Exercise 1. “Snowballing”
Estimated Time per Job Set: Three Hours
In industrial and organizational psychology, the term “snowballing” often is used to describe the incremental aggregating of a large number of studies for use in psychometric meta-analysis. In “recruitment for security,” this snowballing technique is used to generate a large list of names of individuals who are likely to have interests compatible with a company’s performance and security standards, that is, individuals known to have the general and technical competencies required for the vacated or new job position of security and authority. The best place to begin snowballing is with potential rehires—previous employees who voluntarily left for other jobs. The task is, first, to reconsider and then solicit former employees and, second, to seek their referrals of friends and relatives who also might be contacted for current or future job vacancies.
Begin by reviewing the job description for the general and technical requirements essential to performing the job tasks for the job (or job set) under consideration. For this job (and in this exercise), the task is to make a list from personnel records of previous employees who resigned for better jobs.
Go back into and review the records of previous employees to generate a long list of valued employees who were lost to other companies but who might reconsider the vacated or new job position in your company. Personnel records will reveal qualified performers of reputable character. Inform these individuals of the job vacancy first by either telephone calls or e-mail announcements and then, within two weeks, with follow-up letters of invitation to rejoin your company.
When speaking to or corresponding with these former employees, continue to “snowball” the list by asking them for referrals. Research in social psychology shows that people with similar likes, behaviors, and characteristics are attracted to and associate with one another. In the context of workplace characteristics, the friends and relatives of former employees identified as good performers and with reputations of integrity are likely to share those same attributes; and some of those individuals also may possess the technical requirements for the position of security. After the snowballing list has been made with former employees, next increment this list with referrals from current employees.
Exercise 2. Involve Current Employees
Estimated Time: Three Hours
Replicate the previous exercise involving former employees with current employees. Increment the snowballing list with names obtained from current employees having personnel records showing high workplace performance and security-related characteristics; that is, those individuals having characteristics that match the general competencies from the job analysis and who are likely to know of relatives, friends, customers, or suppliers with similar characteristics. The “general” competencies, recall, pertain to the requirements for a job; for security-related jobs that have access to or use personal or business identifying information, the “Importance to the Job” section in the job analysis would have identified job characteristics such as “trustworthiness,” “conscientiousness,” or similar others. (Recall also that the job analysis is the basis for all personnel functions, beyond recruitment. The job characteristics, therefore, will resurface in Chapter 11 when conducting the “Personnel Selection for Security” exercises.)
Exercise 3. Solicit New Applicants
Estimated Time: Four Hours
Working from the security job description, create an increasingly larger applicant pool by sending e-mail and written announcements to geographically disbursed newspapers and job counseling centers in vocational schools, community colleges, and universities. Also post this announcement on your e-business Web site. The announcement should specify both “general” and “technical” competencies required by the job tasks, as identified by the job analysis and summarized in the job description. Increment the applicant pool list with the names of respondents. Then, for additional names, contact local personnel agencies.
Exercise 4. Use Personnel Agencies with Caution
Some personnel agencies that provide contract or temporary employees may be reliable sources for the job vacancy. But be cautious. From work with police departments and based on investigations conducted in the Michigan State University Identity Theft Crime Lab, some employees who were contracted through personnel agencies have had ulterior motives and have stolen and fraudulently used coworkers’ identities.
Investigations also indicate that some perpetrators obtain contract or temporary employment with a company specifically for the purpose of identity theft. Additionally, research indicates that, relative to permanent employees, temporary employees are less likely to be committed to or satisfied with the job and also often are held to lesser standards of accountability than are the permanent employees. Before using a personnel agency, determine the personnel selection criteria the agency uses to outsource contract or temporary employees. Chapter 11, on personnel selection for security, describes these criteria in detail.
CHAPTER 11
THE PEOPLE FRONT: PERSONNEL SELECTION FOR SECURITY
To compete in the global marketplace, companies require a high-performing workforce. To remain competitive, companies require high internal information security to safeguard their valued assets—the performers and their customers. These goals can be accomplished by selecting job applicants who can perform and who also will comply with a company culture of honesty. The Business Information Security Program (BISP) meets these two objectives using an assessment battery that analyzes the degree of “fit” between an applicant’s qualifications and experience and the demand of the job and also the extent to which an applicant is likely to help enforce and comply with the security standards.
