PPT Staffing decission

STAFFING
DECISION
Sri Rahayu 1724090025
Errien Maulidia 1724090028
Anargya Dinda Agatha 1724090029
Adella Luthfiyana Magista 1724090030
Athaya Rana 1724090039
Nada Devita 1724090081
Adrio Naufal Peradi 1724090085
Jayanti Laksanasia 1724090107
Annisa Nurul Prilita 1724090110
Errin Windasti 1724090115
Rizka Velitha Yalvina 1924090066
Anggun Aryanti Leony Putri 1924090191
Putri Nurhidayah 1924090187
GROUP 6
STAFFINGDECISSION

Staffing
Introduction
Process
Staffing Decisions
Staffing Decisions are
decisions related to
recruiting, selecting,
promoting, and separating
employees.
CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN STAFFING

This tool used to make decisions about who to hire, who to
get promoted, or even who should be fired. These decisions
are called staffing decisions because they define and
determine the staff or workforce of the organization. For the
purposes of this chapter, we will define staffing decisions as
decisions related to hiring, selecting, promoting, and
separating employees.
The base of candidates is gradually picked up by decision rejections
until a choice is made and someone is placed in a position.
It is a method for
discussing the value of a
diverse workforce,
individual attributes and
values in job success, and
assessment tools.
TEST
Guion (1998)
notes that the
staffing process is
sequential:
TEST FOR ORGANIZATIONS
Organizations use job or needs analysis to identify the
characteristics of the individuals they wish to employ.

Research indicates that staffing practices
(and HR practices more generally) have a
positive association with organizational
performance. Several studies have
indicated that high‐ performance work
practices have a positive impact on the
organization’s productivity, share value,
and percentage return on investment.
However, some researchers question the
definition of high‐performance work
practices.
High-performance
work practices
Practices that include the
use of formal job analyses,
selection from within for key
positions, merit-based
promotions, and the use of
formal assessment devices
for selection.
The Impact of Staffing Practices
on Firm Performance

Stakeholders
in the Staffing Process
Klehe (2004) presents a sobering view of the
various forces that shape staffing decisions,
including local and national government and
shareholders.
Muchinsky (2004) presents a case study of how
various organizational forces played a role in job
analysis, assessment development, and even the
validity model chosen to demonstrate job
relatedness.
Below, we will briefly consider the three most
obvious stakeholders.

Most obvious
stakeholders
Line managers are actively
involved in the selection
decision, in terms of both
gathering information
from applicants, usually in
the form of one or more
interviews, and sharing in
the ultimate decision
regarding whom to hire,
promote, or lay off
Line
Managers
The co‐worker has a
stake in the staffing
decision. If the
decision is a hiring or
promotion decision, the
co‐worker will be either
a peer or a subordinate.
Co-Workers
Applicants can have very strong
feelings about the staffing process,
including communications about
the staffing process (e.g., schedule
for a hiring decision), the actual
assessment devices themselves,
and the process by which the
decisions are made.
Applicants

CUSTOMER
Line managers
Co-workers
Applicants
NEEDS, DESIRES, AND GOALS FOR SELECTION
Accurate and informative indicators of applicant potential
Quick and easy-to-use selection process
Flexibility and accommodation of selection procedures
Perceived validity of selection process
Accurate and
informative indicators of applicant potential
Input into the selection decision-making process
Perceived validity of selection process
Appropriate hiring decision
Unbiased, job-related selection process that gives them a
chance to demonstrate their potential
Honest and sensitive interpersonal treatment
Timely and informative feedback
TABLE 6.1
STAKEHOLDER GOALS IN THE STAFFING PROCESS

Staffing from the
International Perspective
Nyfield and Baron (2000) suggested that differences in
staffing techniques and stategies flow from cultural
differences among nations such as those suggested by
Hofstede (1980). Nyfield and Baron (2000) surveyed employers
in 14 different countries around the world.
Their analysis revealed the following:
Job descriptions are used universally.
Educational qualifications and application forms are also widely used for initial screening.
The most common post‐screening techniques include interviews and references.
Unlike the common practice in the United States, cognitive ability tests are used less frequently
and personality tests more frequently.
Only 50 percent of the countries sampled used statistical/actuarial approaches to decision
making.

