ArthurDiane 2015 4TheHiringProcessSele FundamentalsOfHumanRe

The Hiring Process:
4
Selection and Orientation
Learning Objectives
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Identify the role of employment testing in the
selection process.
• Determine the benefits and pitfalls of em-
ployment references.
• Consider how background checks are used in
the selection process.
• Articulate final selection factors.
• Plan organizational, departmental, and self-
directed/web-based orientation programs.
• Develop partner programs for new hires so
that they may become acclimated to their
new work environments as quickly and pro-
ficiently as possible.
INTRODUCTION
Let’s listen in on a conversation between Jack, the assistant director of HR,
and Beth, the head of finance, as they compare the qualifications of two final-
ists for the business and planning analyst opening in Beth’s department:
Beth: There’s no doubt that we’ve got two viable applicants: both have
the education and experience I’m looking for, and I have no
doubt they’ll both fit in with the rest of the team. I just don’t
know which way to go!
Jack: You’re right about both appearing to be good fits, and . . .
Beth: Whoa, hold on! What do you mean “appear to be good fits?” I
know for a fact that we both conducted several thorough and
Copyright 2015. AMA Self-Study.
85
© American Management Association. All rights reserved.
http://www.amanet.org/
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/9/2022 4:04 PM via PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA - BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL
AN: 1520882 ; Arthur, Diane.; Fundamentals of Human Resources Management : A Practical Guide for Today's HR Professional
Account: s6670599.main.eds
86 FUNDAMENTALS OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
legal interviews, and Rodney and Courtney rose to the top with
every round.
Jack: Yes, that’s true. And we considered the company’s affirmative
action goals and assessed our organization-wide and depart-
mental diversity levels.
Beth: And?
Josh: And in that regard, both individuals meet our criteria and would
be assets.
Beth: Why do I get the impression that you don’t think that’s enough?
Jack: Well, as comprehensive as our interview process is, it’s not fool-
proof. There are a couple of additional factors we should con-
sider before making the final selection.
Beth: And those would be . . . ?
Jack: I think it would be a good idea to do some testing. At the end,
we may find ourselves in the same position we’re in now: strug-
gling to decide whom to select; on the other hand, one applicant
may emerge the clear winner as a result of what we find out. If
nothing else, our efforts could protect us against charges of neg-
ligent hiring and retention down the road. As you recall, I talked
about that when I briefed you on possible legal ramifications of
interviewing.
Beth: I do recall those terms, and I also remember how disturbing I
found the prospect of being charged with negligent anything.
What else?
Jack: I should also check the references of both applicants, and pos-
sibly run background checks. Then we can sit down and review
final selection factors; ultimately, the decision is yours as to
whom to hire. And once we complete all the paperwork and es-
tablish a starting date, we can get your new analyst onboard and
acclimated through our orientation program.
Beth: I was hoping to make a decision today, but I can’t argue with
the logic of what you’re saying. Let’s get started!
PREEMPLOYMENT TESTING
Views concerning preemployment testing have not changed much over the
years. Many employers still believe in a test’s ability to reflect accurately an
extensive degree of knowledge and comprehension, relying on them to meas-
ure skill and ability. These test proponents issue words of caution against re-
lying on what they describe as subjective, potentially discriminatory
face-to-face interviews for accurate assessments of prospective employees’
capabilities. Instead, they advise focusing on myriad tests that they maintain
are reliable, bias-free, and valid predictors of job success.

EBSCOhost - printed on 10/9/2022 4:04 PM via PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA - BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
THE HIRING PROCESS: SELECTION AND ORIENTATION 87
But can tests accurately predict how individuals are likely to perform in
any given job? Even the strongest supporters of tests agree that not all tests
are created equal and care must be exercised in their selection, implementa-
tion, and interpretation.
Think About It . . .
Do you believe tests can accurately and effectively determine a proper job match?
_____ yes; _____ no
Explain your answer. ___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What would you do if the interview resulted in a positive impression of an applicant, yet test results
revealed conflicting information? __________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
How Preemployment Tests Are Used

Employers typically use preemployment tests to accomplish two primary ob-
jectives: (1) determining an applicant’s undesirable traits and (2) identifying
characteristics that most closely match the qualities required for the available
job. Specifically, tests given to prospective employees may help:
• Predict acceptable or unacceptable on-the-job behavior.
• Minimize or eliminate bias in the interview and selection process.
• Allow employers to identify potentially unfit workers.
• Identify responsible individuals, capable of working under minimum su-
pervision.
• Reduce the cost of recruiting, hiring, and training.
• Identify future “super stars.”
• Identify additional job factors that should be taken into account.
• Safeguard against “professional applicants” who pride themselves on being
able to mislead interviewers.
• Identify workers who will need extra assistance or training.
• Flush out factors that could prove to be detrimental on the job.
Advocates of preemployment testing believe that employers can acquire

this information through the use of a wide range of tests, including skills and
aptitude, integrity, personality, psychological, drug, and physical. Tests may
be conducted at any point in the selection process, depending on the extent
of an employer’s commitment to test scores. Firm believers in testing generally
require applicants to complete one or more tests as the first step. If the appli-

cants achieve a predetermined minimum score, they will be interviewed and

given further consideration. Otherwise, they are rejected. Employers who
place a greater value on the face-to-face meeting usually require tests only
after the interview process is completed. These employers place little weight
on test performance unless it conflicts with information ascertained during
the interview, or through reference checks. Those employers who place an
equal emphasis on each of three main aspects of the employment and selec-
tion process—interviewing, testing, and references—usually first discuss var-
ious aspects of the job with the applicant, then conduct tests, talk further with
the applicant, and finally conduct reference checks. At this point, the results
of each phase are studied and a hiring decision is made.
Testing Advantages and Disadvantages

Let’s look at some key advantages and disadvantages of preemployment test-
ing:
Testing Advantages
Proponents of workplace testing maintain that the process enables employers
to match an individual’s abilities and potential with the requirements of a
given job. It also identifies certain desirable and undesirable traits. Among the
positive traits are honesty, reliability, competence, emotional stability, in-
tegrity, and motivation. Negative characteristics to be screened out include
substance dependency and a propensity to steal. In security-sensitive jobs, fer-
reting out such traits becomes particularly important.
Another popular reason for workplace testing is to protect against charges
of negligent hiring and retention, the charge sometimes faced by employers
who fail to exercise reasonable care in hiring or retaining employees. Employ-
ers can be being held responsible for the criminal, violent, or negligent acts
of their employees, both in and away from the workplace. Generally, the de-
ciding factor is whether an employer can establish that reasonable care in en-
suring that the safety of others was exercised. One way of accomplishing this
is through preemployment testing.
Proponents of testing also point to its overall objective nature. Assuming
it’s reliable and has been validated (a proven indicator of job success), a test
can help employers make unbiased, job-related decisions. Tests can also help
distinguish between and among otherwise qualified applicants.
Testing Disadvantages
Testing opponents point to a tendency to rely too heavily on test results. This
is true when employers conduct tests prior to interviewing applicants, imme-
diately dismissing those who do not score at a minimum level. This occurs
frequently when the interviewers are not confident in their ability to ask ques-
tions and interpret answers, because of a lack of training or experience. Also,
it is often seen in organizations that have been “burned,” that is involved in
some sort of legal action that may have been avoided by a more thorough se-
lection process.

