For me, one of the most interesting and challenging parts of human resources is the concept of talent selection. And so over the course of the next 14 or so slides, we're going to talk about some of the most important aspects of talent selection. There are people out there and specifically people in management who believe that there's very little you can do to control the outcome in terms of whether not somebody will be a good employee, really this is not true at all. And there's so much research that suggests otherwise. Keep in mind that the decision to hire somebody really can have long lasting impacts on the organization. So it really pays to do the homework on the front end. Because if you do make a mistake, it can be very challenging depending on the employer to actually remove that person from the organization, the so called undoing of the hiring decision. So with comprehensive and ongoing planning throughout the year, you're going to be in a much better position to make correct decisions. Also, I want to mention the concept of crisis hiring because it's so common in hospitality, this is where we are forced to make a hiring decision because we need to fill a particular shift, happens alot in the restaurant industry. And the challenge of course with that is that there is no opportunity to do background checks for the most part and it's really difficult to get to know that the candidate under those circumstances. And in many cases we simply ask someone who works worse now, how do you know anyone, really bad strategy. Finally, it is okay to discriminate when hiring. We just cannot discriminate illegally. And we'll talk more about that in the coming slides. I'm not going to through each of these steps in the selection process for you here now, but I'd like you to take a look at these and read the paragraphs and pages that deal with this in our textbooks. There's a lot of research out there that suggests that these four components are crucial to a an effective selection. Explicitness, objectivity, thoroughness and consistency. Let's take a look at these one by one. When we talk about explicitness, what we're talking about here is the idea that everybody is very clear on what the hiring criteria is. It's incredible to me how often I've seen that four or five people might be involved in the hiring process or the interview process and they really don't have an understanding of exactly what it is that we're hiring and what the criteria is that we're looking for. And part of the reason for that is because each of them typically has their own agenda or their own ideas on what they might need. So it's really important that we have that cleared up at the outset. Objectivity, you need to have standards and places which are fair not only to reduce poor choices, right? But also to avoid legal issues again, which we'll talk a little bit later. Thoroughness, selection after screening, interviewing and testing. >> So the idea here is that you collect the information and you actually use it and do something with it. And finally consistency, consistency and continuity during the entire process from the development of the interview questions all the way through to the job offer. Over the course of my career, I've been involved in numerous applications, screening processes and interviews. And I can tell you that one of the biggest challenges in that process is narrowing the field of candidates. And as we enter into what looks to be a downturn in the economy, it's likely that there will be many more candidates for a single position that would than we would normally expect. So let's look at some examples of some of the strategies that companies employ when they're looking to narrow the field of candidates. One is known as the multiple portals strategy. What I'm going to do here is provide you with some specifics. In that case, a company might say, for example, all applicants must have a degree, two years experience and be able to work weekends. And the more hurdles, quote unquote that you put in the way of a candidate, the more likely it is that they won't be able to comply and therefore the field gets narrowed. The next one is known as the compensatory strategy. Here's how that might sound. If you're really experience in this area, we will overlook the fact that you don't have a degree. Now, that's not something you would specifically say to a candidate, but it's a thought process that the management team might use when they're looking to narrow the field of candidates. Finally be very clear on what necessary qualifications are and what some that might be sufficient are. Companies must list all necessary skills and requirements to avoid by bad hiring decisions. He as clear as you possibly can and if you do that, you'll be able to reduce allegations of discriminatory hiring as well. Perhaps most of us at some point in our history have been asked to fill out an application. So our textbook refers to an application of the employment process as an application blank. And let's talk about some of the important distinctions that you need to be aware of when it comes to requiring a candidate to fill out an application. And if you look at the slide, you'll notice in the middle there that I put an icon that says to be careful. And so we're going to talk about some of the pitfalls that can come up in this process. So when it comes to asking a candidate to fill out an application, they're really great in the sense that they are a quick and easy way to learn a lot about a potential candidate. They asked to, for someone to list their employment history, the degrees that they have, their prior addresses, things of that nature. Well, one thing you clearly cannot ask a candidate about our issues that might lead to a discrimination