Deconstructing Structured Job Interviews

 (image obtained from flickr.com)

I co-authored a recently-published study using a variety of methods to examine over twenty years of research on structured employment interviews. The full article runs over 40 pages long (not including 10 pages of references), but I'll save you the trouble of reading through the article in its entirety by highlighting some of the major conclusions:

• What is meant by a "structured interview" is inconsistent. There is general agreement that structuring an interview includes asking applicants the same questions and rating them on common rating scales, but there is less consensus on other characteristics that could be included in structured interviews, such as limiting follow-up questions from interviewers, limiting questions from job candidates, or taking notes.
• The most common techniques for structuring interviews are conducting a job analysis as a basis for the interview questions, using the same interview questions for all applicants, using better types of questions (such as situational and past-behavioral questions), using anchored rating scales, rating each question individually (as opposed to only making general ratings at the end of the interview), using multiple interviewers (i.e. panel interviews), and providing interviewer training.
• Smaller rating differences for legally-protected groups. Race, gender, and disability impact interviewers' ratings and decisions less in structured interviews, as compared to unstructured interviews.
• Applicants' ability to influence interviewers' rating is reduced. While impression management by applicants (e.g. self-promotion and ingratiation) is still a common occurrence in structured interviews, the effects of such behaviors impact interviewers' judgment less in structured interviews than they do in unstructured interviews.
• Personality may be more difficult to measure in a structured interview than in an unstructured interview, but little research has directly examined the topic of the validity of personality assessments in structured interviews.
• Situational and past-behavioral questions should be used together to attain maximum utility from the structured interview. Situational questions tend to measure job knowledge, while past-behavioral questions measure job experience, and they both are good predictors of future performance.

The article also presents over 30 research questions and propositions that can be used to guide future research and practice, but I will not summarize the details here. You can read through the article if you are interested in that specific information. But hopefully the bullet points highlighted above provide some interesting and useful information for those who currently use structured interviews in their selection process, those considering the use of structured interviews in the future, and those interested in researching the topic.

-------------------------------------
Reference:
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the recent literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241-293. doi: 10.1111/peps.12052.

Workplace Bullying and Organizational Culture: Learning from Jonathan Martin, Richie Incognito, the Miami Dolpins, and the NFL

(image from abclocal.go.com)

Taunts and trash talk abound in the National Football League (NFL), both in practice and on game days. Rookies are routinely hazed by being forced into bad hair cuts, paying for team dinners, or being taped to goal posts. The testoterone-laden culture of the NFL is one that encourages and prizes machismo and aggressiveness. But when do pranks, profanity, threats, and name-calling cross the line into bullying? This question is one that the NFL is struggling to answer on the heels of a recent drama that is still playing out.

Jonathan Martin recently quit his job as a football player for the NFL's Miami Dolphins  in order to receive help for emotional issues stemming from being the target of threatening behavior by teammate Richie Incognito. Incognito (who is white) reportedly referred to Martin (who is biracial) in text messages by using racial slurs and threatening to cause bodily harm to members of Martin's family. The Dolphins organization has since suspended Incognito and has said that it is working with the NFL to fully investigate the claims.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) defines workplace bullying as "persistent, offensive, abusive, intimidating or insulting behavior or unfair actions directed at another individual, causing the recipient to feel threatened, abused, humiliated or vulnerable."

These types of behaviors are what some academic researchers refer to as interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors. An employee (or group of employees) engages in behaviors that impede the ability of a coworker (or group of coworkers) to do their job. In the legal arena of human resources, this could also be considered as harassment when is based on legally-protected characteristics (such as age, race, gender, or religion) and creates a hostile or abusive work environment.

Whether you refer to it as bullying, harassment, or counterproductive work behaviors, these types of actions typically are not viewed positively in most organizations, and likely have negative consequences in terms of individual, team, and/or organizational productivity and effectiveness. However, the culture in some organizations may actually foster this type of behavior. Studies and surveys on workplace bullying have shown that bullies are most likely to be male, are most likely to bully other males, and the individuals exhibiting bullying behaviors often do so out of a sense of their own inadequacies. In an organization like the NFL, where teams are made up exclusively of male players, and where competition between teams (to make plays and win games) and within teams (for starting positions, spots on the team roster, and higher salaries) is constantly present, the environment is ripe for bullying to occur.

One recent academic article^[1] examining harassment concluded that organizational culture was one of the strongest predictors of sexual harassment, and the NFL is learning the hard way that workplace bullying is likely similar. Reports are surfacing that Incognito may have been encouraged and enabled by team coaches in his treatment of Martin. Teammates have defended Incognito's actions and questioned Martin's toughness. And throughout the league, it seems that Martin's withdrawal is seen with more disdain than Incognito's alleged behaviors.