Another common complaint about preemployment testing grows out of

the tendency to believe that tests can point to people who will do well, as op-
posed to those who are likely to do well in a given job or work environment.
The predictive abilities of any exam are limited; results can only indicate
which individuals are most likely to succeed. This is true even if a test is well
designed and properly used. Also, many people react negatively to the mere
idea of a test. There are individuals who may in fact be qualified but do not
do well on tests, resulting in a distorted or incomplete picture of their abilities
if test scores are overemphasized. Rejecting such an applicant could be a dis-
service not only to the applicant, but also to the organization.
Opponents also express concern that tests may be misused in that em-
ployers may be interested in seeing what abilities a person possesses beyond
those called for in a given job. This is usually done to help evaluate potential
and future growth; after all, what employer doesn’t want its employees to stay
for a long time? This motivation cannot be faulted, but the method is inap-
propriate; tests should be given only to evaluate specific skills, abilities, and
traits called for in the available job. A summary of testing advantages and dis-
advantages appear in Exhibit 4-1.
Select a test given by your organization and consider it vis-à-vis each of the five testing
advantages and disadvantages listed in Exhibit 4-1. Do the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages or vice versa? ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Should your organization continue using the test? _____ yes; _____ no. Explain your answer.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Test Administration
Although the actual tests administered vary from one work environment to
the next, every employer needs to consider which positions call for preem-
ployment tests, who will be administering the tests, test standardization, and
testing policies.
Test Takers
Not all positions require tests. The best way to determine who should take a
test is by identifying the specific skills required to perform a particular job as
identified in a specific job description. Next, ask yourself a simple, but crucial
question: “What do I hope to accomplish by conducting a test?” The answer:

xhibit 4–1
Testing Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
• Enables employers to match an individual’s abilities and potential with the requirements of a
given job
• Identifies certain desirable and undesirable traits
• Protects against charges of negligent hiring
• Is inherently objective, if validated
• Distinguishes between or among otherwise similarly qualified candidates
Disadvantages
• May create overreliance on test scores
• Substitutes for effective interviewing skills
• Attempts to predict who will do well
• Screens out qualified individuals who do not test well
• Attempts to evaluate future job suitability
“I hope to identify those individuals who possess specific skills and knowledge
that are essential for the successful performance of a given job”.
It’s important to note that the determination should be based on the po-
sition, not on the individual applicants. If an employer decides a particular
job warrants testing to demonstrate skills, then the test must be given to every
applicant who applies for the job. Do not make assumptions about what a per-
son can and cannot do based on what they say during the interview. If a test
is part of the selection process, then every applicant should be tested.
Test Administrators
The level and type of expertise of the tester should be commensurate with
the complexity and level of the job in question and with the type of test in-
volved. For example, individuals with a minimal degree of training and test
administration knowledge can generally conduct multiple-choice tests. On
the other hand, administering tests that assess personality or mental ability
usually requires extensive training. Test publishers generally indicate the de-
gree of psychological training required to administer and interpret their tests.
A third type of testing, work sample tests, may be conducted and rated by in-
dividuals who are knowledgeable about the details of the job. This may in-
clude line supervisors as long as they are also familiar with basic testing
procedures, including how to set up for the test, give instructions, and score.
Depending on the type of test in question, employers may select a professional
already on staff to manage their testing programs, send someone on staff for
professional training, or hire outside professionals. Employers are encouraged
to carefully evaluate the credentials of outside vendors and should check their

xhibit 4–2
Components of Test Administration
Test Takers Applicants who need to demonstrate specific skills and knowledge
essential for the successful performance of a particular job
Test Administrators Depending on the type of test:
Professionals on staff
Send someone on staff for professional training
Hire outside professionals
Test Standardization Secure
Private
Easy-to-follow instructions
Familiar language
reputation in the field. In addition, it is prudent to review the test’s underlying

research and its relevance for meeting organizational goals.
Test Standardization
Each time a test is administered, regardless of what type of test it is, ensure that
it is given in exactly the same way, in the same environment and under the same
conditions, including duration, instructions, materials, physical factors, and any
other aspect that might affect testing outcome. It is only when precise standards
are adopted and all applicants are allowed to react to the same set of stimuli
that a legitimate conclusion can be drawn about test scores and job suitability.
Every effort should also be made to eliminate or minimize distorting influences.
This includes test administrators who mumble or speak with a pronounced ac-
cent, using tools that are in poor repair, excessive noise, interruptions during
the test, uncomfortable seating, or poor lighting or ventilation. Of course, if a
particular job is routinely performed in a noisy atmosphere then simulating that
environment as part of the test would be appropriate. All tests must be secure
and private, have easy-to-follow instructions, and use language likely to be fa-
miliar to all applicants applying for a particular position. A summary of the
components of test administration appears in Exhibit 4-2.
Exercise 4–1
Test Administration
Consider this scenario: You are in charge of administering and monitoring an online cognitive ability
test: one that consists of questions to measure a person’s ability to use logic and reasoning, to
solve work-related problems, and to quickly acquire new job knowledge. What can you do to ensure
that the test is conducted in a fair and equitable manner to all applicants?
Exercise 4-1 continues on next page.

