Firstly,the bank’s C.V short-listing process is one of the most popular informalselection methods throughout all organisations (Zibarras & Woods, 2010).
Cole, Field and Giles (2003) assert that recruiters with years of experienceare usually able to foresee potential candidates’ overall cognitive ability andtheir personality traits. However, Schmidt and Hunter (1998) believe this isnot always true as C.V screening often lack details which can be difficult evenfor an experienced recruiter to identify. To be more precise, an organisationmay be faced with legal implications by hiring a candidate without a scoringsystem or universal administration, and basing their decision solely on C.V asit does not predict candidates’ subsequent job performance. This thereforerenders the current selection method inappropriate although it is easy toadminister and is cost-effective for the organisation (Schmidt and Hunter,1998). Followinga C.V short-listing, an unstructured interview was then conducted to complete theselection process.
However, this method is frequently unable to address theconditions of validity and reliability, although, it is a frequently usedhiring style with the added benefit of predicting candidates’ suitability tothe organisation (Zibarras and Woods, 2010; Herriot, 1992). This currentproblem can be seen in the bank’s selection process as the unstructuredinterviews are not deemed as a fair comparison between applicants anddemonstrates inconsistency and structure (Kausel, Culbertson & Madrid,2016). In addition, particularly, unstructured interviews are likely experiencebiases that are in accordance with the beliefs, stereotypes and attitudes ofthe interviewer. Unfortunately, this occurrence is mainly due to inadequatetraining and or inability to keep the interview on job-related questions(Schmid Mast, Bangerter, Bulliard & Aerni, 2011). Themethods adopted by the bank is unsuitable for various reasons, such as: theselection criteria are lacking in relation to person specification and jobrole, thus questioning its fairness, effectiveness and devotion to equalopportunities; additionally, the company may face legal implications and resultin a vast number of unfit candidates being hired, also resulting in financialloss. In light of this, a two-step recruitment process, consisting of asituational judgement test (SJT) and assessment centre (AC) is recommended toimprove the selection and retention of the call centre employees.
SuggestedSelection Methods and Process Asunreliable recruitment strategy has the potential to cause organisationsfinancial lost, it is therefore paramount for organisations to invest in a jobanalysis, which will identify the candidates’ skills, abilities andcompetencies in order to develop a well-detailed, multi-method selectionstrategy to identify the correct candidates for the particular job role(Robertson & Smith, 2001). Itcan be assumed that call centre employees must possess specific job-relevantknowledge and behaviours competencies, for example, great communication andselling skills in order to succeed in the role (Sawyerr, Srinivas & Wang,2009). A situational judgement test (SJT) isproposed as the first stage of the new recruitment process. SJTs areonline-based, multiple choice psychological test which presents the individualwith work-related scenarios and asking them to decide on an appropriateresponse; and are often used in organisations as a shortlisting method(Lievens, Peeters & Schollaert, 2008).
The answers are automatically marked,which then eliminates most unsuitable candidates. Although the SJT helps toeliminate unsuitable candidates, it is very important that the selectionprocess is based on a comprehensive job analysis and involvement of subjectmatter experts (SMEs). Research on SJTs has found it to be: less negativeeffects than IQ measures (Patterson et al., 2012); possess high construct validity(Lievens, Buyse & Sackett, 2005); has job-related criteria, is more accuratethan personality measures (McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel & Grubb, 2007). Additionally,SJTs have low fidelity, since candidates are not asked to explicitly determinethe behaviours, which will be addressed at a later stage in the proposal. Furthermore,it is crucial to note that most research into this topic has not been conductedin real organisations (Robertson & Smith, 2001).
However, the aforementionedresearch suggests that implementing a customised SJT will likely to increasethe chances of a more suitable candidate as well as increase the reliability ofthe first part of the selection process (Chan & Schmitt, 2002). However,the adequacy of the proposed method will likewise intensely rely upon testconfiguration, as issues emerging from absence of clear guidelines and cheatingcan prompt high false positive outcomes (Ployhart and Ehrhart, 2003). Despite cheatingbeing distinguished as a primary burden of the SJT, informing candidates aboutthe likelihood of re-sitting the test at a further stage can be a powerfulobstacle (Donovan, Dwight and Schneider, 2014). The next recommended stage of the proposed selection method, an assessmentcentre (AC), is a commonly applied technique collaborating various other selectiontechniques in order to evaluate abilities, performance and assortment ofoccupation related measurements (Zibarras & Woods, 2010).