EMPLOYEE SELECTION AND APPRAISAL (BAD 6/74263 - call#10703)

(h:\syllabus\S&A2X.F01)

Fall 2001 - BSA 108 (TR 1:45-3:00)

 

Dr. Robert H. Faley (BSA A416); 672-1154 (office); Internet: rfaley@kent.edu (a copy of the syllabus can be gotten from the M&IS website - http://asgard.kent.edu/mis/ - under “M&IS Courses and Syllabus Library”)

 

COURSE OBJECTIVES: This course will focus on important issues associated with designing/building human resource systems that are used for the selection and appraisal (S&A) of employees. Perspectives on the following aspects of S&A will be emphasized: (1) practical knowledge regarding various S&A procedures and their legal and technical acceptability; (2) legislation, litigation, and federal guidelines in the S&A areas; (3) techniques for evaluating the S&A process; and (4) other related issues.

 

            As a result of this course, you will better understand:

a) HR selection/appraisal systems and how they are interrelated with one another and with other important firm-wide systems

b) the value added (i.e., competitive advantage) that can be gained by designing, building, and managing HR selection/appraisal systems based on proven techniques and approaches

c) the very critical role that job analysis plays in designing and building value-added HR selection/appraisal systems

d) the legal obligations employees have to their employers as well as the legal obligations employers have to their employees in the areas of selection/appraisal

e) how to evaluate HR selection/appraisal systems as well as better estimate their value-added

f) the current state of the art related to various HR selection/appraisal activities

 

MEETING FORMAT: A seminar format will predominate. Students will be expected to participate actively in the classroom process.  Cases and exercises will play an important role in class discussions. Several related projects may be assigned throughout the semester.

 

GRADING:      Semester grades will be based on these criteria:

 

                        Quality of Participation in Class - based on discussion of cases and other material (70%)

                        Critique-a-Test Results – an assessment of the presentation described below (30%)

 

                        I am happy to meet with you most any time during the semester to discuss your current progress and grade.  It is up to you to contact me to set up a meeting.

 

READINGS:    Most of the individual readings are on electronic reserve at the library (the remainder are available on paper reserve – listed in syllabus as “paper”).  We will NOT critique these readings in class - their primary purpose is to provide the context necessary to both better understand the material covered in class and better participate in class discussions.  Thus, if you don't do the readings, you should not expect to get the grade you would get if you had read them! (in syllabus CC=court cases; OR=other readings; Case=class exercise)

 

A PACKET OF COURSE-RELATED OVERHEADS IS ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE AT THE LIBRARY ALONG WITH THE READINGS. PLEASE GET THESE OVERHEADS - THEY WILL HELP YOU GET MUCH MORE OUT OF THE MATERIAL COVERED IN CLASS.

 

Note that your grade is based on the OUTPUT that you produce.  Thus, the amount of time you put into preparing for class cannot be realistically considered for grading purposes.

 

Please also note that you are responsible for all changes in the course outline announced in class.

 

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

The Following Policies Apply to All Students in this Course

 

A.     Students attending the course who do not have the proper prerequisite risk being deregistered from the class.

 

B.     Students have responsibility to ensure they are properly enrolled in classes.  You are advised to review your official class schedule during the first two weeks of the semester to ensure you are properly enrolled in this class and section.  Should you find an error in your class schedule, you have until September 7, 2001 to correct it with your advising office.  If registration errors are not corrected by this date and you continue to attend and participate in classes for which you are not officially enrolled, you are advised now that you will not receive a grade at the conclusion of the semester for any class in which you are not properly registered.

 

C.     Academic Honesty:  Cheating means to misrepresent the source, nature, or other conditions of your academic work (e.g., tests, papers, projects, assignments) so as to get undeserved credit.  The use of the intellectual property of others without giving them appropriate credit is a serious academic offense.  It is the University's policy that cheating or plagiarism result in receiving a failing grade for the work or course.  Repeat offenses result in dismissal from the University.

 

D.    For Fall 2001 the course withdrawal deadline is Saturday, November 3, 2001.  Withdrawal before the deadline results in a "W" on the official transcript; after the deadline a grade must be calculated and reported.

 

E.     Students with disabilities:  In accordance with University policy, if you have a documented disability and require accommodations to obtain equal access in this course, please contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester or when given an assignment for which an accommodation is required.  Students with disabilities must verify their eligibility through the Office of Student Disability Services (SDS) in the Michael Schwartz Service Center (672-3391).

