UNIT 4

RECRUITMENT, SELECTION AND SOCIALIZATION

Chapter highlights
a. Meaning , sources and methods of recruitment
b. Concept of selection, difference between selection and recruitment
c. The selection process, selection tests interview and their types
d. Reliability and validity in selection tests
e. Concepts and process of socialization

4.1. Meaning, sources and methods of recruitment

Recruitment
It is the discovering of potential of applicants for actual or anticipated organizational vacancies. It actually links together
those with jobs and those seeking jobs. Flippo has given the definition of recruitment as “It is a process of searching for
prospective employees and stimulating and encouraging them to apply for jobs in an organization."
Sources of Recruitment
There can be two kinds of sources for recruitment:
a. Internal – This includes personnel already on the payroll of an organization. Whenever there is a vacancy, somebody
within the organization fills in or is upgraded.
b. External – These sources lie outside the organization
Methods of Recruitment
The possible recruiting methods can be divided into three categories:
a. Direct – In this method, recruiters visit colleges and technical schools, e.g. Infosys, the Tata Group, Accenture, IBM,
Siemens and several other companies maintain continuous relationship with institutions to hire students for
responsible positions.
b. Indirect – This involves advertising in newspaper, radio, T.V., journals etc. Advertising can be very effective if its media is
properly chosen.
c. Third Party methods – This include use of commercial or private employment agencies, placement officials of schools,
recruitment firms etc. Friends and relatives of present employees are also a good source from which employees may be
drawn as part of the "Buddy Referral" programs.

4.2. Concept of selection, difference between selection and recruitment

Difference between selection and recruitment

Both recruitment and selection are the two phases of the employment process. The differences between the two are:
1. Recruitment is the process of searching the candidates for employment and stimulating them to apply for jobs in the
organization WHEREAS selection involves the series of steps by which the candidates are screened for choosing the
most suitable persons for vacant posts.
2. The basic purpose of recruitments is to create a talent pool of candidates to enable the selection of best candidates for
the organization, by attracting more and more employees to apply in the organization WHEREAS the basic purpose of
selection process is to choose the right candidate to fill the various positions in the organization.
3. Recruitment is a positive process i.e. encouraging more and more employees to apply WHEREAS selection is a negative
process as it involves rejection of the unsuitable candidates.
4. Recruitment is concerned with tapping the sources of human resources WHEREAS selection is concerned with selecting
the most suitable candidate through various interviews and tests.
5. There is no contract of recruitment established in recruitment WHEREAS selection results in a contract of service
between the employer and the selected employee.

4.3. The selection process, selection tests interview and their types
Selection Procedure

The main objective of a selection procedure is to determine whether an applicant meets the qualification for a specific job,
and then to choose the applicant who is most likely to perform well in that job.

The entire process of selection begins with an initial screening interview and concludes with a final employment decision.
When a selection policy is formulated, organizational requirement like technical and professional dimensions are kept in
mind.

Steps in selection procedure

1. Reception of applications or preliminary screening

2. Application bank that gives a detail about the applicant's background and life history
3. A well conducted interview to explore the applicant's background
4. The physical examination
5. Psychological testing that gives an objective look at a candidate’s suitability for that job
6. A reference check
7. Final Selection approved by the manager
8. Communication of the decision to the candidate.

Types of interviews
Interview is formal, in-depth conversation conducted to evaluate the applicant’s acceptability. It is considered to be
excellent selection device. It is face-to-face exchange of view, ideas and opinion between the candidates and interviewers.
Basically, interview is nothing but an oral examination of candidates. Interview can be adapted to unskilled, skilled,
managerial and profession employees.
Objectives of interview:
Interview has at least three objectives and they are a follows:
a. Helps obtain additional information from the applicants
b. Facilitates giving general information to the applicants such as company policies, job, products manufactured and
the like
c. Helps build the company’s image among the applicants.
Types of interview

