Chapter 8 – Staffing

Staffing Organizations
Chapter 9:
External Selection II
Copyright 2022 © McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No
reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of
McGraw Hill LLC.
Because learning changes everything.®
Learning Objectives for Chapter 9
Distinguish among initial, substantive, and contingent selection.
Review the advantages and disadvantages of personality and
cognitive ability tests.
Compare and contrast work sample and situational judgment

tests.
Understand the advantages of structured interviews and how
interviews can be structured.
Review the logic behind contingent assessment methods and
how they are administrated.
Understand the ways in which substantive and contingent
assessment methods are subject to various legal rules and
restrictions.
© McGraw Hill LLC
2
Applicant Methods By Applicant Flow Stage
Initial assessment methods
Minimize the costs associated with substantive assessment
methods by reducing the number of people assessed.
Substantive assessment methods
Used to make more precise decisions about candidates.
More involved than initial assessment methods.
Access the text alternative for slide images
© McGraw Hill LLC
External Selection II 1
Substantive Assessment Methods

© McGraw Hill LLC
Performance Tests, Work Samples, and Simulations
Definition – Assess actual performance (e.g., fix a car, teach a
class, type a document)
Types of tests (should focus on relevant KSAOs)
Performance test vs. work sample (all or some).
Motor vs verbal work samples (action or thought).
High- vs. low-fidelity tests (level of realism).
All the above can have good validity and acceptance
Limitations include costs of realism, lack of general izability for
future roles, and assumption that candidates have KSAOs prior
to hiring
© McGraw Hill LLC
Situational Judgment Tests
Place applicants in hypothetical, job-related situations.
Applicants are then asked to choose a course of action from
several alternatives
Capture the validity of work samples and cognitive ability tests
in a way that is cheaper than work samples and that has less
adverse impact than cognitive ability tests
© McGraw Hill LLC
Example Situational Judgment Test Items 1
Retail Industry Manager
You are the assistant manager of a large department store. One

weekend day while you are in charge of the store, a customer
seeks to return a pair of tennis shoes. The employee in charge of
the customer service department has refused to accept the
return. The customer has asked to speak to the manager, and so
the employee has paged you. Upon meeting the customer—who
is clearly agitated—you learn that the customer does not have a
receipt, and, moreover, you see that the shoes are clearl y well
worn. When you ask the customer why she is returning the
shoes, she tells you that she has bought many pairs of shoes
from your store, and in the past they have “held up much better
over time then these.” You recognize the shoes as a brand that
your store has stocked, so you have no reason to believe the
customer is lying when she says that she bought them from your
store. Still, the shoes have clearly been worn for a long time.
Should you:
a. Issue a refund to the customer
b. Check with your boss—the store manager—when he is at
the store on Monday
c. Deny a refund to the customer, explaining that the shoes
are simply too worn to be returned
d. Inform the customer of the current sale prices on
comparable tennis shoes
© McGraw Hill LLC
Example Situational Judgment Test Items 2
Park Ranger
You are a park ranger with the National Park Service, stationed
in Yellowstone National Park. One of your current duties is to
scout some of the park’s more obscure trails to look for signs of
lost hikers, to detect any malfeasance, and to inspect the
conditions of the trails. It is mid-September, and you’re
inspecting one of the more remote trails in the Mount Washburn

area to determine whether it should be closed for the season.
When you first set out on your hike, the forecast called for only
a slight chance of snow, but midway through your hike, an early
fall blizzard struck. For a time you persisted on, but later you
took refuge under a large lodgepole pine tree. Although the
storm is now abating, it is near dark. Which of the following
would be your best course of action?
a. Stay put until help comes
b. Reverse course and hike back to the ranger station
c. Once the louds clear, locate the North Star, and hike north
to the nearest ranger station
d. Us your matches to build a fire, and hike back in the
morning
© McGraw Hill LLC
Typical Unstructured Interviews
Relatively unplanned and “quick and dirty”
Questions based on interviewer “hunches” or “pet questions” to
assess applicants
Casual, open-ended, or subjective questions
Often contains obtuse questions
Often contains highly speculative questions
Interviewer often unprepared
More potential for discrimination and bias
Validity is generally quite low
© McGraw Hill LLC
Conducting Structured Interviews

Consult job requirements matrix
Develop the selection plan
Develop structured interview plan
Select and train interviewers
Evaluate effectiveness
Table divided into three columns summarizes conducting
structured interviews. The column headers are marked from left
to right as: KSAO, necessary for selection, and method of
assessment.KSAONecessary for SelectionMethod of
AssessmentAbility to make customer feel
welcomeYesInterviewKnowledge of merchandise to be
soldYesWritten testKnowledge of location of merchandise in
storeNoNoneSkill in being cordial with
customersYesInterviewAbility to create and convey ideas to
customersYesInterview
© McGraw Hill LLC
Structured Interviews
Questions based on job analysis
Same questions asked of each candidate
Response to each question numerically evaluated
Detailed anchored rating scales used to score each response
Detailed notes taken, focusing on interviewees’ behaviors
Validity is significantly better that unstructured
Training interviews improves validity
© McGraw Hill LLC
Types of Structured Interviews
Situational

Assess applicant’s ability to project his / her behaviors to future
situations.
Assumes the person’s goals/intentions will predict future
behavior.
Experience-Based
Assess past behaviors that are linked to prospective job.
Assumes past performance will predict future performance.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Overview of Ability Tests
Measures that assess an individual’s capacity to function in a
certain way
Examine whether individuals have the necessary aptitude to
learn and perform well on the job
Classes of ability tests
Cognitive
Psychomotor
Physical
Sensory/perceptual
© McGraw Hill LLC
What Are Cognitive Ability Tests?
Measure multiple domains
Thinking
Memory
Reasoning
Verbal ability
Mathematical ability

Expression of ideas
Combination of general construct and specific aspects
© McGraw Hill LLC
Evaluation of Cognitive Ability Tests 1
Among the most valid methods of selection
Often generalizes across organizations, job types, and types of
applicants
Can produce large economic gains for organizations and provide
major competitive advantage
Validity is particularly high for jobs of medium and high
complexity but also exists for simple jobs
A simple explanation for validity: those with higher cognitive
ability acquire and use greater knowledge
© McGraw Hill LLC
Evaluation of Cognitive Ability Tests 2
Concern over adverse impact and fairness of tests
Using other predictors alongside cognitive ability tests can
reduce (but not eliminate) disparate impact
Applicants’ perceptions
Reactions to concrete vs. abstract test items.
© McGraw Hill LLC

