MHR 623 Exam 1 PDF

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION Importance of hiring ​ Even with strong recruitment processes, mistakes can happen ​ Cost of a bad hire: up to 5x the hire’s salary or more, depending on the position ​ Common cause: relying on “gut feelings” or personal liking to the ca...

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION Importance of hiring ​ Even with strong recruitment processes, mistakes can happen ​ Cost of a bad hire: up to 5x the hire’s salary or more, depending on the position ​ Common cause: relying on “gut feelings” or personal liking to the candidate rather than assessing actual skills Signs of a bad hire ​ Lacks necessary skills: struggles w/ tasks/equipment required for the job ​ Constant complaints: negative attitude about work, coworkers, or environment ​ Conflicts w/ coworkers: poor fit within org culture + team ​ Missed deadlines: persistent inability to meet deadlines suggest incapability ​ Poor work quality: repeated errors, even after correction ​ Attendance issues: lateness, long breaks, excessive absences ​ Underperformance: frequently asks the same questions + hinders team productivity ​ Low morale: damages team spirit through interpersonal conflicts/blaming colleagues ​ Visible unhappiness: criticizes management and coworkers, wastes time, or makes unreasonable demands ​ Constantly worry: the hire occupies the manager’s thoughts + causes stress What to do with a bad hire ​ Asses the situation and determine if they can either 1) be trained to adapt or 2) transferred to a role that's better suited to them ​ Consider termination as most contracts have probationary periods to discharge without penalty, retaining a bad hire beyond probation will lead only lead to higher costs Why recruitment and selection matter ​ Critical for achieving success and avoiding costly errors ​ Costs: bad hires can cost up to 5x hire hire’s salary, and harm morale, productivity and culture ​ Goal: minimize bad decision using valid, reliable, and legally compliant best practices Best practices in recruitment and selection ​ Best practices are supported by empirical evidence + accepted scientific methods ​ Must comply with legal and professional standards + ethical treatment of applicants ​ Key features include: ○​ Avoid relying on “hunches” / unproven practices ○​ Fair and non-discriminatory ○​ Align with organizational goals & strategic planning Benefits of effective practices ​ Enhanced human capital: improves workforce’s KSAs ​ Helps avoid legal risks ​ Contributes to financial + operational success Talent management: organization’s commitment to recruit, retain, and develop top talent ​ Components of talent management ○​ Involve managers in the recruitment, selection, retention, and development process ○​ Utilizes HRIS (HR information systems) for data tracking and workforce planning ​ HRIS: computer-based systems that track EE data, needs of HR, and the requirements/competencies needed for different positions Recruitment: the generation of a large enough pool of qualified candidates (for selection or promotion) who are likely to accept an offer if presented with one ​ Key factors: align recruitment strategies with strategic objectives, and ensure inclusivity and compliance w/ legal requirements (i.e. human rights, employment equity, labour law) Selection: the identification of candidates with the necessary KSAOs to achieve the goals of the job/organization through the systematic process that meets necessary standards for: ​ Ensuring fairness (i.e. related to procedures) ​ Eliminating the likelihood of discrimination, and ​ Maximizing the usefulness of different assessment tools ​ What functions does selection serve? ○​ Entry-level hiring from external applicants ○​ promotions/ lateral transfers within the organization ○​ Identifying candidates with the necessary KSAs to move into T&D programs How is recruitment different from selection ​ In recruitment ○​ platform you facilitate the outreach on depends on who applies i.e. online job boards, third party headhunters ○​ type of information you share on the job ad (specs) will influence who applies (meet the ideal candidate where they would normally be at) Overall strategic impact ​ Recruitment and selection drive organizational performance ​ Hiring skilled EEs => better productivity => better financial results ​ A structured approach minimizes risks and aligns w/ organizational success Example of a HRM system ​ R&S takes place within a comprehensive ecosystem featuring an interplay of internal + external forces Recruitment and selection as strategic objectives ​ Principles of the HR system ○​ HRM must coordinate w/ other org units and align w/ the larger system ○​ HRM must think strategically and prioritize the organization's welfare ○​ Recruitment and selection should align w/ the organization’s strategy, not just an isolated aspect ​ Vision, mission, and values statements ○​ Vision statements convey an organization’s aspirations, describing future desirable state that serves to guide the organization’s behaviour ​ i.e” “Building tomorrow’s public service today” (Public Service Commission) ○​ Mission statements convey the organization’s core purpose; they define the organization’s business; and they’re the guiding force that provides employees w/ a direction, purpose, and context for their activities ​ i.e. “to enrich the lives of everyone in Westjet’s world” ○​ Vision + mission statements lead to a set of values, captured in the principles or beliefs that guide an organization’s work ​ Value statements: reflect organization’s core beliefs i.e. “customer service is priority one” ​ Develop strategic objectives ○​ Strategy: formulation of organizational objectives, competitive scopes & action plans for achieving the organization’s goals ​ More focused than vision/mission statements ○​ Strategic objectives in recruitment & selection ​ Define the type of talent needed (skills, knowledge, fit with values/culture) ​ Consider diversity, legal compliance, and long-term talent management ​ Analyze the external environment -> be aware of threats + opportunities that involves reviewing technology, laws & regulations, sociocultural factors, changing demographics, etc ○​ Legislative environment (inform and guide treatment of workers and access to opportunity) ​ Recruitment must comply w/ laws protecting the rights of diverse groups ​ i.e. women, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, and people w/ disabilities ​ Hire on the basis of job-related characteristics only (like KSAs) ​ Strategic planning in staffing helps establish R&S systems that are legally defensible ○​ Global competition ​ Canada’s economy is highly globalized (10th most globalized in the world), with trade as a key component ​ Companies must compete globally, emphasizing efficiency and innovation ​ Strategic staffing practices helps maintain competitiveness in domestic + international markets ​ Global competition increases organizational costs -> necessity for new ways to be efficient in hiring and retaining EEs ○​ The economic climate ​ During economic booms (increased level