They
hypothesized that
collectivist
cultures prefer
objective
methods and are
more likely to try
to verify all
candidate
information
Whereas individualist
cultures prefer to take a
more personal approach,
examining the unique
characteristics of the
applicant, including
things such as economic
need and personal ties to
the applicant

WHELTON SCHOOL OF MARKETING | SESSION 1
They concluded by pointing out the
substantial differences that
organizations may encounter when
attempting to apply a staffing strategy
from one country to another.
Another. As one example, they pointed to
the different meanings of a high school
diploma. In many countries, a student
must take a demanding examination to
complete high school, whereas this is
less common in the United States.
Another example of cultural
differences is a cognitive test that
includes umerical reasoning
questions based on a table of life
expectancies;such a test would be
unremarkable in the United States,
Germany, or the United Kingdom, but
it would evoke a very negative
reaction in Italy because the example
dealswith the taboo topic of death.
With respect to governmental
regulations that address staffing
decisions, the strongest are found in
the United States and South Africa.

VALIDITY UTILITY FAIRNESS
Evaluation of Staffing Outcomes
Staffing outcomes might be evaluated in a number of different
ways. The three major aspects of evaluation are validity, utility, and
fairness. We will consider each of these separately
EVALUATION OF STAFFING OUTCOMES

Validity The
accurateness of
inferences made based
on test or performance
data; Also addresses
whether a measure
accurately and
completely represents
what was intended to be
measured.
Technique that
assesses the economic
return on investment
of human resource
interventions such as
staffing and training
Feelings of unfairness about a
staffing strategy often lead to
negative ctions on the part of
an employee or applicant.
These actions include the
initiation of lawsuits, filing of
formal grievances with
company representatives, and
counterproductive behavior.
Feelings of unfairness, when
acted upon, almost always cost
the organization time and
money and detract from the
overall value of the staffing
strategy.
Validity Utility analysis
Fairness
EVALUATION OF STAFFING OUTCOMES

Practical Issues
in Staffing
a Staffing Model
Modern jobs are complex. They consist of
personal, interpersonal, and technical
emands. importance of task performance,
OCB, CWB, and adaptive performance,
which are the worker’s attempts to meet
those demands.
consider table, On the left side of the table
is a list of the attributes necessary to
meet the job demands on the right side.
High‐quality staffing decisions are made
based on a number of different pieces of
information, not just one. This means that
information about candidates must be
combined in order to make a good
staffing decision.
PRACTICAL ISSUES IN STAFFING

Comprehensive
Selection Systems
A staffing model needs to be
comprehensive. A comprehensive staffing
model should gather enough high‐quality
information Broadly, this might mean that
we should be able to predict both
technical performance and OCB
performance. Within each of those
domains, we should be trying to predict
more specific important behaviors as well.
These behaviors are usually identified
through a job analysis.

Compensatory Selection Systems
Generally speaking, most knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics
(KSAOs) interact to yield successful performance. This means that we can
average them together, much as we would average individual course grades
to get an overall GPA. By averaging your grades, you see that one good grade
can compensate for a poorer grade. A good score in an interview or work
sample test might compensate for a slightly lower score on a cognitive ability
test. If one attribute (e.g., communication skill) turns out to be much more
important than another (e.g., stamina), there are ways to weight the individual
scores to give one score greater influence on the final total score. The point
here is that, in most instances, humans are able to compensate for a relative
weakness in one attribute through a strength in another one, assuming both
attributes are required by the job. Most exceptions to this rule relate to
physical (e.g., muscular strength) or sensory (e.g., vision) abilities. A legally
blind applicant for the position of bus driver would be an example of such an
exception. This example reflects a noncompensatory or multiple hurdle model.

Clinical decision making:
A method that uses
assessments to combine
information and to make
decisions about the
relative grades of different
candidates or applicants.
Combining Information
Statistics versus Clinical Decision Making
Statistical decisions making :
methods that combine
information according to
mathematical formulas.

Obstacle System
Combines Scores
Compensation system: A model
in which a good score on one
test can compensate for a lower
score on another test.
It serves a variety of purposes, making presentations powerful tools for convincing and teaching.

Termination for cause
The individual has usually been warned
one or more times about a problem
and either cannot or will not correct it.
The individual is usually well aware
that his or her behavior has fallen
below some standard and that the
consequences of failing to correct the
deficiency may be termination. The
worker may or may not believe the
decision to terminate is fair, but it does
not come unexpectedly
Layoffs
They often come without warning or
with a generic warning that the
workforce is going to be reduced. But
a given individual is often unaware
that he or she may be the one losing a
job. But in downsizing situations, it is
often a matter of distinguishing
between the outstanding employee
and the adequate employee, not
between the adequate and the
inadequate employee. Thus, adequate
employees often believe that they
have been unfairly chosen for layoff
because their work was “fine.”
Deselection

Number of Decisions to Be Made
Large‐scale staffing
projects
will often require
standard and well‐
established selection
strategies.
Small Staffing Projects
managers are ncouraged
to choose a selection and
decision‐making strategy
that is rational, job related,
and feasible, given the
constraints of the
situation.

