This is a process of choosing the person that will best suit the job role. The aim of selection is to predict how likely a person is to succeed in a particular job. This prediction will be more successful if it is based on a systematic approach which is fair, unbiased and objective, rather than on a hunch or "gut feeling". A good selection process provides the opportunity to ensure that the best candidate is appointed. The objectives of the selection process, which will lead to the fulfilment of the main goal, which are to:
- gather much relevant information as possible
-organise and evaluate the information
-assess each candidate
This process will also forecast performance on the job and give information to applicants so that they can judge whether or not they wish to accept an offer of employment.
Selection methods
Face to face Interviews
I was given an interview when I went through the selection stage for a job at a post office and also for every job that I have had so far. The interview was a conversation between me and the employer. During the interview, the employer wanted to determine whether or not the applicant is suitable for the job, while the applicant tries to learn more about the position while also impressing the employer. A job interview is an important part of the process of applying for a job, and it may range in formality from a casual conversation to a series of serious discussions with an assortment of people working within the company.
There are a number of styles and techniques which are used in a job interview. Some interviews include behavioural questions, questions about hypothetical or actual situations, in an attempt to learn more about a candidate. For example at my interview I was asked, “What was the worst situation at work you have ever had to deal with?” They may also do a “stress interview” which keeps the interviewee on the spot. Typical stress questions include “How do you think this interview is going” or “What makes you think that you would fit in well at this company?” I was asked these sorts of questions at an interview for a job at the Airport.
There are disadvantages of having face to face interviews, for example:
-Factors that are not related to the job may influence the decision such as clothing, colour, ethnic origin, gender, accent, physical features or a disability might be such factors.
-When asked what they would do in a particular situation, candidates give the answer which they feel the interviewer wants to hear so the information gathered may not entirely be correct.
-The interviewer is able to be bias as it is their judgement of the candidate unless there is more than one interviewer.
-The interviewer is likely to identify with people like him/her if they share the same characteristics. These characteristics do not necessarily equate with the ability to perform the job, also the organisation will end up with like minded people rather than a diverse team.
-The interviewee may feel uncomfortable or uneasy therefore may not come across as a strong candidate even if they are capable for the job role
Advantages of face to face interviews:
-the candidate is more likely to provide the interviewer with more information in terms of 'open-ended' questions as they may feel more comfortable/ open speaking just one-on-one.
-The interviewer can pass a clearer/ stronger judgement of the candidate as they are face-to-face.
-The most use full advantage of face to face interview is that the interviewer can judge the non verbal expression of the interviewee by the gesture and the body language of the applicant.
-The interviewer may make assumptions by imposing their view on how one should act in another person’s personal circumstances e.g. they may assume that a woman is less likely than a man to move her family for a new job.
From my personal experiences I can say that all of the jobs I have applied for, I was asked to have a face to face interview for. This may be because employers are reluctant to employ someone without seeing them and making that initial judgement. Interviewing is the most popular method of selection, however as CIPD points out, there are limitations on the validity of the interview which mainly stem from the behaviours of inexpert interviewers who make mistakes by making snap decisions, stereotype, gather insufficient/ irrelevant information etc.
Psychometric testing:
With psychometric testing, there is no pass or fail. Different test companies have their own methods of testing. Usually, there are multiple sets of questions relating to personality type, how the test taker would handle aspects of work and home life, what his or her goals are for the future and his or her strengths and weaknesses. If the test taker is truthful, then results should be fairly accurate. There are many, many different types of psychometric test. A common misconception is that psychometric tests only measure personality, but that is not the case.
Some measure your ability to understand the written word, or to reason with numbers. Others measure ones ability to solve mechanical problems, or follow instructions accurately, or be able to understand data which is presented in a variety of ways. There are the personality tests, assessing everything from motivation to working preferences, intelligence, interests, ability etc.
But psychometric tests cannot measure everything. For example, they can't really measure enthusiasm. Personally, I think that getting in on time every day and making an effort to do your best are to a large extent, determined by how much you enjoy the actual work, how well you get on with your colleagues, and how decent your boss is, all or which cannot be tested in the selection process.
I did a personality test and felt that the repetition of the questions in the test confused me and therefore make my answers incorrect or not valid. I also think that some of the questions where stupid for example what would you do in the following situation with a customer, in my opinion this cannot be honestly answered unless you are actually in that situation. The way one reacts will depend on who the customer is and their behaviour towards you. So I marked all the obvious answers that I knew the employer wanted me to mark. There are so many different tests that it would be hard for an organisation to match which test is best for certain roles, they will have to identify exactly what they wish to test and then find the right test. I think a personality test should never be the sole means of assessing candidates but is not all bad if used as part of a wider process.
