Introduction
Social and economic inequalities have existed within organizations over the year, and counteractive measures devised to address prevailing discrimination within societies. Gender, race, and other minority factors have been used to create justification for the existing inequalities. Selection and assessment processes have been adopted within the organization to allow different professional organizations to eliminate placement discrimination such as patronage and create standardized processes that would allow candidates to be evaluated and selected based on their competence rather than on their stature within a given society. However, despite the standardization and adoption of selection processes and methods, such measures continue to reproduce social inequalities in organizations rather than challenging them. Therefore, this document provides an overview of a selection process and how the various concepts within the process create imbalances.
Designing a Selection Process
Designing a selection process requires a substantive understanding of the key elements considered within the various stages. Before developing and adopting a selection process, the recruiting or the assessing entity needs to conceptualize the kinds of talent and individual qualities they are seeking coupled with the types of test with the highest latency in identifying these needs. Plint and Patterson (2010), developed a paper outlining the progression of the UK's general practice robust selection system that is used to identify success factors of the candidates. The authors outline the process considered a major contributor to the standardization of the recruitment methods.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A thorough analysis is conducted at the beginning of the process for the targeted role bases in the associated attitudes, abilities, skills, and practical knowledge. The gathered set of data is then used to develop the specifications needed or the job description for the individual and provides insights on which methods and instruments of selection ought to be adopted to assess the capabilities of the candidate against associated features. Before the methods and instruments of selection are used, their reliability and validity in predicting the candidate's advancement in training and job performance need to be ascertained using appropriate validation criteria.
The validation of the selection methods is done using machine markable tests, which are also used for shortlisting, ranking candidates based on their performance both nationally and locally to their deaneries. The MMT evaluates candidates for both cognitive and noncognitive criteria, solving clinical problems and their resilience, integrity, and empathy, respectively. The MMT's shortlisting eases the nationwide assessment process that can be conducted within a single day. The candidates are then shortlisted for interview into their most preferred deaneries based on performance ranking.
The MMT involves three stages: the longlisting, shortlisting, and the assessment centre. Patterson et al. (2009) say that the longlisting involves the electronic application process while shortlisting entailed clinical problem situational judgment and written and group exercises, and simulated patient for the assessment centre. The process is designed to increase the number of candidates interviewed and increase their appointment possibilities and equate the distribution across the country. It also circumvents the possibility of allocating the same set of candidates to multiple interviews—the system provisions for the allocation of appointable candidates for a national clearing where vacancies exist across the deaneries. The system standardizes the selection method, but it does not standardize competition across the country as different locations have a varying interest.
Fairness of The Selection Process
Plint and Patterson's (2010) perceptions of fairness of the selection process are drawn from the number of candidates considered shortlistable and non-shortlistable as the process provides equal opportunities to the applicants and perceives it as an open competitive campaign. As such, the process is regarded as a national process due to the standardization of the recruitment methods characterized by incremental development for more than seven years. Through the evaluation conducted on candidates of MMTs used for shortlisting, it established confidence in the professionalism and fairness of the exercises conducted at the assessment centre.
Despite these considerations, Delamothe (2007), the lack of consideration of the preceding history of employment and achievement that can be certified acts as a demotivating factor for doctors and medical students, which in comparison to other occupations, have contributed to predicting future employment performance. Plint and Patterson (2010), however, argue that the best predictor for the performance of doctors is the demonstrated competency undertaken during the assessment and that using their CV, which contains a lot of lines which would lead to confusion while identifying career progression. Considering these factors identified in the mainstream literature, fairness of the selection process does not depict what other professions consider elements of interest while assessing candidates to fill a job opening.
Crook et al. (2011) say that selection of employees is integral to the effective functioning of the organization and, therefore, how practitioners perceive selection methods should factor in when determining appropriate utilization of the methods. In a study that comprised four different subgroups that included laypersons, qualified human resource management (HRM), chartered institute of personnel and development (CIPD), and occupational psychology (OP), the frequency of selection methods utilization, fairness and validity were quantified based on the perception of the subgroups. When providing comparisons between the three subgroups with the exception of the laypersons, their perception of selection methods validity ought to align with the current research estimates.
