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
More:

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.


38

 

CASE

 

---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 PROCESS

 

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.

 

THE DETERMINATION OF ADVERSE I M PACT

 

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

 

Whites

 

Blacks

 

Hispanics

 

Asians

 

Native Americans

 

Men

 

Women

 

Total Number Who Took Test

 

282

 

36

 

102

 

0

 

0

 

385

 

35

 

420 Pass Rates for the Test

 

Number Who Passed

 

134

 

10

 

44

 

0

 

0

 

170

 

18

 

188 Pass Rate

 

47.5

 

27.8

 

43.l

 

0

 

0

 

44.2

 

51.4

 

44.8 Number Who Passed

 

87

 

5

 

22

 

109

 

5

 

114 Pass Rate

 

77.7

 

62.5

 

55.0

 

73.6

 

41.7

 

71.2 Base Data for the Interviews

 

Group

 

Whites

 

Blacks

 

Hispanics

 

Men

 

Women

 

Total Number Who

 

112

 

8

 

40

 

148

 

12

 

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.

 

JOB ANALYSIS

 

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,

 

3)

 

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

 

behavior.

 

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.

 

SUPERVISORY CONFERENCE

 

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:
STATUS
Answered
QUALITY
Approved
ANSWER RATING

This question was answered on: Feb 21, 2020

PRICE: $24

Solution~00066117324.zip (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.
SiteLock

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