Briefing Paper

Briefing paper

Calta consultancy limited brings to you this briefing paper. It includes information for setting up a selection programme for Manpower. Further, this paper will illustrate the stages of analysis to the implementation and application of appropriate selection methods. As such, three selection methods are discussed: assessment centre, situational judgement test and interviews. Finally, it is important to address that Manpower is currently looking to recruit new graduates as part of their large scale- multi- stage process.

First, selection refers to the process of finding the most appropriate candidate to fill a vacancy. Its ultimate goal is to determine competencies and abilities from potential candidates in order to successfully fulfil a job opening. Thus, the requirements of the job versus the skills of an applicant are carefully evaluated throughout a selection process (Erasmus et al, 2000). Yet, this is rather uncertain in the sense that performance of graduates is not a discrete construct. As it comes without surprise, most graduates lack previous work experience and therefore generating a complex process of identifying which candidate would be the best fit for a job vacancy. For this matter, the most accurate and proximate criterion would be to include an identification of those individuals who would successfully adapt to the company as well as naturally possessing the competences and strengths required for the position. In addition to this factor, multiple procedures are involved in designing and implementing a personnel selection programme whereas the most crucial stage of setting an assessment system is job analysis. Stated otherwise, the procedure of job analysis is designed to result in information about the type of equipment used, job nature, working conditions, responsibilities and position within the origination (Arnold, Cooper, & Robertson, 1988). And yet, the output from job analysis creates person specification. Job analysis is a necessity as it is used throughout vital decisions, such as the validation and the design of selection method, job design or redesign, career development, training and job safety. Operationalization of job analysis takes place by collecting the data from repertory grid.

Secondly, this review offers an opportunity for Manpower to evaluate evidence based discussion which takes into consideration the financial, practical and theoretical validity of the accessible selection methods. Further it defines, examines and critically evaluates these methods in order to provide accurate recommendation for policy and actions to select the best graduates. To this issue, Ferguson and Patterson (2008) have indicated specific evaluative standards for determining the quality of selection methods and to comprehend the framework utilized for judging best practices. The standards include: reliability, validity, objectivity, standardization and administration by qualified professionals. Hence, a crucial factor which ensures the fairness of selection tools is the evaluation system. Stated simply it determines if the tool is feasible, cost-effective and defensible. In this case, three selection methods will be discussed: Situational Judgement Tests, Interviews and Assessment Centres.

Situational Judgement Tests

The Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are in fact assessments aimed to measure an applicants judgement in role-relevant scenarios. These assessments present the applicants with a possible real situation and a list of potential reactions. Further, applicants are asked to reflect and evaluate the situation and create judgements about the potential responses and in turn, they are scored against professional s answers (Ferguson, 2000). In fact, the use of this method in graduates selection has increased however, in comparison with other approaches, the amount of investigation subsists on its usefulness (Patterson et al 2012). The variety in regards to the application of SJTs is vast for instance, it can be presented trough diverse modes of administration such as audio-recordings, booklets or even films (Lievens, Helga & Schollaert, 2008). Additionally, this test aims to determine behavioural and social inclinations, as well as evaluating how a person will be more likely to act under specify situations or the assessment of knowledge instruction by analysing the efficiency and usefulness of the given responses (Muchinsky, 2012). Thus, such method seems to be a suitable tool when selecting graduates, since it assesses both behavioural inclinations and knowledge, rather than limiting on a candidate s previous experiences.

Deepen in this topic, it has been found that Situational Judgement Tests show higher incremental and criterion-related validity than personality assessments and ability tests (Lievens et al, 2008). As a matter of fact, SJTs are commonly considered favourably by participants as it possesses a rather low adverse influence toward sectional groups. In the same vein, it has been indicated that SJTs display a higher predictive validity for job performances across multiple fields (Christian et al, 2010 Nguyen & McDaniel, 2001). Nevertheless, some authors argue that instructions and mode of administration might negatively influence validity (Lievens et al, 2008). For instance, paper and pencil SJTs reported to have lower validity than its equivalent video base SJTs (Christian et al, 2010). Moreover, it seems that this method is highly susceptible for falsifying, pre-rehearsal and training effects (Lievens et al, 2008). In sum, the use of SJTs in graduates selection process is strongly supported by numerous research evidence. Even though the overall amount is relatively small in comparison with other methods (e.g. interviews), there is certainly a higher quality of empirical evidence that has found strong predictive validity of SJTs in a variety of samples, including graduates recruitment. It is worth noting that unlike other types of tests (e.g. ability tests), SJTs is not affected by socio-demographic variables such as gender or ethnicity (Hoare & Smith, 1998). Thus, SJTs are in general fair for all groups of graduates. However, taking into consideration previous findings regarding the validity of admiration modes, it seems imperative to explore further the possible increase on predictive validity of SJTs throughout graduates and its subsequent performance.