Other Types of Ability Test
Psychomotor ability tests
Reaction time, arm-hand steadiness, control precision, and
manual and digit dexterity.
Physical abilities tests
Muscular strength, cardiovascular endurance, and movement
quality.
Sensory/perceptual abilities tests
Ability to detect and recognize environmental stimuli.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Emotional Intelligence 1
The ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings, to
discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide
one’s thinking and action
Self-awareness: Good at recognizing and understanding one’s
own emotions.
Other awareness: Good at recognizing and understanding
others’ emotions.
Emotion regulation: Good at making use of or managing this
awareness.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Emotional Intelligence 2
A review of many studies indicated that, overall, EI correlated
poorly with job performance after personality traits were
considered
Some critics argue that because EI is so closely related to

intelligence and personality, once you control for these factors,
EI has nothing unique to offer.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Overview of Personality Tests 1
Current role of personality tests e.g., role of Big Five
Describe behavioral, not emotional or cognitive traits.
Big Five factors (Personality Characteristics Inventory etc.).
Extraversion-sociable, assertive, active, upbeat, and talkative.
Agreeableness-altruistic, trusting, sympathetic, and cooperative.
Conscientiousness-purposeful, determined, dependable, and
attentive to detail.
Emotional stability-calm, optimistic, and well adjusted.
Openness to experience-imaginative, attentive to inner feelings,
have intellectual curiosity and independence of judgment.
Stable over time and across situations
© McGraw Hill LLC
Sample Personality Items from the International Personality
Item Pool
Conscientiousness
I am always prepared.
I pay attention to details.
I am exacting in my work.
Extraversion
I am quiet around strangers. (reverse-scored)
I take charge.
I am skilled in handling social situations.

© McGraw Hill LLC
Sample Items from the Personal Characteristics Inventory
Agreeableness
I have a soft heart.
I insult people. (reverse-scored)
I have a good word for everyone.
Emotional Stability
I am relaxed most of the time.
I seldom feel blue.
I have frequent mood swings. (reverse scored)
Openness to Experience
I have a vivid imagination.
I love to think up new ways of doing things.
I try to avoid complex people. (reverse scored)
© McGraw Hill LLC
Overview of Personality Tests 2
Table divided into three columns summarizes overview of
personality tests. The column headers are marked from left to
right as: Big five trait, advantages, and disadvantages.Big Five
TraitAdvantagesDisadvantagesConscientiousnessBetter overall
job performers
Better career decisions
More engaged
More likely to emerge as leaders
Fewer deviant work behaviors
Higher retentionLower adaptability

Can be “too much of a good
thing”Emotional stabilityBetter overall job performers
Better career decisions
More effective leaders
More motivated
Less prone to burnoutLess able to identify threats
More likely to engage in high
risk behaviorsExtraversionPerform better in sales
More likely to emerge as leaders
More engaged
Higher levels of commitment and satisfactionLess task oriented
behavior
DominatingAgreeablenessMore valued as team members
More helping behaviors
Fewer deviant work behaviorsLower career success
Less able to cope with conflict
Give more lenient ratingsOpennessHigher creativity
More effective leaders
More adaptableLess committed to employer
More deviant work behaviors
© McGraw Hill LLC
The Core Self-Evaluations Scale
Items indicating high levels of core self-evaluation
I am confident I get the success I deserve in life.
When I try, I generally succeed.
I complete tasks successfully.
Overall, I am satisfied with myself.
I determine what will happen in my life.
I am capable of coping with most of my problems.
Items indicating low levels of core self-evaluation
Sometimes I feel depressed.
Sometimes when I fail, I feel worthless.
Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work.

I am filled with doubts about my competence.
I do not feel in control of my success in my career.
There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to
me.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Criticisms of Personality Tests
Trivial validities
Correlations for any individual trait with job performance are
typically low (around r = .23).
However, when all traits are used simultaneously, correlations
are higher.
Faking
Individuals answer in a dishonest way.
However, tests still have some validity, and it may be that being
able to “act” conscientiously may be related to real job
performance.
Negative applicant reactions
Applicants, in general, believe personality tests are less valid
predictors of job performance.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Integrity Tests 1
Clear purpose / overt items
Do you think most people would cheat if they thought they
could get away with it?
Do you believe a person has a right to steal from an employer if
he or she is unfairly treated?

Personality-based/veiled purpose items
Would you rather go to a party than read a newspaper?
How often do you blush?
Scores appear to reflect conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
emotional stability
© McGraw Hill LLC
Integrity Tests 2
Validity can be useful
Especially good at predicting counterproductive performance,
like negative work behaviors.
Generally good at predicting job performance, although there is
some controversy regarding this issue.
Why would these tests predict general performance?
© McGraw Hill LLC
Interest, Values, and Preference Inventories
Assess activities individuals prefer to do on & off the job; do
not attempt to assess ability to do these
Not often used in selection
Can be useful for self-selection into job types
Types of tests
Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB).
Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI).
Evaluation
Unlikely to predict job performance directly.
May help assess person-organization fit & subsequent job
satisfaction, commitment & turnover.

© McGraw Hill LLC
Selection for Team Environments 1
Types of teams
Problem-solving teams.
Self-managed work teams.
Cross-functional teams.
Virtual teams.
Establish steps for selection in team-based environments
Who should make the hiring decision?
Critical to ensure proper context is in place
© McGraw Hill LLC
Selection for Team Environments 2
Interpersonal KSAs
Conflict-Resolution KSAs.
Collaborative Problem--Solving KSAs.
Communication KSAs.
Self-management KSAs
Goal-Setting and Performance- Management KSAs.
Planning and Task-Coordination KSAs.
© McGraw Hill LLC
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: Predictors, use, cost, reliability,
validity, utility, applicant reactions, and adverse
impact.PredictorsUseCostReliabilityValidityUtilityApplicant
ReactionsAdverse ImpactPersonality
testsLowLowHighModerate?NegativeLowAbility
testsLowLowHighHighHighNegativeHighEmotional intelligence
testsModerateLowHighLow??LowPerformance tests and work
samples ModerateHighHighHighHighPositiveLowSituational
judgment
testsLowHighModerateModerate?PositiveModerateIntegrity
testsLowLowHighHighHighNegativeLowInterest, values, and
preference inventoriesLowLowHighLow??LowStructured
interviewsModerateHighModerateHigh?PositiveMixedTeam
assessmentsLowModerate???Positive?
© McGraw Hill LLC
Discussion Questions 1
Describe the similarities and differences between personality
tests and integrity tests. When is each warranted in the selection
process?
How would you advise an organization considering adopting a
cognitive ability test for selection?
© McGraw Hill LLC
Describe the structured interview.

