Individuals making staffing decisions have an ethical responsibility to know measurement issues

Full Answer Section

• Personal Experience (Hypothetical Example): I once interviewed for a management position at a large corporation. It was clearly a structured interview. I met with three people: an HR representative, my potential direct supervisor, and a senior manager from a related department. They each had a copy of the same interview guide. They asked me the exact same set of about 8-10 questions, in the same order. The questions were things like, "Tell me about a time you had to resolve a conflict within your team. What was the situation, what did you do, and what was the outcome?" or "How would you handle a situation where a client was extremely dissatisfied with the service?" They took notes throughout, and after each question, they briefly rated my response on a scale regarding specific competencies (e.g., conflict resolution, customer service orientation, problem-solving).

  • Thoughts: I found the process to be quite fair and less stressful than some unstructured interviews I've had. Knowing that everyone was treated the same way made me feel like I had a fair shot. The questions were relevant to the job, allowing me to showcase my actual experiences and skills. It felt professional and objective. While perhaps a bit less "personal" than an unstructured chat, it was clearly a more rigorous and valid way to assess my qualifications for the role. It felt like they were genuinely trying to evaluate my fit for the job based on objective criteria.

3. Do you think employers have a right to check into applicants’ backgrounds? Even if there is no suspicion of misbehavior? Even if the job poses no security or sensitive risks? Even if the background check includes driving offenses and credit histories?

This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides, and the answer often depends on legal context, job relevance, and ethical considerations.

• General Right for Relevant Checks: Yes, generally, employers have a right to conduct background checks if the information sought is relevant to the job and the business. This is often justified under the principle of protecting the company, its employees, and clients, and ensuring a safe and productive work environment. Pre-employment screening is common practice.

• No Suspicion Required?: Often, no suspicion of misbehavior is needed before conducting a check. The purpose is proactive screening based on the nature of the job and potential risks. However, the scope of the check should generally be commensurate with the perceived risk.

• Job Relevance is Key: This is where it gets tricky.

  • Driving Offenses: Checking driving records is generally justifiable for jobs that involve operating a company vehicle or having a safety-sensitive role involving driving (e.g., delivery driver, salesperson who drives extensively). For a desk job with no driving requirements, checking driving records might be seen as overly intrusive and potentially discriminatory (disproportionately affecting younger applicants or those who are unemployed and may have had lapses in insurance), unless the employer can make a very strong case for why it's relevant (e.g., potential need to drive for emergencies, working in a remote location).
  • Credit Histories: Checking credit histories is highly controversial and often unjustified for most jobs. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in the US imposes strict requirements and acknowledges the potential for discrimination. Credit history is generally considered poor predictor of job performance and can disproportionately screen out minority groups, young people, and those who have faced economic hardship (like unemployment) through no fault of their own. It might be slightly more justifiable for roles with significant financial responsibility (e.g., CFO, accountant handling large sums), but even then, correlation is weak, and alternative checks (like verifying financial certifications) might be better. For jobs with no financial duties, checking credit is usually seen as an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

• Conclusion: Employers generally have a right to background checks when justified by job relevance and legal requirements. Checking for driving offenses is often justifiable for driving-related jobs but less so for others. Checking credit histories is generally questionable for most jobs due to weak relevance, potential for discrimination, and privacy concerns, and should be done with extreme caution and legal review, primarily reserved for roles with direct, significant financial responsibilities.

4. Compare and contrast the ability and mixed approaches to emotional intelligence—how are they similar, and how are they different?

Emotional Intelligence (EI) refers to the capacity to perceive, understand, manage, and use emotions. The two main schools of thought on measuring it are the Ability Model and the Mixed Models.

• Similarities:

  • Focus on Emotions: Both approaches fundamentally deal with emotions and their role in thought and behavior.
  • Desire for Positive Outcomes: Both models generally suggest that higher EI leads to better interpersonal relationships, performance, and well-being.
  • Measurement: Both have developed methods to assess the constructs they define as EI.

