[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.
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