In general, letters of recommendation are not highly related to job performance because most are highly positive.36 This does not mean that all letters of recommendation are poor indicators of performance, however. A poor letter of recommendation may be very predictive and should not be ignored.

A content approach to considering letters of recommendation can increase the validity of this selection tool. This approach focuses on the content of the letters rather than on the extent of their positivity.37 Assessment is done in terms of the traits the letter writer attributes to the job candidate.38 For example, two candidates may be given equally positive letters, but the first candidate’s letter may describe a detail-oriented person, whereas the second candidate’s letter describes someone who is outgoing and helpful. The job to be filled may require one type of person rather than the other. For example, a job in customer relations requires an outgoing and helpful person, whereas clerical work requires someone who is good at details.

A more proactive approach to increasing the validity and usefulness of letters as well as verbal references (see “Reference Checks ,” p. 170) is to focus the reference on key job competencies. Rather than asking a reference broad questions, such as “Tell me what you think of this job candidate?” ask the reference about the applicant’s specific skill in areas relevant to the job opening.39

Organizations often use application forms as screening devices to determine whether a candidate satisfies minimum job specifications, particularly for entry-level jobs. The forms typically ask for information regarding past jobs and present employment status.

A recent variation on the traditional application form is the biodata form. 40 This is essentially a more detailed version of the application form in which applicants respond to a series of questions about their background, experiences, and preferences. Responses to these questions are then scored. For instance, candidates might be asked how willing they are to travel on the job, what leisure activities they prefer, and how much experience they have had with computers. As with any selection tool, the biodata most relevant to the job should be identified through job analysis before the application form is created. Biodata have moderate validity in predicting job performance.

Application forms are often the first formal contact a job seeker has with an organization. Typically, most job applicants are eliminated in this initial stage, and it is therefore important that the application form be seen as fair and nondiscriminatory. If an applicant feels that he or she was rejected based on personal information collected in the application form, a charge of discrimination and a lawsuit may result. Based on an analysis of federal court cases involving application forms, items about an applicant’s gender, age, race, and national origin were most frequently associated with charges of discrimination involving the application form.41 To lower this legal risk, organizations need to be sure that information concerning an applicant’s gender, age, race, or national origin is not collected on the application forms.

Various tests measure a wide range of abilities, from verbal and qualitative skills to perceptual speed. Cognitive ability tests measure a candidate’s capability in a certain area, such as math, and are valid predictors of job performance when the abilities tested are based on a job analysis.

A number of studies have examined the validity of general cognitive ability (g) as a predictor of job performance. General cognitive ability is typically measured by summing the scores on tests of verbal and quantitative ability. Essentially, g measures general intelligence. A higher level of g indicates a person who can learn more and faster and who can adapt quickly to changing conditions. People with higher levels of g have been found to be better job performers, at least in part because few jobs are static today.42

Some more specific tests measure physical or mechanical abilities. For example, the physical ability tests used by police and fire departments measure strength and endurance. The results of these tests are considered indicators of how productively and safely a person could perform a job’s physical tasks. However, companies can often get a more direct measure of applicants’ performance ability by observing how well they perform on actual job tasks. These types of direct performance tests, called work sample tests, ask applicants to perform the exact same tasks that they will be performing on the job. For example, one of Levi Strauss’s work sample tests asks applicants for maintenance and repair positions to disassemble and reassemble a sewing machine component.43 Work sample tests typically have high reliability and validity, the essential ingredients for an effective and legal selection tool.44

Work sample tests are widely viewed as fair and valid measures of job performance, as long as the work samples adequately capture the variety and complexity of tasks in the actual job. Work sample test scores have even been used as criteria for assessing the validity of general mental ability selection measures.45 However, physical ability measures have been found to screen out more women and minorities than white men. Physical preparation before the testing has been found to reduce this adverse impact significantly.46

Another form of ability, emotional intelligence, has become popular to measure. Emotional intelligence has been variously defined by researchers,47 but can probably be fairly described as the ability to perceive and manage emotions in the self and in others.48 Although the concept is popular, its validity has yet to be proven convincingly.49 For instance, one study found no correlation between a measure of emotional intelligence and grade point average. However, a measure of general cognitive ability and personality measures were found to be correlated with grade point average. Similar findings for work performance has led researchers to question whether emotional intelligence really adds to our ability to predict performance beyond measures of general intelligence and ability.50

Personality tests assess traits, individual workers’ characteristics that tend to be consistent and enduring. Personality tests were widely used to make employee selection decisions in the 1940s and 1950s,51 but then fell out of favor as predictors of job-related behaviors.52 The arguments against using personality tests revolve around questions of reliability and validity. It has been argued that traits are subjective and unreliable,53 unrelated to job performance,54 and not legally acceptable.55 Research on the use of personality measures in selection continues, and the use of personality measures in organizations continues to increase.56

Many traits can be measured in a variety of ways, and this lack of consistency produces problems with reliability and validity. However, recent research on personality measurement has demonstrated that personality can be reliably measured57 and summarized as being composed of five dimensions.58 The “Big Five” factors, now widely accepted in the field of personality psychology, follow:59

• ▪ Extroversion The degree to which someone is talkative, sociable, active, aggressive, and excitable.