What are the characteristics of structured interviews that
improve on the shortcomings of unstructured interviews?
Compare and contrast the ability and mixed approaches to EI—
how are they similar, how are they different?
© McGraw Hill LLC
Discretionary and Contingent Assessment Methods
© McGraw Hill LLC
Discretionary Assessment Methods
Used to separate people who receive job offers
from list of finalists (assumes each finalist is considered fully
qualified for position)
Often very subjective, relying heavily on intuition
of decision maker
Factors other than KSAOs are evaluated
Assess person/organization match.
Assess motivation level.
Assess people on relevant organizational
citizenship behaviors.
Should involve organization’s staffing philosophy regarding
EEO/AA commitments
© McGraw Hill LLC

Contingent Assessment Methods
“We offer you this job contingent upon ….”
Contingent methods not always used
Depends on nature of job and legal mandates.
Might involve confirmation of
Drug test results.
Medical exam results.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Drug Testing
The average drug user
was 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident
received 3 times the average level of sick benefits
was 5 times more likely to file a workers’ compensation claim
missed 10 times as many work days as nonusers.
Drug testing has decreased in recent years because so few
people test positive
© McGraw Hill LLC
Example of an Organizational Drug Testing Program
Access the text alternative for slide images.
© McGraw Hill LLC

Features of an Effective Drug Testing Program
Emphasize drug testing in safety--sensitive jobs
Use only reputable testing laboratories, and ensure that strict
chain of custody is maintained.
Ask applicants for their consent, and inform them of test results
Use retesting to validate positive samples from the initial
screening test
Ensure that proper procedures are followed to maintain the
applicant’s right to privacy
Review the program and validate the results against relevant
criteria (accidents, absenteeism, turnover, job performance);
conduct a cost-benefit analysis
© McGraw Hill LLC
Medical Exams 1
Identify potential health risks in job candidates
Must ensure medical exams are required only when a
compelling reason exists
Ensures people with disabilities unrelated to job performance
are not screened out.
Use is strictly regulated by ADA to ensure disabilities not job
related are not screened out
Usually lack validity as procedures vary by doctor
Not always job related
Often emphasize short- rather than long-term health
New job-related medical standards are specific, job related, and
valid
© McGraw Hill LLC

What issues surround discretionary assessment methods? What
would you do to mitigate these issues as a staffing professional?
What is the best way to collect and use drug-testing data in
selection decisions?
© McGraw Hill LLC
Legal Issues
© McGraw Hill LLC
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
General principles
Technical standards
Documentation of impact and validity evidence
Definitions
Makes substantial demands of a staffing system
Ensures awareness of possibility of adverse impact
in employment decisions.
If adverse impact is found, mechanisms provided
to cope with it.
© McGraw Hill LLC

Americans with Disabilities Act and Drug Testing
Selection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
General principles.
Access to job application process.
Reasonable accommodation
to testing.
Medical examinations.
Drug testing.
UGESP.
Drug testing is permitted to detect illegal drug use and
discipline/termination if found is OK
© McGraw Hill LLC
Medical Exams 2
Identifies potential health risks in job candidates
Important to ensure medical exams are required
only when a compelling reason exists
Ensures people with disabilities unrelated to job performance
are not screened out.
Use is strictly regulated by ADA
Lack validity as procedures vary by doctor
Not always job related
Often emphasizes short- rather than long-term health
New approach – Job-related medical standards
© McGraw Hill LLC
How should organizations apply the general principles of the

UGESP to practical selection decisions?
© McGraw Hill LLC
Ethical Issues in Staffing
Issue 1
Do you think it’s ethical for employers to select applicants on
the basis of questions such as, “Dislike loud music” and “Enjoy
wild flights of fantasy,” even if the scales that such items
measure have been shown to predict job performance? Explain.
Issue 2
Cognitive ability tests are one of the best predictors of job
performance, yet they have substantial adverse impact against
minorities. Do you think it’s fair to use such tests? Why or why
not?
© McGraw Hill LLC
End of Main Content
McGraw Hill LLC.
www.mheducation.com
Accessibility Content: Text Alternatives for Images

© McGraw Hill LLC
Applicant Methods By Applicant Flow Stage - Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
Assessment method from top to bottom reads: Initial,
substantive, discretionary, and contingent. All of them are
connected.
Applicant flow stage from top to bottom reads: Applicants,
candidates, finalists, offer receivers, and new hires. All of them
are connected by a downward arrow.
Initial is connected between applicants and candidates,
substantive is connected between candidates and finalists,
discretionary is connected between finalists and offer receivers.
The offer receivers are connected to contingent, which is finally
connected to new hires.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Sample Cognitive Ability Items - Text Alternative
1. In the following alphanumeric series, what letter comes next?
I J L O S
(1) T (2) U (3) V (4) X (5) Y (6) Z.
2. If the day after tomorrow is two days before Thursday, then
what day is it today?
(1) Friday (2) Monday (3) Wednesday (4) Saturday (5) Tuesday
(6) Sunday.
3. What follows in the sequence 10, 19, 29, 40, 52?
Your answer: Blank
4. A set of 3 cross 3 matrix with 9 boxes displaying different
patterns, where box number 6 displays a question mark.
A set of 6 panels each displaying a pattern under A, B, C, D, E

and F.
5. A set of 7 die with faces displaying different patterns under
A, B, C, E, F, G and X, where D and H displays text: 'None of
the cubes could be a solution' and 'I do not know the solution'.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Example of an Organizational Drug Testing Program - Text
Alternative
The steps that lead to other are:
Personnel makes offer to applicant.
Personnel requests drug test.
Applicant’s urine sample collected.
In-house drug screen.
In-house drug screen (with negative screen): Applicant hired by
personnel.
In-house drug screen (with negative screen): Sample tested by
independent lab.
Sample tested by independent lab (with positive report):
Medical Review Officer determines use.
Sample tested by independent lab (with negative report):
Applicant hired by personnel.
Medical Review Officer determines use (with legal): Applicant
hired by personnel.
Medical Review Officer determines use (with illegal drug):
Applicant not hired by personnel.
© McGraw Hill LLC

Staffing Organizations
Chapter 8:
External Selection I
McGraw Hill LLC.
© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only
for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further
distribution permitted without the prior written consent of
McGraw-Hill Education.
1
Learning Objectives for Chapter 8
Understand how the logic of prediction guides the selection
process.
Review the nature of predictors—how selection measures differ.
Understand the process involved in developing a selection plan,
and the selection sequence.
Learn about initial assessment methods and understand how
these methods are optimally used in organizations.
Evaluate the relative effectiveness of initial assessment methods
to determine which work best, and why.
Review the legal issues involved in the use of initial assessment
methods, and understand how legal problems can be avoided.

© McGraw Hill LLC
External Selection I 1
Preliminary Issues
© McGraw Hill LLC
Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future
Performance
© McGraw Hill LLC
Nature of Predictors
Content
Sign: An aspect of a person thought to relate to performance on
the job (e.g., personality).
Sample: Observation of a person in job-relevant behavior.
Criterion: Actual measure of prior performance.
Form
Speed vs. power: How many versus what level.
Paper / pencil vs. performance: Test in writing or in behavior.
Objective vs. essay: Much like multiple-choice vs. essay course
exam questions.
Oral vs. written vs. computer: How data are obtained.
© McGraw Hill LLC

Steps in Development of the Selection Plan
Develop list of KSAOs required for job
KSAOs are provided by job requirements matrix.
For each KSAO, decide if it needs to be assessed in the
selection process
Determine method(s) of assessment to be used for each KSAO
© McGraw Hill LLC
Applicant Methods By Applicant Flow Stage
Initial assessment methods
Minimize the costs associated with substantive assessment
methods by reducing the number of people assessed.
Substantive assessment methods
Used to make more precise decisions about candidates.
More involved than initial assessment methods.
© McGraw Hill LLC
A selection plan describes which predictor(s) will be used to
assess the KSAOs required to perform the job. What are the
three steps to follow in establishing a selection plan?
© McGraw Hill LLC

Initial Assessment Methods
© McGraw Hill LLC
Resumes and Cover Letters
Information provided is controlled by applicant
Information needs to be verified by other predictors to ensure
accuracy and completeness.
Major issues
Large number received by organizations.
Falsification and misrepresentation of information.
Lack of research exists related to
Validity or reliability.
Costs.
Adverse impact.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Overview of Application Blanks
Areas covered
Educational experience.
Training.
Job experience.
Key advantage – Organization dictates information provided
Major issue – Information requested should
Be critical to job success and
Reflect KSAOs relevant to job.