As reported by Sports Illustrated, one former teammate of both players, who questioned whether bullying really occurred, stated the following: "What people want to call bullying is something that is never going away from football. This is a game of high testosterone, with men hammering their bodies on a daily basis. You are taught to be an aggressive person, and you typically do not make it to the NFL if you are a passive person. There are a few, but it’s very hard. Playing football is a man’s job, and if there’s any weak link, it gets weeded out. It’s the leaders’ job on the team to take care of it."

Whether you think this player has a valid argument or not, I think he got at least one thing right - bullying is not going to go away from the NFL, at least not without a cultural change. Not only is toughing out physical and emotional pain the expectation in the NFL, but inflicting that physical and emotional pain on others is often encouraged, if not celebrated. The NFL made a strong statement against intentionally inflicting physical pain after the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal a couple of years ago. Now it's time to see the statement they make against intentionally inflicting emotional pain in the current Miami Dolphins bullying scandal.

-----------------------------
^[1] Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee., K. (2007).A Meta-analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Workplace Sexual Harassment, Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x.

Halloween: 6 Tips for Avoiding a Workplace Nightmare

(image from monster.com)

October 31 is one day of the year where you never know what you are going to see. Zombies, superheroes, cartoon characters, celebrity doppelgangers, witches, and ghosts roam freely from house to house all night long. But even before the sun goes down, those same costumed characters can be found in a variety of workplaces. Before deciding if and how your organization will celebrate Halloween, it is important to consider a few simple tricks (and treats) that can help your festivities run smoothly:

1. Consider the Work Environment: Are there safety concerns if costumes are worn, such as on a manufacturing line or production floor? Ensure that you are not placing your employees at risk by inadvertently creating an unsafe environment. For example, one SHRM article suggests a pumpkin painting activity as an alternative to pumpkin carving. In addition, makes sure that costumes and decorations do not violate fire codes or OSHA safety standards.
   Do your employees interact with customers? If so, consider how the image that costumed employees may portray. What might be an acceptable costume in a theater or clothing retailer may be considered unacceptable at a family restaurant or financial institution. Remember that the front-line employees represent the organization to their customers.
   Finally, does celebrating Halloween in the workplace match the culture your company is trying to cultivate? These are questions you initially need to consider when determining what celebration (if any) is appropriate in your workplace for Halloween.
2. Determine the Invite List: If you decide that a Halloween shindig is in order, determine when it will occur (during work time? after hours?), and who will be invited. Are only employees allowed, or are significant others welcome? Is it an adult-only party or are families encouraged to attend? Make sure that the party environment, entertainment, and food/drink match up with the participants invited.
3. Communicate Expectations Clearly: If employees are encouraged to dress up in costume for Halloween, ensure that everyone knows what is appropriate. A minimum qualification should be that the costumes match your typical dress code by not being offensive, revealing, or otherwise in poor taste. Costumes that poke fun at religious groups, politicians, sexual orientation, race, or that may be otherwise inappropriate should be expressly not allowed. Similarly, if families are welcome, costumes that may not be appropriate for children (scary monsters, bloody zombies, etc.) should be avoided. Office decor (if allowed) should similarly reflect good taste. In addition to ensuring that everyone knows what is appropriate, you should also lay out the consequences of not following the guidelines.
4. Offer Awards: If employees are encouraged to dress-up, offer incentives to do so by providing prizes such as best, funniest, and most creative costume. Decorating work spaces and party activities (such as Pin the Bow Tie on Mr. Bones) can also have prizes attached. Ensure that the awards, prizes, and judging are all communicated clearly to employees to encourage costumes, decorations, and other activities tailored to the awards.
5. Do Not Make Participation Mandatory: While most employees may view Halloween activities as an enjoyable diversion from day-to-day work, an excuse to dress up in costume, and/or enjoyable interactions with coworkers, it is true that the origins of Halloween may make celebrating it uncomfortable for some employees. Whatever activities are done should be voluntary. Offer to let employees work from home or leave work early with pay if they are uncomfortable with celebrating Halloween, and ensure that no harassment takes place against anyone who chooses not to participate.
6. Consider Alternatives: Even if you decide that it is not worth the headache and potential complications that can arise from employee costumes or Halloween celebrations in the office, you might consider other ways to celebrate the season. For example, families might be encouraged to bring their children into the workplace after school for trick-or-treating, you could host a company luncheon, or you could stage a Fall Festival or Harvest Celebration.

Hopefully these suggestions help you avoid the pitfalls that can occur when celebrating Halloween in the workplace. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my own soiree . . . Argh! Where did I put my pirate hat?

