1

PSY 6430 Unit 8, Pre-employment ScreeningApplication Forms, Reference Checks, Credit and Background Checks, Social Media, & Interviews

ScheduleWednesday, 4/15: Lecture, one lecture unit!Monday, 4/20 : Exam 8

Task analysis due if grade BF ME2Wednesday, 4/22: Return of E8

ME2 Study objectivesMonday, 4/27: ME2 at 5:00-7:00 pm Task analysis due – can leave it in

my mailbox in Wood, if you prefer

Application forms & Biodata assessments

As indicated in SO1, while I understand that biodata assessments are valid, I have a hard time with them because:

Invasion of privacy: see questions in Tables 9.2 and 9.3 on pages 340 and 341

Particularly given the warning by the authors later in the text that invasion of privacy issues are likely to become more important in the future

Nature of the work force may (and does) change over time and what predicts successful performance for current workers may not at all predict successful performance for “new” generations of workers, particularly given increasing diversity of the workforce

2(cont. next slide)

SO2: Application & Biodata assessments

A. And, they don’t add any predictive value over general mental ability tests

B. Implication: Employers would do as well with a readily available mental ability test (save time and money re development) and avoiding biodata inventories

3

4

SO3: Falsification of information on resumes and application forms

People do falsify information, for positions at all levels of an organization

A study by the Society of Human Resources Management reported that 53% of applications contain false information

The NY Times reported that 34% of applications contain outright lies about experience, education, and ability to perform the essential job functions

NFE, but 41% of college students said they included at least one false statement on an application, and 95% said they were willing to do that

Also NFE, but 40% of executives reported they had lied about their education

5

SO3, NFE: examples from a 2012 article

Marilee Jones, Dean of Admissions at MIT did not have any of the degrees she claimed from three universities

Kenneth Lonchar, CEO of Veritas Software lied about having an accounting degree

Shirley DeLibero, head of Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, did not have two degrees listed on her resume

Michael Brown, head of the Federal Emergency Agency Claimed he was assistant city manger when he was only assistant to

the manager with no mgt. responsibilities Claimed he was a professor when he was only a student at a

particular university Claimed to have been the national head of a trade group when he

had only headed a regional chapter Did not reveal previous employment from which he had been

terminated

*Bible, J. D. (2012). Lies and damned lies: Some legal implications of resume fraud and advice forPreventing it. Employee Relations Law Journal, 38(3), 22-47.

(and probably once of the most infamous..)

6

SO3,NFE: Examples cont.

Any sports fans? In 2001, Notre Dame hired George Leary as the new

football coach He was fired 5 days later for falsifying his credentials He claimed he had an MA from NYU, which he did not He claimed that he had coached a football team in

New Hampshire, which he had not And, finally he claimed he had played 3 years of

football, which he had not

7

SO3,NFE: Examples, cont. My experience at Port Authority when I was working in the

Personnel Department, Management Division We hired a woman as a human resources representative who

claimed to have a very strong background as a personnel administrator

She was a disaster About 6-8 months after she was hired, one of my colleagues

took it upon himself to check out her references Every single one of them was false My colleague brought this to the attention of our manager, who

at the time was an interim manager (who wanted to be the permanent manager)

He buried the whole thing and kept her on

8

SO3,NFE: One more example

WMU, Hamman, 2010 Hired in 2004, left in February, 2010, age 58 Co-directed WMU’s Center of Excellence for Simulation

Research, College of Aviation, medical simulation work He was a United Airlines pilot, hired directly by the Dean of the

College of Aviation, who had also been a UA pilot and who bypassed WMU’s regular hiring process

The co-director, Bill Rutherford, was a physician and also had been a pilot and executive at UA

Hamman claimed to have a Ph.D. and a medical degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Center brought in over $4.2 million dollars in grant funding He left to join William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak In June, Beaumont discovered he did not have either a Ph.D. or

a medical degree!

(article at the end of the sos)

9

SO3: Falsification of information on the application form (this slide, also NFE)

The moral of the story:Even for high profile positions, some applicants falsify information, so check references!!