Exercise 4–1 continued from previous page.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Suggested responses to Exercise 4-1 include:

To begin with, make certain that expecting applicants to take an online test is reasonable: if using
a computer is not part of the job for which they are applying, taking a test online may prove to be
a disadvantage for those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with computers. Assuming it’s legitimate to
require an online test, ensure that the testing site is secure and private. After allowing applicants
to settle in, very clearly explain the purpose of the test, how long they have to complete it, and
what happens at its conclusion. Say the exact same thing to every applicant, using the same tone
of voice. Prerecording the instructions is a viable option. Make certain the testing environment is
comfortable and free of distractions, and is the same site used for every applicant. Ensure that all
equipment is working properly and that there is adequate lighting and ventilation. No one applicant
should be permitted to start over or take a test again unless all applicants are permitted to do so.
Preemployment Testing Policies

Any organization that conducts preemployment tests should have a written test-
ing policy. The policy should be accessible to, understood by, and interpreted
in the same way by everyone involved in any stage of the employment or hiring
process, whether they are directly or indirectly involved with conducting or in-
terpreting tests. Here are the basic components of a preemployment testing pol-
icy. (This policy can be expanded to encompass employee testing.)
• The primary objective of preemployment testing. A general statement will usually
suffice: “As part of __________ company’s commitment to hire qualified
individuals to fill positions as they become available, selected preemploy-
ment tests may be conducted. Resulting test scores will contribute to mak-
ing the final selection.”
• The organization’s commitment to compliance with employment laws. A clear and
concise statement is appropriate: “ _________________ is an equal op-
portunity employer. As such, it is ______________ company’s policy to
employ qualified individuals regardless of their protected class status, in-
cluding race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship,
disability status, or veteran status. When an equally valid means of assessing
candidates is known to be available, it will be used if it has less of an adverse
impact on groups that are subject to discrimination.”
• Which applicants will be tested. Include a statement regarding the testing of
similarly situated applicants: “All job applicants applying for a position
identified as suitable for testing will be given the same test. Such tests will
be job-related and relevant to the selection process. Reasonable accommo-
dations will be made for individuals with disabilities.”
• Who will conduct and interpret test results. A general remark concerning the
competency of test administrators should begin this section: “All testing
will be carried out by those individuals having the training and expertise

necessary to assume this responsibility in a professional and technically

competent fashion. The actual degree and type of expertise will be com-
mensurate with the complexity and level of a given job.”
• A description of testing conditions. Begin by addressing the issue of standardi-
zation: “Each time a test is administered it must be given in exactly the
same way, in the same environment and under the same conditions. This
includes identical duration, instructions, materials, and physical factors.”
Next, either provide a detailed description of where tests are administered,
or if tests are not always conducted in the same place, describe the ideal
testing environment. Include such factors as type of seating, lighting, ven-
tilation, tools, and materials. In addition, this section should address the
issue of security to ensure fair test results, as well as the importance of elim-
inating any linguistic factors that could adversely affect test performance.
• A description of all tests currently used. Begin with an introductory comment
concerning the validation status of tests in the organization: “All tests used
by this organization have been found to be valid and non-discriminatory,
both in content and in practice.” Then identify all of the tests presently being
used, accompanied by a list of those positions that currently require these
tests, noting that the tests are reviewed on a regular basis for currency.
A summary of the components of the basic components of a preemploy-
ment testing policy appears in Exhibit 4-3.
Types of PreemploymentTests
There are countless preemployment tests available targeting virtually every
aspect of an applicant’s ability to perform a job. Purchasing, licensing, and ad-
ministering these tests can be costly. According to Dr. Erica Klein, these tests
can range in cost from a low of $10 to over $5,000 (http://www.askthehead-
hunter.com/gv000802.htm). Drug testing, one of the most debated forms of
testing, ranges in price from less than $30 per test, to $50 or more
(http://www.hireright.com/blog/2012/02/think-the-cost-of-pre-employ-
ment-drug-testing-is-too-high-think-again/). The cost reflects the type of
drug test used: simple urine tests that detect lower concentrations of a drug
are at the less expensive end; confirmatory tests that can verify positive results
and identify a specific drug cost more. Testing proponents are quick to point
xhibit 4–3
The Basic Components of a Preemployment Testing Policy
• The primary objective of preemployment testing

• The organization’s commitment to compliance with employment laws
• Which applicants will be tested
• Who will conduct and interpret test results
• A description of testing conditions
• A description of all tests currently used

out that preemployment testing can help avoid potential costs of unnecessary
training expenses, turnover, and lawsuits that may arise from a poor employ-
ment decision.
The classification of tests can be confusing, and trying to identify all of
the options available is a fool’s errand. Employers are advised to first deter-
mine what they hope to gain from testing. For example, do you want to iden-
tify a propensity to steal? Are you looking for a personality that is likely to be
most compatible with a particular department head? Do you want to preclude
charges of negligent hiring by showing you did everything you could to hire
a good “fit” for a job? Are you concerned about an applicant’s ability to per-
form the physical skills required? Upon deciding what you want to accomplish,
you can narrow the field by exploring five main categories: (1) drug, (2) alco-
hol, (3) psychological, (4) personality, (5) integrity, and (6) physical. Each of
these categories is then broken down into numerous subcategories: psycho-
logical tests, for instance, encompass general intelligence, aptitude, and achieve-
ment tests, whereas physical testing covers preemployment physical exams and
tests of physical ability. A breakdown of the different types of preemployment
tests appears in Exhibit 4-4.
Employers are advised to have their attorney review the tests and testing
procedures under consideration before proceeding.
REFERENCES
Jonathan was looking forward to extending a job offer to Abigail. Everyone
who had interviewed her agreed she’d be an asset to both the marketing de-
partment and the organization overall. All that remained before bringing her
onboard was conducting references. He was looking for confirmation of what
they’d learned about her during the interviews an through test scores, as well
as any other information that could support her job suitability. Of course he’d
heard terms like defamation and common law doctrine of qualified privilege, and
Jonathan knew that employers often hesitated to provide information about
former employees, especially if their performance had been less than out-
standing. Still, he felt he’d do well if he stuck to job-related questions and
asked for verification of information he already had. To increase the odds, he
decided to focus exclusively on professional as opposed to personal references.
He further determined he’d be more likely to succeed if he went “old school”
and conducted telephone references. Was he successful? Let’s see.
Legal Concerns
To be honest, Jonathan thought the hesitation on the part of some employers
was a bit over the top. Did former employees actually sue for defamation of
character? Were employers really conflicted over being sued for defamation
on the one hand, and feel an obligation to make a good faith effort to provide
information about job suitability to prospective employers on the other?
Maybe he shouldn’t bother if it was going to be a hassle. But what if he didn’t
try to contact Abigail’s former employers? Would his company then be in a

