© 2013 cengage learning references and testing. © 2013 cengage learning why check references?...
TRANSCRIPT
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Why Check References?
• Check for resume fraud• Find new information about the applicant• Check for potential discipline problems• Predict future performance
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Checking for Resume Fraud• Why Check?
– 1/3 resumes contain inaccurate info
– over 500,000 people have bonus degrees
• Verifying Information– truth
– error
– embellishment
– fabrication
• Obtaining Missing information– unintentional omission
– strategic omission
– deceptive omission
• Alternative methods– bogus application items
– social security reports
– hire professional reference checkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B09DU_cXkR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u7WBlSIXWI
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Getting Info Can Be Difficult
Type of Information % Asking % Releasing
Employment dates 97 98
Eligible for re-hire 64 42
Salary history 66 41
Reason for leaving 94 19
Performance 86 18
Employability 16
Work habits 13
People skills 11
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Finding New Information About the Applicant
• Types of Information– personality
– interpersonal style
– background
– work habits
• Problems– references seldom agree
– people act in different ways in different situations
• Alternative Measures– psychological tests
– letters of recommendation
– biodata
– resumes
– interviews
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Checking for Potential Discipline Problems
• Criminal Records• Previous employers• Motor vehicle records• Military records• Credit reports• Colleges and universities• Neighbors and friends
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Criminal Records
• Obtained from local and state agencies• Check with each jurisdiction• Only convictions can be used (EEOC Decision No. 72-
1460)– “Reasonable amount of time” between release and
decision to hire– In using convictions, employer must consider
• Nature and gravity of offense• Amount of time that has passed since the conviction and/or
completion of the sentence• The nature of the job held or being sought
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Credit Checks• Purpose
– Predict motivation to steal
– Determine character of applicant
• Fair Credit Reporting Act– Order through a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA)
– Provide written notice to applicant to you will be checking credit
– Get applicant’s written authorization to check credit
– If adverse action is to be taken• Provide applicant with “Pre-adverse Action Disclosure” which includes
copy of credit report
• Inform applicant that they will not be hired due to credit check and provide name of CRA and notice of applicant rights to appeal within 60 days
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=512GkwoZEFs
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Future Performance• References are not good predictors of performance
– Uncorrected validity is .18 • References are not reliable (r = .22)
– High correlation between two letters written by the same person for two people than between letters written by two people for the same person
– They say more about the person writing the letter than the person being written about
• References are lenient– Fewer than 1% of applicants are rated below average!
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Why the Leniency?
• Applicants often choose their own references
• Applicants often have the right to see their files
• Former employers fear legal ramifications
© 2013 Cengage Learning
References Often Have a Limited Opportunity to View Behavior
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Behavior
Observed
Processed
Remembered
Recalled
%
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Potential Legal Ramifications
• Negligent hiring http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpQeHuAe4E4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozMVeRT3pec
• Invasion of privacy
• Negligent reference
• Defamation
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Defamation
• Three types– libel (written)
– slander (oral)
– self-publication
• Employers have a conditional privilege that limits their liability
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Avoiding Liability for DefamationEmployers will not be liable if their
statements were• Truthful
– statements were true
– not true, but reasonable person would have believed them to be true
– opinions are protected unless reference infers opinion is based on facts that don’t exist
• Made for a legitimate purpose
• Made in good faith– don’t offer unsolicited
information
– statements cannot be made for revenge
– avoid personal comments
• Made with the permission of the applicant– use waivers
– let the former employee know if the reference will not be positive
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Extraneous Factors Surrounding the Reference
• Reference giver’s ability to articulate
• The extent to which the referee remembers the applicant
• The words used by the reference giver– cuter than a baby’s butt
– she has no sexual oddities that I am aware of
– I have an intimate and caring relationship with the applicant
– Jill is a bud that has already begun to bloom
© 2013 Cengage Learning
The Real Meaning of Recommendations
Recommendation Actual MeaningHe is a man of great vision He hallucinates
He is definitely a man to watch I don’t trust him
She merits a close look Don’t let her out of your sight
