The need for consistency to avoid the perception of impropriety in recruiting.

Abstract

In response to an article advocating the creative use of dual job descriptions in dealing with conflicting constituencies in recruitment, this article cautions that exposure is created when a job description developed for external recruiting purposes does not accurately represent actual job requirements. If the discrepancy in job descriptions serves to the disadvantage of protected group applicants, legal exposure may result. The author argues that if one of the agendas behind the use of a second job description is to increase the probably of good fit and thus, the likelihood of success of the chosen candidate, the actual result may be dysfunctional. For a variety of strategic, psychometric, ethical, and legal reasons, recruiters should only consider using a consistent, transparent and one-dimensional approach to the development of job descriptions for recruiting and orientation. The importance of a professionally conducted job analysis and validation procedure is emphasized.Stybel (2010) observes that the intended audiences for corporate-generated job descriptions are primarily within the company-with the sole exception of recruiting. It is interesting that it is the external recruiting function that triggers the greatest risk exposure for most companies and receives the greatest scrutiny.It is also telling, as the author reports, that when job descriptions become the basis for screening candidates, there may be a bias toward qualifications and experience that companies might prefer, rather than what they actually need to do the job. This may not be an obvious problem unless the imposition of preferredbut not needed-qualifications results in adverse effect toward a protected group or condition (race, age, gender, sexual preference, or disability) applicant. There is ample case law to support this vulnerability.

Literature Review of Job Description: Meta-analysis

“…However, the benefits of a job description are not only limited by this. Another benefit of having a job description is as a tool that simplifies the recruitment process (Finkelman, 2010;Jerabek, 2003;Ashraf, 2017;Hawkes & Weathington, 2014;Henson, 2011;Kim & Talbott, 2018;Rohr, 2016;Pavur , 2010;Wolonciej, 2018;Esposito, 1992;Feuer, 2001;Pató, 2017) where applicants' interest can be tested using The Big Five and Love of Learning methods (Hawkes & Weathington, 2014), job advertisements (Hernon & Schwartz, 2015;Qutab & Shafique, 2011), motivating employee performance (Garg & Rastogi, 2006;Goris, 2007), increasing employee satisfaction (Goris, 2007;Ramhit, 2019;Stãnescu, 2014), overcoming interpersonal problems in employees (Jacobson et al, 2012;Kieserman, 2007) and developing the potential ofemployees (Carliner et al, 2015;Buwembo et al, 2014;Hartmann & Jahren, 2015;Kang et al, 2016;Lee et al, 2014;Moskwa, 2016;Mouza & Taousanis, 2018), and identify the organization's position on the system in the community (Farajpahlou and Danesh, 2009).…”

The 3D job description

“…The author specified the model introduced in this study to show the elements of a job description, based on empirical results and reference sources (Nemeskéri -Fruttus, 2001;REFA, 1988). Several international reference books (Finkelman, 2010;Stybel, 2010;Butler, 2008;Holley, 1999;Plachy and Plachy, 1998;Cushway, 2006;Mader-Clark, 2008;Groschedl-Trinkl, 2001;Jerabek, 2003;Joinson, 2001;Sharon, 2000;Mursell, 1959;Peck, 2003;ISO 9001, 2000) and more hungarian authors (Gyökér and Finna, 2004;Pató, 2013; deal with the issue of job descriptions in different depths. These, however, elaborate on certain aspects or focus on a certain target in their analyses, and do not have an integrating approach which aims to develop the document of job descriptions.…”

Laurence Stybel's reaction to Jay Finkelman's comments.

“…Professor Finkelman could not be more clear about his rejection of the ideas in the article: “For a wide variety of reasons (strategic, psychometric, ethical, legal) it makes no sense to even consider anything other than a consistent, transparent and one-dimensional approach to the development of job descriptions for recruiting and orientation purposes” (Finkelman, 2010, p. 115).…”