xhibit 4–4
Types of Preemployment Tests
Drug
• Urine (screening and confirmatory)
• Blood
• Hair analysis
• Critical tracking (assesses on-the-spot employee fitness by measuring fine hand-eye coordination
and reaction time)
• Papillary reaction (tests pupil reaction to light)
Alcohol
• Breathalyzer
• Blood
• Urine
• Critical tracking
Psychological
• General intelligence
• Aptitude (what a person can accomplish on the basis of what he or she knows)
• Achievement (measure current skills, knowledge, and accomplishments
Personality
• Projective tests (describe, interpret, or attach meaning to certain unstructured stimuli)
• Personality inventories (seek to uncover personal characteristics, thoughts, feelings, attitudes,
and behavior)
• Graphology (handwriting analysis used to reveal a person’s character and disposition)
Integrity Testing
• Polygraphs and other mechanical lie-detector tests (these have all but been banned from use
by private-sector employers as a result of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. They
are still legal under certain circumstances, e.g., in some security-sensitive jobs.
• Written honesty tests
– Overt tests (target an applicant’s attitudes about specific aspects of dishonesty)
– Veiled-purpose tests (pose seemingly irrelevant questions)
Physical Testing
• Preemployment physical exams
• Tests of physical ability (psychomotor tests)
position of possibly being concerned about charges of negligent hiring and

retention if she did something to endanger her colleagues and they hadn’t
even made an effort to check references? Jonathan decided it would be wise
to examine some of these legal concerns before proceeding.

Defamation of Character
Former employers frequently hesitate to cooperate when asked to provide in-
formation about an individual’s employment to would-be employers. This re-
sistance is usually founded on fear of being sued by past employees for giving
less than flattering references. Accordingly, many employers only verify dates
of employment in an effort to mitigate any legal exposure on the basis of
defamation of character. Indeed, even if an applicant was off by a month when
recording his dates of employment, a former employer may simply state that
these dates are incorrect without offering the correct dates or an explanation.
This leaves you to wonder how far off the applicant was and if he was trying
to conceal something.
Although it’s understandable that employers want to err on the side of
caution in this regard, they may be overly careful, failing to realize that a great
deal of information can be legitimately and legally imparted without fear of
retaliation from former employees. Since apprehension of being sued for
defamation motivates many employers and prevents them from seeking or
providing employment-related information, understanding 12 key elements
of defamation could help alleviate this concern:
1. Defamation may occur when one person makes a statement about another
that is implied to be factual, but is instead intentionally false or could po-
tentially harm the person’s personal or professional reputation.
2. Statements made with reasonable belief that they are true are generally
treated the same as true statements.
3. Defamatory statements may be either oral or written. Oral defamatory
statements could lead to charges of slander; written defamatory statements
could lead to charges of libel.
4. The person to whom you are providing information must have a right or
a need to know it, such as a potential employer.
5. Disclosed information must be employment-related.
6. The information you provide must be truthful, even if it is negative.
7. Information must not be communicated with malicious intent to do harm.
Malice occurs when you deliberately provide information that will harm
an individual in some way.
8. You may not volunteer information, even if it is employment-related.
9. The information you provide may not be of a personal nature.
10. If a former employer gives a prospective employer a false and damaging
reason for an employee’s termination, or gives the discharged person a
false basis for the discharge and the applicant repeats this to a prospective
employer, then this ‘self-disclosure’ may result in charges of defamation.
11. Disputable opinions or statements are protected by a limited privilege;
that is, such communications must be malicious to be actionable.
12. Employers are advised to seek legal advice regarding their state’s statute
of limitations for filing charges of defamation; that is, how long the plaintiff
legally has to sue the person who made the false or damaging statements.

Exercise 4–2
Defamation of Character
Consider this scenario: An applicant, Jeremy, impresses you sufficiently so that you are interested
in taking the selection process to the next step: checking references. You call Jeremy’s former su-
pervisor who is very generous with her answers to your questions. As you are winding down, she
says, “There is one more thing you might find helpful in your consideration of hiring Jeremy: “He
works hard, but over-thinks things, to the point where he has trouble meeting deadlines.” Upon
hearing this you decide to move on in favor of another applicant. When Jeremy asks why he didn’t
get the job, you say, “Though we were impressed with your qualifications, upon speaking with your
former supervisor we learned of your inability to meet deadlines. It was for that reason that we de-
cided to select someone else.”
Could Jeremy file a legitimate defamation of character claim against his former employer?
What about his prospective employer?

The fact that Jeremy’s former supervisor volunteered information, while relevant and presumably
truthful, is key (element #8 above). Because of this, Jeremy has a potentially valid claim of defama-
tion against his former employer. On the other hand, the prospective employer is less likely to be
held accountable, especially if attempts were made to contact other references, asking about
meeting deadlines.
It is generally unwise to provide applicants with reasons for not hiring them. The best response
is a variation of, “Although we were impressed with your qualifications, we selected someone who
better met our needs overall.”
Negligent Hiring and Retention

Failure to conduct a thorough investigation of all job-related facets of an ap-
plicant’s employment and educational background prior to employment can
result in charges of negligent hiring and retention after an applicant has been
hired. Effectively, it stems from claims made by injured parties against an em-
ployer based on the assumption that the employer knew or should have known
about something in the employee’s background that, had it been known, would
have negated their employment. For example, if an individual demonstrated
a propensity toward violent behavior in the past, and demonstrates such be-
havior in the performance of his new job, the victim could charge the em-
ployer with negligent hiring and retention.
As of this writing, several states, including Alaska, California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New Mexico, and New York, legally rec-
ognize that an employer can be held accountable for failure to make informed
hiring decisions before placing that person in a job where they will be in “po-
sitions of high public contact.” Such jobs include service and maintenance
personnel, delivery persons, health care workers, and utility personnel. Acts,
generally criminal in nature, can occur on or off the worksite, and involve
employees or nonemployees.
This presents quite a dilemma for employers: Former employers can be
sued for defamation when providing improper references, and prospective

employers can be sued for negligent hiring and retention if references are not
properly checked.
Common Law Doctrine of Qualified Privilege

