Comparing financial and social costs for top‐down versus fixed‐band selection: A practical application with bus drivers

• Date: 01 June 2018
• Author: Stephen D. Risavy,Jessica B. Sorenson,Peter A. Hausdorf
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1425
• Published date: 01 June 2018

Comparing financial and social costs for top-down

versus fixed-band selection: A practical

application with bus drivers

Jessica B. Sorenson

University of Guelph

Peter A. Hausdorf*

University of Guelph

Stephen D. Risavy

Wilfrid Laurier University

Abstract

A number of solutions have been proposed to the diversity-

validity dilemma arising from the use of cognitive ability

tests in employment selection. Cognitive ability tests predict

training and job performance but also produce adverse

impact against minority groups. Although banding reduces

adverse impact, it has been criticized for also reducing the

utility of the selection process. We assessed the social and

f‌inancial impact of a f‌ixed band approach with top-down

hiring across several hiring scenarios with a pool of bus

driver applicants. Overall, the f‌ixed band approach reduced

adverse impact without substantially reducing the cost effec-

tiveness of the hiring process. We discuss the implications of

these two approaches in the context of the diversity-validity

dilemma. Copyright © 2016 ASAC. Published by John Wiley

& Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: banding, cognitive ability, diversity, validity,

adverse impact

Résumé

Plusieurs solutions ont été proposées au dilemme diversité-

validité soulevé par l’usage des tests de capacités cognitives

dans la sélection des emplois. Ces tests prédisent la forma-

tion et la performance au travail, mais ont un effet pervers

sur les groupes minoritaires. Même si le groupage réduit

l’effet pervers, il a le défaut de réduire l’utilité du processus

de sélection. Dans cet article, nous évaluons l’impact social

et f‌inancier d’une approche de groupage f‌ixe avec

recrutement du sommet à la base dans plusieurs scénarios

de recrutement en nous appuyant sur un pool de candidats

aux postes de conducteurs d’autobus. De façon générale,

l’approche de groupage f‌ixe réduit l’effet pervers sans

réduire de façon substantielle l’effectivité du coût du

processus de recrutement. Les implications de ces deux

approches sont analysées dans le contexte du dilemme

diversité-validité. Copyright © 2016 ASAC. Published by

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mots-clés : Groupage, capacité cognitive, diversité, validité,

effet pervers

Since the emergence of modern business practices,

managers have focused on hiring the best job applicants

for positions in their organization. More recently, they have

recognized the social value of selecting applicants to

increase the diversity of their workforce (Thomas & Ely,

1996). While organizational diversity practices are put in

place to increase the diversity of the workforce, selection

has been shown to inf‌luence minority group representation

beyond these diversity practices (Ng & Sears, 2010).

Unfortunately,with some selection tools these goals conf‌lict.

Although cognitive ability tests are effective hiring tools

(Schmidt, 2002; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), they also screen

out large numbers of diverse applicants (Roth, Bevier,

Bobko, Switzer, & Tyler, 2001). In employment selection,

this challenge is known as the diversity-validity dilemma

(Pyburn, Ployhart, & Kravitz, 2008).

Researchers have proposed solutions to the diversity-

validity dilemma such as using alternative measures,

weighting dimensions of cognitive ability, applying various

statistical approaches, reducing irrelevant variance, fostering

positive applicant reactions, as well as providing coaching

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not of the

organization from which the data were obtained. This study was part of a

larger multiyear research program focusing on selectionissues for bus driver

applicants. The sample included here was used only for this study.

*Please address correspondence to: Peter Hausdorf, Department of Psychol-

ogy, MacKinnon Extension Building Room 3013, University of Guelph,

Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1. Email: phausdor@uoguelph.ca

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences

Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration

35: 228–237 (2018)

Published online 1 December 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.1425

Can J Adm Sci

35(2), 228–237 (2018)Copyright © 2016 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 228