Determinación del pago provisional

This section presents the impact of the emerging empirical evidence concerning informal decisions. Connections amongst emerging themes associated with observations and discussions from the intern programme were scrutinized to discover how informal decision processes are influenced.

Several cues for informal decisions were prevalent, observed and discussed during this research. Whilst other tools might have been available or used to support cues, S1 and S2 utilise résumés, interviews, geography, class ranking, grade point average, awards and various personnel specifications when making informal decisions. Appendix 19 presents an overview of the critical filtering cues observed and discussed in the Research Centre. In addition to these cues, information from interviews (see Appendix 3) was coded using a single descriptive and then grouped categorically into themes (see Appendix 20).

Some unexpected exceptions to Charmaz’s (2008) single descriptive term emerged whilst coding data. These exceptions lead to the development of a complexity. Under GT, one concept should equal one theme, but in this case, one concept can actually occupy multiple themes. The development of this complexity caused an exception in coding data to be made so that data is not forced into a specific category (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). For example: “Awards support class rank” is both Credentialing and Ranking depending on the processes and actions associated with its use. Credentialing is a method of validation whilst ranking is a preference. Furthermore, the use of documents, interview notes, and other sources of information for evaluating individuals is part of the Filtering theme, the taking of interview notes (S2) and updating documents (S1) is included within the separate theme of Noting.

Majority Influence

Majority of influence, primarily attributed to an individual, can also be attributed to an organisation. With the Research Centre, specifying encompasses the practical and

-114-

theoretical application of constructing and applying guidelines for hiring decisions by screeners. Although screeners indicate that their informal decisions were not governed by written specifications, external organisations did significantly establish minimum guidelines.

In fact, these external specific written regulations and procedures strongly influenced S1 and S2’s interpretations of the employee personnel specifications. As these external regulations and procedures are viewed as routine and not a significant factor in determining informal decisions by S1 and S2, the emergence of such external influence was not apparent at first.

Moreover, S1 and S2 utilise these external specifications without a detailed in-depth understanding of how job-seekers originally met these criteria.

S1 and S2 relied upon at least two specific law school standards to identify job-seekers: (1) a job-seeker met the law school admission requirements; and (2) a job-seeker must be a student in good standing prior to interviewing with the Research Centre. However, difference in regulations and policies can vary amongst Universities; and thus, so can the external employee personnel specifications with many of these changes being made externally and accepted by S1 and S2 without discussions and in most instances without knowing that changes have occurred. Moreover, if screeners need to question an application, a law school representative serves as a liaison between the job-seeker and the Research Centre. During this research, no requests for information were observed.

Additionally, discussions indicated that there had never been a need to question information.

Because applicants exceed available positions, if doubt exists with an application, it is best to discard that application and move onto the next application.

In addition to the discrete influence from Universities upon personnel specifications, Rule 10 (see SCA, 2010) serves as a written personnel specification that augments the University minimum acceptable standards. Rule 10 firmly establishes that law school students enrolled in at least their second year may engage in the limited practise of criminal law for indigents. For this purpose, the Research Centre only accepts those job-seekers that meet the minimum requirements of Rule 10; unless there are more positions than job-seekers at which time, first years are included in the applicant pool.

Weighting of Information

In selecting, some information can be more critically important to screeners in identifying successful applications. In the Research Centre, S1 and S2 used cognitive personnel specifications match applicants to internships mostly by an applicant’s expressed geographic preferences. These geographic preferences were originally part of the filtering theme; however, geography as a method to informally filter applicants emerged as an

-115-

important theme (i.e. geographing) based on the frequency of occurrence and the importance (as stressed by S1 and S2) of geography. Based on the evidence, the significant weighting of geographing also falls under the section of inappropriate information and criteria; and, for that reason, it is further discussed in that section.

One critical variable, which shifted for each Corporation, was organisational culture and applicant fit. Education was not considered by S1 and S2 the most important cue since every applicant was required to be enrolled in an ABA accredited law programme. However, class rankings, a component of education, were considered better predictors of job-seeker success. In some cases, high academic standing did not waiver to strong personality for indigent criminal defence.

Strong personality translated to an applicant having the ability to deal with difficult and adversarial clients, prosecutors, and co-workers as discussed under filtering. The Research Centre noted that whilst every day is not difficult, an applicant must be able to remain calm when these difficulties arise. However, strong personality was not weighted equally amongst screeners. S2 focuses rankings more upon an applicant’s appearance, behaviours, and attitudes. For example, S2 quickly identified inconsistencies in spellings, fonts, punctuations, and general appearance within résumés. Moreover, coupling notes with résumé inconsistencies could effectively heighten appearance especially since informal decisions occur after interviews. If S2 perceived a job-seeker to have a poor appearance, then potentially a poorly constructed résumé would reflect that negative appearance.

Negative information (e.g. class rank and work experience) had a stronger influence on informal rankings than positive information. Although negative information did not cause the removal of an applicant, negative information (e.g. a desire to work outside of West Virginia, limited social connections within a geographic area, and negative information from personal documents and notes) reduced job-seeker rankings and lessens the opportunities for placement. For example, lower ranked applicants were placed in alternative piles which effectively and significantly reduced the probability of an internship being offered.

Inappropriate Information and Criteria

For this case, the researcher probed the nature and use of information to better understand the impact selected information has on informal decisions. From discussions with screeners, two common heuristic themes concerning inappropriate information and criteria emerged: Geographing and Ranking.

