Abstract
Employee selection and group decision-making skills are critical for ensuring hiring is valid, meets organizational goals, and considers ethical and legal limitations. This exercise has participants role-play members of a search committee reviewing job finalists using shared and unique information. A novel twist to traditional hidden-profile exercises is introduced by including unique information inappropriate for employment decisions (e.g., health information, an old misdemeanor charge). By uncovering unshared details and deciding whether to discuss potentially biasing information, learners practice group decision making and consider legal issues. While exploring professional guidelines and best practices, the exercise acknowledges that managers occasionally know sensitive or potentially biasing information. Although primarily an human resource activity, the exercise includes a traditional hidden-profile variant with organizational behavior learning goals. Both variants are appropriate for learners across the organizational spectrum. A teaching note for adapting the in-person exercise for synchronous or asynchronous online delivery gives detailed instructions for popular learning management systems.
Keywords
Selecting the right employee is crucial for organizations (Schneider, 1987); poor hiring decisions can have damaging consequences. Turnover is widely studied in human resource (HR) management (Allen et al., 2014), and bad hires can create indirect and direct costs through issues such as incompetence (Bai et al., 2019), employee deviance (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001), or negligent hiring (Camacho, 1993). Consequently, effective selection is imperative for organizations (Ployhart & Weekley, 2017). While best practices can mitigate some selection errors (Tippins et al., 2017), the process remains susceptible to human decision-making errors.
Perceptions of candidate fit heavily influence the selection process (Cable & Judge, 1997), and selection is vulnerable to multiple types of decision-making bias (e.g., Derous et al., 2016; Lewis & Sherman, 2003). Many organizations focus on reducing implicit bias (Knight, 2017), but other common biases, such as overreliance on shared information (Reimer et al., 2010), receive less attention. Biases complicate the hiring process, and decision makers must learn to uncover relevant information while also suppressing biasing information.
Additional sources of bias emerge when groups, rather than individuals, make selection decisions. Decision making can be hindered by task structure, group structure, time constraints, and ineffective information sharing (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Research finds that groups place more emphasis on and spend more time discussing shared versus unshared information (Reimer et al., 2010), and they value shared information more (Van Swol, 2007). This emphasis on shared details can lead a group to ignore or discount information known only by specific individuals. Bias toward shared information is further exacerbated when groups experience time pressure or rely on memory during the information sharing process (Bowman & Wittenbaum, 2012).
Flawed processes can harm decision quality (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Communication and teamwork are highly valued skills (Weiss, 2018) necessary for selection and decision making. Hands-on decision exercises provide a safe environment to practice and offer an opportunity for learner feedback and self-reflection. Hidden profile problems (Stasser & Titus, 1985, 2003) simulate group decision-making challenges by dispersing crucial information across a group’s members. To make high-quality decisions in these tasks, participants must first share and attend to information within the group and then combine it to make a well-reasoned group decision.
The current exercise is a selection-focused hidden-profile problem designed for undergraduate, graduate, and professional development settings. It provides the benefits of a traditional hidden-profile problem while introducing the complexity of determining whether the information is genuinely job related and relevant. Participants act as hiring committee members reviewing job finalists, reflecting real-life selection decisions that many individuals will participate in during their professional careers (e.g., Engel & Finch, 2014). For this exercise to be effectively completed, participants must realize that they have relevant, unique information and decide what is appropriate to share with the group.
Learning Objectives
This exercise mimics real decisions where value judgments are needed. Thus, this exercise supports discussions contrasting process versus outcome quality. Like other hidden-profile exercises such as Baker’s (2010), it can also highlight shared information bias. As an HR selection activity, learners completing this exercise will be able to
Evaluate job candidates based on a job description.
Recognize inappropriate or illegal information that should not be considered in staffing decisions.
Explain the importance of exercising discretion with sensitive information.
Choose a top candidate based on available information.
The Activity
Overview
This exercise asks participants to review three finalists for a CFO position and deliberate in small groups to recommend a candidate. Participants read information about the company and its values and information about the finalists. Unknown to the participants, each packet contains both shared and unique information; some is relevant to the decision, and some is not. This exercise requires approximately 50 minutes; with more in-depth discussion, it can extend to 75 minutes. This activity is best suited for classes of 15 or more learners, as the debriefing discussion is more robust when there are multiple decision groups. The activity can easily scale to larger classes.