He’s the kind of employee you can swear by
He likes dirty jokes
She doesn’t mind being disturbed She spent 10 years in a mental hospital
When he worked for us, he was given many citations
He was arrested several times
She gives every appearance of being a loyal, dedicated employee
But, appearances are deceiving
© 2013 Cengage Learning
The Real Meaning of Recommendations
Recommendation Actual MeaningIf I were you I would give him sweeping responsibilities
He can handle a broom
She commands the respect of everyone with whom she works
But she rarely gets it
I am sure that whatever task he undertakes, no matter how small, he will be fired with enthusiasm
He will foul up any project
You would be very lucky to get this person to work for you
She is lazy
You will never catch him asleep on the job
He is too crafty to get caught
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Personnel Selection Methods• Training & Education• Experience
– Applications/Resumes– Biodata– Interviews
• Knowledge• Ability
– Cognitive– Physical– Perceptual
• Skills– Work Samples– Assessment Centers– References
• Personality & Character– Personality Tests– Integrity Tests
• Medical– Medical Exams– Psychological Exams– Drug Testing
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Summary of Meta-AnalysesMeta-analysis Occupation K N ρ
Aamodt (2002) Police 38 9,007 .34
Vineberg & Joyner (1982) Military 35 .25
Ng & Feldman (2009) Many 85 47,125 .09
Hunter (1980)
Hunter & Hunter (1984)
Schmidt & Hunter (1998)
USES data base
425 32,124 .10
Dunnette (1972) Entry level petroleum
15 .00
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Education and Incremental Validity
• Schmidt & Hunter (1998) say no
– Cognitive ability (r = .51)
– Cognitive ability and education (r = .52)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity of GPA• GPA is a valid predictor of performance on the
job, training performance, starting salary, promotions, and grad school performance
• GPA is most predictive in the first few years after graduation (Roth et al., 1996)
• GPA will result in high levels (d=.78) of adverse impact (Roth & Bobko, 2000)
• People with high GPAs– Are intelligent (r = .50; Jensen, 1980)– Are conscientious (r = .34; Bevier et al., 1998)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity of GPAMeta-Analysis Results
r ρWork-Related Criteria
Job performance (Roth et al., 1996) .16 .36
Training performance (Dye & Reck, 1989) .29
Promotions (Cohen, 1984) .16
Salary (Roth & Clarke, 1996)
Starting salary .13 .20
Current salary .18 .28
Graduate School Performance (Kuncel et al., 2001)
Grades .28 .30
Faculty ratings .25 .35
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Lingering Questions• Is the validity of education job specific?• What is the actual incremental validity of
education over cognitive ability?• Why would education predict performance?
– Knowledge
– Liberal arts skills
– Mental ability
– Motivation
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Predicting Performance Using Applicant Knowledge
• Taps job-related knowledge
• Good validity (ρ = .48)
• Face valid
• Can have adverse impact
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Cognitive Ability Tests
• High validity (ρ = .51)
• Predicts training and job performance for all jobs (Hunter, 1986)
• The more complex the job, the better cognitive ability tests predict performance
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Cognitive Ability Tests
Strengths– Highest validity of all selection
measures (ρ = .51)– Easy to administer– Relatively inexpensive– Most are not time consuming
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Cognitive Ability Tests
Weaknesses– Likely to cause adverse
impact– Low face validity– Not well liked by applicants
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Perceptual Ability Tests
• Perceptual Ability (Fleishman & Reilly (1992)– Vision (near, far, night, peripheral)– Depth perception– Glare sensitivity– Hearing (sensitivity, auditory attention, sound
localization)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Psychomotor Ability Tests
• Psychomotor Ability (Fleishman & Reilly (1992)– Dexterity (finger, manual)
– Control precision
– Multilimb coordination
– Response control
– Reaction time
– Arm-hand steadiness
– Wrist-finger speed
– Speed-of-limb movement
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Physical Ability• Used for jobs with high physical demands• Three Issues
– Job relatedness– Passing scores– When the ability must be present
• Two common ways to measure– Simulations– Physical agility tests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BfqWGWzrfI
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Physical AbilityPhysical Abilities (Fleishman & Reilly, 1992)
– Dynamic strength (strength requiring repetitions)– Trunk strength (stooping or bending over)– Explosive strength (jumping or throwing)– Static strength– Dynamic flexibility (speed of bending or stretching)– Extent flexibility (Degree of bending or stretching)– Gross body equilibrium (balance)– Gross body coordination (coordination)– Stamina
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Work Samples
• Applicants perform tasks that replicate actual job tasks
• Advantages– Directly related to the job– Good criterion validity
• Verbal work samples (ρ = .48)• Motor work samples (ρ = .43)
– Good face validity– Less adverse impact than cognitive ability– Provide realistic job previews
• Disadvantages– Can be expensive to develop and maintain
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Assessment CentersWhat are They?