10

SO4: Wording to reduce falsification on applications

Every application form should have the following wording on it:

Deliberate attempts to falsify information can be detected and may be grounds for either not hiring you or for terminating you after you begin work

And, the following to obtain certification by the applicant:By signing this application, I declare that the information provided by me is complete and true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any misrepresentation or omission on this application may preclude an offer of employment, or may result in a withdrawal of an employment offer, or may result in my discharge from employment if I am already employed at the time the misrepresentation or omission is discovered.

It is much easier to fire a person because he/she lied on the application than it is to fire a person for false or incomplete information on the application!

SO4, FE: This type of wording has been shown to reduce falsification by almost 50%!

11

SO5: Application blanks The “more the better” danger

Some employers think it is desirable to obtain as much information as possible on the application in order to screen applicants better

However, the “more the better” danger can create major problems for an employer. Why? They are covered by EEO and AA laws Those laws assume that ALL questions on the

application are used to make selection decisions Under a charge of unfair discrimination, the burden

of proof may be on the employer to demonstrate that ALL questions are fair, and not discriminatory

12

SO6 (NFE): Questions to ask about application form items - Table 9.5 Will answers to this question, if used, have adverse

impact on members of a protected group? Is this information really needed to evaluate an

applicant’s competence or qualifications for the job? Does the question conflict with EEOC guidelines,

federal or state laws, or statutes? Does the question constitute an invasion of privacy? Is information available that could be used to show

that responses to a question are associated with success or failure on a specific job

(five questions to ask; did anyone bring in an application form from a company they work for?)

13

SO7: Questions most litigated

Reviews of 300 federal court cases re applications Sex and age most frequent (53% of cases) Of those, the plaintiff won over 40% NFE, but ~ 20% of the cases involved questions

relating to Educational requirements Convictions Work history Experience requirements

(can’t ask for dates of attendance to high school or college – age)

14

SO8: Fair Employment Practice Laws

The Fair Employment Practice Laws of states determine the legal status of pre-employment inquiries, and thus these are the laws that employers should review first when looking at their application forms

15

SO9: State vs. Federal laws, which are favored by EEOC and why?

EEOC favors state laws Federal laws tend to be more conservative, that is they

favor the organization more than the person bringing the complaint

Federal laws supersede state laws so state laws must be as “conservative” as federal laws

State laws can be more liberal (favor the individual more) State laws can cover other demographic characteristics

(Michigan laws cover people who are overweight and sexual orientation; California covers cross-dressers)

Example in book – federal laws permit questions re criminal convictions (not arrests, but convictions), but some states, OH, for example, applicants cannot be required to disclose convictions for minor misdemeanor violations

16

SO10: Questions you can and cannot ask

Turn to Table 9.6, page 354 Cannot ask anything about marital status,

children or child care Cannot ask anything that reveals the date of

birth (when did you graduate from high school)

Undesirable to ask about military experience Cannot ask about arrests, only convictions

17

SO11: Use of technology and screening resumes

Companies are increasingly: Optically scanning resumes Using keyword searches for to identify specific

information that addresses minimum qualifications and credentials

(SO is worded awkwardly – sorry)

Lesson: When applying for jobs look for the key wordsin the add and include those on your resume

18

SO12: Two legal issues re online screening

Minority applicants may not have equal access to the internet and may be overlooked during the screening process, which could result in disparate impact

Privacy: third-party vendors or the web sites themselves may track sensitive data provided by applicants Should include a statement re privacy – who will

have access to their data?

19

SO13: Training and Experience (T&E) Evaluations (this slide, NFE)

These are an excellent way to document a person’s past experiences and relevant KSAs

I particularly find the “behavioral consistency” method useful (374-377)

Many organizations have begun to use these They are an excellent first step in any applicant

screening process They can be easily implemented in small organizations

as well as large ones Many organizations try to collect this information

during an interview, but the interview Is not long enough to collect this information Does not provide a written permanent product that others in

the organization can then evaluate

20

SO13: Training and Experience (T&E) Evaluations (this slide, NFE)

They are based on the following assumptions Job applicants should be evaluated on the basis of behaviors

that show differences between superior and minimally acceptable employees

These behaviors can be identified by SMEs who have observed superior and marginal performance on the job

Applicants’ past accomplishments are predictive of their future behaviors (sound familiar as behaviorists?)

