Human Resource Management: Human Resource Selection

All right, welcome
back, or just welcome

if this is your first
time with us here.

We're going to continue our
discussion of human resources

and focus right
now on selection.

And so just to bring you up to
speed for what we've gone over

before, we focused on
the planning function--

so identifying what the jobs
are and what we need them to do,

doing a job analysis, developing
a job description, the job

specification, figuring
out what the jobs entail.

We've done a little
bit of recruitment.

And so we've
determined how we're

going to get people to
apply for our organization.

We focused either on internal
or external recruitment methods,

maybe a combination of the two.

And now we're going to
move on to selection.

And so what we assume now is
that we have already had people

applying for certain positions.

We have what we call
an applicant pool.

And so we have a large
number of people,

hopefully, that have
applied for our position.

And now what we need
to do is we need

to figure out who out of the
bunch is really any good.

We really need to figure out
who is the most likely out

of this group of
people, whoever it is,

that's going to be a
high-performing applicant.

So we have a group
of people in here.

And ultimately what
we're trying to do

is we're trying to whittle
them down and ultimately get

a handful of people.

And so we're getting a smaller
number, a little more refined.

And ultimately, what we do
with the selection process

is we enact hurdles.

And so with every stage
of the selection process,

we're trying to reduce
the number of people

that are in the applicant pool.

And so every time we
continue along that path,

we're getting
smaller, and smaller,

and smaller until, at the very
end, we have a few people.

And then we make
a decision who is

going to be the best candidate.

Who do we feel is the best
fit for the organization, can

do the job the most effectively,
is the best fit overall?

And so that's what the
selection process entails,

is ultimately taking a
large group of people

and then ultimately
enacting these barriers

so that each stage,
some people are

getting weeded out
of the process that

aren't a natural fit.

And so there's a number of
obstacles, hurdles, barriers,

whatever you want to
call them, that employers

will throw up as a way
of getting people out

of the organization.

So the first thing
you see when you apply

is you usually have to fill
out some type of application.

Usually you can't
get around this.

Sometimes they're paper copies.

A lot of times now,
they're completely online,

so it's automated.

So now that we
have computers that

pull certain pieces of
information and we can filter

makes things a lot easier than
just reviewing applications--

paper copies.

I know it's very tedious,
very time-consuming.

So the application
is good because what

it allows the employer
to do is it allows

them to obtain very, very basic
information about a candidate.

And so you're going to
get information like name.

You're going to get some address
information, and phone numbers,

and different things.

You're going to get
probably education.

You're probably going
to get experience, maybe

some references

But it's pretty basic.

It's very general.

It's going to look the same.

You can't really
develop a great deal

of inferences or conclusions.

You can't draw a great deal
of conclusions based simply

on an application.

I mean, they all are the
same, for the most part.

It's very, very
basic information.

So what you can typically
do with the application

is really just focus on things
like education and experience

and go from there usually.

And what you're doing
in the review process

is just trying to make
sure and see if people meet

certain minimum qualifications.

They have the minimum
level of experience

that we need, the minimum
level of education we need.

Let's move them on
to the next round.

And that can look a
number of different ways.

Sometimes, employers go right
to interviews, but sometimes--

and they make things a little
more interesting-- employers

can incorporate what we
refer to as employment tests.

And some of you may
have seen these.

If you've applied for
different positions.

They're not utilized
for all positions,

but typically some of the mid
to maybe higher-level positions

that require a lot of training
and there's a big investment,

employers want to
make sure that they're

going to get some type of
return and that if they're

going to put a lot of money
into you in terms of training,

and development costs, and
those different things,

that you're the right person
to make that investment.

And so employment tests
can look like a number

of different things.

You have simple aptitude
tests which just demonstrate

if you have certain skills.

You can do work samples, which
are actually very effective.

So let's say you're
interviewing for a position

as a administrative assistant.

For me to get a feel for if
you're administrative assistant,

I'm not going to ask you
a bunch of questions.

Maybe I'll give you a scenario
and have you perform functions

just like an administrative
assistant would

on the job for an hour or so.

I'll observe your behavior.

I'll observe your performance.

The scenarios I give you,
I want done a certain way.

And so I'm going to basically
score you on your performance

because that's basically
a realistic job preview.

That's what you're going
to be doing on the job.

And so the argument is,
is if you can't do it

in this environment,
then you're probably

not going to do it when
you're actually on the job.

And so those are generally
really effective.

Work samples are pretty
expensive though.

And they do take
some time, which

is why some employers shy
away from them because it

is a big investment.

But they do yield very
effective results.

Another thing you can do
or cognitive ability tests.

And this is under the umbrella
of employment tests, of course.

And I really am a fan
of cognitive ability

tests for a number
of different reasons.

The primary one, though, is
that, according to research,

the greatest link between
performance on the job

is intelligence or
general mental ability,

meaning that the more
intelligent or the higher the IQ

you are, the more
likely you're going

to perform better on the job.

Now, it's not always
the case, obviously,

because if people
are lazy, then that's

going to screw everything up.

But generally speaking, if
you're more intelligent,

what that does is that allows
you to learn complex tasks more

quickly than anyone else.

And so if you have
very complex jobs,

the argument is, is
I want someone that's

more intelligent because
they have the mental capacity

to learn those more
quickly and perform them

more effectively
and more regularly

with a certain
level of accuracy.

And so a lot of companies,
they utilize what

is known as a Wonderlic test.

It's a great test.

It's 50 questions,
all multiple choice.

And the exam or the test,
you get 12 minutes to take.

And no one ever finishes it.

I think there's maybe
a few instances where

anyone's ever finished.

But other than that, it's
very, very difficult to do so.

So you get 12 minutes.

You get 50 questions, and
you solve as many as you can.

