The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Finch, D.M., Edwards, B.D., Wallace, J.C. (2009). Multistage selection strategies: Simulating the effects on adverse impact and expected performance for various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 318-340.

One of the greatest challenges that organizations face during the selection process is trying to hire both a diverse and high-performing workforce. Unfortunately, some of the best predictors of job performance (such as measures of cognitive ability) also tend to produce substantial differences between applicants of different races. This could result in lower hiring rates for minority groups.

The “trade-off”

This problem of trying to balance diversity initiatives with the need for a high-performing staff can be thought of as a trade-off. Traditional selection methods used to hire the best-performers can often result in a work force low in diversity. On the other hand, selection methods used to increase workforce diversity may not result in hiring the best performers.

Fortunately, there are ways to manage this dilemma that allow organizations to effectively balance the needs of hiring diverse and high-caliber workers. One of the most effective ways of dealing with this problem is to address it through the selection system – the organization’s method for selecting new employees.

Single stage selection vs. multistage selection

There are two basic types of selection systems. Single stage selection strategies are selection methods that use only a single phase of selection. This type of selection system might look something like this:

Stage 1: All applicants take a cognitive abilities test. Those who score satisfactorily on this test are hired.

A second example of a single stage selection strategy would be a strategy in which scores from a cognitive abilities test are combined with scores on a personality test to make a decision about hiring. Although two tests are used, this is still a single-stage strategy because only one decision is made about which employees will be hired.

In contrast, a multistage selection strategy is one in which multiple decisions are made over time about which employees will be hired. An example of such a strategy might take the form of:

Stage 1: Administer integrity test to all applicants. Applicants who pass the test move on to Stage 2.

Stage 2: Administer a cognitive abilities test to applicants who pass Stage 1. Applicants who score satisfactorily on the Stage 2 test are hired.

Another example of a multistage selection system could be: applicants take a personality test, and those who “make the grade” move on to an interview phase of the hiring process.

Best in practice

Single stage selection strategies are generally less effective than multistage selection strategies at balancing performance and diversity. Single stage strategies tend to maximize performance, but often result in very low minority selection rates.

Generally, there will be some trade-off between performance and diversity. However, research has shown that using a multistage selection strategy can help organizations strike a critical balance between hiring high performers and hiring a diverse workforce.

Factors to Consider

There is no hard and fast “rule” about which specific tests to include in your selection system. This will depend on factors such as the proportion of minority applicants, the size of your applicant pool, and the selection ratios used at each phase of the selection process.

The specific multistage selection system you use should be designed to fit the needs of the specific job, organization, or industry. The same selection system will not be suitable for all situations. Practical considerations you take into account should include:

• Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes (KSAOs). Each position has a unique set of KSAOs that are required in order to perform the job effectively. Take this into account when deciding which selection measures to use. The organization should select a particular sample of KSAOs to assess, such as cognitive ability, integrity, or specific job-related skills.
• Cost and time. Some selection procedures are more costly or time consuming than others. Consider an interview; interviews are time intensive and therefore a costly method of selecting candidates. In most situations, it would be practical for an organization to use an interview in the final stages of the hiring process, when fewer candidates remain.
• Logistical constraints. There are other practical considerations that can influence decisions made about the structure of your selection system. For example, if the job you are hiring for requires a minimum level of performance on a particular skill, it would be impractical to conduct interviews in the first phase, when it is unclear if each of the candidates even possesses the minimum skill level required to perform the duties of the position. In this case, it would be more practical to first determine which candidates possess the minimum skill level, and then conduct interviews with those candidates.

In summary, you can improve the performance-diversity trade off in your organization by employing a multistage selection system. However, because there is no one selection system that will work best for every job, keep in mind practical factors such as time, cost, and logistics in order to design the most effective system for your organization.

Interpretation by:

Michelle Toelle

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Hartel, C. & Page, K.M. (2009). Discrete emotional crossover in the workplace: The role of affect intensity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24 (3), 237-253.