Applicants’ past accomplishments can be reliably rated by SMEs

21

SO15: Briefly describe behavioral consistency T&Es

Job applicants describe, in narrative form, their past accomplishments in several job-related areas (usually 5-7) that have been determined to discriminate between excellent and marginal job performance

Asked to answer questions such as What are examples of your past achievements that demonstrate the

necessary abilities and skills to perform these job behaviors? What was the problem on which you worked? What did you do to solve the problem, and when did you do it? What was the result of your actions? What percentage of credit do you claim for this achievement?** What are the names and contact information for individuals who can

verify the achievement and the credit you claim?** Rating scales that describe job-related behaviors that distinguish

between superior and marginal performance are used by raters to evaluate the applicants’ written (now usually electronic) descriptions.

(**I really like these questions, by the way!; SO16 NFE: meta-analyses have shown estimated validities of .45 – highPage number for SO16 should be 370,1, not 371,1)

22

SO17&19: Reference checking

The principal purpose of a reference check is to verify what an applicant has said on the application form and resume

It serves primarily as a basis for disqualifying an applicant, not qualifying one

As it turns out, data indicate that the relationship between reference checking and obtaining recommendations from references have only a low to moderate relationship with job success

Many reasons for this, but one of the main ones is that the applicant selects the references

23

SOs 20&21: Two legal issues related to reference checking that work against each other

Defamation This is why organizations often refuse to give out any

information about a former employee except the dates the person worked for the company

Every organization should have this policy All requests for information should be forwarded to HR, who

should refuse any information except the dates of employment

Negligent hiring To protect itself, the hiring organization should seek

reference information from the organizations with which an applicant has worked

(These are very important issues; the first discourages organizations to give out information, The second encourages prospective employers to get seek it and get it)

24

SO20: Defamation

Defamation – learn definition:

A written (libel) or oral (slander) false statement made by an employer about a previous employee that damages the individual’s reputation

(NFE) Text provides several case studies where the organization was found to have defamed a former employee

A written letter that contained a statement that a woman had brought a charge of sexual discrimination against the company

Note that the statement was true, however, the court found that the company illegally retaliated against her for exercising her rights under Title VII

25

SO20(NFE): Defamation

School superintendent told a person conducting a reference check that

The teacher was not really a good math teacher, being more concerned about living up to his contract than going the extra mile, and not being able to “turn students on”

Superintendent argued those were his personal opinions and protected by his first amendment rights (free speech)

Court ruled the statements were given with “reckless disregard of their truth or falsity” and therefore libel and slander were committed against the teacher

Lawyers at EMU have told all of their professors never to write a bad recommendation letter for a student; rather just to say no

(WMU’s request that we get students to sign a form when we provide references; one more slide on this)

26

SO20(NFE): Defamation

These type of law suits are becoming major issues for organizations

There are now firms that individuals can hire who will call their former employers, posing as potential employers (google “documented reference check”)

https://references-etc.com You need to be very careful and make sure everyone

else in the organization is careful too

27

SO21: Negligent hiring

21A Explain what it is

A third party (e.g., coworker, client, customer) files suit against an employer for injuries caused by an employee

The focus is that the employer knew or should have known that the employee who caused the injury was unfit for the job

Thus, the employer’s negligence in hiring the individual produced the person’s injuries

(note the should have known clause; relevant to Western, as it is to all universities, based on any harm done to astudent - the student or the parent can file a law suit)

28

SO21: Negligent hiring, this slide NFE

Western, for example, is concerned about this due to an event that occurred several years ago

WMU hired a professor who was later accused of sexual harassment (justifiably)

When they looked into his background and did some checking it turns out he had been accused of sexual harassment at two prior universities where he had worked

But both universities had agreed to a legal settlement with him wherein he would leave, but the charges (never legally proven) would not ever be divulged

(not uncommon; in a very rare incident in our dept., a doctoral student was shown to have published fake data.

