|
The HR Chally Group
The Return to Competency-Based Selection
In the late 1960's and through the 1970's, many employers used employee selection as a means to ensure work force diversity, reducing de facto discrimination. Others viewed selection as a necessary evil with many dangers and traps. As a result, these employers acted defensively to avoid litigation. In both cases, emphasis often shifted from selecting the best qualified people to acquiring the right "mix" of employees.
The competitive pressures of the 1980's, however, produced a dramatic shift. In 1988, Jim Sharf, a Research Psychologist with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), pointed out that, "We are returning to a focus on individual competence. . . objective standards are coming back in both education and employment."1
The Pivotal Role for Testing
Nowhere has this trend towards competency been more visible than in the use of testing to select employees. In the article, "Testing Makes A Comeback," Chris Lee points out that, "During the egalitarian 1970's, any systematic attempt to sort out skills was often unpopular."2 This began to change during the 1980's and into the 1990's when an estimated 80% to 90% of companies used pre-employment testing.3 Another survey by researchers Randall, Cooke, and Smith established that 95% of employers who tried testing for screening sales candidates were still using it.4
Employment Testing and the Supreme Court
In the late 1960's and 1970's, negative attention was focused on different orms of "employment testing," even though the earliest Supreme Court decision, Griggs vs. Duke Power Company, established that, "Nothing in the Act [1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII] precludes the use of testing or commands that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origin."5
The Basics of Legal Employment
Typically, employers are free to establish any criteria for employment practices they choose, as long as they:
- Do not conflict with any negotiated commitment, such as a union or employee contract; and
- Do not have a discriminatory impact on any protected class without demonstrating a valid reason consistent with business necessity.
In the latter case, if there is a non-discriminatory alternative with an equally valid business justification, then the alternative should be used. This is a critical point since testing can often be shown to be non-discriminatory but most interviews cannot.
FOOTNOTES:
1 Chris Lee, "Testing Makes a Comeback," Training, Vol. 25, Dec. 1988, p. 49.
2 Ibid, p. 50.
3 Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer, "When Quotas Replace Merit, Everybody Suffers," Forbes, Feb. 1993, p. 80.
4 E. James Randall and others, "A Successful Application of The Assessment Center Concept To The Salesperson Selection Process," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, May 1985, p 53.
5 Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. -- US Sup Ct (1971), 3 FEP Cases 175.
|
