Jose-Fiallos Approved Thesis

CREATION AND VALIDATION OF PARTIALLY AUTOMATED TALENT
ACQUISITION PROCESS MODEL
A Research Project
Presented to the Faculty of
The George L. Graziadio
School of Business and Management
Pepperdine University
________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
in
Organization Development
_______________________________
by
Jose Fiallos
December 2015
© 2015 Jose Fiallos

This research project, completed by
JOSE FIALLOS
Under the guidance of the Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been
submitted to and accepted by the faculty of The George L. Graziadio School of Business
and Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Date: December 2015
Faculty Committee
Committee Chair, Kent Rhodes, Ed.D.
Committee Member, Terri Egan, Ph.D.
David Smith, Ph. D., Dean
The George L. Graziadio School of Business and
Management

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to create and validate a new talent acquisition process
model that reduces human involvement and the possibilities for human bias in hiring
decisions. Ten hiring, management, and legal professionals reviewed the model and
provided comments regarding existing problems undermine current hiring processes, and
perceived validity and value of the proposed talent acquisition model. Participants agreed
that problems exist in the current process relative to human bias. They also agreed that
the process was valid and could expedite the talent acquisition process. However, only
40% agreed they would implement such a model in their organization. Human resources
participants believed the proposed process could work for entry-level, unskilled, and
intern positions that do not require interviews, but that it would not be appropriate for
director, manager, supervisor, and lead roles. Based on these results, organizations are
advised to evaluate organizational readiness for implementing the model; conduct an
initial thorough and ongoing periodic review of the model to assure it satisfies U.S.
employment, labor, and privacy laws; and begin piloting the process in small business
units.

Table of Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures................................................................................................................... vii
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1
Study Purpose ..........................................................................................................2
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................2
Organization of the Study........................................................................................3
2. Review of Literature ........................................................................................................4
Talent Acquisition....................................................................................................4
Elements of a Talent Acquisition Process ...............................................................7
Governing Laws.......................................................................................................9
Human Bias During Talent Acquisition ................................................................11
Talent Acquisition Process Model.........................................................................14
Existing models..........................................................................................14
Proposed model..........................................................................................16
3. Methods..........................................................................................................................23
Research Design.....................................................................................................23
Participants.............................................................................................................23
Data Collection ......................................................................................................24
Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................25
Summary................................................................................................................25
4. Results............................................................................................................................27
Participant Demographics......................................................................................27

Interview Findings .................................................................................................28
Problems experienced with current hiring practices..................................28
Validity of process proposed in model ......................................................29
Perceived value of and intent to use proposed model................................31
Summary................................................................................................................32
5. Discussion......................................................................................................................33
Conclusions............................................................................................................33
Limitations.............................................................................................................34
Recommendations and Suggestions for Research .................................................35
Summary................................................................................................................35
References..........................................................................................................................37
Appendix A: Sample Employment Application ................................................................40
Appendix B: Study Invitation............................................................................................45
Appendix C: Participant Pre-Interview Presentation.........................................................46
Appendix D: Participant Questionnaire.............................................................................57
Appendix E: Sample Job Descriptions ..............................................................................57

List of Tables
Table Page
1. Laws Governing the Hiring Process ........................................................................... 11
2. Process Compliance with Laws Governing the Hiring Process.................................. 21
3. Participant Demographics........................................................................................... 28
4. Perceived Problems with Current Hiring Practices..................................................... 29
5. Validity of Proposed Model........................................................................................ 30
6. Perceived Value and Intent to Use Proposed Model................................................... 31

List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Proposed Talent Acquisition Process Model .............................................................. 17
2. Evaluation of Employee Assessment Scores .............................................................. 19

1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Talent acquisition refers to the process of finding and acquiring qualified human
labor to fill open positions and meet other organizational needs and labor requirement
(Morgan, 2014). The process is multifaceted, challenging, time consuming, and fraught
with potential dangers, as organizations expose themselves to substantial legal exposure
and costs in the event of negligent or discriminatory hiring decisions (Caudron, 2002;
“How to Avoid,” 2006). Beyond legal exposure, many traditional hiring processes rely
upon subjective decision making by recruiters and hiring managers, which leaves
substantial room for conscious and unconscious cognitive biases to undermine the
process, potentially resulting in suboptimal hiring decisions (Baron, 2007; Hilbert, 2012;
Kahneman & Tversky, 1972; Mather, Shafir, & Johnson, 2000; Oswald & Grosjean,
2004). It follows that the talent acquisition process has three central aims: improving the
hiring decision (hiring the best candidate), decreasing hiring costs, and decreasing legal
exposure.
Several authors have advocated that companies need to optimize and automate
their talent acquisition processes to hire the best candidates for open position (Miller,
2015; Sahay, 2015). Moreover, it is essential that these processes comply with the many
local, state, and federal regulations that govern hiring processes (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2014; Lindemann, Grossman, & Weirich, 2014).
Two organizations—Gallup and SAP—have emerged as pioneers in the effort to
automate, streamline, and remove biases from the hiring process and have reported
successes in increasing the candidate pool, successfully hiring qualified candidates,
reducing complaints from individuals about the application process, and reducing hiring

2
costs (Gallup, 2015; Jeffrey & Woolley, 2015). The present research project focuses on
creating and validating a new talent acquisition process model for one organization.
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study was to create and validate a new talent acquisition
process model that reduces human involvement and the possibilities for human bias in
hiring decisions. The new hiring process was created based on a review of existing theory
and research. The process was presented to legal, management, and hiring professionals
and they were interviewed with respect to three research questions:
1. What problems do legal, management, and hiring professionals believe
undermine current hiring processes?
2. What is the validity of the newly proposed hiring process, according to legal,
management, and hiring professionals?
3. What is the perceived value of the newly proposed hiring process, according
to legal, management, and hiring professionals?
Significance of the Study
Cummings and Worley (2014) asserted, “Organizational development is a system
wide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned
development, improvement and reinforcement of the strategies, structures and processes
that lead to organizational effectiveness” (p. 1). This research contributes to the field of
organizational development by proposing a model that will impact an organizations most
valuable asset, its people and provides a framework to make the organization effective in
the manner in which it processes people into the organization.

3
Organization of the Study
This chapter provided the background for the study. The study purpose was
identified and the study setting was described. The importance of conducting the study
also was discussed.
Chapter 2 provides a review and examination of past theory and research related
to the study. The chapter reviews theory and research related to talent acquisition, the
talent acquisition process, and human bias and how it affects talent acquisition. The
proposed talent acquisition process model also is presented and explained.
Chapter 3 outlines the methods that were used in this qualitative research project.
The research design along with the procedures related to sampling, data collection, and
data analysis are discussed.
Chapter 4 reports the results of the study. This chapter reviews the results of the
participant interviews regarding the perceived validity and viability of the process model.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the study results. Key findings and conclusions
are identified, along with recommendations, limitations of the study, and suggestions for
research.

4
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
hiring decisions. This chapter provides a review of the literature that was used to create
the process model. Literature on employment, privacy, and labor laws; adverse impact;
the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures; social media trends; and
hiring practices is reviewed, along with the viewpoints of subject matter experts in the
fields of human resources, talent acquisition, and law.
First, talent acquisition is discussed in terms of its definition, various participants,
timing, importance, and metrics of success. Second, the elements of the talent acquisition
process are discussed, followed by identification of the governing laws that must be
observed during the hiring process. Third, the concept of human bias and how it affects
talent acquisition is discussed. Finally, the new talent acquisition process model is
presented and explained.
Talent Acquisition
Talent acquisition refers to the process of finding and acquiring qualified human
labor to fill open positions and meet other organizational needs and labor requirement
(Morgan, 2014). The talent acquisition process typically is led by the human resources
department, although it is conducted within the oversight of senior leaders and often
involves team members and managers from the affected department who function as
technical interviewers and hiring managers. The process can be challenging, as it requires
the concerted action of multiple organization members and the collection, synthesis, and
analysis of many disparate pieces of information. Moreover, the process needs to be

