John Callender (Biodata Online) and Jack Smith (Kingwood Group), two respected testing and assessment experts and long-time pan content partners, will  discuss how the current economic climate impacts recruitment and assessment strategies.  Some of the topics to be covered include how investing in assessments makes economic sense and the potential benefits and consequences of shifting to a lower cost assessment program. Please join us!

Thursday, September 17 @ 1PM ET     Register

Reid Klion

There was a WSJ article a couple weeks back on the growing trend for universities to consider using personality assessments to assist in admissions decisions. In addition to the ETS Personal Potential Index  I blogged about a while back, there are a number of other tools in development. For example, ACT is developing an assessment to identify students who are at high risk for dropping out while the College Board has been working at Michigan State University to develop a biodata predictor for university success.

Interest in these instruments appears to be spurred by the seeming unassailable belief that there is more to predicting academic success than GPA and standardized tests scores. However, there are also concerns about cheating and students learning how to “game” such non-cognitive assessments. It should be noted that colleges have always attempted to discern a potential student’s strengths and weaknesses outside the academic realm through personal statements and admissions essays. Proponents of these new non-cognitive assessments argue they are carrying on this same tradition but doing so in a way that standardizes how these non-academic factors are evaluated.

Reid Klion

While it appears that the rate of job loss has slowed in the US, it still managed to creep up to 9.7% in August. However, others argue that the actual unemployment rate is closer to 17% when one takes into account people who have been reduced to part-time hours, stopped looking for work, and the like.  

As might be expected, unemployment also takes an emotional toll. According to research carried out at Rutgers University, over half the people currently looking for work are jobless for the first time in over 5 years. Not surprisingly, many of the unemployed describe stress, sadness, and strains in family relationships.

Another trend related to the economic slowdown is that older workers are understandably less inclined to retire due to losses in their retirement accounts. Economists point out that this has a de-stabilizing effect on the economy in that in good times, people are much more inclined to take an early retirement (when there is the need for additional workers) but more likely to hold onto their jobs when times are tough (like now when there are more than enough workers available).

On the other hand, there is a fairly broad consensus that unemployment is starting to bottom out. While there are somewhat different economic factors in play, Canada actually added jobs to its economy in August. Additionally, it appears the US federal government still needs to hire more than 270,000 workers over the next few years in “mission critical” posts in health care, homeland security, and law enforcement, according to the Partnership for Public Service.

Reid Klion

We have always had a number of clients who are interested in using 360 degree feedback instruments. Also known as multi-rater feedback, these tools gather information from several people who interact with an employee on a regular basis such as managers, peers, or subordinates. Each tool varies slightly in its focus, but all use questions that are behaviorally-based and focus on work-related behaviors and job performance analysis. Jocelyn blogged last week on some tips and suggestions to consider when using 360º feedback tools.

The major benefit of 360 degree feedback instruments is that they gather information from a wide array of individuals who interact with the subject of the assessment. A 360 degree feedback tool can either be used alone or as one component of a broader development or coaching program. While controversial, some organizations also use multi-rater feedback instruments as part of their employee performance review process. However, it is important that you inform raters that their feedback may be used for evaluative purposes (such as for an employee performance review).if you chose to use 360 degree feedback instruments in this way.

Finally, organizations can use a 360 degree feedback tool as a teamwork inventory to provide insight into each team member’s strengths and weaknesses and how they function together as a team. This information can inform the way team members interact with one another as well as help them to pinpoint and understand potential areas of conflict.

IPAC (formerly known as IPMAAC) will be holding its annual conference in conjunction with IPMA-HR on September 12-16 in Nashville. IPAC is comprised of individuals who are interested in public sector selection and assessment. As it has for the past several years, pan is pleased to be a conference sponsor. Additionally, Nate Studebaker will present on his work with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services that helped to streamline their assessment process while I will participate in panel discussion on technology trends in assessment. We hope to see you there!

Reid Klion

I was recently asked to contribute to two of my coworkers’ professional development efforts by completing 360º feedback instruments. I truly enjoy receiving feedback from others, and so I was more than happy to oblige the request. I completed two different 360º assessments and spent some time reflecting on the act of providing feedback. As a result, I have a few helpful hints to share.

1)  Use 360º feedback instruments to gather developmental information.
The people I was asked to rate are extremely helpful and valuable to me at work. While my positive feedback is important, constructive criticism is equally, if not more, useful. Although I may have very little criticism of these individuals, others such as their supervisors and direct reports have a different perspective and can provide unique information and suggestions.  360º tools provide a comprehensive view of the individual’s strengths and weaknesses, rather than the narrower perspective given by self-ratings or the ratings of only a few individuals.

2)    Provide a “Not Applicable” response option.
One of the tools I completed included an N/A option for each rating item; the other did not. Given the breadth of the abilities and characteristics rated across these types of tools, raters are likely to see items that they simply do not have enough information to rate accurately. When asking others to provide feedback, it is important to provide an N/A option so that the rater doesn’t feel obligated to respond to items about which he/she may be uncertain.

3)    Educate raters on common rating errors
Studies consistently show that when providing ratings, people tend to make certain errors. When using any kind of feedback program, encourage the people providing information to use the entire response scale and avoid errors, such as leniency, strictness, and central tendency biases. Inform raters of the similar-to-me/different-than-me and halo/horn effects to encourage accurate ratings. 

4)    Separate development from evaluation
Although feedback may be important in both development programs and performance appraisals, it is critical to keep the two systems separate. When collecting developmental information, inform raters that the data will not be used for evaluation and will not affect the ratee in any negative way, as this promotes honest and accurate responding. It is important to note that 360º feedback instruments are not appropriate for evaluation and should only be used in a developmental context. In addition, it is wise to keep peers and direct reports out of the performance appraisal process, so as not to cause conflict or discomfort.