lawsuit, here are the most common areas that come up in that context. Enquiring about somebody's age. And usually people are not very overt about this, they're not going to say, how old are you? They're going to say things like, well, how close are you to retirement, do you have grandchildren, things of that nature? And the reason why they might be asking that is because the organization might be concerned that after spending a lot of time and money hiring the candidate, that they might be leaving shortly thereafter. They also tend to be more expensive in the salary process because there are a lot further along in their career. Also questions regarding a marital status of someone either past, present or future, that's off limits. You cannot ask about someone's sexual orientation, you cannot inquire about the religion or whether or not to go to church, for example, and you cannot inquire as to someone's disability or race. One thing to keep in mind is the BFOQ and I'd like you to read that in your book and get some more information about it from the textbook. but BFOQA is a bona fide occupational qualification. And so the only time you can really dive into some of these issues, for example, disability would be if the answer to that question has a direct bearing on that person's ability to actually perform the job task. So keep that in mind that it's okay to ask a question about that in a B F O Q context, but you can't refuse to hire somebody simply because they may not have the ability to do one particular type of job. You may ask about arrests and convictions really, if that's directly related to the job requirement. Now there are people that I've talked to that believe that this shouldn't be asked that the person who, let's say was convicted has served their penance to society and now they're out there trying to make the best of it and trying to get a job to improve their situation. The challenge, though, is that this can lead to issues of potential negligent hiring. If you don't inquire into somebody's background when it comes to areas where safety and security might be at issue. Questions regarding life experience and social values are also not recommended. What companies will often do, rather than asking you specifically, as I mentioned earlier, is to do a quick google search to find out in what circles that you're participating in. Pre employment tests were very popular in the 50s and 6060s and I've always believed that they had a very discriminatory intent behind them. Companies would hide behind them, saying that this is a great way to Screen through candidates, but in many cases, the questions were that they were asked on these tests were very unfair to people that didn't have the same background as the person who drafted the test. So there's been a real strong movement away from them. They're seen as being unfair and and possibly even illegally discriminatory in terms of the questions that they asked and the way that they're framed. There's also not a lot of research out there that says that these tests are indicative of how good the candidate would be in the first place. So if that's the case, why spend a lot of time and money doing them? If tests are used again, they should be related directly to the position at hand. For example, I think it would be appropriate to test someone on their ability to use a certain type of software if they're going to be using that in a daily basis on their job. Let's talk a little bit about drug tests in the screening process. First of all, in hospitality, drug tests are frequently used in the hiring process. In fact, one study found that 16% of hospitality employees actually admitted to using illicit drugs. When we talk about illicit, by the way, what we're referring to is drugs which are legal, and as many of you know, many jurisdictions, many states and in this country have decriminalized marijuana use. So the question that many companies have to ask themselves is do we want to deny employment to someone who simply engaging in behavior that's been decriminalized by the state? And the answer that question really depends upon the philosophy of that company. I can tell you in Las Vegas that many of the major casinos have dropped altogether screening for marijuana use, during the time when they actually did that they were having a very difficult time finding people who didn't turn up positive for marijuana use. So companies that have drug tests, what are they actually looking for? I think part of it is tradition, I think that companies just feel that they have to do this because it's been done for so many years. It really started in the 1980s on the war on drugs and it's sort of continued since then. So what can you determine from a candidate who, let's say tests positive for drug use? Some people believe that there may be efficiency issues with these people, maybe they're slowed down or they're not as sharp as they otherwise might be. Another issue is potentially related to theft. The idea there being, if somebody has an addiction that they might be more willing to steal in order to feed that addiction. There's really not a lot of research on that that I've seen. And so the question then becomes, what about alcohol? Alcohol has been categorized in the drug category for many years since so do we start screening for alcohol and most states and companies simply will not do that because of the very high propensity of people to use it. So in all cases, I can tell you that the idea of casually engaging in drug use, particularly marijuana, if we're frank is becoming less and less of an issue. And as younger people begin to occupy positions of senior management, I can tell you that it's going to be less and less of an issue hiring someone if they turn up