5
conducted efficiently and sometimes urgently to fill organizational needs. This alone can
be quite challenging, as the process of vetting candidates and acquiring talent is time
consuming.
Above all, the process needs to be valid, meaning that suitable candidates are
selected, and legally defensible, meaning it does not increase the employer’s risks of
lawsuits due to (a) harassment and discrimination claims from applicants or terminated
employees or (b) negligence or malpractice claims from customers or the public as a
result of hiring inadequately screened and unqualified applicants. Negligent hiring claims
are a fast-growing area of employment litigation (“How to Avoid,” 2006): “An
organization can be sued for negligence if it hires someone it knew, or, in the exercise of
reasonable care, should have known was dangerous, unfit, or unqualified for the job” (p.
4). Therefore, sound recruiting and hiring practices are essential for protecting the legal
exposure of the organization (Caudron, 2002).
It follows that the talent acquisition process has three central aims: improving the
hiring decision (hiring the best candidate), decreasing hiring costs, and decreasing legal
exposure. First, the talent acquisition process needs to be fine-tuned to help the company
hire the best candidate for the open position (Sahay, 2015). This requires accessing job-
related information about the candidate, rapidly synthesizing and making sense of the
data, and streamlining decision making process when possible. Second, hiring costs need
to be reduced, both in terms of capital investment, human resource investment, and time
invested in the process. Sahay asserted that it is increasingly critical to hire the right
person in a timely manner.
Third, the hiring decision is highly scrutinized and subject to local, state, and
federal regulations. Between 2000 and 2014, the EEOC (2014) reported receiving

6
471,876 claims related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Pay of 1963 Act, and
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Of these, 38,519 claims (8.2%) stemmed
from hiring decisions, 34,520 (7.3%) from promotion decisions, and 318,669 (67.5%)
from termination decisions, the most litigated of all employment actions (Lindemann et
al., 2014). It is important to note that these figures do not include data from state agencies
such as the Department of Federal Employment & Housing in California, which handles
discrimination and harassment claim processing for the state.
Employment decision lawsuits are very costly for organizations and these can
occur as the result of mistakes managers and other company personnel make during
interactions with candidates. For example, in Bruno v. City of Crown Point, a male
interviewer asked a female applicant how her husband would feel about her working 24-
hour shifts and inquired about child care arrangements for her son (Lindemann et al.,
2015). This is an example of inappropriate questions that cannot be asked, as it is not
related to the candidate’s qualifications, skills, or experience.
Legal exposure also can result due to company requirements that inadvertently
conflict with a candidate’s protected status. In Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled against the
employer for failure to accommodate a job applicant who wore a hijab, a veil covering
the head and chest that some Muslim women outside their homes as a form of modest
attire (Glasse, 2001). In this case, the employer declined to hire complainant Samantha
Elauf as a sales associate because her hijab violated the company's look policy, which at
the time prohibited employees from wearing head coverings (Levine, 2015). Although
Elauf was not informed of the look policy, she believed she was not selected because of

7
her religious beliefs. Abercrombie argued that it was up to the applicant to request an
accommodation for religious reasons, which under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
employers must provide reasonable accommodation without undue hardship.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that it is the employer’s responsibility to provide
an accommodation even when a candidate does not ask for one.
These cases demonstrate the criticality that employers’ hiring practices align with
employment law. Moreover, the cost of terminations (and possibly the cost of lawsuits
concerning alleged wrongful terminations) may also be mitigated through improved
hiring practices that better distinguish qualified applicants. The next section reviews the
components of the talent acquisition process.
Elements of a Talent Acquisition Process
The typical talent acquisition process in a medium to large organization involves
numerous steps, beginning with the hiring manager identifying job opening (Taylor &
Kleiner, 2000). Next, human resources personnel meets the with hiring manager to write
job description and then classifies the job according to internal job classification
standards. A requisition is opened for approval at all levels, including next level manager
and finance. The job is then posted on internal and external sites.
The job opening is reviewed by recruiters (Taylor & Kleiner, 2000). Recruiters
may be internal or external to the organization (Mooney, 2002; Taylor & Kleiner, 2000;
Wang & Kleiner, 2002). The recruiter retrieves the resumes of potential candidates and
ranks these according to the required job qualifications. The recruiter and hiring manager
review the resumes and determine which candidates to pre-screen.
The recruiter pre-screens candidates and then forwards to the hiring manager
those candidates who meet defined criteria (e.g., salary range, experience, qualifications).

8
Screening is important to assure that the best employee for the position is selected and
hired (Wang & Kleiner, 2002). The recruiter schedules candidates for the hiring manager
to interview (Taylor & Kleiner, 2000). The hiring manager interviews the candidates and
forwards to the next-level manager those candidates he or she believes are the best fit for
the organization.
The next-level manager reviews and then approves or disapproves the candidates
selected by the hiring manager. Candidates who are identified as meeting the criteria or
being a fit are then scheduled to meet with others from the department or from internal
client groups.
Once a candidate is selected, it is essential to perform a detailed background
investigation, which could include checking the candidate’s criminal history; verifying
his or her social security number, identification, driver’s license, education, employment,
and any professional licenses; checking his or her personal credit history; reviewing his
or her military discharge records; and conducting drug testing (Caudron, 2002; Lavashina
& Campion, 2009). Another important aspect of screening is thoroughly checking one’s
references (Lavashina & Campion, 2009). For positions in the financial industry,
candidates may undergo even further testing (Wang & Kleiner, 2002). Once the candidate
passes the background screening, he or she typically is hired.
Screening potential and current employees is critical to safeguarding the company
and its ongoing existence and success. However, research by the Society for Human
Resource Management (SHRM, 2011) suggests that few employers conduct what might
be considered adequate screening: 53% of respondents stated they do not conduct credit
checks and 14% do not conduct a criminal background check. Absence of adequate
screening and vetting processes increases organizations’ legal exposure, which can

9
become quite costly in terms of its financial bottom-line, reputation, performance, and
morale.
Governing Laws
Organizations must comply with numerous employment and labor laws.
Moreover, new laws are made and court decisions continue to be set, making the task of
legal compliance an ongoing challenge. For example, recently passed legislation often
referred to as Ban the Box prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant's
criminal history on an application for employment (Mora, Fliegel, & Travers, 2013). The
law provides employment-related protection for ex-offenders and provides ex-offenders
with an avenue to re-enter the workforce. Specifically, the law requires employers to
inquire about criminal history only late in the process, after the decision has been made to
interview or extend a conditional job offer to the applicant (Minnesota Department of
Human Rights, 2013). Ban the Box legislation is currently in effect in
Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Rhode
Island and in the following cities: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Boston,
Massachusetts; Atlantic City and Newark, New Jersey; San Francisco, California; and
Detroit, Michigan. At least 43 cities and/or counties have additionally passed Ban the
Box legislation.
The intention of these and other laws is to offer fair and equal access to
candidates. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures apply to all
selection procedures used to make employment decisions, including interviews, review of
experience or education from application forms, work samples, physical requirements,
and evaluations of performance. The guidelines are designed to aid in the achievement of
the United States goal of equal employment opportunity without discrimination on the

10
grounds of race, color, sex, religion or national origin (Lindemann et al., 2014). The
overlaying principle in the Uniform Guidelines is the use of tests and other selection
procedures by employers and it provides a framework for determining the proper use of
the test and other selection procedures without creating an adverse impact.
Adverse impact occurs when a decision, practice, or policy has a
disproportionately negative effect on a protected group. Adverse Impact may be
unintentional (Performance Programs Inc, 2015). Adverse impact occurs when an
employer makes a decision that impacts employment decision that is governed by an
employment law, hence the importance of reviewing the adverse impact of the proposed
assessment to be used by employers if they elect to replace the human factor with
assessments. The Guidelines require employers to have a selection process that is fair and
a proper use of testing or assessment tools without creating an adverse impact.
Employment, labor and privacy laws are implemented and overseen by the U.S.
Department of Labor (Ferguson, 2009). These laws aim to prohibit discrimination against
any applicant based on gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, color, disability,
or personal practices. Employers often create best practices concerning standards of
conduct and ethics to avoid discrimination on these grounds (Lindemann et al., 2014).
Table 1 describes the predominant employment laws governing the hiring process.
It is important to note that privacy matters are, by nature, a topic that is broad in
scope. Privacy, as defined in the present research project, concerns candidates’ drug
testing, criminal history, posting on social media sites, credit reports, hair and dress, and
off-duty conduct. Privacy is a topic of rapidly growing relevance, given the ubiquity of
social media. Although employers should not ask for access to candidates’ social media
sites and research into candidates’ postings on social media sites should be done with