Emotions in the workplace have been frequently discussed for  some time now. Surprisingly, there has been little focus on the amount individuals’ experiences at work are interwoven with the experiences of those they interact with.

This phenomenon is known as crossover- the process by which an individual’s emotional state influences the emotional state of another individual.

When Can Crossover Occur?

Crossover can occur during positive and negative work events. For example, during positive work events (e.g., exciting new project) an employee’s heightened work engagement can crossover to coworkers. On the other hand, during negative work events (e.g. unrewarding, tedious project) an employee’s burnout can crossover.  Also, stress and anxiety have been shown to crossover within colleagues of the same work environment.

Crossover and Affect Intensity

Crossover is partially controlled by the degree an individual experiences emotion, also known as affect intensity.  More specifically, Affect Intensity (AI) is described as the varying intensity in which individuals experience emotions in reaction to workplace events and people such as upcoming deadlines or supervisors.

Individuals with high AI tend to focus more on the negative or positive side of things; therefore, they report stronger emotional reactions than those with low AI.”

Because of their higher emotional reactivity, high AI individuals may be more susceptible to crossover, especially from one individual with high AI to another with high AI.

Thus, understanding AI within each individual may lead to better management of crossover within the work environment.

Implications for Practice

Applying the knowledge of crossover, one should strive to reduce the number of negative work events and encourage a more positive work environment where positive crossover can occur. Specifically, one should implement practices that encourage:”

• Increases in positive emotion and action, which lead to positive resources including creativity and problem solving.
• An “undoing effect,” where those encountering negative emotions (e.g., anger or fear) overcome negative physical reactions more rapidly.
• An “upward spiral,” where individuals are more resilient and thus better able to overcome negative outcomes while seeking out positive ones – through crossover “upward spirals” occur at the individual, group, and team level.

Although these may seem quite obvious, consider the following:  positive emotions have been linked to helping behaviors, creative problem-solving, collaborative negotiation, and effective decision making strategies.  Satisfied employees are more likely to feel engaged at work, be intrinsically motivated, committed to a company, and receive higher performance ratings.  Employee satisfaction can lead to positive crossover effects, which leads to better morale within the workplace and higher positive outcomes.

Overall, positive emotional crossover is likely to have beneficial effects at the individual and organizational level, while understanding negative implications of crossover (e.g., burnout) may allow for better control of these outcomes.  Lastly, understanding affect intensity can help predict individual employees’ susceptibility to emotional crossover

Interpretation by:

Adam Bradshaw

The DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Orvis, K., Fisher, S., & Wasserman, M. (2009). Power to the people: Using learner control to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (4). 960-971.

Organizations frequently  utilize web-based training because of the efficiency and flexibility it offers. As the popularity of this training option increases, so does the need to understand how it can be used most effectively. One demonstrated technique is maximizing learner control.

How Does Learner Control Affect Learning and Retention?

Learner control involves giving individuals a certain degree of control over the training. For example, learner control could be as simple as allowing employees to progress through the training at their own pace or as complex as allowing employees to determine what type of information they are learning. Typically, some degree of control between these two options has been found to be optimal.

When individuals have control over the learning environment, they may be more cognitively engaged, as they focus on information that is relevant and interesting to them. Because of this, they often experience more positive reactions to the training than if they had little or no control. In turn, they may also process the information more thoroughly and deeply, thereby increasing retention.

These positive reactions can be important in keeping trainees motivated, as well as implementing the training in the workplace. This is because as positive reactions towards the training increase, so does the individual’s motivation to complete the training successfully. Additionally, the individual is more likely to have more motivation to apply the learned behaviors or knowledge on the job and be more confident in doing so.