positive for, let's say marijuana use. So let's talk about when skills test might be appropriate in the hiring process. I think a great example of for one would be appropriate would be hiring somebody to work as a sous chef, for example. This is clearly a position that requires very specific skills on day one and it really wouldn't make sense would it, to hire someone and then have to spend several weeks perhaps training that person. So the skills test where you might ask a sous chef for a candidate to a sous chef position to show the interviewers their skills or to have them prepare a dish, something like that. Another example of when a skills test might be appropriate is when safety might be an issue if the candidate lacks that particular skill, for example, maybe they need to operate a forklift or something like that. We want to see if they actually can operate the forklift before we actually extend an offer to them. Also during the skills test, you may want to simulate tasks needed for the job or perhaps have them working in the back of the house during an actual service. That might be a great way to determine if the person has the required skills. In any event, if you're going to do this, make sure that you administer the tests exactly the same to all the candidates who might be applying for them so that it's a fair process. And another thing you might consider doing as well is videotaping the skills tests in action. So the other potential people within the organization can view that video in case they're not actually able to attend the test itself. Just make sure you get permission to video someone if you actually asked them to do so. I'm often asked what a company's role is in the area of references and recommendations. Let's talk about the differences between the two because they are not the same, recommendation would be a favorable assessment of a potential candidate from someone who has credibility and who is from a meaningful source. An example here would be a prior boss, let's say someone that's not credible would be a friend or just maybe someone who's doing you a favor. So when we say meaningful, is the person whose opinion is being offered, is that actually helpful to the selection process? So in most cases, what we're talking about here would be a prior employer. I suppose you could get a recommendation from a professor or from someone else in that person's life but when it comes to the job itself, it makes sense that would probably come from a prior employer. Now a reference check, these are not optional. References will confirm information about a candidate such as their academic or professional credentials and also verifying whether not somebody actually worked for that company. A letter of recommendation could also come in the form of a reference check where one is being requested, so they're not the same. A recommendation can be a very powerful asset and resource to a company for a candidate but keep in mind that companies that don't do proper reference checks could open themselves up reliability, which we'll talk about shortly. So what is negligent hiring? This is an important concept that as future managers you need to know because your inaction could put the company in jeopardy. So the definition of negligent hiring is where an organization fails to exercise reasonable care in the hiring process. So for example, hiring someone without conducting a background check of a person who is working, let's say in a bank would be a breach of that company's duty of care because to not look into this person's background when they're being put in such an important position would clearly be a violation of their duty. If hiring the candidate results and harm the company as a direct result of the hiring, it could result in a lawsuit. So for example, let's say that you're hiring someone to drive a delivery truck and you did not conduct a background check and it turns out that this person has a history of the DUI's and that person drives into the influence, gets into an accident using a company vehicle and killed someone. That would be the classic example of negligent hiring and the estate of the deceased party could actually come after the company under a theory of negligent hiring. Real quickly on the issue of privacy, the bottom line is that if you work for an organization and you're collecting personal data about candidates, for example, their social security number or their credit information, then the organization must take precautions to protect that information. I think we've all heard about stories in the news where Major corporations like Target and others have failed to put safeguards in place to protect this information. And all 50 states have laws on the books which require organizations that collect this information to put certain processes in place to protect it. So on top of that, it's always a good idea as well to ask for written permission from the candidate if you're going to be asking them for information and also keeping it on file. Perhaps the most important, most fundamental way of screening candidates would be the interview. And I pulled out of our textbook, the three that I'd really like you to know, let's talk about them. The unstructured interview is where questions really unprepared in advance and the interviewer and the interviewee essentially have a conversation. It kind of takes the path of how it wants to go based upon that conversation. So the nice part of this is that it's a free flowing discussion and you can really learn a lot about a candidate's personality in this type of an interview. The problem, though, is when it comes to comparing the results of that interview with the next candidate since they're so different. A structured interview is probably