Varied Selection Tools Proposal

The employee selection process in the mid-1970s dramatically changed through a crucial development that was introduced simultaneously into different research areas (Aguinis, Pierce, & Culpepper, 2009).  The development of meta-analyses was the partial event which had arguably been of one of the most influential methodologies in the recent decades to be developed in research.  According to Schmidt and Hunter (1977) this research development introduced validity generalization an application of meta-analysis that is used in employment test to provide validity to the data.  Through this development qualitatively gathering results from large numbers provided by small scale studies results in a quasi-massive multipurpose scale study (Brannick & Levine, 2002).  Through the meta-analysis it aids the way that generalization validity studies of employee selection are conducted.  This knowledge is relevant as because of the introduction of this occurrence it has provided researchers with the weight of being able to connect in consider the effects of artifacts such as range restriction, measurement error, and sampling error (Brannick & Levine, 2002).  This process therefore has revolutionized employ selection and testing for an organization.  The proposal lists valid as well as reliable test tools that are suggested by Iwamoto Crews Coe in order be used during the employee selection process for the available positions that are needed to be filled by Gilliland-Moore Wines.

Varied Selection Tools

            There are a variety of important considerations that need to be associated with both implementation and design of a pre-employment selection tool in system (Aguinis, Pierce, & Culpepper, 2009).  There are two practices which have been acknowledged to be the best in being able to provide the strongest evidence of legal justification for using pre-employment assessment.  Generally an organization competes fiercely with other organizations in order to gain talented personnel.  Some of the organizations invest a large amount of money, time, and additional resources into recruiting, advertising, and developing strategies in which to best attract candidates.  This is due to the executives of today having an understanding that the most important as well as crucial resource in an organization is their human factor or their employees (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).  When it comes to assessing the different candidates in order to find the individual who will most effectively and efficiently perform for the related job, a variety of organizations tend to employ unsystematic and rudimentary approaches when seeking employees for their workforce (Weichmann, Schmitt, & Harvey, 2001).  This process can have serious detrimental effects on an organization especially one that has a strategic focus on increasing the competitive advantage that they have through effective talent management (Weichmann, Schmitt, & Harvey, 2001).

            Additionally, there are some organizations which may fail to use scientifically proven assessments in order to help make decisions for their selection process despite the assessments having been shown to have resulted in significant increases in productivity, decreases in attrition, cost savings, and other critical outcomes for the organization which translate into increased profitability (Weichmann, Schmitt, & Harvey, 2001).  This means that an organization has substantial favorable results financially that are associated with their using effective assessments in order to make selection decisions for employment.  Selecting the right employee through the use of a variety of tools such as tests, interviews, assessment centers, reference checks, and background checks are all important tools and paramount to the organization selecting the right employee.  This is for three critical reasons including profitability, legal obligations, and performance of the employee (Brannick & Levine, 2002).

Pertinent Tests for Selection

            The primary purpose when it comes to an employment test is in using the test to screen individuals in order to base the individuals accordingly to their inferences related to the performance and job duties within the organization (Brannick & Levine, 2002). “Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that individual differences evaluated through personnel assessment methods have important implications for job performance and the financial value of the employees’ performance for the organization” (Hunter, Schimidt, & Judiesch, 1990, p. 20).  Researchers will use meta-analysis in order to accumulate information results.  This accumulation of the research results may be used by companies such as Iwamoto Crews Coe in order to assess Gilliland-Moore in how to improve the company’s use of selection procedures as well as how to choose the right employees for the vacant positions that they currently have.  The employee selection tests are classified according to the cognitive measures used, the motor and physical abilities, the personality and interests of a potential employee, or even the achievement of the potential employee (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

            The organization however, he needs to make sure they are complying with the equal opportunity employment (EEO) guidelines which have been set into place and become laws that apply to all of their selection devices including their interviews, application processes, and references.  An organization can be asked at any time in order to prove that their selection process and screening process is valid and fair a special in regards to its impact on any minority groups (Cascio & Aguninis, 2005).  Finally, “fairness in selection is important because applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection and its tools are more likely to view an organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others” (Rynes, Colbert & Brown, 2002, p.154).  Iwamoto Crews Coe recommends that Gilliland-Moore conducts a traditional as well as a competence model in doing recruitment selection for employment positions including personality tests, intelligence, and background checks for the positions they have opened in VP of sales and marketing, as well as for the breach in all sales manager position and additionally recommends the use of structured interviews for both as well as any sales team members selection processes.