Following are the various types of interview used in the employee selection process:
1) Informal Interview
An informal interview is an oral interview and may take place anywhere. The employee or the manager or the personnel
manager may ask a few almost inconsequential questions like name, place of birth, names of relatives etc. either in their
respective offices or anywhere outside the plant of company. It id not planned and nobody prepares for it. This is used
widely when the labour market is tight and when you need workers badly.
2) Formal Interview
Formal interviews may be held in the employment office by he employment office in a more formal atmosphere, with the
help of well structured questions, the time and place of the interview will be stipulated by the employment office.
3) Non-directive Interview
Non-directive interview or unstructured interview is designed to let the interviewee speak his mind freely. The interviewer
has no formal or directive questions, but his all attention is to the candidate. He encourages the candidate to talk by a little
prodding whenever he is silent e.g. “Mr. Ray, please tell us about yourself after your graduated from high school”.
The idea is o give the candidate complete freedom to “sell” himself, without the encumbrances of the interviewer’s
question. But the interviewer must be of higher caliber and must guide and relate the information given by the applicant to
the objective of the interview.
4) Depth Interview
It is designed to intensely examine the candidate’s background and thinking and to go into considerable detail on particular
subjects of an important nature and of special interest to the candidates. For example, if the candidate says that he is
interested in tennis, a series of questions may be asked to test the depth of understanding and interest of the candidate.
These probing questions must be asked with tact and through exhaustive analysis; it is possible to get a good picture of the
candidate.
5) Stress Interview
It is designed to test the candidate and his conduct and behavior by him under conditions of stress and strain. The
interviewer may start with “Mr. Joseph, we do not think your qualifications and experience are adequate for this position,’
and watch the reaction of the candidates. A good candidates will not yield, on the contrary he may substantiate why he is
qualified to handle the job.
This type of interview is borrowed from the Military organization and this is very useful to test behavior of individuals when
they are faced with disagreeable and trying situations.
6) Group Interview
It is designed to save busy executive’s time and to see how the candidates may be brought together in the employment
office and they may be interviewed.
7) Panel Interview
A panel or interviewing board or selection committee may interview the candidate, usually in the case of supervisory and
managerial positions. This type of interview pools the collective judgment and wisdom of the panel in the assessment of the
candidate and also in questioning the faculties of the candidate.
8) Sequential Interview
The sequential interview takes the one-to-one a step further and involves a series of interview, usually utilizing the strength
and knowledgebase of each interviewer, so that each interviewer can ask questions in relation to his or her subject area of
each candidate, as the candidate moves from room to room.
9) Structures Interview
In a structured interview, the interviewer uses preset standardized questions, which are put to all the interviewees. This
interview is also called as ‘Guided’ or ‘Patterned’ interview. It is useful for valid results, especially when dealing with the
large number of applicants.
10) Unstructured Interview
It is also known as ‘Unpatterned’ interview, the interview is largely unplanned and the interviewee does most of the talking.
Unguided interview is advantageous in as much as it leads to a friendly conversation between the interviewer and the
interviewee and in the process, the later reveals more of his or her desire and problems. But the Unpatterned interview
lacks uniformity and worse, this approach may overlook key areas of the applicant’s skills or background. It is useful when
the interviewer tries to probe personal details of the candidate it analyse why they are not right for the job.
11) Mixed Interview
In practice, the interviewer while interviewing the job seekers uses a blend of structured and structured and unstructured
questions. This approach is called the Mixed Interview. The structured questions provide a base of interview more
conventional and permit greater insights into the unique differences between applicants.
12) Impromptu Interviews
This interview commonly occurs when employers are approached directly and tends to be very informal and unstructured.
Applicants should be prepared at all times for on-the-spot interviews, especially in situations such as a job fair or a cold call.
It is an ideal time for employers to ask the candidate some basic questions to determine whether he/she may be interested
in formally interviewing the candidate.
13) Dinner Interviews
These interviews may be structured, informal, or socially situated, such as in a restaurant. Decide what to eat quickly, some
interviewers will ask you to order first (do not appear indecisive). Avoid potentially messy foods, such as spaghetti. Be
prepared for the conversation to abruptly change from friendly chat to direct interview questions, however, do not
underestimate the value of casual discussion, some employers place a great value on it. Be prepared to switch gears rapidly,
from fun talk to business talk.
14) Telephone Interviews
Have a copy of your resume and any points you want to remember to say nearby. If you are on your home telephone, make
sure that all roommates or family members are aware of the interview (no loud stereos, barking dogs etc.). Speak a bit
slower than usual. It is crucial that you convey your enthusiasm verbally, since the interviewer cannot see your face. If there
are pauses, do not worry; the interviewer is likely just taking some notes.
15) Second Interviews
Job seekers are invited back after they have passed the first initial interview. Middle or senior management generally
conducts the second interview, together or separately. Applicants can expect more in-depth questions, and the employer
will be expecting a greater level of preparation on the part of the candidates. Applicants should continue to research the
employer following the first interview, and be prepared to use any information gained through the previous interview to
their advantage.
 Selection tests
Employers use selection tests to provide extra information about applicants that cannot be obtained from their application
forms or interviews. Tests can gather information on an individual's attainment, aptitude, interests, learning styles and
other relevant characteristics. Some employers invite all job applicants sit tests, then make a shortlist based on the results.
However, usually only selected candidates are asked to sit tests.
TYPES OF TESTS FOR SELECTION
Tests are classified into many types. Some of them are:
(i) Aptitude tests (ii) Achievement tests(iii) Situational tests(iv) Interest tests(v) Personality test(Vi) Intelligence test
(VII) Psychomotor test
1. Aptitude Tests: These tests measure whether an individual has the capacity or latent ability to learn a given job if given
adequate training. Aptitudes can be divided into general and mental ability or intelligence and specific aptitude such as
mechanical, clerical, manipulative capacity etc.
Mechanical Aptitude Tests: These tests measure the capacities of spatial visualization, perceptual speed and knowledge
of mechanical matter. These tests are useful for selecting apprentices, skilled, mechanical employees, technicians etc.
Clerical Aptitude Tests: Measure specific capacities involved in office work. Items of this test include spelling,
computation, comprehension, copying, word measuring etc.
Aptitude tests are used to predict how well you can perform a particular job or task. They examine your potential by
testing aptitudes that are relevant to the job or task in question. They are usually timed against the clock. They may
test:
a. spatial awareness (dealing with diagrams and three-dimensional shapes). B. verbal reasoning. C. numeracy
d) problem-solving and e) manual dexterity or hand/eye co-ordination.

