Question Details

[solution] » 38 CASE ---A Solution for Adverse Impact A federal government

Brief item decscription

Step-by-step solution file

Item details:

38 CASE ---A Solution for Adverse Impact A federal government

I need to do a case study for one of my classes. I have attached the Case study format my teacher wants it says example in red when you open it. As well as the document i need to do the case study over. DOESN'T have to be very detailed.





---A Solution for Adverse Impact


A federal government agency was in need of assistance regarding


its staffing practices. Recently, some of the job applicants had


complained that the selection procedures for one of the entry-level


law enforcement jobs were discriminatory. The personnel specialists,


who had previously ignored this possibility, were now alerted to the


potential problem of adverse impact against women and minorities.


Bob Santos was personnel specialist for the agency and had been


employed with the staffing division for almost three years. He kept up


with the laws and regulations on discrimination and equal employment


opportunity. About two months ago, he attended a training seminar


on the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Upon


returning to the agency, Santos decided that an evaluation of their


current staffing practices was necessary because they were


developed prior to the adoption of the Uniform Guidelines in 1978.


These Guidelines were designed to provide a framework for


determining the proper use of selection procedures. They indicated how


organizations should evaluate their selection rates using the four-fifths


rule, and also specified the standards that organizations should use to


validate their procedures.




The selection of entry-level agents for the law enforcement job involved


a two-step, multiple hurdle process. Applicants were first required to


pass a cognitive ability test, a similar but somewhat easier test than


the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The exam was made up of 25


verbal items and 25 quantitative items. A candidate was required to


receive a passing score of 70 (35 of the items correct) in order to be


eligible for the second step of the selection process, an interview. A


three-member panel of supervisors asked each applicant questions on


how they would deal with various hypothetical job situations. After


an initial period of questions regarding the applicant's education


and experience, the applicant was given a situation and then asked


to respond to the situation. Typically, after each candidate's initial


response; further questioning would ensue from the panel to


determine the full response of the candidate. The interview would


last about a half hour. At the end of the interview, the three


interviewers would rate the candidate on ten dimensions, including


attitude, motivation, communication, and so on. Candidates receiving


high scores on most of the dimensions would pass the interview. After a physical examination and a security check, the candidate


would be hired and asked to report to training.




Santos knew that the guidelines required employers to make adverse


impact determinations at least once a year. Although records had


been kept, the agency had not calculated the selection rates over the


past three years. Santos thought that it was long overdue and


decided to have this done as soon as possible. A week later, the


selection rates were tabulated. The data are presented in Exhibit 2.7.


After calculating the adverse impact for both the test and the


interview, he decided that a discussion with the personnel


psychologist in the agency would be necessary. A meeting was


arranged between Santos, his supervisor and head of the staffing


division, and the


EXHIBIT 2.7 Tabulation of Selection Rates Group










Native Americans






Total Number Who Took Test
















420 Pass Rates for the Test


Number Who Passed
















188 Pass Rate
















44.8 Number Who Passed












114 Pass Rate












71.2 Base Data for the Interviews














Total Number Who












160 Note: Thenuh7ber interviewed for each group is less than the number who passed the test. The difference


represents individuals who did not wish to


continue through the second part of the


-- ------selection process. _,. ---"'------- personnel psychologist for the agency, Ron Burden. A discussion


ensued regarding the validation requirements of the Uniform


Guidelines. It was decided that the original job analysis was poorly


done and that very little documentation had been retained by the


agency. Although there was a task inventory, the major tasks or job


duties had not been rated for importance, frequency, difficulty, and


trainability. Burden pointed out that this documentation would be


critical if they ever needed to defend the selection procedures in court.


By the end of the meeting, the group decided that it would probably be


a good idea to do another job analysis that was in accordance with the


new Uniform Guidelines. Burden felt that the selection procedures


would have to be modified to fit the results of the job analysis. He was


asked to determine how the job analysis would be done, while Santos


would coordinate the project in the field.




The Uniform Guidelines recognize that there is not a single best way to


analyze the job. Since there was little documentation available, Ron


Burden had to decide on a method or technique that would generate


from the agents and supervisors the important work responsibilities and


the tasks associated with them. After much deliberation, he decided


to use the critical-incident technique. Burden knew that if the agency


wanted to continue using situational questions in the interview, the


critical-incident job analysis technique readily lends itself to the


development of this type of question. The method involves collecting


reports of behaviors that are critical, in that they distinguished


between successful and unsuccessful work performance. Instructions to


the agents and supervisors were to include:


1) the circumstances that preceded the incident,


2) the setting in which the incident occurred,




what the agent did that was effective or ineffective, and 4) the consequences


of the incident.


Burden asked a sample of agents to develop three critical incidents and


to indicate the task associated with each critical incident. Upon receipt of


the critical incidents, Burden and Santos derived an inventory of work


behaviors. This list of work behaviors was then sent back to the agents, and


they were asked to rate the importance of the behavior, how frequently it


was performed, and the amount of training that was required to learn that




When this information was collected, Burden and Santos generated a list


of major job tasks or job duties. They assigned all the important work


behaviors to their associated tasks. This list of tasks and work behaviors was


then sent out to a group of supervisors who were asked to review the list. This same group of supervisors were also asked to meet for a two-day


conference later in the month to determine the important knowledge, skills,


abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required to perform these work


behaviors. Burden also planned for these experts to select the critical


incidents to be used for the new interview.




At the conference, the supervisors were given the inventory of tasks and their


corresponding work behaviors. They were asked to derive the KSAOs and then


rate how important the skill or ability was for the performance of the work


behaviors. The most important knowledge, skills, abilities, and other


characteristics are shown in Exhibit 2.8. Santos and Burden have have asked your Human Resource Consulting


group for recommendation on a new selection process.


EXHIBIT 2.8 KSAOs Derived from the Task/Behavior Inventory


l. Knowledge of federal law


2. Knowledge of procedures and regulations


3. Reading and verbal comprehension


4. Ability to perform effectively in dangerous situations


5.Ability to communicate effectively


6.Skill in interpersonal relations


7.Judgment ability


8. Ability to solve problems quickly and effectively


About this question:

This question was answered on: Feb 21, 2020

PRICE: $24 (18.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $24

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card. All your purchases are securely protected by PayPal.

Need a similar solution fast, written anew from scratch? Place your own custom order

We have top-notch tutors who can help you with your essay at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments. This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student. New solution orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

Order Now