Part 4 Staffing Activities: Selection Chapter 10: Internal Selection McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

Part 4Staffing Activities: Selection

Chapter 10:

Internal Selection

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

Organization StrategyOrganization Strategy HR and Staffing StrategyHR and Staffing Strategy

Staffing Policies and Programs

Staffing System and Retention Management

Support Activities

Legal compliance

Planning

Job analysis

Core Staffing Activities

Recruitment: External, internal

Selection:Measurement, external, internal

Employment:Decision making, final match

OrganizationMission

Goals and Objectives

Staffing Organizations Model

10-2

10-3

Chapter Outline

Preliminary Issues Logic of Prediction Types of Predictors Selection Plan

Initial Assessment Methods Skills Inventory Peer Assessments Self-Assessments Managerial Sponsorship Informal Discussions and

Recommendations Choice of Methods

Substantive Assessment Methods Seniority and Experience Job Knowledge Tests Performance Appraisal Promotability Ratings Assessment Centers Interview Simulations Promotion Panels and

Review Boards Choice of Methods

Discretionary Assessment Methods

Legal Issues

10-4

Learning Objectives for This Chapter

Compare how the logic of prediction applies to internal vs. external selection decisions

Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the five initial assessment methods used in internal selection

Consider the merits and pitfalls of using seniority and experience for internal selection decisions

Describe the main features of assessment centers Understand the advantages and disadvantages of

using assessment centers for internal selection decisions

Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the seven substantive assessment methods used in internal selection

10-5

Discussion Questions for This Chapter

What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings?

Explain the theory behind assessment centers. Describe the three different types of interview

simulations. Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority,

assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures.

What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?

10-6

Preliminary Issues

Logic of prediction indicators of internal applicants’ degree of success

in past situations should be predictive of their likely success in new situations

Types of predictors there is usually greater depth and relevance to the

data available on internal candidates relative to external selection

Selection plan important for internal selection to avoid the

problems of favoritism and gut instinct that can be especially prevalent in internal selection

10-7

Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future Performance

Advantages of internal over external selection Greater depth and relevance of data available

on internal candidates Greater emphasis can be placed on samples

and criteria rather than signs

10-8

Discussion Questions

Explain how internal selection decisions differ from external selection decisions.

10-9

Initial Assessment Methods

Skills inventory

Peer assessments

Self-assessments

Managerial sponsorship

Informal discussions andrecommendations

10-10

Skills Inventory

Traditional List of KSAOs held by each employee Records a small number of skills listed in generic

categories, such as education, experience, and supervisory training received

Customized Specific skill sets are recorded for specific jobs SMEs identify skills critical to job success

10-11

Peer Assessments

Methods include peer ratings, peer nominations, peer rankings

Strengths Rely on raters who presumably are knowledgeable

of applicants’ KSAOs Peers more likely to view decisions as fair due to

their input Weaknesses

May encourage friendship bias Criteria involved in assessments are not always

clear

10-12

Ex. 10.1: Peer Assessment Methods

10-13

Initial Assessment Methods

Self-assessments Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to

determine promotability Exh. 10.2: Self-Assessment Form

Managerial sponsorship Higher-ups given considerable influence in

promotion decisions Exh. 10.3: Employee Advocates

Informal discussions and recommendations May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job

performance

10-14

Exhibit 10.4 Choice of Initial Assessment Methods

10-15

Discussion Questions

What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings?

10-16

Substantive Assessment Methods

Seniority and experienceJob knowledge testsPerformance appraisalPromotability ratingsAssessment centersInterview simulationsPromotion panels and review boards

10-17

Overview of Seniority and Experience

Definitions Seniority

Length of service with organization, department, or job Experience

Not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has undertaken

Why so widely used? Direct experience in a job content area reflects an

accumulated stock of KSAOs necessary to perform job Information is easily and cheaply obtained Protects employee from capricious treatment and favoritism Promoting senior or experienced employees is socially

acceptable -- viewed as rewarding loyalty

10-18

Evaluation of Seniority and Experience

Employees typically expect promotions will go to most senior or experienced employee