-116-

Geographing was a recurring benchmark to determine which applicants matched up to interns. Although S1 and S2 contend that job-seekers expressing a desire to work outside of West Virginia and having no West Virginia ties could be removed, the observed practice was to place those job-seekers into a reserve pool in the event that a position could not be filled. The use of a reserve pool indicates a change of preference (i.e., ranking) and not a true removal from consideration. Furthermore, informal decisions on geography yielded minimal differences between S1 and S2. These marginal differences appear when a screener had to interpret and make subjective decisions concerning the maximum distance an applicant would be willing to travel. For example, whilst S1 believes that applicants would travel ~38 kilometres to work, S2 believes that distance to be approximately ~64 kilometres.

To further offer explanation, S2 notes the willingness to travel is contingent upon compensation and job prestige. In fact, geography was given more weight in informal decisions than any other criteria.

Excluding the withdrawn application, S1 and S2 made informal decisions about applications based on individual preference criteria (e.g. class rank, work experience, and interview notes) within a geographic location. This was covered under ranking. Furthermore, negative information about applicants strongly modified screener decisions although applicant information was not verified. Screeners considered that résumés were truthful and interviews (cf., coded interviewing) clarified any questionable or unclear information whilst adding knowledge in the form of notes (cf., coded noting) for consensus discussions.

Consequently, negative notations were sparse and limited to the previous job-seekers failing to interview and those interns having negative reviews from Chief Defenders. Finally, S2 was open to shift informal decisions based on consensus discussions with S1. This is further presented under the Influence of Assessors.

Influence of Assessors

At first, evidence suggesting the use of written specifications was not readily identifiable, but further discussions discovered that externally written specifications established minimum standards for the interns. The consistency promoted by these external personnel specifications establishes the applicant pools in which the Research Centre recruits job-seekers. This raises an important question: “What constitutes an organisational specification?” Since formally written organisational specifications were limited within the Research Centre (i.e. the reliance on external specifications), would a cognitive specifications constructed by S1 be considered an organisational specification or just the influence of an assessor? This researcher considers that organisational specifications can be

-117-

constructed through writing, reasoning, and a combination of written and cognitive processes. Thus, personnel specifications that are legitimately defined by management constitute the organisational specification(s) that are to be utilised for informal decisions assuming that these specifications are consistently applied.

As with geography, differences in ranking between S1 and S2 were observed and more pronounced. Whilst observing selection discussions, screeners spent more time scrutinising rankings and preferences of each applicant. As part of these discussions, S2 relied more on her own personal documents and notes of her interview observations (e.g.

applicant appearance, behaviours, and attitudes) to justify rankings. Conversely, S1 concentrated more on the information presented within résumés. These differences between screeners appears to be attributed to abstract concepts where subjective decision making processes cause a screener to rely upon his/her experiences. To resolve differences in ranking preferences, S2 frequently yielded to the preferences of S1 as he did have significant influence as an assessor. This is an interesting finding that emerged from the observations.

In fact, where clearly defined guidelines do not exist, as in this case organisation, decisions are reconsidered and modified to fit the preferences of the dominant individual.

This indicates that the perceptual interpretations of language, in this case through verbal communications, help construct criteria used in the evaluations of applicants. Moreover, the dominant assessor’s interpretations of informal criteria prevail. For example, reconsideration by S2 represents an adjustment to the interpretation of personnel specifications that S1 has presented to S2. After discussions with S1, S2 interprets personnel specifications and re-applies cues that successively modify her original decision to a decision that agrees with S1.

Moreover, S1 is a former trial attorney acquainted to presenting a systematic argument within an antagonistic environment. This former experience naturally encourages S1 to dominant discussions. Additionally, it appeared that S2 tends to avoid conflict. This behavioural mixture reassures that S1 will dominant discussions where S2 is involved. If other individuals were involved (e.g. additional screeners or a replacement of either S1 or S2), these informal decisions could be different.

Additionally, S1 is a practising lawyer whereas S2 has no direct legal experience other than serving as S1’s assistant. Therefore, the researcher postulates that a screener should be able to recall similar applicants faster. S1 and S2 were asked, “Of the people selected for interns, how many are like you?” In each instance, S1 and S2 could not identify with candidates outside of basic common characteristics: Within the same age category and attended the same school. Conversely, both S1 and S2 did present that applicants were

-118-

more dissimilar than similar: Applicants varied in academic standing, work experience, and personality.

Even though S1 and S2 were the only screeners assigned to the task of selecting interns, the principals (i.e. various Corporations as employers) could withdraw support for this intern programme; which could influence informal decisions as S1 and S2 may proactively avoid negative consequences from a Corporation. This proactive avoidance could be injected as a personnel specification for a job-seeker to fit within a specific Corporation’s culture. If this is the case, then multiple personnel specifications (i.e. potentially one for each of the seventeen Corporations) exist. As rankings are subject to topography and each Corporation operations geographically, then evidence suggests informal decisions are influenced by Chief Defenders.

For example, a Chief Defender may request a specific job-seeker for an internship which bypasses the hiring processes and the job-seeker is offered an internship. This circumvention indicates that personnel specifications are not concrete and may be subject to change without input from S2 further supporting S1’s influence as an assessor. Since a Corporation voluntarily participates in the intern programme, any circumvention could be rationalised as the Research Centre’s response to satisfy and encourage employer participation. Moreover, the preference for former interns illustrates that the Chief Defenders also serve as assessors, at least from a post-employment stance.