PSYC 31773 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Multiple Correlation, United Steelworkers, Base Rate
24 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Personnel Decisions
The Social Context for Personnel Decisions
Social and cultural context of the organization
Nepotism- family members of current employees are more likely to be hired
Personnel selection tests
oStart with “shibboleth” test in the bible
Calling as a cause of job choice
oWhen the job finds you
oFollowing your passion
Legal Context for Personnel Decisions
Civil rights act 1964
oTitle VII- unlawful employment
oProtects race, gender, religion, color, national origin
oApplicable to all personnel decisions
oAge discrimination in employment act
American with disabilities act 1990
oDisability
oMajor life activity
oReasonable accommodation
oUndue burden or hardship
Adverse impact- discrimination on the bias of two legal theories
oAdverse impact- effects groups differently
ie. Women are more likely to be hired as nannies than men
oDisparate treatment- groups are being treated differently during the selection
process
Ie. Giving women a strength test but not men
4/5 rule- tests for adverse impact
o80% selection ratio
oIf the ratio for one group is less than 80% of another group
If adverse impact is found
oEstablish the test is valid
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
oChoose a test with no adverse impact
Equal opportunity commission
oProduced uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures
Diversity- having a workforce that reflects demographic differences in society
oDiversity in the workforce, not in performance
Inclusion- making sure the diversity of people works well together
Diversity validity dilemma- individuals from all groups don’t score equally on personnel
selection tests
oWorkforce productivity vs equal opportunity remains a dilemma
Stereotype threat- apprehension of a group that their behavior may conform to a stereotype
Major court cases:
oGriggs vs duke power company- it is the company’s job to make sure their personnel
selection tests are fair
oAlbemarle vs moody- EEOC regulations receive deference of law
Must be followed even though they weren’t written by congress
oBakke vs university of California- reverse discrimination
can’t discriminate against majority or minority groups
oUnited steelworkers vs weber- affirmative action as a remedy for pat misdeeds
oWatson vs Fort Worth bank trust- cost of selection methods
oAffirmative action- social policy that attempts to reduce the effects of past
discrimination
oFour goals-
Correct present inequities
Compensate past inequities
Provide role models
Promote diversity
oThree interpretations of implementing affirmative action
Passive interpretation- follow procedures that only effect recruitment
Preferential selection interpretation- if there are equally qualified
candidates the company will choose the minority candidate for the position
Quota interpretation- company has a set quota of minority employees to
hire
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Nepotism- family members of current employees are more likely to be hired. Personnel selection tests: start with shibboleth test in the bible. Calling as a cause of job choice: when the job finds you, following your passion. Civil rights act 1964: title vii- unlawful employment, protects race, gender, religion, color, national origin, applicable to all personnel decisions, age discrimination in employment act. American with disabilities act 1990: disability, major life activity, reasonable accommodation, undue burden or hardship. Adverse impact- discrimination on the bias of two legal theories: adverse impact- effects groups differently ie. women are more likely to be hired as nannies than men, disparate treatment- groups are being treated differently during the selection process. Giving women a strength test but not men. 4/5 rule- tests for adverse impact: 80% selection ratio, if the ratio for one group is less than 80% of another group.