Practical Implications

Because satisfaction with web-based training can affect not only the successful completion of the training but also the individual’s probability she will transfer the training into the workplace, it is important for organizations to be mindful of using learner control when developing and implementing web-based training. Organizations should:

• Design the training with the trainee’s reactions in mind – ensuring individuals will react positively to the training is essential in ensuring trainee engagement and successful implementation in the workplace. This could also be useful to determine if employees will use the control they are granted appropriately, as trainees may not always make choices that will increase their learning/retention.
• Use some degree of learner control – allowing trainees to have some control, such as the ability to select presentation modes, start or pause the training, and review previous material may be beneficial.
• Make the features known to trainees – simply giving the trainee some instruction or education about the various learner control tools available and how to use them most effectively is necessary for the successful execution of a learner controlled web-based training program.

It is in the DeGarmo Group’s opinion that using methods like pilot testing could be useful to ensure that each of these methods are being used to optimize performance. If a strong negative reaction is found, then the training could be modified based on suggestions for improvement.

Using these simple techniques can help to maximize the effectiveness of web-based training. This is increasingly important because of the growing popularity of this training medium. Designing the training with employee reactions in mind, allowing some degree of learner control, and making the features known to trainees can ultimately increase the overall effectiveness of the training.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Hurtz, G. & Williams, K. (2009). Attitudinal and Motivational Antecedents of Participation in Voluntary Employee Development Activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (3). 635-653.

Continuous employee development is imperative in order to maintain a competitive edge in today’s constantly changing business environment. Although many organizations realize this need, employees may be reluctant to voluntarily participate in development programs – this may be because the employee does not see the need for development, does not know about development opportunities, does not feel necessary resources/means are available to participate, etc. So how can organizations encourage employees to participate in these voluntary programs without making participation feel mandatory?

Factors Related to Voluntary Participation

Many factors influence employee willingness to participate in development opportunities, including:

• Availability of activities – It is important for employees’ to not only have opportunities for participation, but also have multiple options for participation.  Simply offering a variety of development opportunities and making these opportunities known is crucial to employee involvement. Although this seems somewhat rudimentary, many organizations fail to advertise and publicize development opportunities, which can reduce participation.
• Attitudes and intentions to participate – Employees who believe that development opportunities will be pleasant and worthwhile are more likely to participate. Additionally, if the development will have some utility or future benefit to the individual they may be more likely to participate.
• Subjective norms – Norms and expectations established by other individuals in the organization, both supervisors and peers, can affect an employee’s desire to participate in development opportunities. Additionally, others’ opinions about a specific development opportunity can influence an individuals’ willingness to participate (i.e. coworker has participated in development and discusses their positive/negative experience with another coworker).
• Perceived control and support – Employees must feel as though they have control over whether or not they participate in development. Allowing employees to choose development opportunities can not only encourage participation but can also increase engagement in the development program. Additionally, the perceived support from the organization, supervisor and peers can be important. This can include:
  • Monetary compensation – Company pays for development or rewards the individual monetarily for completing the development program (i.e. pay raise, bonus, etc.).
  • Fostering an organizational climate that encourages development – Company policies and procedures support, reward and recognize employee development. This could include formal recognition of the employee, first choice on work projects or informally acknowledging employees’ efforts.
• Reactions to employee development – An individual’s opinion about a specific development opportunity can also impact willingness to participate in future programs. Positive development experiences in the past will influence the desire to participate in the future. Therefore, both the perception of the training itself AND the perception of trainings in the past can influence employees’ willingness to participate.

Practical Implications

Organizations offering voluntary development opportunities should keep in mind that it is important to:

• Offer a wide variety of quality trainings employees perceive as beneficial and applicable to their job. Employee surveys could be a useful mean in determining what employees perceive as valuable.
• Make these development opportunities known to employees. This can be done through advertising and should make the utility and applicability of the development clear, as well as illustrate how the organization will support the employee.
• Ensure employees are rewarded for their participation (whether it be monetary or recognition) as many times employees are devoting time and effort, above and beyond their normal work duties and responsibilities, to participate in the development.

