BAD 64263 Summer 2006 Faley
EMPLOYEE SELECTION AND APPRAISAL (BAD 6/74263 - call#10220/10251)
Summer 2006 - A404 (T/H 6:00-9:50); (h:\syllabus\s&asum.06)
Dr. Robert H. Faley (BSA A416); 672-1154; Internet: rfaley@kent.edu (a copy of the syllabus can be gotten from the M&IS website http://mismain.bsa.kent.edu - click “Student” and then “M&IS Courses and Syllabus Library”)
COURSE OBJECTIVES: This course will focus on important issues associated with designing/building human resource systems that are used for the selection and appraisal (S&A) of employees. Perspectives on the following aspects of S&A will be emphasized: (1) practical knowledge regarding various S&A procedures and their legal and technical acceptability; (2) legislation, litigation, and federal guidelines in the S&A areas; (3) techniques for evaluating the S&A process; and (4) other related issues.
As a result of this course, you will better understand:
a) HR selection/appraisal systems and how they are interrelated with one another and with other important firm-wide systems
b) the value added (i.e., competitive advantage) that can be gained by designing, building, and managing HR selection/appraisal systems based on proven techniques and approaches
c) the very critical role that job analysis plays in designing and building value-added HR selection/appraisal systems
d) the legal obligations employees have to their employers as well as the legal obligations employers have to their employees in the areas of selection/appraisal
e) how to evaluate HR selection/appraisal systems and better estimate their value-added
f) the current state of the art related to various HR selection/appraisal activities
MEETING FORMAT: A seminar format will predominate. Students will be expected to participate actively in the classroom process. In-class exercises will play an important role in class discussions. Several related projects may be assigned throughout the semester.
GRADING: Semester grades will be based on these criteria:
Quality of Participation in Class - based on discussion of exercises and other material (70%)
Critique-a-Test Results – an assessment of the presentation described below (30%)
“Cheat Sheets” – bring to each class a brief summary – IN YOUR OWN WORDS - of each assigned reading…use these summaries as “cheat sheets” to help answer questions posed during class…randomly during the semester, I will ask the class to hand in their cheat sheets for that meeting - failure to hand in the material will result in a penalty of up to 20% of your final grade they MUST be turned in/emailed to me by the end of the class period on the day they are requested – NO EXCEPTIONS!
PLEASE NOTE: I am happy to meet with you as many times as you require during the semester to discuss your current progress and grade – whether you solicit a lot or no feedback at all is up to you…please contact me to set up a meeting.
READINGS: The readings are on ELECTRONIC reserve at the library (case-sensitive password = human36). Although we will NOT critique these readings in class, you are expected to read and understand the material in them - the primary purpose of the readings is to provide the context necessary to both better understand the material covered in class and better participate in class discussions – so you need to know and understand what is in these articles. Thus, if you don't do the readings, you should not expect to get the grade you would get if you had read them! (in syllabus CC=court cases; OR=other readings; EXER=in-class exercise)
COURSE-RELATED OVERHEADS ARE ALSO ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE AT THE MAIN LIBRARY ALONG WITH THE READINGS. PLEASE GET THE OVERHEADS - THEY WILL HELP YOU GET MUCH MORE OUT OF THE MATERIAL COVERED IN CLASS.
Optional Reading: Arvey, R. & Faley, R.H. (1989). Fairness in Selecting Employees (2nd ed.), Addison Wesley (out of print but available online at Amazom.com and other sites)…read the entire book in sequence with the course outline (see me for details).
Note that your grade is based on the OUTPUT that you produce. Thus, the amount of time you put into preparing for class cannot be realistically considered for grading purposes.
Please also note that you are responsible for all changes in the course outline announced in class.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Students with Disabilities
In accordance with University policy, if you have a documented disability and require accommodations to obtain equal access in this course, please contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester or when given an assignment for which an accommodation is required. Students with disabilities must verify their eligibility through the Office of Student Disability Services (SDS) in the Michael Schwartz Student Services Center (672-2972).