• ▪ Agreeableness The degree to which someone is trusting, amiable, generous, tolerant, honest, cooperative, and flexible.

• ▪ Conscientiousness The degree to which someone is dependable and organized and conforms and perseveres on tasks.

• ▪ Emotional stability The degree to which someone is secure, calm, independent, and autonomous.

• ▪ Openness to experience The degree to which someone is intellectual, philosophical, insightful, creative, artistic, and curious.

Of the five factors, conscientiousness appears to be most related to job performance.60 It is hard to imagine a measure of job performance that would not require dependability or an organization that would not benefit from employing conscientious workers. Conscientiousness is thus the most generally valid personality predictor of job performance. Conscientiousness has also been found to be related to safety at work.61 For example, people with low levels of conscientiousness tend to ignore safety rules and regulations and, thus, tend to have more accidents and injuries than people with higher levels of conscientiousness.

The validity of the other personality factors seems to be more job specific, which bring us to two warnings about personality tests. First, whether personality characteristics are valid predictors of job performance depends on both the job and the criteria used to measure job performance. A job analysis should be done first to identify the personality factors that enhance job performance. Second, personality may play little or no role in predicting performance on certain measures, such as the number of pieces produced on a factory line (which may depend largely on such factors as speed of the production line). However, personality factors may play a critical role in jobs that are less regimented and demand teamwork and flexibility. Clearly, then, selection procedures should take both personality and the work situation into account.62 Some types of people may be better suited for some work situations than for others. Overall, although the validity of personality tests can vary across work situations, research supports the conclusion that personality measures are valid for predicting job performance.63 It remains to be seen, however, whether personality measures are sufficiently valid so as to be useful tools in the hiring process.64

Employee theft is a serious problem for organizations, thus it is no surprise that employers want to make sure that they are hiring honest workers. The polygraph test measures an interviewee’s pulse, breathing rate, and galvanic skin response (perspiration) while he or she is asked a series of questions. The theory is that these physiological measures will change when the interviewee is not telling the truth. However, the passage of the federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988 has eliminated the use of polygraph tests by most employers.

Honesty or integrity tests are designed to identify job applicants who are likely to engage in theft and other undesirable behavior. Integrity tests can now be administered in a variety of forms, including paper and pencil, via telephone, and via the Internet, among others. The typical test measures attitudes toward honesty, particularly whether the applicant believes that dishonest behavior is normal and not criminal.65 For example, the test might measure the applicant’s tolerance for theft by other people and the extent to which the applicant believes most people steal regularly.

A study by independent researchers appears to confirm the validity of honesty testing.66 It found that those who scored more poorly on the honesty test were more likely to steal from their employer. A study reported by one of the major honesty test publishers supports the validity of the measure. Specifically, a retailer began using an integrity test in 600 of its 1,900 locations. Within one year there was a 35 percent drop in the rate of inventory shrinkage in the stores using the test while there was a 10 percent rise in the shrinkage rates in the stores not using the tests.67

Nevertheless, honesty tests are controversial. Most of the arguments against integrity testing center on the issue of false-positive results: people who are honest but score poorly on the tests. Typically, at least 40 percent of the test takers receive failing marks.68

Although the job interview is probably the most common selection tool, it has often been criticized for its poor reliability and low validity.69 Countless studies have found that interviewers do not agree with one another on candidate assessments. Other criticisms include human judgment limitations and interviewer biases. For example, one early study found that most interviewers make decisions about candidates in the first two or three minutes of the interview.70 Snap decisions can adversely affect an interview’s validity because they are made based on limited information. More recent research, however, indicates that interviewers may not make such hasty decisions.71

Another criticism is that traditional interviews are conducted in such a way that the interview experience is very different from interviewee to interviewee. For instance, it is very common for the interviewer to open with the following question: “Tell me about yourself.” The interview then proceeds in a haphazard fashion depending on the applicant’s answer to that first question. Essentially, each applicant experiences a different selection method.