However, literature has changed over the years, and it is imperative that practitioners utilize employee selection measures to update their understanding of the emerging factors within that area. This is in relation to how the practitioners also perceive the fairness of the selection methods in consideration of their utilization frequency. Procedural justice is often related to fairness; the conception is perceived to the procedure's equity in decisions made and rules observed. For instance, most applicants are conversant with the popular methods used in the selection process, such as resumes, work samples, and interviews rather than integrity tests, personal contacts, and graphology (Snyder & Shahani‐Denning, 2012; Jackson et al., 2018).
The collection of literature reviewed suggests that fairness is not about neutrality but rather objectivity – where it meets the expectations of the candidates rather than creating a neutral criterion where all candidates can be assessed (Dilchert et al., 2007). Jackson et al. (2017), in the findings of their study, observed inconsistency in between groups on fairness, and they said it resulted from the possibility that the respondents' decisions were based on their perceived definition and beliefs of fairness. It shows that fairness, even in relation to the frequency of use of the selection methods, is based on individual interpretation (Gilliland, 1993). Additionally, the literature states that if the concept of the legality of the selection methods is considered, the concept of their fairness will still be based on personal interpretation (Saksvik-Lehouillier, Eriksen, & Langvik, 2020). Therefore, designing a selection process should accommodate the diverse expectations of the candidates as each is different from the other in terms of their personalities, skills, and aptitude – objective assessment.
Assumptions in The Selection Process
Selection criteria have been associated with social discrimination where candidates are segregated based on their perceived roles in the society traditionally; for instance, women continue to be allocated occupations related to their gender like a personal assistant, secretaries, or clerical positions. Dick and Nadin (2006) suggest that various assumptions have been made in an effort to try to minimize discrimination during the selection process. One assumption suggests objective and accurate identification of requirements of a job and role, and a better match would be identified during the selection method (ten Cate & Smal, 2002). Additionally, it is assumed that conceptualizing the biases assessors and candidates have for each other would increase the chance of getting a match. These assumptions are underpinned by the idea of having a neutral perspective towards the variables and information that are critical to selection decisions.
The fairness of the selection method is also determined to address the social inequalities existing within organizations. According to Dick and Nadin (2006), gendered approaches adopted in the selection method expand the inequity associated with primordial patriarchal concepts, which associate women with taking care of family needs and being the caregivers rather than working. The concepts are incorporated within the labor market, thereby creating an asymmetric gender relation creating biases in the selection methods (Phillips & Gully, 2002; Bolander & Sandberg, 2013). If objectiveness is adopted within the selection methods, it translates to eliminating or identifying individuals by their genders first rather than their competency to the role and applied job in meeting their requirement. In the long run, social inequalities are addressed and eliminated gradually as the selection process is continuously improved using such insights.
Mainstream literature on the selection process offers to integrate various insights to improve the quality of assessment gradually, but the selection process in itself harbours discriminations against a given group of individuals within the organization based on its relationship with sociocultural concepts within the society. Developing campaigns targeting the minority coupled with behavioural interviews during interviews does not offer a solution to the social inequalities experienced during the selection process. These approaches aim at identifying organizational or individual variables that only reproduce other inequalities either between the organization and the society or the individual and the job. Dick and Nadin (2006) suggest that moving away from the critical management and organizational and embracing social perspective to conceptualize the implication in selecting, recruiting, and appraising individuals, among other psychological factors to be considered.
Selection and assessment techniques
Cognitive ability testing provides significant performance prediction, and their correlation and relationship are similar across different jobs despite the difference in content which also increases with the increase of complexity in various jobs. Cognitive ability test assessment targets the thinking ability of a candidate (Gottfredson, 2002; Held, 2020). The test involves assessing the candidate's mental processes in acquiring new knowledge for the job and in solving work-related issues. The findings of these assessments have, over the years, allowed organizations and recruiting bodies to perceive intelligence as the most valuable trait that contributes to job performance. Byington and Felps (2010) say that the development of the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance prediction is that it quantifies how well a candidate is able to learn new knowledge that is job-relevant. The validity of the cognitive ability tests is criterion-related, as the higher the complexity, the more the cognitive abilities are correlated to job performance.
