Selection and training across cultures

Ron Fischer

Psyc338

Overview

• Practices used by organizations to select the right people for a job

• Selection methods– Cultural differences

• Training– Cultural assumptions about training– Appropriateness of training methods

Importance of considering cultural impact

• Culturally diverse workforce

• Multinational organizations

• Adaptation of tests & internationalisation of test procedures

• Bias in test material, procedure and interpretation

Selection Process

Source of figure: Fisher, Schoenfeldt, & Shaw (2003), Figure 7.1

• Measure applicants’ qualifications– Use good measures: reliable & valid

• Select which applicant to hire

• Evaluation of process

Types of selection methods• Interviews (structured, unstructured)• Psychological testing

– Mental ability (IQ)– Personality – Integrity (honesty)– Projective tests– Graphology

• Work sample tests• CV, application blanks• Biographical info (biodata, life histories)• Reference checks• Assessment Centres (AC)

Validity (r) Gain in validity

% increase in validity

GMA .51 Work sample tests .54 .12 24 Integrity tests .41 .14 27 Conscientiousness .31 .09 18 Employment interview (structured) .51 .12 24 Employment interview (unstructured) .38 .04 8 Job knowledge test .48 .07 14 Job tryout procedure .44 .07 14 Peer rating .49 .07 14 Training & Experience behavioural consistency method

.45 .07 14

Reference checks .26 .06 12 Job experience (years) .18 .03 6 Biographical data .35 .01 2 AC .37 .02 4 Training & Experience point method .11 .01 2 Years of education .10 .01 2 Interests .10 .01 2 Graphology .02 .00 0 Age -.01 .00 0

Differences across cultures

• Substantial differences across Western, industrialized nations– Interviews & CV’s important everywhere– Graphology important in France– AC (UK, Germany, NL, less in France &

Belgium)– Testing (France, Belgium, less in Germany &

UK)– Personality tests widespread in NZ

How could these difference be explained?

• Ryan et al. 1999:– Sample of 959 organizations in 20 countries

• Measures:– Number of methods used– Extent of methods used– Number of verification methods (check credibility & employee

record through various means)– Extent of verification methods– Number interviews– Number of (psychological) tests & extent

• Cultural variables: power distance (PD) & uncertainty avoidance (UA)

Results

• More variance due to organizational differences than national differences– Variance explained by national differences between 5% and

43%

• UA & PD explained some of this variation:– High PD: more interviews; peers less likely to be involved in

interviews– High UA: less verification (stick to tried & tested, no trust in

employer references & group/panel interviews; reliance on biodata, job trials, one-on-one interviews)

– High UA: more testing, more extensively used– Explained variance between 0% and 9%

Economic, legal, political variables?

Organizational Selection Practices

Power distance &Uncertainty avoidance

Other cultural variables???

????

Favourability perceptions

Selection method

US Germany Spain Portugal South Africa

France (non-students)

Interview Good Good Good Good Good Good CV Good Good Good Good Good Good Work samples Good Good Good Good Good Good Biodata Good Poor Medium Medium Good Medium Ability tests Medium Medium Medium Medium Good Medium-Good References Medium Good Medium Medium Medium Medium Personality

tests Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium-Good

Honesty tests Poor Medium Poor Medium Medium Poor Personal

contacts Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor

Graphology Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor

Importance of procedural justice dimensions in favourability reactions

US South Africa France

Scientific evidence Strong Strong Medium Employer’s right Strong Strong Strong Opportunity to

perform Strong Strong Strong

Interpersonal warmth Medium Medium Weak Face validity Strong Strong Strong Respectful of privacy Medium Medium Weak

Some other cultural dimensions?

• Human nature: Good vs. Bad

• High vs. Low Context

• Traditional vs. charismatic vs. legal-bureaucratic societies

• Past/present/future orientation

Some more general (implicit) problems Highly relevant in a NZ context

• Scientific testing– What is our criterion (what kind of people with what

kind of capabilities do we try to hire)?

• Do we get the people we need? Do we get the skills we need?

• What are our tests like??? Do they measure ‘things’ in a cultural appropriate way?

• What are our test procedures like? Are they culturally appropriate?

Training

• Up-skill employees, increase competencies,

• Increase effectiveness

Cultural assumptions

• Is it possible to train people?

• Aycan et al. (2000)– 1954 managers from 10 countries

Fatalism

Perceptions of malleability

Empowering supervision

Model of culture fit

Cultural variables

OrganizationalVariables

HRM practices

Support in all 10 countries

In expected direction in all 10 countriesSignificant in Israel, Romania, Russia, China , Turkey

How to do training?

• Consider cultural context

• Earley (1994):– Effects of training on efficacy and performance

greater if in congruence with cultural context– Focus on individuals in more individualistic

countries– Focus on groups in more collectivistic cultures

Summary

• Much to be done• An area of great significance and importance

– Include minorities, allow access to employment and advancement, provide skills to marginalized groups and people

• Matching of selection and training methods to cultural contexts important– What dimensions of culture are important?

• How can we detect and overcome bias in selection and training?