DATE                                      TOPIC                                                             ASSIGNMENT

 

8/27     Introduction, Course Outline

 

8/30     Regulatory Influences on S&A                                      OR: Faley & Kleiman

 

9/4       Regulatory Influences - continued                                              CC: Oncale

 

9/6       Regulatory Influences – continued                                             OR: Uniform Guidelines on Employee

                                                                                                            Selection Procedures

 

9/11     Regulatory Influences – continued                                             CC: Griggs; McDonnell Douglas

 

9/13     Regulatory Influences – continued                                             CC: United Steelworkers

 

9/18     Job Analysis                                                                             OR: Ghorpade & Atchison

 

9/20     Job Analysis – continued                                                           OR: Arvey & Begalla

 

9/25     Benchmarking HR Systems: Assessing Validity and

            Estimating Utility                                                                       OR: Gatewood & Field; Ch. 4 of Dreher &

                                                                                                            Sacket; Arvey/Faley psychometrics(handout)

 

9/27     Validation of Selection Devices                                     OR: Kleiman & Faley;  reread the Uniform

                                                                                                            Guidelines

                                                                                                            CC: Albemarle

 

10/2     Validation of Selection Devices – continued                               OR: Cascio, Alexander & Barrett

                                                                                                            CC: Teal

 

10/4     Validation of Selection Devices – continued                               OR: Baker & Terpstra(paper); Ch. 3 of

                                                                                                            Dreher & Sackett

                                                                                                            Case: Wilshire Bank (do the related exercise)

 

10/9     Utility of Selection Devices                                                        OR: reread Ch.4 of Dreher & Sackett

 

10/11   Utility of Selection Devices - continued                          OR: Cascio & Morris

 

10/16   Selection Devices – overview                                                    OR: Wernimont & Campbell; Sacket,

                                                                                                            Schmidt, Ellingson & Kabin(paper)

                                                                                                            CC: reread Griggs

 

10/18   Traditional Selection Devices - continued                                  OR: Ghiselli; Asher(paper); Asher &

                                                                                                            Sciarrino

 

10/23   Traditional Selection Devices – continued                                  OR: Goldberg; Behling; Tett(handout)

 

10/25   Traditional Selection Devices - continued                                  Case: Resident Manager

 

10/30   Non-Traditional Selection Devices                                            OR: Olian; Fleishman

 

11/1     Non-Traditional Selection Devices                                            OR: Sackett & Wanek

                                                                                                            Case: Stackover Industries (C1)

 

11/6     Performance Appraisal – overview                                            OR: Beatty(paper); Bernardin & Beatty;

                                                                                                            Landy & Farr(paper)

 

11/8     Performance Appraisal - continued                                           OR: Kleiman & Durham

                                                                                                            CC: Rowe

 

11/13   Performance Appraisal - continued                                           OR: Feldman

                                                                                                            Case: PA General Hospital

 

11/15   Performance Appraisal - continued; wrap-up                            OR: Longnecker, Sims, & Gioia;

                                                                                                            Fried, Tiegs & Bellamy; Ghorpade(paper)

                                                                                                            Case: Webster Industries

 

11/20   THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY – NO CLASSES

 

11/27; 11/29; 12/4; 12/6:  CRITIQUE-A-TEST PRESENTATIONS

Critique-a-Test Exercise

 

Each student/student team is expected to select a commercially available employment test (e.g., see Tests in Print) to critique. This critique should include an in depth analysis of the test that focuses primarily on its strengths and weaknesses.

 

Summary information about many commercially available employment tests can be found in Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook. Presenters are also encouraged to do literature searches for information about the test as well as contact the test publisher for technical and other test-related information.

 

The presentation should not be a mere regurgitation of available information but a more selective analysis of the available information. This is especially the case with information provided by the test developer – information provided by non-independent parties must be independently corroborated.

 

Special emphasis should be placed on assessing whether the test is valid for the purpose(s) for which the test publisher says it is valid.

 

The presentation cannot exceed 30 minutes - the presentation will be stopped if it exceeds the time limit.

 

The test to be critiqued MUST be cleared with the professor (hand in a 2-3 page summary of the test including a tentative outline of what you plan to present).  No duplications will be allowed.

Critique-a-Test Guidelines

 

1)      learn as much as you can about validity and the other criteria used to assess the credibility of a test

 

2)      select a test and articulate well the employment-related purpose(s) for which the test will be used

 

3)      start off as a BIG cynic – start with the assumption that the test is no good for that purpose(s).

 

4)      collect evidence about the credibility of the test from as many different sources as you can – remember, anecdotal evidence is okay but is not a substitute for empirical evidence (after all, it was based on anecdotal evidence that people concluded the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth!!!).

 

5)      force test developers to back up what they say – after all, marketing is marketing and all too often has very little to do with reality.  And it’s the “reality” of the test that you want to know about.

 

6)      look for corroboration across the different sources of evidence.

 

7)      where the results are “mixed,” place the greatest weight on information from those sources with the least to benefit (act like the “Consumer Reports” of testing).

 

8)      eliminate inconsistencies by collecting more evidence – if all you have left over is a bunch of inconsistencies, which one is the right one?  Try to resolve and eliminate as many inconsistencies as possible.

 

9)      based on what’s left over, make up your mind about this test – but base it on the evidence and NOT on how you feel about the test.

 

10)  act as if the test will be used in YOUR company, which is so fragile that a mistake using this test will have very grave consequences for you (e.g., your company will go into Chapter 11 and you will end up penniless and out on the street).

 

11)  present your conclusions (and rationales for them) in a professional manner – assume that your boss will fire you if your presentation stinks.  Use overheads, handouts, flow charts, or whatever will help us better understand your presentation.