• A selection technique that uses multiple job-related assessment exercises and multiple assessors to observe and record behaviors of candidates performing job-related tasks
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Guidelines for Assessment Center PracticesJoiner (2000)
• Based on job analysis• Behavioral
classification• Assessment
techniques• Use multiple
assessment exercises• Simulations
• Use multiple assessors• Assessor training• Recording behavior• Reports• Overall judgment
based on integration of information
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Assessment Center Exercises
• Leaderless group discussions• In-basket technique• Simulations
– Situational exercises
– Work samples
• Role plays• Case analyses and business
games
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eKuQ-RcHqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyWxjNECRBE&feature=related
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of Assessment Centers
Reliability– Can have low inter-rater agreement among raters
– Test/retest reliability pretty high (.70)
Validity (Arthur et al., 2003)– Uncorrected .28
– Corrected .38
– Good face validity
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of Assessment Centers
Weaknesses– Very expensive
– Time consuming
– Can have low inter-rater agreement
– Behaviors can overlap into several dimensions
– Safety of candidates for some work samples
© 2013 Cengage Learning
When are assessment centers most appropriate?– Most useful for promotion rather than selection– When candidates have some knowledge of the job– When you have the money to develop and maintain
assessment centers– When you have the time and trainers
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience Ratings
• Past behavior predicts future behavior– Experience is a valid predictor of future
performance (ρ = .27; Quinones et al., 1995)
• Types of Experience– Work
– Life
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience
• Evaluated through:– Application blanks
– Resumes
– Interviews
– Reference checks
– Biodata instruments
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience
• Considerations– How much experience?– How well did the person perform?– How related is it to the current job?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience Predicts Best…
• Credit prior work experience only:– In the same occupational area as that in which performance is to
be predicted
– In the performance of tasks or functions that have direct application on the job
• Recency of experience should be used as a decision rule for awarding credit only when justified on a case-by-case basis
• Credit for duration of work experience should be limited to a few years.
• High prediction up to about 3 years of experience, declining to low prediction for more than 12 years of experience.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience for Selection: Some Concerns
• Sullivan (2000) claims that “experience in solving ‘past problems’ is rapidly losing its applicability to current and future problems.”
• Organizations will increase their applicant pool if they delete the “ancient history” requirements (i.e. “Ten years experience required”).
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Sullivan (2000)
1) Reduce or eliminate the number of years required in your ads and replace them with “the demonstrated ability to solve problems with our required level of difficulty.
2) Use simulations and actual problems to assess applicants.3) Develop “future-oriented” questions for applicants.4) Train evaluators and compensation professionals to put
less weight on experience of candidates.5) Revise job descriptions to include level of difficulty.6) Identify the amount and type of experience and
competencies that would predict job performance.7) Check to see if there is a correlation between the number
of years of experience an employee has and their success in your firm.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Experience: Some More Concerns
• Performance matters• “Haven’t done” doesn’t mean “can’t do”• Experience has a shelf life• Listing something on a resume is not experience• Where you get your experience matters• Experience does not guarantee success• Experience is expensive• More experience might be bad (old ways and
ideas)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
BiodataA selection method that considers an
applicant’s life, school, military, community, and work experience
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Example of Biodata Items
Member of high school student government?
Yes No
Number of jobs in past 5 years?
1 2 3-5 More than 5
Transportation to work:
Walk Bus Bike Own Car Other
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Development of Biodata Items
• Choose a job
• Create pool of potential biodata items
• Choose a criterion to measure behavior
• Prescreen items and test on employees
• Retest items on second sample of employees
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Biodata StandardsGandy & Dye, 1989; Mael, 1991
Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata Items
Historical
How old were you when you got your first paying job?
Future or Hypothetical
What position do you think you will be holding in 10 years?
External
Did you ever get fired from a job?
Internal
What is your attitude toward friends who smoke marijuana?
Objective
How many hours did you study for your bar exam?
Subjective
Would you describe yourself as shy?
First-hand
How punctual are you about coming to work?
Second-hand
How would your teachers describe your punctuality?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata ItemsDiscrete
At what age did you get your driver’s license?
Summative
How many hours do you study during an average week?
Verifiable
What was your grade point average in college?
Non-verifiable
How may servings of fresh vegetables do you eat everyday?
Controllable
How many tries did it take you to pass the CPA exam?
Non-controllable
How many brothers and sisters do you have?
Equal Access
Were you ever class president?
Non-equal Access
Were you ever captain of the football team?
Job Relevant
How many units of cereal did you sell during the last calendar year?
Not job relevant
Are you proficient at crossword puzzles?
Noninvasive
Were you on the tennis team in college?