© McGraw Hill LLC
Application Blanks
Areas of special interest
Educational requirements.
Level of education.
GPA.
Quality of school.
Major field of study.
Extracurricular activities.
Training and experience requirements.
Licensing, certification, and job knowledge.
Weighted application blanks are better
Unweighted correlation with performance from.10 to .20.
Weighted correlations are substantially higher.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Sample Application for Employment
© McGraw Hill LLC
Biographical Information/Biodata
Personal history information of applicant’s background and
interests
“Best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”.
Past behaviors may reflect ability or motivation.
Test-retest reliability can be high: .60 to .90

Predictive validity moderate: r = .26 to .32
Issues
Generalizability beyond first group?
Although predictive validity exists, it is not clear what these
inventories assess.
Falsification can be a big problem.
Managers and applicants do not like biodata items.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Examples of Biodata Items
In college, my grade point average was:
a) I did not go to college or completed less than two years
b) Less than 2.50
c) 2.50 to 3.00
d) 3.00 to 3.50
e) 3.50 to 4.00
In the past five years, the number of different jobs I have held
is:
a) More than five
b) Three-five
c) Two
d) One
e) None
The kind of supervision I like best is:
a) Very close supervision
b) Fairly close supervision
c) Moderate supervision
d) Minimal supervision
e) No supervision
When you are angry, which of the following behaviors most
often describes your reaction:
a) Reflect on the situation for a bit

b) Talk to a friend or spouse
c) Exercise or take a walk
d) Physically release the anger on something
e) Just try to forget about it
Biodata compared with background checks
© McGraw Hill LLC
Reference Reports: Letters of Recommendation
Problems
Inability to discern more-qualified from less-qualified
applicants.
Lack of standardization.
Suggestions to improve credibility
Use a structured form.
Use a standardized scoring key.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Reference Reports: Reference Checks
Approach involves verifying applicant’s background via contact
with
Prior immediate supervisor(s) or
HR department of current of previous companies.
Surveys suggest 95% of companies conduct reference checks
Problems
Same as problems with letters of recommendation.
Reluctance of companies to provide requested information due
to legal concerns.

© McGraw Hill LLC
Reference Reports: Background Testing
Method involves assessing reliability of applicants’ behavior,
integrity, and personal adjustment
Type of information requested
Criminal history.
Credit information.
Educational history.
Employment verification.
Driver license histories.
Key issues
Limited validity evidence.
Legal constraints on pre-employment inquiries.
“Ban-the-box”.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Evaluation of Reference Reports
Predictive validity limited: r = .16 to .26
Validity depends on source providing information
HR department, coworker, or relative.
Supervisors.
What sources do you think work best?
Cost vs. benefit of approach must be considered
© McGraw Hill LLC

Initial Interview
Characteristics
Begins process of necessary differentiation.
Purpose – Screen out most obvious cases of person / job
mismatches.
Limitation – Most expensive method of initial assessment.
Video and computer interviews
Offers cost savings.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Evaluation of Initial Interview
Minimal evidence exists regarding usefulness (much more
evidence on substantive interviews)
Guidelines to enhance usefulness
Ask questions assessing most basic KSAOs.
Stick to basic, fundamental questions suitable for making rough
cuts rather than subjective questions.
Keep interviews brief.
Ask same questions of all applicants.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Choice of Initial Assessment Methods
Table divided into eight columns summarizes choice of initial
assessment methods. The column headers are marked from left
to right as: Predictor, use, cost, reliability, validity, utility,
applicant reactions, and disparate impact.
PredictorUseCostReliabilityValidityUtilityApplicant
ReactionsDisparate Impact Résumé and cover

letterHighLowLowLow?PositiveModerate Level of
educationHighLowModerateLowLow?High Grade point
averageLowLowModerateModerate??High Quality of
school?Low?Low??? Major field of study?LowModerate???Low
Extracurricular activity?Low?Moderate??Low Training and
experienceHighLowHighLowLow?Moderate Licensing and
certificationModerateLowModerateModerate??? Weighted
application
blanksModerateModerateModerateModerateHighMixed?
Biographical
dataLowModerateHighModerateHighMixedModerate Letters of
recommendationLowLowLowLow??Low Reference
checkHighModerateLowModerateModerateMixedLow
Background checkLowHigh?High?NegativeModerate Initial
interviewHighHighLow??PositiveModerate
© McGraw Hill LLC
In what ways are the following three initial assessment methods
similar and in what ways are they different: application blanks,
biographical information, and reference and background
checks?
Describe the criteria by which initial assessment methods are
evaluated. Are some of these criteria more important than
others?
Some methods of initial assessment appear to be more useful
than others. If you were starting your own business, which
initial assessment methods would you use and why?
© McGraw Hill LLC

Legal Issues
© McGraw Hill LLC
Legal Issues
Disclaimers - Organization clearly identifies
rights it wants to maintain employment-at-will, verification
consent, and provides false statement warning
Reference checks
Social media screening
Background checks
Credit—concerns about applicability and disparate impact.
Criminal—concerns about applicability and disparate impact.
Pre-employment inquiries
© McGraw Hill LLC
Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications
Discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin, but
not race or color, is permitted if it can be shown to be a BFOQ
“reasonably necessary to the normal operation” of the business
Employer justifications
Inability to perform.
Same-sex personal contact.
Customer preference.
Pregnancy or fertility.

© McGraw Hill LLC
How can organizations avoid legal difficulties in the use of pre-
employment inquiries in initial selection decisions?
© McGraw Hill LLC
Ethical Issues in Staffing
Issue 1
Is it wrong to “pad” one’s résumé with information that, while
not an outright lie, is an enhancement? For example, would it be
wrong to term one’s job “maintenance coordinator” when in fact
one simply emptied garbage cans?
Issue 2
Do you think employer have a right to check into applicants’
backgrounds? Even if there is no suspicion of misbehavior?
Even if the job poses no security or sensitive risks? Even if the
background check includes driving offenses and credit
histories?
© McGraw Hill LLC
End of Main Content
McGraw Hill LLC.

www.mheducation.com
Accessibility Content: Text Alternatives for Images
© McGraw Hill LLC
Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future
Performance - Text Alternative
Past situations include previous job, current job and nonjob
while new situation (job) includes HR outcomes as: attraction,
performance, satisfaction, retention and attendance.
© McGraw Hill LLC
Applicant Methods By Applicant Flow Stage - Text Alternative
Assessment methods include:
initial, substantive, discretionary, and contingent.
Applicant flow stage include:
Applicants, candidates, finalists, offer receivers, and new hires.
Initial method leads between applicants and candidates,
substantive methods leads between candidates and finalists,
discretionary method leads between finalist and offer receivers.
Offer receivers lead to contingent, leading to new hires.
© McGraw Hill LLC