Employers are protected by the common-law principle of qualified privilege.
This doctrine is premised on the public policy that an exchange of information
relative to the job suitability of individuals is in the best interest of both em-
ployers and the general public. Consequently, if such information is defama-
tory but without malice, it may be deemed privileged.
This privilege is not without certain limitations, however. The informa-
tion must be provided in good faith and in accordance with the questions
asked. For example, if a prospective employer asks about a former employee’s
ability to work unsupervised, the voluntary statement that she had a problem
getting in on time is not protected, even if true. Also, information about an
individual’s private life should not be offered unless it is relevant to work per-
formance (this is rarely the case). Moreover, former employers should ensure
that the information is being provided to the appropriate party and is relevant
to the requirements of the job.
Failure to comply with any of these conditions could eliminate the pro-
tection provided by qualified privilege. The doctrine does not protect state-
ments that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.
Good Faith References

Employers that provide good-faith job references of former and current employees
are afforded some degree of protection in certain states. This added protection
enables employers to give and receive references, going beyond the typical
“play it safe” policy of only verifying dates of employment for former em-
ployees. Even with such legal protection, however, the trend is to proceed cau-
tiously, providing only documented information that can be easily defended
in court.
What is your company’s policy with regard to giving references?
____________________________________________________________________________
What obstacles do you encounter when trying to get references?
____________________________________________________________________________
Do you think the laws lean in favor of protecting applicants and employees or employers?
________________ Why?
____________________________________________________________________________

Traditional Phone References

After reviewing all the legal concerns surrounding references, Jonathan sighs,
realizing it would be best if he at least made an effort to check Abigail’s ref-
erences. He had her written consent to contact past employers, but not her
current job, so he reaches for the phone to call Abigail’s boss at the company
she worked for prior to the one she’s with now. Here’s how Jonathan begins:
Hello, Mr. Bartholomew? This is Jonathan Samuels, the HR manager

for Pristine Industries. I’m conducting a routine reference check on
your former employee, Abigail Assalerno, who has applied to our
company for a marketing manager’ position. Can you confirm that
she worked for you as a marketing representative from November 5,
2012 through December 18, 2014?
Assuming his contact answers this initial question and seems receptive
to talking, Jonathan continues:
Ms. Assalerno said her primary responsibilities were to: (1) develop
marketing plans; (2) devise marketing campaigns in order to increase
product awareness and increase sales; and (3) create programs to
drive brand loyalty. Is that information accurate?
Depending how his contact responds, Jonathan will attempt to acquire

as much information as he can. For example, he might ask: What were her
other responsibilities? Did she work as part of a team? If so, did she take on a
leadership position? How successful was she as a leader? As a team member,
how responsive was she to her colleagues’ ideas? Can you describe her working
relationship with: (1) vendors, (2) clients, (3) the sales team? Will you give me
examples of projects that she either led or in which she participated? Tell me
about one that was successful, and one that was not; what were the reasons for
her success or lack thereof ? Did she have any supervisory responsibilities? If
so, please tell me about the positions she supervised and extent of responsi-
bility. How was she viewed by her colleagues? Vendors? Clients? The sales
team?
That’s just a sampling of some of the questions Jonathan might ask, as-
suming Abigail’s former boss is willing to talk. As you can see, a telephone
reference can be as thorough and revealing as a full face-to-face interview.
Social Media Versus Traditional Phone References

Social media as a reference tool is highly controversial, drawing both avid
support and criticism. Though the process for gathering phone references is
well known, social media reference checks are still a relatively new, albeit in-
creasingly popular development, despite legal concerns. The safest way to use
social media to check references is to only review content that is in the public
domain on the Internet, visiting the same websites for all applicants. Under
no circumstance should companies request an applicant’s Facebook username
or password, require them to “friend” the company, or attempt a “backdoor”

reference check through an employee’s Facebook “friend.” Ideally, a third

party with no vested interest in the hiring process should first review the ap-
plicant’s social media public content and then eliminate any reference to, or
comments about, protected categories and activities before passing along the
information to anyone involved with employment. It is also advisable to in-
form applicants of your policy of exploring social media public content as
part of the reference check process.
Supporters of Social Media as a Reference Tool

Supporters offer these arguments in favor of using information found on an
applicant’s social networking profile to determine job suitability:
• Social media searches yield more information than traditional reference
methods, since former employers are often tightlipped about revealing any
information about workers for fear of being sued for defamation of char-
acter.
• Social networking sites are more comprehensive, yielding more informa-
tion than employers can get through traditional phone references.
• Employers can gain greater insight into an applicant’s expanded profes-
sional life, thereby better defining a cultural fit.
• Examples of inappropriate behavior are more likely to be revealed through
social media sites than through traditional phone references.
• It takes less time to explore social networks than it does to conduct tradi-
tional phone references.
With the possible exception of the last point, these statements are not
supported by sufficient empirical information to render them factual. Even
the last point can be challenged: it’s awfully easy to become distracted and
lose track of time when on a social media site, thereby greatly extending the
length of time devoted to reference checks.
Opponents of Social Media Reference Checks

Limited evidence supporting the validity and legality of social media refer-
ence checking is the overriding objection to conducting social media reference
checks. In addition:
• As of this writing, the jury is still out with regard to the definition of privacy
when it comes to social media.
• Allowing managers and others who are directly involved with the decision-
making process to perform social media reference checks could violate em-
ployment laws, putting the company in jeopardy.
• Misuse of social media sites by employers could damage the reputation of
those sites, not to mention the reputations of employers themselves.
• In addition to verifying information provided by an applicant through the
interview and resume, a traditional phone reference provides someone
else’s perspective of the job-suitability and likely overall fit with a particular
corporate culture.

Traditional phone references offer two additional advantages over social

media checks: (1) They allow a prospective employer to hear and carefully
interpret tone of voice to support what the former employer is saying; and (2)
skilled interviewers may be able to engage a former employer in a conversa-
tion, developing additional questions based on the employer’s answers, thereby
learning more about the applicant’s qualifications.
Employers who decide to conduct reference checks through social media
are advised to conduct a controlled search about job-related tangible and in-
tangible factors only. Whereas tangible information, such as verification of
prior employment, should serve as the foundation of a reference check, social
media sites often focus instead on intangibles. That can work as long as the
intangibles are job-related. For example, the ability to work well under pres-
sure when considering applicants for a manager’s job would be a relevant in-
tangible trait, supportable by specific examples from the applicants’ former
jobs. However, suggesting that an applicant’s second job at night tending bar
in a less-than-reputable neighborhood is job-related, is not likely to hold up.
It’s also not information you’re likely to access during a phone reference,
thereby rendering its applicability questionable. In addition, the veracity of
information posted by an applicant on his social media site may be challenged.
The bottom line is this: do not use information uncovered during a social
media search if it’s inconsistent with information that would legally be ob-
tained during a traditional phone reference. If you’re intent on conducting a
social media reference check, run a traditional check, as well. And, as always
in matters such as this, check with legal counsel before proceeding.
Does your organization conduct social media reference checks? _____ yes; _____ no
If so, who conducts them? _______________________________________________________
Who monitors the type of information obtained? _____________________________________
Do you also conduct phone references? ____________________________________________
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Even though employers hire the services of outside vendors to conduct back-
ground checks, they are still responsible for making certain all information
requested and acquired is in full compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA). The FCRA, a federal law enforced by the Federal Trade Com-
mission (FTC), pertains to a great deal more than a person’s credit history
and standing. The Act governs the acquisition and use of a wide range of back-
ground information on applicants, including Department of Motor Vehicle

