Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Handout - HR 1 - FINAL
Handout - HR 1 - FINAL
INTRODUCTION
Interviews allow the applicant to speak for him - or herself, on the principle that
the best way of finding out about someone is to ask them.
References and ratings work on a different principle - that the best way of finding
out about someone is to ask someone who knows him or her well (former
employers, schoolteachers, colleagues or fellow trainees). They have seen the
candidate all day every day, perhaps for years, and can report how he or she
usually behaves, and what he or she is like on 'off days'.
REFERENCES
VALIDITY
Leniency - numerous researches report that most references are positive. Early
research by Mosel and Goheen found that ratings were highly skewed, with
'outstanding' or 'good' opinions greatly outnumbering 'satisfactory' or 'poor' opinions.
Referees are usually nominated by the candidate, who will obviously choose someone
who is likely to give them a good reference.
Leniency - These days many employers fear that an unfavourable reference may result
in a libel suit. However, if referees are reluctant to say anything negative, references
must remain a poor source of information. Manager's can observe employees'
shortcomings but have no incentive to communicate them to others, and many reasons
(fear of creating ill feeling, not wanting to admit that they have poor employees because
this reflects on their management, etc.) Murphy's argument implies that references
could be an excellent source of information, if only referees could be persuaded to part
with it.
Idiosyncrasy - Baxter et.al. (1981) searched medical school files to find 20 cases
where same two referees had written references for the same two applicants. If
references are useful, what referee A says about applicant X ought to resemble what
referee B says about applicant X. Analysis of the qualities listed in the letters revealed a
different and much less encouraging pattern. What referee A said about Applicant X did
not resemble what referee B said about applicant X, but did resemble what referee A
said about applicant Y. Each referee had his or her own idiosyncratic way of describig
people, which came through no matter who he or she was describing.
Idiosyncrasy - The free-form reference appears to tell you more about its author than it
does about its subject. Aamodt, Nagy and Thompson (1998) confirm this, showing that
a referee who describes one candidate in terms of conscientiousness will tend to
describe another in terms of conscientiousness as well. Differences in reference writing
may reflect personality (of the author, not the candidate). Judge and Higgins showed
that happier people write more favourable references.
Free-form references - It is much more difficult to assess the validity of the free-form
reference, as it is complex and unquantified. There is obviously much more to reference
letters than global favourability.
Forced-choice format - Carroll and Nash (1972) used a forced-choice reference rating
form. Items in each pair are equated for social desirability, but only one statement
predicts job success:
has many worthwhile ideas/completes all assignments
always works fast/requires little supervision
Scores predicted performance ratings 4 months after hire quite well in university clerical
workers.
Key-word counting - Peres and Garcia (1962) factor-analysed data from 625 reference
letters for engineering applicants, and found five factors that distinguished good from
poor candidates. Key-word counting can only be done with free-form references, and
has difficulties with the documented idiosyncrasy of reference writers. As Aamodt et al
(1998) showed, some referees tend to describe people in a baseline for each referee.
However, scanning software would make key-word counting techniques much more
feasible.
Relative percentile method - McCarthy and Goffin (2001) have described the relative
percentile method (RPM), and report that it gives substantially better validity than
conventional ratings in a Canadian military sample. The technique may work by allowing
people to be lenient, but also to differentiate at the top end of the scale, giving someone
whom they consider to be really responsible.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE REFERENCE?
RATINGS
American personnel practice uses ratings a lot - far more than UK personnel
work. In personnel selection, ratings can be used as the predictor, but are more
often used as the criterion. Ratings that are used as the predictor in selection are
usually made by external referees, or by the candidate's peers. Criterion ratings
were traditionally made by a supervisor or manager, but increasingly ratings by
co-workers and subordinates are being used as well (so-called '360-degree
feedback').
Ratings are used for regular performance appraisals in American industry, so
they are big business. Performance appraisals often determine promotion, salary
or even survival, so rating systems come under keen scrutiny.
ESSAY
1. Discuss the difference between interviews and references and ratings as basis in
hiring employees.
2. What is the importance of conducting reliability and validity?
3. Discuss the reasons for poor validity.
4. What is the purpose of reference?
5. Discuss the objectives of performance appraisal.
6. Among the (9) factors or matrix that can help measure employee performance,
choose 3 that you think are the most important and discuss the reasons why.
7. Among the individual or group of persons that will evaluate employees, choose
(2) on which you think will give an objective result and why?
8. Among the methods of performance appraisal, choose one from Multiple Person
and one from Individual on which you think will result to an accurate result. Why?
IV. References
R1. Cook, Mark and Blackwell, Wiley (2016) Personnel Selection – Adding Value
Through Peope – A Changing Pictue: 6th Editiion. 2 Penn Plaza, New York
R.2 Denisi, Angelo S. and Griffin, R.W. (2016) Human Resources, Cengage
Learning,20 Channel St., Boston, USA
R3 Gatewood, Robert D. and et,al (2016) Human Resource Selection. 8 th Edition.
Cengage Learning, 20 Channel St., Boston, USA
R4 Nikolaou, Ioanonis and Oastrom, J.K. (2015) Employee Recruitmtment, Selection
and Assessment-Contemporary Issues for Theory and Practice. Psychology
Press, 711 Third Avenue, New York
R.5 Noe, Raymond A. and et al. (2018) Fundamentals of Human Resource
Management. South-Western Cengage Learning
R7 Rue, Leslie W and et.al (2016) Human Resource Management, 11 th Edition. Mc
Graw Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York
R8 Snell, Scott A. and et,al (2013) Managing Human Resources, 17 th Edition.
Cengage Learning, 20 Channel Center St., Boston, USA