11
utmost care, employers are reportedly reviewing and making hiring and firing decisions
based on these posts (Fair Measures, 1997-2015). This can dramatically increase
employers’ legal exposure, as searching for candidates on social media can lead them to
discover information about candidates’ protected conditions and statuses in this way,
creating grounds for a lawsuit. Attorneys predict that privacy will surpass wrongful
termination as the leading workplace issue of the 21st century.
Table 1
Laws Governing the Hiring Process
Law Description
Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964
Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and
national origin.
The Pregnancy
Discrimination Act
Prohibits employment discrimination based on the applicant being pregnant.
The Equal Pay Act of
1963
Prohibits sex-based wage discrimination between men and women in the same
establishment who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and
responsibility under similar working conditions.
The Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of
1967
Prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older.
The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990
Prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment
agencies, and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals
with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement,
compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of
employment.
The Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act
of 2008
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information when it comes to
any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments,
promotions, layoffs, training, fringe benefits, or any other term or condition of
employment.
The National Labor
Relations Act
Guarantees basic rights of private sector employees to organize into trade
unions, engage in collective bargaining for better terms and conditions at work,
and take collective action including strike. Any collective bargaining
agreements go into effect only once the candidate is hired and becomes an
employee under the definition of employee between the union and the
employer.
Privacy laws Employers must follow strict guidelines so as not to violate candidates’
privacy.1
1
Privacy as defined in the present research project concern candidates’ drug testing, criminal history,
posting on social media sites, credit reports, hair and dress, and off-duty conduct.
Human Bias During Talent Acquisition
Cognitive bias is commonly studied within psychology and economics and refers
to the tendency to think in habitual ways that result in systematic deviations from a

12
standard of rationality or good judgment (Kahneman & Tversky, 1972). Some biases are
the results of mental shortcuts people use when processing information and making
decisions or judgments (Baron, 2007; Kahneman & Tversky, 1972). Hilbert (2012) added
that biases may be cold (e.g., resulting from such things as mental noise) and/or hot (e.g.,
resulting from specific motivations such as wishful thinking. Many types of cognitive
biases are relevant to the talent acquisition process, such as choice-supportive bias, which
means the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were (Mather
et al., 2000); confirmation bias, which means the tendency to search for, interpret, focus
on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions; and the
framing effect, which means drawing different conclusions from the same information,
depending on how that information is presented (Oswald & Grosjean, 2004). These and
other cognitive biases have affected how talent acquisition is conducted.
For example, before the Internet, employers solicited candidates by placing a
classified ad in the local newspaper; this was normally printed on Sundays. Each
classified ad often appeared only once. Once the ad was placed, employers waited for
resumes to come in through regular mail. A recruiter would review and organize the
resumes based on skills, experience, and qualifications. The recruiter would then pre-
screen candidates selected utilizing an internal qualifying methodology. From this pool of
pre-screened candidates, a select number of candidates would be selected for in-person
interviews with the hiring manager or interview committee. Thereafter, a decision to hire
or decline a candidate was made. This entire process is subject to substantial human bias,
from the point at which resumes are manually reviewed and organized, to the interviews,
to the point of the hiring/declination decision.

13
With the launch of LinkedIn in 2003 (“LinkedIn,” 2015, p. 1), Monster in 1999
(“Monster.com,” 2015, p. 1) and CareerBuilder in 1995 (“CareerBuilder,” 2015, p. 1), the
sourcing process was streamlined to include a detailed job description, the employer’s
contact information, and a link for candidates to apply. This link led candidates to apply
via a database, which easily stored the candidate's personal information, including
experience, skills, employment history, and contact information. This allowed the
recruiter to easily sort and search for specific qualifications, experience and educational
background on all candidates. The interview process in the Internet era remained pretty
much the same as the pre-Internet era, while claims of harassment and discrimination
have basically remained unchanged. It follows that despite increased efficiency in
advertising job openings, receiving candidate applications, and screening and
categorizing candidates, human bias remains prevalent in the process.
One of the reasons for this is that a key step in the hiring process is the interview.
Hiring managers may err during the interview process by asking the wrong or
inappropriate question, leading the candidates to feel they were not selected because of a
trait they possess that is protected by law, such as religion, age, gender, or other reasons
unrelated to their job qualifications. Miller (2015) asserted that hiring managers often do
make hiring decisions unconsciously “based on similarities that have nothing to do with
the job requirements—like whether an applicant has a friend in common, went to the
same school or likes the same sports” (para. 2).
Not only can these biases result in poor decisions (Baron, 2007; Hilbert, 2012;
Kahneman & Tversky, 1972; Mather et al., 2000; Oswald & Grosjean, 2004); but also,
the legal exposure and potential costs of these errors of bias is immense (Burns, 2012;
Greenhouse, 2012). According to the Center for American Progress, workplace

14
discrimination costs employers $64 billion annually (Burns, 2012). For example, in
March 2012, FedEx paid $3 million to settle discrimination claims made by job
applicants (Greenhouse, 2012). The potential for costly bias to seep in to every stage of
the hiring process suggests that employers needs to dramatically reshape how the hiring
process is made.
Human biases can be mitigated during talent acquisition by retrieving and making
use of candidate information available online, in public records, on social media, through
academic and employment records, thus minimizing liability (Miller, 2015). Miller
asserted that the talent acquisition process needs to be automated to remove biases even
further. Miller added that an automated process may be more efficient and effective than
traditional approaches, yielding an improved hiring decision with less legal exposure.
The next section reviews existing talent acquisition process models and also presents the
model proposed in the present study.
Talent Acquisition Process Model
Existing models. Two organizations have become pioneers in the effort to
automate, streamline, and remove biases from the hiring process. One such organization
is Gallup, which has fine-tuned their selection processes to include a proprietary
assessment designed to discover candidates’ qualifications and experiences as well as
their patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior that help candidates be productive and
deliver excellent performance. The organization has defined a desired employee profile
using their most successful employees as their guide. The organization explains to
applicants, “Gallup's online assessment helps us learn more about your specific talents in
regard to a particular career path at Gallup” (Gallup, 2015, para. 1). Each applicant is
allowed to complete the assessment only once. Applicants who do not match the desired

15
talent profile are not allowed to retake the assessment or proceed in the selection process.
Gallup believes that this process allows them to “more accurately predict your future
success at Gallup . . . [and] understand your talents so we can find the role at Gallup that
gives you the opportunity to do what you do best every day” (para. 1).
SAP is a world leader in enterprise application software that endeavored to design
an algorithm that could replace campus recruiters in the process of attracting qualified
college new hires (Jeffrey & Woolley, 2015). SAP began by mapping out its process of
prescreening candidates. Recruiters utilized a traditional approach of recruiting by
considering which university the candidate was attending along with his or her exam
scores, grade point average projection, and work experience. SAP quickly concluded that
this approach introduced substantial biases. Moreover, the organization suspected that its
best sales candidates may not come from the top universities it traditionally targeted. Its
new aim was to open the doors to all students, regardless of the university they attend.
SAP outlined a new process, which included generating applications through
social media and digital marketing campaigns and then driving those interested applicants
to an online assessment tool (Jeffrey & Woolley, 2015). The process of re-routing of
candidates to online assessments removed recruiters from the time intensive process of
pre-screening and sifting through thousands of resumes.
SAP’s process also included an assessments based on behavioral characteristics
employees need to be successful in the company. Following completion of the 10-minute
cultural assessment and a 20-minute situational judgment assessment, the automated
process delivered deliver real-time pass/fail feedback to candidates. This feature not only
helped removed hiring biases and reduce the time to hire; but it also provides job
applicants with timely information about the status of their candidacy. If the graduates

16
passed these assessments, they would then be invited to boot camp, which includes a day
of fun-oriented assessments and opportunities to gain insights about the company.
SAP reported the following successes associated with its automated hiring
process: having 1 million site visitors globally; 50,000 individuals having applied and
started the assessment, making 500 hires globally, receiving zero complaints from
candidates about the experience, estimating $389,000 in cost savings in year 1, and
decreasing the dropout rate from 93% to 25%. SAP concluded that the new direction of
their graduate recruitment represented a strategic change, the process was innovative and
some subject matter experts have referred to the process as “potentially industry
redefining” (Jeffrey & Woolley, 2015). The next section describes the talent acquisition
process model proposed in the present study.
Proposed model. The literature examined and discussed in this chapter has led to
a suggested talent acquisition process model that has been designed and will be validated
using subject matter experts as part of the present study. The process begins with the
employer posting a job followed by five key steps (see Figure 1): (a) the Applicant
Pertinent Information (API) process, (b) personality and behavioral assessment, (c) hard
skills testing, (d) background check, and (e) vetting process. Following each of the first
three steps, a pass/fail decision is made. A Pass means the candidate proceeds to the next
step, whereas a Fail leads to a declination letter being sent.
Candidates who pass the hard skills testing are eligible to receive a job offer. If an
offer is extended and accepted, the candidate proceeds to the fourth step of the