You have to go in order.

You can't skip any.

And the questions start out,
and they're really easy.

And it's almost deceiving.

I've taken three or four.

And so you answer
the first couple.

And you're like,
this is so easy.

I'm doing so great.

But gradually, as you progress,
they get more difficult.

And so the importance of it is
there's a mathematical formula

based upon how many you
solve to get ultimately

what your level of IQ is.

And so a lot of employers, what
they do is they have a bar set.

So you have to get 22 right on
a Wonderlic exam, for example.

Otherwise, we screen you out.

You don't move on to the
next step of the process.

And I've actually worked
for employers where

they had a Wonderlic test.

They had a certain benchmark.

And if you did not
get higher than that,

then you didn't move
on to an interview.

You didn't even get to
talk to anybody at all.

It was really take this exam.

If you do well, then maybe we'll
move you on to the next step.

So that's a very
effective way of doing

it obviously is because
those are generally

pretty cost-effective.

They're pretty
inexpensive to do.

And so you really just set
someone up with a computer,

and they answer questions.

And then you're pretty
much good to go.

So assuming they get past
any type of employment test

that we do, you can also
do physical ability tests.

So if I'm hiring
for construction,

for example, if I
need something built,

I'm not going to
ask you questions

on how to build certain things.

I'm going to say, OK, well,
why don't you build this for me

real quick?

And I'll gauge your
performance and see

how you did because I
want to see ultimately

what your work is like.

I don't want you to describe
it to me because we generally

exaggerate a little bit.

I want you to do
it because that's

going to yield more
effective results.

Now, once I've finished through
that, what you can also do

and what you generally see
is employers also incorporate

some type of personal interview,
generally face to face.

And interviews are
generally structured,

meaning that there's a
set list of questions that

are asked to every applicant.

Every person applying gets
asked the same questions.

And the reason that
employers do that

is because we need to have some
way of measuring performance

for different applicants.

If I ask everybody a
different set of questions,

then I have no way of
grading and saying,

OK, well, candidate A was
better than candidate B. Well,

I don't really know.

I asked them
different questions.

And so that's why most employers
follow a structured interview

format.

The other reason is it
prevents the interviewer

from asking potentially
illegal questions,

like questions like age,
ethnicity, sexual orientation,

anything like that that can be a
red flag because you don't want

them making up
their own questions

and going a little
bit off the handle.

So if you have a list
of structured questions,

you ensure that they go based
upon your pre-approved questions

that have already been
screened by someone in HR.

Now, one trade-off that you get
to with regards to interviews

is that the
effectiveness of them

is dependent upon
the interviewer.

And what I mean by
that is a lot of biases

get introduced
with interviewers.

And there's been research
that's been done.

And even when we're
aware of them,

we still tend to introduce
other biases in there.

So I don't want to go into
these very, very much.

But just as an
example, there are

things called the halo
effect or the horns effect.

And you may have
heard of these before.

And so if I'm interviewing
someone and I find

out they have some type
of quality that I like--

maybe they went
to the same school

I did, or maybe they
are charismatic,

and I like that about
people, or whatever the case.

The point is, I find one quality
that I really, really like,

and then I focus on
that the entire time.

And what that does
is it affects the way

that I assess other questions.

I'm automatically looking for
the positive in everything

that they say, and I'm
losing my objectivity.

In contrast to that,
the horns effect

is when I find some quality
that I just don't like.

I very strongly dislike
some type of quality,

whether it's maybe a
certain type of cologne

that person has on.

Maybe it's a certain type
of dress, whatever it is.

Maybe they show up in
not-appropriate attire.

And so I've completely
written them off.

And now I'm looking for things
that support my belief that they

aren't a good applicant.

So I'm being very critical,
maybe overly critical

and obviously not consistent
with how I rate other people.

And so those are the
issues with interviews

and how we introduce other
biases depending upon ultimately

what's important to us.

And a lot of times, we do them,
and we don't even tend to.

it's not intentional,
but we just

automatically default to them.

So these are some of the
common selection tools.

And remember, when I
mentioned this before

is that the whole idea here is
we're trying to key in on who's

a qualified worker.

Out of this large
body of people,

how are we going to whittle
them down to a handful of people

where we can make a decision,
who's the most likely to be

a high-performing applicant?

And you can do a lot
more different things

than just what I've identified.

These are some of the
more common things.

There's been some really
interesting things

done by places like
Google, for example.

Google is notoriously known for
having a very, very difficult

selection process.

They have many steps.

They have phone
interviews, and then

different types of
aptitude tests, and then

face-to-face interviews.

And they ask you all these
types of crazy questions, like,

if you were the size of a
penny and you were in a blender

and the blender was about
to start, what would you do?

And so they're trying
to gauge your ability

to think critically
based upon that situation

and, also, if you ask
questions and different things

and try and zero in
on an actual answer.

There is also, a lot of
times, Larry Page, who's

the CEO of Google, would simply
ask the actual interviewee

to teach them
something, anything.

Whatever subject that you
know best, teach it to me.

I'm going to go get a cup of
coffee, and I'll be right back.

And I want you to
teach me something.

And so his rationale was,
one that's pretty uncommon.

No one ever does that.

And so you put the
applicant or the interviewee

in a state of shock almost.

You're kind of just,
wow, I didn't realize

that anyone ever asked that.

And so you're putting them
off guard a little bit

and trying to see
how they react,

if they can think
through the thing.

But also, his
rationale was, well,

if the interview went
completely horrible

and I didn't actually
choose them or they bombed

or whatever the case was, at
least I learned something.

So always looking for the
positive is a good thing.

So those are some of
the selection tools.

Hopefully that helps give
you some clarification

on that with regards to some
of the options employers have.