The overall abilities identified by the three-stratum model of cognitive abilities developed by Carroll (1993) include broad cognitive speediness, broad auditory perception, broad visual perception, general memory ability, crystallized intelligence, and fluid intelligence. However, the g factor which perceives the difference in a varying range of performance in cognitively dependent activities. A wide range of abilities is possessed in clusters as each individual cannot be able to be good at each ability. Specific characteristics for the wide range of capabilities include perpetual speed, word fluency, sound discrimination, spatial relations, memory span, language development, and induction (Murphy, 2002). Despite the categorization and positive correlation of the cognitive abilities, it is not entirely possible to identify the contributing abilities that influence job performance as g factor abilities incorporate specific abilities which could be used as predictors and despite the specific ability that impacts the performance of a specified activity.
Despite cognitive ability testing being the most and valuable useful factor of the selection system, it harbours controversies such as discrimination against minorities. Minority groups, including Black and Hispanic, score lower than White applicants when subjected to the assessment that expects them to write their perceived answers. Suggestions such as the use of video-based assessment tend to reduce the differences within minority groups on test scores while maintaining the same range of validity of the tests. Additionally, incorporating other kinds of evaluation that do utilize noncognitive measures rather than basing the entire assessments on the cognitive ability test scores. However, Schmidt (2002) protested the idea arguing that it is impossible to reduce the adverse effects of the cognitive ability test without jeopardizing the validity of the test. The assumption that written tests are biased against minorities is considered unfounded as it contradicts the findings of predictive fairness.
Including other noncognitive assessments such as personality testing, biodata, interviewing, and evaluating prior experience can be used to balance efficiency and equity. There exist other factors that affect the evaluation of the candidates, such as the cost of assessment centres. Such factors can be addressed by supplementing the validity of the selection methods with utility while upholding the underlying principle. While adopting an efficiency dimension, it is integral that the evaluating body using the various selection processes to be objective in their analysis, such as to use the same principle in all the selection processes, either the utility or validity (Murphy, 2002). If a conflict arises when balancing equity and efficiency, the recruiting body should ensure preferences and values are used to scale the two choices objectively, and appropriate trade-offs can be made to decide their associated value.
Social Inequalities
Selection inequalities are also identified in the gendered organizations where women are discriminated against using institutionalized practices which favour masculinity and femininity are reproduced over the years despite the level of management or qualification for the job. Such gaps are identified in wages, hierarchical position, occupations, and job segregation between men and women (Acher, 2012). These differences are also observed for perceived and actual disability within the labour market (Foster & Wass, 2012). Selection and assessment are core organizational processes where individuals are absorbed and expected to complete their roles per job descriptions. Organizing processes include codes of conduct, physical workplace designs, distribution of supervising and decision-making authorities, determination of wages, and job designs are all incriminating by adopting patriarchal conceptions. Such structures affect the selection and assessment of employees as there is an already existing precedent as to who is expected to a given role within the organization coupled with bureaucracies (Alby & Zucchermaglio, 2006). Given the selection methods are adopted within such organizational settings, the objectivity of the tests would not be applicable in terms of predicting an employee's future performance on the job.
Barriers such as organizational culture and interaction at work can affect potentially productive and cognitively competent employees. Factors such as organizational values, behaviours, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions would affect the freedom of the employee to do their duties (Meriläinen et al., 2004). Gendered inequalities, despite the adoption of an effective selection process, hinders the progression of an individual while trying to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable within the organization, race considerations, and economic classes to associate or identify with (Holdaway, & Parker, 1998; Acker, 2006). Additionally, organizational politics can create toxicity among colleagues as they are not allowed to address anyone at a higher level, thereby needing to follow unnecessary procedures in order to get an audience. Despite the prediction of an employee's progress within the organization, the environment does not provide an enabling setting to establish factors that would facilitate the growth.
Additionally, people living with disabilities are not unable to fit into a typical organizational employee due to their existing limitations (physically or cognitively). Working environment trends have been shifting, therefore requiring employees to work within varying conditions such as increased workload and working in shifts. The selection and assessment processes adopted within various organizations might not be objective to consider the underlying issues that affect the employees, making it impossible to work per the normal working shift or conditions. Likewise, when cognitive ability tests are employed in the selection process, the determining factors such as perpetual speed, word fluency, sound discrimination, spatial relations, memory span, language development, and induction might not work for each person living with a disability to be considered for such positions. The selection process would disadvantage such individuals, and the measure of validity might not effectively predict their job performance.
