Tanglewood Case Seven: Selection Decision Making

1. As in the previous exercise, develop a detailed selection plan for this position. Determine what you
want to measure by analyzing KSAOs from the job description and the information on organizational
culture in the case, and fitting the selection measures into the plan format as shown in Exhibit 8.2 in the
book. The assessment methods you should consider in the selection plan are biodata, the Marshfield
Applicant Examination, Retail Knowledge, conscientiousness, and extraversion.

Method of Assessment
Major KSAO Necessary
Applicant Retail Conscientious-
Category: for Biodata Extraversion
Exam Knowledge ness
Store Manager Selection?
Knowledge of org.
No
policies and practices
Skill in judgment and
Yes X X
decision making
Ability to think
creatively and develop Yes X X
original solutions
Knowledge of retail
management policies Yes X
and practices
Knowledge of legal
precepts underlying Yes
personnel management
Skill in the analysis of
financial and Yes
operational data
Ability to reason
Yes X X
inductively
Knowledge of the
customer base served Yes X
by the store
Skill in managing
Yes X
personnel resources
Communication and
Yes X
speaking skills

Selection plan: apply to position > application blanks, resumes and cover letters to screen for minimum
education and experience requirements > conscientiousness and extraversion personality assessment > retail
knowledge exam > applicant exam > biodata > final selection

2. Develop assessment scores based on several multiple predictor methods described in your book. This
entails developing distinct scores for each applicant based on clinical prediction, unit weighting, and
rational weighting schemes. For each method, develop a list of your top three finalists to provide to the
regional manager. Compare these to a multiple hurdle selection procedure that uses test scores as a first
stage to find the five strongest candidates, and then uses interviews and résumés to select the top three
finalists. Which of the methods do you believe works best? Why?

Most organizations use multiple predictors in their selection decisions to minimize the problems with the
validity of many individual predictors. However, then a decision must also be made about how to combine and
evaluate each of those predictors. For example, if Candidate A scores really well on the first predictor but
poorly on the second how would that compare to Candidate B who scored poorly on the first predictor but really
well on the second? There are many different approaches for how the scores can be combined. One method for
combining multiple predictor scores is the compensatory model, in which the scores of one predictor are simply
added to the scores of another predictor to yield a total score. The compensatory model recognizes that multiple
talents can be combined in many different ways to produce job success, so it allows high scores on one
predictor to compensate for lower scores on another. There are different procedures for using the compensatory
model – including clinical prediction, unit weighting, and rational weighting – which differ in the way predictor
scores are weighted before being added together for a total score.

Applican Conscientious
Retail Unweighted
Applicant Biodata t - Extraversion
Knowledge Total
Exam ness
Heckman, Jane 85 55 60 90 90 380
Reznor, Thomas 65 90 60 70 80 365
Renoir, Maxine 80 60 40 90 80 350
Greer, Shauna 60 65 70 50 90 335
Andrews, David 70 45 65 75 70 325
Binghome, Bruce 60 55 80 65 55 315
Thomas, Mindy 75 40 30 80 75 300
Durvall, Adam 60 60 55 50 65 290
Yorn, John 40 80 45 60 60 285
Vacarri, Brenda 55 35 45 60 75 270
Corporate Avg. 50 50 50 50 50 250
Managerial 60 60 65 55 70 310
Avg.

Unweighted totals range from 270 to 380, with 321.5 being the average unweighted total.

With the clinical prediction approach, managers use their judgment to arrive at a total score for each
applicant. The manager’s judgment is subjective and based on a “gut feeling” from the overall picture of taking
everything into account. The problem is that these decisions are less standardized and reasons for weighting are
known only to the manager.

My top three recommendations from a clinical predication approach are:

1. Bruce Binghome
2. Maxine Renoir
3. Jane Heckman

Bruce Binghome’s unweighted total was 315, which is neither the highest nor the lowest and below the
average unweighted total. However, the notes from his interview as well as his resume boosted his score. Bruce
has 12 years of experience as a Store Manager for Tanglewood (location unknown) with quantifiable
achievements that make him uniquely qualified for the role. He also understands and fits in with the culture, is
achievement oriented, understands marketing, and is interested in promotional work which would be available
at the Spokane store. Maxine Renoir’s unweighted total was 350, which is well-above the average unweighted
total and the third-highest unweighted total among all of the candidates. The notes from her interview and her
resume were taken into consideration to boost her score. She has worked as a Store Manager for Tanglewood in
the Denver, CO location for 6 years. She has management experience both within and outside of Tanglewood,
which gives her a diverse perspective. She understands and fits in with the culture and understands marketing.
She also described this as her “dream job” so she is likely to remain with Tanglewood in this role for a long
time. Jane Heckman’s unweighted total was 380, which was the highest among all of the applicants. The notes
from her interview and resume also boosted her score. She has been with Tanglewood for 18 years in the
Seattle, WA location. She does not have experience as a Store Manager, but has 8 years of experience as an
Assistant Manager, and 3 years of experience as a Department Manager before that. She really understands and
fits in with the culture and desires to remain at Tanglewood.

With a unit weighting approach, each predictor is weighted the same and simply added together for a
total score. This approach is very straightforward and makes the importance of each predictor explicit to
decision makers. The problem with this method is that it assumes that each predictor contributes equally to the
prediction of job success, which is rarely the case.

My top three recommendations from a unit weighting approach are:

1. Jane Heckman
2. Thomas Reznor
3. Maxine Renoir

With a rational weighting scheme approach, each predictor is weighted differently by managers and the
scores are added together for a total score. This tackles the problem with the unit weighting approach, so
predictors can be weighted based on the degree to which is believed to predict job success. These weights are
multiplied by each raw score to compute a total score.

Retail Conscientious
Biodat Applicant Weighted
Applicant Knowledg - Extraversion
a Exam Total
e ness
Heckman, Jane 42.5 5.5 12 36 27 123
Renoir, Maxine 40 6 8 36 24 114
Reznor, Thomas 32.5 9 12 28 24 105.5
Andrews, David 35 4.5 13 30 21 103.5
Thomas, Mindy 37.5 4 6 32 22.5 102
Greer, Shauna 30 6.5 14 20 27 97.5
Binghome, Bruce 30 5.5 16 26 16.5 94
Durvall, Adam 30 6 11 20 19.5 86.5
Vacarri, Brenda 27.5 3.5 9 24 22.5 86.5
Yorn, John 20 8 9 24 18 79
Predictor .5 .1 .2 .4 .3
Weight

The predictors were weighted as follows: .5 for biodata, .4 for conscientiousness, .3 for extraversion, .2
for retail knowledge exam, and .1 for the Marshfield applicant exam. These weights were based on the KSAOs
each of these predictors measured and how important I believe those might be for job success.

My top three recommendations from a rational weighting approach are:

1. Jane Heckman
2. Maxine Renoir
3. Thomas Reznor

Instead of using a compensatory model, a multiple hurdles model can be used. With a multiple hurdles
approach, an applicant must earn a passing score on each predictor before advancing to the next phase of the
selection process. Such an approach is taken when each requirement measured by a predictor is critical to job
success. Passing scores are set using the methods to determine cut scores. Unlike the compensatory model, the
multiple hurdles model does not allow a high score on one predictor to compensate for a low score on another
predictor. This method can be helpful to reduce the cost of applicants.
 For instance, under the multiple hurdles model perhaps the corporate average score of 50 would be used
as the cut off score for each predictor. That would mean that anyone who did not score at least a 50 on
conscientiousness and extraversion would not make it to the next phase. Of the remaining applicants, those who
did not score at least a 50 on the retail knowledge exam would not make it to the next phase, and so on.

If 50 was the cut off score, the top five applicants under the multiple hurdles model would be:
1. Jane Heckman
2. Thomas Reznor
3. Shauna Greer
4. Bruce Binghome
5. Adam Durvall

From there, I would narrow it down to Jane Heckman, Thomas Reznor, and Bruce Binghome based on their
resumes.