Discrimination Based on Perception: The Case of Naida Hosan

(image from yahoo.com)

Naida Hosan changed her name to Naida Christian Nova because of the harassment that she received from fellow Army personnel, all because her last name sounded too Islamic. Even though Naida is Catholic, she claims to have been the victim of harassment based on the perception that others had of her religion.

As initially reported by the AP and made front page news on Yahoo!, Naida claims that even her name change and reassignment did not stop the harassment. It eventually led her to check herself into a military hospital because of depression and thoughts of suicide. After formally filing a complaint and request for voluntary discharge, she was instead involuntarily discharged for "ineffective leadership." Citing recent performance appraisals to the contray, Naida filed suit against the Army, who subsequently made an about face and dropped the involuntary discharge. Naida, in turn, dropped the lawsuit and continues to be enlisted in the Army.

This case highlights the fact that discrimination and harassment do not have to be based in the victim being an actual member of a protested class (religion and national origin, in this case), but can characterized by others' perceptions and subsequent treatment of the individual.

Questions about Sexual Orientation: The Case of Manti Te'o

"Wait - what did you just ask me?"

(image credit: washingtonpost.com)

By now, we're all probably sick of hearing about Manti Te'o and the catfishing hoax that made national headlines for months. If you haven't been following the drama, Te'o supposedly had a girlfriend who died during the football season from leukemia. However, it was later found out that the girlfriend never existed, and that Te'o had never met this girlfriend, but that the relationship had taken place completely via internet and phone communications. It was revealed that the person behind the hoax, and acting as the non-existent girlfriend, was a male who later confessed his love for Te'o. Most believe that Te'o was a victim, fully duped by the hoax. However, others believe that he may have been in on the hoax, and some are even questioning his sexual orientation as a result.

For the most part, that news is all behind us. But with the NFL combine complete and draft day coming up, NFL teams will have the opportunity to focus on Te'o at the upcoming Pro Day at Notre Dame on March 26. This is the day that interested NFL teams can come to South Bend and watch Te'o perform (you could almost call it a type of  work sample test).

If NFL teams want to interview Te'o before draft day (in what would constitute a kind of selection interview), this article from Yahoo! raises an interesting point about questions regarding sexual orientation. Unlike race, age, gender, and religion, sexual orientation is not protected from discrimination under federal law. Some state laws have regulations that prohibit sexual orientation from influencing employment decisions, while other states do not. Therefore, some NFL franchises may have restrictions regarding the information they can gather regarding sexual orientation, while others may not. The article lists 19 NFL teams that theoretically could ask those questions, while 13 other teams could not.

Of course, whether or not questions regarding Te'o's sexual orientation are legal according to state law may be a moot point. Employment decisions should be based on job-related information - so information such as his slow time on the 40-yard-dash at the NFL combine would probably be more relevant. The only possible way that I can think of sexual orientation being job-related in the NFL is the fact that teams are all male, they travel together, shower and dress together, and room together on road trips. Could a gay football player create an uncomfortable (hostile?) work environment for the rest of the team? I'd say this logic is tenuous at best, and reasonable accommodation could certainly be examined in such a case. So I'm hoping that no teams are posing questions regarding sexual orientation. But the fact that some teams could potentially do so legally, while others may be more restricted is an interesting case of how different state statutes may affect the hiring process.

Reasonable Accommodation for Mental Health Issues: The Case of The Houston Rockets and Royce White

Reasonable accommodation is the legal term for an organization's responsibility to enable a qualified individual to perform their job, usually in the case of religious beliefs or disability. For example, an employer may have to avoid scheduling an employee to work on Sunday if the employee's religion prohibits such activity. Similarly, the way a workspace is designed may have to change for an employee with physical disabilities, such as a wheelchair. Other accommodations of work duties, schedules, dress codes, or other company practices may have to be made is similar situations of religious observance or disability.

An accommodation is considered reasonable as long as it does not constitute an undue hardship to the employer. What constitutes and undo hardship may depend on the situation, the expense, the size of the company, their financial situation, the type of company, etc.

With regards to religious observance and physical disabilities, reasonable accommodation are fairly straight forward and reasonably well understood. But what constitutes reasonable accommodation or undue hardship for a mental health issue such as an anxiety disorder?

image from bleacherreport.com

In one high profile example, the NBA's Houston Rockets drafted Royce White, a basketball player with admitted mental health challenges, including anxiety that could affect his ability to perform his job. For example, he is extremely afraid of flying. For a professional basketball player who is on the road for half of the season's games, that is a big hurdle to overcome.