Beyond a doubt. Agreement was reached that he would leave the program but we could not divulge the information to others, another slide)

29

SO21: Negligent hiring, this slide NFE

Consider the situation that has just been set up If the prior universities had divulged the information to

WMU, they could have been sued for violation of the legal settlement, and also for defamation of character since the charges were never proven

On the other hand, WMU was subject to a negligent hiring law suit because “we” accepted the recommendations that were given - that is, we did not conduct telephone reference checks

So guess what? We now do in-depth telephone reference checks for our faculty candidates

When applying they sign a form that permits us to contact people other than those they list as references

30

SO21: Negligent hiring, this slide NFE Students from my Advanced Systems Analysis class developed

the form that is still used today that gets permission from candidates to conduct those telephone references

I found myself in a very strange situation at the time (I was chairing quite a few faculty searches in those days)

For some reason, our then Provost, told us we had to send out the forms, but forbade us to send out the forms until after we had done the reference checks!

The Director of Employment, VP of Institutional Equity and I all objected, to no avail

I sent a very long email to our Dean, telling the Dean that as a selection specialist, I had to get the applicants’ permission before we conducted the reference checks, or I would be violating professional standards

We did that (undercover) in our department for about two or three years, until they changed the official procedure to the correct procedure

31

SO21: Negligent hiring (FE)

21B. Explain the Catch 22 situation that organizations can find themselves in with regard to reference checks

As a prospective employer, you want to seek information that would prevent negligent hiring, but past employers won’t provide that information for fear of a defamation of character law suit

(Catch 22? Novel; crazy leave military; so how do you get out of the Catch 22 - next slide)

32

SO21: Negligent hiring (FE)

21C. How can an organization get out of this Catch 22?

If you can prove through written documentation that you attempted to collect background information, even if the previous employer refused to give it, then you are OK.

Why does this procedure protect an organization? As the text states, the legal question becomes:

“Did the employer take reasonable steps and precautions to identify a problem employee, given the risks inherent in the tasks performed on the job?”

Thus, if you attempt to get the information and document your attempts, courts will generally conclude that you have taken “reasonable steps and precautions”

(The steps a potential employer should take – with documentation – are provided in the text)

Intro: Selection Interviews (NFE) Researchers have studied selection

interviews for over 80 years Until recently, validity data were not good Inappropriate questions and irrelevant factors

influenced selection recommendations Also, many resulted in adverse impact New improved interviews, validity coefficients:

Structured interviews - .44, .57, .62 Unstructured interviews - .20, .31, .33

33

SO24: What should and should not be covered in interviews Most interviews try to do too much There are three types of characteristics that are best

evaluated in an interview due to the fact that it is a social situation:

Applied social skills, such as interpersonal and communication skills

Personality and habits, such as conscientiousness, emotional stability and extraversion

Fit with the job and organization (values, goals, norms, and “attitudes”)

34

SO25A: How useful are unstructured, get acquainted interviews? Explain.

They are not very useful Interviewer tends to form subjective, global ratings

that are not useful, although the interviewer believes they are (and therein lies the problem)

They are confident in their own ability to evaluate an applicant, even though their decisions are being influenced by irrelevant factors such as physical attractiveness, the strength of the handshake, eye contact, etc.

35

SO25B: Rapport building in interviews, intro to study by Barrick, Stewart et al.

Does rapport building at the beginning of an interview help or hurt the validity of interviews?

Building rapport sets the applicant “at ease” and thus could enhance validity (you see more of the person’s actual repertoire)

On the other hand, if greater rapport results in the interview becoming more biased, then it could decrease validity

36

37

SO25B: Rapport and first impressions First impressions do matter! 1958 results – on average interviewers made a

decision in four minutes Barrick et al. confirmed the importance of first

impressions in a series of recent studies Evaluations made after a brief introduction and

“getting to know you” phase and before any substantive questions correlated highly with hiring recommendations

Implications: First impressions formed early in interviews have a substantial effect on whether an interviewer recommends hiring the person

38

SO25 (NFE): Interviews and applicant’sphysical appearance, first impressions An applicant’s physical appearance has repeatedly

been demonstrated to affect the evaluations of interviewers

Eye contact, smiling, posture, hand movements, self-promotion, ingratiation (latter two are double-edged swords)

In a number of studies, attractive individuals, especially women, were rated higher than unattractive individuals

In another, grooming (style of hair, clothing, makeup, and jewelry) was related to evaluations of female applicants

Clothing for women! Female applicants receive more favorable ratings if they wear masculine type clothing, i.e., a tailored navy blue suit, rather than a dress

No stiletto heals No low cut (let alone see through) blouses No tight blouses, tight sweaters, or tight suit jackets No dangly earrings (same is true for men these days!)