Intelligence and Personality Tests

            Cognitive tests generally include the use of reasoning ability also known as intelligence tests will use tests of specific abilities an individual who is mentally such as inductive reasoning and memory (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005).  In the use of intelligence test they are evaluations of a general intellectual ability that the individual has (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005).  Intelligence tests do not generally measure one particular trait but rather will measure a range of abilities the individual has such as their vocabulary, memory, numerical ability, and verbal fluency.  In an adult the intelligence score will reflect their extent of being either below or above average when it comes to intelligence scores (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).  The intelligence of an individual can be measured through administered tests their done individually such as the Stanford Binet Test, Wechsler Test, or even the Wonderlic which is administered for larger groups.  Additional tests which measure the intelligence of an individual include the Kaufman Adult Intelligence Test, Slosson Intelligence Test, Wide Range Intelligence Test, and the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).

            There are basic aspects of an individual’s personality such as motivation, introversion, and stability which can be measured by a personality test for non-projective objective measurements (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).  The Guilford-Zimmerman personality tests will measure and individual’s personality traits four things like emotional stability vs. moodiness and their friendliness vs. criticalness (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).  Certain traits in an individual such as paranoia are hypochondria can be measured by using the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory also known as the MMPI (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).  Another personality test includes the interpersonal style inventory which is a self-report inventories made of 300 true or false questions which cover traits such as a person sensitivity, stability, social skills, deliberation, trust, a directive, and consciousness (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).  Industrial and organizational psychologist often have to make an emphasis on using the personality dimensions of the big five, which are covered under Wonderlic’s personality characteristic inventories, and apply the big five to testing for agreeableness, extraversion, emotional stability or neuroticism, openness to experience, and conscientiousness (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002).  Personality tests however, especially tests that are the projective type, can be very challenging to use in order to evaluate an individual due to the reactions to measurement, interpretations, and the legal implications of the use of the tests.

Test Effect and Selection Process

            One of the area’s the things the most complex for an industrial organizational psychologist is a improper A identifying as well as implementing formal assessment methods in order to select employees (Cascio & Aguinis, 2009).  In doing such assessments there is a requirement to have statistical knowledge, measurement, and any legal issues that are relevant to the tests being used and the tools for selection (Cascio & Aguinis, 2009).  Industrial and organizational professionals need to understand the importance of the tradeoffs and implications which are involved in using the different types of assessment tools. “There is no simple, formulaic approach for selecting one best assessment method, because all of them have advantages and disadvantages” (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004, p. 646).  The selection and recruitment process is two way in its interaction between the perspective candidate and organization where both of the parties are attempting to sell themselves in order to attract the other as well as assessing their fit together (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004).  Everything a company does during their selection of recruitment process will leave candidates with a perspective about how the company does business as well as an impression of the totality of the experience which has a significant impact on whether the individual will ultimately accept employment with the company (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004).

Conclusion

            There are a variety of important considerations that need to be associated with both implementation and design of a pre-employment selection tool in system (Aguinis, Pierce, & Culpepper, 2009).  This process can have serious detrimental effects on an organization especially one that has a strategic focus on increasing the competitive advantage that they have through effective talent management (Weichmann, Schmitt, & Harvey, 2001). The primary purpose when it comes to an employment test is in using the test to screen individuals in order to base the individuals accordingly to their inferences related to the performance and job duties within the organization (Brannick & Levine, 2002). This accumulation of the research results may be used by companies such as Iwamoto Crews Coe in order to assess Gilliland-Moore in how to improve the company’s use of selection procedures as well as how to choose the right employees for the vacant positions that they currently have.  The employee selection tests are classified according to the cognitive measures used, the motor and physical abilities, the personality and interests of a potential employee, or even the achievement of the potential employee (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

References

Apollo Group, Inc. (2013). Gilliland-Moore Wines. Research Design and Methods.            Retrieved from PSYCH 705 and Iwamoto Crews Coe.

Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Aguinis, H., Pierce, C.A., & Culpepper, S.A. (2009). Scale Coarseness as a            methodological artifact.  Organizational Research Methods, 12, 623-652, d.o.i:             10.1177/1094428108318065

Brannick, M. T., & Levine, E. L. (2002). Job analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cascio, W. F. & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection     procedures: An updated model and metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-          683.

Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about

            effective human resources practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149-174.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in

            personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of   research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Weichmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Harvey, V. S. (2001). Incremental validity of situational

            judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 410-417