Written by students who passed Immediately available after payment Read online or as PDF Wrong document? Swap it for free 4.6 TrustPilot
logo-home
Summary

Short summary (as overview)

Rating
-
Sold
-
Pages
8
Uploaded on
26-05-2016
Written in
2015/2016

Short summary to use as an overview (check bundle for elaborated notes)

Institution
Course

Content preview

Problem 1 – Motivation FAIRNESS: not discriminating against group
1. PERSON AS MACHINE (involuntary + unconscious) - Direct vs. indirect discrimination/adverse impact ( selection criteria = fair)
a) Instinct (Freud)
b) Need theory (Maslow): pyramid APPLICANT REACTIONS: 2-way process, organizational justice, more pos. reactions if:
o ERG theory (Alderfer): existence, relatedness + growth - Based on job analysis + more job relevant
c) Two-factor theory (Herzberg): hygiene + motivator needs - Less personally intrusive Abbreviations
d) Reinforcement theory (Skinner): rewards - Not contravening with justice expectations Beh.: behavior
- Allowing applicant + recruiters to meet Cogn.: cognitive
Cor.: correlation
2. PERSON AS SCIENTIST (rational) Diff.: different
a) VIE/expectancy theory (Vroom/Tolman): valence, instrumentality + expectancy. SELECTION METHODS Distr.: distributive (justice)
b) Dissonance theory (Festinger) 1. Interview: Emo.: emotional
c) Equity theory (Adams): Op/Ip = Oo/Io - Unstructured vs. structured (situational vs. behavioral) Env.: environment
Indiv.: individual
d) Fairness theory: distributive + procedural justice. - Primacy + similarity effects  bias Medit.: Mediterranean
- Requirements: Neg.: negative
3. PERSON AS INTENTIONAL/JUDGE (limited rationality, intentions) o Consistency across interviews O C E A N/ES: Big 5
a) Goal-setting theory (Locke): goal = intention = motivation. o Interviewers trained Org.: organization
Perf.: performance
o Challenging + specific goals, feedback + participation o Questions relevant for job Pers.: personal
o Goal acceptance vs. goal commitment o Questions same for all participants Phys.: physiological
o Feedback loop o Interviewer no prior info applicant Pos.: positive
b) Control theory: compare actual performance to standard o Evaluation after interview done Proced.: procedural (justice)
Psych.: psychological
Needs  motives  goals  performance - P-O fit + impression management Rel.: relationship
- W performing slightly better than B + H Sat.: satisfaction
SELF EFFICACY: mastery experiences, modelling, soc. persuasion, phys. States - High validity, moderate-pos. reactions, high use Sit.: situational
- Cons: vulnerable biases, subjective, unreliable Soc.: social
JOB ENRICHMENT: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy + task feedback 2. Psychometric tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Cognitive ability tests: high validity, neg.-moderate reactions, moderate use
Problem 2 – Selection o Single best predictor
Job analysis  Identify selection criteria  Choose method  Evaluation o High adverse impact
Person specification Reliability + validity Candidate reactions o Young + W better general g
Job description Legality + fairness Validation
- Personality tests: moderate validity, neg.-moderate reactions, moderate use
Competency model Cost + reactions Utility assessment
o Only incremental validity (extra).
JOB ANALYSIS: systematic info about job o C best predictor
- Job/task-oriented o Not many cultural differences
- Worker/person-oriented 3. References: low validity, pos. reactions, high use
4. Biodata: validity can be high, neg.-moderate reactions, moderate use
VALIDITY: observed test score = good indication of construct - High predictive validity, low adverse impact
- Systematic  predictable - Hard vs. soft items
- Vs. reliability (unpredictable) 5. Work-sample tests: high validity, pos. reactions, low use (BUT: expensive)
- Content: representative of construct  Face: first impression 6. Handwriting analysis: low validity, neg.-moderate reactions, low use
- Construct: hypothetical  Convergent + Discriminant 7. Assessment centers: validity can be high, pos. reaction, moderate use
- Criterion: predictor + criterion (r2)  Predictive, Concurrent + Incremental - Low adverse impact
- Faith: halo effect, appearance org. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written for

Institution
Study
Course

Document information

Uploaded on
May 26, 2016
File latest updated on
May 27, 2016
Number of pages
8
Written in
2015/2016
Type
SUMMARY

Subjects

$5.91
Get access to the full document:

Wrong document? Swap it for free Within 14 days of purchase and before downloading, you can choose a different document. You can simply spend the amount again.
Written by students who passed
Immediately available after payment
Read online or as PDF

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
Reputation scores are based on the amount of documents a seller has sold for a fee and the reviews they have received for those documents. There are three levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold. The better the reputation, the more your can rely on the quality of the sellers work.
lmh Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
234
Member since
10 year
Number of followers
150
Documents
14
Last sold
2 year ago

4.4

43 reviews

5
24
4
13
3
6
2
0
1
0

Trending documents

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their tests and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can instantly pick a different document that better fits what you're looking for.

Pay as you like, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions