Limitations of Interviews

The effectiveness of different recruitment and selection criteria of employees has been the topic of research for over 60 years (Sinha & Thaly, 2018).  the effectiveness has primarily been assessed by examine the rates of turnover; job survival and job performance along with organizational issues such as referrals by current personnel, in house job posting and the rehiring of former employees (Zottoli & Wanous, 2000).

Importance of Selection

Reports that it is important to managers to understand the objectives, policies and practices used for selection (Bohlander et al., 2000). Moreover those who are responsible for making selection decisions should have appropriate information upon which to base their decisions. As (Robbins, 1996) observed, organization’s human resource policies and practices represent important forces for shaping employee behavior and attitudes. It is not just that organizational selection practices determine who is hired; the use of the proper selection criteria will increase the probability that the right person will be chosen (Ekwoaba et al., 2015).

It is clear that different selection methods can be used for the selection of employees. The face-to-face interviews are the most common method of recruiting even through it is widely used, it can be unreliable guide to a person’s future performance potential (Garner, 2012).

The organization in which I work, a leading international school, the selection technique which is used in the private school where I attached to is face-to –face interviews followed by teacher demonstrations. The candidates those who are selected through the interviews will be eligible to conduct a model lesson teaching session. There were occasions the teachers those who were selected through above mention selection technique did not performed well. As such it is suggested to apply psychometric test along with the interviews.

The demands of candidates should be examined through the lens of psychometric test for seeking skills. The following testes can be used for psychometric testing (Jenkins, 2001).

1.      Cognitive Test

Eg: Testing about numerical reasoning critical reasoning.

2.      Tests of Specific Abilities

Eg: Testing handling the children

3.      Personality Test

Eg: Checking personality traits – extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, experiences, emotional stability.

4.      Testing for Literacy and Numeracy

Eg: Conducting test of written English and mathematics

Interviews - for selecting prospective employees

There are 3 purposes to a recruitment interviews according to (Garner, 2012).

a)      To create a climate in which the applicant can relax, speak freely and give of their best.

b)      To gather evidence about whether a candidate meets the criteria on the job specification.

c)      To give a realistic, accurate but positive picture of the job and the organization.

The interview has traditionally been the overwhelmingly favoured method of selecting staff. However, blog shows that assessing employees by means of a face –to-face interviews can be a poor method to judge them. This is because interviewers are subjectively influenced by whether the interviewer may ad mine during the interview, for example; a bubbly personality which is not necessary for the job (Garner, 2012).

Halo Effect

In the begging of the 20^th century (Throndika, 1920) denoted an individual’s disposition to transfer an overall evaluation of a judged target to specific characteristics of that target and vice versa a judgmental error as “halo effect”.

It may often be the case that the candidates let one factor out might the other required factor for a better recruitment. For example the candidate shares interviewer’s alma mater or a common interest. The interviewer can be blind to all the weakness of the candidate and spend more time selling the job opportunity than evaluating the candidate (Mulac & Bhaur, 2007).

Moreover, some selection criteria such as work experience, work related skills, examination results and grades are overshadowed by human resource management specialists’ perception of the applicant’s appearance (Chiu & Babcock, 2002). Beauty bias may be activated as better looking applicants are preferred over equally qualified because the employment selection process involves interpersonal relationship (Chiu & Babcock, 2002).

Similar to me Effect

The similar to me effect suggesting that individuals view those similar to themselves most favorably (Sears & Rowe, 2003). Applicant similarity when liked with effect, then influences the interviewer’s perception of job suitability (Howard & Ferris, 1996).

Horn Effect

The halo effects negatively connoted complement is called “horn effect” hinting at an infernal token (Jang et al., 2016).

The horn effect refers to the tendency to limit the overall assessment of an entity due to a single negative dimension or attribute (Rubin, 1982). In context of employee appraisal  (Arnold & Pulich, 2003) make the interesting distinction between the horn and halo effects, the horn effect is specially that which occurs when a manager perceives one negative aspect about an employee or his or her performance and generalizes it in to an overall poor appraisal rating (Macdougall et al., 2008).

References

 

Arnold, E. & Pulich, M., 2003. Personality conflicts and objectivity in appraising performance. Health Care Manager, 22(3), pp.227-32.

Bohlander, G.W., Snell, S. & Sherman, A.W., 2000. Managing Human Resources. 12th ed. New York: South-Western College.

Chiu, R.K.K. & Babcock, R.D., 2002. The relative importance of facial attractiveness and gender in Hong Kong selection decisions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), pp.141-55.

Ekwoaba, J.O., Ikeije, U.U. & Ufoma, N., 2015. The Impact of Recruitment and Selection Criteria on Organizational Performance. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(2), pp.22-33.

Garner, E., 2012. Recruitment and Selection: Hiring the People you Want. In e-book. bookboon.com. pp.1-52.

Howard, L. & Ferris, R., 1996. The Employment Interview Context: Social and Situational Influences on Interviewer Decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(3), pp.42-64.

Jang, W.Y., Lee, J.H. & Hu, H.C., 2016. Halo, horn, or dark horse biases: Corporate reputation and the earnings announcement puzzle. Journal of Empirical Finance, 38, pp.272-89.

Jenkins, A., 2001. Companies’ Use of Psychometric Testing and the Changing Demand for Skills:A Review of the Literature. Center of Economics of Education, pp.1-63.

Macdougall, M., Riley, S.C., Cameron , H.S. & Mckinstry, B., 2008. Halos and Horn in the Assesment of Undergraduate Medical Students: A Consistency Based Approach. Jurnal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(2), pp.116-28.

Mulac, J. & Bhaur, A., 2007. Dimensions of Enterprise Hypocrisy with Specifics to Recruitment & Selection. Master Thesis. Sweden: Umea School of Business Umea University.

Robbins, S.P., 1996. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Rubin, S., 1982. Performance Appraisal: a Guide to Better Supervisor Evaluation Processes. Panel Resource Paper No. 7, in “National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.

Sears, G.J. & Rowe, P., 2003. A Personality-Based Similar-To-Me Effect in the Employment Interview: Conscientiousness, Affect-Versus Competence-Mediated Interpretations, and the Role of Job Relevance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 35(1):13-24, 35(1), pp.13-24.

Sinha, V. & Thaly, P., 2018. A review on changing trend of recruitment practice to enhance the quality of hiring in global organizations. Management, 18(2), pp.141-56.

Throndika, E., 1920. A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), pp.25-29.

Zottoli, M.A. & Wanous, J.P., 2000. Recruitment source research: Current status and Future Directions. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), pp.353-82.