of economic activity), recruitment becomes a priority due to skilled labour shortages ​ During shortages, companies may outsource or seek temporary workers ​ Companies also may become less selective ​ During economic slowdowns, the focus shifts to retention & selective hiring, as there are cutbacks in jobs, pay, benefits, or hiring freezes ○​ Rapid advances in technology & the internet ​ New hires must be literate in basic computer software ​ Technology impacts recruitment through e-recruiting and internet-based hiring platforms ​ Benefits of e-recruiting: larger candidate pools, lower costs, real-time tracking of results, and eliminating printing costs ​ Challenges of e-recruiting: data security and privacy concerns from cyberattacks that can lead to possible identity theft  ○​ Changing workforce demographics ​ The workforce is aging, more people aged 55-64 than those 15-24 ​ Abolition of mandatory retirement at 65 allows older people to continue working but less room for younger people ​ Increased diversity: more gender-balanced, higher educational attainment, and cultural diversity with 19% visible minorities and 4% Aboriginal people ​ HR must adapt policies to address recruitment, retention, and inclusion for a multigenerational + diverse workforce, and meet legislative requirements ○​ Type of organization ​ Public sector: highly formalized recruitment that match accepted professional standards, unionized (70%), and guided by negotiated processes ​ Private sector: recruitment varies by size of organization, ​ Often informal in smaller businesses (due to lack of resources) i.e. using friends/family to recruit or unstructured interview process ​ Structured process in larger organizations ​ HR challenge: encourage best practices across sectors and organization sizes ○​ Organizational restructuring: technology/automation -> less need for labour -> shifts in distribution of roles ​ Early retirements and layoffs address labour surpluses but exacerbate shortages as older + experienced EEs exit ​ Firms implemented early-retirement incentive packages and non-age related layoffs to deal with this ​ Flattening organizational hierarchies involving fewer traditional levels of management ​ Recruitment competition intensifies in a shrinking labour market, emphasizing the need for robust hiring strategies to hire fewer qualified candidates ○​ Redefining jobs: rise in knowledge-based jobs that require greater complexity or decision-making ​ Jobs are evolving, requiring broader skill sets and flexibility ​ Workers must adapt to multitasking, job rotation, and continuous skill development ​ Recruitment should focus on hiring transferable competencies rather than job-specific skills ○​ Unionized work environments ​ 30% of canadian workers are unionized (70% in public and 20% in private) ​ Collective agreements often dictate recruitment & selection processes, prioritizing internal postings + seniority ​ HR must ensure compliance w/ agreements to avoid grievances/arbitration + push for shaping fair and effective hiring policies ​ Identify the competitive edge ○​ Effective recruitment & selection give organizations a competitive advantage by attracting, selecting, and retaining top talent ○​ Targeted recruitment + robust selection practices => hiring the right people ○​ Integrated HR practices lead to higher profit margins, productivity, and organizational commitment (+ lower dysfunctional behaviors and operating costs) ​ Determine the competitive position ○​ Hiring top talent is crucial; even the best strategies and technologies will fail without the right people in place ○​ Organizations must decide whether to compete for top talent by adopting best practices in recruitment & selection to gain an edge ○​ Best practices ​ Traditional hiring methods (i.e. resumes and brief interviews) are insufficient in today’s economy and legal landscape ​ Recruitment & selection are influenced by broader socio-economic + organizational contexts ​ Effective recruitment & selection align w/ HR practices to support fairness and inclusivity  ​ Key considerations: identifying job-specific needs, ensuring fairness across diverse groups, and accommodating disabilities ​ Implement the strategy ○​ HR must design a clear + actionable plan to achieve strategic recruitment and selection goals ○​ Action plans should include step-by-step processes that focus on hiring and retaining top talent while adhering to legal and practical standards ○​ Elements of a recruitment and selection action plan (image) -> pg 14 textbook ​ Evaluate the performance ○​ Evaluation determines the success of recruitment & selection efforts ○​ Key metrics: increase in high quality applicants? potential of new hires to enhance org efficiency? ○​ Regular performance assessments ensure alignment w/ strategic goals and continuous improvement Recruitment and selection and the HR profession ​ Awareness of external + internal influences ○​ HR must be informed about the external/internal factors that can impact the workplace ○​ HR should avoid isolating within the organization by engaging w/ broader professional networks and maintaining continuous learning within their profession ​ Professional responsibility ○​ HR is responsible for implementing recruitment & selection policies that align with the latest legal + scientific standards ○​ The policies should adhere to professional standards and aim to recruit & select the best talent ​ Role of HR staff and consultants ○​ Recruitment & selection process is often by in-house staff, sometimes supported by management consultants ○​ HR practitioners come from diverse educational backgrounds and gain expertise through practical experience ​ Professional associations (i.e. CPHR, formerly CHRP) ○​ Many HR practitioners are members of professional associations + hold certifications in their area of specialization ○​ Associations provide members with rights and obligations, such as adhering to ethical standards/codes of conduct ○​ Chartered Professional in Human Resources (CPHR) is used in Canada ○​ Benefits of this professional association ​ Membership prevents isolation ​ Offers support in ethical decision-making ​ Provides codes of conduct to protect both the HR professional and their clients that align with industry standards ○​ How to become a CPHR diagram -> pg 17 An introduction to ethical issues and professional standards ​ Understanding ethics ○​ Ethics: determination of right and wrong; the standards of appropriate conduct for members of a profession; what those members may or may not do ○​ While laws impose penalties for illegal actions, ethics addresses behaviours in the grey area between clearly illegal & universally accepted conduct ​ Professional standards and guidance ○​ Professional standards: provide guidance on how HR professionals should behave in certain situations, i.e. in employment tests ○​ In recruitment & selection, they advise on matters i.e. appropriate use of employment tests, test standards, and qualifications of the test administrators ​ Ethics in employment testing ○​ Ethical standards govern the use of employment tests, emphasizing the protection + welfare