2. Achievement Tests: These tests are conducted when applicant claims to know something as these tests are concerned
with what one has accomplished These tests are more useful to measure the value of specific achievement when an
organization wishes to employ experienced candidates. These tests are classified into: Job Knowledge test; and (b)
Work sample test.

a. Job Knowledge Test: Under this test a candidate is tested in the knowledge of a particular job. For example, if a
junior lecturer applies for the job of a senior lecturer in commerce, he may be tested in job knowledge where
he is asked questions about Accountancy principle, Banking, Law, Business Management etc.
b. Work Sample Test: Under this test a portion of the actual work is given to the candidates as a test and the
candidate is asked to do it. If a candidate applies for a post of lecturer in Management he may be asked to
deliver a lecture on Management Information System as work sample test.

Thus, the candidate’s achievement in his career is tested regarding his knowledge about the job and actual work
experience.

3. Situational Test: This test evaluates a candidate in a similar real life situation. In this test the candidates is asked either
to cope with the situation or solve critical situations of the job.

(a)Group Discussion: This test administered through group discussion approach to solve a problem under which
candidates are observed in the areas of initiating, leading, proposing valuable ideas, conciliating skills, oral
communicating skills, coordinating and concluding skills.

(b)In Basket: Situational test is administered through in basket the candidate, in this test, is supplied with actual letters,
telephone and telegraphic message, reports and requirements by various officers of the organization, adequate
information about the job and organization. The candidates is asked to take decisions on various items based on the in
basket information regarding requirements in the memoranda.

