let's dive in.
First up, a Monte Carlo investigation of the impact of faking on personality tests by Komar, et al. "What is a Monte Carlo investigation?" you may ask. Essentially it's when researchers use computers to simulate data scenarios rather than collecting actual data from participants/subjects/victims. Anyway, the researchers looked at the impact on the criterion-related validity (as measured by supervisory ratings) of conscientiousness scores adjusting for various "faking" scenarios. They found that the validity is impacted by a variety of factors, most notably proportion of fakers, magnitude of faking, and the relationship between faking and performance. Another shot across the bow of self-report personality inventories, methinks, although the debate will no doubt continue!
Next a fascinating study of motherhood bias in both expectations and screening decisions by Heilman and Okimoto. The researchers found a bias against both male and female parents when it came to anticipated job commitment, achievement striving, and dependability, although anticipated competence was uniquely low for mothers and seemed to be the major contributing factor to lowered expectations and screening recommendations. An unfortunate reminder that these factors do matter and something to watch out for. The results are reminiscent of negative behavior toward "pregnant" women found in a previous study.
Finally, Zyphur, Chaturvedi, and Arvey present a discussion of job performance. They address two subjects: the impact of past performance on future performance and individual differences in performance trajectories. Analyzing past literature, the authors note that performance feedback influences future performance directly and different individuals do have different latent performance trajectories, which has big implications for selection. Why? Because many assessment techniques (e.g., T&Es, behavioral interviews) rely on an general assumption that more experience equals better performance. This study adds ammunition to those that argue that assumption has serious flaws (or at least is overly simplistic).
In addition to these three, you may find the following interesting as well:
Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. (great stuff for those of you interested in retention)
Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. (for all you trainers out there)
Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. (for those interested in performance ratings)
First up, a Monte Carlo investigation of the impact of faking on personality tests by Komar, et al. "What is a Monte Carlo investigation?" you may ask. Essentially it's when researchers use computers to simulate data scenarios rather than collecting actual data from participants/subjects/victims. Anyway, the researchers looked at the impact on the criterion-related validity (as measured by supervisory ratings) of conscientiousness scores adjusting for various "faking" scenarios. They found that the validity is impacted by a variety of factors, most notably proportion of fakers, magnitude of faking, and the relationship between faking and performance. Another shot across the bow of self-report personality inventories, methinks, although the debate will no doubt continue!
Next a fascinating study of motherhood bias in both expectations and screening decisions by Heilman and Okimoto. The researchers found a bias against both male and female parents when it came to anticipated job commitment, achievement striving, and dependability, although anticipated competence was uniquely low for mothers and seemed to be the major contributing factor to lowered expectations and screening recommendations. An unfortunate reminder that these factors do matter and something to watch out for. The results are reminiscent of negative behavior toward "pregnant" women found in a previous study.
Finally, Zyphur, Chaturvedi, and Arvey present a discussion of job performance. They address two subjects: the impact of past performance on future performance and individual differences in performance trajectories. Analyzing past literature, the authors note that performance feedback influences future performance directly and different individuals do have different latent performance trajectories, which has big implications for selection. Why? Because many assessment techniques (e.g., T&Es, behavioral interviews) rely on an general assumption that more experience equals better performance. This study adds ammunition to those that argue that assumption has serious flaws (or at least is overly simplistic).
In addition to these three, you may find the following interesting as well:
Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. (great stuff for those of you interested in retention)
Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. (for all you trainers out there)
Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. (for those interested in performance ratings)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
U.S. Army recruiting challenges continue
Despite aggressive (and creative) recruiting tactics, and a $4B budget, the U.S. Army failed to meet its recruiting goal in 2007, according to a report by the National Priorities Project.
Even worse than missing the numbers, the Army continues to see a change in who is being recruited. For the third consecutive year they failed to get sufficient numbers of recruits with high school diplomas, which the Army reports is the single best predictor of successful completion of a first term of enlistment.
