This panel discussion will address strategies for balancing the competing objectives of improving prediction, lowering costs, and reducing legal risks when designing large-scale selection systems. The panel, consisting of four experienced selection experts, will discuss balancing prediction power and validity with costs and adverse impact. They will provide examples of balancing these factors from their work in Fortune 500 companies and consulting. The session aims to help I/O psychologists navigating these complex challenges when developing selection systems.

1. Submitter Number 53769
Submission Number 2741
Session Type Panel Discussion
Title The Selection Balancing Act: Prediction, Cost, and Legal Risks
Staffing (e.g., recruitment, applicant reactions, selection system design,
Content Area 1:
succession planning, workforce planning)
Content Area 2: Legal Issues/Employment Law
This panel discussion will provide strategies used by I/O professionals when
optimally balancing the competing objectives of improving prediction,
Abstract lowering cost, and reducing legal risk when designing and implementing large
scale selection systems. The panel includes four selection experts with
extensive industry and consulting experience.
The legal environment has increased pressure on organizations to evaluate
every step in their hiring/selecting/promotion processes. The purpose of this
panel discussion is to provide an overview of the objectives that companies
must consider and balance in order to make the best decisions regarding
Press Release their employee selection systems. Decisions to be made are challenging and
complicated. The ideal outcome is to create fair, efficient, and accurate
processes. Panel topics to be discussed include adverse impact, strategies for
staying legally defensible, and balancing legal considerations with business
costs and other competing demands.
Time Block: 80 Minute session
Audiovisual
Equipment:
Special Requests:
David Mayfield
The Home Depot
2455 Paces Ferry Rd, C-18
Submitter:
The Home Depot
Atlanta, GA 30339
US
Phone 770-433-8211 x84618
Email david_x_mayfield@homedepot.com

2. Panel Discussion
TITLE
The Selection Balancing Act: Prediction, Cost, and Legal Risks
ABSTRACT
This panel discussion will provide strategies used by I/O professionals when optimally balancing
the competing objectives of improving prediction, lowering cost, and reducing legal risk when
designing and implementing large scale selection systems. The panel includes four selection
experts with extensive industry and consulting experience.
PRESS PARAGRAPH
The legal environment has increased pressure on organizations to evaluate every step in their
hiring/selecting/promotion processes. The purpose of this panel discussion is to provide an overview
of the objectives that companies must consider and balance in order to make the best decisions
regarding their employee selection systems. Decisions to be made are challenging and complicated.
The ideal outcome is to create fair, efficient, and accurate processes. Panel topics to be discussed
include adverse impact, strategies for staying legally defensible, and balancing legal considerations
with business costs and other competing demands.
The session should be informative for applied I/O professionals working in selection.

3. The Selection Balancing Act: Maintaining the Value of Selection Tools While Lowering Cost
and Reducing Legal Risks
I/O Psychologists developing and implementing selection systems for large organizations can
sometimes find themselves balancing three competing roles. As selection specialists (scientists) we
are driven to optimize the prediction power of our selection tools. As business partners
(practitioners) we are tasked to provide the most cost effective solutions. The ever increasing
complexity of the legal environment has also brought about a third role: compliance specialist. Each
role is demanding. More demanding however, is our effort to maximize the utility of selection
systems by optimally balancing the sometimes competing objectives associated with each role --
improving prediction, lowering cost, and reducing legal risk. The purpose of this panel discussion is
to provide SIOP members with examples of decision-making strategies used by experienced
selection professionals when juggling these objectives.
Three Factors Impacting Selection System Design and Implementation
Creating a successful hiring process requires optimizing the prediction power of selection tools.
As selection specialists, we are asked to find ways to screen out applicants who will likely be poor
performers, select the best candidates from a pool of applicants, measure increasingly complex
constructs, and continuously improve the reliability and validity of selection tools. Many of our
efforts have been successful: combinations of multiple measures, complex interview guides and
rating schemes, panel interviews, rank-order/top down selection strategies, and cognitive ability
testing. Unfortunately, these methods can be costly and/or increase legal risks by increasing adverse
impact.
The second objective for I/O Professionals building selection systems is reducing cost.
Managing the financial cost of large scale hiring initiatives impacts the choice of selection tools,
methods of administration, pass/fail decision rules, and validation strategies. When proposing
new selection systems, cost is a major factor in determining if an initiative should go forward.
Pass/fail decision rules (e.g., cut scores, multiple hurdle approach) impact cost by affecting the
number of candidates at each stage of the selection process. Historically, cognitive ability tests
have been used by organizations as a cost effective tool to screen large numbers of applicants.
Low cost cognitive testing options are readily available and easy to administer. They translate
well to computer-based platforms, and require limited organizational resources to score and
interpret. However, there is often a call for selection tools with lower adverse impact.
The third tenet for an effective hiring process is reducing adverse impact. I/O Psychologists are
compelled to reduce adverse impact in selection decisions to reduce financial risk from legal actions,
increase diversity in their organizations, and because it is the right thing to do. Since there are
documented gender and race group differences in scores on certain selection tools, reducing adverse
impact has become a critical issue. To approach the validity commonly demonstrated by cognitive
ability tests, organizations have invested resources in the development of biodata and personality
assessments, situational judgment tests (SJTs), role plays, structured interviews, etc. Organizations
have also applied alternative methods of test administration to reduce adverse impact (for example,
interviews, simulations, computer animations, video-based SJTs, etc.). Most of these alternatives to

