1. Part 4 Staffing Activities: Selection
Chapter 8:
Internal Selection
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

2. Staffing Organizations Model
Mission
Goals and Objectives
Organization Strategy
HR and Staffing Strategy
Staffing Policies and Programs
Support Activities
Core Staffing Activities
Legal compliance
Recruitment: External, internal
Planning
Selection: External, internal
Job analysis
Employment: Decision making & final match
Staffing System and Retention Management
10-2

3. Chapter Outline Preliminary Issues Logic of Prediction
Types of Predictors
Selection Plan
Initial Assessment Methods
Skills Inventory
Peer Assessments
Self-Assessments
Managerial Sponsorship
Informal Discussions and Recommendations
Choice of Methods
Substantive Assessment Methods
Seniority and Experience
Job Knowledge Tests
Performance Appraisal
Promotability Ratings
Assessment Centers
Interview Simulations
Promotion Panels and Review Boards
Choice of Methods
Discretionary Assessment Methods
Legal Issues

4. Discussion Questions for This Chapter
What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings?
Explain the theory behind assessment centers.
Describe the three different types of interview simulations.
Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority, assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures.
What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?

5. Internal selection (IS)
It refers to the assessment and evaluation of employees from within the O as they move from the job to job via transfer and promotion systems.
Preliminary issues is use to decide which assessment methods is going to use in IS
These assessment methods are the logic of prediction, the nature of predictors, and the development of selection plan
Assessment method is a method used to select internal candidates.

6. Preliminary Issues Logic of prediction Types of predictors
indicators of internal applicants’ degree of success in past situations should be predictive of their likely success in new situations
Types of predictors
there is usually greater depth and relevance to the data available (ex. personal files) on internal candidates relative to external selection
Selection plan - base on the selection
It important for internal selection to avoid the problems of favoritism and gut instinct that can be especially prevalent in internal selection
Normally base on who you know rather than relevant KSAOs

7. Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future Performance
Advantages of internal over external selection
Greater depth and relevance of data available on internal candidates
Greater emphasis can be placed on samples and criteria rather than signs

8. Discussion Questions
Explain how internal selection decisions differ from external selection decisions.

9. Initial Assessment Methods
Assessment methods base on the issues
Skills inventory
Peer assessments
Self-assessments
Managerial sponsorship
Informal discussions and recommendations

10. Skills Inventory
Traditional – rely on existing data on employee skills
List of KSAOs held by each employee
Records a small number of skills listed in generic categories, such as education, experience, and supervisory training received
Customized
Specific skill sets are recorded for specific jobs
SMEs identify skills critical to job success

11. Peer Assessments
Methods include peer ratings, peer nominations, peer rankings ex. 10.1
Strengths
Rely on raters who presumably are knowledgeable of applicants’ KSAOs
Peers more likely to view decisions as fair due to their input
Weaknesses
May encourage friendship bias
Criteria involved in assessments are not always clear

12. Ex. 10.1: Peer Assessment Methods

13. Initial Assessment Methods
Self-assessments
Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to determine promotability
Exh. 10.2: Self-Assessment Form
Managerial sponsorship
Higher-ups given considerable influence in promotion decisions
Exh. 10.3: Employee Advocates/sponsor
Informal discussions and recommendations
May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job performance

14. Choice of Initial Assessment Methods
Exh. 10.4: Evaluation of Initial Assessment Methods
Effectiveness of initial internal methods
Skills inventories and informal methods used extensively
Peer assessments methods very promising in terms of reliability and validity

15. Discussion Questions
What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations, and peer rankings?

16. Substantive Assessment Methods
Seniority and experience
Job knowledge tests
Performance appraisal
Promotability ratings
Assessment centers
Interview simulations
Promotion panels and review boards

17. Overview of Seniority and Experience
Definitions
Seniority
Length of service with organization, department, or job
Experience
Not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has undertaken
Why so widely used?
Direct experience in a job content area reflects an accumulated stock of KSAOs necessary to perform job
Information is easily and cheaply obtained
Protects employee from capricious treatment and favoritism
Promoting senior or experienced employees is socially acceptable -- viewed as rewarding loyalty