Develop a job‐relatedness justification based on judgment and rationality rather than
on numbers and data analysis.
Consider the utility gain of the proposed staffing strategy; because of the small
number of applicants and selections, there may be only a slight payoff in using
expensive assessment programs.
Make sure that every candidate is exposed to the same assessment procedures;
because the number of candidates is small, it might be tempting to “wing it,” but this
would expose the organization to charges of adverse treatment despite the difficulty
of demonstrating adverse impact.
Sackett and Arvey (1993) considered many of the issues related to selection in small
settings and made the following recommendations:
Sackett and Arvey (1993) observed that many managers feel that if they
can’t do it by the book, they shouldn’t do it at all. But the alternative to doing
it by the (staffing) book is not random—the alternative is simply choosing a
selection and decision‐making strategy that is rational, job related, and
feasible, given the constraints of the situation.

The Employment of
the 21st Century
Adaptability
Has a global mindset (sensitivity in multi
culture)
Cultural dexterity (curiosity about how
other people live and work)
Cascio and Aguinis suggested that the 21st century
staffing model should include the following:
Has relationship management (knowing
who and how)

They argue that the current views of job
performance are lingked to models of
individual worker contributions rather than
to larger job context considerations.
Includes strategis, cultural and situasional
elements.
According to Cascio and Aguinis, someone
can be better at understanding the nature
of job performance by considering it in a
broader context rather than taking a
narrow

Cascio and Aguinis suggested that staffing models
of the 21st century should include the following :
1. Preditors assessments
over a longer period of
time, more recisely than
one episode of testing
such as tests of general
mental ability or
personality
2. Assesment in a more
realistic environment
such as a
centerassessment
than in a decontextual
testing situasion)
3. Mostly using the
candidates
performances
accumulated
information in
predicting future
success than other
traditional tests and
assessment procedures.

Legal Issues in Staffing Decisions
Employment discrimination charges result not from
practices or devices but from decisions about whom
to hire, whom to promote, or whom to lay off.
Although it is common to think of applicants who
were denied a job as bringing lawsuits, it is seven
times more likely that a company will be sued by an
employee or a former employee than by an applicant
(Sharf &Jones, 2000).
There are many bases for bringing harges against an
employer, including not only employment
discrimination but also the Equal Pay Act, the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
promising “due process,” or the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993.
Charges of Employment Discrimination

Regardless of who sues a
company, the consequences
can be substantial. Consider
the settlements of
employment discrimination
suits brought by the Equal
Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) in the past
20 or 25 years (Deitch &
Hegewisch, 2013;Sharf & Jones,
2000).
Employment discrimination cases filed in federal
courts, usually by groups of individuals, claiming
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.
These are the types of cases in which I‐O
psychologists are most commonly involved as
expert witnesses(Witness in a lawsuit who is
permitted to voice opinions about organizational
practices).
The lowest settlement in a discrimination case was in an age discrimination suit
brought against Maytag—that settlement was $16 million and covered hundreds
of individual plaintiffs.
LEGAL ISSUES IN STAFFING DECISIONS

If the defendant company loses, it may be required to pay
awards like those mentioned above, adding up to many
more millions of dollars when there are numerous
plaintiffs. In addition, the company may lose customers
and stock value as a result of the bad publicity
surrounding the charges of discrimination.
They are over the age of
40, the age at which
protection begins under
the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act.
In employment discrimination cases, I‐O psychologists often
play a key role. This is because of the highly technical and
statistical nature of many of these cases. Issues such as job
analysis, test development and validation, cut scores, and
performance ratings receive intense scrutiny
Of the federal employment
discrimination cases filed,
approximately 10 percent are
gender cases, 9 percent race
cases, 18 percent age cases, and
6 percent disability cases (Sharf
& Jones, 2000).