4. traditional cognitive ability tests can result in less adverse impact but are more costly to develop and
implement. Strategies for combining and weighing selection scores, setting cut scores, banding, etc.
and the resulting impact on prediction accuracy and cost are important considerations. The
importance of reducing adverse impact is realized when an organization falls under legal scrutiny.
This can be in the form of OFCCP audits, legal settlements, and law suits. Sharf and Jones (2002)
provide examples of the high cost of employment litigation and EEOC / OFCCP settlements.
Balancing Act
For I/O professionals, maximizing the utility of your selection process (and being able to sleep at
night) requires finding the proper balance among three roles and related objectives. We experience
varied pressure from organizational stakeholders. For example, human resource managers and
recruiters are typically most interested in having accurate, powerful selection tools. Some business
leaders are interested in hiring minimally qualified people at the lowest cost, while others want “the
best” at any cost. EEO/Legal departments are pushing to reduce adverse impact, thereby reducing
legal risk to the organization.
Some authors have recognized the challenge of balancing these factors and provide advice and
procedures for making the best decisions (e.g., De Corte, Lievens, and Sackett, 2007; Hugh, Oswald,
& Ployhart, 2001; Ryan, Ployhart, & Friedel, 1998; Sackett & Ellingson, 1997). This panel
discussion will highlight real examples from practitioners. The focus will be on large volume
selection of entry level employees in organizations in the United States. It is intended to serve as a
jumping off point for any I/O professionals who faces these real life challenges as they provide
internal or external consulting.
De Corte, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2007) Combining predictors to achieve optimal trade-
offs between selection quality and adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (5),
1380–1393.
Hugh, L. M., Oswald, F. L. & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of
adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152-194.
Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse
impact: a cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2) 298-307.
Sackett, P.R. & Ellingson, J. E. (1997). The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on group
differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50, 707-721.
Sharf, J. C. and Jones, D. P. (2000) Employment risk management in J. F. Kehoe (Ed.) Managing
Selection in Changing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Questions for discussion:
How has the balance of increasing prediction while lowering cost and adverse impact changed over
the last 30 years?
How are I/Os presenting the need to balance these three components to Business Leaders, HR
Partners, and hiring managers?
Where does the applicant fall on these three – what is the general public’s view?
How have the courts looked at this?

5. Proposed Session
The target audience for the session is any SIOP member interested in hiring and selection and dealing
with the real life ramifications of looking to hire the best candidates, being “fair” to candidates, and
complying with governmental and legal considerations. Professionals who operate in human
resources either as I/O psychologists or as organizational development talent managers will find
value in this conversation. Attendees will gain a better understanding of the hiring considerations that
any organization needs to take into account when doing large scale hiring and the complexity of the
challenges selection practitioners face when balancing competing priorities.
The panel is comprised of a group of individuals possessing extensive external and internal hiring
and consulting experience. Efforts were made to bring together a diverse group representing a variety
of consulting sources, research backgrounds, and funding perspectives. Below are biographical
descriptions of the panelists. They include SME’s from fortune 500 firms and consultants that work
closely with Fortune 500 firms including The Home Depot, Georgia-Pacific, and Development
Dimensions International (DDI).

