Monday, April 15, 2013

Drug Testing: Friend or Foe?

The Controversy 

Within the last few years, drug testing has become more of a controversy within different industries than it ever has before. In some businesses, it has become more prominent and necessary, and in others, a more “care free” approach is being taken. The human resource component of any business is responsible for the initiation, completion and handling of the results of a drug test for selected employees. The testing is typically done in an outside laboratory with trained professionals.

The American Council on Drug Education states that compared to their coworkers, substance abusers are less productive on the job by 33%. On the contrary, the United States will face a shortage of 111,000 truck drivers by 2014, according to The American Trucking Association. Drug testing is mandatory for almost all drivers in the trucking industry, which is correlated to the lack of truck drivers. So the real question is, how necessary is drug testing, and is it more important in certain industries compared to others?

The Grey Area

The 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health as part of the US Department of Health and Human Services claimed 11.9% of part time employed adults and 10.5% of full time adults were classified as dependent or abusive to drugs. The question is: are these percentages enough to raise awareness and take action, or relax and save companies the hassle?

The Benefits

The American Council on Drug Education has determined the following expense statistics when comparing substance abusing employees to their co-workers:
  •     Ten times more likely to miss work
  •     3.6 times more likely to be involved in on-the-job accidents
  •     5 times more likely to injure themselves or another coworker in the process
  •     33% less productive
  •     Responsible for health care costs that are 3 times as high


Each of these statistics can be responsible for different costs associated within any business. These expenses can exceed the amount of money a simple drug test would cost. It would depend on what business these drug abusing and clean employees are in.

The chairman of the board of the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA), Joe Reilly, claims his business is up 38% since 2002. His company administers drug tests, and has not showed a decline in its business or employees, but a “boom.” More and more industries are implementing drug tests, and not just within larger companies. A recent increase in smaller and medium companies using drug tests has been reported by Reilly and the DATIA.

One study suggests that when it comes to drug testing within the workplace, if employees know they are going to be tested, they are less likely to use drugs. The National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) were analyzed over various years to show that drug testing within a workplace decreases drug use within its employees. It proved there was a 24% lower rate of drug use among employees involved in a company that uses a drug testing program. It also confirmed that employees in industries that have a drug testing program are 38.5% less likely to become a chronic drug user.

The Cons

Drug testing within all industries comes with many different tasks and expenses. The human resource department is held responsible for keeping track of this information, which makes their work days busier compared to if their company did not drug test its employees. HR professionals also have to keep up to date with which employees need to be tested and when, if their company requires periodic testing. The expenses associated with drug testing can add up within industries. In one year alone, $11.7 million dollars was spent on drug testing between 38 federal government agencies. Texas Instruments, a leading technology company specializing in scientific calculators, spends about $1 million dollars per year to drug test its 10,000 employees. This can be broken down to about $100 per worker per year. Within the aviation industry alone, $14 million dollars is allocated per year due to drug testing. These are just 3 examples of the costs different businesses face each year to make sure their current employees and future employees do not partake in the recreational use of drugs.

According to Lew Maltby of the National Workrights Institute, “you can’t fool people forever,” meaning that the reasons behind drug testing are not always accurate. We are always promised an increase in safety and productivity within the workplace because of the use of drug tests; however, it has not been proven to actually implement safety nor productivity.

Comparing the Controversies

Requiring a drug test for employment has many different positive and negative aspects. As stated above, the aviation industry spends a substantial amount of money ($14 million) to drug test their employees. This is vital in the aviation industry because employees such as flight attendants and pilots are responsible for other people’s lives, while being on the job. In other industries, such as the hospitality industry, drug testing has been decreased and pushed to the back burner these past few years. This is not only because of the expenses, but the relevancy of the drug test to the hospitality industry (i.e. – waitresses and hostesses). A drug test may be a more necessary and an essential tool in certain businesses and industries over others. Factors such as company expenses, human resource employees, and overall company image all need to be taken into account. Overall, it is up to the business itself whether or not to administer a drug test to its employees.