17
Figure 1
Proposed Talent Acquisition Process Model

18
background check. Candidates who fail this step receive a declination letter, whereas
candidates who pass to employee onboarding.
During and following onboarding, candidates undergo continued vetting to
confirm the accuracy of the information provided by the candidate. At this stage,
employees may be legally terminated for falsification of records (Guerin & Nolo, 2015).
For example, candidates may be fired for failing to list a previous employer on a resume,
failing to admit to being terminated, failing to reveal a prior felony conviction, or lying
about their education and experience on a job application. Candidates who pass this step
continue in their positions for the remainder of a 90-day probationary period, at which
time they undergo a performance evaluation. Candidates who fail the performance
evaluation are terminated for poor performance while candidates who pass this phase
proceed into the next phase of employment, at which point the model concludes. The
following sections describe the steps in this process.
Applicant pertinent information. The first step, Collecting API, would involve
gathering the information necessary for the employer to reach a decision on whether or
not to hire a candidate, including the candidate’s resume; educational, military, and
employment history; credit score; criminal background; and application for employment
(see Appendix A). A third party or internal recruiter may help collect and verify this
information.
Personality and behavioral assessment. The Hogan Personality Inventory would
be used to assess candidates. The Hogan Personality Inventory identifies the qualities that
describes how the candidates relate to others when they are at their best (Performance
Programs Inc., 2015). The assessment is written at a fourth-grade reading level, consists
of 206 true-false questions and is organized into 15 scales, including Adjustment,

19
Ambition, Sociability, Interpersonal Sensitivity, relationships, Prudence, Inquisitive,
Learning Approach, and occupational scales that predict performance in a specific roles
such as: Service Orientation, Stress Tolerance, Reliability, Clerical Potential, Sales
Potential, and Managerial Potential. The assessment is administered online and takes 15-
20 minutes to complete. Scoring and reporting are instantaneous. The instrument has
been normed on more than 500,000 working adults worldwide and validated for more
than 200 occupations covering all major industries.
The employer may define a profile of low, medium, and high performers in the
organization based on assessment results, thus allowing for better decision making based
on the Hogan assessment results. Figure 2 shows an example of this type of decision
making. The area in green displays the scores low performers reported for 10
competencies, whereas red indicates the average (minimally acceptable) performers, and
blue depicts the competencies of high performers. Each candidate’s scores could be
plotted on this graph to offer a prediction of his or her own future performance at the
company. This approach is similar to that of Gallup’s (2015) process described earlier in
this chapter.
Figure 2
Evaluation of Employee Assessment Scores

20
Hard skills testing. A common hiring practice is to test candidates’ skills to
assure they possess the abilities required in the job. Specific tests used in this phase
would vary based on the job requirements, but may include communication, reading,
language, and technical skills testing.
Background check. The background check, which by law is not conducted until
after the employer has made an offer of employment, typically is performed by a third
party. This phase typically involves gathering, verifying, and reporting the candidate’s
criminal and credit history as well as places of residence, department of motor vehicle
records, and presence on any sex offender registries.
Vetting process. Vetting occurs after employee onboarding and involves further
verification of the information the candidate provided during the hiring process. For
example, age is derived from the I-9 form that must be filled out to legally work in the
U.S. From this, employers can deduce whether the candidate’s claims related to their
years of experience and legal right to work in the U.S. are valid.
Social media check. Although employers are increasingly using applicants' social
media postings to inform their hiring decisions, the talent acquisition process model
advises employers to refrain from asking for access to candidates' social media accounts,
as the law prohibits this. At most, social media research on candidates should be
delegated to a third party that removes any revealing information about candidates'
protected classifications (e.g., race, age, disability).
Legal compliance. The hiring process is heavily scrutinized and regulated.
Throughout this process, organizations are highly vulnerable to legal exposure.
Therefore, it was essential to assure that the proposed model satisfied existing rules and

21
regulations. Table 2 presents the outcome of this analysis. As the table shows, the
proposed model does not violate any U.S. employment, labor, or privacy laws.
Table 2
Process Compliance with Laws Governing the Hiring Process
Law Applicant Pertinent
Information
Assessment Background Check Vetting Process
Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964
No data are gathered
regarding the candidate’s
race, color, religion, etc.
Assessment does
not create an
adverse impact
against any
persons in
protected classes
Check not performed until
after offer is made
Vetting not
performed until
after employee
is hired
The Pregnancy
Discrimination Act
No data are gathered regarding the candidate’s pregnancy status
The Equal Pay Act of
1963
Salary history is not
reviewed or verified until
after an offer is extended
Salary history is
not gathered as
part of this
process
Candidate must agree to
have salary history
verified as part of
employment verification
process
Salary history is
not gathered as
part of this
process
The Age
Discrimination in
Employment Act of
1967
Age is not gathered in this step Age is gathered
and verified
only after
employee has
been hired
The Americans with
Disabilities Act of
1990
No data are gathered
regarding the candidate’s
disability status, although
API does ask about
accommodations
candidate would need
No data are
gathered
regarding the
candidate’s
disability status
Any information about
candidate’s disability
status may be uncovered
by third party and not
shared with employer
Disability status
may learned
about only after
employee has
been hired
The Genetic
Information
Nondiscrimination
Act of 2008
No genetic information is gathered from the
candidate
Drug testing is performed
by a third party and no
further genetic
information is gathered
from the candidate
No genetic
information is
gathered from
the candidate
The National Labor
Relations Act
No data about candidate’s past or present union affiliations or labor activities are gathered
Privacy laws No protected data is gathered from the
candidate
Personal information
(e.g., credit history) is
gathered and reviewed by
a third party. Details are
not shared with employer.
These checks are
performed only after an
offer of employment is
extended.
No protected
data is gathered
from the
candidate
Note: Hard Skills Testing is not presented in this table, as it is a standard step in the process and only tests job-related
capabilities. Employers also are advised to refrain from asking for access to candidates’ social media sites or reviewing
or gather candidate’s social media content to avoid legal exposure by learning about candidates’ protected statuses.

22
The proposed talent acquisition process model is anticipated to mitigate the
impact of human bias during hiring process and improve the hiring decision, while
decreasing legal exposure, hiring costs, and time to fill positions. The next chapter
describes the methods that were used to validate this proposed model.

23
Chapter 3
Methods
and research and was presented in Chapter 2. This chapter describes the methods used in
the study. The research design along with the procedures related to participant selection,
data collection, and data analysis are discussed.
Research Design
This study employed a qualitative research interviewing design. A 24-question
interview script was used to gather participants' perceptions of a proposed hiring model,
which the researcher created based on a review of literature.
Participants
A combination of criterion and convenience sampling strategies were used to
recruit participants for this study. Selection criteria were as follows:
1. Participant held a legal, talent acquisition, employee relations, performance
management, or operations management role. This criterion was created to
assure that the participant is familiar with the rules, regulations, and
procedures that govern and shape hiring practices.
2. Participant held a generalist, human resources manager, director, vice
president, or executive level position. This criterion was created to assure that
the participant had sufficient responsibility, influence, and visibility to
anticipate the possible impacts of the model if used for hiring.
3. Participant had been in his or her position (or similar one) for at least 3 years.
This criterion was established to assure that the participant had sufficient
experience in the role to anticipate the possible impacts of the model if used
for hiring.

