[IPAC-List] Manager-level interviews involving peers or rank-and-file ...

[Partain, Steven C.]

We have the same desire among hiring managers to do this sort of evaluation.  To me, it's a variation of the "let's take the candidate to lunch and get to know him" event.  Perhaps Dr. Highhouse can weigh in directly if part of this forum, but I find his criticism of holistic assessments like this to be very persuasive.  Key points I've taken away from his writings and presentations:

*There are surprisingly few studies on the relative effectiveness of holistic assessment for employee selection.
*Only one study clearly favored holistic assessment, compared with at least five that clearly favored analytical approaches, and at least seven that were a draw.
*The few studies to examine the incremental validity of holistic judgment have not provided encouraging results (i.e., analytical, mechanical approaches fill the glass half way; holistic judgments fill it the rest of the way).
*Research has shown unequivocally that the more the interview is structured or standardized to look like a test, the greater its utility for predicting on-the-job performance.

Having said that, Highhouse also points out that despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and growing movement in the use of evidence-based practices, people--including HR professionals and some I/O psychologists--continue to believe an intuitive approach to assessment is superior to an analytical one.  We all think we can "size up" people better than evidence supports.  I've made little headway in tempering that among hiring managers at my organization.

I'm interested in counter thoughts.

Steven Partain 
HR Manager
Human Resources 
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 
11945 SW 70th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223
www.tvfr.com 
Ph. 503-259-1292 
Fax. 503-974-2235


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Feuquay [mailto:jfeuquay at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:28 AM
To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Manager-level interviews involving peers or rank-and-file ...

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

>