1 Criteria used to determine whether employee selection methods are good “Cost, practicality, generality, acceptability, legality, and validity” are criteria to help achieve a successful selection method (Dale, 2004). An integral part of the selection method is hiring employees that would fit to one’s culture just like how Hewlett-Packard chooses its employees (Flamholtz & Randle, 2011). This implies that a certain employee selection method needs to consider how it would address the need of an organization’s existing culture. This part can take place under generality, acceptability and validity. The ultimate purpose of employee selection methods is to hire qualified applicants, but the process needs to give equal chances or opportunities for everyone (Gatewood, Feild, & Barrick, 2010).
This means that another criterion of knowing a good employee selection method is in line with finding the right applicant while the selection process is free from personal biases. This specific example falls under legality and practicality. Employee selection method is good when the job analysis is conducted just prior to the actual selection process. This may prevent incurring higher cost of rehiring in the future considering that some important factors such as resources, time and equipment may be quite limited at some point.
This falls under the cost criterion. Based on the above examples, it is shown that employee selection methods are quite good when they follow the above mentioned criteria. As a result, these criteria may be used in order to identify which among of the employee selection methods can substantially provide good results. #2 The ways to assess selection method validity Validity refers to finding whether the selection method is “worth doing”, knowing if “it does what it claims to do”, and evaluating “whether it predicts outcome with meaning” (Dale, 2004).
These all can be realized after the selected employees are evaluated in their performance through work appraisal, their willingness to be trained and other considerations. In other words, the very basic way in order to find if the selection method is valid is through finding and understanding what the results are. At this point, it is important to point out major assessments to be remarkably used in assessing selection method validity: criterion-related, content and construct validity (Condrey, 2010).
Finding if the selection method is worth doing depends on the existing criteria an organization used for its employee selection process. For instance, if it addresses the very issue that company wants to resolve then it may turn out to be worth doing. However, if it does not meet the prevailing needs of an organization then it is not worth doing after all. Perhaps it would be the best time for an organization to look for more reliable selection method that would be able to address its very need.
Another important assessment is to know if the selection method does what it claims to do. This is very simple to identify. For instance, if it claims to hire at least 90% of competitive applicants, then all employees that are hired must be found highly competitive after some sort of evaluation process has been conducted. This talks about content validity. Furthermore, if it predicts exactly what would happen in the future, then it has substantially created significant meaning. This would mean it is the best and even the valid method to be used in the entire selection process.
#3 Adverse impact versus disparate treatment Adverse impact applies to a protected group and it may be unintentional while disparate treatment applies to an individual and it is intentional (USLegal. com, 2011). For example, in the employee selection process, adverse impact may apply. The company declaring a lower passing rate for female and higher for male may be a form of adverse impact. The intention may be giving more opportunities for female to pass the selection process but the thought of it is that it has a discriminatory effect.
Such policy may somehow underestimate the mental capacity of female applicants. In other words, adverse impact may be unintentional discriminatory act for the benefit or disadvantage of certain groups. It is a different thought when it comes to disparate treatment. This may happen within organizations in varying situations. One specific example may be in line with how the company tries to motivate its employees. There are some cases in which a company comes up with a policy for the benefits of the group.
However, in reality, not all of them may benefit from it due to some certain circumstances or other selective criteria involved within a certain policies or rules. For instance, a certain benefit may be enjoyed by the employees except however for a particular person. This is a form of disparate treatment because it is intentional and it works against a certain individual. Based on the above examples, it is clear that both adverse impact and disparate treatment have discriminatory effect even though they may be unintentional at some point.
#4 Autonomy In autonomy there is freedom. It can be about freedom to choose, freedom to decide, freedom to showcase creativity and many other. Applying this within the context of the workplace, an employee with autonomy is given the opportunity to maximize his or her contribution to the success of an organization. For instance, in an organization with high value given for individualism, everyone is given the opportunity to contribute what they believe is right and good for the organization. This organization for instance does not look so much about hierarchy, but what everyone can do to contribute in the whole team.
This is contrary to highly collectivistic approach in which individuals have to work as a team and promote harmony. However, the concept of autonomy may still apply in this cultural dimension. For instance, since collectivism implies harmony, autonomy may contribute to it provided that what are contributed by each member exactly produces what would create synchronization within the team. Forms of interdependence There are two essential forms of interdependence, the structured and behavioral, which the former can be further categorized as task or outcome (Turner, 2001).
The structured interdependence includes the external environment and its forces that could possibly influence the behavior of a person. Within the workplace, this particularly includes rewards, how the goal is defined within the organization and so on. As can be observed, these would create significant impact on the person’s behavior primarily because at some point this would motivate or trigger them to perform his or her respective function. However, the behavior of an individual is not purely affected by the structured interdependence.
At some point, individuals have unique and innate sets of characteristics which are encompassed by the behavioral interdependence. These innate or unique sets of behavior of each individual are what would distinguish them among any other. For instance, tardiness may be a real existing behavioral problem of an individual just prior to being hired from a different company. At some point, this can be contested because it does not create any link directly to reward or motivational aspects as integral parts of structured interdependence. Autonomy and interdependence link to overall HR strategy As what already has been stated in this section, autonomy and interdependence have a very important link to overall HR strategy.
For instance, autonomy may promote creativity among employees and the only way to cultivate it to make a positive impact within the organization is to provide a reward system. An employee who has created important discoveries about certain things may be rewarded with his or her effort which is tantamount to structured interdependence. In other words, autonomy and interdependence may create a significant link prior to creating a positive impact within the organization.
This only implies that making use of the concepts of autonomy and interdependence within the workplace can actually bring a remarkable advantage to the formulation of overall HR strategy. References Condrey, S. E. (2010). Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government (3rd ed. ). California: John Wiley and Sons. Dale, M. (2004). Manager’s guide to recruitment and selection (2nd ed. ). Vancouver: Kogan Page Publishers. Flamholtz, E., & Randle, Y. (2011). Corporate Culture: The Ultimate Strategic Asset. California: Stanford University Press. Gatewood, R., Field, H.
S., & Barrick, M. (2010). Human Resource Selection (7th ed. ). Ohio: Cengage Learning. Turner, M. E. (2001). Groups at work: theory and research. New Jersey: Routledge. USLegal. com. (2011). Disparate Treatment Law & Legal Definition Retrieved 15, 2011, from http: //definitions. uslegal. com/d/disparate-treatment/ USLegal. com. (2011). Adverse Impact Law & Legal Definition Retrieved 15, 2011, from http: //definitions. uslegal. com/a/adverse-impact/