• Differences:

  • Nature of EI:
    • Ability Model (Mayer & Salovey): Views EI as an actual ability or competence, similar to cognitive intelligence. It's about the mental capacity to perceive, integrate, understand, and regulate emotions in oneself and others. It's seen as a potential that can be developed.
    • Mixed Models (Goleman, Bar-On): View EI more broadly, often as a combination of abilities, skills, traits, and even motivations or competencies. Goleman's model focuses on competencies for performance, while Bar-On's model includes interpersonal and intrapersonal traits. It's less about pure ability and more about observable behaviors, personality traits, and self-perceptions related to emotion.
  • Measurement Method:
    • Ability Model: Uses ability-based tests, typically multiple-choice questions that require respondents to identify emotions in faces/tones, solve problems using emotional information, or understand complex emotional concepts. These tests have correct answers and can, in theory, be normed (like an IQ test). Example: MSCEIT (Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test).
    • Mixed Models: Primarily rely on self-report questionnaires (and sometimes 360-degree feedback) asking respondents to rate how well certain behaviors or traits describe them. These measure self-perception or others' perceptions, not necessarily underlying ability. There are no objectively "correct" answers. Examples: Goleman's Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), Bar-On's EQ-i (Emotional Quotient Inventory).
  • Underlying Theory:
    • Ability Model: Grounded in cognitive psychology, focusing on mental processes and information processing related to emotions.
    • Mixed Models: Often draw from a broader range of psychological theories, including personality, social psychology, and industrial-organizational psychology, focusing on behaviors, traits, and competencies relevant to performance or well-being.
  • Construct Being Measured:
    • Ability Model: Measures emotional ability or competence.
    • Mixed Models: Measure emotional skills, traits, self-perceptions, and competencies.

In essence, the Ability Model treats EI like a measurable mental ability (like logic or spatial reasoning), while Mixed Models treat EI more like a set of personality traits and observable behaviors related to handling emotions, often linked directly to performance outcomes.

5. What issues surround discretionary assessment methods? What would you do to mitigate these issues as a staffing professional?

Discretionary assessment methods are those that rely heavily on the judgment, intuition, or subjective evaluation of the decision-maker (like an interviewer or supervisor) rather than standardized, objective tools. Examples include unstructured interviews, subjective personality impressions, gut feelings about a candidate, or informal performance appraisals.

• Issues Surrounding Discretionary Assessment Methods:

  • High Susceptibility to Bias: This is the biggest issue. Decision-makers are prone to numerous cognitive and social biases (halo/horn effect, confirmation bias, stereotyping, similarity attraction, recency effect, personal biases) that can lead to unfair and inaccurate evaluations.
  • Low Reliability: Subjective judgments are often inconsistent. The same person might be evaluated differently by different decision-makers, or even by the same decision-maker at different times.

Sample Answer

• Transparency and Trust: Understanding measurement allows decision-makers to better explain the rationale behind their choices, fostering transparency and trust within the organization.

In short, making significant judgments about people requires a degree of professional competence, and understanding the basics of measurement is a fundamental part of that competence in staffing.

2. Describe the structured interview. What are the characteristics of structured interviews that improve on the shortcomings of unstructured interviews? Tell me about a structured interview you were a part of and what you thought about it.

• Structured Interview Description: A structured interview (also known as a standardized or patterned interview) is a method of interviewing job candidates where the same questions are asked in the same order to every candidate, and often, the answers are evaluated using a standardized scoring guide or rating scale. The questions are typically based on a job analysis and are designed to assess specific knowledge, skills, abilities, or other characteristics (KSAOs) relevant to the job. Multiple interviewers often participate and use the same materials, and their ratings might be averaged or discussed to reach a consensus.

• Improvements over Unstructured Interviews:

  • Reduced Interviewer Bias: Unstructured interviews are highly susceptible to biases like halo/horn effect (let one trait influence the overall rating), stereotyping, contrast effect (comparing candidates to each other rather than to a standard), and faking (candidates giving socially desirable answers). Structured interviews minimize these by focusing on specific, job-related questions and using objective rating scales.
  • Enhanced Reliability: Because the process is standardized, structured interviews yield more consistent results. If the same candidate were interviewed again, or by different interviewers, the results would likely be more similar compared to an unstructured interview.