Cadrain, D. Drug Testing Falls Out of Employers’ Favor. HRMagazine, June 2006. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/abicomplete/docview/205013840/13D75F01AE725B18710/2?accountid=12924

Verstraete, A. Workplace Drug Testing. Pharmaceutical Press, 2011. Retrieved from:

Zimmer, L., & Maltby, L. Drug Testing: A Bad Investment. American Civil Liberties Union, September 1999. Retrieved from:

Racism in the Modern Workplace

Introduction

As much as we as a society would like to think that we are passed the days of racism in the workplace, consider this: The most common form of employment discrimination in the United States in the year 2012 was race discrimination. The filed charges were for 33,512. Workplace discrimination based on a person’s racial background is against the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so why are we still continually running into so many claims? Racism is difficult to recognize for someone who has never felt that type of discrimination. Even if you are the employee who has fell victim to racist thinking, it may be difficult to recognize. In a small work environment, it may be difficult for the average employee to really feel how deep racism can go in the workplace. When only seeing a small portion of an organization, it may be difficult for the average employee to notice the patterns within the work environment that would otherwise reveal racist tendencies.

The "New" Racism in the Workplace
According to research conducted by Katz and Moore, common feedback from people of color is that they have a lack of access to information they need in order to fulfill their job duties sufficiently. Often times when they are given a title, they soon realize they do not have any real authority or voice in their new position. The “comfort factor” among white supervisors or managers also plays a major role in this racist workplace environment. Feedback from people of color also note that white managers are almost afraid to give them any sort of feedback to see where they stand, never really being able to gage where they are within the organization. Reading research regarding these various comments and feedback suggests that we have created a corporate culture where there is “silent” racism. For fear of being racist, employers are now treating employees of color much differently than that of white employees, meaning they are guilty of the very thing they are trying to avoid, which in turn is causing problems for the person of color.

A Study on Modern Racism in the Workplace
In the study Just Doing Business: Modern Racism and Obedience to Authority as Explanations for Employment Discrimination, the researchers investigated the effects of prejudice (in the form of modern racism) and business justifications by authority figures to see if the two were strongly related.  The study defines authority as anyone who is in charge of making decisions in order to guide the actions of others. The following excerpt discusses their findings:
“As expected, business justifications by legitimate authority figures led to participants’ obedience in the form of discrimination relative to a no-justification condition and, in the second experiment, also relative to a condition in which the business justification came from an illegitimate authority figure. Moreover, in both experiments, as expected, modern racism did not have a main effect on discrimination, but interacted with business justifications such that modern racism predicted discrimination when a legitimate authority figure provided a business-related justification for such discrimination but not in the absence of such a justification. These results are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications for understanding prejudice and obedience to authority in organizations and in terms of their practical implications for addressing the problem of discrimination in the workplace. In Study 1, as expected, (a) subordinates receiving a business justification from a legitimate authority figure to discriminate against Black job applicants tended to do so and (b) subordinates’ prejudice predicted discrimination only in the presence of such a justification. Given the dependent variable in the study was the number of qualified Black applicants selected for interviews, the strength of these effects is apparent.”

Conclusion
The study concludes that racism was prevalent when a person of authority had been justifying the racism for business purposes. However, illegitimate authority figures also had an effect, but not as strong as a linear relationship. The tone for how we should treat each other does indeed start at the top. Justifying racism, sends a message to the entire organization. When setting an example from the top to down, if a fellow employee, or illegitimate authority figure does justify racism, a manager or other authority figure can discipline those actions, which is why it is so important to educate everyone within an organization about the impacts of racism on both the individual and organizational levels. It is important for the HR industry to strive to create a better tomorrow- a place where everyone can feel protected.

References
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(1), 72-97.

http://www.eeoc.gov/

Katz, J. H., & Moore, K. R. (2012). Racism in the Workplace. Handbook for Strategic HR: Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, 177.

Using Social Media for Recruiting



Overview

Social media is being used extensively by organizations for recruiting purposes. In fact, the percentage of companies using social media in this manner has increased over time. One of the articles that I discovered in my research discussed this increase by presenting the results of a survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management. In this survey of 277 participants, it was found that 56% of participants used social media for recruiting in 2011 compared with 34% of participants who used this tool for recruiting in 2008 (Darragh, 2012). Based on this increase, the percentage of use is probably even higher in the current year. The survey also found that the most popular social media site for recruiting was LinkedIn, followed by Facebook and Twitter (Darragh, 2012). Employers can create profiles on these sites, post upcoming recruiting events and job openings, and connect with potential employees who also have profiles on these sites. However, there may be some legal risks with using social media due to the amount of sensitive information posted on these profiles, such as religious and political views. This blog entry is going to discuss the potential legal issues of using social media to attract employees as well as ways for organizations to protect themselves from these problems. The benefits of using social media will also be presented.