DATE TOPIC ASSIGNMENT
6/13 Introduction, Course Outline;
Regulatory Influences on S&A
6/15 Regulatory Influences – continued; OR: Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures; Faley & Kleiman
CC: Griggs; McDonnell Douglas; Oncale;
United Steelworkers
6/20 Job Analysis OR: Ghorpade & Atchison; Arvey & Begalla
Benchmarking HR Systems: Assessing Validity and
Estimating Utility OR: Gatewood & Field; Ch.4 of Dreher &
Sacket; Hunter & Hunter; Arvey/Faley
Psychometrics chapter
CC: Albemarle; Teal
EXER: Predicting Job Performance at
Wilshire Bank
6/22 Validation and Utility – continued; OR: Cascio, Alexander & Barrett; Ch.3 of
Dreher & Sackett; Baker & Terpstra; Cascio
& Morris (“critical reanalysis”)
6/27 Traditional Selection Devices OR: Wernimont & Campbell; Ghiselli;
Critique-a-Test topics due Asher & Sciarrino; Goldberg; Behling;
Sackett, Schmidt, Ellington, & Kabin; Tett
EXER: Selecting a Resident Manager
6/29 Non-Traditional Selection Devices; Selection OR: Olian; Fleishman; Sackett & Wanek
Wrap-up EXER: Trouble at Stackover Industries (C1)
7/4 NO CLASSES
7/6 Performance Appraisal OR: Beatty (“Chpt 20”); Bernardin;
Landy & Farr; Kleiman & Durham; Feldman
CC: Rowe
7/11 Performance Appraisal – continued OR: Longnecker, Sims, & Gioia; Napier &
Latham; Ghorpade
EXER: PA at General Hospital
7/13 CRITIQUE-A-TEST PRESENTATIONS; course wrap-up and evaluation
Critique-a-Test Exercise
Each student/student team is expected to select a commercially available employment test (e.g., see Tests in Print) to critique. This critique should include an in depth analysis of the test that focuses primarily on its strengths and weaknesses.
Summary information about many commercially available employment tests can be found in Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook. Presenters are also encouraged to do literature searches for information about the test as well as contact the test publisher for technical and other test-related information.
The presentation should not be a mere regurgitation of available information but a more selective analysis of the available information. This is especially the case with information provided by the test developer – information provided by non-independent parties must be independently corroborated.
Special emphasis should be placed on assessing whether the test is valid for the purpose(s) for which the test publisher says it is valid.
The presentation cannot exceed 30 minutes - the presentation will be stopped if it exceeds the time limit.
NO LATER THAN 6/27 - the test to be critiqued MUST be cleared with the professor (hand in a 2-3 page summary of the test including a tentative outline of what you plan to present). No duplications will be allowed.
Critique-a-Test Guidelines
1) learn as much as you can about validity and the other criteria used to assess the credibility of a test
2) select a test and articulate well the employment-related purpose(s) for which the test will be used
3) start off as a BIG cynic – start with the assumption that the test is no good for that purpose(s)
4) collect evidence about the credibility of the test from as many different sources as you can – remember, anecdotal evidence is okay but is not a substitute for empirical evidence (after all, it was based on anecdotal evidence that people concluded the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth!!!)
5) force test developers to back up what they say – after all, marketing is marketing and all too often has very little to do with reality…and it’s the “reality” of the test that you want to know about
6) look for corroboration across the different sources of evidence
7) where the results are “mixed,” place the greatest weight on information from those sources with the least to benefit (act like the “Consumer Reports” of testing)
8) eliminate inconsistencies by collecting more evidence – if all you have left over is a bunch of inconsistencies, which one is the right one…try to resolve and eliminate as many inconsistencies as possible
9) based on what’s left over, make up your mind about this test – but base it on the evidence and NOT on how you feel about the test
10) act as if the test will be used in YOUR company, which is so fragile that a mistake using this test will have very grave consequences for you (e.g., your company will go into Chapter 11 and you will end up penniless and out on the street)
11) present your conclusions (and rationales for them) in a professional manner – assume that your boss will fire you if your presentation stinks...use overheads, handouts, flow charts, or whatever will help us better understand your presentation
