The authors suggest that targeted recruitment is a controversial technique, although they say it is legally defensible. What about the technique is controversial? I think I am missing that part. I wonder if candidates knew they were being "targeted" with this recruitment strategy, they would feel like they were filling some sort of quota. Would knowledge of this recruitment strategy on the part of the applicants affect their self-efficacy, organizational fit, or decision to accept the position or not? Are the applicants aware that they are being targeted?
Along with what Shane is saying...If applicants knew of the targeting of their race, gender, etc..., would their view of selection's procedural justice be skewed more negatively? The article mentioned the importance and benefit of a company having some recruiters from a minority group to help in recruitment. So how do companies assure that there are some recruiters representing a minority group?
The authors discussed that a limitation to their study was that they assumed that all candidates offered a job accepted the offer. How do these targeted recruitment strategies affect applicant perceptions of the organization, its culture, and the job? Would applicants who knew they were specifically targeted for a job because of their status as a minority be more or less willing to continue with the application process? Additionally, what other predictors beside cognitive ability and conscientiousness might be useful to target in the recruiting process?
As attributes like cognitive ability are likely assessed in both objective (e.g. tests and questionnaires) and subjective (e.g., interviews) ways, might African Americans who are high on conscientiousness and general cognitive ability be rated as higher than equally conscientious and cognitively able Whites because they are exceeding peoples' low expectations of them?
I found this article encouraging and a real contribution regarding how to improve selection of diverse candidates. Attention needs to be paid to developing a qualified, diverse applicant pool. It is not easy, but it is possible. It is possible to carry out targeted recruiting or race/diversity conscious recruiting that is effective and does not negatively impact performance, but rather helps develop a workforce that serves the needs of diverse customers and encourages innovation. It does not need to be expensive. It can be fair, ethical. It is allowed and even encouraged by the Uniform Guidelins (1978). There are many practical take-aways in this article – e.g.making sure to include EEO statement in recruiting lit, pictures of minorities, minority recruiters, importance of minorities being in visible authority positions within an org (Collins, 2001); describing a company as innovative results in attracting Blacks who are conscientious and has little effect on job performance. Blacks (minorities) may see the description of innovation related to social progressiveness and openness to change. I also appreciated the caution that a company full of conscientious people (achievement-oriented and dependable) might lead to an obsessive-compulsive company! (per Hough, 1992). Do the suggestions that flow from this research seem like steps you would take in leadership in a company?
The authors did not report finding differences by race in likelihood of application for a job that advertised wanting intelligent applicants. This finding does not support stereotype threat as a source of differences in cognitive ability test scores. One explanation the authors give for this result is that Blacks tend to apply for more jobs than do Whites, perhaps because they believe they will be less likely to be hired. Interestingly, however, recruits were asked to report their SAT scores as a measure of their cognitive ability (verification was not required). I wonder if differences by race in likelihood of application for a job that was advertised as wanting “smart” applicants would have occurred if recruits were told they would be required to take an intelligence test? Would this have allowed for a more definitive conclusion about the interaction of race and cognitive ability in recruits’ likelihood of application?
I think it’s commendable that this research speaks to both cognitive diversity and racial diversity, especially when it comes to recruitment strategies. What do you think are some other practical implications of their research findings?
The authors suggest that targeted recruitment is a controversial technique, although they say it is legally defensible. What about the technique is controversial? I think I am missing that part. I wonder if candidates knew they were being "targeted" with this recruitment strategy, they would feel like they were filling some sort of quota. Would knowledge of this recruitment strategy on the part of the applicants affect their self-efficacy, organizational fit, or decision to accept the position or not? Are the applicants aware that they are being targeted?
ReplyDeleteAlong with what Shane is saying...If applicants knew of the targeting of their race, gender, etc..., would their view of selection's procedural justice be skewed more negatively? The article mentioned the importance and benefit of a company having some recruiters from a minority group to help in recruitment. So how do companies assure that there are some recruiters representing a minority group?
ReplyDeleteThe authors discussed that a limitation to their study was that they assumed that all candidates offered a job accepted the offer. How do these targeted recruitment strategies affect applicant perceptions of the organization, its culture, and the job? Would applicants who knew they were specifically targeted for a job because of their status as a minority be more or less willing to continue with the application process? Additionally, what other predictors beside cognitive ability and conscientiousness might be useful to target in the recruiting process?
ReplyDeleteAs attributes like cognitive ability are likely assessed in both objective (e.g. tests and questionnaires) and subjective (e.g., interviews) ways, might African Americans who are high on conscientiousness and general cognitive ability be rated as higher than equally conscientious and cognitively able Whites because they are exceeding peoples' low expectations of them?
ReplyDeleteI found this article encouraging and a real contribution regarding how to improve selection of diverse candidates. Attention needs to be paid to developing a qualified, diverse applicant pool. It is not easy, but it is possible. It is possible to carry out targeted recruiting or race/diversity conscious recruiting that is effective and does not negatively impact performance, but rather helps develop a workforce that serves the needs of diverse customers and encourages innovation. It does not need to be expensive. It can be fair, ethical. It is allowed and even encouraged by the Uniform Guidelins (1978). There are many practical take-aways in this article – e.g.making sure to include EEO statement in recruiting lit, pictures of minorities, minority recruiters, importance of minorities being in visible authority positions within an org (Collins, 2001); describing a company as innovative results in attracting Blacks who are conscientious and has little effect on job performance. Blacks (minorities) may see the description of innovation related to social progressiveness and openness to change. I also appreciated the caution that a company full of conscientious people (achievement-oriented and dependable) might lead to an obsessive-compulsive company! (per Hough, 1992). Do the suggestions that flow from this research seem like steps you would take in leadership in a company?
ReplyDeleteThe authors did not report finding differences by race in likelihood of application for a job that advertised wanting intelligent applicants. This finding does not support stereotype threat as a source of differences in cognitive ability test scores. One explanation the authors give for this result is that Blacks tend to apply for more jobs than do Whites, perhaps because they believe they will be less likely to be hired. Interestingly, however, recruits were asked to report their SAT scores as a measure of their cognitive ability (verification was not required). I wonder if differences by race in likelihood of application for a job that was advertised as wanting “smart” applicants would have occurred if recruits were told they would be required to take an intelligence test? Would this have allowed for a more definitive conclusion about the interaction of race and cognitive ability in recruits’ likelihood of application?
ReplyDeleteI think it’s commendable that this research speaks to both cognitive diversity and racial diversity, especially when it comes to recruitment strategies. What do you think are some other practical implications of their research findings?
ReplyDelete