Benefits of using social media

One of the benefits of using social media for recruiting purposes is that it is a low-cost method. Most social networking sites do not require any payment for joining. The money saved from using social media for recruiting can be used to fund long-term projects for the growth of the organization. Social media also makes the recruiting process quicker because it takes seconds to send or receive information through the various social media sites. “With the ability to take information directly from a user’s social media profile, the HR department can review candidate information in seconds rather than several minutes” (Doherty, 2010). This means that the recruiting process becomes more efficient with the use of social networking. Besides these advantages, social networking sites help an organization connect with passive candidates. These candidates are talented individuals who are not actively seeking a job position but may become interested with further contact by an employer (Doherty, 2010). This will of course increase an organization's pool of potential employees to fill current and future openings.

Legal implications

Most of the problems that occur from using social media for recruiting are connected with legal issues. With the amount of personal information that is available on social networking sites, lawsuits for discrimination in employment practices may hurt organizations if they do not effectively monitor the use of social media in recruiting. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for any employer to make employment decisions based on color, race, religion, sex, or national origin” (Darragh, 2012). It is illegal for employers to pre-screen job candidates on this type of personal information, which includes veteran status, age, and disabilities as well, based on state and federal regulations. Therefore, it is very important to make sure that this information does not affect hiring decisions. Another risk is the disparate impact on minorities and other protected classes from using social networking sites. Disparate impact was presented in our course material in the discussion about discrimination. Disparate impact occurs when a particular employment practice, which is not related to the necessities of the job position, negatively affects protected classes. Organizations that exclusively use professional networking sites will have a disparate impact on minority groups who are under-represented on these types of sites (Darragh, 2012). There may be generational variations in the usage of social networking sites as well. Organizations that use social networking sites may end up “violating civil rights laws by accidentally excluding too many applicants over the age of 40 given younger persons tend to be more likely to use these websites” (Davison, Maraist, & Bing, 2011). Many risks exist in social media recruiting.

Employers need to come up with efficient methods to mitigate the risks described above. One approach is to “create guidelines as to how social media searches are to be performed and the appropriate search terms personnel can use” (Darragh, 2012). A detailed plan for how and when social media is used should be in place. Another method is to have one employee handle social media searches on potential employees and pass on nondiscriminatory information to the hiring manager who makes the employment decision.  This would ensure that discriminatory information is not used in hiring (Darragh, 2012). In order to avoid disparate impact problems, employers should use social media along with other recruiting methods to hire individuals from a broad range of candidates.

Relevance to students

Social media recruiting is relevant to students because of the widespread use of the method. It has become a part of human resource management. Also, this means that students need to make sure that they participate in social networking sites to get the attention of recruiters. Many great job opportunities, which they may not know about, can become available to them through these sites. It is important for students to be aware of the legal implications of this recruiting tool as well in order to understand what information can be used from their own profiles for hiring decisions and how to legally use social media for hiring employees in their careers. Due to the increase in usage, students will definitely face social media recruiting at some point in their career. This blog entry discussed some of the advantages and disadvantages of using social media during the recruiting process. The use of social networking is efficient but it may cause legal issues. This post discussed some legal risks and the solutions for employers to mitigate risks and effectively use social media in attracting talented and diverse individuals.

References

Darragh, R. (2012). Recruiting risk: Hiring via social media channels. Compliance Week, 9(97), 49-49,57. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/930781133?accountid=12924

Davison, H. K., Maraist, C., & Bing, M. N. (2011). Friend or foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 153-159. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9215-8

Doherty, R. (2010). Getting social with recruitment. Strategic HR Review, 9(6), 11-15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14754391011078063  
 
Mathis, J. (2011). Human Resource Management. 13th ed. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Myth or Fact: Women Earn less than Men in the Workplace

Introduction

I raise the question, are women disadvantaged in the workplace? An important perspective to consider in HR is that of a hard working woman. As much as we would like to think we have come a long way in our society to reduce discrimination of any kind, statistics show that sexual discrimination is still alive and kicking in our world. Knowing this, it is important in HR to know how to recognize sexual discrimination in our organizations, and understand the proper corrective action to help reduce these injustices in the future.

Current Statistics

The following is an excerpt from a recent article Unequal Pay is Sex Discrimination illustrating the startling statistics our society faces:
Pay Inequality - Women Earn Less Than Men Across The Board 
  • Women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men earn working comparable hours.
  • African American women earn only 72 cents for every dollar men earn.
  • Latinas 60 cents for every dollar that men earn.
  • Women who work more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men do who work the same long hours.
  • Even in jobs categories that are predominantly occupied by women (i.e. childcare), women still only make about 95% of men's wages for performing the same jobs.”

