3. What were the major strengths of your selection system?

This is a critical part of your report and you should provide a comprehensive and detailed answer. You need to read and cite recent articles in your response. What does the HR research indicate are critical aspects of a selection system. Which of these were used in your selection system? The first step of the new hiring strategy was to purchase the resume books of both Universities. This is because of the low cost of one (only $100), which would give us a bigger talent pool to choose from and hence increase the probability of hiring a good performer given the right selection process. This is the first strength of the new strategy over the old, as a relatively small initial outlay of $100 would have the potential to provide a higher return in terms of the number of quality applicants to choose from. Next, we screened the resumes of each of the applicants. This was the most difficult process as many applicants have their own plus and minus points. Furthermore, there is no structured or standardised way of assessment to compare between the different applicants. (For example, we wanted to use GPA as one of the selection criteria, but not every applicant provided one.) Hence, we were cautious during this process in eliminating any potential applicant. The strategy used was to put everyone through and eliminating a few (nine) candidates that had a very brief resume or short (1-2 months), unrelated working experience by comparing it with the given Job Specification. The first hurdle we chose was to use the Cognitive Tests. In the previous approach, only two unstructured interviews were administered; one on campus and the other on site (Flying the candidates to the company for the unstructured interview is unnecessary as it can be conducted at the universities). The second advantage of the new hiring strategy is financially related ± we decided to conduct all the selection tests at the campus as this would save a substantial amount of money in flying the candidates to the office. We eliminated any applicant with a Cognitive Test score below 5. The high emphasis on cognitive ability was placed because it has been shown in various researches that this criterion has a huge bearing on future job performance as compared to other criteria such as Personality. (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996; Ree & Earles, 1992). The candidates that passed the first hurdle were then allowed to sit for the Personality Test. The candidates that obtain a score of less than 5 for the Personality Test are eliminated. This is because the Front Desk job requires good service and frequent contact with guests. A good attitude will help to resolve guest¶s problems quickly and calmly. Another reason for using this test as the second hurdle is because of its cheaper cost as compared to the Writing Test. In addition, if the test score of both Cognitive and Personality Test fall below 12, that applicant is also eliminated. The last test administered is to test the writing ability of the candidates, since the job specifications clearly states that excellent written communication skill is desired. All candidates had a score of 6 or

Overconfidence contributes to selectively identifying only those applicant characteristics that confirm the decision makers¶ beliefs about those characteristics¶ association with some behaviour. United States: Thomson Southwestern 4. the different test . how well the resume was written also influenced our decision to offer that particular applicant a job (Manuela Saenz). Ideally. a more mechanical approach is used in the new recruitment as applicants were given standardised tests and selected based on the test scores received. This selection method used is a judgmental synthesis approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science. & Barrick. Public Policy. this is a critical part of your report. For example. L. M. Ree.. the first weakness identified in our strategy is the use of a set of arbitrary cut off scores for each of the tests. Hence. 2. all were allowed to sit for the unstructured interview. time pressure to make a decision and a bad day at home can cause inconsistency across decisions made by recruiters in judgemental selections. (2008). This prediction is then judged in the context of other information about the applicant.. while the remaining were given the structured interview test.. There is no proper weighting given to each test. (1992). Applicants that received a score of 5 and below were eliminated. a judgemental approach is favoured as only interviews were used. consider and cite recent articles in your response. What were the major weaknesses of your selection system? Similar to question #3. F. 447-472. S. Based on the data. Field. J. Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. This method is advantageous as this reduces the problem of overconfidence of many selection decision makers which cause them to overestimate how much they know. In addition.R. Sources: Hunter.better for this test. In the previous approach. A. Psychology.86-89. (1996). J. a cut off score of 12 for the combination of scores from Cognitive and Personality Test was used to eliminate candidates. E. However. 1. H. Six candidates remained after these selection criteria were imposed. & Schmidt. D. What was missing from your selection system that would have made it even better and more effective? Be sure to provide a detailed. comprehensive answer. a final test score from each different test can calculated based on a statistical formula of the test scores of past candidates and their subsequent performance. R. and Law. M. The 3 candidates with the best total overall scores were selected except for Shelley Rhodes whom we taught had too little job experience after assessing her resume a second time. & Earles. Gatewood. Human Resource Selection. Furthermore. The cut off scores should be set based on historical statistical proof of good performance. in which all information (both mechanical and judgemental data) is first mechanically combined into a prediction about the applicant¶s likely success. In retrospect. Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. J.

Perhaps this also confirms the importance on cognitive tests in the prediction of future work performance. If there was a proper formula to calculate a final combined test score on which to base our selection. United States: Thomson Southwestern . Hence. M. he performed very well in the other tests and had a very good resume. Human Resource Selection. The Measurement of Work Performance Methods. 30. the lowest performance came from Manuela Saenz who had a score of 7. S. which is more valid). mechanical means (eg. we found that the first unstructured interview was not necessary (since the applicants would also have gone through the structured interview.. (2008). we would undoubtedly be able to achieve an even higher rate of return as we would not need to decide based on how well a resume is written for the final selection.e. D. Candidates will then be offered a job based on the final test scores. R. statistical method combining predictor information).scores can be combined with different weightages (test scores which have a larger impact on the work performance i. and could have been eliminated to reduce costs and obtain a higher rate of return as a result. This is because of a study made by Paul Meehl in 1954 which concluded that recruiters intuition in identifying characteristics that led to good performance at work were significantly less accurate than predictions made using more formal. Theory. Gatewood. Sources: Landy and Farr. Field. H. Even though his cognitive score was a 5. cognitive test would have a larger weightage). Upon review of the final successful candidates.R. and Applications. Many other reviews done showed that statistical and mechanical methods were always equal or superior to other methods in predicting workers subsequent performance. & Barrick.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.