record checks and criminal background, character, general reputation, per-

sonal characteristics, and mode of living checks. Employers should look into
whether they have additional state regulations governing background infor-
mation and/or investigative reports. As in all areas concerning legal matters,
consult with an attorney. Full text of the FCRA can be obtained by visiting
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm.
The FCRA was amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act of 2003 (FACT Act). Many of the revisions serve to increase consumer
protections against identity theft and improve the accuracy of consumer re-
ports.
Basic Fair Credit Reporting Act Compliance

Employers are obliged to comply with three steps whenever they request a
background check under the FCRA:
1. Employers must provide applicants or employees with a special notice in
writing that they will request an investigative report and obtain signatures
of consent. In addition, employers are required to present a summary of
rights under federal law.
2. Employers must certify to the background check company that they will
comply with applicable federal and state laws by signing a form typically
provided by the investigation company.
3. Employers must provide a copy of the report to the individual investigated
if an adverse action is to be taken as a result of the report. Employers
should include a description of the adverse action, which could be, for ex-
ample, withdrawing an offer of employment. Employers are further
obliged to wait a reasonable period of time (generally three to five days)
before taking adverse action to allow the investigated individual time to
dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information in the report.
FINAL SELECTION FACTORS

You’ve conducted legal, competency-based interviews, effectively docu-
mented each one, conducted relevant tests, and run comprehensive reference
and background checks on the finalists. You’ve also considered your company’s
affirmative action goals and assessed its organization-wide and departmental
diversity levels. Hopefully, the hiring manager and HR interviewer agree on
whom to hire; if they don’t, the manager will probably make the final decision,
with the HR representative documenting his reasons for disagreeing. At last,
it’s time for HR to extend an offer of employment to the one applicant who
stands out among the rest. Before committing to one applicant and extending
a job offer, take a moment to review these final selection factors:
• Review your goals and objectives. Remind yourself of the role this job plays,
and how it fits in with other positions in the department, division, and or-
ganization overall. Consider, too, its projected impact on both departmental
and organizational goals.

• Review the job description to ensure thorough familiarity with the tangible and in-
tangible requirements, duties, and responsibilities of the position. Identify the es-
sential and nonessential functions of the job, as well as the approximate
amount of time to be devoted to each task.
• Evaluate the applicant’s reactions to various questions and statements. For example,
if the job requires extensive overtime and standing for long periods of time,
review the applicant’s reaction to this information.
• Compare an applicant’s verbal and nonverbal communication patterns. Recall non-
verbal patterns during the interview in response to certain questions and
carefully interpret what was being expressed by way of certain gestures,
movements, and microexpressions. Determine, too, if they were consistent
with verbal responses. For example, an applicant may consistently respond
to questions about why she left her last two jobs with plausible answers such
as, “There was no room for growth,” or “The responsibilities were incon-
sistent with my understanding of the job at the time of hire,” while sitting
with her right leg crossed over the left. However, upon asking why she wants
to leave her current job, the applicant might say, “After working there for a
year, it’s evident that I won’t be able to move up,” but this time shifts so that
her left leg is crossed over the right. Though this change in position may
not, in and of itself, be significant, it should alert the interviewer to a pos-
sible inconsistency with the individual’s verbal response. It would be pru-
dent to further explore previous answers as to why the applicant has
changed jobs to see if she once again shifts her position. If she does, it pos-
sible that there’s more to her answer than she’s revealing.
• Take salary requirements into consideration and compare these with the salary range
for the available position. The salary offered should be one that is acceptable
to both the prospective employee and the company.
• Assess reasons for leaving previous employers. If you see a pattern emerging every
two years or so, such as ‘no room for growth,’ it’s possible that within a short
time your company’s name will appear on the applicant’s resume with the
same claim.
• Factor in test scores. When considering how well applicants under final con-
sideration compare with regard to test scores, make certain all validation
guidelines have been met and that these scores are not the sole determining
factor.
• Examine reference and background check results. With concerns about negligent
hiring, it is especially prudent that employers attempt to acquire employ-
ment references and take a step further by hiring an outside vendor to con-
duct background checks.
• Consider whether this job and the organization overall appear to be appropriate for
the applicant. Does what your company offers in the way of career growth
and other opportunities seem to reflect what the applicant is looking for?
You don’t want someone to grow restless shortly after coming aboard and
decide to move on upon discovering there’s a mismatch.

Do you think any of these factors should weigh more heavily than others, depending on the job?
______ yes; _______no. Why or why not? _________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
A list of key final selection factors appears in Exhibit 4-5.
ORIENTATION PROGRAMS
Starting any new job can be unnerving. Even former employees returning
after a lengthy leave of absence report a sense of uneasiness during the first
several days back on the job. Until such time as new employees become fa-
miliar with the surroundings, feel comfortable with the details and routine of
a typical day, and develop an understanding of company and departmental
expectations, it will be difficult for them to focus on performing their job. For
these reasons, all organizations should conduct orientation programs for new
hires.
Organizational Orientation Programs

The organizational orientation program generally runs from a half a day to a
full day, although in large organizations it can last as long as a week. It is meant
to help new employees become accustomed to their surroundings, acquire a
sense of belonging, learn what the organization has to offer and determine
what is expected of them. This broad perspective can benefit new employees
in their present jobs, help them develop a sense of commitment to the organ-
xhibit 4–5
Final Selection Factors for Review Before Extending a Job Offer
• Goals and objectives

• Tangible and intangible job requirements, duties, and responsibilities
• Applicants’ reactions to key questions and statements
• Verbal and nonverbal communication patterns
• Salary considerations
• Reasons for leaving previous jobs
• Test scores
• Reference and background check results
• Best fit

ization, and help them plan a future with the company.

