[IPAC-List] The lights finally go on

[Bryan Baldwin]

A study I just read about that addresses to some extent the points being
raised:
 
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 
someone 
who buys ink by the barrel" (you cannot "win")
2) from my former Selection boss: "no one ever fails a good 
test...their 
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
"affirmative
action"  program in the Canadian federal public sector, the
distinction
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
only
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
fostering
a workforce representative  of the citizenry it serves was not the
same
thing as making restitution for  historical wrongs.  He asserted
staunchly that it was ALL "affirmative  action" that ignored merit.  So
I
asked him what he thought "merit"  was, and he replied with one word
"qualifications".

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,
etc.,
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
training,
prior work experience and general  knowledge.

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

So, for the  candidate, like this irritated columnist, one's merit IS
"qualifications",  while for the hiring manager, "merit" goes well
beyond
mere qualifications  and takes the organization into account.  The
columnist I was debating  with considers that "preferential hiring"
and
contrary to merit.  And  the perpetual conflict occurs because THE
COMPLAINTS COME FROM THE  CANDIDATES AND THE POLICY COMES FROM THE
MANAGERS, each of whom have  different perspectives, and can't HELP
but
have different  perspectives.  Of course the columnist who cynically
told
me I had  been "well-trained" and "spun things nicely" does no hiring
himself.   He sees things exclusively from the candidate's
perspective,
as do all the  folks who complain to him about non-existent
"affirmative
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 
different
reality, how managers make picks, and why that matters, and 
especially
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
Ottawa

(***Woman applies on-line for a position as part of a  process where
the
hiring manager was trying to specifically recruit visible  minority
candidates.  Somebody was placing too much faith in use of  technology
to
do the job of human beings, so when the woman got to a filter 
question
that asked whether she was "white" or "visible minority", and  she
replied "white", she got unceremoniously bumped by the software.  
There
are ways to tell someone they're not EXACTLY what you're looking for 
at
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
from
disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized  disclosure, copying or
re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a  named recipient or
not
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
titre
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
n'êtes
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
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
I
PAC-List at ipacweb.org 
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


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
communication.