[IPAC-List] The lights finally go on

Bryan Baldwin Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov
Mon Aug 16 19:26:21 EDT 2010

A study I just read about that addresses to some extent the points being

Unzueta, M.M. & Lowery, B.S. (2010). The impact of race-based
performance differences on perceptions of test legitimacy. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 40(8), 1948-1968.

Abstract: This paper examines if perceptions of test legitimacy
increase when racial differences on test performance match the racial
status quo or when a perceiver's in-group performs better than expected,
relative to other groups. Study 1 assesses expected performance
difference for various racial groups on a GRE-like test. Study 2
assesses White and Asian participants' perceptions of legitimacy of a
test that either favors the in-group or an out-group. Study 3 replicates
Study 2 using individuals from high- and low-status groups (Asians and
Latinos, respectively). The findings suggest that the desire to benefit
the in-group trumps the desire to justify the status quo in accounting
for the impact of race-based performance differences on perceptions of
test legitimacy.

Bryan Baldwin
Staff Services Manager II
California Department of Justice
Division of Administrative Support
Personnel Programs
(916) 322-5446

>>> <RPClare at aol.com> 8/16/2010 8:23 AM >>>

Two quotes:
1) from a former Mayor of Providence, RI, twice convicted felon and
popular radio host and political commentator: "never pick a fight with
who buys ink by the barrel" (you cannot "win")
2) from my former Selection boss: "no one ever fails a good
result determines the quality of the test/process"

In a message dated 8/16/2010 11:05:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca writes:

A recent incident here in Ottawa*** has reignited a kerfuffle over
hiring of minorities. While we have never actually HAD any
action" program in the Canadian federal public sector, the
between affirmative action, employment equity, and diversity, as
historically connected but different approaches to recruitment and
hiring is lost on a great many, including, sad to say, the cabinet
minister who technically oversees the public service. Since he was
a couple of weeks into the job when he made his rather under-informed
public pronouncements, I'll cut him some slack.

But that's not the nature of my post.

Last Friday, I entered into a series of e-mail exchanges with a
columnist of a somewhat grumpy right-wing bent concerning his
pronouncements about our "affirmative action" programs. I tried to
differentiate the various approaches for him, and explain that
a workforce representative of the citizenry it serves was not the
thing as making restitution for historical wrongs. He asserted
staunchly that it was ALL "affirmative action" that ignored merit. So
asked him what he thought "merit" was, and he replied with one word

It was during my reply that things finally clicked for me.

For a couple of years now, we have been asking hiring managers, and
candidates, in two separate-but-parallel surveys, what they felt was
important in making the selection decision. We give them a bunch of
different things to rate, like abilities, training, work experience,
general knowledge, potential for development to higher positions,
and "personal suitability or match to the work team". Both hiring
managers and candidates give the strongest ratings to abilities, but
where candidates tend to place their work experience, training and
general knowledge just behind that, and often well ahead of "match to
the work team", managers place match to the work team just ever so
slightly behind abilities, and well ahead of the candidate's
prior work experience and general knowledge.

Candidates tend to think about their merit in isolation, and
quite apart from the context they are applying to. Makes sense.
often have little information about the particulars
of the context,
they focus on only those things they know about: themselves.
on the other hand, ARE privy to information about the context, and
they ponder whether this candidate is going to "work out", they
in things that go well beyond mere "qualifications", like
the diversity of their work team, how the candidate might fill on
knowledge gaps, and so on. Indeed, our revised definition of "merit"
the current Public Service Employment Act treats membership in one of
the designated employment equity groups as a potential component in
expanded definition of merit that the manager can consider as an
of "organizational needs".

So, for the candidate, like this irritated columnist, one's merit IS
"qualifications", while for the hiring manager, "merit" goes well
mere qualifications and takes the organization into account. The
columnist I was debating with considers that "preferential hiring"
contrary to merit. And the perpetual conflict occurs because THE
MANAGERS, each of whom have different perspectives, and can't HELP
have different perspectives. Of course the columnist who cynically
me I had been "well-trained" and "spun things nicely" does no hiring
himself. He sees things exclusively from the candidate's
as do all the folks who complain to him about non-existent
action" policies.

So what's my punch line? There is work to be done in terms of
educating the broader applicant pool about the FACT of their
reality, how managers make picks, and why that matters, and
why they need to understand that employment law and policy is almost
always going to reflect the needs of hiring managers more than the
wishes and perspective of applicants.

Some of you are probably saying "Well, DUH!", but maybe others are
muttering, like me, "Come to think of it, that really IS the basis of
the conflict, isn't it?".

Happy Monday. Hope your summer is going well.

Mark Hammer

(***Woman applies on-line for a position as part of a process where
hiring manager was trying to specifically recruit visible minority
candidates. Somebody was placing too much faith in use of technology
do the job of human beings, so when the woman got to a filter
that asked whether she was "white" or "visible minority", and she
replied "white", she got unceremoniously bumped by the software.
are ways to tell someone they're not EXACTLY what you're looking for
the present moment, and that was likely one of the least sensitive or
considerate ones. The woman took offense, contacted certain
higher-profile parties to object, and here we are.)


This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt
disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or
re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or
authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this
e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete
the message and any copies.


Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en
et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou
soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute
divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est
interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou
pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu
par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
supprimer le courriel et les copies.

IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
PAC-List at ipacweb.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the
use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use
or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list