In some companies, new hires in all job classifications participate in the
same program. In others, one presentation is offered to exempt employees
and another is provided for nonexempt employees. This is usually done when
there is a substantial difference in the specific information offered, such as
managerial benefits and policies pertaining to executives.
Because discussion is an important element of an effective orientation
program, the number of participants should be limited to a maximum of
twenty. The ideal group size is from twelve to fifteen; this encourages an ex-
change among the new hires and still allows them to ask questions.
Six main topics are generally covered in the organizational orientation
program:
1. An overview of the organization’s history and overall function
2. A description of the company’s philosophy, goals, and objectives, and how
important each employee is in helping achieve them
3. General industry information
4. An explanation of the organization’s structure and unique features
5. An outline of company standards of performance, rules, expectations, poli-
cies, procedures, and safety and security practices
6. A description of benefits and employee services
Someone from human resources is usually in charge of the overall program.

This responsibility entails:
• Planning the specific content
• Scheduling the speakers
• Preparing the presentation media and supplemental material
• Reserving space
• Scheduling employees
• Making opening and closing remarks, as well as speaking on selected top-
ics
• Introducing each speaker
• Conducting tours
Because of this wide range of responsibilities, the HR representative se-

lected should have an in-depth knowledge of the organization and possess
presentation skills. The latter is important for generating enthusiasm and in-
terest among the attendees.
Departmental Orientation Programs

Managers are responsible for providing a separate orientation program for all
new employees in their departments. This plays an important role in shaping
a new employee’s attitude toward the company and the specific job, since first
impressions have been shown to greatly influence employee attendance, mo-
tivation, performance, and turnover. Thus, managers should be as encouraging,
supportive, and sincere as possible.

HR practitioners can help managers prepare the format of their depart-

mental orientation programs. Topics may include the department’s structure, spe-
cific responsibilities of the department, relationships between departments,
reporting relationships, specific job duties and responsibilities, work schedule,
and department rules. HR can also prepare a checklist of what to show new
hires. (See Exhibit 4-6.)
Partner Programs
Partner programs, also referred to as sponsor or buddy systems, are one-to-one
relationships between a new employee and another worker from the same de-
partment, whereby the latter is assigned to answer questions, offer encourage-
ment, and provide whatever personal assistance may be needed as the new
employee becomes acclimated to his or her new work environment. The partner
programs serve to help ease the new employee’s transition into the workplace,
lessening the stress of “fitting in” by providing access to someone who is both
familiar and comfortable with the department’s culture and expectations.
Whereas managers provide valuable information about the organizational struc-
ture and departmental guidelines, partners take new hires “behind the scenes,”
offering a peek at some of the company’s unwritten rules and procedures. In no
way is the partner’s role intended to substitute for that of the manager.
Partner programs are developmental, helping relationships. One person
invests time, ability, and effort in enhancing another person’s knowledge and
skills in preparation for greater productivity or future achievement. In the
end, everyone wins. The new hire gains insights as to the inner workings of
his department and the company; the partner gains additional recognition by
the organization, adding another dimension to her leadership skills; and the
organization benefits by building a stronger team.
Partners are selected, in part, based on their length of service and knowl-
edge of the department and the company. Though these are important factors,
it is also important that partners are unbiased, personable, patient, and can
xhibit 4–6
Departmental Orientation Checklist
Show the employee…

1. His or her office, desk, or work area
2. Where supplies are located
3. How the phone system works
4. Whom to contact for computer services and the like
5. The location of restrooms
6. How to use shared equipment, such as photocopy and fax machines
7. Where food services are located
8. Lounge or break rooms
9. Exercise facilities
10.Child care facilities
11.Medical services

explain things clearly and concisely. Ideally, a partner should be someone

whose style of communication and approach to work is flexible enough to suit
that of any new employee.
Managers are responsible for overseeing the partner relationship to en-
sure that the two are properly matched. If, for any reason, it appears that the
partner’s style or personality is ill-suited for the new employee, managers
shouldn’t hesitate to assign a new partner midstream.
Self-Directed and Web-Based Orientation

Self-directed and web-based orientation programs are designed to allow new em-
ployees to experience many or all of the same components of conventional
programs, either by joining others in virtual classrooms, webinar-style, or on
their own time. Individuals generally receive e-mails with login instructions,
a user name and password, and navigation tools and tips. A schedule is en-
closed with dates and times for those opting to participate in the live chat,
classroom format; self-directed participants are notified as to when recorded
and archived live sessions will be available for viewing. Employees can then
upload files of these sessions and undergo orientation later on, at the time and
location of their choosing.
Electronic orientation differs from conventional programs in that the in-
formation is imparted in a series of modularized presentations usually lasting
about an hour to an hour and a half each. The length of time between virtual
classroom sessions is generally three or four days. Content is largely presented
in the form of live lectures, streaming videos, and PowerPoint slides. Partici-
pants in virtual classrooms are able to ask questions of the orientation leader
by typing them on their computer monitor, usually receiving an oral response
before the session ends. Employees who view archived files must submit ques-
tions via e-mail to orientation presenters and wait for a reply.
Some web-based organizational orientation programs are greatly con-
densed, offering only a minimal amount of information. They present topics
with just a few accompanying bullet points via PowerPoint slides, relying on
employees to access designated contacts for details. Information about whom
to contact about specific topics is provided, but not much else. Though time-
efficient, this condensed version is considered among the least effective of all
approaches. It removes responsibility from the employer to provide important
organization-related information and places it instead in the hands of new
employees, who must obtain it on their own while learning their jobs.
At the end of each module, employees may be asked to answer some ques-
tions to show they understand the unit’s contents. They may also be required
to complete an assignment for review at the beginning of the next module. Upon
concluding the program, employees are usually asked to sign and submit a state-
ment declaring understanding and completion of the orientation contents.
Self-directed and web-based orientation programs are more likely to suc-
ceed if they reflect an organization’s culture, provide program content that is
consistent with the delivery mechanism, and involve HR representatives and
managers who are familiar and comfortable with the approach.