of the people being tested  ○​ The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists outlines 4 principles: 1)​ Respect for dignity of persons and peoples 2)​ Responsible caring 3)​ Integrity in relationships 4)​ Responsibility to society ○​ These principles cover confidentiality, informed consent, and ensuring competence of test administrators and interpreters ​ Ethical codes for HR professionals ○​ The Canadian Council of Human Resource Associations (CCHRA) provides an ethical code for H4 practitioners ​ P1: members must perform their professional duties honourable, competently, and with integrity ​ P2: members must protect and promote the HR association and cooperate w/ the professional association ​ P3: members must act in the best interest of their clients + ER ​ P4: members must advance workplace health & safety, human rights, equity, dignity, and well-being ​ Enforcement and accountability ○​ Ethical codes ensure accountability ○​ Concerns regarding professional behaviour can be brought to regulatory bodies ○​ These standards aim to guide HR professionals in maintaining ethical practices while safeguarding the interests of individuals and society Ethical dilemmas in recruitment and selection ​ Ethical dilemmas often arising during employment testing of applicants through various selection tools ​ Interviews are legally and ethically equivalent to other employment tests and must adhere to professional standards, especially when the decision is high-stakes ​ Examples of ethical dilemmas -> pg 21 ○​ i.e. you’re an HR manager who wants to use a selection system that selects top talent, but it also screens out visible minorities more than white people. The dilemma is if you should use this system to improve productivity or use another system that may not be as productive ○​ i.e. taking into account professional-based information when making the hiring decision and not personal characteristics ​ Written codes provided by professional associations help navigate these situations, whilst membership is a public guarantee that they will adhere in accordance with accepted principles ​ Consequences of ethical violations ○​ Violation can result in professional censure, embarrassment, or removal from the profession if severe enough Human resources and the internet ​ The internet has revolutionized access to information + resources for recruitment & selection, so now HR staff and students have data available for every aspect of the recruitment process ​ Useful resources regarding recruitment & selection -> pg 22 CHAPTER 2: RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY Introduction ​ Selection seeks to identify candidates who possess attributes required for effectiveness on the job ○​ KSAOs -> also known as job/worker specifications ​ The employer’s goal is to hire the one who possesses the required KSAOs (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, Other attributes) to perform the job successfully ​ Must be job relevant to help predict job performance in the process of selection (predictive) ​ If shown to be predictive, one can be confident that using these measures to inform selection decisions provides value and a strong basis for defending them if challenged ○​ Competencies ​ Groups of related behaviours/attributes needed for successful job performance (e.g. leadership) The Hiring Process ​ Toronto Police Service Selection Process: ○​ Applicants must meet minimum requirements and have no unpardoned criminal record. ○​ Testing includes cognitive ability (PATI), written communication (WCT), physical readiness (PREP), behavioral assessment (BPAD), and vision/hearing tests. ​ Key Elements of Selection: ○​ The process includes job duty identification, assessing KSAOs, and ensuring non-discriminatory requirements. ○​ Legal and professional standards must be followed to ensure tests are valid, reliable, and job-related. ​ Common Employer Practices: ○​ Many employers have a less structured hiring process, often based on job advertisements and broad qualifications. ○​ Some rely on informal methods like résumé screening and intuition rather than systematic job analysis. ○​ Decisions are often based on gut feelings or biases, not job-relevant data. ​ Problems with Informal Selection: ○​ Lack of systematic job analysis leads to unstructured, biased decisions. ○​ Hiring decisions may reflect employer biases rather than qualifications or job-related attributes. ○​ No tracking of employee performance to validate hiring decisions. ​ Empirical vs. Intuition-Based Selection: ○​ Empirical, evidence-based selection methods are more reliable, while intuition-based decisions can be biased and less effective. A Selection Model Translating KSAOs into Measurable Predictors: ​ HR specialists must translate identified KSAOs into measurable indicators (e.g., cognitive ability, experience with equipment, emotional stability).  ​ Example: A security dispatcher’s job requires cognitive ability, experience with equipment, and emotional stability under stress. Reliability: the degree to which instruments/tools yield comparable data over time ​ Reliability refers to the consistency/dependability of a measurement used from repeat applications of a measurement tool, ○​ i.e., how stable and dependable the results are over time ​ Degree to which observed scores are free from random measurement errors ○​ The more random/larger error, the less reliable the tool of measurement is ○​ Smaller the difference of error between 2 scores = the more reliable the test Methods to measure reliability ​ Common assumption: consistent variability across measurements represent true score variability, while inconsistency across measurements reflect random error ○​ Parallel (alternate) forms ​ Administration of different forms of a test – oral vs. written – to different groups ○​ Test and retest ​ The same test is given to the same group of people at two different times. ​ High correlations between scores on both occasions suggest high reliability. ○​ Alternate forms ​ Two different versions of the same test are given to the same group of people. ​ This method avoids recall bias from retaking the same test. ​ High correlations between scores on both versions indicate reliability. ○​ Internal consistency ​ Correlations between all possible pairs of items calculated and averaged ​ Measures the reliability of a test by analyzing correlations between all possible pairs of items in the test. ​ Average correlation (alpha coefficients or Cronbach’s alpha) estimates how well all items measure the same characteristic. ○​ Inter-rater reliability ​ Assesses the consistency of ratings between different raters. ​ Multiple raters/assessors conduct independent measures of same group ​ High agreement between raters suggests high reliability, important in subjective assessments like performance reviews. ​ Reliability coefficient: degree that the observed scores (made on the same stable characteristic) correlate w/ each other ○​ Closer to 0.0 means measurement errors ○​ Closer to 1.0 means variability in score reflects true score variability ○​ Tests should not be accepted/reject solely based on the size of the coefficient -> should be atleast 0.8 ​ Reliability vs. Validity: A reliable test can consistently measure, but it may not accurately reflect the true performance or ability (e.g., if a cognitive test always underestimates scores, it’s reliable but not valid) ​ It remains within the professional judgment of the HR specialist to choose an appropriate index of reliability and to determine the level of reliability that is acceptable for use of specific measure. Measurement Error ​ Measurement error is the difference between an individual’s observed score and their true score.  ○​ True score: avg score someone gets on repeating the test infinite number of times ○​ Error score: hypothetical difference between the observed score and a true score - errors are attributed to the measurement process and not the individual ​ Factors that introduce error: temporary individual characters, lack of standardization, chance ​ Types of Errors: ○​ Random Errors occur due to chance -> when measuring the same item multiple times and while doing everything slightly each time, we get slightly different results ○​ Systematic Errors occurs when the same kind of error is made everytime we use the tool ​ Systematic errors may still mean a test is reliable, but it’s not valid ​ Example: A time clock that consistently stamps incorrect times has a systematic error but may still be reliable in reporting times consistently (if always off by 5 minutes) ​ (may be related to identifiable characteristics => bias) ​ Both systematic and random errors reduce the usefulness of measurements, lowering confidence in their accuracy. ​ Impact on Employment Decisions: ○​ Errors must be considered when making employment decisions, as they affect the reliability of test scores and the conclusions drawn from them. ○​ Factors to consider include the sources, size, and consistency of the error across different settings or individuals. ​ Standard Error of Measurement: ○​ This statistical index summarizes the error in measurements, showing how scores would vary on average across repeated observations under identical conditions. VALIDITY ​ Validity: Validity refers to the correctness or legitimacy of inferences drawn from a set of measurements or other specified procedures. ○​ Measures & tests used to capture applicants’ KSAOs must measure them well + be relevant to job performance ​ Extent to which data from a selection method are related/predictive to future job performance ​ Does the assessment measure what it’s supposed to measure ○​ Example: Height measured during an interview may be reliable, but inferring cognitive ability from height is invalid. ○​ Important Distinction: Validity is not about the quality of the test itself but whether it accurately measures what it’s supposed to measure. ​ Challenges in Validity: ○​ Human Resources: Unlike physical measurements (e.g., height), there are no external standards for human attributes (e.g., cognitive ability or personality). ○​ Validity of psychological measures is harder to demonstrate due to abstract constructs like cognitive ability, which may be underrepresented or influenced by unrelated factors. ​ Constructs and variable ○​ Construct ​ Concepts constructed to explain relationships between observations ​ For example, extraversion – a construct – explains the relationship between “social forthrightness” and sales volume ○​ Variable ​ How someone/something varies on the construct of interest ​ For example, IQ – a variable – represents variability in intelligence (a construct) ​ Validation Strategies ○​ Construct and content validity are validation strategies that provide evidence based on test content ○​ Content validity ​ Whether the items on a test appear to match the content or subject matter they are intended to measure; ​ measured through the judgments of experts in the subject area. ​ Extent to which a selection tool adequately samples (or covers) all KSAOs necessary for job performance ​ Example: Assessing flight attendant readiness we should assess Customer service AND knowledge of safety procedures are both part of their duties... If your selection method only focuses on assessing customer service -> that is not adequate & doesn’t fully assess them for all that is needed to perform the job Is the test measuring what it intended to measure? And does that tell us something about performance? ○​ Construct validity ​ The degree to which a test or procedure assesses an underlying theoretical construct it is supposed to measure and not other constructs ​ assessed through multiple sources of evidence showing that it measures what it purports to measure and not other constructs. ​ Extent to which a selection tool measures a theoretical construct/trait i.e. intelligence ​ For example, an IQ test must measure intelligence and not personality. ○​ Criterion-related validity ​ The relationship between a predictor (test score) and an outcome measure; assessed by obtaining the correlation between the predictor and outcome scores. ​ Extent to which a selection tool predicts or significantly correlates with important components of behaviour or performance on the job ​ E.g., Is a business development employee’s sales record/numbers predictive of or correlated with their overall job performance? ○​ Face validity ​ The degree to which the test takers (not subject matter experts) view the content of a test or test items as relevant to the context in which the test is being administered. ​ Doesn’t substitute other tests of validity ○​ Predictive validation ​ evidence is obtained about a correlation between pre-hire predictor scores (i.e. cognitive ability) and post-hire criterion scores (i.e. performance) ​ Problem is does the validity coefficient only apply to those hired or all applicants? ○​ Concurrent validation ​ Strategies in which evidence is obtained about a correlation between predictor and criterion scores from information that is collected at approximately the same time from a specific group of workers ​ Problem is current group of workers is more experienced - can validity coefficients based only on successful applicants be used as evidence? ​ Validity generalization: the application of validity evidence obtained from situations, applied to other situations that are similar to those on which meta-analysis is based ○​ If there is a large and consistent database of meta-analysis studies relevant to the job in question, using validity generalization is viable.  ○​ However, if the database is small or inconsistent, a local validity study may be necessary to obtain more accurate and relevant results. ○​ A local study can help corroborate or challenge the findings from validity generalization. Factors Affecting Validity Coefficients - useful when 0.21 or above ​ Range Restriction: ○​ Occurs when measurements are taken from a more homogeneous subgroup than the larger population. ○​ Effect: Validity coefficients are smaller for more homogeneous groups (e.g., selected employees) than for broader applicant pools. ○​ Example: If a cognitive ability test is used to select employees, those selected are likely to have more similar cognitive abilities, leading to a lower correlation between cognitive ability and job performance. ○​ Statistical Correction: There are methods to correct for range restriction and estimate the validity coefficient for the broader group. ​ Measurement Error (Attenuation): ○​ Measurement error limits the maximum possible validity of a test. ○​ Effect: Validity coefficients are reduced when the predictor or criterion measures are not perfectly reliable (attenuation) ○​ Correction: Statistical methods can estimate the validity coefficient assuming perfect reliability. ​ Sampling Error: ○​ Validity coefficients are estimates based on samples, and these estimates can vary significantly depending on sample size. ○​ Effect: Small samples tend to produce more variable estimates of validity. ○​ Solution: Accumulating data from similar jobs or using validity generalization helps mitigate random errors from small samples. ​ Correcting errors -> both the corrected and uncorrected validity coefficients should be reported along w/ justification for the use of the correction (i.e. affects validity) Bias and Fairness ​ Bias (systematic errors in measurements/inference related to identifiable individual characteristics) ○​ Predictive Bias: ​ Occurs when a test or measure predicts different outcomes for different groups, even if no actual differences exist. ​ Example: A cognitive ability test that gives higher scores to women (even though men and women have equal cognitive abilities) can lead to women being unfairly overrepresented in job offers, based on biased predictions of job performance. ​ Outcome: This results in unfair hiring practices, where certain groups are systematically favored or disadvantaged. - helps to generate separate regression lines for different groups ○​ Measurement Bias: ​ Happens when test items elicit different responses from different subgroups, leading to mismeasurement. ​ Example: The Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test may favor males who are more familiar with tools, causing the test to underestimate the mechanical ability of females.  ​ Effect: Measurement bias can distort the true abilities of individuals from different groups. ​ Important to pick selection devices that don’t discriminate based on non-job related characteristics ​ Fairness ○​ ○​ Fairness: every test taker should be assessed in an equitable manner ​ Fairness is a social concept, not a psychometric one, and depends on personal or societal definitions. ​ Fairness cannot be determined solely through statistical or empirical methods—it involves perceptions. ​ Example: An organization may consider it fair to hire more women to increase diversity, but men passed over for these positions may perceive the decision as unfair. ○​ Three Key Aspects of Fairness: ​ Fairness in the testing process: ​ All examinees should experience the same testing procedures, scoring methods, and use of scores. ​ Fairness as lack of bias: ​ A test is fair if it does not produce systematic effects based on identifiable characteristics (e.g., age, sex, race). ​ Fairness in selection and prediction: ​ A test may be considered fair if it predicts the same performance level across all groups. However, it may be seen as unfair if average test scores differ by group, even if the test accurately predicts performance for all groups. CHAPTER 3: LEGAL ISSUES Intro ​ HR professionals may have to inform hiring managers if a potential recruitment decision violates human rights legislation, as they’re more knowledgeable of the law ​ Laws, policies, and practices may vary across jurisdiction -> a BC human rights tribunal decision may have no applicability in another province PART I: a basic background in legal requirements for nondiscriminatory recruitment and selection 4 sources that affect recruitment and selection processes 1)​ Constitutional law ​ Does not directly affect everyday recruitment & selection activities, only affects recruitment & selection activities when they are challenged at high levels ​ Section 52(1) establishes that the Constitution Act, 1982 is Canada’s Supreme Law ○​ All other laws passed (legislative, executive, administrative) must comply with it ​ Section 15 sets of the principle of equality rights and prohibition of discrimination, and is cited in employment law ○​ “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” 2)​ Human rights law ​ Prohibits discrimination (the act of refusal to employ or adversely affect a current employee due to the individual’s membership in a protected group) ○​ Prohibited grounds that are common in all jurisdictions ​ Race, colour, religion, creed, age, sex, marital status, disability, and sexual orientation ​ Establishes the framework for human rights commissions/tribunals to deal with complaints ○​ i.e. the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) ○​ It is the responsibility of the victim of discrimination to file a complaint with the human rights commission that has jurisdiction over the employer ○​ Highest amount of complaints filed are related to disability-related discrimination ​ Companies operate under the jurisdiction of laws applicable to their region (federal, provincial, or territorial) ○​ i.e. an Ontario corporation is governed by the Ontario Human Rights code, not the Canadian Human Rights Act ○​ Corporations operating in more than one province/territory must register in each jurisdictions and ensure they follow what laws say in that region ​ What falls under the Canadian Human Rights Act? (federal) ○​ Crown corporations ○​ Federally regulated businesses i.e banks, telecommunications, airlines, railways, broadcasting (CBC), Canada Post ○​ Those registered under the Canada Business Corporations Act 3)​ Employment equity legislation  ​ Employment equity -> eliminating discriminatory barriers that prevent entry from certain groups into the workforce, and to ensure selection requirements are realistic and job-related ​ Administrative mechanisms set up by organizations in response to federal employment legislation initiatives, includes mechanisms for enforcement + sanctions for violations ​ Intended to promote entry and retention from designated groups ​ Goals of employment equity legislation ○​ Achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability ○​ Correct conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by members of designated groups ​ Application ○​ Organizations regulated under the Canada Labour Code, AND have 100+ employees ○​ Federal Contractors Program – contractors who bid for federal government contacts valued $1,00,000 ○​ Pertains specifically to 4 designated groups: women, visible minorities, disabled people, Aboriginal people ​ Designated vs. protected group ○​ Those who have attributes defined as “prohibited grounds” for discrimination under the human rights act that applies to the employer ○​ Designated group only applies to the 4 above ​ Legislation -> Allows the Canadian Human Rights Commission to audit employers for compliance ○​ Federal Employment Equity Act applies to all federal public + private employers, & federal government workers ○​ Provincial employment equity programs