Assessment Centres
Assessment centres are particularly useful where:
Required skills are complex and cannot easily be assessed with interview or simple tests.
Required skills include significant interpersonal elements (e.g. management roles).
Multiple candidates are available and it is acceptable for them to interact with one another.
My manager was sent to one after she was employed and found it very useful and felt like it was a training exercise which made her aware of her weaknesses and gave her an idea on how to improve. She was assessed in different ways first individually, then in a one on one situation and then as part of a team. She found this useful as she then became aware of her strengths and weaknesses in all these situations which she would also be in at work, therefore the exercises where relevant. An employee can be sent after they are employed as a learning exercise or a candidate can be sent in the selection process to help the organisation determine whether they are the right match for the job role and the company.
My interview
I had an interview for a job at McDonalds although it was a very unprofessional interview it worked for me as I felt relaxed. I didn't feel like I was being judged and therefore was able to be myself. The interviewer was unprofessional as I waited half an hour for him; the interview took place in the restaurant where we stood amongst the customers. There was no set or prepared questions it was more like a general conversation where I was asked questions like what I study and how far I live rather than what experience/ training I have and about my availability. The interviewer did not take away a lot of useful information about me and gave me the job straight away. This made me feel like it was not a very important role and the management did not really care who they had working for them as long as they have someone to cover the shortage it didn’t matter what skills or qualities that person held. This may have been because the job role that I applied for wasn't a very skilled one; however the interview should have been more professional because if they have candidates with better potential they will not know also the candidate will give the job more importance if the management do.
I was not able to take this job role seriously as the interviewer gave me the impression that anyone is perfectly capable. If all the people that applied for the job where interviewed this way they would have a high staff turnover as a result of not showing enough interest in the people they employ. It was obvious that the management was not trained to conduct a proper interview and had a huge amount of responsibilities; they were just expected to do so and therefore have the wrong approach. With everything else they had to do they gave the interview little importance. This type of interview worked for me as I can be comfortable in this situation however others may not want to work for a company that shows little or no interest in their people.
Personality test interview
My friend has recently had a personality test as part of the selection process and is still waiting to hear if she got the job. She felt that most of the questions where irrelevant such as what would you do if? She felt they should have expanded on the question and said what type of customer she was dealing with etc. This would have meant she can more accurately answer the question. She also says that she thinks companies put too much emphasis on if the person’s personality will fit the organisation and the colleagues rather than concentrating on the skills/ capability and training the person has to do the job role effectively. Her interview lasted half the time that the personality test took, she felt that an on the job trial would have been a better idea, although I think if would be hard for the employer to observe and measure the candidates ability unless it was over a longer period of time [a couple of weeks]. She thought it was beneficial for her to find out the results even if she doesn’t get the job so that she knows what sort of company she will fit best in and therefore concentrate on finding the right working environment for her personality.
She thinks if done honestly the personality test is good for both the candidate and the employer, as the candidate does not want to end up in an organisation where they do not fit in and the company does not want to employ people that are not comfortable with the organisations environment. She thinks that it would not help the organisation to reduce conflict as it means colleagues are not all on the same wave length and therefore there will more personality clashes and disagreement. This will therefore lead to un-friendly team of people who are un-able to understand and work together effectively.
Improvements in selection process
In my current job which I have been working at for 2 weeks I think the selection process could have improved. After being called for a first interview and getting through I was called back for a second one, which in my opinion was a waste of the managers time as she just confirmed all the details I have already gone over in the first interview. I was also had to watch a video which was completely irrelevant to the job role I was applying for; it may have been good for management to watch but pointless for me. When I was selected I was just told and wasn't given any feedback on any negative points, this would have kept me motivated to keep trying and improving even after I got the job. Again it was apparent that the manager was no expert at recruiting and selecting staff which made it feel like the job was easy to get and I didn't need to try as hard to impress. Therefore I think it is the most important factor of recruiting and selecting staff that the management are trained before they are given this responsibility otherwise they will always end up with the wrong staff.
Conclusion
Companies are aware of the impact of a poor recruitment/ selection decisions. By employing someone who is inappropriate for a vacancy, faculties, departments and divisions incur considerable costs in time, money and effort to bring the individual up to standard. If this cannot be done, the person’s probation is not confirmed, or he or she leaves voluntarily. In both instances, this is likely to lead to team disruption and extra cost in selecting, inducting and training someone new. This is why it is vital for the organisation to get the selection right the first time round, most are using a number of different process to help get a better insight of each candidate like the psychometric tests that are very popular now.
References
Falmer, M and Yellowley,W. (2009) People and organisations: Selection. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Toplis, J and Dulewicz, V. ( 2009) Psychological testing. Available from: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/recruitmen/selectn/psytest.htm? [Accessed 01 May 2010]
No comments:
Post a Comment