Staffing and Recruitment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Staffing and Recruitment

on

  • 2,465 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,465
Views on SlideShare
2,465
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
51
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

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 and Recruitment Staffing and Recruitment Presentation Transcript

  • Staffing in the 21st Century :NewChallenges and StrategicOpportunities
  • STAFFING Many challenges for staffing in the 21st century eg. knowledge based work places greater demands on employee competencies Organizational decision makers recognize staffing as a key strategic opportunity for enhancing competitive advantage
  • RECRUITMENT Meta analysis conducted by Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll. Piasentin and Jones (2005) Following are the findings Perceptions of person –organization fit and job/organizational attributes were the strongest predictors of the various recruiting outcomes They were followed by perceptions of the recruitment process , recruiter competencies and hiring expectencies
  • Person –Environment Fit Kristof-Brown, Jansen and Colbert(2002) found support for a three level conceptualization of fit- person-job, person-group and person – organization Cable and DeRue(2002) argued for three types of subjective subjective fit perceptions Person-organization Person-job Needs-supplies Cable and Edwards(2004)examined the similarities and differences between complimentary fit and supplementary fit
  • Employer Brand Image Cable and Turban (2003) showed that applicants use the firm’s reputation as a signal about the job attributes and as a source of pride from being a member Collins and Stevens(2002) argued that in the early stages of recruitment, organizations can use publicity, sponsorship of universities and schools, word of mouth and advertising to create a positive brand image
  • Employer Brand Image Lievens and Highhouse(2003) introduced the instrumental-symbolic framework to recruiting It was found symbolic attributes provided incremental explanation of organizational attractiveness beyond that provided by instrumental attributes
  • Applicant Reactions Stereotype threat Threat of confirming that negative stereotype interferes with a person’s performance The lack of stereotype threat effect was found in a high-stakes field study by M.J.Cullen, Hardison and Sackett(2004)
  • Attitudinal perceptions andreactions Meta analysis by Hausknecht, Day and thomas(2004) Selection procedures- consistent, job related/face valid Interviews and work samples are perceived most favourably followed by cognitive tests
  • Internet recruiting Cober, Brown, Keeping and Levy(2004) presented a model describing how organizational websites influence applicant attraction Façade Questions remain unanswered
  • PERSONNEL SELECTION BESTPRACTICESNEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTION PRACTICESCOGNITIVE ABILITY•Employers must recognize that the sole use ofcognitive ability may impair their ability to hire adiverse workforce•As long as the best selection methods negativelyaffect diversity , organizations will be tempted toavoid using them•In Sackett, Schmitt, Ellingson and Kabin andHough(2001), Oswald andPloyhart(2001), numerous strategies have beendiscussed that may reduce subgroupdifferences, such as supplementing cognitive testswith noncognitive tests
  • NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTIONPRACTICES(cont..)PERSONALITY•The now classic meta analysis by Barrick andMount (1991) found personality traits (asmeasured on the Five Factor Model)demonstrated criterion-related validity forvarious criteria(whose magnitude was low if notzero)•The uncorrected validities have not changedmuch since Guion and Gottier(1965), whichconcluded there was not much support forpersonality validity.•Most Human Resource managers remainskeptical
  • NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTIONPRACTICES(cont..) SITUATIONAL JUDGEMENT TESTS  Tend to be received favourably by applicants and HR Personnel  What they measure and why they are effective remain unclear  Concern whether they can be implemented cross culturally
  • NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTIONPRACTICES(cont..)ASSESSMENT CENTRES Have been plagued by apparent lack of construct validity Lievens’s research(2002) suggests that construct validity may be most determined by applicant behaviour , applicants must demonstrate high consistency across exercises and also high variability across dimensions Convergent validity will be enhanced when trained assessors like psychologists conduct the test
  • NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTIONPRACTICES(cont..)WORK SAMPLES It is believed that they provide one of the best ways to provide one of the best ways to simultaneously achieve validity and diversity However meta –analysis by Roth, Bobko and McFarland(2005) found work samples show a corrected criterion related validity of .33 , much smaller than the often cited .54 in the classic Hunter
  • NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTIONPRACTICES(cont..)INTERVIEWS Structured interviews/Unstructured interviews Meta Analysis by Huffcutt, Conway, Roth and Stone(2001)identified seven latent dimensions Most common dimensions assessed were social skills and personalitySELECTION USING INTERNET Proctored v/s unproctored testing Variety of legal issues surrounding Internet testing
  • PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ANDIMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONALEFFECTIVENESS Use selection methods such as assessment centres, work samples or SJTs An approach that enhances validity is to include a battery of cognitive ability and personality predictors Despite all the attention focused on selection practices , there are still many questions that need additional research Eg. What barriers exist to organizations adopting different predictors?
  • Multi-Level staffing Linking Individual staffing to Organizational Effectiveness Individual Differences – Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics, generally referred to as KSAO or Human Capital Micro Level Research - Analysis of how individual differences contribute towards individual performance and assume that individual differences contribute to organizational value. Macro Level Research - Examines how HR practices contribute to organizational performance but assumes that these practices have an effect because of their influence on employee individual differences. organizations having well-developed staffing practices have better performance (Huselid,1995),but the focus is on the practice itself and not the specific human capital affected by the practice Each discipline rarely considers processes, constructs and
  • Need for Multi Level theory Cross Level Fallacy - Inferences and assumption beyond respective levels and occurs when researchers inappropriately generalize their within-level findings to higher or lower levels of analysis (Rousseau,1985) staffing research needs to connect micro and macro levels Inability to show unit level value (Schneider 2000) Organizations are inherently nested and hierarchical
  • Multi Level Theory Contextual effects -are “top-down” effects from higher to lower levels e.g., changing an organization’s HR practices changes the behavior of individual employees. Emergent effects - are “bottom-up” effects from lower to higher levels Kozlowski and Klein (2000) - A phenomenon is emergent when it originates in the cognition, affect behaviors, or other characteristics of individuals, is amplified by their interactions, and manifests as a higher-level, collective phenomenon. composition models of emergence theorize that there is such high similarity (homogeneity)among lower level observations (employees) that the within-unit scores create a distinct aggregate- level construct. compilation models of emergence theorize that variability (heterogeneity)among lower level observations (employees) represents a unique higher level construct.
  • Practical Recommendations andImplications for OrganizationalEffectiveness Multi-level staffing models do not negate the importance of single-level recruitment and selection research the model offers a way to demonstrate the value of staffing by examining the relationships between individual differences/human capital with individual outcomes/unit-level outcomes. Multi-level staffing also offers the opportunity to advance staffing theory, some of them described in next slide Human capital, the aggregate individual differences linked to unit effectiveness, is rare, inimitable and can provide competitive advantage. That’s why low level jobs and competencies should considered strategic since it is very difficult for competitor to develop such human capital. Strategic human management researchers should start measuring human capital directly i.e. through emergence.
  • Implications of the model for futureresearch suggested by Ployhart
  • Neglected Questions why do managers so often fail to believe in our technology and science? how does staffing contribute to reinforcing/changing/articulating organizational culture, climate, values, personality, and vision? what are the consequences of outsourcing staffing? are findings based on civil service organizations generalized to private sector organizations?