[IPAC-List] Manager-level interviews involving peers or rank-and-file ...
Jeff Feuquay
jfeuquay at gmail.com
Wed May 2 11:27:44 EDT 2012
My recollection of a talk several years ago by Dr. Scott Highhouse, or I
could be making it up entirely, was that his department used a similarly
described process for the final selection of faculty. The trick, as I
understood it, is to provide to the panel only those individuals who are
well-qualified to do the job based on professional screening. That way, the
group interview can do little harm if it's not significantly less effective
than a coin toss. That is, except for that elephant in the room . . . when
a bunch of [insert age range], [insert race/ethnicity] [insert gender]
consistently presumes the most qualified candidate is much like themselves.
Then, after our best efforts, we end up with the limited-criteria "tap on
the shoulder" selection that EEOC seems particularly attracted to recently.
Jeff
-----------------------------------------
Dr. Jeffrey P Feuquay, I/O Psychologist & Attorney
Special Counsel to Russell, Brown & Breckenridge, LLC and
Director, Psychology-Law Center, LLC
108 W. Walnut, PO Box 376, Nevada, MO 64772
ofc: 417.667.5076 fax: 417.667.3013
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM, <RPClare at aol.com> wrote:
> I don't believe the composition of the panel would necessarily change our
> obligations regarding the functions of the panel. it does give the
> advantage
> of varied perspectives (and perhaps more "accurate" ones). Wouldn't
> leadership/management style be important to have the perspective of those
> to be
> led/managed? Our real challenge is to determine how we structure the panel
> and to ensure that our analysis is designed to uncover the characteristics
> that can be better tapped with the panels competency. Regardless of the
> composition of the panel, the issue of controlling "hidden agendas"(and
> some
> not so hidden)/bias/feelings among panelists is a continuing and difficult
> challenge. This type of panel in "merely" the selection equivalent of a
> 360
> performance evaluation.
>
>
> In a message dated 5/2/2012 10:03:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> ppluta at hr.lacounty.gov writes:
>
> I believe this would qualify as a 'fit' type of evaluation, rather than a
> competency-based assessment. If it is part of an overall selection
> battery, I would certainly make it the last hurdle. I would also develop
> some
> structure for the panels to provide their evaluations, such as ratings on
> specific indexes of person-organization fit. The extant literature (e.g.,
> Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994; Amiot, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2006;
> Chatman,
> 1991; Hult, 2005; Westerman, & Cyr, 2004) indicates that values congruence
> is one of the best indicators of person-organization fit. So identifying
> your organization's shared values and identifying the extent to which the
> candidate shares those values may be helpful. I believe there are
> potential
> pitfalls to leaving these interactions completely unstructured and making
> it an evaluation of how the people "feel" about the candidate.
>
> Paul E. Pluta, ABD
> Human Resources Analyst
> Department of Human Resources
> Talent Management Division
> Phone: 213.738.2021
> ppluta at hr.lacounty.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org
> ]
> On Behalf Of keith.poole at phoenix.gov
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:10 PM
> To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org
> Subject: [IPAC-List] Manager-level interviews involving peers or
> rank-and-file employees
>
> We (central HR) occasionally get asked by departments to bless "synergy"
> interview panels or discussions with candidates. Usually this is for a
> management level position, and the department wants to invite all
> employees,
> or a cross-section of employees, to meet candidates and have either
> structured or unstructured Q&A with that potential manager. Another
> variation: a panel of the existing, equivalent-level managers in that
> department will interview and assess candidates, potentially picking their
> next coworker/peer.
>
> The trick seems to be, how do we incorporate their feedback and assessment
>
> into the overall selection decision, while avoiding hidden agendas. In
> some cases the synergy panels do seem to reveal fatal flaws. In other
> cases you get camps rooting for candidate A vs B vs C and everything just
> gets
> muddy.
>
> Is there an industry term for this type of interview? Any research or
> suggestions on how this can be a meaningful part of the selection process?
>
>
> Keith Poole
> Human Resources Supervisor
> City of Phoenix HR Department
> 135 N 2nd Ave
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> Phone: (602) 262-7140
> Fax: (602) 495-5498
> Email: keith.poole at phoenix.gov
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list