Employee Selection: Hiring and Recruitment

• Employee selection involves screening, evaluating, and assessing applicants until a final hiring decision is made.
• Selection includes hiring external applicants and deciding on internal promotions.
• Recruitment and hiring are expensive, making finding the right fit crucial.
• Non-discriminatory hiring practices are essential to avoid ethical and legal consequences.

Selection Systems

• Many larger organizations use sequential systems for hiring from larger applicant pools.
• Sequential steps include initial resume review, interviews, selection instruments, criminal record checks, and salary negotiation.
• Scalable and cost-effective methods are used to narrow down candidates for further investment.

Selection Ratio

• Both job applicants and employers want quick and suitable hiring.
• Strong recruitment leads to a lower selection ratio, benefiting employers.
• A lower selection ratio means more applicants per position, allowing stricter screening and greater bargaining power.

Selection Ratio Equation

• SR = (Number of Hires) / (Number of Candidates)

Discrimination in Selection

• It is critical to avoid discrimination in employee selection decisions.
• In Canada, a selection test is legally defensible only if it doesn't demonstrate systematic bias leading to discriminatory outcomes.
• As an HR practitioner, one may need to defend the use of selection metrics.
• Biased methods prevent hiring qualified applicants due to construct-irrelevant variance, making them ineffective.

Moore Test for Discrimination Complaints

• A complainant must demonstrate three things:
• They have a characteristic protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
• They experienced an adverse impact.
• Their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact, not necessarily the only factor.

Onus of Proof

• If discrimination is established, the onus shifts to the respondent.
• The respondent must provide evidence justifying their conduct or practice.

Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFOR)

• A BFOR is a standard or rule integral to performing a specific role in the workplace.
• Human Rights Acts in Canada allow employers to defend discriminatory policies as BFORs.
• The Tawney Meiorin case introduced a three-step test:
  • The test must be rationally connected to job performance.
  • The employer must have an honest belief that the test was necessary.
  • The test must be reasonably necessary for a legitimate work-related purpose, making accommodation impossible without undue hardship.

Consequences for Employers

• If an employment test discriminates based on a protected ground, consequences may arise.
• A Human Rights Tribunal can order the employer to stop using the test.
• Courts and Tribunals can award compensatory damages, punitive awards, lost income, reinstatement, or systematic remedies.
• Historically, damages had low caps, but some provinces now have no maximum caps.

Defensibility and "Job Relatedness"

• If an employment test discriminates, the employer must prove its validity.
• The Canadian Human Rights Commission emphasizes "job relatedness" over specific validation strategies.
• Courts and Tribunals consider whether the test is relevant to the necessary duties of the job.

Challenging Bias

• A process exists for complaints of bias in employment tests.
• The affected applicant ("complainant") meets with the Human Rights Commission, which reviews the allegation.
• The employer ("respondent") is given a chance to respond if the allegation is accepted.
• If discrimination is found, the onus shifts to the employer to prove the test's validity.

Test Validity

• Validity is the extent to which a test measures the intended construct.
• Content validity: Does the test know what the job actually requires?
• Construct validity: Does the test simulate requirements of the job?
• Criterion validity: Are candidates who do better on the test better employees?
• Selection context focuses on whether decisions reflect "true score" differences in job competence, without bias.

Content Validity

• Content validity is the extent to which a test represents the entire domain of the construct.
• Selection considers if the job definition includes all relevant elements without including elements of other jobs.
• A well-done job analysis supports this type of validity.

Construct Validity

• Construct validity is the appropriateness of inferences made from observations or measurements.
• Selection considers if the assessment can reasonably assess the competencies needed for the job's duties.
• Selection tests should reflect the established "domain" defining the job.
• Construct validity relates to whether a test is factually related to that domain.

Criterion Validity

• Criterion validity measures the extent to which test scores predict later relevant outcomes.
• Selection considers whether the assessment effectively distinguishes which applicants will perform effectively if hired.
• The test should measure aspects important for actual job success.
• Predicting safe, minimally competent performance is legally more important than predicting excellent performance.

Reliability

• Reliability is the stability and consistency of scores on a measure.
• Scores can be reliable through stability or internal consistency.
• Selection involves whether different questions/tests yield consistent results and whether applicants score similarly over time.

Legal Use of Validation Evidence

• Empirical and statistical validation evidence can be useful when employment decisions are challenged.
• Canadian Courts and Tribunals often lack the sophistication to make full use of numerical information.
• Canadian tribunals often weigh personal testimony over statistical evidence for protected groups.
• Statistical evidence, by itself, may not be sufficient to prove discrimination.
• Statistical evidence can be considered in cases such as:
  • Statistics on the small proportion of female versus male employees in the organization in Travail des Femmes v. CN.
  • Regression analysis indicating differences in male versus female interview rates in Blake v. The Ministry of Correctional Services and Mimico Correctional Institute (1984).

Physical Ability Tests

• These tests may be given for jobs with physical requirements like firefighting or military service.
• Testing might also involve specific tests, like vision tests for airplane pilots.
• They may lead to discrimination but can be allowable if traits are required for safe, competent performance.

Cognitive Ability Tests

• Cognitive ability tests (IQ tests) are sometimes used in hiring.
• Meta-analytic evidence shows they predict job performance and have high criterion validity.
• They can create bias via written testing; alternatives exist like Raven's progressive matrices.
• There is no law against intelligence testing in Canadian employment.
• Defensibility depends on whether the tests cause discrimination that cannot be justified as a BFOR.
• It's important to consider how intelligence testing affects applicant perceptions and recruitment.

Aptitude Tests and Work Samples

• Some employers use specific aptitude tests instead of general cognitive tests.
• Some may create simulations or work samples to assess applicants with "day on the job" tasks.
• These tasks should be a legitimate representation of the entire range of work performed.
• These simulations often only include a small portion of work being done.
• Tasks studied must be necessary for safe and effective performance.

Polygraph Tests

• Polygraph tests can be controversial and research indicates they are often ineffective.
• Their legal defensibility is based on potential for bias, not effectiveness.
• Ontario and New Brunswick don't allow polygraph testing in employment.
• Polygraph tests are permitted for pre-employment screening in federally-regulated ones requiring high security.

Alcohol and Drug Testing

• The legality of testing is limited in Canada.
• Most jurisdictions equate it to a medical exam, usable only after a conditional offer of employment.
• Testing primarily considers safety-sensitive positions due to safety concerns.
• Employers have to accommodate testing if there is a positive result, and up to the point of undue hardship.
• While addiction is considered a disease, there are variations amongst jurisdictions.

Final Thoughts

• Finding the right candidate is challenging.
• Defining the job thoughtfully, then fitting selection metrics to the needed job performance is important to the hiring process.
• Legal emphasis in Canada is on avoiding bias/discrimination, not on a hiring tool’s effectiveness per se.
• Effective selection involves legal compliance and evidence-based best practices.