Staffing Organizations

Chapter 10:
Internal Selection

Because learning changes everything. ®

Copyright 2022 © McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
 Learning Objectives for Chapter 10
• Compare how the logic of prediction applies to internal vs.
external selection decisions.
• Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the five
initial assessment methods used in internal selection.
• Consider the merits and pitfalls of using seniority and
experience for internal selection decisions.
• Describe the main features of assessment centers.
• Understand the advantages and disadvantages of using
assessment centers for internal selection decisions.
• Evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
seven substantive assessment methods used in internal
selection.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Internal Selection 1
Preliminary Issues

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Preliminary Issues 1
• Logic of prediction
• 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 on internal candidates relative to external
selection.
• Selection plan
• important for internal selection to avoid the problems of
favoritism and gut instinct that can be especially prevalent
in internal selection.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts
Future Performance

Access the text alternative for slide images

© McGraw Hill LLC
 Preliminary Issues 2
• Logic of prediction
• 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 on
internal candidates relative to external selection.
• Selection plan
• important for internal selection to avoid the problems of favoritism and
gut instinct that can be especially prevalent in internal selection.
• 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.
© McGraw Hill LLC
 Discussion Question 1
• Explain how internal selection decisions differ from
external selection decisions.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Internal Selection 2
Initial Assessment Methods

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Talent Management/Succession Systems
• Keep ongoing records of skills, talents, and capabilities of
employees
• Primary goal is to facilitate internal selection systems through
up-to-date, accurate records on employees
• Potential uses
• Performance management.
• Recruitment needs analysis.
• Employee development.
• Compensation and career management.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Peer Assessments
• Methods include peer ratings, peer nominations,
peer rankings
• 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.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Peer Assessment Methods

Access the text alternative for slide images.

© McGraw Hill LLC
 Initial Assessment Methods
• Self-assessments
• Job incumbents asked to evaluate own skills to determine
promotability.
• Managerial sponsorship
• Higher-ups given considerable influence in promotion
decisions.
• Informal discussions and recommendations
• May be suspect in terms of relevance to actual job
performance.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Employee Advocates
• Coach
• Provides task-related and professional support.
• May recommend specific developmental opportunities.
• No reciprocity required.
• Sponsor
• Provides task-related and professional support.
• Guides person’s career rather than simply informing them of
opportunities; creates opportunities to develop the skills of the employee.
• A sponsor who chooses to advocate for an employee likely has built an
effective exchange relationship with that employee.
• Mentor
• Provides task-related, professional, and personal support.
• Can be informal or formally appointed.
• Mentors and protégés are expected to help each other, and the
mentorship experience may be similar to a friendship.
© McGraw Hill LLC
 Evaluation of Initial Assessment Methods

Predictor Use Cost Reliability Validity Utility Applicant Adverse

reactions Impact

Table
Talent management divided
Low into
Higheight columns
Moderate summarizes
Moderate High Negative Unsure
systems
evaluation of initial assessment methods. The
Peer assessments Low Low Moderate Moderate Unsure Positive Unsure
column headers are marked from left to right as:
Self assessments Low Low Low Low Unsure Unsure Unsure
Predictor, use, cost, reliability, validity, utility,
Managerial Mod. Moderate Unsure Moderate Unsure Positive Low
sponsorship applicant reactions, and adverse impact.
Informal methods High Low Unsure Unsure Unsure Mixed Unsure

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Discussion Questions 2
• What are the differences among peer ratings, peer
nominations, and peer rankings?

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Internal Selection 3
Substantive Assessment Methods

© McGraw Hill LLC

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

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Overview of Seniority and Experience
• Seniority
• Length of service with organization, department, or job.
• Less common in use in recent years.
• Experience
• Not only length of service but also kinds of activities an employee has
undertaken.
• Why used?
• Assume direct experience reflects an accumulated stock of KSAOs
necessary to perform job.
• Information is easily and cheaply obtained.
• Promoting senior or experienced employees is socially acceptable –
viewed as rewarding loyalty.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Evaluation of Seniority and Experience
• 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.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 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.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Performance Appraisal 1
• 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”

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Performance Appraisal 2
• 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?

© McGraw Hill LLC

 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.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 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

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Selection Plan for an Assessment Center

Source: Department of Employment Relations, State of Wisconsin.

Access the text alternative for slide images.
© McGraw Hill LLC
 Sample 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.

Access the text alternative for slide images.

© McGraw Hill LLC
 Characteristics of Assessment Centers
• Participants are usually managers being assessed for
higher-level managerial jobs
• Participants are evaluated by assessors at conclusion
of program

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Evaluation of Assessment Centers
Validity
• Moderate positive validity
• Validity is higher when
• Multiple predictors are used.
• Assessors are psychologists rather than managers.
• Peer evaluations are used.
• Possess incremental validity in predicting
performance and promotability beyond personality
traits and cognitive ability tests
Potential drawbacks
• High expense.
• Questions about what is being measured.
© McGraw Hill LLC
 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

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Evaluation of Substantive Assessment Methods

Predictor Use Cost Reliability Validity Utility Applicant Adverse

reactions Impact

Seniority Mod Low High Low Unsure Mixed Low

Table divided
Job knowledge tests Low
into
Mod
eight columns
High
summarizes
High High Positive High
Performance
evaluation
Mod
of substantive
Mod
assessment
Mod Mod
methods.
Unsure
The
Mixed High
appraisal column headers are marked from left to right as:
PromotabilityPredictor,
ratings Lowuse, cost,
Low reliability,
High validity,
Mod utility,
Unsure Mixed Unsure
applicantLowreactions,
Assessment centers High and Mod
adverse Mod
impact. High
. Mixed Low
Interview exercises Low High Mod Mod Unsure Mixed Low
Promotion panels Mod High Mod Low Unsure Positive Mod

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Discussion Questions 3
• 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.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Internal Selection 4
Discretionary Assessment Methods

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Discretionary 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

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Internal Selection 5
Legal Issues

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Legal Issues
• Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures (UGESP)
• The Glass Ceiling and the Glass Cliff
• 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.

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Discussion Questions 4
• What steps should be taken by an organization that is
committed to shattering the glass ceiling?

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Ethical Issues in Staffing 1
• Issue 1
• 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?

© McGraw Hill LLC

 Ethical Issues in Staffing 2
• Issue 3
• As a member of a promotion board, you have been confronted with a
difficult decision. The board is fairly split on who to promote into the vacant
manager position, and results from several valid predictors have not
differentiated very well among the few candidates for the position: there is
not a candidate that is clearly outperforming the others. Although you tried
to avoid it, several board members have political reasons for preferring one
finalist over the rest (this person is not the best choice, according to the
predictor data). Furthermore, the results of this promotion decision (a
vacancy that the company has not seen in years) are likely to reverberate
throughout the organization—all the finalists are key internal players who
exercise immense influence and command the loyalty of their subordinates.
If one of the finalists were to leave or become disgruntled, it would be
devastating for the organization. Many of the board members believe that
the finalists should not have the privilege of knowing what went into the
decision; they believe the board’s say is final, regardless of how it affects the
finalists. As a key board member overseeing the promotion process, how
would you go about making a decision?
© McGraw Hill LLC
 End of Main Content

Because learning changes everything. ®

www.mheducation.com

Copyright 2022 © McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
 Logic of Prediction: Past Performance Predicts Future
Performance - Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.

Past situations include previous job, current job and nonjob

while new situation (job) includes HR outcomes as: attraction,
performance, satisfaction, retention and attendance.

Return to parent-slide containing images.

© McGraw Hill LLC