Sample Application for Employment - Text Alternative
Left Image
The details for personal information are:
name, date, social security number, present address, permanent
address, phone number, check boxes for 'are you 18 or older'
and 'are you prevented from lawfully becoming employed in
this country because of visa or immigration status?'
The details for employment desired are:
position, date you can start, salary desired, are you employed
now, if so may we inquire or your present employer, applied to
this company before, where, when and preferred by.
The details for education are:
name and location, number of years attended, did you graduate,
subjects studied, grammar school, high school (GED), college
and other.
Right Image
General details are:
subjects of special study, special skills, activities (civic,
athlete, etcetera), US military service, rank and present
membership in national guard reserves.
The details for former employers (with listing of last three
employers, starting with the most recent) are:
From and to, data, name and address, salary, position and
reason of leaving.
The details for references (with giving of last three persons, not
related to you) are:
name, address, business and years acquainted.
Options for date and signature for self certification are visible
at the end.
© McGraw Hill LLC

33
Discussion - Adverse Impact : Pre-employment Selection
Required:
1) Re-review/read adverse impact and pre-employment testing
from textbook (Chapters
8 & 9) and video and article links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzw_hdswYA
https://www.ehstoday.com/health/article/219197 17/eeoc-cracks-
down-on-preemployme
nt-physical-testing
https://www.predictiveindex.com/blog/is-it-legal-for-employers-
to-give-applicants-pre-em
ployment-assessments/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzw_hdswYA
https://www.ehstoday.com/health/article/21919717/eeoc-cracks-
down-on-preemployment-physical-testing
https://www.ehstoday.com/health/article/21919717/eeoc-cracks-
down-on-preemployment-physical-testing
to-give-applicants-pre-employment-assessments/
to-give-applicants-pre-employment-assessments/
Avoiding Adverse Impact

From
http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/Toolkits/Pages/AvoidingA
dverseImpact.aspx
12/30/2010
Overview
Adverse impact refers to employment practices that appear
neutral but have a discriminatory
effect on a protected group. Adverse impact may occur in
hiring, promotion, training and
development, transfer, layoff, and even performance appraisals .
It may be found in an overall
procedure or in any step in the overall procedure. A test or
selection procedure can be an
effective management tool, but no test or selection procedure
should be implemented without a
thorough understanding of its effectiveness and limitations for
the organization, its
appropriateness for a specific job, and whether it can be
appropriately administered and scored.
Adverse impact is often used interchangeably with “disparate
impact”—a legal term coined in a

significant U.S. Supreme Court ruling on disparate or adverse
impact. See, Griggs v. Duke
Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971).
This article provides a definition of adverse impact and explains
the differences between
disparate impact and disparate treatment. It reviews the Uniform
Guidelines for Employee
Selection Procedures and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC)
enforcement actions, including several recent cases. A step-by-
step process for determining
adverse impact is provided, along with sample calculations. The
article closes with best practice
recommendations from the Center for Corporate Equality.
What Is Adverse Impact?
Adverse impact occurs when a decision, practice or policy has a
disproportionately negative
effect on a protected group, even though the adverse impact
may be unintentional. The Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines and
the Uniform Guidelines for
Employee Selection Procedures define adverse impact as “a
substantially different rate of

selection in hiring, promotion or other employment decision
which works to the disadvantage of
members of a race, sex or ethnic group.” When adverse impact
exists, an organization may be
vulnerable to charges of discrimination.
The agencies have adopted a rule of thumb under which they
will generally consider any group’s
selection rate that is less than four-fifths (4/5ths) or 80 percent
of the selection rate for the group
with the highest selection rate as a substantially different rate of
selection. This “4/5ths” or “80
percent” rule of thumb is not intended as a legal definition, but
is a practical means of keeping
the attention of the enforcement agencies on serious
discrepancies in rates of hiring, promotion
dverseImpact.aspx
http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/424/case.html
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/29cfr1607_06.h
tml
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisi dx_06/29cfr1607_06.h
tml
http://www.eeoc.gov/
http://www.cceq.org/

tml
tml
and other selection decisions. See, Adverse Impact and
Disparate Treatment: Two Types of
Discrimination and What are disparate impact and disparate
treatment?
Background
The Supreme Court of the United States first described the
disparate impact theory in 1971, in
the Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2. Prior to the
passage of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, Duke Power Co. had a policy of segregating
employees according to race. Specifically,
at its Dan River plant, African Americans were only allowed to
work in the labor department,
where the jobs were among the lowest-paying positions in the
company.
After Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the
company changed its policies,
adding a requirement of a high school diploma or a minimum
score on an IQ test for positions in
areas other than the labor department, thus eliminating a large
number of African American

applicants for positions outside the labor department. The Court
found that under Title VII, if
tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must
demonstrate that such tests are
“reasonably related” to the job for which the tests are required.
Disparate Treatment
Title VII prohibits intentional discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex or national
origin. It also prohibits both disparate treatment and disparate
impact discrimination. For
example, Title VII forbids a covered employer from testing the
reading ability of African
American applicants or employees when the reading ability of
their white counterparts is not
tested. This is called disparate treatment discrimination.
Disparate treatment cases typically
address the following questions:
• Were people of a different race, color, religion, sex or national
origin treated differently?
• Is there any evidence of bias, such as discriminatory
statements?
• What is the employer’s reason for the difference in treatment?

• Does the evidence show that the employer’s reason for the
difference in treatment is
untrue and that the real reason for the different treatment is
race, color, religion, sex or
national origin?
Disparate Impact
Title VII also prohibits employers from using neutral tests or
selection procedures that have the
effect of disproportionately excluding persons based on race,
origin, if the tests or selection procedures are not “job-related
and consistent with business
necessity.” This is called disparate impact or adverse impact
discrimination. See, What is
“disparate impact”? Disparate impact cases typically address the
following questions:
• Does the employer use a particular employment practice that
has a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin? For
example, if an employer
requires that all applicants pass a physical agility test, does the
test disproportionately
screen out women? Determining whether a test or other
selection procedure has a

http://www.shrm.org/Education/hreducation/Pages/AdverseImpa
ctandDisparateTreatmentTwoTypesofDiscrimination.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/Education/hreducation/Pages/AdverseImpa
ctandDisparateTreatmentTwoTypesofDiscrimination.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/hrqa/Pages/disparateimpa
ctdisparatetreatment.aspx
http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/coord/titlevi.php
http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/coord/titlevi.php
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/Glossaries/LegalTerms%2
8akaLegalEase%29/Pages/QWhatis%E2%80%9Cdisparateimpact
%E2%80%9D.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/Glossaries/LegalTerms%2
8akaLegalEase%29/Pages/QWhatis%E2%80%9Cdisparateimpact
%E2%80%9D.aspx
disparate impact on a particular group ordinarily requires a
statistical analysis.
• If the selection procedure has a disparate impact based on
race, color, religion, sex or
national origin, can the employer show that the selection
procedure is job-related and
consistent with business necessity? An employer can meet this
standard by showing that
it is necessary to the safe and efficient performance of the job.
The policy or practice
should therefore be associated with the skills needed to perform
the job successfully. In