mostly limited to government programs/public-sector workers, except Quebec who extends to the private sector ​ How are employment equity & human rights different? ○​ Human rights commission are reactive; they respond to complaints about alleged discrimination ○​ Employment equity programs are proactive; requiring employers to increase number of protected group members in the workplace 4)​ Labour law, employment standards, and privacy legislation ​ Labour law provides mechanisms to resolve procedural/contractual disagreements in the employment RS, including rights to unionize and bargain collective agreements, and imposes a wide range of employment responsibilities and obligations ○​ Selection impact: collective agreements set out conditions under which job changes occur i.e. promotions, lateral transfers, and demotions ​ Specify how vacant positions are to be posted and applicants selected (usually internal applicants have preference) ○​ Closed-shop agreements: only union members may work for the organization, so the union has high control over recruitment ​ Specialized legislation for government employees (federal, provincial) that impact recruitment & selection ○​ The Public Service Employment Act designates the Public Service Commission as federal government’s central staffing agency  ○​ Public Service Commission can resolve complaints (i.e. if an applicant believes their qualifications weren’t fairly assessed) ○​ The Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act is a mechanism for federally unionized workers to which the PSSRB will hear complaints about ​ Employment standards regulate conditions of employment i.e. age requirement, standard hours of work, minimum wages, stat holidays, vacations, etc. ​ Privacy law governs the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information collected by employers -> impacts background checks, i.e. PIPEDA for federal jurisdiction ○​ Requires that individuals give consent for the collection, use & disclosure of their personal information & that the collection, use & disclosure is reasonable in the circumstances ○​ Do employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy? ​ HR policies may support or diminish reasonable expectation of privacy ​ Explicit permission for personal use of workplace computers -> reasonable expectation of privacy ​ Explicit statements that all generated on a workplace computer belongs to the organization, and that employees should not expect privacy in connection with personal info stored on the workplace computer -> diminish one’s reasonable expectation of privacy PART II: key legal concepts in recruitment and selection ​ BFOR = bona fide occupational requirement necessary for the job Important cases related to recruitment and selection ​ Dunlop and Harold v. Etobicoke: 2 older firefighters’ collective agreement required to retire at 60 -> went to court claiming age discrimination -> they won their claim and claimed it did not count as a BFOR requirement ​ O’Malley v. Sears: O’Malley requested a different work schedules as Fridays were religious -> Sears terminated her employment -> she claimed direct discrimination -> O’Malley won bc Sears could have accommodated ​ CN Rail v. Bhinder: Bhinder was fired bc he refused to wear a hard hat in construction job, since he had a turban -> claimed his religious freedom was violated -> SCC ruled no discrimination as it was a BFOR requirement ​ CN railway v. Action travail des femmes: female activist group filed a complaint that CN railway engages in discrimination and uses selection systems unfair to women -> Court made them implement an employment equity program ​ Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta OHRC: employee was fired for not coming into work on Monday due to religious reasons -> Dairy Pool claimed it was a BFOR, SCC was found guilty of adverse effect discrimination ​ Okanagan School District v. Renaud: collective agreement made him work Friday evenings -> employee proposed different schedule due to religious beliefs -> he was fired -> Court claimed they had an obligation due to accommodate despite a privacy contract or collective agreement in place ​ Meiorin case: important as it establishes a new provision for FOR, as men and women’s difference in physique should be considered when creating different performance standards ​ Grismer case: Grismer suffered a stroke that left him with visual impairments -> employer cancelled his license and claimed it was a FOR for safe driving -> Cout said it’s discrimination and should prove he can drive safely and the cost to test this was not undue hardship Legal terms and concepts Direct discrimination ​ If direct discrimination occurs, burden is on the employer to show that the rule is valid in application for all members of the affected group ○​ I.e. won’t hire women in a job that involves heavy lifting as employer believes they aren’t strong enough ​ In terms of recruitment and selection ○​ Cannot make statements in job ads that would prohibited protected members from applying, i.e. “single males” ○​ Guidelines to avoid direct discrimination in interviews (refer to below chart) Indirect/Adverse effect discrimination: when an employer adopts a practice in good faith for all employees, but it has unintended + negative impacts based on the individual’s membership in a protected group ​ Women, visible minorities, and Aboriginal people can be negatively affected by a supposedly ‘neutral’ practice ○​ Example: boss asks white male employee for referrals for a job -> white male is likely to have other white male friends -> inadvertently discriminatory bc protected members are less likely to to be hired, regardless of qualifications Adverse impact: when the selection rate for a protected group is lower than that for the relevant comparison group (result of unintentionally exclusionary practices) ​ Based on statistical evidence that proportionally fewer members of a protected group are selected using a selection test (i.e. interview or employment test) ​ How is adverse impact established? ○​ Four-fifths rule or the 80% rule ​ Example: if a company’s hiring rate for Black applicants is less than 80% of the hiring rate for white applicants, the hiring process may be discriminatory ○​ Critique: limitations on both rational and statistical grounds Direct discrimination and adverse effect discrimination ​ Meiorin decision differentiates between the 2 forms of discrimination and has substantial impact on recruitment and selection policies ​ The ruling laid out a unified approach for establishing whether performance standards are discriminatory ​ Case: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU (1999) (Meiorin Case) ○​ Issue: Female firefighter (Meiorin) dismissed for failing an aerobic fitness test; argued the test discriminated based on sex ○​ Supreme Court Ruling: Found the test was discriminatory under Section 15 of the Charter and the BC Human Rights Code ○​ Legal Impact: ​ Established the Unified Discrimination Test for bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR) ​ Employers must prove that a workplace standard is reasonably necessary