However, certain conditions must be met. The four selection standards—the four tests that comprise the assessment battery—cannot under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines and Title VII be administered to current employees. Current employees perform their jobs well and safeguard the confidentiality of information, or they should not be retained. The purpose of the assessment battery is to lay a foundation in which the job performance and the security of information will be guaranteed for applicants for future employment who are hired into an honest company culture. Using the assessment battery developed in Chapters 11 to 14 for current employees would violate provisions under Title VII for the fairness of personnel practices. However, Chapters 15 and 16 do affect current employees, because here is where the honest company culture is developed and maintained. The combination of selecting job applicants on the basis of integrity for security into a company culture that also promotes integrity for security, using the methods described in these chapters, are the two key components guaranteed to prevent insider identity theft while also safeguarding the workplace. The integrity test in Chapter 13 will screen out applicants who seek employment for less-than-honorable reasons or who may lack initiative to uphold the company standards for information security.
The battery is a composite of four scientifically developed tests to measure four job-related characteristics: cognitive ability, motivation, integrity, and interpersonal skills. Measures of cognitive ability and motivation are the performance measures that estimate the person-job fit, and the measure of integrity is the security test that estimates the initiative of a job applicant to help protect, enforce, and comply with “work process” security standards, the topic of exercises in Chapter 18. Additionally, the BISP battery includes an interpersonal skills test for businesses recruiting to fill multiple job positions that are either team-based or for positions that require interactions with customers.
Cognitive ability, motivation, integrity, and interpersonal skills are job-related attributes that can be measured with a high degree of accuracy, provided the tests are developed to meet the scientific standards described in each of these next four chapters and which are required by the EEOC guidelines and Title VII statutes for fairness in hiring. These BISP assessment standards—the fo
ur tests—meet those legal provisions, and each test is applicable and effective for all businesses and all job sets, regardless of rank or type, provided these jobs fit the “security-sensitive” job analysis classification in Chapter 9.
STANDARD 5. PERSONNEL SELECTION FOR SECURITY
Goal: Investigate and make recommendations to upper management for two options for a cognitive ability test for future personnel selection.
Specific Objectives: A company has two options for obtaining personnel selection assessments (sometimes also called tests or measures). The first option is to use an existing test, one developed by a company specializing in personnel selection assessments. The second option is to develop a company-owned proprietary test. The cost factors depend on the company (for an existing test) or the specialist (the test developer). In the long term and depending on the number of applicants selected each year, the costs for both can be comparable. The two specific objectives are to investigate both options in terms of costs and test credibility. These two objectives will be the same for selecting each of the four tests—the selection standards. Thus, the procedures in Chapters 11 to 14 are identical; only the type of test differs.
Orientation
When an existing cognitive ability test is obtained from a test developing company, the purchaser usually is involved in only one part of the personnel selection procedure: the administration of the test to job applicants. The testing company scores the test, interprets the results, provides feedback on recommendations for selection based on these results, and charges a fee for each applicant tested. The test, although administered to many job applicants in many businesses, nonetheless remains consistently effective, because the scoring of the test items remains confidential with the testing company. The option of using an existing test can be useful for small companies with few employees, but it is relatively more costly for larger companies with many and frequent new hires or for companies with large turnover rates, regardless of company size.
The second option is to hire a specialist to develop a company-owned test, which becomes a proprietary asset. For companies that have implemented the standards of the Business Information Security Program, the utility (effectiveness) of a proprietary test will have considerable longevity because this company’s information processes, including the test scoring and the rules for interpreting the test results, are highly secured. So, therefore, is the test scoring and the rules for interpreting the test results. Whether a company uses an existing test or develops its own, the BISP project team must consider several factors.
For the first option, selecting an already published cognitive ability test, the team initially must evaluate the test’s predictive validity and reliability. Validity means the test measures what it purports to measure—in this case, cognitive ability. Reliability refers to consistency in test results when administered more than one time to the same individual. Regardless of the type or rank of the job, higher cognitive ability translates to greater ability to perform the job tasks. Cognitive ability is, therefore, an important predictor of job performance. Unfortunately, many existing tests on the market today fail to produce the intended results; that is, many off-the-shelf tests fail to exhibit validity, and a test with no evidence for validity is of no value and does not comply with the EEOC guidelines and Title VII statutes on test fairness. The procedure for selecting an existing test must begin with obtaining the test manuals from the test publisher. Most published tests have manuals that describe how the test was developed, how the validity and reliability were established, the standardized method used to administer the test to job applicants, and the costs involved. Sometimes a manual also will recommend a cut score or range of cut scores within which a job applicant would be considered, but this is most often a decision made by the purchasing company.