Dissatisfaction with the traditional unstructured interview has led to an alternative approach called the structured interview.72 The structured interview is based directly on a thorough job analysis. It applies a series of job-related questions with predetermined answers consistently across all interviews for a particular job.73

Figure 5.6 gives examples of the three types of questions commonly used in structured interviews:74

• ▪ Situational questions try to elicit from candidates how they would respond to particular work situations. These questions can be developed from the critical incident technique of job analysis: Supervisors and workers rewrite critical incidents of behavior as situational interview questions, then generate and score possible answers as a benchmark.75

• ▪ Job knowledge questions assess whether candidates have the basic knowledge needed to perform the job.

• ▪ Worker requirements questions assess candidates’ willingness to perform under prevailing job conditions.

Structured interviews are valid predictors of job performance.76 First, the content of a structured interview is, by design, limited to job-related factors. Second, the questions asked are consistent across all interviewees. Third, all responses are scored the same way. Finally, because a panel of interviewers is typically involved in conducting the structured interview, the impact of individual interviewers’ idiosyncrasies and biases is limited.

Structured interviews have been used very successfully at numerous companies. Interviewing panels range from two to six members and typically include an HR professional, the hiring manager, and the person who will be the candidate’s manager. The panels often also include key people from other departments who will have to work very closely with the new hire.

The usual practice is to interview all candidates over a one- or two-day period. This makes it easier to recall interviewee responses and compare them equitably. Immediately after an interview, panel members rate the interviewee using a one- to two-page sheet that lists important job dimensions along with a five-point rating scale. After each interviewer has rated the candidate, one member of the panel—usually either the HR professional or the hiring manager—facilitates a discussion in which the panel arrives at a group rating for the candidate. After all applicants have been interviewed, the panel creates a rank order of acceptable job candidates.77

If the structured interview is so effective, why does the traditional interview remain popular? One reason is that many equate the panel format of structured interviews with a stress test. Another is that organizations find the traditional interview quite useful, probably because it serves more functions than just selection.78 For example, it can be an effective public relations tool in which the interviewer gives a positive impression of the organization. Even a candidate who is not hired may retain this positive impression. In addition, the unstructured interview may be a valid predictor of the degree to which a candidate will fit with the organization. Finally, the open-ended nature of unstructured interviews may provide an opportunity for unsuitable candidates to demonstrate the qualities that make them less desirable as potential employees.

Whatever the interview procedure, employers are assessing interviewees for the role of employee. In addition to responses to interview questions, the assessment of job candidates may include mannerisms and behavior during the interview, as well as dress. If you want to make a good impression during the job interview, you might begin by avoiding some of the real-life interviewing mistakes presented in Figure 5.7.

Whether employers choose to use structured or unstructured interviews, they need to make sure their interview questions are not illegal. Companies that ask job applicants certain questions (for example, their race, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, or number of children) either on application forms or in the interview process run the risk of being sued.

To operate within the limits of the law, interviewers should remember the “nine don’ts” of interviewing:79

1. Don’t ask applicants if they have children, plan to have children, or what child-care arrangements they have made.

2. Don’t ask an applicant’s age.

3. Don’t ask whether the candidate has a physical or mental disability that would interfere with doing the job. The law allows employers to explore the subject of disabilities only after making a job offer that is conditioned on satisfactory completion of a required physical, medical, or job skills test.

4. Don’t ask for such identifying characteristics as height or weight on an application.

5. Don’t ask a female candidate for her maiden name. Some employers have asked this to ascertain marital status, another topic that is off limits in interviewing both men and women.

6. Don’t ask applicants about their citizenship.

7. Don’t ask applicants about their arrest records. You are, however, allowed to ask whether the candidate has ever been convicted of a crime.

8. Don’t ask if a candidate smokes. Because there are numerous state and local ordinances that restrict smoking in certain buildings, a more appropriate question is whether the applicant is aware of these regulations and is willing to comply with them.

9. Don’t ask a job candidate if he or she has AIDS or is HIV-positive.

The key point to remember is not to ask questions that are peripheral to the work itself. Rather, interviewers should stay focused on the objective of hiring someone who is qualified to perform the tasks required by the job.

An assessment center is a set of simulated tasks or exercises that candidates (usually for managerial positions) are asked to perform. Observers rate performance on these simulations and make inferences regarding each candidate’s managerial skills and abilities. Many organizations use assessment centers for external recruitment and for internal promotion.80

Although expensive, the assessment center appears to be a valid predictor of managerial job performance.81 Assessment centers also appear to be an effective technique for judging key leadership competencies.82 Assessment centers may be well worth the price when the costs of poor hiring or promotion decisions are high.83 However, given a tight budget, the cost of an assessment center can be prohibitive. For example, the State of Maryland used to require the use of assessment centers in hiring public school principals, but that requirement was dropped because the expense of $1,200 to $1,500 per candidate became too onerous.84 A strategy to reduce the costs associated with using an assessment center is to not conduct an assessment for those candidates with exceptionally poor or good prescreening scores (such as scores on ability tests). Thus, the relatively expensive and more involved assessment-center procedure is used to focus on those candidates in the middle range who are not clearly acceptable or unacceptable for the job.85