Applicant Retail Conscientiousnes

Applicant Biodata
Exam Knowledge s Extraversion
Heckman, Jane 85 55 60 90 90
Reznor, Thomas 65 90 60 70 80
Renoir, Maxine 80 60 40 90 80
Greer, Shauna 60 65 70 50 90
Andrews, David 70 45 65 75 70
Binghome, Bruce 60 55 80 65 55
Thomas, Mindy 75 40 30 80 75
Durvall, Adam 60 60 55 50 65
Yorn, John 40 80 45 60 60
Vacarri, Brenda 55 35 45 60 75
Corporate Avg. 50 50 50 50 50

If reducing hiring costs is extremely important then the multiple hurdles method would be better.
However, that method can eliminate strong candidates from consideration. For example, Maxine Renoir was a
strong candidate that would have been eliminated from consideration through a multiple hurdles model with a
cut off score of 50, like I used in my example. I don’t believe Tanglewood can afford to miss out on strong
candidates for such an important role within the organization. For Tanglewood, I recommend the compensatory
model and a rational weighting procedure for narrowing down applicants. That way the company can determine
which KSAOs are most important to job success, which predictors best measure those KSAOs and weight those
predictors higher. It would be a standardized process that reduces personal bias and judgement errors.

3. You are making a recommendation for who should be considered a candidate for hiring based on your
read of the data. Using your recommendations, Tanglewood will develop a panel of individuals who will
be involved in the final selection decision with interviews. Who do you think should be involved in this
process from Tanglewood based on the discussion of decision makers in the textbook? What does each
decision maker add to the process? You should consult the organizational structure information in the
introduction

Decision makers should be made up of both HR professionals and line managers. HR professionals
should be highly involved in the design and management of the selection system. They have the expertise to
develop sound selection decisions and best practices as well as the knowledge of relevant laws and regulations.
They are trained for the task and can also ensure that minorities and female applicants are actively solicited to
avoid disparate impact. HR professionals should make initial assessment decisions to screen applicants, so
managers are only providing input on qualified candidates. Managers can provide input on more substantive
assessment methods. Managers are the subject matter experts of the business and have a high understanding for
what traits lead to job success. Managers should only provide input for jobs they are familiar with.
For Tanglewood, I would recommend the Selection Manager and Equal Employment Opportunity
Coordinator participate in the selection process from the human resources side. From the management side, I
would recommend that the Regional Manager be the key decision maker, as well as the Assistant Store Manager
for Hardlines, Assistant Store Manager for Operations and HR, and the Assistant Store Manager for Softlines.
The Regional Manager will be managing whoever is chosen for the Store Manager position. The Assistant Store
Managers bring knowledge of the day to day business and deeper understanding of the culture and brand. The
Store Manager for the Spokane store is a crucial hire, and this team would provide a balanced panel for the
selection decision.

4. Based on the three previous portions of the assignment, develop an official guide to selection that can
be supplied to all the stores. This official guide should provide the information from the selection plan,
suggestions for how to combine predictors, and guidelines for managers on who should be involved in the
final decision. The decision makers do not necessarily need to be the same ones participating in the
selection decision for the Spokane flagship store.

Step 1: Prepare position description

Define the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics needed for success on the job; determine the
minimum education and related work experience requirements; consider what traits and behaviors support the
company culture

Step 2: Develop assessment methods

Prepare initial assessment methods (resumes and cover letters, application blanks, initial interviews); select
predictors that measure the KSAOs established in step 1 (Marshfield applicant exam, retail knowledge test,
personality exam, and biodata questionnaire and essay); design structured interview questions and scoring keys
to target the most important KSAOs or any gaps among the other assessment methods used; use a rational
weighting method to establish how each predictor will be weighted to combine predictor scores

Step 3: Develop recruiting plan

Determine the time frame for recruiting; consider the location of the position, the current labor market near the
position, and any unique aspects of the position which might need additional attention in advertising; determine
whether open or targeted recruitment methods will be used and which type (applicant initiated processes,
referrals, kiosks, state job services, and staffing agencies); decide whether a local search will suffice or if you
need to expand the search to the region, state, or nationwide

Step 4: Select and Train Interviewers

Determine which employees will be on the selection panel (use a team of both HR professionals and line
managers; consider who best understand the needs of the job and who has accurate judgment); provide training
on the structured interview process, how to use the scoring key, and how to score the other predictors

Step 5: Post the position

Build a diverse pool of applicants during the time frame established in Step 3

Step 6: Review application material

Use the initial assessment methods to narrow down applicants to candidates; use substantive methods to narrow
down candidates to finalists

Step 7: Interview Finalists

Interview finalists and verify job-related credentials

Step 9: Extend conditional offer

The offer is conditional on passing a background check and drug/alcohol test

Step 10: Extend written offer

Step 11: Acceptance

Step 12: Onboarding