The test manual of an existing test must document evidence for test fairness.1 The test must also exhibit a special type of validity, called “predictive validity.” Predictive validity of a cognitive ability test is an estimate of how well a job applicant may perform the job tasks. Predictive validities are reported as values that range from 0.0 to 1.0. A cognitive ability test with predictive validity in the .20 to .30 range is considered acceptable, and a test with predictive validity greater than .30 is considered an excellent predictor of future performance. Reliability estimates are also values ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. Consider a test reliable if the value is .70 or greater. Once the validity and the reliability of a test are established, the next steps are the evaluation of the test administration procedures and the computation of the total costs.
For evaluating the test administration procedures, the test manual should provide instructions for test taking, including the time involved. Some cognitive ability tests are designed to be administered either individually or in groups, using paper-and-pencil formats or computerized software that can be administered on site or online over the Internet. Test-taking times can range from as little as 12 minutes to as much as one hour, and computerized tests can be administered and scored immediately either in-house or from remote locations. Given these many alternatives, cost factors can vary widely.
A well-developed test manual will detail the costs per person, including a breakdown cost that decreases per person as more tests are purchased. The usual costs are for:
One copy of the test per job applicant
The scoring of each test
Interpreting of test results per test
The final report
When reviewing this or other manuals that accompany the test, look also for the time frame for completion of the entire process, from the scoring to the receipt of report.
Three good sources for locating test publishers are available. Appendix G lists several reputable test developers known personally by this author for their expertise in test development and validation. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Web site, www.siop.com, provides a list of other specialists. A “specialist” in industrial and organizational psychology has earned a Ph.D. through four or more years of training in test development and validation and applied statistics. In contrast, specialists in clinical or counseling psychology focus on mental health issues; these individuals, who earn either masters’ or doctoral degrees, must be licensed to administer tests. To increase their client populations, many clinical psychologists today are moving into the industrial and organizational psychology field. When selecting a personnel test, therefore, it is important to distinguish between tests that determine mental health and tests that provide estimates of cognitive ability required to perform job tasks. To search for industrial and organizational Ph.D. specialists on the SIOP Web site, select the radio buttons for both businesses and individuals and use the search term “test development.”
A third often overlooked but valuable resource for locating test publishers is the library at a community college or university. The reference sections at most academic libraries carry a series of several large volumes titled the Mental Measurements Yearbooks. The yearbooks are continuously updated and include most or all published cognitive ability (and other) tests. For most tests, the yearbook reports the range of predictive validity that can be expected from using the test; the reliability of the test; the cost of the test per person; and the contact (and sometimes additional) information. Eliminate from consideration any test for which there is no documented evidence for validity and reliability.
The descriptions below are based on reviews by K. Geisinger and F.L. Schmidt that were reported in the Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook.2 These illustrate the information the team will need to compare and contrast existing tests. This information also will be useful later on when considering developing a company-owned test.
Reviews (Geisinger and Schmidt) from the Mental Measurements Yearbook:
The Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) was designed to be used by businesses to determine “how easily individuals can be trained, how well they can adjust and solve problems on the job
, and how well satisfied they are likely to be with the demands of the job.” The WPT is “face valid,” that is, each test item is an obvious measure of ability. (However, not all tests need be or are intentionally face valid; that is, the items themselves may appear to be unrelated to the name of the test. This test, nonetheless, may exhibit predictive validity, as described the paragraph below.)
The WPT can be administered individually or in groups to adults ages 15 and up.
The cost in 2000 was $1.80 per test. The test is available in Canadian, Swedish, French, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, German, Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, large print, Braille, and audio editions. The test is composed of 50 multiple-choice or short answer questions that are administered in 12 minutes.
The WPT Manual reports that predictive validity coefficients (values) are provided for job families (job sets), and the validity coefficients range from .22 to .67. (Recall from above that validities in the .20 to .30 range are acceptable and validities greater than .30 are considered high in the personnel context.)
The reliability of the WPT has also been subjected to considerable evaluation.
The WPT Manual reports test-retest reliabilities of .82 to .94 and longitudinal coefficients (values) as high as .94. (Recall that a reliability of .70 or greater is considered acceptable.)
In a section on test fairness, the WPT Manual reports the test has been found to be fair and appropriate for use in employment settings. The test should be administered, scored, and interpreted by someone qualified to analyze intelligence quotients (e.g., a Ph.D.-trained specialist in industrial and organizational psychology).
Considering that the WPT takes only 12 minutes to administer and given the evidence for the test’s validity and reliability in employment settings, the WPT is one test the team might obtain for purposes of test comparison.
Preventing Identity Theft in Your Business Page 10