In addition, historically, the Army had a goal of at least 67% of recruits landing in at least the 50th percentile of the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT, which tests word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetic reasoning, and mathematics knowledge; more details here). Since 2005 this number has fallen and in 2007 it was 60.8%.
The Army puts educational attainment and AFQT scores together for a measure of "quality." According to the report:
A ‘high quality’ recruit is one who scores at or above the 50th percentile on the AFQT, and who is tier I (has a regular high school diploma or better). The DoD strives to have all recruits be ‘high quality’ as these recruits will be more likely to complete contracted enlistment terms and perform better in training and on the job.
Unfortunately the percentage of "high quality" recruits continues to drop. In 2005 it was 56.2%. Last year it was 44.6%.
The report includes state-by-state tables as well as a discussion of what the implications of this recruiting challenge are for the Army. Worth a look.
Even worse than missing the numbers, the Army continues to see a change in who is being recruited. For the third consecutive year they failed to get sufficient numbers of recruits with high school diplomas, which the Army reports is the single best predictor of successful completion of a first term of enlistment.
In addition, historically, the Army had a goal of at least 67% of recruits landing in at least the 50th percentile of the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT, which tests word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetic reasoning, and mathematics knowledge; more details here). Since 2005 this number has fallen and in 2007 it was 60.8%.
The Army puts educational attainment and AFQT scores together for a measure of "quality." According to the report:
A ‘high quality’ recruit is one who scores at or above the 50th percentile on the AFQT, and who is tier I (has a regular high school diploma or better). The DoD strives to have all recruits be ‘high quality’ as these recruits will be more likely to complete contracted enlistment terms and perform better in training and on the job.
Unfortunately the percentage of "high quality" recruits continues to drop. In 2005 it was 56.2%. Last year it was 44.6%.
The report includes state-by-state tables as well as a discussion of what the implications of this recruiting challenge are for the Army. Worth a look.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Tips for hiring more individuals with disabilities
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued a report titled Improving the participation rate of people with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce.
Long title aside, the report offers all employers some concrete suggestions for increasing the hiring rate of individuals with disabilities, a chronically underemployed segment of the population. These recommendations include some that you probably have already thought of (establish a task force, train your managers, recruit broadly) but also include some you may not have:
- Ensure hired individuals can perform the essential functions of the position (so you don't set people up for failure)
- Use a panel interview to minimize bias of a single individual (which we know is a best practice for interviews generally)
- Use clear language and avoid jargon on job announcements (something we should be doing anyway)
- Encourage people with disabilities to self-identify and ensure confidentiality (your numbers may be artificially low)
There's a lot of good information and resources in the report that go beyond the federal workforce. Definitely worth checking out.
Long title aside, the report offers all employers some concrete suggestions for increasing the hiring rate of individuals with disabilities, a chronically underemployed segment of the population. These recommendations include some that you probably have already thought of (establish a task force, train your managers, recruit broadly) but also include some you may not have:
- Ensure hired individuals can perform the essential functions of the position (so you don't set people up for failure)
- Use a panel interview to minimize bias of a single individual (which we know is a best practice for interviews generally)
- Use clear language and avoid jargon on job announcements (something we should be doing anyway)
- Encourage people with disabilities to self-identify and ensure confidentiality (your numbers may be artificially low)
There's a lot of good information and resources in the report that go beyond the federal workforce. Definitely worth checking out.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Wanted: Chief Magic Official
You've heard of Chief Knowledge Officer, Chief Fun Officer, and even Chief Evangelist.
But Chief Magic Official?
One guess as to who would be filling that job title.
If you guessed Disney, go to the head of the class.
Yes, Disney is out to hire it's first "CMO" who will appear periodically to grant "dreams" to guests at Disney Parks in Anaheim and Orlando this year. Disney's put together a great recruiting website that includes:
- A Magic Aptitude Test (M.A.T.) that you can take to see if you qualify--you have to take a look at it just to see the pencil you'll be using for the test (by the way, I passed and am apparently similar to Mickey Mouse)
- A great job preview video
- A creative job description and statement of qualifications
In a new twist, applications must include a video resume that will be voted on online. The top three vote getters will be invited (along with three guests) to Walt Disney World resort for further vetting.
