INTERNAL

SELECTION
 Initial • Skills inventory

Assessment
• Peer assessments
Methods
• Self-assessments

• Managerial sponsorship

• Informal discussions and

recommendations
 Skills • Traditional
Inventory – 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
 Peer • Methods include peer ratings, peer
nominations, peer rankings
Assessments
• 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
PEER ASSESSMENT METHODS
 Initial • Self-assessments

Assessment
– Job incumbents asked to evaluate own
skills to determine promotability. The
Methods problem with this method, some people
think a lot more highly of their skills and
talent.

• 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.
What are the differences among peer ratings, peer nominations,
and peer rankings?

DISCUSSION
QUESTION
Substantive • Seniority and experience

Assessment • Job knowledge tests

Methods
• Performance appraisal

• Promotability ratings

• Assessment centers

• Interview simulations

• Promotion panels and review boards

 Which one is better?

SENIORITY
OR EXPERIENCE
 Overview of • Seniority

Seniority and – Length of service with organization,

department, or job
Experience
• Experience
– Not only length of service but also
kinds of activities an employee has
undertaken
 Overview of • Why so widely used?

Seniority and – Direct experience in a job content

area reflects an accumulated stock
Experience of KSAOs necessary to perform job
– Information is easily and cheaply
obtained
– Promoting senior or experienced
employees is socially acceptable --
viewed as rewarding loyalty
Evaluation of • Relationship to job performance
– Seniority is unrelated to job performance
Seniority and – Seniority is moderately related to job
Experience performance, especially in the short run.

• Experience is superior because it is:

– a more valid method than seniority
– more likely to be valid when past or
present jobs are similar to the future job.

• Big three automakers abandoned

seniority for promotion as a reason for
their improved performance in Mid 1990s.
 Job • Job knowledge includes elements
Knowledge of both ability and seniority

Tests
• Measured by a paper-and-pencil
test or a computer-based test

• Holds great promise as a

predictor of job performance
– Reflects an assessment of what was
learned with experience
– Also captures cognitive ability
 FedEx • Federal express developed the
interactive video test to assess
Assessment employee ability to deal with
customers.
Method
• The test termed quest (quality using
electronic system thinking)

• The test is based on job analysis data

derived from the critical tasks necessary
to deliver high level of customer service.

• A 90% competency level on the test is

established as expectation for minimum
performance.
Performance • A possible predictor of future job
performance is past job performance
Appraisal 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.
Performance • Questions to Ask in Using Performance
Appraisal as a Method of Internal
Appraisal 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?
 A concept in management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a
10-
position is based on the candidate's performance in his or her current role rather 17
than on abilities relevant to the intended role.

PETER
PRINCIPLE
Promotability • Assessing promotability involves
determining an applicant’s potential for
Ratings 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
Overview of • Elaborate method of employee
selection
Assessment
Centers • 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
Overview of • Incorporates multiple methods of
Assessment assessing multiple KSAOs using
multiple assessors like:
Centers – situational question
– case analysis
– in-basket exercise
– group discussions
Characteristics • Participants are usually

of Assessment managers being assessed for

higher-level managerial jobs
Centers
• Participants are evaluated by
assessors at conclusion of
program.
 Other • Interview simulations
Substantive – Role-play: candidate must play
work related role with interviewer
Assessment – Fact finding: candidate needs to
Methods solicit information to evaluate an
incomplete case
– Oral presentations: candidate must
prepare and make an oral
presentation on assigned topic
Discretionary • Narrows list of finalists to those who will
receive job offers
Assessment
Methods • Decisions often made on basis of
– Employee past behavior
– Staffing philosophy regarding EEO

• Differences from external selection

– Previous finalists not receiving job offers
do not simply disappear
– Multiple assessors generally used
Ethical Issue 1
Issues •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?
Ethical Issue 2
Issues •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?