Exercise 4–3
Organizational Orientation
Consider that you have been put in charge of preparing your company’s monthly organizational
orientation program for new hires. You have been allotted a half day for the session, with the balance
of that day for departmental orientation. The upcoming session for which you are responsible will
have eight attendees in both exempt and nonexempt positions of varying responsibilities. What do
you hope to accomplish?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What will you do in the way of preparation?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What are the main topics you will cover?
____________________________________________________________________________

Organizational orientation programs are intended to help new employees become acclimated to
their new surroundings and start to develop a sense of commitment to their new employer. These
programs should also make clear what the organization has to offer and determine what is ex-
pected of them.
Preparation includes determining the specific content and most effective media and materials
by which to present it; scheduling any speakers; and conducting tours.
Six key topics are usually included in organizational orientation programs: (1) an overview of
the company’s history and function; (2) a description of the company’s goals; (3) general industry
information; (4) facts about the company’s structure and any of its unique features; (5) details
about the organization’s rules, expectations, and policies; (6) benefits and employee services.
Although the employment interview serves as the primary

source of information that determines job-suitability, employ-
ers should also consider additional factors, notably testing, ref-
erences and background checks.
Many employers typically use preemployment tests to
accomplish two primary objectives: (1) eliciting an applicant’s
undesirable traits and (2) identifying characteristics that most
closely match the qualities required for the available job.
Though advocates of preemployment testing believe that employers can ac-
quire this information through the use of a wide range of tests, including skills
and aptitude, integrity, personality, psychological, drug, and physical, others

are skeptical. These employers place little weight on test performance unless
it conflicts with information acquired during the interview or through refer-
ence checks. Regardless of whether you are a supporter or an opponent, any
organization that conducts preemployment tests should have a written testing
policy. The policy should be accessible to and understood by everyone in-
volved in any stage of the employment or hiring process, whether they are
directly or indirectly involved with conducting or interpreting tests.
Employers often hesitate to provide references on former employees for
fear that something they say could be construed as defamation of character,
despite being protected by the common-law principle of qualified privilege.
Most prospective employers, on the other hand, still attempt to acquire pro-
fessional references to protect them against charges of negligent hiring. This
is generally accomplished via traditional phone references, maintaining that
this approach is more likely to protect them against charges of discrimination
than the highly controversial use of social media as a reference source. As of
this writing, there is limited evidence supporting the validity and legality of
social media reference checking.
Background checks provide additional information about prospective
employees. Employers are responsible for making certain all information re-
quested and acquired by outside vendors is in full compliance with the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
All organizations should conduct orientation programs for new hires.
Many offer both a formal organizational orientation program and a depart-
mental orientation. The latter works most effectively when coupled with a
partner program. Self-directed and web-based orientation programs are de-
signed to allow new employees to experience many or all of the same com-
ponents of conventional programs, either by joining others in virtual
classrooms, webinar-style, or on their own time.

Review Questions
1. Partner programs, which are typically part of organizational orientation 1. (a)

programs, are:
(a) one-to-one relationships between a new employee and another
worker from the same department.
(b) one-to-one relationships between a new employee and his or her
manager.
(c) opportunities for new employees to join other new hires in virtual
classrooms.
(d) relationships between a new employee and HR.
2. Defamation of character can occur during reference checking if a 2. (c)

former employer:
(a) agrees to answer any of a prospective employer’s questions.
(b) answers questions with negative information, even if that
information is accurate and truthful.
(c) volunteers information, even if it is employment-related.
(d) the former employer fails to get the applicant’s permission to
provide references.
3. Preemployment tests are viewed by supporters as: 3. (a)

(a) more objective than the face-to-face employment interview.
(b) having predictive abilities.
(c) providing a complete picture of an applicant’s abilities.
(d) being an ideal tool in the hands of inexperienced interviewers
because it prevents them from asking illegal questions.
4. When it’s time to make a final selection, factors to consider include: 4. (b)
(a) background checks, personal references, test scores, and legal
competency-based interview results.
(b) legal competency-based interview results, relevant tests,
references, and background checks.
(c) salary requirements, references, legal competency-based interview
results, and intangible requirements.
(d) legal competency-based interview results, education, the questions
each applicant asked, and the applicant’s availability.

5. Employers are obliged to comply with three steps whenever they 5. (d)
request a background check under the FCRA. One of these steps is to:
(a) have at least two independent vendors conduct background checks
simultaneously.
(b) conduct background checks on every applicant.
(c) commit to speaking with any applicant about whom negative
information has been discovered.
(d) provide a copy of the report to the individual investigated if an
adverse action is to be taken as a result of the report.

This page intentionally left blank

ArthurDiane 2015 4TheHiringProcessSele FundamentalsOfHumanRe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ArthurDiane 2015 4TheHiringProcessSele FundamentalsOfHumanRe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Hiring Process:

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

_____ yes; _____ no

Explain your answer. ___________________________________________________________

How Preemployment Tests Are Used

Advocates of preemployment testing believe that employers can acquire

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

cants achieve a predetermined minimum score, they will be interviewed and

Testing Advantages and Disadvantages

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

Another common complaint about preemployment testing grows out of

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

reputation in the field. In addition, it is prudent to review the test’s underlying

Exercise 4-1 continues on next page.

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

Exercise 4–1 continued from previous page.

Suggested responses to Exercise 4-1 include:

Preemployment Testing Policies

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

necessary to assume this responsibility in a professional and technically

• The primary objective of preemployment testing

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

position of possibly being concerned about charges of negligent hiring and

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

Suggested responses to Exercise 4-2 include:

Negligent Hiring and Retention

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

Common Law Doctrine of Qualified Privilege

Good Faith References

What is your company’s policy with regard to giving references?

What obstacles do you encounter when trying to get references?

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

Traditional Phone References

Hello, Mr. Bartholomew? This is Jonathan Samuels, the HR manager

Depending how his contact responds, Jonathan will attempt to acquire

Social Media Versus Traditional Phone References

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

reference check through an employee’s Facebook “friend.” Ideally, a third

Supporters of Social Media as a Reference Tool

Opponents of Social Media Reference Checks

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

Traditional phone references offer two additional advantages over social

If so, who conducts them? _______________________________________________________

Who monitors the type of information obtained? _____________________________________

Do you also conduct phone references? ____________________________________________

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

record checks and criminal background, character, general reputation, per-

Basic Fair Credit Reporting Act Compliance

FINAL SELECTION FACTORS

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

______ yes; _______no. Why or why not? _________________________________________

A list of key final selection factors appears in Exhibit 4-5.

Organizational Orientation Programs

• Goals and objectives

© American Management Association. All rights reserved.

ization, and help them plan a future with the company.

Someone from human resources is usually in charge of the overall program.

Because of this wide range of responsibilities, the HR representative se-

_ yes; _ no

__ yes; _no. Why or why not? _______________________________________