contrast to a general measurement of applicants’ or employees’
skills, the policy or
practice must evaluate an individual’s skills as related to the
particular job in question. If
the employer shows that the selection procedure is job-related
and consistent with
business necessity, then anyone who challenges the selection
procedure must demonstrate
that there is a less discriminatory alternative available. For
example, is another test
available that would be equally effective in predicting job
performance but would not
disproportionately exclude the protected group?
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
In 1978, the Civil Service Commission, U.S. Department of
Labor, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Department of
Justice jointly adopted the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to
establish uniform standards for the
use of selection procedures by employers and to address adverse
impact, validation and record-
keeping requirements. The Uniform Guidelines document a

uniform federal position in the area
of prohibiting discrimination in employment practices on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex or
national origin. The Uniform Guidelines outline the
requirements necessary for employers to
legally defend their employment decisions based upon overall
selection processes and specific
selection procedures.
The basic principle of the Uniform Guidelines is that a selection
process that has an adverse
impact on the employment opportunities of members of a race,
origin group and thus disproportionately screens them out is
unlawfully discriminatory unless the
process or its component procedures have been validated in
accord with the Guidelines or the
user otherwise justifies them in accord with federal l aw. This
principle was adopted by the
Supreme Court unanimously in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and
was ratified and endorsed by the
Congress when it passed the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1972, which amended
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Though the Uniform Guidelines are not legislation or law, they
are relied upon by courts as a
source of technical information and are typically given
significant weight by the courts. The
Uniform Guidelines apply to most private employers with 15 or
more employees for 20 weeks or
more a calendar year and to most employment agencies, labor
organizations and apprenticeship
committees. They also apply to state and local governments
with 15 or more employees. They
apply through Executive Order 11246 to contractors and
subcontractors of the federal
government and to contractors and subcontractors under
federally assisted construction contracts.
See, Are all employers with 15 or more employees required to
follow the Uniform
Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures, including
adverse impact testing and
applicant tracking?
http://www.dol.gov/
http://www.justice.gov/
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.ht
ml
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eeo_1972.html

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-eeo.htm
http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/hrqa/Pages/UniformGuide
linesProcedure.aspx
linesProcedure.aspx
linesProcedure.aspx
The Uniform Guidelines provide standards for the proper use of
employment testing, including
the definition of discrimination in testing, appropriate means of
validating selection procedures
that may be discriminatory, acceptable methods of establishing
and implementing cutoff scores
(or pass points) on selection procedures, and the documentation
of validity for selection
procedures. The Uniform Guidelines pertain to any and all
selection procedures that are used as
the basis for any employment decision, including hiring,
promotion, demotion, referral,
retention, licensing and certification, training and transfer.
Further, the Uniform Guidelines define selection procedures to
include any measure,
combination of measures or procedure used as a basis for any
employment decision. Selection
procedures, as defined by the Uniform Guidelines, include the

full range of assessment
techniques, including written exams, performance tests, training
programs, probationary periods,
interviews, reviews of experience or education, work samples,
and physical requirements.
If the use of a particular selection procedure results in adverse
impact, the employer can
eliminate the use of the procedure, thus eliminating the adverse
impact. Or, if the employer
wishes to continue to use the procedure, it must demonstrate the
“business necessity” of the
selection procedure– that is, a clear relationship between the
selection procedure and
performance of the job. This process is known as validation.
EEOC Enforcement Actions
According to the EEOC, there has been an increase in
employment testing due, in part, to post-
September 11 security concerns as well as concerns about
workplace violence, safety and
liability. In addition, the large-scale adoption of online job
applications has motivated employers
to seek ever more efficient ways of screening large numbers of
online applicants in a non-

subjective way.
The number of discrimination charges filed with the EEOC
relative to employment testing and
exclusions based on criminal background checks, credit reports
and other selection procedures
reached a high point in FY 2007 at 304 charges.
Title VII permits employment tests as long as they are not
“designed, intended or used to
discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national
origin” (see, 42 USC Sec. 2000e-
2(h)). Title VII also imposes restrictions on how to score tests.
Employers are not permitted to
1) adjust the scores, 2) use different cutoff scores, or 3)
otherwise alter the results of
employment-related tests on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex or national origin.
Several recent EEOC enforcement actions have specifically
focused on testing:
• EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. and United Automobile Workers of
America involved a court-
approved settlement agreement on behalf of a nationwide class
of African Americans
who were rejected for an apprenticeship program after taking a
cognitive test known as

the Apprenticeship Training Selection System (ATSS). The
ATSS was a written
cognitive test that measured verbal, numerical and spatial
reasoning in order to evaluate
mechanical aptitude. Although it had been validated in 1991,
the ATSS continued to have
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/pr
eemptest.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/employeerelations/Pages/pro
motion.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/employeerelations/Pages/dem
otion.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/e
mpref.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/re
tention.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/in
terviewing.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/safetysecurity/Pages/violence
.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/safetysecurity/Pages/generals
afety.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/b
ackground.aspx
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00002000---
e002-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00002000---
e002-.html
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/VI/2000e-2
http://archive.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement06-
05.html

a statistically significant disparate impact by excluding African
American applicants.
Less discriminatory selection procedures were subsequently
developed that would have
served Ford’s needs, but Ford did not modify its procedures. In
the settlement agreement,
Ford agreed to replace the ATSS with a selection procedure to
be designed by a jointly
selected industrial psychologist. The new procedure would
predict job success and reduce
adverse impact. In addition, Ford paid $8.55 million in
monetary relief.
• In EEOC v. Dial Corp., women were disproportionately
rejected for entry-level
production jobs because of a strength test. The test had a
significant adverse impact on
women: prior to the use of the test, 46 percent of hires were
women; after use of the test,
only 15 percent of hires were women. Dial defended the test by
noting that the test
closely resembled the job and the use of the test had resulted in
fewer injuries to hired
workers. However, through expert testimony, the EEOC
established that the test was

considerably more difficult than the job and that the reduction
in injuries occurred two
years before the test was implemented, most likely due to
improved training and better
job rotation procedures. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 8th Circuit upheld
the trial court’s finding that Dial’s use of the test violated Title
VII under the disparate
impact theory of discrimination.
Determining Adverse Impact
The Uniform Guidelines have adopted a practical means of
determining adverse impact in a
selection procedure. This “rule of thumb” established by the
Uniform Guidelines is known as the
“4/5ths” or “80 percent” rule. To determine whether a selection
procedure violates the “4/5ths”
or “80 percent” rule, the selection rate (or passing rate, where
applicable) for the group with the
highest selection rate is compared to the selection rates for the
other groups. If any of the
comparison groups do not have a passing rate equal to or greater
than 80 percent of the passing
rate of the highest group, then it generally is held that evidence