(dress is very important – females must dress conservatively)

39

SO27: Two ways to reduce effects due to age, race, sex, and other demographics

Use highly structured interviews Use experienced interviewers *Legal issues: In a review of 158 federal court cases

57% of cases involved the use of an unstructured interview Only 6% involved the use of a structured interview In 41% of the cases, the unstructured interview was found to

be the cause of the unfair discrimination In 0% of the cases, the structured interview was found to be

the cause of the unfair discrimination

*Not for exam

40

SO29: Interviewers give more weight to negative than to positive information. Why?

Even experienced interviewers give more weight to negative information than to positive information

In one study, unfavorable ratings on only one of several characteristics resulted in the rejection of the applicant in over 90% of the cases

Interviewers can usually specify why a rejected applicant would not be a good employee, but can not specify why acceptable candidates would be satisfactory

Implies clearer use of negative information

(the authors give a very nice environmental explanation for this; reasons on next slide)

41

SO29: Interviewers give more weight to negative than to positive information. Why?

Relative costs (consequences) to the interviewer and the organization

The greatest cost to the interviewer is making the mistake of selecting an applicant who fails on the job

His/her professional reputation suffers Organization suffers loss of productivity

Rejecting an applicant who would, in fact, be a successful performer, has no real costs

Who would know since the person was not hired? Thus, cost is lowered by rejecting marginal or doubtful

candidates

(all points FE)

42

SO33: Validity of an individual interviewer vs. an interview panel

There is a common belief that a panel of interviewers will produce more reliable, valid evaluations than an individual interviewer

The data just do not support that (NFE) There are at least three reasons for why a panel

may not produce more reliable and valid ratings Panel interviews tend to be more unstructured than individual

interviews Facing a group of interviewers is more intimidating (and can

be very intimidating) than facing an individual interviewer, and that may inhibit the answers from an applicant

The social interaction between and among the members of the panel affect the ultimate rating (which may not be a good thing, particularly if you have a member of the panel who is a “domineering” person)

43

SO33: Validity of an individual interviewer vs. an interview panel (this slide, NFE)

Have any of you ever had a panel interview? My own experience as an applicant has always been

bad when I have been interviewed by a panel I had a panel interview with the then Upjohn at the newly built

“Taj Mahal” I had worked as an intern for two years in one of the

departments and the manager wanted to hire me full-time There were nine members on the panel, all white, all male, all

at least 15 years older than I was One of the first things that happened - I walked into the room,

sat down at the conference table, and without anyone moving or saying anything, the door to the conference room swung shut “by itself” and locked - you could easily hear the locking mechanism

44

SO33: Validity of an individual interviewer vs. an interview panel (this slide, NFE) I was doing OK until one member of the panel, who was one of the

head trainers, asked me what I thought about a training program they had implemented with engineers to improve the functioning of their “right brains” (or left?? - whatever the creative side is supposed to be)

The training program consisted of bringing in engineers and having them finger paint

I admit I paused while I ran through a number of possible things I could say, one of which would clearly have resulted in my rejection

I also decided that I didn’t want to argue “theory” After a brief pause, I commented that the data with respect to whether

training improved performance should drive the training program, and then asked him one question:How are you evaluating the effectiveness/success of that training?

What do you think? Good or bad response/question on my part?

