Selection Methods in Recruitment - Term Paper Example

? Selection Methods in Recruitment Introduction: Jihad in Relation to Other Islamic Tenets Whether a company lives or dies depends on its workforce. Far from being an exaggeration, such an observation is actually fairly accurate. Employees, of course, are a vital part of any corporation, without which it would most definitely keel over and die. This is undeniably because it is these individuals who are responsible for actually running the company’s day to day functions, regardless of whether they are frontliners or behind the scenes. Managers and bosses are also important, but the major difference here is that their managerial responsibilities and duties prevent them from attending to the more mundane and/or specialized tasks their subordinates often have to deal with. Thus, no matter how brilliant its managers, even the largest companies won’t last long without a competent workforce at its disposal. In this light, it should be easy to understand why so many employers, managers and HR personnel focus on recruitment and personnel selection. The two often go hand in hand, with Muchinsky (2012) defining personnel selection as the process by which individuals are hired and/or promoted. Selection systems are often used in this regard, and are aimed at assessing knowledge, skills, ability and other characteristics (KSAOs) possessed by applicants. Personality tests are also important. Bangerter et al (2011) notes that, all other factors being equal, the employees most ideal for an organization are those that share its goals and possess a personality type conducive to the environment of that organization. In short, personality tests would have the most utility in pinpointing those employees that possess the above characteristics. While their utility has been downplayed by Brian Amble (2007), not least because most tests have a caveat where applicants can simply fake their answers, it should be self-evident that, in the first place, personality tests are never meant to be used alone in the hiring process. Rather, it is when combined with other methods of selection, such as intelligence testing and interviews, that they become most effective. With what has been discussed so far, the manner in which these tests are intended to be used should be clear. While intelligence tests are meant to provide an accurate prediction of an employee’s ability to carry out his tasks, personality tests pinpoint his disposition as he goes about his duties, and his compatibility with the organization as a whole. Generally speaking, well-roundedness is the way to go here; employees who lack basic job competencies are not likely to be of much use, to the organization, while those extremely skilled at what they do, but are not very good with people, may end up alienating customers they come into direct contact with. This particular paper, then, focuses on the use of personality tests and cognitive ability tests, otherwise known as IQ tests, and the importance of both to an organization’s success. IQ Tests As the term itself implies, an intelligence quotient or IQ test is a standardized test geared towards the assessment of intelligence. Modern tests often have the average score within a given age group set to 100, with standard deviation pegged at 15. Some argue that IQ is, in fact, inherited from one’s parents, but Johnson et al (2009) have yet to conclusively predict how likely this is to be the case. As noted in the preceding sections, the results of such tests have been found to have greater accuracy at predicting job performance as compared to one’s academic performance as a student. IQ is said to be in direct proportion with job performance (Henderson, 2007). Regardless of the particular job or the work involved therein, those with higher IQ are said to be more competent at the tasks assigned to them. Additionally, people with higher IQ also have the potential to prosper in a wide variety of situations, and can be employed at most levels without much issue, in contrast to how people possessing IQ in the lower ranges are often confined to jobs requiring little to no skill. In short, IQ can be described to help predict one’s adaptability and competence in his chosen field. General Mental Ability (GMA), which pertains mainly to one’s ability to learn and adapt by means of information processing, is also included by Green and Macqueen (2008) in this heading. Their main difference as compared to conventional IQ tests such as the OLSAT is that they can also be adapted to focus on specific work skills. GMA by itself has even been said to be a very good determinant of an individual’s job performance, with Viswesvaran and Onez (2007) attesting how employees with high GMA will generally perform well in the workplace. Again, such a measure finds basis in fact. All jobs, regardless of what field, or of what they entail, require at least some level of mental activity and information processing, even if certain fields prize such skills more than others. For instance, it would be fairly unreasonable to demand the same level of mental ability from a group of factory workers that one would expect from IT personnel. At the same time, though, even factory work is far from being a no-brainer; indeed, the level of thinking needed in such a setting may be more than expected. Generally speaking, though, factory workers have no need to utilize the full extent of their mental abilities, except only in extraordinary circumstances that demand it. Psychometric testing is thus widely used in this regard. Of these, one most of us will have undoubtedly encountered at this point is the OLSAT, or the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test. Exactly which IQ test one is given depends on how he is categorized, with certain tests being appropriate for certain categories while being incompatible with others. For instance, as the name itself implies, the OLSAT is often given to students in middle school or high school to answer, though there are times when college students may also be asked to do so. Such tests, according to Watkins et al (2007), are widely used in the recruitment process, on the basis that job performance is determined more by IQ than academic performance. Mere book smarts alone are not enough, mainly because not everything one encounters at work directly correlates to what he learned at school. As most of us will no doubt be aware of, academic performance isn’t always an accurate reflection of mental ability, with