Invasive
How many young children do you have at home?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Biodata Scoring
Variable Long Tenure (%)
Short Tenure (%)
Differences in %
Unit Weight
Education
High School 40 80 -40 -1
Bachelor’s 59 15 +44 +1
Masters 1 5 -4 0
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Strengths of Biodata
– Good validity (r = .36, ρ= .51)
– Can predict for variety of criterion measures
– Easy to administer
– Relatively inexpensive
– Fairly valid
– Can have good face validity
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Weaknesses of Biodata
– Low face validity
– Can invade privacy
– Items can be offensive
– Expensive to develop
– Not always practical to develop
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity Issues
• Shrinkage?
• Good validity but not sure why
• Validity seems to drop when items based rationally (job analysis) rather than empirically
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Personality Inventories
Personality is a collection of traits that persist across time and situations and differentiate one person from another
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Differences in Personality Inventories
• Types of Personality Inventories– Measures of normal personality– Measures of psychopathology
• Basis for Personality Dimensions– Theory based– Statistically based– Empirically based
• Scoring– Objective– Projective
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Five-Factor Model (The Big 5)
Openness to Experience – imaginative, curious, cultured
Conscientiousness– organized, disciplined, careful
Extraversion– outgoing, gregarious, fun-loving
Agreeableness – trusting, cooperative, flexible
Neuroticism (emotional stability)– anxious, insecure, vulnerable to stress
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Validity of Personality
Meta-Analysis
Hurtz & Donovan (2003)
Barrick & Mount (1991)
Tett et al. (1991)
Dimension Observed True Observed True Observed True
Openness .03 .06 .03 .04 .18 .24
Conscientiousness .15 .24 .13 .22 .12 .16
Extroversion .06 .09 .08 .13 .10 .13
Agreeableness .07 .12 .04 .07 .22 .28
Neuroticism - .09 - .15 - .05 - .08 - .15 - .19
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Comparison of Meta-AnalysesConscientiousness
Hurtz & Donovan (2003)
Barrick & Mount (1991)
Tett et al. (1991)
Types of studies included in meta-analysis
Only those developed to tap
Big 5
Any test that could be assigned to a Big
5 dimension
Only studies in which a Big 5 dimension was
hypothesized to be related to
performance
k 42 123 7
n 7,342 19,721 450
Observed validity .15 .13 .12
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of PersonalityStrengths
– Relatively cheap– Easy to administer– Little adverse impact– Predicts best when based on a
job analysis
Weaknesses– Scale development– Validity– Faking
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Interest Inventories• Tap an applicant’s interest in particular
types of work or careers• Poor predictors of job performance (ρ = .13)• Better predictors of job satisfaction
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Integrity Tests
• Estimate the probability that applicants will steal money or merchandise
• Used mostly in retail, but gaining acceptance for other occupations
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Types of Integrity Tests
Electronic Testing• Polygraph testing
Paper and Pencil Testing• Overt• Personality based
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Polygraph Testing
• Polygraph (lie detector) is a machine that measures the physiological responses that accompany the verbal responses an individual makes to a direct questions asked by polygraph operator.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Limitations of the Polygraph
• Emotions other than guilt can trigger responses
• Countermeasures used to avoid detection
• Frequency of false positives
• Frequency of false negatives
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Legal Guidelines for Polygraph Testing
Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 makes it illegal to:• Directly or indirectly require an employee to take a
polygraph• Use, accept, refer to, or inquire about the results of any
polygraph test of any applicant or employee• Discharge, discipline, discriminate against, or deny
employment or promotion to (or threaten such actions) against any prospective or current employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to a polygraph
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Legal Guidelines for Polygraph Testing
The following are exempt from these prohibitions
– Private employers providing security services
– Employers who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances
– Federal, state, and local government employees.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Paper and Pencil Integrity Tests
Overt integrity tests• Directly ask for attitudes about theft and
occurrences of theft behavior
Personality based measures• Measure traits linked to several theft related
employee behaviors that are detrimental to the organization
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Overt Integrity Tests
Rationale is to measure job applicants’ attitudes and cognitions toward theft that might predispose them to steal at work, especially when both the need and opportunity to steal are present.
