What is I-O?

Michael M. Harris
University of MissouriSt. Louis

I know what you are thinkingit has been quite a long time since this column appeared in TIP. I know that because the editor, Debra Major, asked me recently what my plans were for the column. After I begged her to retain me in this role, I decided to get busy and think about what to write. It occurred to me that there is an ongoing interest in Internet recruitment and testing in our field and a more in-depth look at some aspects of this area might be interesting to you, my reader. In a departure from my previous format, this column is based on my own opinions, although I have spoken to a variety of people, too many to individually name, regarding these issues during the last year.

This column focuses on two issues regarding Internet recruitment and testing: legal aspects and perceptions of Internet recruiting. As I am sure you know, Internet recruitment and testing is a hot topic, and there is a great deal of activity in this area. I know of three Web sites that focus on this area (and provide a lot of free information): www.interbiznet.com; www.erexchange.com; and hcm.blogspot.com. Now, lets get right to the topic at hand, beginning first with legal issues. 

Legal Aspects

Internet testing has become widely popular for pre-employment screening (as evidence, consider the numerous SIOP sessions on this subject) and there is no doubt that in many cases, it provides important advantages over paper-and-pencil methods. Nevertheless, there are a number of reasons why Internet recruitment and testing may be subject to new or additional legal problems compared to the traditional paper-and-pencil route. These are described in greater detail below.

Disparate impact analyses. Two distinct problems may occur. First, the EEOC has been developing guidelines as to what determines whether someone applying online for a job is considered an applicant in the legal sense of the term. The notion is that some individuals who are examining a Web site are just submitting applications but dont meet even the most minimal qualifications. Depending on how a candidate is defined, I would bet that there might be a profound effect on whether a company is determined to have disparate impact. The 80% rule, for instance, which is widely used to determine whether there is disparate impact, could produce very different conclusions, depending on how a candidate is defined. 

A second concern is whether moving to an Internet-based system will produce adverse impact because there may be differences in minority use of the Internet (Sharf, 2000). Home computer ownership may also differ, which could further create a digital divide. Although some have argued that Internet access is widely available to the public through facilities such as public libraries, it seems reasonable to me to assume that someone who has a high-speed connection at home is more likely to apply and take a test than someone who has to go to a public facility to complete these steps. Race differences in Internet use, which continue to persist (see: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=88), may therefore produce disparate impact. I have some unpublished data suggesting that when faced with a choice of applying in person or over the Internet, minorities are more likely to apply in person. Eliminating this option may therefore increase disparate impact.

Lack of equivalency. While Internet and paper-and-pencil tests may be equivalent, the question needs to be carefully examined. Although they may be both equally valid, there may be mean differences. Even if the Internet and paper-and-pencil versions are completely equivalent, the fact that different problems may arise can lead to potential charges of disparate treatment. Say, for example, people are taking the Internet version of a timed test and experience system problems, such as the server crashes. If they are not hired or promoted, they may claim that they were disadvantaged in this regard and deserved an opportunity to retake the exam. Especially if they are in a protected class, and not afforded the opportunity to retest, this might be viewed as discrimination. Regardless, it is possible that managers could either knowingly or perhaps unknowingly discriminate against certain applicants by offering them one mode of testing, while offering other applicants a different mode of testing. I can imagine a range of interesting possible claims in that kind of situation.

Ease in identifying disparate impact. Job testers are people who apply for jobs in attempt to identify discrimination. Having live testers apply for jobs may be a time-consuming process; the ability to have testers sitting at a PC and applying for jobs and taking tests may greatly speed up the process and provide useful information as to the likelihood that disparate impact is occurring. The idea that fake applicants may apply over the Internet isnt as farfetched as you might think (see below for the story of Vinnie Boombotz). Thus, it may be far easier for an investigator or agency to determine if there is disparate impact occurring than may normally be the case. In a similar vein, data gathering efforts may be vastly simplified as Internet testing results are conveniently stored in databases, which in turn can be easily and quickly analyzed by the plaintiffs expert witness. Hence, plaintiffs may have a far easier time determining if disparate impact is occurring and what test(s) or processes are creating the problem.

