Nice Essay

The Individual and the Organisation: Selection and Choice

The selection of employees with the correct abilities and qualities is important in any organisation as this will ensure the best possible future performance of both the candidate and the organisation. It is for this reason that a great deal of emphasis is placed upon using the most accurate selection procedures, which are a means of measuring the future performance of job candidates with some predictability. Since the “reliability and validity of selection procedures determines the quality of personnel entering an organisation, it is crucial that selection procedures provide valid assessments of future behaviour” (Arnold et al., 2001). It is therefore necessary to ensure the accuracy of selection methods by assessing the criterion-related validity of the predictors. It is only after both the validity and reliability of a personality test have been established can it be used to aid the selection of employees with any accuracy.

Before the selection process can be completed, the two main principles that underline the roles of personnel selection and assessment must be understood. The first is that there are many individual differences between people, the conclusion being that not all people are equally suited to every job. It is for this reason that the selection process needs to be as accurate as possible, as jobs and individuals need to fit together to be effective. One method of achieving this is to fit the job to the person, which requires selecting and training a worker specifically for one job. The other is to fit the person to the job, which requires designing the job’s tasks to suit the worker’s physical and psychological characteristics. As every person is unique and individual, both methods must be considered when selecting appropriate candidates. From the perspective of a candidate, it is possible to ‘fit’ a job by analysing the job criteria and seeing how well these match his/her personal characteristics. If there appears to be a high correlation, it would be safe to assume that the job would be an appropriate match. For example, if the job description specifies that the candidate should be motivated, enthusiastic and a quick learner, and the candidate believes him/herself to be so, the candidate should apply as the chances of being successful are greatly enhanced.

The second principle of personnel assessment and selection is that future behaviour is only partly predictable. Due to constant interaction with other people and the environment, a person’s characteristics and, as a result of this, behaviour patterns can change. In this respect, it is important to assess all the available information before the selection of a candidate.

Many organisations use job analyses in the selection process which can not only give the candidate an understanding of the job, but it can also enable an interviewer to determine which qualities are required from the successful candidate by listing the criteria that candidates must satisfy if they are to be successful. However, as useful as they may be in providing information relating to each individual work place, job analyses alone cannot prove that certain characteristics mean that one person is better suited to a job than another as translating these characteristics to psychological qualities is a difficult and complicated process.

Personality, which refers to “the psychological qualities that influence an individual’s characteristic behaviour patterns, in a distinctive and consistent manner, across different situations and over time” (Huczynski et al., 2001), is an important factor in job selection as behaviour can affect performance in the work place. In this respect, personality is one aspect that needs to be considered when applying for a job vacancy.

One method of determining whether a candidate is suited to a job is to use a personality test. A personality test is “a selection procedure to measure the personality characteristics of applicants that are related to future job performance” (Kiess, 1996). An example of a personality test is the Kiersey Character Sorter, which is based upon Jungian theory.

If, for example, a candidate were identified as a ‘Guardian’ using this method, the candidate would have the following characteristics: responsible, hardworking, loyal, dutiful, and dependable, with a natural talent in managing people, goods and services. When selecting which job to apply for, the candidate would be encouraged to apply for a job which specified the need for similar personal qualities to those identified by the personality test. For example, a ‘Guardian’ might apply for a job in a management or consultancy firm in which interacting with customers and providing a service are important factors. Another factor that would encourage a ‘Guardian’ to apply would be working as part of a team, while also being a leader as and when required. The job description stated that a successful candidate would have to be enthusiastic, determined and responsible, all of which are qualities identified in the personality test. Again, the candidate would be influenced into applying for that particular job.

However, while personality tests provide some information about a candidate, they are poor predictors of future performance as people are able to develop new skills, behaviours and to adapt to new circumstances. In this respect, personality asessments capture only a fragment of the whole, and will not be accurate over a long period of time. For some highly skilled and technical professions, an applicant’s training and experience may have a greater impact on job performance than personality, and so although an applicant may not appear to be suitable, he/she may be more so than a candidate with apparently ‘appropriate’ characteristics.

Another disadvantage of the use of personality assessments is the fact that, in clinical and research settings, people generally answer honestly, but when applying for a job, candidates give the answer seen to be correct. As a result of this inaccuracy, personality tests should not be used as a selection method by themselves but in conjunction with other procedures as one element of the selection process, such as an interview. To a certain extent, personality tests are important in personnel selection as the work place is becoming more project and team orientated, resulting in an increased emphasis upon the individual personality of each employee. In this respect, it is vital that the role of fit in job selection is considered before applying for, and accepting, a job.

Interviews have always been the most popular form of selection in the UK and Europe (used by eighty per cent of companies), but they can also be a very imperfect way of obtaining accurate information about an individual due to the way in which the interview is structured and how the final conclusion of whether or not to offer employment is made.

The main reason for this has been shown to be the actual structure of the interview. Many organisations would benefit greatly by standardizing their interviews and giving more thought to the data, regarding the candidate’s past experiences and personal qualities for example, which needs to be collected. Due to the lack of planning, the data is collected in an unsystematic way that allows poor comparison between candidates. Overcoming this disadvantage requires preparation and a consideration of exactly what is being evaluated. Adding structure by asking each candidate the same questions in the same order yields more data and produces results that are more valid and reliable. Not only would this formal structure allow the interviewer to control the direction of the interview, but it would also provide the interviewer with the ability to compare the answers of all the candidates in order to see which best meets the criteria defined in the job analyses. This method allows less opportunity to best judge the applicant’s personality, but is a more accurate predictor of future work-related behaviour as the interviewer can focus upon past behaviour within a given situation. The interviewer could, for example, ask the candidate to describe a situation in which he/she was required to work as part of a group. Not only does this allow the interviewer to focus upon the candidate’s past experiences, but to gain an impression of the quality of the candidate’s interpersonal and communicational skills within a work environment.