Jocelyn Courtney-Hays

Rob Tett and colleagues published a recent paper in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology that looked at personality test norms. Examining a large set of data from the Hogan Personality Inventory, they took the norms derived from several large samples of individuals employed in sales, trucking, clerical work, finance, and management. No big surprise, there were some rather significant differences in average scale elevation between groups (e.g., the truckers were substantially less sociable than the sales group). However, a bit unexpected were the differences in mean scores between samples within the same job family. As an illustration, some samples of sales personnel had much higher scores on scales measuring ambition and sociability than did others. Indeed, there were cases where the differences within job family were nearly as great as those between job families.

There are a handful of takeaway points to consider. First, relying solely on job type to select a normative sample can be problematic. Rather, factors such as organizational culture of the work group where the samples were obtained or whether the data were derived from job applicants vs. incumbents need to considered. (The latter is important because applicants tend to obtain higher scores than incumbents, something I will blog about in the near future.)  Secondly, this article also analyzed the impact of sample size on the reliability of normative samples. As a saving grace, they found that a sample of 100 is usually quite sufficient to develop a good set of local norms.

Finally, it should be noted that the importance of norms varies greatly depending upon how a test is being used. For example, if I want to know how the conscientiousness of the  maintenance personnel  in my company compares to that of folks who work in maintenance for other organizations, the normative sample chosen is obviously critical. However, if I am only interested in ranking maintenance job candidates on conscientiousness or have already conducted a validation study to determine cut scores, the use of norms isn’t particularly relevant or useful as we could use untransformed scores for these purposes.

Despite months of gloomy financial forecasts, the bright light at the end of the dark and dreary economic tunnel has consistently been that “things can only get better.”  Although no one knows when, we all know that things will start to improve eventually.  Organizations need to be ready for this economic turnaround so that they can ultimately prevail in the talent war that will most certainly arise.  To obtain the best and the brightest, as well as retain existing talent, they will have to become creative in offering up various incentives.  

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), for example, has already initiated activity to enrich the array of work/life balance program that are currently offered.  For starters, they have begun surveying existing federal workforce employees to determine which programs will be most beneficial to them in the future.  In addition to more traditional offerings such as child care centers, they are considering adult care centers to provide coverage for the aging parents of today’s workforce.

For organizations that currently have few if any work/life balance programs in place, they need not be intimidated by the prospect of raising the necessary funds to implement them from scratch.  Following the lead of several federal agencies, private organizations may be well-served to consider partnering with other organizations to capitalize on sharing existing benefits.  For instance, an organization that already has an in-house fitness center could consider offering access to the employees of another organization in exchange for a benefit that they currently provide (e.g., in-house daycare).  Alternatively, an organization in need of benefits such as fitness center access could offer to contribute funds to hire additional staff or to expand the size of the facility so that their employees could jointly utilize the center.

In sum, as the hiring cycle begins to pick back up and candidates have more and more employment options from which to choose, organizations are going to have to present prospective employees with work-life balance options that “sweeten the employment offer” if they intend to remain viable and emerge from this recession potentially stronger than before.

Lori Ferzandi

For the past several years, there has been substantial debate about the impact of “faking good” (or socially desirable responding) on personality tests. While clients sometimes want to know how a particular test adjusts for an individual’s portraying him or herself in an overly positive fashion, there are no easy answers to this seemingly simple question.

First, there is disagreement as to whether socially desirable responding even has a significant impact upon the validity of most assessments when they used to actually select employees. Second, there is the argument that it is expected for job seekers to present themselves in a favorable light (e.g., “putting your best foot forward”) and that one should be concerned about an applicant who isn’t either willing or able to do this. Thirdly, when assessments are developed based on data samples of job seekers, this positive self presentation bias is already “baked into” the norms. Finally, as a practical matter, it has been quite difficult to find accurate measures of “faking good,” let alone ones that are helpful in increasing the validity of a test.

A recent Personnel Psychology article by Nathan Kuncle and Auke Tellegen helps shed some light on this. In their research on a scale designed to measure socially desirable responding, they found that increasingly elevated scores on a favorable personality trait are not necessarily seen as being more desirable. For example, moderate levels of “being organized” are typically seen more favorably than either very low or very high levels of this behavior. Additionally, when subjects are instructed to respond favorably on a scale designed to assess "faking good,” they tend to endorse these items at moderate, not extreme, levels.  As a result, the authors argue that measures of socially desirable responding need to consider the desirability of each response alternative and not simply look at the overall score on the scale.

Reid Klion

It seems that the media has had a lot to say recently about going “green.”  Undoubtedly, the current administration appears dedicated to improving the current legal standards governing environmental safety.  Many scientists also argue that we must take action now in order to avoid the nasty consequences of global climate change.

A recent article in the New York Times focuses on a potentially positive effect of our nation’s increasing “greenness” – the creation of new industries and jobs. It’s true that “green” jobs are likely to increase as we seek to lower emissions, gain energy independence, and clean up our water, earth, and air. However, some experts say it is unlikely that these jobs will be enough to replace those that we will lose from more traditional industries. For instance, if we enact carbon and energy restrictions, we risk losing jobs in the coal and oil industries as well as in manufacturing. In addition, “green” industries may well face the same foreign competition for jobs and other challenges as their predecessors.

Despite the new economic and industrial waters we are charting, our challenges remain the same. We must create jobs that benefit the individual – our economy, our culture – as well as the whole – the global economy, the environment, and the well-being of all people inside and outside our borders. Although it is interesting to consider how industries and jobs will change in relation to the threat of global warming, it is more important to keep our eyes on the prize of stabilizing the U.S. economy, creating jobs to lower unemployment, and pulling out of the current recession.

Jocelyn Courtney-Hays