I think it is pretty obvious that cognitive ability is an important predictor of job performance. Based on what we have already discussed in class, I think the challenge is to convince organizations that applicants need a minimal level of cognitive ability to proceed throughout the selection process, rather than selecting individuals with the highest scores. How might we communicate this idea when developing a selection system? In addition, the Arthur et al. (2002) article suggested that adverse impact might be reduced if we try different methods of administering cognitive ability measures. How might organizations react to this idea? Finally, it seems that much more research is needed to determine the extent of true differences in cognitive ability between groups. To play devil’s advocate for a minute, if true differences really do exist among groups in terms of cognitive ability that is not a result of measurement or predictive bias, what role do we have as selection specialists to overcome perceptions of discrimination when making hiring decisions?
I agree with Vicki in that the having a minimal level of ability versus the highest is better for screening our applicants to further apply for a position. Although, I see the point of companies in that they would see this as why aren't we considering the top candidates with the highest scores. However, in succession planning they use matrices to make cut off levels on various measures for performance, this is closer to the idea of minimal GMA. Should selection specialists consider this approach?
As jobs become more highly specialized requiring more than general ability, will these tests fall out of favor within selection practices? That is, with an HVAC professional, a plumber, a IT specialist, an accountant; should business be more concerned with their general ability or their specialized expertise? Do I really care if my IT specialist or my accountant is poor problem solving or do I care if they can write a program effectively or keep the books balanced and pay attention to detail?
Along with what Vicki is saying, do you think there are jobs where you need applicants with the highest GMA while there are others where a minimal standard (and nothing more) is needed? Or do you think all jobs have a minimum value that is needed and anything above that isn't predictive? Additionally since companies are often actually hiring for the position above what is posted (I.e., they hope the person will be promoted in the company), where does it make sense to set these cut offs and how can we get organizations to agree?
These readings have made me more convinced of the need for on-going research into group differences re. scores on current tests of intelligence. We need to embrace what we know about helpful predictions, but also consider the limitations of research at this point and consider other values in the workplace and for society. I am quite conscious of these things and yet still find it very challenging in the work place hiring setting. Hmmm...
I think all of the articles could have done a better job of describing performance and job success. It seems that intellect is a great predictor of overall performance, but I would like to know exactly the dimensions of performance that are being evaluated. I’m getting the impression that measures of intelligence are not as useful as the research is showing (they’re almost too good to be true…). What do you think?
Well, just about the time I become persuaded that a top-down selection based on GMA and perhaps conscientiousness is optimal relative to the alternatives, I read something that makes me rethink my position. Is anyone else concerned about the differential predictive validity of GMA tests for high versus moderate and low GMA levels?
I think it is pretty obvious that cognitive ability is an important predictor of job performance. Based on what we have already discussed in class, I think the challenge is to convince organizations that applicants need a minimal level of cognitive ability to proceed throughout the selection process, rather than selecting individuals with the highest scores. How might we communicate this idea when developing a selection system? In addition, the Arthur et al. (2002) article suggested that adverse impact might be reduced if we try different methods of administering cognitive ability measures. How might organizations react to this idea? Finally, it seems that much more research is needed to determine the extent of true differences in cognitive ability between groups. To play devil’s advocate for a minute, if true differences really do exist among groups in terms of cognitive ability that is not a result of measurement or predictive bias, what role do we have as selection specialists to overcome perceptions of discrimination when making hiring decisions?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vicki in that the having a minimal level of ability versus the highest is better for screening our applicants to further apply for a position. Although, I see the point of companies in that they would see this as why aren't we considering the top candidates with the highest scores. However, in succession planning they use matrices to make cut off levels on various measures for performance, this is closer to the idea of minimal GMA. Should selection specialists consider this approach?
ReplyDeleteAs jobs become more highly specialized requiring more than general ability, will these tests fall out of favor within selection practices? That is, with an HVAC professional, a plumber, a IT specialist, an accountant; should business be more concerned with their general ability or their specialized expertise? Do I really care if my IT specialist or my accountant is poor problem solving or do I care if they can write a program effectively or keep the books balanced and pay attention to detail?
ReplyDeleteAlong with what Vicki is saying, do you think there are jobs where you need applicants with the highest GMA while there are others where a minimal standard (and nothing more) is needed? Or do you think all jobs have a minimum value that is needed and anything above that isn't predictive? Additionally since companies are often actually hiring for the position above what is posted (I.e., they hope the person will be promoted in the company), where does it make sense to set these cut offs and how can we get organizations to agree?
ReplyDeleteThese readings have made me more convinced of the need for on-going research into group differences re. scores on current tests of intelligence.
ReplyDeleteWe need to embrace what we know about helpful predictions, but also consider the limitations of research at this point and consider other values in the workplace and for society. I am quite conscious of these things and yet still find it very challenging in the work place hiring setting. Hmmm...
I think all of the articles could have done a better job of describing performance and job success. It seems that intellect is a great predictor of overall performance, but I would like to know exactly the dimensions of performance that are being evaluated. I’m getting the impression that measures of intelligence are not as useful as the research is showing (they’re almost too good to be true…). What do you think?
ReplyDeleteWell, just about the time I become persuaded that a top-down selection based on GMA and perhaps conscientiousness is optimal relative to the alternatives, I read something that makes me rethink my position. Is anyone else concerned about the differential predictive validity of GMA tests for high versus moderate and low GMA levels?
ReplyDelete