4. Interest Test: These tests are inventories of the likes and dislikes of candidates in relation to work, job, occupations,
hobbies and recreational activities. The purposes of this test is to find out whether a candidate is interested or
disinterested in the job for which he is a candidate and to find out in which area of the job range/occupation the
candidate is interested. The assumption of this test is that there is a high correlation between the interest of a
candidate in a job and job success. Interest inventories are less faked and they may not fluctuate after the age of 30.
 5. Personality Tests: These tests prove deeply to discover clues to an individuals value system, his emotional reactions
and maturity and characteristic mood. They are expressed in such traits like self-confidence, tact, emotional control,
optimism, decisiveness, sociability, conformity, objectivity, patience, fear, distrust, initiative, judgment dominance or
submission, impulsiveness, sympathy, integrity, stability and self-confidence.
(a) Objective Tests: Most personality tests are objective tests as they are suitable for group testing and can be
scored objectively.
(b) Projective Tests: Candidates are asked to project their own interpretation of certain standard stimulus
situations basing on ambiguous pictures, figures etc, under these tests.
A personality test can be used to get a generalized overview of an individual's character, for example their anxieties,
whether they are sociable, assertive, extroverted or introverted. Their suitability for the job can be judged from their
responses. For example successful sales staff should be outgoing, financially motivated, confident and persuasive.

It is questionable how much value personality testing has in offering personal career enlightenment. If you don't know
what your character is like and where your skills lie, what chance has a computer got? However it is a good way of
focusing your thoughts and often when in career limbo that is exactly what is required.

Personality tests have disadvantage in the sense that they can be faked by sophisticated candidates and most
candidates give socially acceptable answers. Further, personality inventories may not successfully predict job success.

6. Intelligence Tests: These tests in general measure intelligence quotient of a candidates. In detail these tests measure
capacity for comprehension, reasoning, word fluency, verbal comprehension, numbers, memory and space .Other
factors such as digit spans—both forward and backward, information known, comprehension, vocabulary, picture
arrangement and object assembly.

Though these tests are accepted as useful ones, they are criticized against deprived sections of the community. Further,
it is also criticized that these tests may prove to be too dull as a selection device.
7. Psychomotor Tests: These tests measure abilities like manual dexterity, motor ability and eye-hand coordination of
candidates. These tests are useful to select semi-skilled workers and workers for repetitive operations like packing,
watch assembly.

Competency mapping
Competency mapping can ultimately serve the individual who decides to seek employment in an environment where he or she
perhaps can learn new things and be more intellectually challenged. Being able to list competencies on resumes and address
this area with potential employers may help secure more satisfying work. This may not resolve issues for the company that
initially employed competency mapping, without making suggested changes. It may find competency mapping has produced
dissatisfied workers or led to a high worker turnover rate.

Competency mapping is a process through which one assesses and determines one’s strengths as an individual worker and in
some cases, as part of an organization. It generally examines two areas: emotional intelligence or emotional quotient (EQ), and
strengths of the individual in areas like team structure, leadership, and decision-making. Large organizations frequently employ
some form of competency mapping to understand how to most effectively employ the competencies of strengths of workers.
They may also use competency mapping to analyze the combination of strengths in different workers to produce the most
effective teams and the highest quality work.

Usually, a person will find themselves with strengths in about five to six areas. Sometimes an area where strengths are not
present is worth developing. In other cases, competency mapping can indicate finding work that is suited to one’s strengths, or
finding a department at one’s current work where one's strengths or needs as a worker can be exercised.

A problem with competency mapping, especially when conducted by an organization is that there may be no room for an
individual to work in a field that would best make use of his or her competencies. If the company does not respond to
competency mapping by reorganizing its employees, then it can be of little short-term benefit and may actually result in greater
unhappiness on the part of individual employees. A person identified as needing to learn new things in order to remain happy
might find himself or herself in a position where no new training is ever required. If the employer cannot provide a position for
an employee that fits him or her better, competency mapping may be of little use.
4.4. Reliability and validity in selection tests
Reliability
Definition: Reliability is the consistency of your measurement, or the degree to which an instrument measures the same way
each time it is used under the same condition with the same subjects. In short, it is the repeatability of your measurement. A
measure is considered reliable if a person's score on the same test given twice is similar. It is important to remember that
reliability is not measured, it is estimated.
There are two ways that reliability is usually estimated: test/retest and internal consistency.
Test/Retest
Test/retest is the more conservative method to estimate reliability. Simply put, the idea behind test/retest is that you should
get the same score on test 1 as you do on test 2. The three main components to this method are as follows:
1.) implement your measurement instrument at two separate times for each subject;
2). compute the correlation between the two separate measurements; and
3) assume there is no change in the underlying condition (or trait you are trying to measure) between test 1 and test 2.
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency estimates reliability by grouping questions in a questionnaire that measure the same concept. For
example, you could write two sets of three questions that measure the same concept (say class participation) and after
collecting the responses, run a correlation between those two groups of three questions to determine if your instrument is
reliably measuring that concept.
One common way of computing correlation values among the questions on your instruments is by using Cronbach's Alpha. In
short, Cronbach's alpha splits all the questions on your instrument every possible way and computes correlation values for
them all (we use a computer program for this part). In the end, your computer output generates one number for Cronbach's
alpha - and just like a correlation coefficient, the closer it is to one, the higher the reliability estimate of your instrument.
Cronbach's alpha is a less conservative estimate of reliability than test/retest.

