Frutos (cuales han sido mis logros

Much has been written about bringing the Federal Government into the Internet Age and about holding Federal agencies and Federal employees accountable for their performance. Those ideas have merit—but agencies should take care when applying them to hiring processes and decisions. Below, we offer some cautions for agencies that may be exploring “cutting edge” use of the Internet or performance appraisals in their hiring processes.

Testing and the Internet

It is one thing to use the Internet to advertise jobs and accept resumes. It is entirely another to use the Internet to deploy tests that were traditionally administered in paper-and-pencil format in a controlled environment. Agencies considering the latter use should proceed very carefully, if at all. There has been much discussion among psychologists who are experts in Internet testing about the validity of such tests. The majority agree that using unproctored Internet testing (UIT) alone is never acceptable for high-stakes situations such as making employment decisions. The primary concern with

37 _{More information about assessment options is available through OPM’s online Personnel} Assessment and Selection Resource Center. The center provides explanations of 13 different assessment tools and advice about their application, a decision tool for selecting assessment tools, professional and legal guidelines, and a variety of other useful resources. As of February 2010, the resource center was available at http://apps.opm.gov/ADT.

UIT is based on the many possible avenues for cheating.38 _{The International}

Test Commission Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing state that in moderate- and high-stakes assessment such as job recruitment and selection, applicants who earn qualifying scores should be required to complete a supervised test to confirm the accuracy of their scores.39

Performance Appraisals in the Hiring Process

It might seem logical for an organization to base selection and advancement, in addition to awards and pay increases, on performance. After all, research has indicated that past behavior (i.e., performance) can, indeed, be a good predictor of future performance. However, it does not follow that performance appraisals can be used mechanically to make hiring decisions. Simply stated, performance appraisals are not an acceptably reliable indicator of future performance. There are too many differences among jobs, performance standards, rating scales, and raters (both organizations and individuals)— and too many non-performance factors influencing ratings—for performance appraisals or ratings to be considered valid for purposes of selection.40 _For

example, an applicant who was rated as “Fully Successful” by one organization may actually be a better performer, and a more promising candidate, than an employee who was rated “Outstanding” by another organization.

6. Use More than One Assessment (the Multiple Hurdle Approach)

In all selection processes, including those for first-level supervisors, hiring managers face the challenge of balancing cost and efficiency with thoroughness and accuracy. Although hiring managers want to identify the best candidates, staff time and resources—not to mention applicant patience—are limited. Especially when there is a large number of applicants, it may not be practical to initially employ the assessment methods that are most likely to accurately identify the candidate with the highest chance of success in the job, because these methods tend to be more costly as well as more time- and labor-intensive.

The multiple hurdle approach, in which a series of successively more predictive assessment methods is used with increasingly smaller number of candidates, can improve selection quality while using scarce resources wisely. If there is a large pool

38 _{Nancy T. Tippins, “Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: Where are we now?,”}

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(1), March 2009, pp. 2-10.

39 _{Dave Bartram, “The International Test Commission Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-} Delivered Testing,” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(1), March 2009, pp. 11-13.

40 _{For example, factors unrelated to performance that can affect ratings are: supervisors’ inability} to separate individual performance from the impact of organizational processes, systems, and events; whether the supervisor personally hired the employee; the similarity of the employee to the supervisor in personal characteristics; pressures to distort ratings; and the degree to which the supervisor and employee “connect.”

of applicants, it may be necessary to use an inexpensive method as a preliminary assessment to initially distinguish between candidates who appear to have a plausible chance of success and those who do not. More predictive, albeit costly, methods can then be used to identify successively smaller, better qualified groups of candidates. For example, candidates for a first-level supervisory job who meet minimum qualifications could be asked to submit a resume and an accomplishment record in which they are asked to write a brief narrative (e.g., one page) explaining how they have demonstrated one or two core supervisory competencies such as Conflict Management and Accountability. The resume would be used to determine if the candidate has the technical expertise and experience needed while the

accomplishment record would be used to determine if the candidate provides evidence of foundational competencies needed to be a good supervisor. Specific instructions would be given to candidates so that they supply the information needed. For the resume, for example, they could be instructed to briefly list their accomplishments and actual work performed for each job, instead of providing a general summary of their responsibilities (as in a position description). The candidates who provided evidence in their resume and accomplishment record of having the potential to be effective supervisors would then proceed to the second hurdle, a situational judgment test or a structured interview that assesses both technical and supervisory capability. The candidates who score highest on the second hurdle would then proceed to a panel structured interview and a work sample or role play exercise for a more in-depth, final assessment of supervisory capability. In this multiple hurdle approach, candidates who are not likely to succeed are screened out in the first hurdle based on assessment methods that do not require a large investment of resources by either the agency’s or the candidates. In successive hurdles, the costlier but more predictive methods provide a more in- depth perspective of the candidates’ qualifications and potential.

7. Hold Managers Accountable for the Selection of Supervisors

Equally important to choosing selection tools with good predictive power in identifying supervisory candidates who are likely to succeed on the job, is ensuring that the managers who select supervisors are well trained in the selection process. Managers need to learn to identify the competencies needed for effective supervisors, to ensure that these are assessed, to conduct thorough interviews and rate candidates fairly, and to use the results of selection tools to identify the most competent of the final candidates.

Human resources staff can assist and guide managers but managers should be heavily involved in and held accountable for each step of the supervisory selection process from identifying the competencies needed for the job, drafting the job announcement, and choosing predictive assessment tools to judiciously using candidate information collected to make the final selection.

8. Use the Probationary Period to Make the Final Selection

No matter how carefully the selection process is planned and implemented, it cannot perfectly predict success on the job. That is why the supervisory probationary period, which we describe in more detail in the accompanying discussion, is vital.