even those who all but crammed their way through school being able to shine once they get to the workplace. The reason for this is that the workplace requires consistent, practical application of one’s skills and knowledge. Unlike in school, where one could gain knowledge simply by reading an entire textbook and regurgitating its contents to the teacher, work skills are acquired through actual practice, which is exactly what one does as he goes about his duties in the office. Depending on the job, and on the specific line of work, one might experience some difficulty in adjusting to and meeting what is demanded of him. A book by Kaufman (2009) serves to support this, citing the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory as proof. Raymond Cattell made reference to fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), two different classes of cognitive ability which he posited in an attempt to expand on Spearman’s concept of general intelligence. According to Cattel, fluid intelligence is used to solve novel problems largely using one’s own reasoning abilities, while crystallized reasoning instead depends heavily on education and experience. This was later expanded by his student John L. Horn, and, much later, by John B. Carroll, to result in the modern Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory that most modern IQ tests are based on. Aside from what has been mentioned above, other types of cognitive ability included in the modern model are quantitative reasoning (Gq), reading and writing ability (Grw), short-term memory (Gsm), long-term storage and retrieval (Glr), visual (Gv) and auditory (Ga) processing, processing speed (Gs) and decision/reaction time or speed (Gt). It is thanks to these different categories that modern IQ tests have become less likely to give individual scores. Needless to say, all of these skills are used by employees on a regular basis, regardless of the specific line of work, and in varying degrees. Even employees in entry-level positions already make use of all these skills in copious amounts, and this only becomes truer the more one advances in rank. This being the case, it becomes necessary for recruiters and HR personnel in general to make use of instruments that assess intelligence and general cognitive ability in a comprehensive manner. Personality Tests While cognitive ability is undoubtedly important, it is equally necessary to ensure that the employees one ends up hiring are those whose personalities are conducive to a healthy, harmonious and productive workplace – that such employees are actually well-suited to the kind of environment they will be working in. No matter how attractive an applicant may be in terms of raw competence, his personality may not always be appropriate to the position. To illustrate, it would definitely be a major, major mistake for a hospital to hire an aspiring nurse whose people skills are somewhat lacking. In this day and age, among the most common personality tests are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), both of which are objective, self-report inventories. While these were originally intended to pinpoint people with personality disorders, recent years have seen them adopted in more mundane settings as well, up to and including the workplace (Carlson et al, 2010). While other tools exist that allow the assessment of personality, such as observational measures, peer-report studies and projective tests, objective personality tests are still the most efficient means of ascertaining the personality of job applicants. Generally speaking, such personality tests are meant to be used together with interviews (Nuri, 2012). While interviews are an indispensable part of the hiring process, the fact remains that the usage of personality tests helps to drastically cut the time spent interviewing applicants. Turnover rates also go down as the company is able to make absolutely sure that the applicants it hires are those that are best suited to whatever opening it has in mind. Convenience also comes into play, with most personality tests capable of being administered online and even over the phone. In short, the use of such personality tests goes a long way to expedite hiring and recruitment. Of course, no test is foolproof, and personality tests are no exception. For one thing, there is usually nothing stopping test takers from falsifying their answers (Arendasy et al, 2011). Such transgression could easily be penalized with automatic disqualification of one’s application were it to take place in an intelligence test, but in this case, there is rarely a clear way of telling whether a particular test taker did, in fact, cheat. Nor does it help that, in the context of a job application, clear incentive exists to accentuate one’s positive traits while downplaying the negatives. Of course, very few people actually cheat on personality tests, though the fact remains that such chance, however small, still exists. Generally, those who cheat on these tests do so to fool not only the one checking their application, but themselves most of all. To a lesser extent, the use of such structured instruments deprive test-takers themselves of the opportunity to make reasonable decisions, and their standardized nature means that there is only so much information applicants can give about themselves and their qualifications. And most bizarrely, there are those who equate such tests with invasion of privacy. In fact, it has already happened that companies have been sued by prospective employees on such a ground. A danger also exists on the side of the test-takers themselves. All too often, individuals who take personality tests end up becoming complacent with respect to their own uniqueness, which tends to arise from an erroneous belief that the results of the personality tests are fixed and unchangeable. Conversely, there are those who go out of their way to fit the profile ascribed to them by the results of personality tests, regardless of how accurate those results are. Either way, what results is that people acquire a distorted view not only of themselves, but also of the validity of the tests themselves. More importantly, overreliance on personality tests has also been shown to have potentially catastrophic effects on the mental health of employees. Those with an unstable sense of identity are particularly at risk for developing identity disorders, while those already suffering from them may find their situation getting worse. This has in fact become