Difficulty in proving job relatedness. Many Internet recruitment companies enable recruiters and line managers to create their own job requirements and pre-employment questions. This has led to the concern that hiring standards may be established that cannot be easily validated or proven to be job related. Given the large number of applicants that may apply using the Internet, it seems that a class-action lawsuit might result. In addition, I wonder how many Internet recruitment sites are offering tests that have not been properly validated. I suspect there are quite a few unvalidated tests that are being used.
In conclusion, I am not aware of any current lawsuits involving Internet recruitment and testing. It would appear, however, that there are many reasons why such lawsuits could be problematic for organizations. If you, the reader, are aware of any such lawsuits in progress, please let me know!

Perceptions of Internet Recruiting

There is a growing interest in understanding applicant perceptions of and reactions to Internet recruitment. In an interesting study, Feldman and Klaas (2002) examined applicant perceptions of various job hunting strategies, including the Internet. The Internet was the third most frequently mentioned as being effective, with networking/personal contacts and headhunters/professional recruiters being first and second, respectively, frequently mentioned as being effective. The Internet was also the second most frequently mentioned as being ineffective; only newspaper advertisements were more frequently mentioned as being ineffective. The three most frequently mentioned difficulties in Internet job searches were slow feedback or follow-up; not enough jobs to make the search worthwhile; and lack of relevant information on the companys Web site. 

A completely different kind of study was conducted by www.careerxroads.com, founded by Gerry Crispin and Mark Mehler. These two consultants created a fictitious job applicant, named Vinnie Boombotz, with a variety of interesting work experiences and employment (e.g., for 3 years, he worked at Bad-a-Bing Corporation). They sent his application to all possible Fortune 500 career Web sites (a copy of their report may be found on their Web site). Some of their findings are summarized next.

First, to their surprise, Crispin and Mehler found that 27 of the Fortune 500 companies lacked any trace of hiring activity. Thus, for about 5%, there was no way to provide an application. Another group of these companies indicated there were no jobs and provided just a minimum amount of information about the company or information about a few jobs and no additional information. On the positive side, they located 86 companies that they labeled as representing best practices. 

So, what do the best practices companies do in terms of Internet recruitment? They make it easy to find the listing of jobs. Other companies require the job searcher to make 7 or more clicks to locate job openings. Best practices companies also communicated clearly to Vinnie; others did not communicate much, if any, information regarding his application. Finally, a few best practices companies effectively communicated why people would be attracted to them and why employees stay with the organization. The use of a refer-a-friend program also varied considerably. While 40% of Fortune 500 companies offered such a program on their Web site, all of whom Vinnie was listed with, many of them never do anything besides issue a bland acknowledgement of the referral. Since Vinnie Boombotz only referred himself, the consultants performing the study were able to report that Vinnie did not receive a single follow-up e-mail.

In sum, I suspect that there is a great deal of room to improve the effectiveness of Internet recruitment. I-O psychologists would do well to spend more time understanding it and making sure they are involved in design and evaluation of their organizations Internet recruitment program. I would be very interested in knowing whether you, the reader, play an active role or not in such programs.

Well, Im about out of space here. Please contact me about Internet recruitment and testing, and let me know what you think! Please e-mail me at mharris@umsl.edu, call (314-516-6280), fax (314-516-6420), or snail-mail me, Michael Harris, School of Business Administration, University of MissouriSt. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121. 

References

Feldman, D. C., & Klass, B. S. (2002). Internet job hunting: A field study of applicant experiences with on-line recruiting. Human Resource Management, 41, 175192.

Sharf, J. (2000). As if g-loaded adverse impact isnt bad enough, Internet recruiters can expect to be accused of e-loaded impact. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 38(2), 156.