of adverse impact exists for the
particular selection procedure.
Four-step process
A four-step process determines adverse impact.
1. Calculate the rate of selection for each group (divide the
number of persons selected from a
group by the number of applicants from that group).
2. Determine which group has the highest selection rate. For
positive personnel transactions, the
highest rate is the most advantageous. For negative personnel
transactions, the most favored
group has the lowest rate.
3. Calculate the impact ratios by comparing the selection rate
for each group with that of the
highest group (divide the selection rate for a group by the
selection rate for the highest group).
4. Observe whether the selection rate for any group is
substantially less (i.e., usually less than
4/5ths or 80 percent) than the selection rate for the highest
group. If it is, adverse impact is
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-20-06.html
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/
http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/FederalStat

utesRegulationsandGuidanc/Pages/Uniformguidelinesonselectio
nprocedures.aspx
indicated in most circumstances.
Calculations examples
For example:
EEO
Group
Applicants Hires Selection Rate
and Percent
Hired
Caucasian 80 48 48/80 or 60%
Latino 40 12 12/40 or 30%
A comparison of the Latino selection rate (30 percent) with the
Caucasian selection rate (60
percent) shows that the Latino rate is 30/60, or one-half (50
percent) of the Caucasian rate. Since
one-half (50 percent) is less than 4/5ths (80 percent) adverse
impact is usually indicated. Further
examples of how to calculate impact ratio are shown below for
both hiring and termination.

Step 1: Impact Ratio for Hiring—Calculate the Rate of
Selection
EEO
Group
Applicants Hires Percent
Hired
African
American
108 25 23
Latino 78 24 31
Caucasian 325 114 35
The group with the highest selection rate is Caucasian, with 35
percent. Next, calculate the
impact ratio.
Step 2: Impact Ratio for Hiring—Calculate the Impact Ratio
EEO
Group
Percent
Hired

Divide Impact
Ratio
Adverse
Impact?
Caucasian 35
African
American
23 23/35 66% Yes; it is
less than
80%
Latino 31 31/35 88% No; it is
more
than 80%
Adverse impact is determined first for the overall selection
process for each job. If the overall
selection process has an adverse impact, the adverse impact of
the individual selection procedure
should be analyzed. If the employer continues to use any
selection procedures that have an
adverse impact, the employer is expected to have evidence of

these procedures’ validity
satisfying the Guidelines.
In the next example, the impact ratio for termination is
calculated for a group of terminated
employees.
Step 1: Impact Ratio for Termination—Determine the Group
With the Lowest Rate of
Selection
EEO
Group
Employees Selected for
Termination
Percent
Selected
Males 162 12 7
Females 178 33 19
Clearly, the group with the lowest selection rate is male, with 7
percent. Next, calculate the
impact ratio. Remember, for negative actions, place the most

favored group’s rate in the
numerator position.
Step 2: Impact Ratio for Termination—Calculate the Impact
Ratio for Each Group
EEO
Group
Percent
Selected for
Termination
Divide Impact
Ratio
Adverse
Impact?
Male 7
Female 19 7/19 36% Yes; it is
less than
80%
Drawbacks to the use of the impact ratio
A major drawback to using the impact ratio is that it is subject

to sampling errors when the
sample size and selection rates are small. Employers should
note that there is language in the
Uniform Guidelines that allows for more rigorous statistical
tests (e.g., Chi Square or Fisher’s
exact test). In addition, depending on the distribution of the
data, one method may yield evidence
of adverse impact while another may not. Another key point to
remember is that after first
applying the adverse impact analysis to the overall selection
process, it may be applied to each
individual step in the process as well if adverse impact is found
in the overall selection process.
The analysis may be applied to any groups, such as
male/female, over/under age 40, etc.
Requirement for validation and continuous test monitoring
Employers should ensure that employment tests and other
selection procedures are properly
validated for the positions and purposes for which they are
used. The test or selection procedure
must be job-related and its results appropriate for the
employer’s purpose. While a testing
vendor’s documentation supporting the validity of a test may be
helpful evidence, the employer

is still solely responsible for ensuring that its tests are valid
under the Uniform Guidelines.
If a selection procedure screens out a protected group, the
employer should determine whether
there is an equally effective alternative selection procedure that
has less adverse impact and, if
so, adopt the alternative procedure. For example, if the
selection procedure is a test, the employer
should determine whether another test would predict job
performance but not disproportionately
exclude the protected group.
Best Practice Recommendations
The Center for Corporate Equality issued a 98-page Technical
Advisory Committee Report
on September 15, 2010, containing recommendations on best
practices in how to conduct
adverse impact analyses based on input from 70 of the nation’s
top experts in adverse impact
analyses. It has been suggested that any HR professional who
performs affirmative action plans
and adverse impact analyses can use the report as a “field
manual.” See, Report Reviews Best

Practices in Adverse Impact Analyses.
Among its numerous findings, the report concluded that the 80-
percent rule is not a very good
analysis “and may only be computed today because the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures still exist.”
Legal and policy issues
The following themes emerged from the report’s section on
legal and policy issues related to
adverse impact analyses:
• When internal and external job seekers apply together for the
same requisition, it is
reasonable to analyze them together to evaluate the impact of
the selection process.
However, if they are not being considered simultaneously, it is
reasonable to keep them
as two different pools for analysis.
• Although the statistical methodologies used for a disparate
impact and disparate
treatment or practice may be the same, the material facts of the
case and the ultimate

burden of proof are very different.
• Actionable adverse impact is difficult to define in the abstract.
Context has to be taken
into account before one can feel confident that the observed
differences in selection rates
are actionable under the law.
• Context always matters when making a decision on whether
applicant data can
reasonably be aggregated. Aggregating data across multiple
locations may be appropriate
if the selection process is standardized and applied consistently
from one location to
another.
• A statistically significant disparity for the “total minority”
aggregate without a statistical
indicator for a particular protected class (e.g., black, white,
Hispanic, Asian) is not legally
actionable impact in most situations.
Keep in mind that anything used to make a selection decision
may be considered a test and
should be monitored for adverse impact. If impact is identified,
the selection process should be

http://www.cceq.org/
http://www.cceq.org/pdfs/2010tacai.pdf
http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/Adve
rseImpactAnalyses.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/Adve
rseImpactAnalyses.aspx
validated in accordance with the Uniform Guidelines.
Other recommendations
Other recommendations from the report include:
• Organizations should not guess the gender or race of
applicants who do not self-identify
their race and/or gender. To be considered an applicant in an
adverse impact analysis, a
job seeker must meet the following five criteria: express an
interest in an open position
with an organization, follow an organization’s rules for
applying properly, meet the basic
qualifications for the position, actually be considered by the
organization and not
withdraw from the application process.
• Applicants who submit more than one application for an open
position should be counted
only once in the adverse impact analysis.

