Human Resource Management Signature Assignment Part 3 ONLY

dream86

HRM637PPTCh10.pptx

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Human Resource Management Signature Assignment Part 3 ONLY

Staffing Organizations

Chapter 10:

Internal Selection

Because learning changes everything.®

Internal Selection 1

Preliminary Issues

Preliminary Issues 1

Logic of prediction

indicators of internal applicants’ degree of success in past situations should be predictive of their likely success in new situations.

Types of predictors

there is usually greater depth and relevance to the data available on internal candidates relative to external selection.

Selection plan

important for internal selection to avoid the problems of favoritism and gut instinct that can be especially prevalent in internal selection.

Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future Performance

Access the text alternative for slide images

Preliminary Issues 2

Logic of prediction

indicators of internal applicants’ degree of success in past situations should be predictive of their likely success in new situations.

Types of predictors

there is usually greater depth and relevance to the data available on internal candidates relative to external selection.

Selection plan

important for internal selection to avoid the problems of favoritism and gut instinct that can be especially prevalent in internal selection.

Advantages of internal over external selection

Greater depth and relevance of data available on internal candidates.

Greater emphasis can be placed on samples and criteria rather than signs.

Internal Selection 2

Initial Assessment Methods

Talent Management/Succession Systems

Keep ongoing records of skills, talents, and capabilities of employees

Primary goal is to facilitate internal selection systems through up-to-date, accurate records on employees

Potential uses

Performance management.

Recruitment needs analysis.

Employee development.

Compensation and career management.

Peer Assessments

Methods include peer ratings, peer nominations, peer rankings

Strengths

Rely on raters who presumably are knowledgeable of applicants’ KSAOs.

Peers more likely to view decisions as fair due to their input.

Weaknesses

May encourage friendship bias.

Criteria involved in assessments are not always clear.

Peer Assessment Methods

Access the text alternative for slide images.

Initial Assessment Methods

Self-assessments

Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to determine promotability.

Managerial sponsorship

Higher-ups given considerable influence in promotion decisions.

Informal discussions and recommendations

May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job performance.

Employee Advocates

Coach

Provides task-related and professional support.

May recommend specific developmental opportunities.

No reciprocity required.

Sponsor

Provides task-related and professional support.

Guides person’s career rather than simply informing them of opportunities; creates opportunities to develop the skills of the employee.

A sponsor who chooses to advocate for an employee likely has built an effective exchange relationship with that employee.

Mentor

Provides task-related, professional, and personal support.

Can be informal or formally appointed.

Mentors and protégés are expected to help each other, and the mentorship experience may be similar to a friendship.

Evaluation of Initial Assessment Methods

Table divided into eight columns summarizes evaluation of initial assessment methods. The column headers are marked from left to right as: Predictor, use, cost, reliability, validity, utility, applicant reactions, and adverse impact.

Predictor	Use	Cost	Reliability	Validity	Utility	Applicant reactions	Adverse Impact
Talent management systems	Low	High	Moderate	Moderate	High	Negative	Unsure
Peer assessments	Low	Low	Moderate	Moderate	Unsure	Positive	Unsure
Self assessments	Low	Low	Low	Low	Unsure	Unsure	Unsure
Managerial sponsorship	Mod.	Moderate	Unsure	Moderate	Unsure	Positive	Low
Informal methods	High	Low	Unsure	Unsure	Unsure	Mixed	Unsure

Internal Selection 3

Substantive Assessment Methods

Seniority and experience

Job knowledge tests

Performance appraisal

Promotability ratings

Assessment centers

Interview simulations

Promotion panels and review boards

Overview of Seniority and Experience

Seniority

Length of service with organization, department, or job.

Less common in use in recent years.

Experience

Not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has undertaken.

Why used?

Assume direct experience reflects an accumulated stock of KSAOs necessary to perform job.

Information is easily and cheaply obtained.

Promoting senior or experienced employees is socially acceptable – viewed as rewarding loyalty.

Evaluation of Seniority and Experience

Relationship to job performance

Seniority is unrelated to job performance.

Experience is moderately related to job performance, especially in the short run.

Experience is superior because it is:

a more valid method than seniority.

more likely to be content valid when past or present jobs are similar to the future job.

Experience is unlikely to remedy initial performance difficulties of low-ability employees

is better suited to predict short-term rather than long-term potential.

Job Knowledge Tests

Job knowledge includes elements of both ability and seniority

Measured by a paper-and-pencil test or a computer

Holds great promise as a predictor of job performance

Reflects an assessment of what was learned with experience.

Also captures cognitive ability.

Performance Appraisal 1

A possible predictor of future job performance is past job performance collected by a performance appraisal process

Advantages

Readily available.

Probably capture both ability and motivation.

Weaknesses

Potential lack of a direct correspondence between requirements of current job and requirements of position applied for

“Peter Principle”

Performance Appraisal 2

Questions to ask in using performance appraisal as a method of internal staffing decisions

Is the performance appraisal process reliable and unbiased?

Is present job content representative of future job content?