The primary difference between test/retest and internal consistency estimates of reliability is that test/retest involves two
administrations of the measurement instrument, whereas the internal consistency method involves only one administration of
that instrument.

Validity
Definition:Validity is the strength of our conclusions, inferences or propositions. More formally, Cook and Campbell (1979)
define it as the "best available approximation to the truth or falsity of a given inference, proposition or conclusion." In short,
were we right? Let's look at a simple example. Say we are studying the effect of strict attendance policies on class participation.
In our case, we saw that class participation did increase after the policy was established. Each type of validity would highlight a
different aspect of the relationship between our treatment (strict attendance policy) and our observed outcome (increased
class participation).

Types of Validity:
There are four types of validity commonly examined in social research.
1. Conclusion validity asks is there a relationship between the program and the observed outcome? Or, in our example, is there
a connection between the attendance policy and the increased participation we saw?

2. Internal Validity asks if there is a relationship between the program and the outcome we saw, is it a causal relationship? For
example, did the attendance policy cause class participation to increase?

3. Construct validity is the hardest to understand in my opinion. It asks if there is there a relationship between how I
operationalized my concepts in this study to the actual causal relationship I'm trying to study/? Or in our example, did our
treatment (attendance policy) reflect the construct of attendance, and did our measured outcome - increased class
participation - reflect the construct of participation? Overall, we are trying to generalize our conceptualized treatment and
outcomes to broader constructs of the same concepts.

4. External validity refers to our ability to generalize the results of our study to other settings. In our example, could we
generalize our results to other classrooms?
Threats to Internal Validity
There are three main types of threats to internal validity - single group, multiple group and social interaction threats.
Single Group Threats apply when you are studying a single group receiving a program or treatment. Thus, all of these threats
can be greatly reduced by adding a control group that is comparable to your program group to your study.
A History Threat occurs when an historical event affects your program group such that it causes the outcome you observe
(rather than your treatment being the cause). In our earlier example, this would mean that the stricter attendance policy did
not cause an increase in class participation, but rather, the expulsion of several students due to low participation from school
impacted your program group such that they increased their participation as a result.
A Maturation Threat to internal validity occurs when standard events over the course of time cause your outcome. For
example, if by chance, the students who participated in your study on class participation all "grew up" naturally and realized
that class participation increased their learning (how likely is that?) that could be the cause of your increased participation, not
the stricter attendance policy.
A Testing Threat to internal validity is simply when the act of taking a pre-test affects how that group does on the post-test. For
example, if in your study of class participation, you measured class participation prior to implementing your new attendance
policy, and students became forewarned that there was about to be an emphasis on participation, they may increase it simply
as a result of involvement in the pretest measure - and thus, your outcome could be a result of a testing threat - not your
treatment.
An Instrumentation Threat to internal validity could occur if the effect of increased participation could be due to the way in
which that pretest was implemented.
A Mortality Threat to internal validity occurs when subjects drop out of your study, and this leads to an inflated measure of
your effect. For example, if as a result of a stricter attendance policy, most students drop out of a class, leaving only those more
serious students in the class (those who would participate at a high level naturally) - this could mean your effect is
overestimated and suffering from a mortality threat.
The last single group threat to internal validity is a Regression Threat. This is the most intimating of them all (just its name alone
makes one panic). Don't panic. Simply put, a regression threat means that there is a tendency for the sample (those students
you study for example) to score close to the average (or mean) of a larger population from the pretest to the posttest. This is a
common occurrence, and will happen between almost any two variables that you take two measures of. Because it is common,
it is easily remedied through either the inclusion of a control group or through a carefully designed research plan (this is
discussed later). For a great discussion of regression threats, go to Bill Trochim's Center for Social Research Methods.