24
To begin participant selection, the researcher listed 20 potential interview
participants from within his organization who were believed to satisfy the selection
criteria. An email (see Appendix B) was sent to all prospective participants that explained
the proposed talent acquisition model and the purpose of the research and invited them to
take part in the study. When a prospective participant contacted the researcher, he
confirmed that the individual satisfied the selection criteria and then scheduled a
telephone interview. Of the 20 invitations issued, 10 individuals responded and
completed an interview.
It is important to note that convenience sampling, as used in this study, limits the
scope and range of perspectives only to those found within the researcher's organization
and, furthermore, to those known to the researcher. This may result in findings that are
only applicable to the study organization or to the perspectives of the individuals
involved in the study, thus limiting the transferability of the findings (Glesne, 1999).
Data Collection
Interviews were conducted in person or using WebEx to gather participants'
perspectives about the model regarding its viability for use in their organization. The
interview began with the researcher reiterating the purpose of the study, presenting the
proposed hiring model, the employment application that would be used as part of the
process, and the list of the laws that the model was intended to satisfy. This information,
as presented to participants, is outlined in Appendix C.
Following presentation of the model and supporting information, an interview
script (see Appendix D) was used to gather data. Interviewees were asked about three
topics:

25
1. Problems experienced with current hiring practices. Interviewees were asked
eight questions to solicit information about the problems they currently
experience during the hiring process. These questions tested for interviewees'
awareness of the human errors that can affect the hiring process. For example,
Question 4 asked, “As a manager have you ever asked the wrong question or
by mistake ask a question that is not appropriate?” Question 8 additionally
gauged participants' receptiveness to forgoing interviews as a part of the
hiring process.
2. Validity of process proposed in model. Eleven questions were posed to gather
participants' evaluation of the validity of the proposed process, relative to
applicant information to be gathered, the vetting process, incorporation of
social media, incorporation of assessments, compliance with laws, and overall
timing and sequencing. For example, Question 18 asked, “Do you agree with
the model as mapped is accurate of the talent acquisition process?”
3. Perceived value of and intent to use proposed model. Participants were asked
five questions to evaluate whether they found the model valuable and whether
they would use it, if available. For example, Question 24 asked, “If given the
opportunity, would you implement such a model in your organization?”
Data Analysis Procedures
Participants' responses were recorded using typewritten notes. The number of
affirmative and negative answers was recorded for each answer. Descriptive responses
were analyzed using the following steps, based on Creswell (2009):
1. The researcher read the notes from all the interviews for each question to
review the range and depth of data gathered.
2. The researcher created a start list of codes that appeared to reflect the data in
the interview notes.
3. Interview notes were coded to reflect which phrases and sentences fit with
which codes.
4. Following coding, the codes were reviewed for fit and power. Codes that were
lightly used, not used at all, or whose wording did not appear to best reflect
the data were revised and the interview notes were recoded accordingly.
Summary
This study utilized a qualitative research interviewing design. A 24-question
interview script was used to gather participants' perceived problems with the hiring

26
process, validity of the proposed process, and value of and intent to use the model, if
available. Ten participants from the study organization were interviewed who held a
legal, talent acquisition, employee relations, performance management, or operations
management role were interviewed. The next chapter reports the results.

27
Chapter 4
Results
and research and was presented in Chapter 2. The process was presented to legal,
management, and hiring professionals and they were interviewed with respect to three
research questions:
This chapter reports the results of the study. Participant demographics are presented first,
followed by a report of the interview findings.
Participant Demographics
Ten participants (five male, five female) were interviewed for this research. All
participants were located in North America and worked for the study organization.
Participants had substantial experience, ranging from 5 to 30 years (M = 22.5, SD = 8.9).
Five participants were from human resources and were involved in sourcing and selecting
candidates, four were in operations and assumed the role of hiring manager when filling
positions, and one was from the legal department and fulfilled the aim of providing legal
counsel regarding employment law. Participant demographics are presented in Table 3.

28
Table 3
Participant Demographics
Gender Ethnicity Position Years
Experience
Hiring Responsibility: Sourcing and Selecting Candidates
Female White Human resources manager 25
Female White Certified professional in human resources 30
Male White Chief human resources officer 30
Female Hispanic Human resources manager 15
Female African
American
Human resources generalist 5
Hiring Responsibility: Hiring Manager
Male East Indian Vice president manufacturing operations 25
Male White Chief operating officer of manufacturing
operations
20
Female African
American
Manufacturing supervisor 30
Male East Indian Director of manufacturing 30
Hiring Responsibility: Provide Legal Counsel
Male African
American
General counsel 15
Interview Findings
Problems experienced with current hiring practices. Interviewees were asked
eight questions to solicit information about the problems they currently experience during
the hiring process. Results for these questions are presented in Table 4 Participants
answered three questions unanimously and affirmatively. They agreed that employers
may terminate the employment relationship for falsifying records, that interviews should
not be mandated, and that they have observed operations managers asking wrong
questions. Similarly, 80% reported having experienced hiring managers misbehave or act
inappropriately during an interview. The least endorsed questions were those that asked
participants to admit their own mistakes of asking wrong questions or lengthening the

29
interview process to too many interviews. Only half the sample answered these items
affirmatively.
Table 4
Perceived Problems with Current Hiring Practices
Question
Yes No No
response
1. As an HR professional have you experienced any
operations manager asking the wrong question or
information that is not pertinent?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
7. As a professional, do you agree that an employer may
terminate the employment relationship for falsifying
records?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
8. Do you agree that employment and labor laws do not
mandate the employer to interview a candidate?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
2. Have you experienced any hiring manager misbehave or
act inappropriately during an interview?
8
(80%)
0
(0%)
2
(20%)
3. Have you ever had to defend a hiring decision you made
or one of your hiring managers?
7
(70%)
3
(30%)
5. In your experience have you ever experienced a lengthy
interview process?
7
(70%)
3
(30%)
4. As a manager have you ever asked the wrong question
or by mistake ask a question that is not appropriate?
5
(50%)
5
(50%)
6. In your experience have you ever been responsible for
lengthening the interview process to too many interviews?
5
(50%)
5
(50%)
Validity of process proposed in model. Eleven questions were posed to gather
participants' evaluation of the validity of the proposed process, relative to applicant
information to be gathered, the vetting process, incorporation of social media,
incorporation of assessments, compliance with laws, and overall timing and sequencing.
Results for these questions are presented in Table 5 Participants unanimously and
affirmatively answered 8 of the 11 questions. However, regarding legal compliance,
participants responded, “I'm not a lawyer,” “I cannot tell you it cannot be challenged,”
“That's a lot of laws,” and “Makes sense.” Regarding use of social media, open-ended
comments included, “I don't have time to check social media,” and “People have to be

30
careful what they post.” Regarding assessments, one participant stated, “We need that
here,” while another asked, “Do they take long?” Regarding the vetting process, one
participant shared, “We don't do that once people start.” Regarding the overall process,
operations managers stated they never knew so much went into considering whether or
not to hire an applicant.
Eighty percent of participants reported having experience with Hogan
Assessments. In contrast, only 40% reported receiving an invite via social media sites
from candidates during the talent acquisition process and 20% reported receiving social
media invites from possible candidates even when there was no opening posted.
Table 5
Validity of Proposed Model
Question Yes No
9. In the model, I outlined the "Applicant Pertinent Information"
process, do you agree with the data to be collected at this juncture is
sufficient in making a hiring decision?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
10. Do you agree with the vetting process as proposed in the model? 10
(100%)
0
(0%)
11. Do you "Google" for any history on any candidate being
considered for employment?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
12. Have you received an invite via social media sites from candidates
during the talent acquisition process?
4
(40%)
6
(60%)
13. Have you ever received social media invites from possible
candidates even when there was no opening posted?
2
(20%)
8
(80%)
14. Do you have any experience with Hogan Assessments? 8
(80%)
2
(20%)
15. In your opinion does the subjective criteria match what Hogan
Assessments' HPI model assesses?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
16. Have you utilized assessments to assist you in making a hiring
decision?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
17. Do you agree that the background checks are at the right juncture
in the mapped process of the mode?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
18. Do you agree with the model as mapped is accurate of the talent
acquisition process?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
19. Do you agree that all applicable and employment and labor laws
were considered in validating the proposed model?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)

31
Perceived value of and intent to use proposed model. Participants were asked
five questions to evaluate whether they found the model valuable and whether they would
use it, if available. Results for these questions are presented in Table 6 Participants
unanimously agreed they would like the report elements related to social media and
assessment findings and further agreement that the proposed assessment may substitute
the human factor piece. Although 80% agreed the model presented expedites the talent
acquisition process, only 40% agreed they would implement such a model in their
organization. Importantly, the human resources participants additionally expressed the
belief that the proposed process could work well for entry-level, unskilled, and intern
positions that do not require interviews, but that it would not be appropriate for director,
manager, supervisor, and lead roles. Roles that may be effectively filled using this model
include such positions as hotel-housekeeper, manufacturing-operator, retail-retail sales
agent, and customer service agent. Open-ended comments about the model in included
that it was “unusual” and, conversely, “very interesting.” Another asked why this model
was created, while another asked what levels it would be applied to.
Table 6
Perceived Value and Intent to Use Proposed Model
Question Yes No
20. Would you welcome a report summarizing social media findings
as part of the items that make up the talent acquisition decision
making process?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
21. Do you agree that the proposed assessment may substitute the
human factor piece?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
22. Would you welcome an assessment report detailing the subjective
criteria outlined in Hogan Assessments' HPI model?
10
(100%)
0
(0%)
23. Do you agree that the model presented expedites the talent
8
(80%)
2
(20%)
24. If given the opportunity, would you implement such a model in
your organization?
4
(40%)
6
(60%)