Organizations that develop a culture and climate that values high quality development could gain a positive reputation with not only their employees, but also other organizations and individuals, which could ultimately also give the organization a competitive edge recruiting employees. Therefore, the organizational benefits of active employee development could extend beyond advancing employee knowledge and should be utilized to the fullest.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: McCall, M.W. Jr. (2009). Recasting Leadership Development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3(1)

Experience is the key to learning how to be an effective leader. The problem with leadership development is ensuring that potential leaders are provided experiences – for how can one learn from experience if there are no experiences to learn from?

Decades of research on leadership (how it’s developed and what is most effective) has illuminated a set of common “facts” about how/why experience is essential.

“Facts” about learning experiences.

• Leadership is learned from experience: Research has shown that natural ability has little to do with becoming a leader when compared to experience.
• Early experiences are indispensable: Early work experience (short & long-term assignments and contact with other very good/poor supervisors) are essential.
• The challenges present are what make an experience effective: The unexpectedness, complexity, and pressures are a few of the challenges that make experiences effective.
• Experiences teach different lessons: Depending on what challenges are presented, people are able to learn different ways to handle them.
• Experiences can (and should) include “developmental” aspects: Feedback and coaching can enhance the learning experience, particularly when someone is having problems with presented challenges.
• Getting people the experience(s) they need is essential: Making experiences available is crucial, but matching developmental needs must also be intentional and a priority.
• Learning takes time and is ever-changing: There will be successes, delays, stops & starts, and learning from experiences is most likely when people are willing and encouraged to embrace the “lessons”.

Why don’t more organizations use this info?

There are a few reasons why more organizations aren’t using this knowledge to develop their leaders more effectively.

First, is the assumption that people either have leadership ability or they don’t, which can lead to the dismissal of those who don’t immediately succeed at challenges – believing there is a lack of leadership ability.

Secondly, results are achieved in the (relatively) short-term, while development is a longer-term objective. Pressure exists to provide challenging opportunities to those with “proven” success, instead of to those who may get greater benefit from the experience.

Additionally, the cost of experience-based leadership development is more difficult to calculate as compared to tracking the costs associated with training programs, consulting fees, or tuition, and therefore the ROI is more difficult to demonstrate for “experiences”.

Many organizations think they are including experience needs in their development opportunities. Job rotation and special projects are common techniques, but their focus is often on meeting business objectives (completing the assignments or learning different job responsibilities) and less on actually learning from the experiences.

“Experiences” can be a part of development.

Imperfect as they may be, there are some strategies organizations can use to try to ensure that “learning” is an integral component of providing experiences.

• Go with the flow: Work with others’ points of view and interject how experiences have contributed to current leaders’ success to make it easier for them to understand the need for truly meaningful experiences in leadership development.

• Make development a part of strategy: Identify the organization’s strategic initiatives, and the leadership challenges that will likely be present for them. Then the skills needed for those challenges can be developed by providing needed experiences (e.g., projects or mentors).

• Use business initiatives for development: Moving leadership development away from typical HR processes and toward a business initiative almost ensures it will remain a top priority, instead of becoming a routine “procedure” full of forms and other paperwork.

• Create a “leadership developer” role: Put someone in charge of understanding the organization’s potential leaders, their strengths and weaknesses, and the experiences that can be offered. Give this person the ability to take advantage of experiences as they arise, by influencing which leadership candidates may be best suited for different activities.

• Concentrate on learning from experiences: The emphasis (and record keeping) should be on whether someone learned/gained anything from different experiences, not just on the fact that they had them.

• Make “mastery” of job demands a criteria: There are a variety of ways to overcome challenges. Instead of the “one best way”, focus on if the skills or demands were mastered through a variety of ways.

Practical applications

Many HR departments already have processes in place (e.g., talent management or coaching) that could be redirected to focus on mastering skills learned through different experiences. The key is to make sure they are being utilized appropriately, focused on experience-based learning, and not treated as standard operating procedures which often lose their meaning and importance.

Rethinking an organization’s current development processes and the emphasis of them may be necessary to ensure that the opportunity (and requirement) to learn from experiences is a primary focus.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 65-76.