In sum, these single group threats must be addressed in your research for it to remain credible. One primary way to accomplish
this is to include a control group comparable to your program group. This however, does not solve all our problems, as I'll now
highlight the multiple group threats to internal validity.
Multiple Group Threats to internal validity involve the comparability of the two groups in your study, and whether or not any
other factor other than your treatment causes the outcome. They also (conveniently) mirror the single group threats to internal
validity.

A Selection-History threat occurs when an event occurring between the pre and post test affects the two groups differently.
A Selection-Maturation threat occurs when there are different rates of growth between the two groups between the pre and
post test.
Selection-Testing threat is the result of the different effect from taking tests between the two groups.
A Selection-Instrumentation threat occurs when the test implementation affects the groups differently between the pre and
post test.
A Selection-Mortality Threat occurs when there are different rates of dropout between the groups which leads to you detecting
an effect that may not actually occur.
Finally, a Selection-Regression threat occurs when the two groups regress towards the mean at different rates.

Okay, so know that you have dragged yourself through these extensive lists of threats to validity - you're wondering how to
make sense of it all. How do we minimize these threats without going insane in the process? The best advice given is to use two
groups when possible, and if you do, make sure they are as comparable as is humanly possible. Whether you conduct a
randomized experiment or a non-random study --> YOUR GROUPS MUST BE AS EQUIVALENT AS POSSIBLE! This is the best way
to strengthen the internal validity of your research.The last type of threat to discuss involves the social pressures in the
research context that can impact your results. These are known as social interaction threats to internal validity.

Diffusion or "Imitation of Treatment occurs when the comparison group learns about the program group and imitates them,
which will lead to an equalization of outcomes between the groups (you will not see an effect as easily).
Compensatory Rivalry means that the comparison group develops a competitive attitude towards the program group, and this
also makes it harder to detect an effect due to your treatment rather than the comparison groups reaction to the program
group.

Resentful Demoralization is a threat to internal validity that exaggerates the posttest differences between the two groups. This
is because the comparison group (upon learning of the program group) gets discouraged and no longer tries to achieve on their
own.

Compensatory Equalization of Treatment is the only threat that is a result of the actions of the research staff - it occurs when
the staff begins to compensate the comparison group to be "fair" in their opinion, and this leads to an equalization between
the groups and makes it harder to detect an effect due to your program.

Threats to Construct Validity

I know, I know - you're thinking - no I just can't go on. Let's take a deep breath and I'll remind you what construct validity is, and
then we'll look at the threats to it one at a time. OK? OK.

Construct validity is the degree to which inferences we have made from our study can be generalized to the concepts
underlying our program in the first place. For example, if we are measuring self-esteem as an outcome, can our definition
(operationalization) of that term in our study be generalized to the rest of the world's concept of self-esteem?

Ok, let's address the threats to construct validity slowly - don't be intimidated by their lengthy academic names - I'll provide an
English translation.

Inadequate Preoperational Explication of Constructs simply means we did not define our concepts very well before we
measured them or implemented our treatment. The solutions are define your concepts well before proceeding to the
measurement phase of your study.

Mono-operation bias simply means we only used one version of our independent variable (our program or treatment) in our
study, and hence, limit the breadth of our study's results. The solution is try to implement multiple versions of your program to
increase your study's utility.

Mono-method bias simply put, means that you only used one measure or observation of an important concept, which in the
end reduces the evidence that your measure is a valid one. The solution is Implement multiple measures of key concepts and
do pilot studies to try to demonstrate that your measures are valid.

Interaction of Testing and Treatment occurs when the testing in combination with the treatment produces an effect. Thus you
have inadequately defined your "treatment," as testing becomes part of it due to its influence on the outcome. The solution is
label your treatment accurately.