Research has shown that the “typical” employee-thief:• Is more tempted to steal• Engages in many of the common rationalizations for theft• Would punish thieves less• Often thinks about theft related activities• Attributes more theft to others• Shows more inter-thief loyalty• Is more vulnerable to peer pressure to steal than an honest employee
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Personality-Based Integrity Measures
Employee theft is just one element in a larger syndrome of antisocial behavior of organizational delinquency. Therefore, overt integrity tests overlook a number of other counterproductive behaviors that are costly to the organization
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Other Behaviors Integrity Tests Can Predict
• Drug and alcohol abuse• Vandalism• Sabotage• Assault behaviors• Insubordination• Absenteeism• Excessive grievances• Bogus workers compensation claims• Violence
© 2013 Cengage Learning
The Validity and Reliability of Integrity Tests
Validity• Theft
• .41 for predicting probability of theft by employees
• Performance (Ones et al. 1993)• Observed = .21
• True = .34
Reliability• Reports of test-retest reliabilities between .90-.70
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Evaluation of Integrity Tests
• Advantages– Good validity (ρ = .34)
– Inexpensive to use
– Easy to administer
– Little to no racial adverse impact
• Disadvantages– Males have a higher fail rate than females
– Younger people have a higher fail rate than older people
– Failure has a negative psychological impact on applicants.
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Conditional Reasoning Tests
• Designed to reduce faking• Applicants are given a series of statements and asked to select the
reason that justifies each statement• Aggressive individuals tend to believe
– most people have harmful intentions behind their behavior (hostile attribution bias)
– it is important to show strength or dominance in social interactions (potency bias)
– it is important to retaliate when wronged rather than try to maintain a relationship (retribution bias)
– powerful people will victimize less powerful individuals (victimization bias)
– evil people deserve to have bad things happen to them (derogation of target bias)
– social customs restrict free will and should be ignored (social discounting bias).
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Graphology
• Concept– A person’s handwriting is a reflection on his or her personality and
character
• Use– 6,000 U.S. organizations– 75% of organizations in France– 8% of organizations in the United Kingdom
• Evaluation– Few studies– Validity depends on the writing sample (Simner & Goffin, 2003)
• Autobiographical (r = .16, p = .22)• Non-autobiographical (r = .09, p = .12)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Drug Testing• Use
– In 2001, 80% of U.S. organizations tested for drugs– In 2003, 4.6% of applicants tested positive for drugs– In 2007, 8.2% of employees admitted to using drugs in
the past month
• Drug users are more likely to– Miss work– Use health care benefits– Be fired– Have an accident
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Drug Testing
Forms of Testing– Pre-employment testing– Random selection at predetermined times– Random selection at random times– Testing after an accident or disciplinary action
Responses to the Presence of Drugs– 98% of job offers withdrawn – Current employees who test positive
• 25% are fired after a positive test• 66% are referred to counseling and treatment
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Two Stages of Drug Testing
• Initial screening of hair or urine– Cheaper method (about $50)
– Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT)
– Radioimmunoassay (RIA)
• Confirmation test– Typically used only after a positive initial screening
– Thin layer chromatography/mass spectrometry
– More expensive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLDkXj4K2A
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Typical Corrected Validity Coefficients for Selection Techniques
Method Validity Method Validity
Structured Interview .57 References .29
Cognitive ability .51 Experience .27
Biodata .51 Situational judgment tests .26
Job knowledge .48 Conscientiousness .24
Work samples (verbal)
.48 Unstructured interviews .20
Assessment centers .38 Interest inventories .10
Integrity tests .34 Handwriting analysis .02
College grades .32 Projective personality tests .00
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Adverse ImpactTechnique White-
BlackWhite-
HispanicMeta-analysis
Cognitive ability 1.10 .72 Roth et al. (2001)
GPA .78 Roth & Bobko (2000)
Work sample .73 Roth et al. (2008)
Assessment centers .52 .28 Dean et al. (2008)
Job knowledge .48 .47 Roth et al. (2003)
Situational judgment .38 .24 Whetzel et al. (2008)
Biodata .33 Bobko et al. (1999)
Structured interview .23 Huffcutt & Roth (1998)
Recommendations .22 Aamodt (2002)
Personality .09 Schmitt et al. (1996)
References .08 Aamodt & Williams (2005)
Integrity tests .07 -.05 Ones & Viswesvaran (1998)
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Focus on EthicsUsing Personality Inventories
• In your class, your professor will probably ask you to take the Employee Personality Inventory in your workbook. After you do, consider whether or not you want your job performance to be judged based on the results of such a test. Would you say that this test would fairly predict your ability to perform in certain jobs?
• Does it accurately portray how you would fit into an organization’s culture or how you would get along with others? If it doesn’t accurately portray you, would you then say such a test is
• unethical?• Should the tests be better regulated? Are companies right
in using them in their selection process?
© 2013 Cengage Learning
Focus on EthicsUsing Personality Inventories
• Do you see any other ethical concerns related to using personality inventories?
• Is there a fairer and more ethical way for companies to determine if applicants will fit into the organizational culture and get along with others?