One of the first things that come to mind when pondering gender discrimination is sexual harassment in the workplace. While being degraded physically and emotionally is a very important aspect of discrimination against women in the workplace, the most difficult to recognize by the masses would be gender discrimination. Unlike sexual harassment, gender discrimination may not be so obvious at first glance. Employers sometimes put their blinders on to these types of situations because they may be more difficult to prove when the issue may be a salary issue. Because our society has stereotypes of males and females, these biases are often carried into our work life. Two candidates, one male and female, may be equally qualified based on performance and job experience. Because our stereotypes depict males as being more fit for managerial positions, when all things are equal, our stereotypes in society become prevalent in decision making. This is causing women to not be promoted as quickly as a man. When all things are equal, a man will be the first hire. I truly feel from my own experience working for a corporation for years that people may make these biased decisions on a subconscious level. Since gender discrimination has almost become taboo to talk about, many people do not seem to recognize their own short comings in the work place because we are so conditioned in society to turn a blind eye to it. The more informed we become in HR, the more we can teach employees in organization to uphold an organizations values, which should include equal opportunity for all.

Studies: Gender Discrimination in Salaries

According to the article Discrimination in Salaries, women may not even be aware of gender discrimination being done to them:

“Determinants of Perceived Discrimination

A second part of this study looks at perceptions of discrimination to determine if women and men are aware that factors extrinsic to work affect salary. A number of studies have found that although women earn less than men in a wide variety of work settings, women are not aware that they are being discriminated against (Crosby, 1982). Laboratory studies have found that a lack of awareness of discrimination may be due to an inability to see general patterns when one only has access to a few isolated examples of a common.”


According to the study done by C. Halaby, women are statistically proven to be disadvantaged in our society. “These comparisons of reduced form equations reveal that in virtually every respect women are at an economic disadvantage vis-a-vis men. This means that most of the variation in salary that is attributable to sex (30.7%, Table 1; and which may be viewed as a standardized measure of the overall level of structurally induced sexual inequality) is generated by differences in coefficients that are unfavorable to the economic interests of women. The only difference that contributes to the overall level of inequality but leaves men at a disadvantage occurs with respect to the effect of previous positions, and this is very small. Finally, we observe that for women (R-squared = .322) more than men (R-squared =.206), salary is determined by a linear combination of schooling and experience. By the same token the conditional inequality in salary is less among women (. 127) than among men (. 190). Again, these patterns repeat the findings of aggregate level analyses (Featherman and Hauser, 1976).”

Conclusion

Since R-squared is closer to 1 when looking at the female data, statistically we can infer that there is a stronger linear relationship between women’s schooling and experience than for men. Thus, we can assume that men are not solely given salaries based on criteria that our society deems appropriate for equal opportunity no matter your gender. Unfortunately, I am calling this one a fact due to the overwhelming amount of studies and articles. The most empowering course of action we can take as a woman is to not take no for an answer, and to challenge our work environments to be diplomatically equal among its employees in our day to day activities.


References

Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E., & Good, D. C. (1990). Perceived and Actual Discrimination in the Salaries of Male and Female Managers1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 46-67.

Gender Discrimination - Unequal Pay is Sex Discrimination. Women in Business Networking. Retrieved April 6, 2013, from http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/gender-inquality-issues/a/Gender-Discrimination-Unequal-Pay-Is-A-Form-Of-Gender-Discrimination.htm .

Halaby, C. N. (1979). Sexual inequality in the workplace: An employer-specific analysis of pay differences. Social Science Research, 8(1), 79-104.

Jensen, K., & Kleiner, B. H. (1999). How to determine proper corrective action following sexual harassment investigations. Equal Opportunities International, 18(2/3/4), 23-29.


The Components of Company Incentive Plans


Companies sometimes struggle with keeping their staff motivated in their work. This can be one of the biggest challenges that HR managers face. The way that HR executives and company managers create enthusiasm among their staff is by providing company incentive plans. The incentives can come in many forms. They can be split up into 3 specific categories. These categories include individual incentives, group incentives, and organizational incentives. I will be going through all three different incentive strategies and describing how company executives and HR managers apply them and what they entail.