45

SO33: Validity of an individual interviewer vs. an interview panel (this slide, NFE)

As it turns out, bad! He said he evaluated the results based on how well the

engineers liked it, and then launched into a diatribe about the practical realities of organizations vs. school-book knowledge

I was not offered the job (even though the manager for whom I worked with for 2 years wanted to hire me)

SO34: Consumer reports

More and more employers are using consumer reports to screen applicants

In April 2012, the EEOC issued new guidelines re the use of consumer reports in selection/screening

Consumer reports include Credit checks, criminal background checks, motor vehicle

record checks, among others Credit checks and criminal background checks have been

found to have adverse impact The use of consumer reports is regulated by the Fair

Credit Reporting Act (even though it covers more than credit checks)

46

SO34: Consumer reports

Before an employer can obtain a consumer report: Employers must notify applicants/employees that

they are obtaining or may obtain a consumer report in writing

Employers must obtain a written consent from applicants/employees

47

SO35: Consumer reports

Before an employer can take any adverse action (i.e., denying employment) the employer must notify the person in advance

After an employer takes an adverse action, the employer must provide the person with additional notice That notice must include the name, address, and

toll-free number of the vendor that conducted the background check

48

SO44: Social Network Media

In a survey of 300 hiring managers, 90% of recruiters reported that they visited an applicant’s social media web site

69% reported that they have rejected an applicant based on the web site

68% also reported that they have hired an applicant based on the web site

49(I am going to skip to SO44; these are stats that you really need to know)

SO44: Social Network Media

Leading reasons for rejection (other surveys have found the same thing): References to drinking or drug use Provocative photos Bad mouthing previous employers Discriminatory comments related to race/ethnic

background, sex, religion, etc. Poor writing/communication skills Lying about qualifications

50(I am going to skip to SO44; these are stats that you really need to know)

SO44: Social Network Media

Leading reasons for hiring an applicant General personality Professional image Background information matched the resume Great communication skills Creativity Well-rounded interests

51(Watch your social networking sites – privacy options!!)

SO45: First and foremost risk for using social media web sites

Run afoul of the discrimination laws Web sites can reveal information about protected

status/demographics There haven’t been any major law suits yet, but the

courts could rule, as they have for application blanks, any information obtained is assumed to be used to make selection decisions

52

SO46 NFE: Social media passwords

Yes! Some employers are requiring that applicants give them their social media passwords!

I have to admit I am astonished at this No federal law exists yet to prohibit this but 12

states, including Michigan, have adopted prohibitive laws

No employer should do this, enough said

53

SO47 NFE: Genetic Information Act Another very interesting issue:

When a company requires a medical examination, post-offer, the common practice of physicians asking about family medical history is a liability even if the information obtained is never provided to the prospective employer

I have no clue where this one is going The article calls it a “sleeper” Only 333 cases were filed last year with the EECO re genetic

discrimination In 2013, the EEOC filed two law suits citing GINA and ADA, both

involving only one individual The article states that these cases alert employers to expect

aggressive enforcement in the future

(this is another stayed tuned issue)

54

SO48 NFE: Protection of unemployed

Yet another very interesting issue In 2011, the EEOC met to consider whether

employers were unfairly screening out the unemployed and the increasing prevalence of job ads that discourage the unemployed from applying

Again, there is no federal legislation and proposed laws in most states and municipalities have failed, but two states and the DC have enacted laws (as well as a few large cities), and nine states proposed bills in 2013

States that have enacted laws: New Jersey & Oregon States that have proposed laws: FL, IA, ME, MA, MN, NH,

NY, PA, VA

55(again, another stay tuned selection/recruitment issue; last slide)

56

The End

Questions and Comments?

57

NFE: Facebook and social media April 20, 2012 survey of 2,000 hiring managers and

human resource personnel 37% of employers use social networking sites to pre-screen

applicants (most use Facebook) 11% said they planned to start 34% said they had come across something that caused them

not to hire the person Provocative photo References to drinking or drug use Other red flags: speaking badly about a former employer, making

discriminatory comments related to race, gender, religion, etc., lying about qualifications, not writing well

(study conducted by Harris Interactive; commissioned by the website Career Builder; privacy settings;Some employers have even asked applicants to give them their username and password ; hand out article )

58

NFE: Facebook and social media Legal status

In 2012, Delaware, Maryland, & Washington passed legislation prohibiting employers from requesting/requiring usernames and passwords

Michigan passed similar legislation on 12/28/12 Similar laws are pending in other states

CA, IL, MA, NY, OH, SC A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives

But, remember, the bills do not prohibit companies from looking at your social networking sites; they only ban asking applicants for usernames and passwords. So….be careful what you put online!