Relationship to job performance Seniority is unrelated to job performance Experience is moderately related to job performance,

especially in the short run Experience is superior because it is:

a more valid method than seniority more likely to be content valid when past or present jobs are

similar to the future job Experience is unlikely to remedy initial performance

difficulties of low-ability employees is better suited to predict short-term rather than long-term

potential

10-19

Job Knowledge Tests

Job knowledge includes elements of both ability and seniority

Measured by a paper-and-pencil test or a computer

Holds great promise as a predictor of job performanceReflects an assessment of what was

learned with experienceAlso captures cognitive ability

10-20

Performance Appraisal

A possible predictor of future job performance is past job performance collected by a performance appraisal process

Advantages Readily available Probably capture both ability and motivation

Weaknesses Potential lack of a direct correspondence between

requirements of current job and requirements of position applied for

“Peter Principle”

10-21

Performance Appraisal

Ex. 10.5: Questions to Ask in Using Performance Appraisal as a Method of Internal Staffing Decisions Is the performance appraisal process reliable and

unbiased? Is present job content representative of future job

content? Have the KSAOs required for performance in the

future job(s) been acquired and demonstrated in the previous job(s)?

Is the organizational or job environment stable such that what led to past job success will lead to future job success?

10-22

Promotability Ratings

Assessing promotability involves determining an applicant’s potential for higher-level jobs Promotability ratings often conducted along with

performance appraisals

Useful for both selection and recruitment Caveat

When receiving separate evaluations for purposes of appraisal, promotability, and pay, an employee may receive mixed messages

10-23

Overview of Assessment Centers

Elaborate method of employee selection Involves using a collection of predictors to

forecast success, primarily in higher-level jobs Objective

Predict an individual’s behavior andeffectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial

Incorporates multiple methods of assessing multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors

10-24

Ex. 10.7 Assessment Center Rating Form

Participants take part in several exercises over multiple days In-basket exercise Leaderless group

discussion Case analysis Trained assessors

evaluate participants’ performance

10-25

Characteristics of Assessment Centers

Participants are usually managers being assessed for higher-level managerial jobs

Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion of program

10-26

Evaluation of Assessment Centers

Validity Average validity ŕ = .37 Validity is higher when

Multiple predictors are used Assessors are psychologists rather than managers Peer evaluations are used

Possess incremental validity in predicting performance and promotability beyond personality traits and cognitive ability tests

Research results “Crown prince/princess” syndrome Participant reactions

10-27

Other Substantive Assessment Methods

Interview simulations Role-play: candidate must play work related role

with interviewer Fact finding: candidate needs to solicit information

to evaluate an incomplete case Oral presentations: candidate must prepare and

make an oral presentation on assigned topic Promotion panels and review boards: use

multiple raters, which can improve reliability and can broaden commitment to decisions reached

10-28

Exhibit 10.8 Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods

10-29

Discussion Questions

Explain the theory behind assessment centers.

Describe the three different types of interview simulations.

Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority, assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures.

10-30

Discretionary Assessment Methods

Narrows list of finalists to those who will receive job offers

Decisions often made on basis ofOrganizational citizenship behavior andStaffing philosophy regarding EE0 / AA

Differences from external selectionPrevious finalists not receiving job offers do

not simply disappearMultiple assessors generally used

10-31

Legal Issues

Uniform Guidelines on EmployeeSelection Procedures (UGESP)

Shattering the glass ceiling Employ greater use of selection plans Minimize use of casual, subjective methods and

use formal, standardized, job-related assessment methods

Implement programs to convey KSAOs necessary for advancement to aspiring employees

10-32

Discussion Questions

What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?

10-33

Ethical Issues

Issue 1 Given that seniority is not a particularly valid predictor of job

performance, do you think it’s unethical for a company to use it as a basis for promotion? Why or why not?

Issue 2 Vincent and Peter are both sales associates, and are up for

promotion to sales manager. In the last five years, on a 1=poor to 5=excellent scale, Vincent’s average performance rating was 4.7 and Peter’s was 4.2. In an assessment center that was meant to simulate the job of sales manager, on a 1=very poor to 10=outstanding scale, Vincent’s average score was 8.2 and Peter’s was 9.2. Assuming everything else is equal, who should be promoted? Why?