Individual Incentives
Individual incentive plans are used to link an employee’s success to added rewards on top of their original compensation. There must be a few conditions present for individual incentive plans to be used and successful in a company. One thing necessary is for the employee’s individual performance to be identified. The HR managers must be able to measure the employee’s performance. The measurement is necessary because each employee has different jobs and responsibilities so they need a way to scale their performance and relate it to other employees. HR managers must also tolerate competitiveness among employees. Incentive plans require certain employees to win and others to lose and this creates competiveness among employees. This competition, more times than not, forces the employees to want to perform at a higher level. The most popular individual incentive system is called the Piece-rate system. This system uses a simple calculation to determine the wages for employees. The number of units an employee produces is then multiplied by the price of one unit. This calculation allows executives to determine an employee’s performance.

Group Incentives
The use of groups and teams in organizations poses an opportunity to do combined incentive plans and incorporate the entire group/team. This takes a little more work on the part of the HR managers because they have to create an incentive plan for a group of different people rather than just one individual. This makes it more difficult because the entire team must benefit from the incentive plan for it to be effective. Some examples of team/group incentives include cash bonuses for the entire team or things other than cash like vacations. The issue with group incentives is how it places pressure on the person presenting the incentives. They are forced to choose between same size reward for each member of the group and different sized reward for each member. These are the two principal ways that HR executives distribute the group incentive awards. Group incentives can also be distributed different times of the year to team members. They are normally given out annually. Although, when there is a shorter time between each incentive, it will usually show the employees the relation between their performance and their reward.


Organizational Incentives
This type of incentive plan is the next step up from group and team incentive plans. Individual incentive plans are the smallest and more focused plan then it increases to team incentive plans, which is broader and encompasses a small number of people. The final level up is known as an Organizational incentive plan. It rewards the entire companies workforce based on how the organization performs in that specific year. These incentive plans are meant to bring an organization closer together and promote cooperation among employees. Organizational incentive plans can be divided into two separate systems. They are known as profit sharing, which is when the company distributes the profit of the company to employees, and employee stock plans, which is where companies allow employee to purchase company stock at a reduced price.

Conclusion
At some companies employees have difficult times staying focused and motivated on their work. This requires some sort of reward for excellent performance to get them back on track. Organizations use incentive plans to help motivate employees to perform to the best of their ability. These plans can produce competition among employees but competition can bring out the best work in some people. There are three types of incentive plans that exist in companies today. They begin by focusing on individuals to focusing on entire companies. They are Individual Incentive plans, Group/team Incentive plans, and Organization Incentive plans. Using these three plans companies are able to push their employees and help them persevere to perform at there best by using cash or non cash incentives (vacations).



References


Anonymous (1992). Focus on Incentive plans. [ONLINE] Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/208153966. [Last Accessed April 13, 2013].

Michael Dodson (1992). Flexible Incentives. [ONLINE] Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/203354354. [Last Accessed April 13, 2013].

Mathis Jackson, (2011). Human Resource Management. 13th ed. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Jan Norman (1998). Incentive plans help motivate workers. [ONLINE] Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 252569061. [Last Accessed April 13, 2013].


Melissa Campenelli (1992). Incentives. [ONLINE] Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/211823759. [Last Accessed April 13, 2013].




Sunday, April 14, 2013

Interviewing Strategies for Managers



Overview

Interviewing is a crucial step in the hiring process because this step helps managers get a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the applicants for a job opening. Also, this step leads to the final hiring decision. Although there are some differing views about the most effective interview strategies, these strategies are all connected to the common goal of hiring the best available individuals for open positions. Some managers believe that interviewing skills come naturally to an individual and that “good” interviews occur spontaneously, but this is not true. Planning is needed to have effective interviews (Ramsey, 2011). Every organization needs to come up with a plan, which outlines the results desired and methods used, before interviews take place. An individual may have a great resume and may shine during the interview, but he/she may not fit well in the organizational culture or may hurt the company due to an inability to apply their skills if the interviewer did not follow a strategic plan. Were the right types of questions asked? What are we looking for in a new hire? These are the types of questions which should have been addressed before the interview, during the planning phase. This blog entry is going to discuss some of the general ideas for improving the interview process, because interviews are essential for the long-term success of an organization. If interviews are used effectively, then the right people will be hired and these talented individuals will help improve organizational performance. Otherwise, turnover costs will be high as employees who do not fit the organization leave.

