Evaluating Selection Methods

profilematador
SelectingEmployeesWithoutGettingintoLegalTrouble.pdf

Selecting Employees Without Getting into Legal Trouble

Selection involves deciding which of the people who have been recruited will be selected to work

in the organization. The selection process has management and legal consequences that must be

taken into account before making final selections. Getting the most qualified individual for each

position is a major goal, as is hiring people in fair and legal ways. A good hiring process will

prevent possible litigation as well as other problems that can occur later on when an organization

hires the wrong people.

Selecting people to work in an organization takes into consideration both objective criteria and

the judgment of experienced managers. Objective criteria include whether the applicant's

qualifications are reliably and validly linked to the needs of the organization. Judgment criteria

deal more with the perception and observations of the managers hiring the individual. Both

objective and judgment criteria are essential to a good selection decision.

Looming over the entire selection process are three questions:

1. Who is best qualified to work in this particular position?

2. Who best will help the organization meet its goals?

3. Is the selection process fair and equitable, and does the selection process follow EEO

guidelines?

Who is best qualified is not an easy question. The best-qualified person may not be the best

person to help the organization meet its goals. What if there is an employee at a restaurant who

is acknowledged by everyone there as the fastest and most efficient employee? Her productivity

is greater than any other individual who works there. That employee, however, is constantly

complaining and creating problems with other employees and is known to steal food from the

restaurant. She is the best-qualified employee from the standpoint of doing the job, but she may

hinder the overall organization in meeting its goals.

Whether the selection process is fair and equitable may end up being decided by a court of law,

so human resources managers must be aware of how EEO guidelines affect the hiring process.

Courts require that the selection process be valid. Being valid means that the selection process

is using data that shows that the skills being used as selection criteria are needed for a person to

do the job. It may not be a valid selection criterion if there is a requirement that a person needs

a college degree to work on an assembly line. What a person learns in college may not relate to

the skills they need to work on an assembly line.

Reliability means that the selection instruments for getting the job consistently measure the

same. If a person takes a test for a job, they should be able to take the same or a similar test

later and get the same test score.

If an organization is going to use a test to determine qualifications for a position, they should

make sure the test is both valid and reliable. It can be very expensive to hire a consultant to

prove that the test is job-related so that it can be considered valid and reliable. Many

organizations have overcome the validity problem with tests by using tests for common positions

(police, fire, computer skills, etc.). These tests are readily available from various consulting firms

that have already proven the validity and reliability of that test for that particular position. Other organizations have done away with tests altogether and rely solely on interviews for selection

purposes. The courts do not question the validity of interviews as critically as they do pen-and-

paper tests.

https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/le/content/623947/viewContent/25090928/View

Application forms and biographical data may predict how well a person might perform a job, so

application forms and biographical data can be shown to have validity in some cases. The

predictability seems to be higher in weighted application blanks (WABs) and in biographical

information blanks (BIBs). Research has been done on both WABs and BIBs that shows the

validity of the questions used for the specific jobs for which the questions were screening.

General application forms may not be valid and may ask questions that could be the basis for

lawsuits. An example of a common question that is on most general application forms is asking

for the date someone graduated from high school. Using this date, a manager could determine

an applicant's age. It is illegal to make a negative hiring decision based on someone being over

the age of 40, because of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Someone who did

not get the job could claim that the reason was that the hiring person(s) could tell they were

over 40. It is best to ask only for information that is directly related to the job, because if you

know things about the person that are unrelated to the job, the person may claim that you

discriminated against them because of the information you knew.

Reference checks are advisable and was discussed last week, they can be helpful in preventing

negligent hiring. However, they often do not yield any useful information. Several successful

lawsuits have been made against former managers who gave former employees bad references

without having information to back up the bad references. As a manager, it is advisable not to

give any information out about someone who has worked for you without records to prove that

what you say is true. Because of this threat, most managers will not give more information than

things that are a matter of record, such as the dates a person worked for the organization and

the number of days that person was absent from work. It is also advisable for an employer to

check on the accuracy of any educational pursuits by checking on transcripts.

Many tests eliminate minorities at a rate that is higher than that at which they eliminate

Caucasians. This may be related to the tests being culturally biased in favor of the typical

Caucasian cultural experience, or it may be because some minorities have poorer educational

opportunities in their early lives. This bias in testing can cause a disparate impact on some

protected status groups. If the test can be proven valid for the specific job being hired for, the

courts may accept this disparate impact as being acceptable because the test is job-related. Be

aware that the courts may be suspicious of culture-related tests, especially personality tests or

tests that are based on behavior traits.

Performance tests that are designed to simulate the type of work a person will be doing if they

are hired tend to have good predictive validity. This is especially true if these performance tests

are part of an evaluation by an assessment center. Assessment centers use a number of tools to

test a person's ability to do a particular job. Among these tools are in-basket exercises, problem

analyses, group-interaction evaluation, presentations by the applicant, and role-playing

exercises. These tests may be combined with paper-and-pen tests to gain a greater

understanding of the job applicant's abilities.

The courts do not usually hold interviews to validity standards that are as strict as those used for

tests for two reasons:

1. Interviews usually occur later in the hiring process, so all of the people who make it to the interview stage are usually qualified to do the job.

2. Interviews involve judgment by managers who may have expertise about a particular job that the courts do not have, so the courts do not want to second-guess the judgment of someone who has more knowledge about the job than the courts have.

The main types of interviews are:

• structured interviews in which all applicants are asked the same questions

• panel interviews in which several people from the organization interview the candidate at the same time

• situational interviews in which an applicant is asked what they would do in a particular situation

• behavioral interviews in which the applicant is asked how they have acted in the past in a setting that relates to the job for which they are being interviewed

• stress interviews in which the interviewer puts the interviewee under pressure to see how the interviewee handles that pressure

Interviews may lead to more discrimination than tests because more human judgment is used.

Human judgment is subject to biases and to trying to fit the person to the position. By having a

predetermined image of what type of person will fit a position, or an organization, an interviewer

may unintentionally discriminate against someone, especially if the interviewee has a trait that is

easily observable, such as race, gender, disability, or age—all protected statuses. The selection

process involves selecting the best person to do a particular job, but it also involves making sure

the organization is being fair, equitable, valid, and reliable in the assessment of those individuals

it hires.