the most common method and this is where questions are prepared in advance and they are equally applied to all the candidates. So when I recently went through an interview process to accept this position here at UNT, I was asked the same questions that the other two candidates were asked. And then the committee went back and discuss our answers to those questions and was able to make an assessment based upon that. I've also seen much more common in of late is the idea that companies will ask you to role play. This is quite common in the casino industry where a candidate will be asked to address the hypothetical or standard before the group and discuss a particular issue or even take on the actual role that they might be playing if they accepted the position. Again, a great way to see if someone is able to think on their feet. The challenge of course is that they don't feel real, they're sort of artificial and therefore they may not be the best form of interview when it comes to multiple candidates interviewing for the position. In terms of preparing for the interview, let's talk a little bit about that from the perspective of the candidate and the interviewer from the organization. The first thing I want to point out to you is that there's really probably nothing more of a turn off to an interviewer and an organization than to be speaking to a candidate that doesn't seem to understand the position very well. That's asking questions that are dealt with adequately in the job description, where it would seem that the person is simply looking for a job and not this particular position. I remember a very prominent person in the casino industry once said, that he always asked candidates the following questions in an interview. And again, this person is at the very top of the food chain at this organization. He would ask, what position would you like to have if you could have no other position in the company? And what he was looking to see is how serious the candidate was about the position before them. And he said a surprisingly large number of candidates would say something like, I want your position or CEO, something along those lines. And in most cases he said that that was the end of the line for that candidate. Secondly, you want to do some research on the company and the candidate. So, as I just mentioned, the candidate needs to also understand the company, what they do, the services that they provide, and what challenges that they might be facing at that particular moment. Similarly, I will tell you that organizations will do a quick online search of their candidates as well. They want to get a sense of the type of activity that these folks engage in outside of work, outside of school. And so they'll do background checks on people using a simple google search that's very common. And so you might want to do one on yourself and see what pops up. Try to establish some report even before the interview actually begins. I think this is really important from the perspective of the organization, because it sends a message to a candidate, this is a nice place to work and that we are a friendly bunch and you should really consider working for us. Be courteous throughout all stages, I can't emphasize this enough. A candidate needs to thank the organization for their time and for even accepting an interview with him in the first place. Try to anticipate possible objections and have answers. This is really important from the perspective of the company. What are some questions that you might expect the candidate to ask regarding salary or regarding benefits, for example, or the things that they might be asked to do. So, preparation of the interview very, very important on both sides of the table. As great as interviews are as tools for screening and hiring candidates, there are some problems associated with them. And I'd like to discuss with you three of the most important. On number three here, the idea that people have biases that's very real and you really shouldn't believe anyone that says they don't have any bias. The most common forms of bias that can be challenges in an interview are those to do with race, sex, culture, and age bias. Let me give you an example of a culture bias that someone might have if they really don't understand the culture of the particular candidate. For example, in some countries, it's not a good idea to look somebody in the eye or give them a firm handshake, to do so with someone who is actually older than that person is a sign of disrespect. So, if you're interviewing someone from that culture and you don't recognize that you could perceive their unwillingness to look you in the eye or give you a firm handshake as a weakness, and that's really not fair to that candidate because that's not the way they were brought up. Another one that can be very common is the interview domination. This is where you have a very strong personality who is conducting the interview and simply doesn't allow the person that they're speaking to, to answer questions, and therefore you're really not able to learn much about the candidate. Finally, non-verbal communication. This is a big challenge as well. You may have someone who is very nervous and sends off bad signals because of that, and in fact, they may be the best candidate out there. There are a lot of people who are very uncomfortable in public speaking settings and would in fact give off negative communications cues because of that. And so in that case it may be unfair to that person to expect them to do as well in an interview as the next person because of that. So take a look at these seven in the book, there are some that are more common than others. The ones that I mentioned are the ones that I'd like you to know for exam purposes.