Assessment centers are usually conducted off-premises, last from one to three days, and may include up to six candidates at a time. Most assessment centers evaluate each candidate’s abilities in four areas: organizing, planning, decision making, and leadership. Task-based assessment centers focus more directly on work-related situations and how well people perform on these specific tasks.86 There is considerable variability in what exercises an assessment center includes, how these are conducted, and how they are scored.87 Candidates who can put an activity behind them and focus on the next challenge are likely to perform better in the assessment center.88 In addition, candidates who are not too dominant or too timid but who can effectively interact with others are likely to perform better.

The in-basket exercise is probably the exercise most widely associated with assessment centers. It includes the kinds of problems, messages, reports, and so on that might be found in a manager’s in-basket. The candidates are asked to deal with these issues as they see fit, and then are assessed on how well they prioritized the issues, how creative and responsive they were in dealing with each one, the quality of their decisions, and other factors. Performance on an in-basket exercise can be highly revealing. Often it points up the skills of a candidate who might otherwise have appeared average.89

Preemployment drug testing typically requires job applicants to undergo urinalysis as part of routine selection procedures. Applicants whose test results are positive are usually eliminated from further consideration. Alternatively, they may be given the option of taking another test at their own expense if they challenge the test’s outcome.90

The purpose of preemployment drug testing is to avoid hiring people who may become problem workers. Given this purpose, the critical question is: Do drug test results correlate to an applicant’s later job performance? The answer is yes. In one study done by the U.S. Postal Service, urine samples were taken from more than 5,000 job applicants, but the results were not used in hiring. Six months to one year later, it was found that the applicants who had positive tests were absent 41 percent more often and fired 38 percent more often than those who did not. It appears that drug testing is a valid predictor of job performance.91

One of the best methods of predicting the future success of prospective employees is to look at their past employment record. Fear of defamation suits has often caused companies to not provide job-related information about former employees. However, checking employees’ references is an employer’s best tactic for avoiding negligent hiring suits, in which the employer is held liable for injuries inflicted by an employee while on the job. What should companies do?

Courts in almost every state have held that employers—both former and prospective—have a “qualified privilege” to discuss an employee’s past performance. But to enjoy that privilege, a company must follow three rules. First, it must determine that the inquirer has a job-related need to know. Second, the former employer must release only truthful information. Third, EEO-related information (such as an employee’s race or age) should not be released.92

Background checks can be distinguished from reference checks and can include, depending on the job opening, criminal background checks, verifications of academic achievements, driving histories, immigration status checks, and Social Security checks. A primary motivation for organizations to conduct background checks is to avoid a lawsuit charging negligent hiring. However, after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, some organizations broadened their screening efforts out of a concern for security. The Patriot Act, passed in November 2001, requires background checks on people who work with certain toxins and bans felons and illegal aliens, among others, from working with these materials.93 Surveys have found that some employers very infrequently uncover potential problems through the background-check process.94 However, it is well worth having performed a background check if a problem and consequent lawsuit alleging negligent hiring were to occur. In fact, conducting a background check has largely become an expected practice, and not conducting one can be considered evidence of negligence in hiring.95

Graphology, the study of handwriting for the purpose of measuring personality or other individual traits, is routinely used to screen job applicants in Europe, the birthplace of the technique. Analysis looks at over 300 aspects of handwriting, including the slope of the letters, the height at which the letter t is crossed, and the pressure of the writing. Although graphology is not as widely used in the United States as it is in Europe, it has been estimated that over 3,000 U.S. organizations use the procedure as part of their screening process. Furthermore, the covert and occasional use of graphology may be even more widespread and may be growing.96 The important question, of course, is whether handwriting is a valid predictor of job performance. Research on this issue indicates that the answer is no.

One study collected handwriting samples from 115 real estate associates and gave them to 20 graphologists, who scored each sample on a variety of traits, such as confidence, sales drive, and decision making.97 Later, these results were compared with the subject’s actual performance ratings as well as with objective performance measures such as total sales volume. There was a fair amount of consistency across graphologists’ judgments of the handwriting samples (reliability). However, none of the judgments made by the graphologists correlated with any of the performance measures, so graphology cannot be considered a valid measure. This conclusion is echoed by other research on graphology.98 Thus, it should not be used as an employment screening device, and you should be wary when you see graphology touted as a valuable selection tool in magazines and other popular press outlets.99