the subject of a case, Wilson v. Johnson & Johnson, with the plaintiff Wilson sued his former employer on account of the terrible, terrible strain he suffered as a result, not to mention the eventual breakdown from having his personality under constant scrutiny. This landmark case ended with Wilson being awarded $4.7 after the jurors agreed on the grief and strain brought on by excessive personality testing. Also noteworthy is the irony presented in the facts of the case: that personality tests were originally designed to pinpoint personality disorders in people, but can themselves result in such disorders if used too excessively. In fact, it was this case that resulted in the eventual recognition of employees’ mental health rights. Despite all the controversy, though, personality tests remain a viable tool in the arsenal of any HR practitioner or recruiter. That being said, companies should take care not to rely on them too much, and are thus reminded to make use of other methods as well. Personality and Intelligence Tests: A Comparison As one might notice, personality and intelligence tests are not too different from each other on the whole. Not only are they generally conducted using the same medium, but they happen to be guided by the twin principles of reliability and validity as well. All things considered, the question, then, is this: which one is more useful? The answer is neither. As the many similarities between the two types of test may suggest, personality and intelligence tests are generally meant to be used together. Personality tests will help HR personnel decide the best placement for a given applicant based on his personality and temperament, while intelligence tests focus on deciding the same question on the basis of his ability. While each may be somewhat effective on its own, the use of one without the other cannot but result in certain oversights. Exclusive reliance on intelligence tests may produce skilled employees, but that some of them may lack people skills might end up being far more troublesome than is acceptable. And by the same token, heavy reliance on personality tests may be ill-advised, except perhaps if the workers in that company have regular interaction with customers. And sometimes, not even then. Indeed, that these tests are so similar despite dealing with two different variables should only hint at their synergy. Admittedly, most intelligence and personality tests do well to accomplish their objectives, and are thus able to fulfill their purpose more than adequately, but their effectiveness goes up tenfold when used together. Their effectiveness only increases further when both of them are used with conjunction with job interviews, which in a sense serve to confirm or support the findings obtained by the individual tests. What one test fails to explain, the other can account for, and vice versa. All in all, no test is foolproof. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, the results of the personality test often make a lot more sense when paired together with those of the intelligence test, each being able to explain gaps in the findings of the other. As such, it should be unsurprising that these tests are so indispensable among recruiters and HR practitioners. References [accessed 07/16/12]> [accessed 07/24/12] Arendasy, M., Sommer, Herle, Schutzhofer, Inwanschitz, 2011. Modeling effects of faking on an objective personality test. Journal of Individual Differences, 32 (4), pp. 210–218 Bangerter, A.; Roulin, N., Konig, C. J., 2011. "Personnel selection as a signaling game.". Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 0021-9010. Carlson, N. R. et al 2010. Psychology: The science of behaviour. Chester: Person Education. Green, T. and Macqueen, P., 2008. Cognitive Ability: How Important? Compass Consulting. Green, T. and Macqueen, P., 2008. Cognitive ability: How important? Compass Consulting. Johnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I. I., & Bouchard Jr., T. J., 2009. Beyond heritability: Twin studies in behavioral research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), pp. 217-220. Kaufman, A.S., 2009. IQ Testing 101. Springer Publishing Company Muchinsky, P., 2012. Psychology Applied to Work (10th ed.). Hypergraphic Press. Nuri, S., 2012. Psychological and personality tests in the workplace. eHow.com. [online] available at Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D., 2007. Job performance models. In S. Rogelberg (Ed). Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. Thousand Oaks. Reflective Journal Finishing this research paper has allowed me to learn much about the research process. It is important to sift through the numerous sources that may be used for the paper, and those that are valid and peer-reviewed. I realised that this skill is very important in drafting any academic paper. I also did experience difficulty in making my ideas as comprehensive and coherent as possible. I learned that making a good outline is critical for ensuring that the content of the piece is sound and not off-topic. Moreover, it is important to be as straight-to-the-point as possible, rather than wordy. On the content of the research paper itself, I have learned about how crucial it is to assess a candidate properly prior to hiring. The recruiting manager has a very important role in building a robust workforce. The ideal candidate is not just one who has the necessary competence for performing the role, but also has the requisite skills for doing so. It is thus necessary to assess both a candidate’s functional competence and soft skills to ensure high job fit. This is where personality tests and interviews come into play. If the recruitment process is not effectually carried out, this can be very costly for the organisation. On the other hand, if selection is effective, this can add real value to an organisation’s bottomline. Human capital, as we know it, is the foundation of all successful companies. An important part of a recruiter’s job is to come up with the right combination of tests to make selection as sound as possible. After all is said, given the limitations of the various selection tools used for recruiting candidates, they are viable indicators of how well the candidate will do on the job. The skillful selection of tools that will provide the most holistic assessment of job fit is a competence that every effective recruiter should possess. I intend to keep this in mind should I be engaged in a recruitment-related job in the future. Read More