Interaction of Different Treatments means that it was a combination of our treatment and other things that brought about the
effect. For example, if you were studying the ability of Tylenol to reduce headaches and in actuality it was a combination of
Tylenol and Advil or Tylenol and exercise that reduced headaches -- you would have an interaction of different treatments
threatening your construct validity.

Restricted Generalizability Across Constructs simply put, means that there were some unanticipated effects from your program,
that may make it difficult to say your program was effective.

Confounding Constructs occurs when you are unable to detect an effect from your program because you may have mislabeled
your constructs or because the level of your treatment wasn't enough to cause an effect.

As with internal validity, there are a few social threats to construct validity also. These include:
1. Hypothesis Guessing: when participants base their behavior on what they think your study is about - so your outcome is
really not due solely to the program - but also to the participants' reaction to you and your study.
2. Evaluator Apprehension: When participants are fearful of your study to the point that it influences the treatment effect you
detect.
3. Experimenter Expectancies: when researcher reactions shape the participant's responses - so you mislabel the treatment
effect you see as due to the program when it is more likely due to the researchers behavior.

See, that wasn't so bad. We broke things down and attacked them one at a time. You may be wondering why I haven't given
you along list of threats to conclusion and external validity - the simple answer is it seems as if the more critical threats involve
internal and construct validity. And, the means by which we improve conclusion and external validity will be highlighted in the
section on Strengthening Your Analysis.

Summary

The real difference between reliability and validity is mostly a matter of definition. Reliability estimates the consistency of your
measurement, or more simply the degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is used in under the
same conditions with the same subjects. Validity, on the other hand, involves the degree to which your are measuring what you
are supposed to, more simply, the accuracy of your measurement. It is my belief that validity is more important than reliability
because if an instrument does not accurately measure what it is supposed to, there is no reason to use it even if it measures
consistently (reliably).

4.5. Concepts and process of socialization

Socialization
Socialization is the process in which an individual learns the way of life of his/her society, learn the trick of the trade and
develops the capacity and the potential to function both as an individual and as a member of the society by internalizing the
culture in which the society is based on. Socialization is a life-long process occurring at all stages in life starting from the day the
individual is born. Naturally, sociologists believe that most (if not all) human behavior is a learned response and not instinctual.
They have to learn to rely and cooperate with others to satisfy the basic needs

Employee socialization
It is “The process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational
role.”
Socialization Categories
 Preliminary learning
 Learning about the organization
 Learning to function in the work group
 Learning to perform the job
 Personal learning
Benefits of orientation
 Reduce newcomer stress
 Reduce start-up costs
 Reduce turnover
 Expedite proficiency
 Assist in newcomer assimilation
 Enhance adjustment to work group and norms
 Encourage positive attitude

Feldman’s Stage Model of Socialization

Three stages:
 Anticipatory socialization
 Encounter
 Change and Acquisition

Type of socialization process and Strategies

Formal versus Informal
 Formal – outside the daily work environment
 Informal – part of the regular work environment

Individual versus Collective

 Are newcomers part of a new group, or are they
treated individually?
 Group camaraderie formed, versus feeling of isolation
 Generally, Collective is less expensive

Sequential versus Non-sequential

 Sequential – individual progresses through a series of
established stages to achieve a position
o e.g., mail clerk, mailroom supervisor, information
manager
 Nonsequential – individual achieves position immediately
o e.g., six-month training program to become a bank
branch manager

Tournament versus Contest

 Tournament – as time passes, candidates are sorted
according to potential, ambition, background, etc., and
then assigned to various tracks
 Contest – all individuals pass through all stages according
to observed abilities and interests

Serial versus Disjunctive

 Serial – using senior employees to provide a mentoring
approach
o Tends to perpetuate the status quo

 Disjunctive – uses outsiders to provide mentoring

Encourages innovation
Investiture versus Divestiture
 Investiture – preserves newcomer’s identity, such as in
recruiting upper management
 Divestiture – suppressing certain characteristics (e.g.,
basic military training)

Fixed versus Variable

 Fixed – employee knows when transition period will
end
 Variable – length of transition period varies from
individual to individual