• Applicants who are offered a job should be counted as a
selection regardless of whether
they accept the offer.
• Measures of statistical and practical significance should be
included in determining the
existence of adverse impact.
• There are several measures of statistical significance that can
be used to determine
adverse impact. The appropriateness of any method is a function
of the way in which
employment decisions are made.
• The decision to aggregate data across jobs, locations or
requisitions should be made after
considering the degree of structure in the selection process as
well as the numerical and
demographic similarity of the locations and requisitions.
There are important differences in pattern or practice scenarios
and adverse impact. Disparity
analyses may play important roles in both scenarios, but care
should be taken to understand the
employment process being analyzed.
Acknowledgement— This article was prepared for SHRM
Online by the SHRM Knowledge

Center staff.
Publication Note—This treatment was first published in
December 2010. SHRM staff will
update it periodically as developments in the Staffing
Management Discipline warrant. For the
most recent developments, see the Staffing Management
Discipline and articles archived under
specific Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity
topics. Notify SHRM of
broken links or concerns about the content by e-mailing
[email protected]
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/d
efault.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/af
fact.aspx
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/staffingmanagement/Pages/ee
o.aspx
mailto:[email protected]Avoiding Adverse ImpactFrom
dverseImpact.aspx
Strategic Human Resources Management – Week #5 Lecture 1
Staffing and Training
Staffing is a key strategic HR activity which significantly
impacts organizational profitability. Recruitment and selection
issues are discussed, including interviewing, testing and
references. The outsourcing of staffing functions can present

both benefits and costs to an organization, and must be analyzed
appropriately before implementing. International assignments,
as well as diversity issues, are becoming more important in
managing the staffing function (Mello, 2015). Before a manager
can staff a position, he or she must decide whether or not the
position will be temporary or permanent. Temporary employees
who are obtained from an agency normally cost more per hour,
have no benefits, and are not paid if there’s no work to
complete. On the contrary, permanent employees have a lot of
benefits, which costs the organization more in the long run.
Many businesses outsource because it reduces cost for the
business by using contractors instead of part-time or full-time
employees. By doing this, the business does not have to pay for
benefits or compensation, and they are also not liable for any
accidents on the job.
Methods of recruiting include:
· Informally or formally
· Internally or externally
· Targeted advertising in selected media
· Recruiting on Internet
· Outsourcing to staffing agencies
· Private Industry Councils (PICs)
· Executive search firms
· On-campus recruiting (Mello, 2015)
Individual Development Plan (IDP)
Individual development plans (IDP) are part of an employee’s
growth and professional development. It is recommended that
managers encourage employees to update their annual (IDP) to
include the courses the employees need in order to grow
professionally, which gives the employees an opportunity to set
milestones and career goals. Minter and Thomas (2000) found
employees whose management does not allow them to
participate in real-time opportunities for solving problems and
making decisions view their management support to their career
attainment as artificial. Using career development programs can

provide an effective means for leadership to develop the
workforce and support employee career goals. Employees
should be involved in keeping current their IDP because it
outlines and identifies the necessary trainings for success and
career progression.
Training
Training and development represent the ongoing investment in
employees as assets with initiatives designed to increase that
value through employees acquiring knowledge and skills
(employee training), as well as through learning with a more
long term approach to employee careers and the organizational
strategy (employee development). Organizations now largely
favor the term “learning” over training, because learning
implies continual growth and development, emphasizing results
rather than process (Mello, 2015). Employee training and
development play a role in developing skills and increasing
worker value to the organization. From new-employee training,
known as "on-boarding," to classes on selling, safety, new
company initiatives and customer service, HR conducts,
evaluates and maintains attendance records on training
programs. It is the role of the HR office to choose the format
(video, webcast, role-playing, and lectures), location, vendors
and speakers to meet objectives and budget restrictions.
Employee development is a critical component of success for
growth within an organization because it gives the employee
opportunities acquire additional knowledge and skills, and
shows the employee that the organization is willing to invest in
his or her future.
Organizations that invest in employee training and development
also retain qualitied and knowledgeable employees. McNamara
(2006) states ―Effective management development programs
help students (learners) take a system‘s view of their
organizations, including review of how major functions affect
each other. Assignments include recognizing and addressing
effects of one action on their entire organization‖ (para. 5). An
effective training program must include practical applications

and follow-up techniques that build proper habits, and be a part
of the strategic planning process. According
to Aalbregtse (2007), a blended learning approach has to be a
well-coordinated training program consisting of: (a) enabled
knowledge – documents, articles, notes, and technical expertise;
(b) enabled distance learning – training modules, video
conferences, and Webcasts (c) enabled collaboration –
interactive peer-to-peer learning; (d) team-based simulation –
computer simulations; and (e) customized programs and
workshops (McElroy, 2003; Senge, 2006). Byrd (2006)
explained, “trained and educated employees are better able to
communicate with management. They ask thoughtful questions.
They make informed decisions for improved work performance”
(p. 7). Employees can access training through various methods
within the organization. The first is to review his/her job
description and individual development plan to determine if the
position and the employee require a specialized training or
certification that must be attained within a certain time frame of
being in the position. The employee can also work with his/her
manager or take the responsibility of finding training for
him/her. This process gives the employee the responsibility of
limiting themselves to certain trainings, but also acquiring
knowledge in other fields. Many organizations coordinate
training through their HR office, or based on the topic, their
Employee Assistance Program office.
References
Aalbregtse, J. (2007, June). The graying of an industry. ICIS
Chemical Business Americas, 271(2), 24-25.
Byrd, D. (2006). Organizational agility: Ongoing employee
education is key. American Society for Quality, 2(2), 7-9.
McElroy, M. W. (2003). The new knowledge management:
Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Burlington,
MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
McNamara, C. (2006). Historical and contemporary theories of
management. Retrieved from
http://managementhelp.org/management/theories.htm

Mello, J.A. (2015). Strategic human resource manageme nt. (4th
Ed). Cengage Learning
Minter, R. L. & Thomas, E. G. (2000). Employee development
through coaching, mentoring and counseling: A
multidimensional approach. Review of Business, 21(1/2): 43-47.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of
the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
1
Social Media 1
Week 5 Discussion 1:
Staffing and Training
Our focus this week will be on staffing organizations, and the
different recruitment methods Human Resources managers use
to hire qualified employees. There are various recruitment
methods used to attract employees, so as you work on this
week’s assignment, think of what it takes to retain qualified
employees. This week’s objective is to generate a plan to recruit
quality employment candidates. Have a great week!
Upon successful completion of this week's lesson, you should
be prepared to:
· Generate a plan to recruit quality employment candidates
Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:
· W5 Lecture – Staffing (See attachment)
· Staffing- An Overview - YouTube
· HR Management: Training & Development - YouTube
· Do you know the basics of employment law? - YouTube
· Chapter 8 – Employment Law - (See attachment)
Assignment

Management of Employee Attitude
Write 4-5 page paper discussing the following:
· Explore the benefits of management and employee attitudes.
· Specifically, the manager’s influence toward professional
training and development within organizations.
· How can organizations recruit and retain qualified employees?
· 3 – 4 references Do not use Wikipedia.
· APA citing
· No plagiarism
· All sources used must be cited both within the text and in a
references section at the end of the lecture (use APA
conventions for citing)

Chapter 8 – Staffing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Chapter 8 – Staffing

Similar to Chapter 8 – Staffing (20)

More from JinElias52

More from JinElias52 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter 8 – Staffing