Have the KSAOs required for performance in the future job(s) been acquired and demonstrated in the previous job(s)?

Is the organizational or job environment stable such that what led to past job success will lead to future job success?

Promotability Ratings

Assessing promotability involves determining an applicant’s potential for higher-level jobs

Promotability ratings often conducted along with performance appraisals.

Useful for both selection and recruitment

Caveat

When receiving separate evaluations for purposes of appraisal, promotability, and pay, an employee may receive mixed messages.

Overview of Assessment Centers

Elaborate method of employee selection

Involves using a collection of predictors to forecast success, primarily in higher-level jobs

Objective

Predict an individual’s behavior and effectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial.

Incorporates multiple methods of assessing multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors

Selection Plan for an Assessment Center

Access the text alternative for slide images.

Source: Department of Employment Relations, State of Wisconsin.

Sample Assessment Center Rating Form

Participants take part in several exercises over multiple days

In-basket exercise.

Leaderless group discussion.

Case analysis.

Trained assessors evaluate participants’ performance.

Access the text alternative for slide images.

Characteristics of Assessment Centers

Participants are usually managers being assessed for higher-level managerial jobs

Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion of program

Evaluation of Assessment Centers

Validity

Moderate positive validity

Validity is higher when

Multiple predictors are used.

Assessors are psychologists rather than managers.

Peer evaluations are used.

Possess incremental validity in predicting performance and promotability beyond personality traits and cognitive ability tests

Potential drawbacks

High expense.

Questions about what is being measured.

Other Substantive Assessment Methods

Interview simulations

Role-play: candidate must play work related role with interviewer.

Fact finding: candidate needs to solicit information to evaluate an incomplete case.

Oral presentations: candidate must prepare and make an oral presentation on assigned topic.

Promotion panels and review boards: use multiple raters, which can improve reliability and can broaden commitment to decisions reached

Evaluation of Substantive Assessment Methods

Table divided into eight columns summarizes evaluation of substantive assessment methods. The column headers are marked from left to right as: Predictor, use, cost, reliability, validity, utility, applicant reactions, and adverse impact. .

Predictor	Use	Cost	Reliability	Validity	Utility	Applicant reactions	Adverse Impact
Seniority	Mod	Low	High	Low	Unsure	Mixed	Low
Job knowledge tests	Low	Mod	High	High	High	Positive	High
Performance appraisal	Mod	Mod	Mod	Mod	Unsure	Mixed	High
Promotability ratings	Low	Low	High	Mod	Unsure	Mixed	Unsure
Assessment centers	Low	High	Mod	Mod	High	Mixed	Low
Interview exercises	Low	High	Mod	Mod	Unsure	Mixed	Low
Promotion panels	Mod	High	Mod	Low	Unsure	Positive	Mod

Internal Selection 4

Discretionary Assessment Methods

Narrows list of finalists to those who will receive job offers

Decisions often made on basis of

Organizational citizenship behavior and

Staffing philosophy regarding EE0 / AA

Differences from external selection

Previous finalists not receiving job offers do not simply disappear

Multiple assessors generally used

Internal Selection 5

Legal Issues

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)

The Glass Ceiling and the Glass Cliff

Employ greater use of selection plans.

Minimize use of casual, subjective methods and use formal, standardized, job-related assessment methods.

Implement programs to convey KSAOs necessary for advancement to aspiring employees.

Ethical Issues in Staffing 1

Issue 1

Given that seniority is not a particularly valid predictor of job performance, do you think it’s unethical for a company to use it as a basis for promotion? Why or why not?

Issue 2

Vincent and Peter are both sales associates, and are up for promotion to sales manager. In the last five years, on a 1 = poor to 5 = excellent scale, Vincent’s average performance rating was 4.7 and Peter’s was 4.2. In an assessment center that was meant to simulate the job of sales manager, on a 1 = very poor to 10 = outstanding scale, Vincent’s average score was 8.2 and Peter’s was 9.2. Assuming everything else is equal, who should be promoted? Why?

Ethical Issues in Staffing 2

Issue 3

As a member of a promotion board, you have been confronted with a difficult decision. The board is fairly split on who to promote into the vacant manager position, and results from several valid predictors have not differentiated very well among the few candidates for the position: there is not a candidate that is clearly outperforming the others. Although you tried to avoid it, several board members have political reasons for preferring one finalist over the rest (this person is not the best choice, according to the predictor data). Furthermore, the results of this promotion decision (a vacancy that the company has not seen in years) are likely to reverberate throughout the organization—all the finalists are key internal players who exercise immense influence and command the loyalty of their subordinates. If one of the finalists were to leave or become disgruntled, it would be devastating for the organization. Many of the board members believe that the finalists should not have the privilege of knowing what went into the decision; they believe the board’s say is final, regardless of how it affects the finalists. As a key board member overseeing the promotion process, how would you go about making a decision?

Human Resource Management Signature Assignment Part 3 ONLY

image5.emf

image6.emf

image7.png

image8.emf

image4.png

image1.png

image2.png

image3.png