So will this work? Probably. It is Disney, after all, who doesn't usually have too much trouble attracting candidates. And some research indicates applicants are more attracted to creative job titles.
But whatever happens, you gotta admire their creativity!
But Chief Magic Official?
One guess as to who would be filling that job title.
If you guessed Disney, go to the head of the class.
Yes, Disney is out to hire it's first "CMO" who will appear periodically to grant "dreams" to guests at Disney Parks in Anaheim and Orlando this year. Disney's put together a great recruiting website that includes:
- A Magic Aptitude Test (M.A.T.) that you can take to see if you qualify--you have to take a look at it just to see the pencil you'll be using for the test (by the way, I passed and am apparently similar to Mickey Mouse)
- A great job preview video
- A creative job description and statement of qualifications
In a new twist, applications must include a video resume that will be voted on online. The top three vote getters will be invited (along with three guests) to Walt Disney World resort for further vetting.
So will this work? Probably. It is Disney, after all, who doesn't usually have too much trouble attracting candidates. And some research indicates applicants are more attracted to creative job titles.
But whatever happens, you gotta admire their creativity!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Marsalis jazzes up new EEOC PSAs
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as part of its E-RACE Initiative, has produced two new public service announcements with renowned jazz musician Wynton Marsalis focusing on discrimination and equal opportunity. They're short and to the point, and you can see them here.
Friday, January 11, 2008
SIOP Conference Registration Open
Registration is now open for SIOP's Annual Conference, to be held April 10-12 in San Francisco.
Cost for early registration (before 2/29): $140 for members, $330 for nonmembers, $85 for students.
Workshops will be held on the 9th and are $400 for members, $650 for nonmembers, and this includes two workshops.
Good things about the SIOP conference: tons of presentations and lots of technical information.
Bad things about the SIOP conference: tons of presentations and lots of technical information.
Cost for early registration (before 2/29): $140 for members, $330 for nonmembers, $85 for students.
Workshops will be held on the 9th and are $400 for members, $650 for nonmembers, and this includes two workshops.
Good things about the SIOP conference: tons of presentations and lots of technical information.
Bad things about the SIOP conference: tons of presentations and lots of technical information.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
December '07 IJSA, Part 2
In a previous post I described one of the most interesting articles in the December '07 issue of IJSA (the International Journal of Selection and Assessment (IJSA)). In this post I'll go over the rest of the issue.
First up, Carless & Imber with a study of interviewer characteristics. Using a sample of 450 graduate students, they found that personal aspects of the interviewer, such as warmth, friendliness, and humor, as well as job-related aspects such as job knowledge and general competence, had effects on how attracted the person was to the job as well as their likely job choice intentions. Not only that, aspects of the interviewer impacted how anxious the interviewee was. Lesson: Much like recruiters, make sure people doing the interviewing are trained and the type of people you'd like representing your organization!
Next, LaHuis, MacLane, and Schlessman with a study of reapplication among 542 applicants to a U.S. government position. Focusing on the 9% that didn't get the job but reapplied the following year, the authors found that "opportunity to perform" played a significant role in reapplication behavior. Lesson: If you want people to reapply, give them the chance to show their strengths.
Third, Carless and Wintle with a study of what attracts applicants to particular job opportunities--specifically looking at flexible career paths and who's doing the recruiting. Participants were 201 "young, inexperienced job seekers" who completed a questionnaire. Results? Flexible career paths were a big attraction (compared to traditional career paths) but recruiter background (HR or external agency) made no difference, in line with previous research that's found that recruiter personality is the key rather than things like background or demographics.