In a video interview from USA today, White's desire to have a trained mental health professional available to diagnose his condition before games seems reasonable. And his argument equating mental health to physical health is compelling. Legislation such as the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 require health care plans that cover mental health to cover them in an equal manner to physical health coverage. However, these do not mandate that health care plans even cover mental health. And the 2008 law is still waiting for a final ruling from President Obama.

On the other hand, it seems that some of White's demands may be outside the bounds of reasonable accommodation. He reportedly wouldn't accept an assignment in the NBA's developmental league, which earned him a suspension without pay for breach of contract. And, as discussed by Sports Illustrated's Phil Taylor in the January 21 issue, even the request for medical decisions to be made by mental health professionals may not be doable under the the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NBA and the players' union (though one of the problems may be that mental health is not adequately address in the CBA).

The Rockets have tried to make some concessions, such as paying for ground transportation to away games when feasible. But how much does an organization have to do before it falls outside the realm of reasonable accommodation? If, even after attempting some forms of accommodation, the disability (physical or mental) significantly inhibits the ability of an individual (such as White) to perform the job (consistently play basketball at an NBA level), then it could be argued that the individual is thus not qualified for the job.

Recent reports suggest that the Rockets and White may be close to a deal, and I certainly hope this is the case. I am not sure what the right answer is or where to draw the "reasonable accommodation/undue hardship" line - only that more discussion into the often-ignored subject of mental health issues in the workplace is needed. This is one high profile example, but there are probably thousands of individuals and numerous organizations trying to navigate similar situations without much of a road map to guide them.

To Get a Job . . . You Need to Already Have a Job?

What if you lost your job, and when you start searching for a new one, you were repeatedly turned away from job openings because you were not already currently employed? Sounds a bit ridiculous, right?

Well, CNN Money ran a story recently about a new recruiting trend, where phrases such as "applicant must be currently employed" or "unemployed applicants will not be considered" are cropping up on job descriptions. And even when such explicit statements aren't spelled out, it seems that recruiters give preference to applicants who are currently employed over those applicants that are not.

To me, that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen. If you have a solid potential job applicant, and the only reason he/she is not considered is because he/she isn't currently employed, it feels an awful lot like discrimination.

What are your thoughts? Have any of you run into this kind of situation as a job seeker or as a recruiter/hiring manager?

Some Things are Better Left Unsaid

I was recently directed to a post at PassiveAggresiveNotes.com, which included a number of signs posted at different businesses explaining why they were closed. Among those signs, these two caught my attention as an HR professional:

While these signs are undoubtedly funny for those of us looking at it from an outside perspective, "Tonya" would certainly have reason to proceed with a lawsuit, and the female employees at the Bang Bang Bar would have grounds to file a sexual harassment suit as well.

Always be sensitive as to what personal information you are sharing about your employees, and don't let your personal feeling get in the way of your professional role. Take a deep breath and a step back from the situation, and hopefully you can refrain from these types of situations.

You're Fired!

Imagine for a moment that you are called into the office of the Big Boss. When you show up, you see the rest of your team there.

After discussing with you the problems with your current performance, the Big Boss publicly proceeds to bring up your (arguably non-job-related) pending criminal charges, and then makes a couple of ill-advised racial, religious, lifestyle and cultural comments before finally finishing by stating those words we all dread: "You're fired!"

Think it would be difficult to convince a lawyer, or even a judge, that you've got a pretty compelling discrimination claim? Probably not.

But that's exactly what happened to former Governor Rod Blagojevich on the most recent episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Maybe being on a reality TV show and being Donald Trump gives you leeway that true reality doesn't.

Check out the third-to-last segment of the following video if you missed the show (or just check out my transcription below the video):

With the full team looking on (I know, that's just how the show is done) and while talking to Blagojevich, Trump states: "I think Rod is being extremely nice because, you know, you have some pretty big things to do when you finish this, right?" (referring to his pending charges)

Pointing at Michael Johnson, Trump goes on to say: "I think Rod doesn't want to get angry at you because, frankly, there may be some black jurors. And they may be angry that he got angry with you."

"He doesn't want to get angry with Goldberg," he continues, "because I assume you're Jewish. Are you Jewish, Goldberg?"

As Goldberg nods, Trump chuckles and continues: "Because otherwise you'd be the only guy with the name Goldberg that isn't."

"And he doesn't want to get angry at the rock star because he wants to keep . . . You know, it's a very . . . And I don't know what to say about Curtis. He's like a central casting WASP."

And then, a little while later, The Donald gives Blago the boot with the two by-now immortalized words: "You're fired!"

So, what do you think? If this really were reality, who would win the case of Trump vs. Blagojevich?