Interviews

Interviews are the most common selection method used in educational institutions and organizations throughout a vast field of industries (Judge, Higgins & Cable, 2000). As a matter of fact, even while many types of interviews have been developed insofar, there are four specific types which can be used in the selection process (Schultz ,2001). First, the structured interview which entails predetermined questions based on the criterion of the position required. Questions cannot be modified and therefore it has been argued that it allows a higher interrelation and reliability amongst graders in conjunction with less bias examinations based on gender discrimination (Roth et al, 2001). However, due to its fixed type of questionnaire, it is difficult to examine further complex issues and opinions. The second type is the semi-structured interview. This method requires questions previously prepared while additional questions are created as the interview unfolds, this provide the opportunity for the candidate to express their beliefs and perceptions more freely (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). Yet, this technique requires an experienced professional which is able to appropriately manage the interview avoiding possible deviations from it (Roth et al, 2001). Addition to that the disadvantage is that interviews don t take the experience of interviewee in to consideration (Arnald & Randall 2010). The unstructured interview is the third technique. In this case, the interviewers do not prepare the questions beforehand. Rather, the candidate has the liberty to supply any information they consider relevant and providing a sense of value and motivation for them (Latham & Finnegan, 1993). Nonetheless, as it may be expected, this technique is susceptible to a diversity of biases that might negatively impact the quality of decisions and based on subjective opinions and impressions (Dipboye, 1994). Interestingly, several findings have indicated that these types of interviews are not predominantly useful for predicting job performance and yet they are the most used by companies (Campion, 1997). The final type is the panel interview, in which more than one interviewer asks while observing the applicant. Therefore, not suitable candidates must be rejected at the end of the interview. This technique is not commonly used as it has been found to be low in reliability and validity as well as rather difficult to execute (Eder & Ferris, 1989).

In general, there is a variety of empirical findings on the reliability of interviews. Some studies have found that inter- reliability in structured techniques was intermediate (0.27 to 0.38) (Kreiter et al, 2004). Furthermore, different types of interviews evaluate dissimilar candidates competences and characteristics thus indicating that content validity is inconstant (Patrick, 2001). As a result, the strategy used to conduct an interview is important, whereas unreliable techniques do not successfully predict validity or utility of selected procedures. Furthermore, interviews seems to have moderately high validity, the constructs measured in an interview are vital however, the attributes, capabilities and competences are considered appropriate for graduates remain under debate (Patterson & Ferguson, 2012). Normally, the job analysis would be helpful to establish the necessary attributes for graduates, but there are such extensively different vocations that developing a precise set of characteristics is extremely challenging. In conclusion, the research evidence supporting the usefulness and effectiveness of interviews is poor. Its aim is to evaluate attributes beyond simple skills or academic knowledge however what and why they actually evaluate remains vague. Above all, the cost of face-to-face interviews are high in both time and money (Eva et al, 2004). A number of comparisons have shown that telephone interviews and Multiple Mini Interviews (MMI) have higher reliability and reduced the costs (Rosenfield et al, 208). Still, it remains limited understanding of what domains should be measured and more importantly, no type of interview has demonstrated a capacity to go beyond global constructs.

Assessment centre

Finally, the Assessment Centres Method (ACM), also known as selection centres, are a selection method used widely in business and recruitment agencies. Appelbaum, Harel and Shaprio (1998) demonstrated that assessment centres is a process to participate in a series of work samples that actually resemble to the actual job. In fact, assessment centres make use of different methods, including interviews, psychological tests, written tasks and group discussions (Woodruffe, 2000). Moreover, assessment centres are used for placement, promotion and career development. The last two factors are rather known as development centres in which is done internally in an organisation. In practice, several assessors are trained and observe applicants performance on various exercises and arrive at a consensus of opinion about the suitability of each candidate (Jones, 1981 Hough and Oswald, 2000). Most importantly, it may last only for a few days and up to a week.

Opposite findings have been proposed when refereeing to the weaknesses and advantages of such method. For instance, some authors argued that ACM is time consuming and extremely expensive (Bray & Grant, 1966 Furnham, Jensen & Crump, 2008). However, other studies have found ACM to be highly reliable, cost-effective, positively rated by both candidates and experts as well as suitable for high-volume assessments (Randall et al, 2006 Davies et al, 2006). Further evidence was provided for predictive validity in specific training performance notwithstanding, it is needed to investigate predictive validity in graduates. The dissimilarities among these findings would depend on the collaboration provided by academics, experts and professionals, thus improved logistics and team work on the stimulation, evaluation and measurement of the ACM would lead to a reliable and cost-effective selection technique. As Haaland and Christiansen (2002) suggested appropriate planning and design is necessary to maximise predictive its validity and effectiveness. Indeed, it has been found that ACM has a strong predictive validity (.40) due to multi-methods and dimensions (Hermelin, Lievens & Robertson, 2007 Klimoski & Brickner, 1987).

