Are effective and efficient human resource interventions

1
Utilization of Human Resource Programs
Are effective and efficient human resource
interventions Necessary for organizational
survival? When are effective and efficient human
resource interventions Necessary for
organizational survival? Are effective and
efficient human resources interventions Necessary
for organizational excellence?
2
Quality of Human Resource Programs
Low
High
Degree to which an organizations Technical
core consists of or is Dependent on human talent
3

• Do good human resource programs cause good
  organizations or do good organizations cause good
  human resource programs?

4
High
Quality of Human Resource Programs
Low
High
Low
Degree of Environmental Hostility
5
When should a particular Human resource
strategy Be used?
6
Equifinality

• A system can reach the same final state from
  differing initial conditions and by a variety of
  paths.
• Substitutability
• The degree to which two or more inputs can be
  substituted for each other to produce a specific
  amount of an output.

7
Strategies for enhancing individual performance
under different conditions
Time and resources available for human resource
development
Organization Quality of supervision
Employees Quality of the applicant pool
Job Job complexity
Turnover
8
SELECTION UTILITY

• BROGDEN CRONBACH GLESER (BCG) UTILITY
  FORMULAS
• 1. TOTAL GAIN IN UTILITY OVER RANDOM SELE (ONE
  YEAR)
• U Ns rxy Sdy 8/N Ns C/N
• U Total gain over random selection
• Ns Number of applicants selected
• rxy Validity of the predictor
• SDy Standard deviation of dollar value of
  employees (40 of average annual salary)
• N Selection ratio (proportion of applicants
  hired) ( area in upper tail corresponding to
  cutting score the smaller the better)
• 8 The ordinate of the normal curve
  corresponding to the cutting score
• C Cost of testing one applicant

N
8
9
SELECTION UTILITY

• 2. NET GAIN IN UTILITY WHEN TWO (NON-RANDOM)
  SELECTION PROCEDURES ARE COMPARED (ONE YEAR)
• U Ns (r1 r2) Sdy 8/Ns (C1-C2)/N
• r1 Validity for procedure 1 (new)
• r2 Validity for procedure 2 (old)
• C1 Cost of testing for procedure 1
• C2 Cost of testing for procedure 2
• 3. NET GAIN IN UTILITY WHEN TWO (NON-RANDOM)
  SELECTION
• PROCEDURES ARE COMPARED (T YEARS)
• U TNs ( r1 r2) Sdy 8/N Ns (C1 C2)/
  N
• T Average tenure in years per selectee

10
SELECTION UTILITY

• Rxy Ability performance rxy
  Ability job satisfaction
• EXAMPLE 1 EXAMPLE 2
• Ns 996 996
• rxy .17 -.57
• Sdy 5217 289
• N .086 .086
• 8 .1561 .1561
• C 5.00 5.00
• T .48 .46

U 679.596
(254,827)
11
Assumptions in Selection Utility Analysis

• Explicit Assumptions
• 1. Liniar relation between cognitive ability
  and hob performance
• Implicit assumptions
• 1. Productivity is the most important outcome
• 2. Cognitive ability is not negatively related
  to other, important outcomes
• 3. There are no costs to testing other than
  the costs of the test and administrators time
• 4. The relationship between cognitive ability
  and hob performance is stable over time
• 5. There is a meaningful variance in cognitive
  ability in the applicant pool
• 6. Organizational performance equals the sum or
  individual performance

12
Not by Robots AloneAssembly plant
characteristics