32
Summary
Ten experienced human resources, management, and legal professionals were
interviewed for this research. Participants agreed that employers may terminate the
employment relationship for falsifying records and that interviews should not be
mandated. They also agreed that operations managers and hiring managers ask wrong
questions or otherwise act inappropriately during interviews. Participants agreed that the
process was valid, although operations managers stated they never knew so much went
into considering whether or not to hire an applicant and only 20-40% of participants had
received social media invitations from candidates before or during the hiring process.
Participants expressed interest in the outputs of the process (e.g., social media reports,
assessment findings) and 80% agreed the model could expedite the talent acquisition
process. However, only 40% agreed they would implement such a model in their
organization. Importantly, the human resources participants additionally expressed the
belief that the proposed process could work well for entry-level, unskilled, and intern
positions that do not require interviews, but that it would not be appropriate for director,
manager, supervisor, and lead roles. The next chapter provides a discussion of the results.

33
Chapter 5
Discussion
and research and was presented in Chapter 2. The process was presented to legal,
management, and hiring professionals and they were interviewed with respect to three
research questions:
This chapter provides a discussion of the study findings. Key findings and conclusions
are presented first, followed by recommendations for the study organization. Limitations
of the study are then acknowledged and suggestions for continued research are offered.
The chapter closes with a summary.
Conclusions
Participants generally agreed that problems and opportunities for improvement
exist with current hiring practices, as assessed by the interview. For example, participants
agreed that interviews should not be mandated. They also agreed that operations
managers and hiring managers ask wrong questions or otherwise act inappropriately
during interviews. These opportunities for error could be dramatically reduced through

34
the use of the proposed model. Moreover, by reducing the human involvement in the
process, time to hire and hiring costs also may be reduced.
Participants agreed that the process was valid, although operations managers
stated they never knew so much went into considering whether or not to hire an applicant
and only 20-40% of participants had received social media invitations from candidates
before or during the hiring process. Based on these results, it appears that use of the
process may help increase the quality of the hiring decision.
Participants expressed interest in the outputs of the process (e.g., social media
reports, assessment findings) and 80% agreed the model could expedite the talent
acquisition process. However, only 40% agreed they would implement such a model in
their organization. Specifically, participants expressed the belief that the proposed
process could work well for entry-level, unskilled, and intern positions that do not require
interviews, but that it would not be appropriate for director, manager, supervisor, and
lead roles. These results indicate that the process may have limited applicability in the
study organization. For example, roles that may be effectively filled using this model
include such positions as hotel-housekeeper, manufacturing-operator, retail-retail sales
agent, and customer service agent (see Appendix E).
Limitations
Certain limitations affected the present study and need to be acknowledged. First,
the sample size was small; therefore, the findings might not be representative of those of
other hiring, operations, and legal professionals within or outside the study organization.
Second, the data were limited to self-report bias; thus, participants may have consciously
or subconsciously told the researcher what they believed he wanted to hear or provided
answers to present a positive image of themselves. For example, the least endorsed

35
questions were those that asked participants to admit their own mistakes of asking wrong
questions or lengthening the interview process to too many interviews.
Recommendations and Suggestions for Research
Despite the initial positive findings generated in this study, the organization’s
culture and practices as well as hiring professionals’ openness to the new process should
be evaluated before attempting to implement it. For example, an industry norm is for
hiring and recruitment managers to hold in-person interviews to assess candidates’ skills,
traits, and qualifications of candidates (Sahay, 2015). Therefore, personnel involved in
the hiring process may be resistant to letting an assessment tool make hiring decisions.
Additionally, although participants believed the process model satisfied existing
regulations governing the hiring process, it is important for a more thorough legal review
to be conducted before implementing the process to identify possible legal exposure
introduced by the model. Moreover, employment laws are created and updated on an
ongoing basis through legislation and court decisions; therefore, the process should be
subjected to periodic review to assure that it continues to be legally defensible.
A third recommendation is to pilot the process in small business units, particularly
with regard to entry-level, intern, and unskilled positions, as identified by participants.
Conducting small pilots of the process will allow the organization to identify issues and
continually improve it so that it indeed satisfies the aims of reducing hiring costs and
improving the hiring decision.
Summary
hiring decisions. Ten hiring, management, and legal professionals reviewed the model

36
and provided comments regarding existing problems undermine current hiring processes,
and perceived validity and value of the proposed talent acquisition model.
Participants agreed that problems exist in the current process relative to human
bias. They also agreed that the process was valid and could expedite the talent acquisition
process. However, only 40% agreed they would implement such a model in their
organization. Human resources participants believed the proposed process could work for
entry-level, unskilled, and intern positions that do not require interviews, but that it would
not be appropriate for director, manager, supervisor, and lead roles. Based on these
results, organizations are advised to evaluate organizational readiness for implementing
the model; conduct an initial thorough and ongoing periodic review of the model to
assure it satisfies U.S. employment, labor, and privacy laws; and begin piloting the
process in small business units.

37
References
Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). New York City: Cambridge University
Press.
Burns, C. (2012). The costly business of discrimination: The economic costs of
discrimination and the financial benefits of gay and transgender equality in the
workplace. Washington DC: Center for American Progress.
CareerBuilder. (2015). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CareerBuilder
Caudron, S. (2002). Who are you really hiring? Workforce, 81(10), 59.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change (10th
ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2014). All statutes (FY 1997-FY 2014).
Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov
Fair Measures. (1997-2015). Employee privacy laws. Retrieved from
http://www.fairmeasures.com/issues/privacy/
Ferguson, G. (2009). Comprehensive list of federal employment laws. Demand Media.
Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/federal-mandated-employment-
laws-1333.html
Gallup. (2015). Selection process. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/gallupcareers/178535/selection-process.aspx
Glasse, C. (2001). The new encyclopedia of Islam. Lanham, MD: Altamira.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York, NY:
Longman.
Greenhouse, S. (2012). FedEx agrees to pay $3 million to settle a bias case. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://nytimes.con/2012/03/22/business/fedex-agrees-
to-pay-3-million-to-settle-a-discrimmination-case.html
Guerin, L., & Nolo, J. D. (2015). Don't lie on a job application: Lying on a job
application may help you get hired, but could cost you later. Retrieved from
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dont-lie-job-application-29878.html
Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information
processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 211–
237. Retrieved from http://www.martinhilbert.net/HilbertPsychBull.pdf

38
How to avoid the repercussions of negligent hiring. (2006, October). HR Focus, 83(10),
4-7.
Jeffrey, M. & Woolley, A. (2015). Can an algorithm replace a recruiter? Retrieved from
http://www.eremedia.com/ere/can-an-algorithm-replace-a-recruiter.html
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of
representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454. doi:10.1016/0010-
0285(72)90016-3
Lavashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Expected practices in background checking:
Review of the human resource management literature. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 21(3), 231-249.
Levine, M. (2015). Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie in hijab case. Politico.
Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ambercrombie-fitch-hijab-
case-supreme-court-ruling-118492
Lindemann, B., Grossman, P., & Weirich, G. (2014). Employment discrimination law
(5th ed). Bethesda, MD: ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law.
LinkedIn. (2015). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinkedIn
Mather, M., Shafir, E., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Misrememberance of options past:
Source monitoring and choice. Psychological Science, 11(2), 132–138.
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00228. PMID 11273420.
Miller, C. C. (2015, June 25). Can an algorithm hire better than a human? The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/upshot/can-an-
algorithm-hire-better-than-a-human.html?_r=0
Minnesota Department of Human Rights. (2013). Ban the box: Overview for private
employers. Retrieved from http://mn.gov/mdhr/employers/criminalbgchecks.html
Monster. (2015). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster
Mooney, J. (2002). Pre-employment testing on the Internet: Put candidates a click away
and hire a modem speed. Public Personnel Management, 31(1), 41-52.
Mora, J., Fliegel, R., & Travers, S. (2013). The flurry of new employment laws
regulating the use of criminal records continues with expanded restrictions in
Indiana, North Carolina, Texas, and New York. Retrieved from
http://www.littler.com/flurry-new-employment-laws-regulating-use-criminal-
records-continues-expanded-restrictions-indiana.html
Morgan, J. (2014). The future of work: Attract new talent, build better leaders, and create
a competitive organization. New York, NY: Wiley.

39
Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive
illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory
(pp. 79-96). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Performance Programs. Inc. (2015). Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI). Retrieved from
http://www.performanceprograms.com/hogan-assessments/hogan-assessments-
2/hpi/
Sahay, P. (2015). A strategic approach to talent acquisition: RoadMap for a game
changing TA strategy [Kindle]. Available at http://www.amazon.com/Strategic-
Approach-Talent-Acquisition-Changing-ebook/dp/B00V4PU5R8
Society of Human Resource Management. (SHRM). (2011). How to guide talent
acquisition process. Alexandria, VA: SHRM.
Taylor, S., & Kleiner, B. H. (2000). How to hire employees effectively. Management
Research News, 23(7/8), 10-13.
Wang, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2000). Effective employment screening
practices. Management Research News, 23(5/6), 73-81.

40
Appendix A: Sample Employment Application
APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
I understand that the organization will rely, in part, on the information I provide in this
Application in considering whether to hire me. I understand that it is important that I
provide complete and accurate information and certify that I have done so. If the
organization discovers at any time that I have failed to completely and honestly provide
any information requested of me in this Employment Application or during the interview
process. I understand that my application will no longer be considered or, if I am
working for the organization, that I will be subjected to disciplinary action, up to and
including termination of employment.
The organization is committed to compliance with the provisions of this nation's
immigration laws regarding verification of employment eligibility. Any offer of
employment will be contingent upon your ability to provide legally sufficient
documentation showing your eligibility to be employed by the organization. Applicants or
employees that present fraudulent documents for employment verification purposes will
be terminated.
I authorize the organization to contact anyone that it deems appropriate to verify the
information I have provided or to further investigate my background, past performance
and suitability for employment. I consent to being discussed by any person contacted by
the organization and waive all rights to bring any action for defamation, invasion of
privacy or any similar claim against anyone that provides information to the
organization with a good faith belief that the information provided is true. I understand
that the organization may choose to obtain background information about me from a
consumer-reporting agency. Before requesting a report from a consumer-reporting
agency, the organization will ask for my authorization. I understand that if I provide such
authorization, my application for employment will not be considered.
[Company] is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate against otherwise
qualified applicants on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, age, sex, marital
status, national origin, disability or handicap, or veteran status.

41
PERSONAL:
Name ____________________________________Date __________
Last First Middle
Address _______________________________________________________
Number & Street City State Zip Code
Position Sought ____________________ _ Full Time _Part Time
Date Available _____Salary Desired ____ Phone Number _______
Social Security Number ___________ Are you over 18 years old? __ Yes __ No
Are you legally eligible for employment in the USA? _Yes _ No
(If offered employment, you will be required to provide documentation to verify
eligibility.)
EDUCATION: Please indicate education or training which you believe qualifies you for
the position you are seeking.
High School: No. of Yrs Completed (circle one) 1 2 3 4
Diploma: __ Yes __ No G.E.D.: __ Yes __ No
School(s) __________________ City/State ____________________
College and/or Vocational School:
Number of Years Completed (circle one) 1 2 3 4
School(s) ___________________ City/State____________________
Major ____________________ Degrees Earned ____________________
Other Training or Degrees:
School(s) ___________________ City/State ____________________
Course ____________ Degree or Certificate Earned ______________

42
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE OR MEMBERSHIP:
Type of License(s)Held______________________________
State of Virginia License Number ______________________
License Expiration Date _____________________________
Other Professional Memberships ______________________
(You need not disclose membership in professional organizations that may reveal
information regarding race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, ancestry, age,
disability, marital status, veteran status or any other protected status.)
This application for employment is good for 30 days only. Consideration for employment
after 30 days requires a new application.
SKILLS :
Office: Data Entry/ __ Excel or
Typewriter _____ wpm. __ Lotus 1 ,2,3 __ CRT __ Other:
Word Processing __ WordPerfect __ MSWord Other ____
Other Software Skills ___________________________________
Have you ever been employed in any facility of [Company]? __ Yes __ No
If so, please state facility name and location and dates of employment
______________________________
EMPLOYMENT: List last employer first, including U.S. Military Service.
May we contact your present employer? ____ Yes ____ No
If any employment was under a different name, indicate name_____________
Employer ____________________ Address _________________________
Telephone _______________ Position _______________
Dates of Employment: From _____ To _____
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr
Salary __________ Supervisor __________ Department __________
Duties _________________________________ FT __ PT __ No. of Hrs.___
Reason for Leaving ________________________________________

43
Employer _______________ Address _________________________
Telephone _______________ Position ________________________
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr
Salary ________ Supervisor ____________ Department __________
Reason for Leaving _____________________________________
Employer ________________Address ______________________
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr
Employer ________________Address _________________________
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr
Duties ____________________________ FT __ PT __ No. of Hrs.___
If you wish to describe additional work experience, attach the above information for each
position on a separate piece of paper.
Explain any gaps in work history: _____________________________

44
Have you ever been discharged or asked to resign from a job?
__Yes __No
If yes, explain: ___________________________________________
REFERENCES:
Professional Personal
Name ____________________
Address ___________________
Phone (_____)_____________
Name ____________________
Address ___________________
___________________
Phone (_____)_____________
Name ___________________
Address ___________________
___________________
Phone (_____)_____________
Name ____________________
Address ___________________
____________________
Phone (_____)______________
APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION AND AGREEMENT
This sample application for employment is courtesy of OSI Systems, Inc.

45
Appendix B: Study Invitation
From: Jose Fiallos
Date Sent: [date]
To: [Participant Name]
Subject: Request for Interview: Thesis, The Future of Processing Human Resources
Hello everyone as you may recall for the past two years I have been attending Pepperdine
University's Graziadio of School Business in my pursuit of my Masters Degree in
Organizational Development (MSOD).
My last step in completing the requirements for my MSOD is the completion of my thesis
and I have identified you as someone whose opinion I value in validating my research
and your level of experience is certainly appropriate to provide me with feedback on my
proposed models.
My thesis is based on my twenty five plus years of experience in the Human Resources
profession and I have built a model for how employers may process human resources
(people) into (Talent Acquisition) the organization without having to interview the
candidate.
The purpose of my thesis is to design a model that will allow employers to minimize risk
in this step of the employee life cycle as in 2013 employers spent $64 billion in settling
and managing harassment and discrimination claims and it is my opinion that most of
these claims derive from three phases of the employee life cycle, the Talent Acquisition,
Promotion and Termination process. These phases have one common thread, people.
People making the decision, determining the subjective aspects and perhaps
misrepresenting the employer.
Again, your experience is invaluable in proving that the proposed Talent Acquisition
model can be implemented and will contribute to the future success of the Human
Resources profession and the effectiveness & design of an organization. The results of
my interviews will be shared with all interviewees and please know that all information
gathered will be aggregated to describe the findings as a whole and will not be attributed
to any individual response you may provide.
I will follow up with you shortly or please feel free to reach out to me to schedule a time
that is best suitable for both of us.
Thank you in advance for your time and participation in my research.
Sincerely,
Jose Fiallos

46
Appendix C: Participant Pre-Interview Presentation
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this thesis is to build a model of how employers may process human
resources (candidates) in the near future. The talent acquisition phase is one of the most
scrutinized decisions an employer can make under the law and the one that begins the
employment relationship and it is crucial in establishing the employer as a leader in its
field and to a candidate what they experience in this process is a deciding factor on
whether they will join the organization or not.
The model is based on my 25+ years of experience in the human resources field. The
model focuses on Talent Acquisition process of the employee lifecycle and the data
available to employers to reach a decision at this juncture of the hiring phase.
The data includes employment history, references, public & educational background
information, credit and social media history. In addition, included in the model is a
review of how employment & labor laws “fit” within the proposed model and their
impact. The “Fit” validates whether it is feasible to remove the “Human Factor” piece out
of the decision making process in the proposed model.
The model outlines how employers can minimize risk in harassment and discrimination
claims and demonstrates how all of this information can derive from one source to build
an Applicant Pertinent Information (API) profile which will streamline the decision
making process and minimize risk. The source of the API profile may be through a third
party or the role of the internal recruiter may evolve into a “Fact Finder” role as it is
become more and more crucial to hire the right person and in a timely manner.