We all have them. Some people organize them. Some people lead them. Some people simply attend them. Most of us dread them: meetings.

In the workplace, it is common for people to describe meetings as notorious time-wasters. So why do we still schedule and attend meetings? Do we still have a glimmer of hope that we can make them effective? Most advice in the popular media on meeting effectiveness is simply the writer’s opinion, based on their experiences and preferences. So what actually leads us to perceive a meeting as effective?

Meeting Design Characteristics

There are several design characteristics that a meeting can possess. These include having:

• An agenda provided before the meeting in written form or provided at the meeting in written or verbal form.
• Minutes recorded to clarify the main conclusions and follow-up that is necessary.
• Punctuality of the start and end time of the meeting.
• Facilities that provide appropriate comfort and minimal distractions.
• A chairperson or leader who directs the pace of the meeting and keeps discussion on topic.

These characteristics serve to provide the components necessary to maximize the effectiveness of meetings. But do all of these characteristics equally lend to the perception of meeting effectiveness?

Which Design Characteristics Matter Most?

Although all of the listed design characteristics have a positive relationship with perceived meeting effectiveness, two in particular stand out: (1) use of an agenda, and (2) proper meeting facilities.

Providing an agenda in advance of the meeting can allow attendees to prepare for the meeting, resulting in more effective contributions. When using an agenda, it’s also important that it be completed. Agenda completion suggests to the attendees that they got the most out of the time they invested. It can also serve as an indicator of good meeting management.

Using proper meeting facilities is a critical component in making a meeting effective. Seating arrangement, lighting, room temperature, and refreshments should all be considered to maximize attendee comfort, and minimize distractions which ultimately lead to more effective meetings.

The Role of Attendee Involvement

Attendee involvement has a direct effect on perceptions of meeting effectiveness – the more involvement there is, the higher the attendees meeting effectiveness.

Attendee involvement also mediates the relationship between the design characteristics and perceptions of meeting effectiveness: the use of design characteristics affects the level of attendee involvement, which in turn affects the perception of meeting effectiveness.

This mediating relationship is particularly apparent for the following design characteristics:

• Agenda use/completion
• Punctuality
• Proper meeting facilities

These characteristics lead to greater attendee involvement, which in turn leads to greater perceptions of effectiveness.

Other Things to Consider

While these design characteristics lead to greater effectiveness for meetings, there are two additional characteristics to consider: size and duration.

The size of the meeting is important to consider because large meetings are generally associated with less attendee involvement, therefore more likely to be perceived as ineffective.

The duration of a meeting can affect perceptions of meeting effectiveness, especially when the meeting is lengthy and the agenda is not completed. In these instances, longer meetings are perceived as less effective than shorter meetings.

Practical Implications

Meetings have the potential to be very effective in reaching organizational goals. With the current economic downturn and the negative perceptions surrounding most meetings, many companies are cutting back on the number of meetings they hold, as they require substantial staff time.

For those meetings that remain, it is important for organizers to consider the factors that lead to the highest levels of attendee involvement and perceptions of effectiveness.

Particularly, organizers should incorporate, follow, and complete an agenda and provide proper meeting facilities.

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

DeGarmo Group

Have you ever been impressed with a job applicant’s test results or personality profile, only to find out that the person you saw on paper was nothing like the person you saw on the job? How did that happen? Could that person have “faked” their way through your assessments?

Many organizations are streamlining their application process – delivering many of their pre-employment assessments “remotely” or on-line, without an organizational representative present to administer their tests. Unfortunately, while streamlining this way can save organizations time and money during the application process, it increases the chances that some applicants may be less honest and forthcoming in the way they respond to questions on the assessments.

During this session we’ll discuss the concept of applicant “response distortion” as applied to jobs in several settings (including retail sales and customer service). We’ll talk about the ways to reduce an applicant’s likelihood to “fake” their way through assessments, particularly for those delivered remotely, so that the information we use to make hiring decisions is as accurate as possible.

Finally, we’ll share the results of research on different techniques used to reduce response distortion in several organizations.

