Feature

Job Psychology

Filling a vacant position these days is no trouble --  there are usually more than enough applicants -- but how appropriate are the means used to decide who gets the job?

By Vicki Hyde, NZSM

Most New Zealanders go through the process of applying for a job at least once, if not many more times, in their working life. In recent years, a large number of consultancies have grown up around the job selection process. They offer everything from CV preparation for the job seeker to psychological testing of applicants for the employer.

A great deal of time, energy and money is invested in selecting personnel. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the most ineffective methods are being used to do so, or so research in New Zealand and elsewhere suggests.

Dr Stephen Dakin, an expert in Human Resource Management at Canterbury University, has studied the various strategies used by professional personnel consultants to decide on job applicants. He's looked at everything from experience to interviews, reference checking to job trials. Consultants were asked to rank which strategies they thought most valid in predicting job performance, and which they used most often. Dakin found the results surprising.

"Those in the business of personnel selection in New Zealand seem to have an inaccurate view of the validities of various predictors," he notes. "In particular, it is interesting that tests of cognitive ability were ranked lowest in validity when the reverse is true. Also of interest is the high ranking given to the use of interviews, which have been the subject of extensive research -- and criticism --  throughout the world."

Brighter People Do Better

Psychological testing is one procedure which is on the increase in the New Zealand job scene. It has mixed results when it comes to predicting job success. Cognitive testing -- popularly seen as IQ testing -- provides the strongest indication of whether a person will perform well. It has what psychologists and human resource managers call high validity. That is, it can provide a reasonably accurate prediction of performance.

"The brighter people are, the better they can do any job," says Dakin. He's quick to add that that doesn't say whether they'll stay with a job or not.

Dakin believes that testing of this form has tended to concentrate on predicting how well people will perform, rather than whether they will stick with a job. The latter may well be of more value to an employer, he maintains, particularly given the cost of training and apprenticeships.

According to Dakin, many consultants are reluctant to use cognitive tests, believing them to be invalid and unreliable. Employers Consultants Ltd, a branch of the Canterbury Employers Federation, has used them from time to time.

Problems With Testing

Jane Piper, a psychologist with Employers Consultants, says that studies by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) have produced a great deal of data on cognitive testing in New Zealand. She's aware of some problems associated with importing tests from overseas and using them on the New Zealand population.

"Not only have you got issues of New Zealand validation, but also sex differences and social differences," she says. Six questions in one common IQ test have been adapted for New Zealand conditions, with kowhai trees substituted for oak trees, and lists of Prime Ministers requested, rather than U.S. Presidents.

Many of the standard IQ tests have been around for the last 40 years or so. Over that time, they have been reviewed and changed to better reflect the full range of society. In the U.S., there has been considerable research in producing tests that are valid for black and Hispanic populations. Little, however, has been done in New Zealand to check the norms for Maori or Polynesian populations.

Personality Testing

The issue of personality testing has many more problems. Piper admits that cross-cultural differences do appear, although New Zealanders tend to share the same sort of psychological profile as other Westerners. She has been concerned about questions which have little or no meaning for New Zealanders.

"Who is better, Lincoln or Washington?" asks one commonly administered personality test.

Such questions cannot be ignored or deleted, Piper says. The person giving the test has to be aware of potential problems associated with using foreign-based tests on a New Zealand populace. The NZCER, which sells a large variety of psychological tests, requires professional and educational qualifications from its clients.

Piper, and her colleague Merv Johnson, see few prospects of psychological testing being misapplied or abused in New Zealand.

"You'd never use it to say `this person will fit in'," says Johnson. They advise employers to use the tests as part of a number of selection procedures. Personality tests may point out areas where a candidate is particularly weak, and these can then be explored in a following interview.

Johnson believes it unlikely that New Zealand norms will be established for personality tests. A common test, such as the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), is based on 30 years of history and many thousands of subjects. It would be "hideously expensive" and take a number of years to develop a New Zealand version, Johnson and Piper say.

"I don't buy that," Dakin counters. "Provided you've got a sample of 80 to 100, you can get a reasonable handle on whether you're predicting something or not."

The question is whether the use of personality tests is appropriate in a job placement context. Such tests are designed for clinical testing, not for selecting job applicants, argues Dakin. Johnson sees them as a useful adjunct, particularly at the management level where most consultants function.

What Is Being Tested?

Personality tests have built-in "lie scales", designed to check the consistency of response. Ironically, the lie scales are sometimes the best predictors for certain occupations, according to Dakin. In his experience, sales people score highly on the lie scales. This is not to say that they are pathological liars, but simply indicates that they are responsive to providing what the tester wants. Good sales people try to answer the needs of other people.

Dakin has prepared a specific personality test for use with sales staff, but remains sceptical about the validity of generalised use of personality testing.

"There is very little research that indicates whether they're actually predicting what they're trying to predict," he maintains.

It's not a particularly strong issue for the New Zealand job scene, as most employers continue to rely on interviews, CVs and references to decide on new staff.

Interviews Useless

Dakin is dismayed by this. He's been involved with a considerable amount of work on assessing the validity of various job selection procedures. All the research indicates that interviews are amongst the worst ways of deciding on an employee. Despite considerable evidence, professional personnel consultants in New Zealand still believe that they are effective.

"Basically, people think that they are good at interviewing," Dakin observes. Challenge this, and people get incredibly upset, he says. On occasion, when discussing this part of his research, he's almost been thrown off the rostrum.

The problem is that employers are swayed in interviews by a whole host of non-job-related factors. This is well recognised, with hundreds of articles on interview techniques advising applicants how to dress, how to walk, how to greet the potential boss.

"People make predictions and never select people who they believe will be poor risks," Dakin says. "What firm is going to employ people they think will fail?"

Selective memory comes into play, with employers failing to recognise the bad decisions they have made in the past.

"They don't recognise the true costs of making lousy hiring decisions," Dakin observes. Those decisions which proved wrong in the past are often ignored, as are the costs of hiring and firing someone who does not meet the standards.

There is some hope for those still keen on using interviews. Recent research suggests that making an interview highly structured increases its validity considerably. If each candidate is asked the same questions and these are graded objectively, then there is a far greater chance of selecting the appropriate personnel.

CVs Suspect

The same goes for gaining information about a candidate. CVs are suspect, in that there is great potential for misdirection and dishonesty. Dakin recommends using a standard application form, which again has the benefit of a degree of objectivity.

Other common selection criteria are those of education and academic achievement. Personnel consultants believe this information provides a reasonably valid measure for predicting job performance. They're wrong again.

The problem with this is that it leads to "qualification creep" as increasingly higher standards are demanded by employers. The consequences include over-qualification for some and fewer job opportunities for others.

"It takes a rare discipline, at a time of high unemployment, for employers to maintain realistic and relevant entry standards," Dakin observed in a paper on developing suitable policies for recruiting and retaining staff.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the research is that inappropriate practices are occurring on a daily basis across the country. Like the people at Employers Consultants, Dakin sees the use of multiple selection procedures as important in minimising errors. The hard part lies in trying to make people aware of the benefits of being objective and using appropriate measures of selection.

"One might expect that professionals should be reasonably current with the research base underlying their profession and would use selection techniques of proven validity," Dakin writes. "Such is not the case."

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.