Dunleavy, Aamodt, Cohen, and
Schaeffer (2008) suggest that a key
difference between the United States
and other countries is that the United
States has well‐developed
enforcement mechanisms (e.g., the
EEOC) and other countries do not.
Because the United States has
fairly well‐developed
enforcement mechanisms
and EEO laws, many countries
attempt to model their
employment laws and
enforcement agencies after
the U.S. system.
Employment Discrimination
outside of the United States

The first theory charges an
employer with intentional
discrimination and is also
referred to as adverse (or
disparate) treatment. Under
this theory, the plaintiff
attempts to show that the
employer actually treated the
group to which the plaintiff
belongs (e.g., women, African
Americans) differently from
majority applicants or
employees.
Theories of Discrimination
Intentional Discrimination or Adverse Treatment
Adverse (or disparate)
treatment Type of
discrimination in which the
plaintiff attempts to show
that the employer actually
treated the plaintiff
differently from majority
applicants or employees;
intentional discrimination.

Adverse impact Type of
discrimination that
acknowledges the employer
may not have intended to
discriminate against a
plaintiff, but an employer
practice did have an
adverse impact on the
group to which the plaintiff
belongs
Unintentional Discrimination
or Adverse Impact

Adverse Impact
Determination
1. He or she belongs
to a protected group
2. Members of the
protected group were
statistically disadvantaged
compare to majority
empployees or applicants
In an adverse impact case, the
burden is on the plaintiff to show that :

American Mortgage Company (MCA) has
started out as a small local mortgage broker in
California. Over a 10 year period, it had grown
from five intermediaries and two
administrative assistants in a small office in
downtown Sacramento
CASE STUDY
AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT

MCA have grown by acquiring small corporate mortgages in urban settings
and by opening branch offices. Early in the MCA expansion, I - O psychology
was retained at the core of developing the recruitment system.
MCA does not have the time files or expertise to develop internal support systems,
so many staff functions such as HR and accounting have been outsourced. Even
though the accounting department files were eventually created, HR remained an
outsourcing function. Since the need for the main staff to be the intermediary, the
Psychologist I-O developed structured interviews and job sample tests for
screening. He also recommends improving personality tests

The biggest problem
when negotiating
Deal with underwriters for lenders.
Underwriters tend to be overly cautious and
demanding in terms of background information
on prospective borrowers and frequently
request additional information no later than 72
hours before the loan closes (i.e., is agreed).

The working
sample test
time limit is
increased from
30 minutes to
one hour.
A criterion-
related validity
study of the
personality test
will be initiated
(although
current exam
scores and
deductions will
continue to be
used until the
study is
completed).
The interviewer
will be taken to
the HR
company for
training.
The I - O
psychologist for
plaintiffs will
collaborate with
the I-O
psychologist for
the company in
developing the
validity study and
interviewer
training.
The company
will set a
budget of $
100,000 for
this work and
will pay the
fees
The HR department will modify the
screening program as follows:

STAKEHOLDERSSTATISTICAL DECISION MAKING
CLINICAL DECISION MAKING
A STAFFING MODEL
KPIS
PRODUCT
LAUNCH
M I N D M A P
PROMOTION
COMPREHENSIVE SELECTION SYSTEMS
COMPENSATORY SELECTION SYSTEMS
SRI RAHAYU 1724090025 ERRIEN MAULIDIA 1724090028 ANARGYA DINDA AGATHA 1724090029
ATHAYA RANA 1724090039 NADA DEVITA 1724090081 ADELLA LUTHFIYANA MAGISTA 1724090030
ADRIO NAUFAL PERADI 1724090085 JAYANTI LAKSANASIA 1724090107 ANNISA NURUL PRILITA 1724090110
ERRIN WINDASTI 1724090115 PUTRI NURHIDAYAH 1924090187 ANGGUN ARYANTI LEONY PUTRI 1924090191
RIZKA VELITHA YALVINA 1924090066
THEORIES OF DISCRIMINATION
EXPERT WITNESSES
COMBINING INFORMATION
DESELECTION
UTILITY
FAIRNESS
VALIDITY
G R O U P 6
LEGAL ISSUES IN
STAFFING
DECISIONS
PRACTICAL
ISSUES IN
STAFFING
MULTINATIONAL STAFFING
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE STAFFING PROCESS
HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK PRACTICES
Decisions associated with recruiting,
selecting, promoting, and separating
employees.
S T A F F I N G D E C I S I O N S
CONCEPTUAL
ISSUES IN
STAFFING
EVALUATION OF
STAFFING
OUTCOMES
LINE MANAGERS CO-WORKERS APPLICANTS
TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
LAYOFFS
INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION OR
ADVERSE TREATMENT
UNINTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION OR
ADVERSE TREATMENT

PPT Staffing decission

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to PPT Staffing decission

Similar to PPT Staffing decission (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (11)

PPT Staffing decission