Integrity is an important element of the behavioral structure of an organization. The operational dynamics and various undertakings of an organization are made successful by the amicable integration of different aspects within the organization. Apart from the economics of an organization, one of these aspects is staff or employee behavior. An organization can be succeeding in all economic parameters within a certain market setting. However, without exceptional employee behavior, it is almost impossible for that organization to progress. Indeed, this is elementarily the primary reason why many organizations include integrity tests during the hiring process of new employees. By conducting these tests successfully, the organization can have a retrospection of the general behavior of the employees. The results of the tests set a benchmark for predicting the productive and counterproductive behavior that a particular employee has.
Depending on the adversity of the identified counterproductive behaviors, the organization is able to make informed decisions when hiring a specific employee. Summarily, integrity testing helps organizations to identify and mitigate any negative consequences that it may experience due to the unproductive employee. Examining the integrity level of a potential employee is often not an easy task. There are two main types of integrity tests, which include the overt integrity test and personality-based integrity tests. The apparent tests are used to directly gauge the counterproductive behaviors of employees through their opinions and admissions of counterproductive behaviors (Fine, 2013). When the test is used, an employee is gauged on their direct view of certain behaviors that are either productive or counterproductive.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The personality-based integrity tests are applied inferentially to determine the extent to which an employee portrays counterproductive behavior. The test is an indirect measure of the counterproductive behavior that certain employee has. When it is applied, specific traits, insinuations, ideologies, and philosophies of an employee are identified. From the identified elements, the examiners can draw connections and inferences with specific counterproductive behaviors that the employee might show once they start working in their organization (Rogers & Bender, 2018). Therefore, the primary difference between the two tests is that the overt test directly evaluates the counterproductive behavior possessed by a particular employee while personality-based test indirectly measures the same.
Other differences include the fact that the personality-based approach is deductive or inferential while the overt test is directly implicative. The personality-based test is more intricate and structurally complex as compared to the overt test. The choice on the most appropriate method to use cannot exclusively be based on a rigid meriting criterion. However, there are certain parameters that can be used to determine the test to use. The first one is the seniority level of the employee; where more senior employees should be evaluated with the personality-based test. The other parameters include the education level, skillset, and area of specialization (Rogers & Bender, 2018). Those that rank highly or portray a certain level of complexity in these parameters should be evaluated with the personality-based test. However, the best results are achieved when the two tests are used coherently.
Regarding fairness and adverse impact from the integrity tests, the author strongly emphasizes on impartial strategies that have no leniency or inclination to certain parties. The main plan of materializing the approach is to roll out pilot tests throughout the organization (Fine, 2013). These tests should also be conducted systematically with the exclusion of certain individuals through certain levels of the evaluations used. The examiners should be parties that have no direct contact or interaction with the employees under scrutiny. This can be members of a certain department within the organization. If not, the organization can opt to outsource expert examiners.
References
Fine, S. (2013). Practical guidelines for Implementing Pre-employment Integrity Tests . Sage.
Rogers, R. & Bender, S. D. (2018). Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception . Fourth Edition. Guilford Publications.
