Part 4

Staffing Activities: Selection

Chapter 10:
Internal Selection

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
 Staffing Organizations Model
Organization
Mission
Goals and Objectives

Organization
OrganizationStrategy
Strategy HR
HRand
andStaffing
StaffingStrategy
Strategy

Staffing Policies and Programs

Support Activities Core Staffing Activities
Legal compliance Recruitment: External, internal

Planning Selection:
Measurement, external, internal

Job analysis Employment:

Decision making, final match
Staffing System and Retention Management
10-2
Chapter Outline
 Preliminary Issues  Substantive Assessment
 Logic of Prediction Methods
 Types of Predictors  Seniority and Experience

 Selection Plan  Job Knowledge Tests

 Performance Appraisal
 Initial Assessment Methods
 Skills Inventory  Promotability Ratings

 Peer Assessments  Assessment Centers

 Self-Assessments  Interview Simulations

 Managerial Sponsorship  Promotion Panels and

 Informal Discussions and Review Boards

 Choice of Methods
Recommendations
 Choice of Methods  Discretionary Assessment
Methods
 Legal Issues

10-3
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

10-4
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?

10-5
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

10-6
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

10-7
Discussion Questions

 Explain how internal selection decisions

differ from external selection decisions.

10-8
Initial Assessment Methods
 Skills inventory

 Peer assessments

 Self-assessments

 Managerial sponsorship

 Informal discussions and

recommendations
10-9
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

10-10
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

10-11
Ex. 10.1: Peer Assessment Methods

10-12
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

10-13
Exhibit 10.4 Choice of Initial
Assessment Methods

10-14
Discussion Questions

 What are the differences among peer

ratings, peer nominations, and peer
rankings?

10-15
Substantive Assessment Methods

 Seniority and experience

 Job knowledge tests
 Performance appraisal
 Promotability ratings
 Assessment centers
 Interview simulations
 Promotion panels and review boards

10-16
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

10-17
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

10-18
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
performance
 Reflects an assessment of what was
learned with experience
 Also captures cognitive ability

10-19
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”

10-20
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?

10-21
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

10-22
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 and
effectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial
 Incorporates multiple methods of assessing
multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors

10-23
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

10-24
Characteristics of Assessment Centers

 Participants are usually managers being

assessed for higher-level managerial
jobs
 Participants are evaluated by assessors
at conclusion of program

10-25
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

10-26
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

10-27
Exhibit 10.8 Choice of Substantive
Assessment Methods

10-28
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.

10-29
Discretionary Assessment Methods

 Narrows list of finalists to those who will

receive job offers
 Decisions often made on basis of
 Organizational citizenship behavior and
 Staffing philosophy regarding EE0 / AA

 Differences from external selection

 Previous finalists not receiving job offers do
not simply disappear
 Multiple assessors generally used

10-30
Legal Issues
 Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection 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

10-31
Discussion Questions

 What steps should be taken by an

organization that is committed to
shattering the glass ceiling?

10-32
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?

10-33