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?

NY Jets Harassment Being Investigated

An accusation of harassment by players and coaches of the New York Jets football team against a female reporter is currently being investigated. The full story can be found here.

This story brings up an important point regarding harassment. It is not just something an organization needs to worry about between employees, or from supervisor to subordinate. Harassment can also be directed by an organization's employees toward an individual or group of individuals outside of the organization - such as vendors, business partners, customers or (in this case) a reporter. (An organization's employees can also be harassed by those outside of the organization.) The fact that Ines Sainz, the reporter in question, is both female and a minority representative (she works for a spanish-language Mexican TV network) adds further depth to the harassment claims.

The NFL and NY Jets are looking into the situation and Jets management has already apologized publicly for the perceived misconduct. But the situation and investigation are far from over.

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?