•It seems unfair to require the applicant claiming discrimination by the selection procedures of a company to have to find an alternative and equivalently valid process in order to prove discrimination if the company’s processes are proven valid already. How is an applicant supposed to know of other alternatives? This seems advantageous for the company in that most people probably don’t know much about this and only individuals like us could investigate this with some good understanding to prove that even though the company’s selection procedures are valid, there is still discrimination and a better process. Will the law ever make it the company’s responsibility? Are companies required to continually evaluate their processes and alternative methods to always be providing the most valid and best selection procedures?
The authors indicate that a major issue in organizations is that “organizations will continue to use less than optimally valid selection procedures when those procedures help them achieve their diversity goals” (p. 150). But is there an “optimal validity” for a selection procedure? In other words, at what point does a selection procedure fall into the “not optimally valid” category? As long as the procedure is predicting performance, does it matter that one is “more valid” than another?
I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to include an estimate of productivity gains that a diverse workforce often achieves into the prediction of performance? Might this help ameliorate the loss of performance prediction that results from using predictors less correlated with performance (but also less likely to result in disparate impact) and thus reduce the diversity-validity dilemma?
I was surprised by the statement, "The relationship between KSAOs and performance is nearly always linear, so individuals with higher predictor scores should perform more effectively than those with lower predictor scores." (p. 175). Doesn't it seem more like these are curvilinear relationship like we talked about in the last class. Where very high levels of KSAs predict similar performance?
@Amy...I agree...this is a similar issue to the Malcolm Gladwell comment that to win the Nobel Prize one only needs to be at the 120 IQ threshold, anything after that is just showing off! I was surprised by that comment as well.
It was interesting reading about the court cases (especially because many of them were not all that long ago). Is the number of selection related affirmative action legal cases negatively correlated with the economic conditions of the period?
I appreciated that the authors refer to the amici brief (of the 65 Fortune 500 companies) explaining the view that a workforce educated and trained in a diverse environment is important to success in the global marketplace. I also appreciated the overview of when AA preferences are legal and the clarification that under current law, both private and public employers may use 'preferences' for the 'remedial' purpose of eliminating 'manifest imbalances' in the workforce (though must be limited in extent and time). Obviously, from the lack of clarity of the supreme court on some definitions, this case law will continue to grow. In the meantime researchers continue to search for valid selection procedures with less adverse impact. What a job. Is this area of law considered labor or business law? What kind of lawyers do we need to make friends with to keep up on this stuff?
I appreciated that the authors refer to the amici brief (of the 65 Fortune 500 companies) explaining the view that a workforce educated and trained in a diverse environment is important to success in the global marketplace. I also appreciated the overview of when AA preferences are legal and the clarification that under current law, both private and public employers may use 'preferences' for the 'remedial' purpose of eliminating 'manifest imbalances' in the workforce (though must be limited in extent and time).Obviously, from the lack of clarity of the supreme court on some definitions, this case law will continue to grow. In the meantime researchers continue to search for valid selection procedures with less adverse impact. What a job. Is this area of law considered labor or business law? What kind of lawyers do we need to make friends with to keep up on this stuff?
I thought that job requirements and safety trump all diversity requirements as long as the tool used for selection shows evidence of validity? Perhaps diversity can be enhanced by having internships targeted at minority groups, and if some or all of these individuals perform well, then they are offered a full-time position?
•It seems unfair to require the applicant claiming discrimination by the selection procedures of a company to have to find an alternative and equivalently valid process in order to prove discrimination if the company’s processes are proven valid already. How is an applicant supposed to know of other alternatives? This seems advantageous for the company in that most people probably don’t know much about this and only individuals like us could investigate this with some good understanding to prove that even though the company’s selection procedures are valid, there is still discrimination and a better process. Will the law ever make it the company’s responsibility? Are companies required to continually evaluate their processes and alternative methods to always be providing the most valid and best selection procedures?
ReplyDeleteThe authors indicate that a major issue in organizations is that “organizations will continue to use less than optimally valid selection procedures when those procedures help them achieve their diversity goals” (p. 150). But is there an “optimal validity” for a selection procedure? In other words, at what point does a selection procedure fall into the “not optimally valid” category? As long as the procedure is predicting performance, does it matter that one is “more valid” than another?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if anyone has ever attempted to include an estimate of productivity gains that a diverse workforce often achieves into the prediction of performance? Might this help ameliorate the loss of performance prediction that results from using predictors less correlated with performance (but also less likely to result in disparate impact) and thus reduce the diversity-validity dilemma?
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by the statement, "The relationship between KSAOs and performance is nearly always linear, so individuals with higher predictor scores should perform more effectively than those with lower predictor scores." (p. 175). Doesn't it seem more like these are curvilinear relationship like we talked about in the last class. Where very high levels of KSAs predict similar performance?
ReplyDelete@Amy...I agree...this is a similar issue to the Malcolm Gladwell comment that to win the Nobel Prize one only needs to be at the 120 IQ threshold, anything after that is just showing off! I was surprised by that comment as well.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting reading about the court cases (especially because many of them were not all that long ago). Is the number of selection related affirmative action legal cases negatively correlated with the economic conditions of the period?
I appreciated that the authors refer to the amici brief (of the 65 Fortune 500 companies) explaining the view that a workforce educated and trained in a diverse environment is important to success in the global marketplace. I also appreciated the overview of when AA preferences are legal and the clarification that under current law, both private and public employers may use 'preferences' for the 'remedial' purpose of eliminating 'manifest imbalances' in the workforce (though must be limited in extent and time).
ReplyDeleteObviously, from the lack of clarity of the supreme court on some definitions, this case law will continue to grow. In the meantime researchers continue to search for valid selection procedures with less adverse impact. What a job. Is this area of law considered labor or business law? What kind of lawyers do we need to make friends with to keep up on this stuff?
I appreciated that the authors refer to the amici brief (of the 65 Fortune 500 companies) explaining the view that a workforce educated and trained in a diverse environment is important to success in the global marketplace. I also appreciated the overview of when AA preferences are legal and the clarification that under current law, both private and public employers may use 'preferences' for the 'remedial' purpose of eliminating 'manifest imbalances' in the workforce (though must be limited in extent and time).Obviously, from the lack of clarity of the supreme court on some definitions, this case law will continue to grow. In the meantime researchers continue to search for valid selection procedures with less adverse impact. What a job. Is this area of law considered labor or business law? What kind of lawyers do we need to make friends with to keep up on this stuff?
ReplyDeleteI thought that job requirements and safety trump all diversity requirements as long as the tool used for selection shows evidence of validity? Perhaps diversity can be enhanced by having internships targeted at minority groups, and if some or all of these individuals perform well, then they are offered a full-time position?
ReplyDelete