and cannot be accommodated without undue hardship  ​ Shifted burden to employers to justify employment standards that may disadvantage certain groups ​ Strengthened duty to accommodate in employment law ​ Led to reassessment of physical and other job-related criteria across industries Bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR): justifiable reason for discrimination through an employment practice or policy given that it was reasonable necessary for the job ​ BFOR Test requirements (must meet all 3): 1)​ Rational connection: the standard must be rationally connected to the job’s purpose (does it relate to job performance) 2)​ Good faith: employer must have adopted the standard in good faith, believing it was necessary (was there intent to discriminate 3)​ Reasonable Necessity & Accommodation: The standard must be reasonably necessary, and the employer must show they cannot accommodate affected employees without undue hardship​ ​ In the Meiorin case, BC government failed the third condition ○​ Laid off after only passing ¾ of the tests; last test made you run 2.5km in 11 seconds and she took 49 seconds longer ○​ Researchers who made the test studied various sample groups to validate it ○​ However, the data for the test was gathered in such a way that it didn’t distinguish between males and females (making a female meet male fitness standards is sex-based discrimination) Reasonable accommodation ​ Adjustment of employment policies/practices so that no individual encounters disadvantages or is denied benefits in employment or prevent from carrying out essential components of a job because of grounds prohibited under human rights legislation ​ Employers’ duties ○​ Duty to accommodate (to the point of undue hardship) ​ The point at which employers are expected to accommodate under legislative requirements and beyond which the accommodation becomes impossible as it poses concerns surrounding health, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness ​ Key considerations: ​ efficiency and effectiveness concerns (can’t negatively impact the organization’s survival) ​ health and safety concerns (can’t put others at risk) ○​ Proactively continue to do so ​ What are some examples? ○​ Altering shift schedules ○​ Days off for religious observance ○​ Modifying tasks ○​ Retraining opportunities ○​ Providing assistive devices/tools ○​ Making exceptions when possible (i.e. lunch schedule, dress code policies) ​ Importance of the Renaud decision: establishes a union could be found discriminatory and it needs to support the employer’s reasonable attempts to accommodate an employee Implementing EEA ​ Step 1: Senior Management Commitment and Assignment of Accountable Senior Staff  ​ Step 2: Data Collection and Analysis -> Conduct a survey to determine the representation of designated groups in the organization’s internal workforce ○​ Stock data, flow data ○​ Why is this essential? ​ Underutilization (not using human capital provided by designated groups) ​ Concentration ○​ Set future representation targets for designated groups based on availability of qualified workers in the labour market ​ Step 3: employment systems review ○​ Systemic discrimination, Special measures, Reasonable accommodation ​ Step 4: establishment of a work plan ​ Step 5: implementation ​ Step 6: evaluating, monitoring, and revision * class discussion didn’t go beyond these topics Individual accommodation ​ Bhinder decision ○​ Key Ruling: Once a workplace standard is a BFOR, employers do not need to accommodate individual circumstances ○​ Example: An employer could refuse to modify a manual dexterity test for an applicant with arthritis ​ Partial Reversal of Bhinder due to the Central Alberta Dairy Pool Decision ○​ Adverse impact discrimination -> employer must accommodate to the point of undue hardship ○​ Direct discrimination (when the BFOR itself directly excludes a group) → no obligation to accommodate ○​ Example: ​ If a dexterity test disproportionately excludes those with arthritis, the employer must accommodate ​ If the job itself requires excellent dexterity (e.g., a surgeon), the BFOR stands, and no accommodation is required ​ Meiorin decision (new standard) ○​ Adverse & direct discrimination are both discrimination -> Employers must accommodate individuals even if a BFOR exists ○​ Individual accommodation required instead of treating people as a group ​ Example: Employers must modify dexterity tests for applicants with arthritis, assessing them individually Reasonable alternative ​ Employers must prove no practical substitute exists for a discriminatory practice ○​ Example: If a cognitive ability test disproportionately affects minorities, the employer must show no other valid test with less impact is available ​ Individual accommodation is key, as seen in Andrews v. Treasury Board (1994), where employers had to justify why individual assessment wasn’t possible ​ The Meiorin decision strengthened employers’ obligations to find reasonable alternatives Accommodating physical and mental disabilities  ​ Grismer v. British Columbia applied Meiorin to disability cases, emphasizing individualized rather than standardized testing ​ Employers must incorporate every possible accommodation up to undue hardship ​ Québec v. Montréal broadened the definition of disability and required employers to assess individuals without prejudice or bias Sufficient risk: ​ Employers must accommodate employees unless there is a significant safety risk ○​ Grismer ruled that risk cannot solely justify a discriminatory standard—it must be weighed against human rights ​ Direct discrimination (e.g., excluding people with HIV/AIDS) requires proving: ○​ They pose a significant safety risk ○​ All individuals with the condition present the same risk ○​ Individual testing is impossible ○​ Accommodation would impose undue hardship ​ The risk must be well above minimal; e.g., vision impairment in pilots vs. minor risks for other roles which is in fact acceptable Legal concepts applied to recruitment and selection ​ Action travail des femmes v. Canadian National (1984) ○​ Women’s group in Quebec filed a complaint against CN’s hiring practices. ○​ Alleged CN’s practices excluded women from nontraditional jobs (e.g., trade apprentice, brakeman, coach cleaner) ○​ Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test found to have adverse impact on women and was not validated ○​ Tribunal ordered CN to: ​ Cease discriminatory hiring practices ​ Stop using the Bennett test ​ Implement a special hiring program to increase female representation ​ Andrews v. Treasury Board and Department of Transport (1994) ○​ Hearing-impaired applicant failed a Coast Guard practical hearing test and was denied admission. ○​ Tribunal found the test discriminatory due to: ​ Lack of technical validity and reliability. ​ Inconsistent administration. ​ Absence of comparative norm data. ○​ Tribunal ruled ​ The Coast Guard failed to establish the test as a BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirement). ​ Alternative, less expensive and simpler tests could have accommodated Andrews. ​ His disability did not pose a sufficient