• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Staffing in Org internal selection
 

Staffing in Org internal selection

on

  • 3,756 views

its affiliated to Bharathiar Univ-BSMED syllabus

its affiliated to Bharathiar Univ-BSMED syllabus

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,756
Views on SlideShare
3,756
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
35
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Staffing in Org internal selection Staffing in Org internal selection Presentation Transcript

    • INTERNAL SELECTION BY ADHITHYAA.A AISHWARYADEVI. J SOWMIYA.C KIRUTHIKA.D SASIKALA.V KARTHIKA.S
    • OUTLINE
      • Internal selection
      • Preliminary Issues
      • Initial Assessment Methods
      • Substantive Assessment Methods
      • Discretionary Assessment Methods
      • Legal Issues
    • MEANING
      • I nternal selection refers to the assessment and evaluation of employees from within the organization as they move from job to job via transfer and promotion systems. .
    • ADVAN TAGES DISADVANTAGES Uses in-house resources and builds on skills and expertise of existing staff shorter induction period Limited number of applicants Retains valuable employees: avoids recruitment costs ensures a return on any investment in training and development External candidates might be better suited or qualified for the job Motivation: provides opportunities for development and promotion for existing staff Creates another vacancy Generally quicker and cheaper The organisation may become resistant to change
    • PROCESS OF INTERNAL SELECTION
    • Publication
      • Internal vacancies will be posted through the established company communication channels (intranet, notice boards in power stations, etc.), for the duration of one week. During this period, applicants can express their interest by sending an email to respective company.
      • Eg: selecciones@endesa.cl
    • Pre-Selection
      • Those candidates who most meet the requirements of the post will be invited for interview. Those candidates, not selected for interview will be informed immediately that their application has not been successful due to them, not meeting the requirements of the post.
    • Evaluation
      • All pre-selected candidates go through the
      • various stages of selection carried out by Human Resources and Organization and the heads of the work area where the vacancy exists. This stage of the process will take up to approximately two weeks.
    • Selection and Appointment
      • The candidate most meeting the requirements for the new job will be selected and will then let his/her boss know of his/her promotion. Agreement over the start date in the new post is negotiated by those involved. This date can be no later than one month from the moment of the communication of the outcome of the selection.
    • Closing of the Selection Process
      • Unsuccessful candidates will be informed of the reasons why they have not been selected.
    • Preliminary Issues
        • Logic of Prediction
        • Types of Predictors
        • Selection Plan
      • Logic of prediction
        • Similarities exist between internal and external selection in terms of effectiveness of selection methods
        • Advantages of internal over external selection - Data often provide greater depth, relevance, and verifiability
      • Types of predictors
        • Content - Greater depth and relevance of data available on internal candidates
      • Selection plans need to be clearly communicated
    • Initial Assessment Methods
      • Initial assessment methods are used to select internal candidates from among the internal applicants.
    • METHODS
      • Skills inventory
        • (traditional, upgraded, customized)
      • Peer assessments
      • Self-assessments
      • Managerial sponsorship
      • Informal discussions and recommendations
    • Skills Inventory
      • Traditional
        • List of KSAOs held by each employee
      • Upgraded
        • Managers systematically enter latest skills acquired by employees in database as soon as they occur
      • Customized
        • Specific skill sets are recorded for specific jobs
        • CSAs identify skills critical to job success
    • 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
    • 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
    • Choice of Initial Assessment Methods
      • Effectiveness of initial internal methods
        • Skills inventories and informal methods used extensively
        • Peer assessments methods very promising in terms of reliability and validity
    • Substantive Assessment Methods Substantive assessment methods are used to select internal finalists from among the internal candidates.
    • Substantive Assessment Methods
      • Seniority and experience
      • Job knowledge tests
      • Performance appraisal
      • Promotability ratings
      • Assessment centres
      • Interview simulations
      • Promotion panels and review boards
    • Overview of Seniority and Experience
      • Definitions
        • Seniority - Length of service with organization, department, or job
        • Experience - Includes not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has undertaken
      • Among the most prevalent methods of internal selection
      • Why so widely used?
        • Direct experience in a job content area reflects an accumulated stock of KSAOs necessary to perform job
        • Information is easily and cheaply obtained
        • Protects employee from capricious treatment and favoritism
        • 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 a more valid method than seniority
      • Experience is better suited to predict short-term rather than long-term potential
      • Experience is more likely to be content valid if past or present jobs are similar to the future job
      • Employees typically expect promotions will go to most senior or experienced employee
      • Experience is unlikely to remedy initial performance difficulties of low-ability employees
    • Job Knowledge Tests
      • Job knowledge includes elements of both ability and seniority
      • Measured by a paper-and-pencil test or a computer
      • Holds promise as a predictor of job performance
        • Reflects an assessment of previous experiences of an applicant and an important KSAO - Cognitive ability
    • Performance Appraisal
      • 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”
      • Validity of using performance appraisal depends on several factors
    • 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 Centres
      • Elaborate method of employee selection
      • Involves using a collection of predictors to forecast success, primarily in higher-level jobs
      • Objective
        • Predict an individual’s behaviour and effectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial
      • Incorporates multiple methods of assessing multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors
    • Characteristics of Assessment Centres
      • Length of assessment - 2 to 5 days
      • Participants take part in several exercises
        • In-basket exercise
        • Leaderless group discussion
        • Case analysis
      • Trained assessors evaluate participants’ performance
      • Participants are usually managers being assessed for higher-level managerial jobs
      • Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion of programme
    • Evaluation of Assessment Centres
      • Validity
        • Average validity --> ŕ = .37
        • 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
      • Research results
        • “ Crown prince/princess” syndrome
        • Participant reactions
    • Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods
      • Evaluation of Substantive Assessment methods
      • Effectiveness of substantive methods
        • No single best method to narrow down candidate list to finalists
        • Job knowledge, promotability ratings, and assessment centres are strong in terms of reliability and validity
        • Interview simulations appear to be a promising technique for public contact jobs
    • 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
    • Discretionary Assessment Methods
      • Discretionary assessment methods are used to select offer recipients from among the finalists. The factors on which these decisions are based, such as equal employment opportunity and affirmative action (EEO/AA) concerns, whether the finalist had previously been a finalist, and second opinions about the finalist by others in the organization, will be considered.
    • 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 employment equity
      • Differences from external selection
        • Previous finalists not receiving job offers do not simply disappear
        • Multiple assessors generally used
    • Legal Issues
      • Laws and regulations make no distinction between methods and processes of internal selection and those of external selection
      • Defensible Selection Procedures
      • Shattering the glass ceiling
        • Employ greater use of selection plans
        • Minimize use of casual, subjective methods and use formal, standardized, job-related assessment methods
        • Implement programmes to convey KSAOs necessary for advancement to aspiring employees
    • Ethical Issues
      • 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 centre 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?
    • REFERENCE
      • http:// www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-education/access-to professions/prg/recruitment-step-by-step/attracting-applications/internal-recruitment
      • http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073530271/student_view0/chapter10/
    •