48
APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
I understand that the organization will rely, in part, on the information I provide in this
Application in considering whether to hire me. I understand that it is important that I provide
complete and accurate information and certify that I have done so. If the organization discovers
at any time that I have failed to completely and honestly provide any information requested of me
in this Employment Application or during the interview process. I understand that my
application will no longer be considered or, if I am working for the organization, that I will be
subjected to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
The organization is committed to compliance with the provisions of this nation's immigration
laws regarding verification of employment eligibility. Any offer of employment will be contingent
upon your ability to provide legally sufficient documentation showing your eligibility to be
employed by the organization. Applicants or employees that present fraudulent documents for
employment verification purposes will be terminated.
I authorize the organization to contact anyone that it deems appropriate to verify the information
I have provided or to further investigate my background, past performance and suitability for
employment. I consent to being discussed by any person contacted by the organization and waive
all rights to bring any action for defamation, invasion of privacy or any similar claim against
anyone that provides information to the organization with a good faith belief that the information
provided is true. I understand that the organization may choose to obtain background
information about me from a consumer-reporting agency. Before requesting a report from a
consumer-reporting agency, the organization will ask for my authorization. I understand that if I
provide such authorization, my application for employment will not be considered.
[Company] is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate against otherwise
qualified applicants on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, age, sex, marital status,
national origin, disability or handicap, or veteran status.

49
PERSONAL:
Name ____________________________________Date __________
Last First Middle
Address _______________________________________________________
Number & Street City State Zip Code
Position Sought ____________________ _ Full Time _Part Time
Date Available _____Salary Desired ____ Phone Number _______
Social Security Number ___________ Are you over 18 years old? __ Yes __ No
Are you legally eligible for employment in the USA? _Yes _ No
(If offered employment, you will be required to provide documentation to verify eligibility.)
EDUCATION: Please indicate education or training which you believe qualifies you for the
position you are seeking.
High School: No. of Yrs Completed (circle one) 1 2 3 4
Diploma: __ Yes __ No G.E.D.: __ Yes __ No
School(s) __________________ City/State ____________________
College and/or Vocational School:
Number of Years Completed (circle one) 1 2 3 4
School(s) ___________________ City/State____________________
Major ____________________ Degrees Earned ____________________
Other Training or Degrees:
School(s) ___________________ City/State ____________________
Course ____________ Degree or Certificate Earned ______________

50
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE OR MEMBERSHIP:
Type of License(s)Held______________________________
State of Virginia License Number ______________________
License Expiration Date _____________________________
Other Professional Memberships ______________________
(You need not disclose membership in professional organizations that may reveal information
regarding race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, marital status,
veteran status or any other protected status.)
This application for employment is good for 30 days only. Consideration for employment after
30 days requires a new application.
SKILLS :
Office: Data Entry/ __ Excel or
Typewriter _____ wpm. __ Lotus 1 ,2,3 __ CRT __ Other:
Word Processing __ WordPerfect __ MSWord Other ____
Other Software Skills ___________________________________
Have you ever been employed in any facility of [Company]? __ Yes __ No
If so, please state facility name and location and dates of employment
______________________________
EMPLOYMENT: List last employer first, including U.S. Military Service.
May we contact your present employer? ____ Yes ____ No
If any employment was under a different name, indicate name_____________
Employer ____________________ Address _________________________
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr

51
Employer _______________ Address _________________________
Telephone _______________ Position ________________________
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr
Salary ________ Supervisor ____________ Department __________
Reason for Leaving _____________________________________
Employer ________________Address ______________________
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr
Employer ________________Address _________________________
Mo/Yr Mo/Yr
Duties ____________________________ FT __ PT __ No. of Hrs.___
If you wish to describe additional work experience, attach the above information for each
position on a separate piece of paper.
Explain any gaps in work history: _____________________________

52
Have you ever been discharged or asked to resign from a job?
__Yes __No
If yes, explain: ___________________________________________
REFERENCES:
Professional Personal
Name ____________________
Address ___________________
Phone (_____)_____________
Name ____________________
Address ___________________
___________________
Phone (_____)_____________
Name ___________________
Address ___________________
___________________
Phone (_____)_____________
Name ____________________
Address ___________________
____________________
Phone (_____)______________
APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION AND AGREEMENT
This sample application for employment is courtesy of OSI Systems, Inc.

56
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The outlined process has been designed to satisfy the following federal employment and labor
laws:
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
• The Equal Pay Act of 1963
• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
• The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
• The National Labor Relations Act
• Privacy Laws

57
Appendix D: Participant Questionnaire
Problems Experienced with Current Hiring Practices
1. As an HR professional have you experienced any operations manager asking the wrong
question or information that is not pertinent?
2. Have you experienced any hiring manager misbehave or act inappropriately during an
interview?
3. Have you ever had to defend a hiring decision you made or one of your hiring managers?
4. As a manager have you ever asked the wrong question or by mistake ask a question that is
not appropriate?
5. In your experience have you ever experienced a lengthy interview process?
6. In your experience have you ever been responsible for lengthening the interview process to
too many interviews?
7. As a professional, do you agree that an employer may terminate the employment relationship
for falsifying records?
8. Do you agree that employment and labor laws do not mandate the employer to interview a
candidate?
Validity of Process Proposed in Model
9. In the model, I outlined the "Applicant Pertinent Information" process. Do you agree with the
data to be collected at this juncture is sufficient in making a hiring decision?
10. Do you agree with the vetting process as proposed in the model?
11. Do you "Google" for any history on any candidate being considered for employment?
12. Have you received an invite via social media sites from candidates during the talent
13. Have you ever received social media invites from possible candidates even when there was
no opening posted?
14. Do you have any experience with Hogan Assessments?
15. In your opinion does the subjective criteria match what Hogan Assessments' HPI model
assesses?
16. Have you utilized assessments to assist you in making a hiring decision?
17. Do you agree that the background checks are at the right juncture in the mapped process of
the mode?
18. Do you agree with the model as mapped is accurate of the talent acquisition process?
19. Do you agree that all applicable and employment and labor laws were considered in
validating the proposed model?

58
Perceived Value of and Intent to Use Proposed Model
20. Would you welcome a report summarizing social media findings as part of the items that
make up the talent acquisition decision making process?
21. Do you agree that the proposed assessment may substitute the human factor piece?
22. Would you welcome an assessment report detailing the subjective criteria outlined in Hogan
Assessments' HPI model?
23. Do you agree that the model presented expedites the talent acquisition process?
24. If given the opportunity, would you implement such a model in your organization?

59
Appendix E: Sample Job Descriptions
1. Housekeeper Job Description
The Housekeeper is responsible for and accomplishes the following:
• Maintaining facility by cleaning, dusting, vacuuming, and polishing.
• Essential Duties and Responsibilities:
• Removing miscellaneous debris by removing trash.
• Refreshing bath area by cleaning toilet, and sinks; refilling hand towel and toilet paper
dispensers.
• Cleaning floors by washing and vacuuming floors.
• Maintaining furnishings by dusting and polishing furniture; cleaning and polishing glass
surfaces.
• Keeping supplies ready by restocking housekeeping supplies; ordering new supplies as
needed.
• Keeping equipment operating by following operating instructions; troubleshooting
breakdowns; maintaining supplies; performing preventive maintenance; calling for
repairs.
• Maintaining safe, secure, and healthy work environment by following and enforcing
standards and procedures; complying with security regulations.
• Updating job knowledge by participating in educational opportunities.
• Enhancing housekeeping reputation by accepting ownership for accomplishing new and
different requests; exploring opportunities to add value to job accomplishments.
Position Requirements:
• Dependability
• Quality Focus
• Customer Service
• Customer Focus
• Thoroughness
• Lifting
• Housekeeping
• Equipment Maintenance
• Listening
• Verbal Communication
2. Mechanical Assembler or Operator in Manufacturing
US CITIZEN
This position will be responsible to assemble and fabricate mechanical parts. Work in a team
environment. Use a variety of tools and equipment to assemble units according to required
specifications in a specific area of a production line. This involves reading and interpreting
blueprints, schematics, hydraulics, sketches and written instructions to assemble the parts or
products, read metrics. To ensure quality, an assembler also looks for faulty components during
the assemble process and may be required to test assembled parts or products to ensure
functionality.
Supervision: Reports to Production Floor Manager

Jose-Fiallos Approved Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Jose-Fiallos Approved Thesis

Similar to Jose-Fiallos Approved Thesis (20)

Jose-Fiallos Approved Thesis