18. Evaluation of Seniority and Experience
Employees typically expect promotions will go to most senior or experienced employee
Relationship to job performance
Seniority is unrelated to job performance
Experience is moderately related to job performance, especially in the short run
Experience is superior because it is:
a more valid method than seniority
more likely to be content valid when past or present jobs are similar to the future job
Experience is unlikely to remedy initial performance difficulties of low-ability employees
is better suited to predict short-term rather than long-term potential

19. Job Knowledge Tests
Job knowledge includes elements of both ability and seniority
Measured by a paper-and-pencil test or a computer
Holds great promise as a predictor of job performance
Reflects an assessment of what was learned with experience
Also captures cognitive ability

20. Performance Appraisal
A possible predictor of future job performance is past job performance collected by a performance appraisal process
Advantages
Readily available
Probably capture both ability and motivation
Weaknesses
Potential lack of a direct correspondence between requirements of current job and requirements of position applied for
“Peter Principle”

21. Performance Appraisal
Ex. 10.5: Questions to Ask in Using Performance Appraisal as a Method of Internal Staffing Decisions
Is the performance appraisal process reliable and unbiased?
Is present job content representative of future job content?
Have the KSAOs required for performance in the future job(s) been acquired and demonstrated in the previous job(s)?
Is the organizational or job environment stable such that what led to past job success will lead to future job success?

22. Promotability Ratings
Assessing promotability involves determining an applicant’s potential for higher-level jobs
Promotability ratings often conducted along with performance appraisals
Useful for both selection and recruitment
Caveat
When receiving separate evaluations for purposes of appraisal, promotability, and pay, an employee may receive mixed messages

23. Overview of Assessment Centers
Elaborate method of employee selection
Involves using a collection of predictors to forecast success, primarily in higher-level jobs
Objective
Predict an individual’s behavior and effectiveness in critical roles, usually managerial
Incorporates multiple methods of assessing multiple KSAOs using multiple assessors

24. Ex. 10.7 Assessment Center Rating Form
Participants take part in several exercises over multiple days
In-basket exercise
Leaderless group discussion
Case analysis
Trained assessors evaluate participants’ performance

25. Characteristics of Assessment Centers
Participants are usually managers being assessed for higher-level managerial jobs
Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion of program
Take time 1 – 5 days assessment

26. Other Substantive Assessment Methods
Interview simulations
Role-play: candidate must play work related role with interviewer
Fact finding: candidate needs to solicit information to evaluate an incomplete case
Oral presentations: candidate must prepare and make an oral presentation on assigned topic
Promotion panels and review boards: use multiple raters, which can improve reliability and can broaden commitment to decisions reached

27. Choice of Substantive Assessment Methods
Exh. 10.8: Evaluation of Substantive Assessment Methods
Effectiveness of substantive methods
No single best method to narrow down candidate list to finalists
Job knowledge, promotability ratings, and assessment centers are strong in terms of reliability and validity
Interview simulations appear to be a promising technique for public contact jobs

28. Discussion Questions Explain the theory behind assessment centers.
Describe the three different types of interview simulations.
Evaluate the effectiveness of seniority, assessment centers, and job knowledge as substantive internal selection procedures.

29. Discretionary/optional Assessment Methods
Narrows list of finalists to those who will receive job offers
Decisions often made on basis of
Organizational citizenship behavior and
Staffing philosophy regarding EE0 / AA
Differences from external selection
Previous finalists not receiving job offers do not simply disappear
Multiple assessors generally used

30. Legal Issues
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)
Shattering the glass ceiling
Employ greater use of selection plans
Minimize use of casual, subjective methods and use formal, standardized, job-related assessment methods
Implement programs to convey KSAOs necessary for advancement to aspiring employees

31. Discussion Questions
What steps should be taken by an organization that is committed to shattering the glass ceiling?

32. Ethical Issues Issue 1 Issue 2
Given that seniority is not a particularly valid predictor of job performance, do you think it’s unethical for a company to use it as a basis for promotion? Why or why not?
Issue 2
Vincent and Peter are both sales associates, and are up for promotion to sales manager. In the last five years, on a 1=poor to 5=excellent scale, Vincent’s average performance rating was 4.7 and Peter’s was 4.2. In an assessment center that was meant to simulate the job of sales manager, on a 1=very poor to 10=outstanding scale, Vincent’s average score was 8.2 and Peter’s was 9.2. Assuming everything else is equal, who should be promoted? Why?