In motivation class we just discussed the effects of procedural justice on motivating employees. I wonder how perceptions of procedural justice might influence employee motivation in taking these selection instruments for, let’s say, an internal promotion. That is, if employees are aware of the process that was used to develop the cutoff scores, are they likely to be more satisfied with the distribution of the outcome? What if they are unsatisfied with the process?
I personally found the Angoff method to be useful in setting cutoff scores. To me, this method seems to be more effective than banding because we are using judges who are looking at the score needed to perform at the “minimally acceptable” level. However, I foresee that many organizations would rather hire individuals at a “higher” level of performance than minimally acceptable. What pressures might judges face when setting cutoff scores for the minimally acceptable performer?
Hurtz & Aurbach (2003) Would you have expected normative information to lead to lower cutoff scores? What does the resulting interaction (between judges sharing a common definition of minimal competence and participating in discussion of cutoff scores leading to consensus and the highest standards) imply for practice?
•I agree with the authors in that there may be an occurrence of the group polarization effect with group consensus among the definition of minimal competence as well as with regards to agreeing on the cutoff score(s). I also concur with Vickie’s comment on procedural justice and add the notion of the voice effect. I believe that research may find procedural justice as high among the judges b/c they are voicing their opinion even if it may not be taken into account fully when making the final group decisions. However, if a few judges are still unhappy with the group decision despite giving their opinion/voice does this aid in the group polarization effect or hinder it?
It would be interesting to see how group dynamics further influences the cutoff decision. Are other group members conforming to a more persuasive group member? Or could it be (as is the case with graduate school requirements) that as subject matter experts decide on cutoffs and criteria as a group, they set a more strict or higher performance standards than if the decisions were made individually?
Regardless, I do like the idea of procedural justice with selection procedures. Many times, applicants do not know all of the intricacies involved in a selection decision/system. I think applicant's perceptions of procedural justice with a selection procedure might have an effect on both those that get selected and those that get denied for the position. Would this perception have an effect on the self-efficacy of the newly selected employee?
Although allowing judges to discuss their estimates of minimally acceptable scores on a selection test appears to reduce systematic error due to differences in the way the judges apply the method of evaluation, it introduces other potential sources of error (e.g. group polarization, impression management, etc). Is this really an improvement over top down score selection? Don't you still have the issue that there is more variance within the group that was above the cutoff than there is between those who were close to the cutoff but above it and those who were close to the cutoff, but below it?
As everyone has pointed out, one of the concerns of the modified Agnoff method is that the cutoff scores may be a function of the group. Do you think it would be possible to form several small groups and then use their average score. This way, the cutoff score would not be the result of just one groups decision.
The authors argued that individuals tend to, in private, make moderate judgments of minimal competence, but once in groups, they tend to polarize and make higher judgments. The authors attribute this phenomenon to social influence. To me it specifically seems that when people come together as a group, they become more risk averse for fear of being judged by other group members (or making the job seem easier than it really is). It was also argued that these ratings tend to be inflated. How might the organizational context and politics influence this rating method?
In motivation class we just discussed the effects of procedural justice on motivating employees. I wonder how perceptions of procedural justice might influence employee motivation in taking these selection instruments for, let’s say, an internal promotion. That is, if employees are aware of the process that was used to develop the cutoff scores, are they likely to be more satisfied with the distribution of the outcome? What if they are unsatisfied with the process?
ReplyDeleteI personally found the Angoff method to be useful in setting cutoff scores. To me, this method seems to be more effective than banding because we are using judges who are looking at the score needed to perform at the “minimally acceptable” level. However, I foresee that many organizations would rather hire individuals at a “higher” level of performance than minimally acceptable. What pressures might judges face when setting cutoff scores for the minimally acceptable performer?
Hurtz & Aurbach (2003)
ReplyDeleteWould you have expected normative information to lead to lower cutoff scores?
What does the resulting interaction (between judges sharing a common definition of minimal competence and participating in discussion of cutoff scores leading to consensus and the highest standards) imply for practice?
•I agree with the authors in that there may be an occurrence of the group polarization effect with group consensus among the definition of minimal competence as well as with regards to agreeing on the cutoff score(s). I also concur with Vickie’s comment on procedural justice and add the notion of the voice effect. I believe that research may find procedural justice as high among the judges b/c they are voicing their opinion even if it may not be taken into account fully when making the final group decisions. However, if a few judges are still unhappy with the group decision despite giving their opinion/voice does this aid in the group polarization effect or hinder it?
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see how group dynamics further influences the cutoff decision. Are other group members conforming to a more persuasive group member? Or could it be (as is the case with graduate school requirements) that as subject matter experts decide on cutoffs and criteria as a group, they set a more strict or higher performance standards than if the decisions were made individually?
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I do like the idea of procedural justice with selection procedures. Many times, applicants do not know all of the intricacies involved in a selection decision/system. I think applicant's perceptions of procedural justice with a selection procedure might have an effect on both those that get selected and those that get denied for the position. Would this perception have an effect on the self-efficacy of the newly selected employee?
Although allowing judges to discuss their estimates of minimally acceptable scores on a selection test appears to reduce systematic error due to differences in the way the judges apply the method of evaluation, it introduces other potential sources of error (e.g. group polarization, impression management, etc). Is this really an improvement over top down score selection? Don't you still have the issue that there is more variance within the group that was above the cutoff than there is between those who were close to the cutoff but above it and those who were close to the cutoff, but below it?
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has pointed out, one of the concerns of the modified Agnoff method is that the cutoff scores may be a function of the group. Do you think it would be possible to form several small groups and then use their average score. This way, the cutoff score would not be the result of just one groups decision.
ReplyDeleteThe authors argued that individuals tend to, in private, make moderate judgments of minimal competence, but once in groups, they tend to polarize and make higher judgments. The authors attribute this phenomenon to social influence. To me it specifically seems that when people come together as a group, they become more risk averse for fear of being judged by other group members (or making the job seem easier than it really is). It was also argued that these ratings tend to be inflated. How might the organizational context and politics influence this rating method?
ReplyDelete