Medium for Interviews

In this day and age, an interview does not have to occur face-to-face. A telephone call or a live video chat, such as through Skype, could be used to conduct an interview of job candidates. However, none of these other mediums can compare to the face-to-face interview. “Only through face-to-face interaction can a supervisor observe small gestures, grimaces, twitches, tics, breathing irregularities, fidgeting, raised eyebrows, blinking, beads of perspiration and other nonverbal clues” (Ramsey, 2011). In a telephone interview, the interviewer can only pick up on the words and manner of speaking of the interviewee as well as any awkward pauses. The interviewer cannot observe facial expressions or other physical gestures which need to be observed in order to determine such characteristics of the individual as his/her confidence level or attitude. The video interview will not be any better because the video quality may be poor or there may be interruptions due to technical difficulties. These other methods may be more convenient than the face-to-face interview but they will be less effective. Therefore, organizations should use these methods only to narrow their pool of candidates if they have numerous applicants. Physical interviews should be used to find the best candidate out of the pool.

Preparation Before the Interview

Before interviews take place, it is important for the interviewers to be trained on interviewing. Interviewers need to know what types of questions they can legally ask an interviewee because one misstep can lead to substantial lawsuits. Interviewers should avoid asking questions that are not related to the job position and any discriminatory questions such as whether the candidate is disabled. Before coming up with a list of interview questions to ask, the interviewer needs to have a strong grasp of the desired traits and behaviors to look for in an employee which match the culture of the organization. Then, the interviewer can come up with the relevant questions that probe how well the interviewee fits with organizational culture (Mueller & Baum, 2011). The interviewer should come up with a standard list of questions which delve into the core competencies needed for the job as well as the traits and behaviors described above. This will ensure that the interview is structured around specific job aspects and there is some consistency applied (McNeil, 2012). Of course, the interviewer should not stick to these questions only. The interviewer should tailor some additional questions based on the answers received for the standard questions to get a better understanding of the candidate during the interview.

Interview Questions

While researching interview strategies, I found that the most differing views were related to the type of interview questions to be used. One article argued that behavioral questions that deal with past actions are not relevant. The past does not necessarily predict the future. Instead, "how" questions should be asked in which the interviewee must discuss how he/she would apply skills to the job. How would the candidate decrease costs? How would the candidate increase revenue for the organization? These questions would shift the focus to what the interviewee would be able to do for the company rather than what actions the interviewee may have taken in the past with other organizations (Remillard, 2012). On the other hand, another article argued for behavioral questions that deal with the past. Behavioral questions shed light on events that actually took place and situations that were actually faced by the candidate. What type of problems did the candidate encounter and what did he/she do? These types of questions identify the experiences of the candidate as well as how the candidate learned from mistakes (Mueller & Baum, 2011). In my opinion, both types of questions described above should be used in interviews because they both have benefits. The behavioral questions would help determine the candidate' s relevant experience and the "how" questions would help get a sense of the candidate' s level of motivation for the job as well as their ideas for completing tasks.

There Is an App for That!

Apple has an application for its devices that helps managers before, during, and after interviews. The app, which costs $14.99, offers tutorials on preparing for and structuring interviews as well as reading nonverbal cues. It allows managers to pick interview questions from skill categories and send those questions through e-mail. During an interview, the app will display the questions and encourage you to dig deeper. Afterwards, an assessment, which also can be e-mailed, is offered to evaluate the interviewee (“Interviewing app,” 2010). This application assists hiring managers in preparing for and conducting an effective interview which will lead to optimal hiring decisions.

Impact on Students

This blog entry will benefit students in two ways. First, it gives students an idea of what to expect in an effective interview process. Students can practice with behavioral and “how” questions to be better prepared for interviews that they may have for job openings. Also, this blog entry gives students suggestions for how to conduct an interview when their careers have progressed and they are in the hiring manager's place. Even if the students do not end up working as hiring managers, they may be asked to participate in a panel interview in the organization that they work for. This blog entry discusses how to plan for interviews with the right types of questions.

References

Interviewing app. (2010). Credit Union Management, 33(2), 26-26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227796689?accountid=12924

McNeil, R. (2012). Better interviewing, Better Hires. Long-Term Living, 61(9), 32.

Mueller, J. R., & Baum, B. (2011). The definitive guide to hiring right. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(3), 140-153. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/885179591?accountid=12924

Ramsey, R. D., EdD. (2011). The art of interviewing final job candidates. SuperVision, 72(1), 3-5. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/820160476?accountid=12924

Remillard, B. (2012). Hiring right. Kitchen & Bath Business, 59(5), 20-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1268704608?accountid=12924