If I were rejected from a position based on the selection methods used, I would hope that those methods were both reliable and valid, two critical factors in ensuring a fair and effective hiring process. Reliability refers to the consistency of a measurement tool. For instance, if an organization uses an interview scorecard or personality assessment, those tools should yield consistent results across different applicants and evaluators (Bohlander et al., 2022). Validity, on the other hand, focuses on whether the selection method accurately measures what it claims to measure, such as whether a situational judgment test genuinely reflects a candidate’s problem solving ability or alignment with the role (Gatewood et al., 2020). If a method is not valid, even consistent results are not meaningful, and the organization may pass over well qualified individuals like myself due to flawed metrics. In hiring decisions, both reliability and validity are essential. Using a reliable but invalid method (like a personality test unrelated to job performance) may lead to the same poor decision being repeated. Conversely, a valid method that’s unreliable (like a subjective interview with no structure) could lead to inconsistent outcomes, opening the door for bias and error (Ployhart et al., 2019). The best selection processes combine structured interviews, standardized assessments, and job simulations to ensure both fairness and relevance to job performance.

When I reflect on how my organization handles recruitment and selection, I see progress, though we still have room to grow, especially concerning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). For example, our HR team recently implemented blind resume reviews, which remove names and demographic information during the early screening phase to reduce unconscious bias. This supports equity and enhances the validity of our selection process by focusing on qualifications rather than irrelevant details. Another area where we’ve improved is in the use of structured interviews with behavior based questions. Every candidate is asked the same set of questions, and their responses are scored using a rubric. This increases reliability and helps ensure all applicants are assessed on the same criteria, regardless of background or identity (Highhouse et al., 2022). However, I’ve also seen inconsistencies in how thoroughly interviewers stick to the script, which can weaken both reliability and fairness. From a DEI standpoint, we’ve also started partnering with local universities and community organizations to reach a more diverse talent pool. This outreach effort recognizes that recruitment is not just about selecting the best from who applies but also about making sure the best candidates feel welcome to apply in the first place (Roberson, 2019). In one instance, a colleague of mine from a traditionally underrepresented background was encouraged to apply for a leadership role through this initiative and ended up thriving in that position. That’s a real win not just for DEI, but for the organization’s overall performance.

References

Bohlander, G., Snell, S., & Morris, S. (2022). Managing human resources (19th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Gatewood, R., Feild, H., & Barrick, M. (2020). Human resource selection (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Highhouse, S., Melchers, K. G., & Whetzel, D. L. (2022). Structured interviews and their impact on personnel decision making. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-061818

Ployhart, R. E., Schneider, B., & Schmitt, N. (2019). Staffing organizations: Contemporary practice and theory. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9599-2

Roberson, Q. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243