However, although they are a good method of further evaluating a person’s character and competence, interviews have frequently been shown to be questionable as to their reliability and validity. The judgements made as a result of interviews are often inconsistent and poorly predict later performance on the job.

One reason for this is what is commonly known as the ‘halo’ effect. This refers to “our tendency to assume that one desirable characteristic in a person means that they will also possess other desirable characteristics, even if we have no direct evidence for them” (Arnold et al., 1998). The halo effect can, quite literally, blind the interviewer in regards to faults and unsuitable characteristics. Research has shown that the type of school or university attended by the candidate, or even the candidate’s accent can influence interviewers. The opposite of the ‘halo’ effect is the ‘horns’ effect, where on undesirable characteristic encourages the interviewer to reject a candidate. If, for example, the candidate was born and raised in Wales, this might influence the interviewer of an English firm to reject that candidate. Closely linked with the ‘halo’ and ‘horns’ effects is the implicit personality theory.

An implicit personality theory refers to “the beliefs that each of us holds about the personal qualities that ‘go together’ when we make a judgement about another person” (Sims et al., 1993). An experiment conducted by Kelley in 1950 illustrates the theory that we unconsciously make social judgements about other people. As Kelley shows, we form our impressions of people by concentrating upon one aspect of their character (such as dress, voice, gait) and fit them together as an ‘assumptive framework’ (what we expect people to be who dress like, …speak like,…walk like to be and do). While assumptions are an inevitable part of thinking, we are not always aware of making them and this can lead to the candidate being disadvantaged by the interviewer’s personal opinion clouding his/her judgement.

However, from the perspective of a job applicant, this can also be an advantage as it is possible to learn the appropriate ‘mask’ to wear. An applicant can create the most desirable impression, allowing the ‘halo’ effect to bias the interviewer in his/her favour. It is possible to use many different tactics to present a certain image of ourselves that is suitable to the situation and the environment in order to manipulate the other person’s opinion of ourselves. This is often termed “impression management” (Rosenfield et al., 1995) and concerns the theory that the perceiver (in this case the interviewer) can only perceive what the target (the interviewer) wants him/her to. (Arnold et al., 1998). In regards to a job interview, impression management can be used by revealing an (perhaps false) obstacle or barrier, which the candidate previously overcame. The candidate is thus hoping that this revelation will encourage the interviewer to view him/her as a motivated, determined and competent person. Another technique of using impression management to a candidate’s advantage would be ingratiation - bringing (oneself) into a person’s favour, especially to gain advantage - in an attempt to make himself/herself more attractive to the interviewer.

Research shows that interviewers often reach their decision as to whether to employ a candidate in the first few minutes of the interview. The interviewer then seeks confirmation of their judgement, ignoring most of the candidate’s weaknesses and looking more favourably upon those he/she recognises. If, upon entering the room, the candidate shook the interviewer’s hand and said ‘good morning’ in a clear, articulate voice, the interviewer’s initial opinion of the candidate would be one of a polite, well-mannered, well-spoken person. This initial impression would positively affect the interviewer’s opinion of the candidate. In this respect, the interviewer’s perception of a candidate’s personality and initial behaviour can determine the outcome of the interview, irrelevant of a candidate’s suitability. It is possible to avoid the primary effect, but there is then a danger of the recency effect (a tendency to place too much emphasis upon the last information received about a candidate). Even if the candidate is re-interviewed at a later date, the first impressions that the interviewer has of that candidate will be hard to change.

Another major problem associated with interviews is discrimination, as people tend to identify with those similar to them. In this respect, the interviewer could identify an applicant with traits similar to his/her own, but not essential for the job, and discriminate against those who are not similar. Not only does this mean that an unsuitable candidate could be successful, but if similar people are continually picked, it can lead to organisational cloning, resulting in a position where there is little diversification between the employees as well as a limited range of personal qualities.

Closely linked with discrimination is stereotyping, which is the “generalised beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviours of members of certain groups” (Hilton and Von Hippel, 1996). Many researchers believe that we develop stereotypes in an attempt to define our identity and those of others in terms of group memberships. This is the foundational basis of “social identity theory” (Tajfel and Turner, 1985), which proposes that “not only do we wish to create a social ‘map’, we also wish to uphold the value of our own group relative to other groups” (Arnold et al., 1998). It has been argued that interviewers in groups different from the candidate’s will view him/her in terms of negative stereotypes, and thus reject the candidate on grounds of unsuitability in an attempt to enhance the superiority of his/her group.

As research has shown, a wide range of cognitive biases all effect the final decision about whether or not to offer employment. However, despite any inaccuracies, interviews remain the most commonly used form of personnel selection and will do so until a more efficient, accurate method can be devised. Until then, personnel selection will remain partially biased, based upon the perception and initial impressions of the interviewer. One thing is for certain - even with its disadvantages, an interview remains the best, modern-day method to discovering the real person behind an anonymous application form.

Bibliography

Arnold, J., Gooper, C. & Robertson, I. (1998), Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, London: Financial Times, Pitman Publishing

Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D. (2001), Organizational Behaviour; An Introductory Text, London: Financial Times, Prentice Hall

Sims, D., Fineman, S. & Gabriel, Y. (1993), Organizing and Organizations; An Introduction, London: Sage Publications

www.frc.mass.edu/hkiess/work.htm

Word count (excluding Bibliography): 2261