What will participants learn?

1)  The different ways applicants can distort their responses to items on pre-employment assessments

2)  How administering assessments on-line, in an unproctored setting, can increase the likelihood for inaccurate information

3)  Techniques for reducing an applicant’s likelihood to try to fake their way through assessments.

4) The impact these techniques can have on applicant test scores.

Who should attend?

1) Recruiters, Managers, Directors, VPs, etc., responsible for HR, Staffing, and Talent Acquisition.

2) Those interested in learning about the ways we can reduce faking on job assessments.

3) Business leaders.

Registration Information

If you are already a member of HR.com, please login to register for the webcast.  If you are not a member of HR.com, you will need to sign up for a FREE HR.com membership, this will only take you a moment to fill in the required information. Once you have confirmation of your membership, you will be able to register for this complimentary webcast.

Tuesday, August, 24th, 11:00 AM ET

Register Here!

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Posthuma, R.A., Campion, M.A. (2009). Age Stereotypes in the Workplace: Common Stereotypes, Moderators, and Future Research Directions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 158-188.

It is widely known that the workforce in the United States is aging. With this, comes a more prevalent risk of age stereotyping within the workplace, affecting a larger group of individuals.  If stereotypes cause an increase in the rate of turnover within older workers, organizations fail to take advantage of skilled and productive workers.

Types of Age Stereotypes

Personal beliefs and expectations about workplace age groups are considered workplace age stereotypes. Often these stereotypes are biased, negative preconceptions about older workers (this can also include younger workers), which include:

• Poor Performance- older workers have lower performance, productivity and motivation.
• Resistant to Change- older workers tend to be harder to train, are less adaptable, and more resistant to change, resulting in less return on training investments.
• Lower Ability to Learn- older workers tend to have less ability to learn; therefore, they do not develop new skills as well as younger workers.
• Shorter Tenure- Due to their age, older workers are thought to have more turnover than other age groups.
• More Costly- Older workers are more costly because they are close to retirement, use more benefits, and obtain higher wages.

These stereotypes are all rather negative giving a poor outlook for the older workgroup.  On the other hand, there is evidence to refute these negative preconceptions:

• General Tendencies- Little evidence supports declining performance with age, and more often performance improves with age.
• Individual Differences- Age is less important than differences in individual skill and health.
• Tenure- Older workers are less likely to quit, thereby resulting in more return on investment (e.g., training investments).

It should be noted that age stereotypes could be directed at younger workers too (i.e., an older individual is hired over a younger individual because it seems as though they have more experience), but our focus here is on older workers.

Implications for Practice

When dealing with age stereotypes in the workplace, organizations should:

• Identify Reasonable Factors. Ensure that hiring practices can identify factors other than age, which have influenced hiring decisions.  Preventing age stereotypes requires vigilance through observation and statistics, thereby preventing legal liability.
• Use Job Related Information. Identify age stereotypes to increase the likelihood of correctly identifying when they occur, while using valid selection procedures.
• Use Training and Development. Ensure management is properly trained to identify age stereotypes, while properly training employees will lead to development and growth of workers as they age.
• Target High-Risk Areas. Identify situations or jobs that have been stereotyped towards a certain age group.  Often times varying jobs are identified within a certain age group, therefore creating bias within a certain job domain (e.g., CEOs should be older individuals).
• Utilize Older Workers as a Competitive Advantage. Focus on skill rather than age, thereby hiring the most skilled older workers other companies may have over-looked due to their age.
• Consider Adding Complexity. Due to the fear of declining cognitive ability, managers are often inclined to reduce older worker’s responsibilities, but research suggests it may be better to switch things up and make them more complex.

Ageism may be occurring in the workplace; however, there are many methods or practices that can be useful in mitigating the negative consequences.

Interpretation by:

Adam Bradshaw

The DeGarmo Group

Ever hire an employee with all the right skills for the job, only to watch that person walk out the door for good three weeks later? Where did you go wrong? What did you miss?

