debate

Over the past 50 years,personnel selection hasbeen in a state ofconstantflux.Gone arethe days when employees or organizations could make decisions(e.g.,who to hire,promote, train etc.) without thoroughly considering theconsequences oftheir actions.Social norms, laws and scientificevidence all compel organizations toact only onpersonalcharacteristicsrelatedto job performance.As our societyprogresses andindividuals strive tobe “blind”to race, ethnicity, color,age, sexdisability and a myriad of other individualdifferences; today’syouthis encouraged to “shoot forthe stars.” In an era where, for the first time inhistory, women makeup1/3 of the U.S. Supreme Court and the country has elected an African Americapresident, the expression “you can have it all” seemingly describes the opportunities available to everyone in the United States today.

Concurrently,rapid changes in technology provideaccess to informationthatpeople a generationago could scarcely have imagined. Entire industries have emerged to create, store andmanipulate this information. Personnel practitioners (e.g., I-Opsychologists, HRMprofessionals, academics and consultants) are confrontedwith the challengeof determining how use this information.Much like the
employees and organizations that they serve, personnel practitioners must take into consideration changing social norms, laws, legal precedent, and scientific evidence.Where there is an absence of such information,it falls on personnel practitioners to makea well-reasoned andlogicalargument forwhere, how, when and whythesepractices should/should not be adopted.

Background
Legal & Social. When students enroll in a college course such as Psychology ofWork, or Human Resources Management, they have an opportunity to learn howboth psychological principles andsocial forces interact to affect their lives on a daily basis. Students face challengesto their own personal beliefs and often question their socialization. They learn thatachieving their highest aspirations and “having it all” may not be aseasyas itsounds.

Students learnthat there are still inequitiesand other subtle forms of discrimination in our society andin other societiesaroundtheworld. For instance, unequal treatment (a.k.a. disparate treatment)can be camouflaged with theuse of professionally developedassessments.Althoughtheseminal case of Griggs vs. Duke Power helped toclarify the intent behind Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and include the concept of disparate impact, this threat still remains a valid and salient concern inthe U.S.

Students also learn that thelaws established to protectthem are not alwaysperfect. In order to protect individuals against such unfair and discriminatorypractices, companies needto behyper vigilant about how theymakeall oftheirdecisions.It can benearlyimpossible forcompanies to avoid legal challenges given: (1) that the intent behind personnel systems is to discriminate thosewho cannot do the job from those who can do the job; (2) the 4/5ths Rule used bythe courts to establishPrima Facia case of adverse impact is animperfect metric; and (3) unfairnessorbias can arise in an almostunlimited number of ways.As such, these lawscan be a burden for companies acting in good faith.

Changing Technology. As mentioned above, changes in technology provide access to new and potentially useful forms ofinformation.The explosion of networking sites(e.g.,Facebook,LinkedIn, and Mendeley etc.), blogs,and other forms ofonline social media havecreated vast pool of personal informationand advances in database management and search algorithms make this informationeasily accessible.Companies nowseethe advantages ofthisnew information androutinely use it to make decisions about where tosell, market, and producetheir products; however, the legality/fairness/desirability of using thisinformationfor personnel selection is still in a gray area.

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DSICOUNT !!!!