6. Finding the Right Balance of Three Interdependent Drivers
at Each Stage of the Selection Process
Cost – Process
Adverse Complexity
Maintain The degree of
Strong
Impact Validity accuracy in
Validity predicting
future job
performance.
Utility Utility – estimated “value” of
the selection system minus
the costs and potential risks.

7. Below are biographical descriptions of the panelists.
Dirk Baxter, Ph.D.
Development Dimensions International (DDI)
1700 Water Place, Suite 216
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone (770) 690-6000
Email: dirk.baxter@ddiworld.com
Membership status: Member
Based out of DDI’s Atlanta office, Dirk manages large engagements with key clients that involve
selection, assessment, and executive talent management. He has over ten years of experience in
the field of human performance. Prior to joining DDI in 2007, he spent five years managing the
development, evaluation, and delivery of tests and assessments used for hiring and promotion at
Bank of America.
Eddie Jerden, Ph.D.
Development Dimensions International (DDI)
1700 Water Place, Suite 216
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone (770) 690-6000
Email: eddie.jerden@ddiworld.com
Membership status: Member
Based out of DDI’s Atlanta office, Eddie has over nine years of experience in the development,
validation, and implementation of selection systems as both an internal and external consultant.
Prior to joining DDI in 2006, he spent five years managing the development, evaluation, and
delivery of tests and assessments used for hiring and promotion into represented and non-
represented jobs for a Fortune 500 communications company. Before that, Eddie served as a
senior research analyst for three years at a test publisher, where he designed, conducted, and
presented results of research and evaluation on assessments used for personnel selection and
development.
Dave Lux, PhD.
Georgia-Pacific
133 Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-652-6246
Email: djlux@gapac.com
Dave has spent the better part of the last 13 years helping clients attract, select, and promote
employees. He has worked with Georgia-Pacific for the last 4 ½ years on a variety of projects in
the areas of hourly and salaried selection system development and implementation, performance
management, executive assessment, and 360 surveys. Prior to joining Georgia-Pacific in 2004,
he spent just over 8 years at a Fortune 500 communications company validating tests for
management and non-management job titles, conducting job analyses, and providing support to
various internal clients concerning a wide range of testing issues (re-test policies, ADA
accommodations, cut score analyses, etc.). Dave is a licensed psychologist and brings to panel a
wealth of practical experience with managing selection and compliance in large organizations.

8. David Mayfield, Ph.D.
The Home Depot
2455 Paces Ferry Road
Atlanta, GA 30339
770-433-8211
David_x_Mayfield@homedepot.com
David is currently is a Senior Organizational Effectiveness Consultant at The Home Depot. His
responsibilities include the design of hourly and salary selection systems, employee opinion
surveys, 360 degree feedback, and measurement systems. Before joining The Home Depot,
David worked for eight years at Georgia-Pacific designing and implementing selection systems
and leadership development programs. David provides a perspective on large scale selection in
both a manufacturing and retail organizations.
Participant Information
Session Chair:
Dirk Baxter, Ph.D.
Development Dimensions International (DDI)
1700 Water Place, Suite 216
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone (770) 690-6009
Cell (678) 595-4770
Email: dirk.baxter@ddiworld.com
Membership Status: Member
Panelists:
David Lux, Ph.D. David Mayfield, PhD.
Georgia-Pacific The Home Depot
133 Peachtree St. 2455 Paces Ferry Road
Atlanta, GA 30303 Atlanta, GA 30339
404-652-6246 770-433-8211
Email: djlux@gapac.com David_x_Mayfield@homedepot.com
Membership status: Member Membership status: Member
Eddie Jerden, Ph.D.
Development Dimensions International (DDI)
1700 Water Place, Suite 216
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone (770) 690-6000
Email: eddie.jerden@ddiworld.com
Membership status: Member