[IPAC-List] The lights finally go on

[Aguinis, Herman]

Mark,

Thank you for sharing these great observations. I agree that measurement is a challenge. However, albeit not perfect, we do have some tools available. For example, multi-attribute utility analysis is one of them. The application of this approach allows for, as an example, an evaluation of whether the use of test-score banding makes sense in a specific context and organization based on the broader organization-level goals mentioned in your message and also based on the perspective of various stakeholders. This approach is discussed in detail in the following source (available in pdf format at http://mypage.iu.edu/~haguinis --click on the "book chapters" link):


Aguinis, H., & Harden, E.  (2004). Will banding benefit my organization? An application of multi-attribute utility analysis. In H. Aguinis (Ed.), Test-score banding in human resource selection: Legal, technical, and societal issues (pp. 193-216). Westport, CT: Praeger.

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/
****************************************************


> -----Original Message-----

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On

> Behalf Of Mark Hammer

> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:16 AM

> To: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] The lights finally go on

> 

> 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.

> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list