[IPAC-List] The lights finally go on

[Mark Hammer]

Many thanks for that, Herman.
 
You'll forgive me for posting before reading (it's being chugged out by
the printer at this very moment), and you and Wayne may well have
emphasized this in the chapter, but I suspect that one of the chief
obstacles to overcome before we leap too headlong into selecting "for
the organization" is the challenge of good measures of organizational
performance.
 
There is an explicit assumption in the field that KSAs -> job
performance, and a sort of implicit assumption that the "O" in KSAO ->
organizational performance (which could be at the team, division, or
broader level).  As with KSAs, O faces the very same criterion problem:
what do we think we're gaining with "more" of it, and how would we
measure that?
 
In the case of staffing strategies intended to increase
representativeness within an organization, the two principal purposes
are a) making sure all constituencies are at the policy table and any
policy emerging authentically captures everyone's needs and
circumstances, and b) fostering public trust in that institution and its
practices.  Fair enough.  How would we measure that and validate that
aiming for a representative workforce was producing those outcomes?
 
The almost-harder question linked to that is the matter of what sort of
time frame we should expect to see those outcomes in.  With KSAs, the
link between what is selected for and performance on the job, can be
almost instantaneous; get somebody who knows how to weld, and they start
welding professionally as soon as someone shows them where the equipment
is.  Staffing in terms of more encompassing and broader objectives, such
as trying to enhance public trust and engagement, is not the sort of
thing you might expect to see the fruits of for 6 months, 5 years, a
decade, or more (depends what sort of trust deficit you're starting
from).  And of course, between the point where the practice of staffing
in that way is introduced, and the 4-8 changes of senior leadership and
organizational restructurings later, there are any number of ways for
the organization to screw up, compromise public trust (like the incident
that initiated this thread), and put you back to square one; a kind of
trust "snakes and ladders".
 
That's a rather cynical view on my part, but the point is that the
relationship between staffing practices/strategies/policies that are
"the right thing to do", and the institutional outcomes they are aimed
at, is going to be tough slogging from a measurement perspective in a
great many contexts.  It may well be easier in the private sector
context, but I'll keep my musings to the sector I know.  Either way,
upper management has to have a clear sense of what they expect to see,
and how they intend to know they're seeing it.  And in my experience,
THAT's a tall order.
 
I look forward to reading the chapter, and to whatever replies pop up
here.  Thanks again.
 
Mark


>>> "Aguinis, Herman" <haguinis at indiana.edu> 2010/08/16 7:46 PM >>>

Mark,



The issue you mentioned in your posting about considering performance
within a specific context was discussed in detail in the following
article (available online at http://mypage.iu.edu/~haguinis --click on
the "refereed journal articles" link):



Cascio, W. F, & Aguinis, H. (2008). Staffing twenty-first-century
organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 133-165.



Specifically, this article defines in situ performance as "the
specification of the broad range of effects-situational, contextual,
strategic, and environmental-that may affect individual, team, or
organizational performance" (p. 146). The article's Abstract is below.
Let me know if you think this article is addressing the phenomenon you
described in your posting.



All the best,



--Herman.

*****************************************************

Herman Aguinis, Ph.D.

Dean's Research Professor and

Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources

Director, Institute for Global Organizational Effectiveness

Department of Management and Entrepreneurship

Kelley School of Business, Indiana University

http://mypage.iu.edu/~haguinis/

****************************************************



Abstract



We highlight important differences between 21st-century organizations
as compared to those of the previous century, and offer a critical
review of the basic principles, typical applications, general
effectiveness, and limitations of the current staffing model. That model
focuses on identifying and measuring job-related individual
characteristics to predict individual-level job performance. We conclude
that the current staffing model has reached a ceiling or plateau in
terms of its ability to make accurate predictions about future
performance. Evidence accumulated over more than 80 years of staffing
research suggests that general mental abilities and other traditional
staffing tools do a modest job of predicting performance across settings
and jobs considering that, even when combined and corrected for
methodological and statistical artifacts, they rarely predict more than
50% of the variance in performance. Accordingly, we argue for a change
in direction in staffing research 
and propose an expanded view of the staffing process, including the
introduction of a new construct, in situ performance, and an expanded
view of staffing tools to be used to predict future in situ performance
that take into account time and context. Our critical review offers a
novel perspective and research agenda with the goal of guiding future
research that will result in more useful, applicable, relevant, and
effective knowledge for practitioners to use in organizational
settings.






> 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



>



_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


>

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.