|
|
Work in the 21st Century: Implications for Selection
by Karen E. May
Human Resource Solutions
In the last issue of TIP, I introduced this column, which will address changes in the workplace as we move into the 21st century and the implications of those changes for I/O Psychologists. As I indicated, this column will focus on a different area of I/O psychology in each TIP issue, beginning with selection in this issue. I was pleased to receive copies of papers and helpful notes from some of you telling me about your work in this area. Keep up the communication! I would like this column to reflect what you are investigating in your research and doing in practice as it relates to the topic at hand.
Several factors are influencing the way employees are selected into the organizations of today and of the future:
€ Changing organizational structures. Organizations are becoming flatter, leaner, and more flexible in order to keep up with technological advances and to become and/or remain competitive in the global marketplace.
€ Changing definitions of jobs. Jobs are less likely to be defined by a fixed set of tasks, and more likely to be made up of constantly changing activities or, perhaps even more likely, by a role in a work process or responsibility for a specific outcome.
€ Changing nature of work. Work tasks and processes are less likely to be fixed entities determined by management. More and more organizations are working to push responsibilities to the lowest level possible in an effort to increase commitment, task variety, organizational flexibility, and employee ownership of work outcomes. Additionally, work is more and more likely to be designed and performed by teams -- either formally or informally assembled.
€ Changing job requirements. As the nature of jobs becomes more fluid, employers expect employees to shift roles, responsibilities, and tasks quickly. Additionally, the rapid pace of technological advancement demands employees who understand more than just the program or system with which they work. With increased frequency, job requirements are becoming more closely linked to the organization than to any specific job. Perhaps the phrase "job requirements" should be replaced with "required organizational characteristics."
€ Changing workplace design. More and more companies are moving to "virtual offices," in which employees no longer have dedicated office space, but can stop by a satellite office to check in, pick up materials, or have face-to-face meetings.
€ Changing workforce demographics and capabilities. The well-documented demographic changes (e.g., increased representation of women, senior citizens, and members of minority groups) and anticipated capability gap (e.g., increased demand for, and greater scarcity of, high level skills) in the workforce bring with them issues of group differences and increased emphasis on trainability.
Any one of these factors alone would merit a discussion about how our selection practices must change and what research is available to guide our work. In combination, these factors call out for a radical redesign of our approach to staffing organizations. What are we doing, or should we be doing, differently?
One major shift in selection practices in response to the changes described above is the selection of individuals into organizations or onto teams rather than into specific jobs. With jobs, technologies, and business directions changing rapidly, job requirements are less likely to be stable and enduring over time. Selecting someone on the basis of their knowledge of a specific word-processing program, for example, would appear to be short-sighted, as the program will likely change and/or be replaced in a short time. Alternatively, selecting someone who can become an important part of a growing company seems a smarter investment. When selecting employees who will become members of formal or informal teams, their interpersonal and communication skills are likely to be as important to successful performance as are their task-related skills.
Another way to say that we're selecting into organizations rather than jobs is that we are changing -- or enlarging - our criterion. We expect our predictors to identify those who will be successful in the work assigned to them, even when that work changes. We expect them to contribute to the success of the organization, and if relevant, their work team. If we want to evaluate the success of our selection systems, we will have to revisit, and likely revise, our criterion measures to ensure that they include organizational and/or team components. This implies a need for accurate measurement of team performance, individuals' contributions toward team performance, and the links between individual performance and company success.
Selecting for organizational or team requirements rather than, or in addition to, job requirements can involve measuring different attributes and may require the use of different types of selection tools. Some of the attributes that are surfacing in the literature as keys to general employability in the future include: the ability to learn (or trainability), self-management, self-motivation, teamwork skills, and adaptability (see for example, Carson, 1996). These attributes are posited to underlie performance in rapidly changing, high empowerment environments. Organizations want to invest in employees who can help the company meet its strategic goals, which could mean performing multiple jobs simultaneously or in sequence, designing or improving the efficiency of work processes, and sharing and cultivating the company's values.
Another shift in the attributes assessed is described by Sanchez (1994) in his article about job analysis and the changing work environment. Sanchez notes that in the selection of managers and executives, it may be advantageous to add factors related to the strategic direction of the company to the list of job requirements. These could include, for example, industry knowledge or knowledge of particular strategies.
Increases in the use of personality tests, integrity tests, and value-based selection systems may reflect the shift in what characteristics are being measured. Fortunately, we are growing more sophisticated as a field in terms of the tools available for selection, which could increase the quality of selection decisions and make measurement of required organizational characteristics more viable.
I/O psychologists have made significant progress in the development and use of a wide range of selection tools. Landy, Shankster-Cawley, and Moran (1995) review recent advances in approaches to selection and find several encouraging changes including notable progress in areas of personality and integrity testing, more sophisticated use of the interview, and increased flexibility afforded by computer-based and -assisted testing. Through higher quality selection tools and increased ability to measure the "O's" in the KSAO list (Landy et.al, 1995), we are better positioned to respond to the change.
The rapid increase in the use of temporary employees and contractors presents a different kind of hiring trend. Through short-term and project-based employment, businesses can meet short-term staffing needs, without a long-term employment commitment. Contrary to long-term employees, temporary employees and contractors can be selected on the basis of job- or even task-specific knowledge's, skills, and abilities without concern for long-term organizational fit.
The more we understand the needs of organizations in the future, the better able we will be to help them succeed. Our understanding will be based in the research we conduct and innovations we develop. Some research topics related to selection for in the future that could provide great value include:
Are the characteristics that enable someone to be a critical player in one organization the same in all organizations? And if not, does it vary by industry, company size, organizational culture, and/or company structure?
Much of the extant employment law is built around the unit of the job and the information provided through a job analysis. How can we select for organizational and team requirements within the existing legal boundaries and climate? Should we, as a field, try to influence the legal structure in which employment decisions are made? If so, what are the most effective methods for making these changes?
The area of temporary employment is ripe with research questions related to the psychological effects of being "just a temp," and to working in an environment where inequities exist by design (e.g., when contractors are paid more than employees for similar work). How can permanent and non-permanent employees work side-by-side effectively to meet the needs of the business?
In the next issue of TIP, this column will address issues related to job analysis, including (but not limited to) questions around its purpose, the methods we use to collect information, the uses for the information, and what we will need from job analysis in the future. If you are working on these issues in your organization and/or research, please let me know. Call or write Karen May at Human Resource Solutions, 61-F Avenida de Orinda, Orinda, CA 94563, Phone (510) 253-0548 or Fax (510) 253-9432.
References
Carson, K.P., and Stewart, G.L. (1996). Job analysis and the sociotechnical approach to quality: A critical examination. Journal of Quality Management, 1, pp. 49-64.
Landy, F.J., Shankster-Cawley, L., and Moran, S.K. (1995). Advancing personnel selection and placement methods. In Ann Howard, (Ed.), Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: The Changing Nature of Work. Jossey-Bass.
Sanchez, J.I. (1994). From documentation to innovation: Reshaping job analysis to meet emerging business needs. Human Resource Management Review, 4 (1), pp. 51-74.
|
|
Questions/Comments or Concerns contact
us at siop@siop.org
©
2006 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc.
All rights reserved |
|