Most organizations often overlook the importance of measuring an applicant’s work tolerance as part of the talent acquisition process. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter if the applicant has the skills to do the work if they can’t tolerate the demands of the job!

During this session we’ll discuss the concept of work tolerance as applied to jobs in several settings including retail sales and customer service. We’ll talk about the process of analyzing jobs to discover their underlying work tolerance demands, as well as approaches for using work tolerance information to improve the talent acquisition process to reduce employee turnover, and increase levels of job satisfaction.

Finally, we’ll share the results of research using work tolerance measures in several organizations representing industries such as telecommunications and financial services, but the concepts learned during this session can apply to any job, in every organization.

What will participants learn?

1)  The difference between the work tolerance and skill demands of jobs

2)  How to analyze jobs to determine their underlying work tolerance demands

3)  Methods for using work tolerance demands for improving talent acquisition

4) The impact of work tolerance characteristics for reducing employee turnover in front-line jobs

Who should attend?

1) Recruiters, Managers, Directors, VPs, etc., responsible for HR, Staffing, and Talent Acquisition.

2) Those interested in learning about the impact of work tolerance on organizational success.

3) Business leaders

Registration Information

If you are already a member of HR.com, please login to register for the webcast.  If you are not a member of HR.com, you will need to sign up for a FREE HR.com membership, this will only take you a moment to fill in the required information. Once you have confirmation of your membership, you will be able to register for this complimentary webcast.

Tuesday, August, 31st, 1:00 – 2:00 PM ET

Register Here!

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Erdogan, B. & Bauer, T. (2009). Perceived overqualification and its outcomes: The moderating role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2). 557-565.

Have you ever worked in a position where you felt you were overqualified? Perhaps the knowledge you possessed was not used or the skills and abilities you had could not be demonstrated. Overqualification, or when an individual’s credentials surpass the job’s requirements, is increasingly common, especially when the job market is competitive.

How Does Overqualification Affect Organizational Outcomes?

Hiring an employee who is overqualified for the position could affect the organization both positively and negatively. Overqualified employees are:

• More likely to perform at a higher level. This could be a result of overqualified employees possessing more than the required skills and abilities. Additionally, the employee may expect that positive rewards often come from objective performance ratings (i.e. high supervisor ratings = high bonuses), which they feel they deserve. Finally, the employee may perform at a high level consistently applying their higher level of knowledge, skills, and abilities in the position. Therefore, the employee’s performance should be greater than those who are not overqualified.
• Less satisfied. Employees who possess certain knowledge, skills and abilities may feel entitled to a particular position or salary. When employees do not get what they perceive they deserve, they may become frustrated, and in turn, experience negative emotions directed toward the organization.
• More likely to leave the organization. As the discrepancy between what individuals feel they are entitled to and what the position offers increases, frustration and negative emotions toward the organization will also increase. This may result in individuals leaving the organization.

Is There a Way to Reduce the Negative Impact of Overqualification?

The negative organizational outcomes related to overqualification are due to a discrepancy in what the employee perceives they deserve and what they are receiving. Empowering the employee and giving them more autonomy within the workplace can mitigate the negative outcomes of overqualification. This can be done by communicating to the employee that they are valued and giving them control over work outcomes. This will convey the employee is a trusted and valued entity within the organization. As a result, the negative effects of overqualification can be reduced.

Practical Implications

Organizations must continue to actively recruit individuals who are the most qualified or even overqualified for positions. If an opportunity for advancement or a bonus may be available in the future, this can be communicated to the overqualified employee in advance to reduce negative attitudes; however, this approach should be used with caution, as employees may become extremely discouraged and dissatisfied if they believe they will advance or be given a bonus and neither occur. Hiring individuals who possess skills and abilities greater than those required of the position ultimately benefits the organization when coupled with giving the employee more autonomy and control, while communicating that they are a valued entity within the organization. This can aid in reducing both negative job attitudes and intentions to quit of these overqualified employees.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group