Next, Hermelin, Lievens, and Robertson conducted a meta-analysis of assessment center scores. Based on 26 studies (N=5,850) the authors found a corrected correlation of .28 between AC scores and subsequent supervisory ratings, which they hypothesize is lower than the true value due to range restriction of assessment center scores (and lower than the corrected value of .37 that Schmidt & Hunter reported). Alternate version (if the link gets fixed) here.
Heinsman, et al. provide the next study, which looks at how psychologists view the makeup and measure of competencies, still a hot topic in HR circles. Using data from over 900 applicants who participated in a 1-day selection process, they examined the relationship between competencies including Thinking, Feeling, and Power with traditional measures of cognitive ability, personality, and assessment center performance. Results? To assess Thinking, psychologists in this study relied upon measures of cognitive ability (makes sense!). To assess Feeling, they used interview simulation scores as well as personality tests scores. Finally, when analyzing Power, they relied mostly on personality scores.
Last but not least, Lievens and Anseel with a fascinating study of creating alternate versions of computerized in-baskets. The alternate version used a very similar situation that people had to respond to, but altered the context for 10 of the 20 items. Results? No significant difference in overall in-basket score between the two forms. So if you're looking to duplicate your in-baskets, check this out! Oh, and there's an alternate version of the article here.
Okay, I might as well tell you about the other two articles, because you might be interested. One is on self and peer ratings and one is on survey non-respondents (hint: it's not the star performers that aren't responding). Both have interesting results, so check 'em out!
First up, Carless & Imber with a study of interviewer characteristics. Using a sample of 450 graduate students, they found that personal aspects of the interviewer, such as warmth, friendliness, and humor, as well as job-related aspects such as job knowledge and general competence, had effects on how attracted the person was to the job as well as their likely job choice intentions. Not only that, aspects of the interviewer impacted how anxious the interviewee was. Lesson: Much like recruiters, make sure people doing the interviewing are trained and the type of people you'd like representing your organization!
Next, LaHuis, MacLane, and Schlessman with a study of reapplication among 542 applicants to a U.S. government position. Focusing on the 9% that didn't get the job but reapplied the following year, the authors found that "opportunity to perform" played a significant role in reapplication behavior. Lesson: If you want people to reapply, give them the chance to show their strengths.
Third, Carless and Wintle with a study of what attracts applicants to particular job opportunities--specifically looking at flexible career paths and who's doing the recruiting. Participants were 201 "young, inexperienced job seekers" who completed a questionnaire. Results? Flexible career paths were a big attraction (compared to traditional career paths) but recruiter background (HR or external agency) made no difference, in line with previous research that's found that recruiter personality is the key rather than things like background or demographics.
Next, Hermelin, Lievens, and Robertson conducted a meta-analysis of assessment center scores. Based on 26 studies (N=5,850) the authors found a corrected correlation of .28 between AC scores and subsequent supervisory ratings, which they hypothesize is lower than the true value due to range restriction of assessment center scores (and lower than the corrected value of .37 that Schmidt & Hunter reported). Alternate version (if the link gets fixed) here.
Heinsman, et al. provide the next study, which looks at how psychologists view the makeup and measure of competencies, still a hot topic in HR circles. Using data from over 900 applicants who participated in a 1-day selection process, they examined the relationship between competencies including Thinking, Feeling, and Power with traditional measures of cognitive ability, personality, and assessment center performance. Results? To assess Thinking, psychologists in this study relied upon measures of cognitive ability (makes sense!). To assess Feeling, they used interview simulation scores as well as personality tests scores. Finally, when analyzing Power, they relied mostly on personality scores.
Last but not least, Lievens and Anseel with a fascinating study of creating alternate versions of computerized in-baskets. The alternate version used a very similar situation that people had to respond to, but altered the context for 10 of the 20 items. Results? No significant difference in overall in-basket score between the two forms. So if you're looking to duplicate your in-baskets, check this out! Oh, and there's an alternate version of the article here.
Okay, I might as well tell you about the other two articles, because you might be interested. One is on self and peer ratings and one is on survey non-respondents (hint: it's not the star performers that aren't responding). Both have interesting results, so check 'em out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)