Intersectionality since its inception has been an essential factor in organizations to facilitate inclusivity and eliminating discrimination. Minority groups within an organization might have more than one identifying factor which can be used as a discriminating aspect (Sayce, & Acker, 2012; Liu, 2018). For instance, a black homosexual woman can be discriminated against by more than one organizational policy, such as gendered and racial elements. During the selection and assessment process, it is vital that the decision-making entity does not harbour any biases that would at least discriminate against such an individual based on one factor that identifies them. The cognitive ability test has an adverse effect on other races other than White, and therefore if an individual is an immigrant, there are other factors that can create barriers while undertaking the tests, such as language development, word fluency, and inductions. As such, the selection process cannot be able to effectively provide predictions on their job performance, especially when prior experience and achievement are not part of the consideration factors of assessment for the job.
Conclusion
Social inequalities still exist within the organization despite various measures such as selection and assessment adopted to minimize discrimination while recruiting individuals. Selection processes and measures adopted to determine the validity of the assessment methods still create discrimination among different individuals within organizations. This overview consists of a summary of a selection process, discussing how fairness is determined within the process and the associated assumptions. It also evaluated cognitive ability testing as a selection and assessment technique and how it generates inequalities such as gendered, disability, and intersectionality. It summarized various concepts provided in the mainstream as well as critical literature.
References
Bernerth, J. B., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Cole, M. S. (2006). Perceived fairness in employee selection: The role of applicant personality. Journal of Business and Psychology , 20 (4), 545-563.
Bolander, P., & Sandberg, J. (2013). How employee selection decisions are made in practice. Organization Studies , 34 (3), 285-311.
Byington, E., & Felps, W. (2010). Why do IQ scores predict job performance? An alternative, sociological explanation. Research in Organizational Behavior , 30 , 175-202.
Dick, P., & Nadin, S. (2006). Reproducing gender inequalities? A critique of realist assumptions underpinning personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 79 (3), 481-498.
Foster, D., & Wass, V. (2013). Disability in the labour market: an exploration of concepts of the ideal worker and organisational fit that disadvantage employees with impairments. Sociology , 47 (4), 705-721.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of management review , 18 (4), 694-734.
Held, B. S. (2020). Epistemic violence in psychological science: Can knowledge of, from, and for the (othered) people solve the problem? Theory & Psychology , 30 (3), 349-370.
Holdaway, S., & Parker, S. K. (1998). Policing women police: Uniform patrol, promotion and representation in the CID. The British Journal of Criminology , 38 (1), 40-60.
Jackson, D. J., Dewberry, C., Gallagher, J., & Close, L. (2018). A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 91(1), 33-56.
Liu, H. (2018). Re-radicalising intersectionality in organisation studies. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization .
Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Spain and Portugal. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 12(1‐2), 187-196.
Murphy, K. R. (2002). Can conflicting perspectives on the role of g in personnel selection be resolved?. Human Performance , 15(1-2), 173-186.
Patterson, F., Baron, H., Carr, V., Plint, S., & Lane, P. (2009). Evaluation of three shortlisting methodologies for selection into postgraduate training in general practice. Medical education , 43 (1), 50-57.
Plint, S., & Patterson, F. (2010). Identifying critical success factors for designing selection processes into postgraduate specialty training: the case of UK general practice. Postgraduate medical journal , 86 (1016), 323-327.
Saksvik-Lehouillier, I., Eriksen, I. B., & Langvik, E. (2020). A candidate perspective on personality testing in the selection process: The use of strategies and criteria for a positive experience. Cogent Psychology , 7 (1), 1772631.
Sayce, S., & Acker, J. (2012). Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(3), 214-224.
Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human performance , 15 (1-2), 187-210.
ten Cate, O., & Smal, K. (2002). Educational assessment center techniques for entrance selection in medical school. Academic Medicine , 77 (7), 737.
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & society , 20 (4), 441-464.
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of applied psychology , 96 (3), 443.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies (No. 1). Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, J., & Shahani‐Denning, C. (2012). Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: A look at professionals in Mumbai, India. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 20 (3), 297-307.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2002). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Singapore and the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 13 (8), 1186-1205.
Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2004). Management consultant talk: A cross-cultural comparison of normalizing discourse and resistance. Organization , 11 (4), 539-564.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human performance , 15 (1-2), 25-46.
Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (3), 616.
Alby, F., & Zucchermaglio, C. (2006). 'Afterwards we can understand what went wrong, but now let's fix it': How Situated Work Practices Shape Group Decision Making. Organization Studies , 27 (7), 943-966.