On the other hand, it is important to note that Assessment centres might include a vast number of components in different orders and combinations. Results are usually combined into a singular overall assessment rating (OAR), which allows decisions making to be objective and less bias. ACM provides unique information about the candidates abilities, competences and knowledge through observation of behaviours in a simulated work setting, therefore helping to predict work performance (Lewis & Zibarras, 2013). However, the process by which ACM is planned and managed could affect its utility.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper tried to evaluate the effectiveness of three selection methods used for selecting personnel. The Assessment Centre, Situational Judgement Tests and interviews have been evaluated to be implemented within a large-scale multistage process for Manpower. Although the analysis of each element illustrates both the advantages and weaknesses, it goes without saying that no approach is perfect. However, considering Manpower policies and guidelines, this essay will conclude that the Assessment Centre would be the ideal strategy for its graduate recruitment. It evaluates a variety of components such as strengths, skills, knowledge and competence of candidates, without taking into consideration previous work experience. For this particular matter, it fits perfectly under a graduated sample. Although this method might entail more time and resources than others, appropriate planning and design can be effectively applied in order to diminish these negative factors.

References

Arnold, J., Cooper, C.L., & Robertson, I.T. (1998). Work psychology: Understanding human behaviour on the work place. (3^rd ed.). London: Financial Times/ Pitman Publishing.

Arnold, J., & Randall, R. (Eds). (2011). Work psychology: Understanding human behaviour in the work place. (5^th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education.

Bray, D. W., & Grant, D. L. (1966). The assessment centre in the measurement of potential

for business management. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,

80(17), 1-27.

Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50, 655-702.

Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgement tests: Constructs assessed and meta-analysis of criterion-related validities. Personnel Psychology 63:83 117.

Davies, H., Randall, R., Patterson, F., & Farrell K. (2006). Selecting doctors for postgraduate training in paediatrics using a competency based assessment centre. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 91(5):444 . 159.

Eder, R. W., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.

Eva, K. W., Rosenfeld, J., Reiter, H. I., & Norman G. R. (2004). An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Medical Education. 38(3):314 .

Erasmus, B., Van Wyk, M., & Schenk, H. (2000). South African human resource management. Kenwyn: Juta.

Ferguson, E., Sanders, A., O Hehir, F., & James, D. (2000) Predictive validity of personal statements and the role of the five-factor model of personality in relation to medical training. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 73(3):321 .

Furnham, A., Jensen, T., & Crump, J. (2008). Personality, intelligence and assessment

centre expert ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(4),

356-365.

Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Personnel Psychology,

55(1), 137-163.

Hermelin, E., Lievens, F., & Robertson, I. T. (2007). The validity of assessment centres

for the prediction of supervisory performance ratings: A meta analysis. International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4), 405-411.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A, & Cable, D. M. (2000). The employment interview: A review of recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review: 10, 383-406.

Kreiter, C. D., Yin, P., Solow, C., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice. 9(2):147 .

Lewis, R. & Zibarras, L. (2013). Work and Occupational Psychology: Integrating theory

and practice. London: Sage.

Lievens, F., Helga, P. & Eveline, S. (2008). "Situational judgment tests: a review of recent research". Personnel Review 37 (4): 426 .

Mcdaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational Judgment Tests: A Review of Practice and Constructs Assessed. Situational Judgement Tests. 9:103 .

Muchinsky, P. (2012). Psycholofy Applied to Work. Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press. 110 .

Patterson, F., & Ferguson, E. (2008). Selection for medical education and training. ASME Understanding Medical Education Monographs. 1 .

Patterson, F., & Ferguson E. (2012). Testing non-cognitive attributes in selection centres: how to avoid being reliably wrong. Medical Education. 46(3):240 .

Patrick, L. E., Altmaier, E. M., Kuperman, S., & Ugolini, K. (2001). A structured interview for medical school admission, Phase 1: initial procedures and results. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 76(1):66 .

Randall, R., Stewart, P., Farrell, K., & Patterson, F. (2006). Using an assessment centre to select doctors for postgraduate training in obstetrics and gynaecology. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist. 8:257 .

Rosenfield, J. M., Reiter, H. I., Trinh, K., & Eva K. (2008). A Cost Efficiency Comparison Between The Multiple Mini-Interview and Traditional Admissions Interviews. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice. 13:43 .

Roth, P.L., Huffcutt, A.I., Conway, J.M. and Stone, N.J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews , Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 897-913.

Snow, M. H., Skochelak, S. E., Huggett, K., & Farrell P. M. (2003). Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 78(3):313 .