risk to justify rejection. ​ Significance: Set a precedent for reasonable and individual accommodation in hiring. Evolving legal concepts ​ Reasonable accommodation – Adjusting hiring practices to allow for equal opportunity ​ Individual accommodation – Assessing cases individually rather than applying blanket standards ​ Reasonable alternative – Employers must consider alternative assessments that are fair and effective  ​ Sufficient risk – Employers must prove that a disability poses a real and significant safety risk PART III: some practical guidelines in nondiscriminatory recruitment and selection Key practical considerations in non discriminatory recruitment ​ Recruitment is complex; effective communication with target group members is key ​ Success depends on: ○​ Effective outreach to target groups ○​ Positive perceptions of the organization by target groups ​ Awareness and positive perceptions drive job applications; mere visibility isn't enough ​ Outreach can be direct (e.g., job postings) or via third parties (e.g., media, word-of-mouth) ○​ Making efforts to include job applicants of designated group members, aware of available positions within the employing organization ​ Example: RBC’s programs for persons with disabilities (Pursue Your Potential, Job Search Assistance, Ability Edge Internships) ​ Legal compliance is essential for recruitment programs to meet human rights and employment equity standard Legal requirements and HR Practice ​ Recruitment and selection practices must be supported by empirical evidence to be legally defensible ​ Practitioners must avoid unsupported claims and use valid, scientifically grounded practices ​ Monitoring and proper implementation are crucial to avoid legal risks ​ HR professionals must bridge research and practice to ensure recruitment systems are based on solid evidence ​ Legal and regulatory frameworks ensure that HR professionals follow accepted standards of ethics and practice ​ Questions for HR to ensure legal compliance: ○​ Do procedures cause direct/indirect discrimination? ○​ Is the procedure justifiable as a BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirement)? ○​ Is the procedure a valid predictor of job performance? ​ HR should educate management about legal requirements to ensure equal opportunity in recruitment ​ A legally defensible selection system must meet validity and reliability standards and avoid intuitive, unproven methods Case: Social media background screening at Fama Technologies Background ​ Founded in 2015 by Ben Mones after experiencing workplace harassment at a previous company ​ Uses AI and natural language processing to screen job applicants' public online content for cultural fit and risk factors ​ Clients include financial services, professional sports, entertainment, and healthcare industries ​ Screens for sexism, intolerance, violence, and other risk factors as per employer preferences Business model and growth ​ Initially manual searches, later developed AI-based automated screening  ​ Secured funding rounds, $2.7M seed funding (2015) and $5M Series A (2018) ​ Faced low SaaS margins (below 70-85%), making fundraising challenging ​ By 2020, 600+ clients, 6,000 screenings per month ​ Shifted business model from pay-per-use to subscription-based SaaS model Industry overview and traditional background screening ​ 95% of U.S. companies conducted background checks ​ Industry worth $3.8 billion in 2021, projected 2.6% annual growth through 2027 ​ Checks typically cover education, employment history, criminal records, credit history, etc ​ Federal laws: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulate background screening ​ "Ban the Box" movement aimed at reducing bias against individuals with criminal records Social media screening controversy ​ 90% of employers review social media; 79% rejected candidates due to online activity ​ Criticism: "Big Brother" surveillance, bias, privacy concerns ​ Some states made it illegal for employers to demand social media credentials ​ Companies risk legal liability if hiring managers see protected-class information AI bias and human oversight ​ Initial human oversight required to train AI models but needed less as the algorithm developed ​ AI learns patterns of misconduct (e.g., harassment, threats, drug use) ​ Regular quality assurance to reduce bias in AI classification Business challenges and COVID impact ​ Early skepticism on AI hiring bias ​ HR tech seen as a commodity, making VC funding difficult ​ COVID-19 disrupted hiring and cash flow, but boosted demand for remote hiring solutions ​ Commercial partnerships with background check firms increased revenue predictability Future expansion and ethical dilemmas ​ Shift from hiring screenings to ongoing employee monitoring for cultural fit ​ Goal: Help companies improve workplace culture and retention ​ Ethical debate: Should employees be monitored beyond hiring decisions? ​ VC challenge: Convincing investors of Fama's long-term value in HR tech space Lecture discussion ​ Using social media to extrapolate how likely you are to perform well or be a good fit of the company ​ Implications in the validity of the tool and whats its added value i.e. cheaper or more reliable alternatives ​ Hiring on the basis of “fit” – managers use this very broadly and not usually in terms of performance and more of a social indicator What limitations of applicant screening practice is Fama Tech’s product/tool seeking to solve? ​ More time-efficient than in-house social media checks, and not as expensive and manual + allows for large-scale candidate screening ​ Argument that AI-driven social media screening helps objectivity (but also an argument that it does the opposite since it feeds off of bias data)  ​ Fama’s tool analyzes social media activity to flag intolerance, sexism, violence, and other red flags, helping employers ensure workplace culture alignment ​ Fama filters out protected-class information to ensure compliance with EEOC and FCRA regulations ​ Doesn’t just assess applicants during hiring process but continues to monitor online activity, helping manage reputation risks​ What are the limitations of using Fama ​ Potential for bias ○​ AI trained on human data that is inherently bias ○​ Context misinterpretation (i.e. humour) can be missed without human interpretation ​ Privacy concerns and ethical issues ○​ Critics argue that social media screening is intrusive and violates candidates' privacy ○​ Candidates may feel unfairly judged based on past online behavior that may not reflect their current character ​ Legal risks ○​ Laws on social media screening vary across states and countries ○​ Risk of lawsuits if candidates claim unfair rejection based on subjective interpretations of their content ​ Limited scope ○​ Candidates can “clean” their online image before applying ○​ Offline behaviour is not considered ​ Potential for misuse ○​ Subjective criteria (i.e., political opinions, personal beliefs) could lead to discriminatory hiring practices if not properly managed ○​ Employers might over-rely on Fama's reports instead of conducting holistic evaluations of candidates