Materials
The specific packets (Appendix A) are based on a master packet designed such that if all information is shared one candidate is potentially weakened based on an old fraud charge, a volatile and aggressive personality significantly weakens another candidate, and the internal candidate is strengthened based on their knowledge of the company. Summaries of the three candidates are provided in Appendix B. Unique information organized by packet, a group decision form, and an information checklist are in Appendixes C, D, and E, respectively.
Step-by-Step Instructions
This exercise is broken into four major elements: review of candidate profiles, the group deliberation and decision, the information sharing checklist, and, finally, the debrief. At the beginning of the activity, the facilitator tells the learners that they will be making a group hiring decision and gives each a packet to read and independently take notes. After 10 minutes, collect the packets while placing learners into groups based on their packet number. Give groups 15 minutes to deliberate and decide on a top candidate, then ask the learners to complete the information checklist individually. This checklist is often their first indication that the packets had different information. Finally, focus the debrief on how information sharing in groups is more complicated when individuals may know highly sensitive or inappropriate information in a hiring context. Timing and details of how to conduct the exercise are given in Table 1. Additional information for conducting the activity online can be found in Appendix F.
Step-by-Step Instructions and Timeline.
Debrief
Begin the debrief with a general discussion of how the groups approached the task. Learners typically feel that they did not have enough time to read carefully over the packets or deliberate within the group. Explain to learners that this time pressure mimics situations where there are time constraints or information overload in real-life settings. These pressures exacerbate biased processes such as relying on shared information (Bowman & Wittenbaum, 2012). Ask learners when and how they discovered that the packets contained different information and whether the task was more challenging because the information was spread across group members.
The individual checklist (Appendix E) helps learners identify information they did not share and consider whether this was an oversight or a deliberate decision not to discuss potentially biasing information. The checklist also includes four “distraction” items (Items 3, 6, 17, 24) that were not included in any packet. If desired, these items can be used as an attention check and to determine whether learners are drawing conclusions based on stereotypes (e.g., that as a Canadian, Anderson would also be a hockey fan). Ask how participants reacted when they heard information they did not know. Often, reactions are of self-doubt or wondering if they missed it in the packet. Highlight that this is a realistic situation because team members often have different information available or use different contexts to interpret information. Next, discuss the structure of the exercise and how the information was both shared and dispersed. The candidate summaries (Appendix B) and table of unique information by packet (Appendix C) can assist this discussion, and teaching slides for the debrief are available as supplemental materials (available online).
Guidelines for HR-Focused Debrief
The debrief structure will then shift to a more detailed discussion of how information should be used in the selection process. The discussion questions below are structured to support the HR learning objectives (LOs).
How much did you or your group rely on the job description for this decision?
Did your group consider criteria that weren’t in the job description, and if so, which criteria? Why or why not?
Depending on the degree of familiarity learners have with the importance of job descriptions in the selection process, the debrief can either introduce the concept to novice HR practitioners or delve more deeply into topics related to writing good job descriptions and the relevance of information like a fraud charge for a position with financial duties.
What role does the job description play in determining if the information is relevant?
What information could be potentially discriminatory or introduce bias? Did your group discuss Jones’s fraud charge? Miller’s leukemia? etc.
Sharing unique information is more nuanced in the HR selection context than if the activity is being used in an organizational behavior (OB) decision-making context. In a traditional hidden-profile problem, the assumption is that all information needs to be shared to identify an optimal solution; however, in a hiring context, sharing all information could potentially be discriminatory. The supplemental teaching slides (available online) also discuss nuances of information regarding arrests versus convictions, social media usage, and other problematic information that could be addressed based on the facilitator’s goals.
What information about the candidates did or did not need to be shared?
Did anyone on your team intentionally choose to withhold information?
What would you do in the future if you learn sensitive information about a candidate?
The debrief can also probe whether any team members voiced concerns about the ethics or the legality of information shared. This exercise also provides a good foundation for discussing how difficult it can be to speak up about ethical concerns. Both LO2 and LO3 allow opportunities to discuss the limits of the learner’s legal knowledge and prompt conversations about when HR practitioners need to consult legal counsel.
After reviewing the exercise, what steps would you put into place to choose the best candidate for the job?
Will you ever have perfect information to make a choice? How should a lack of information be handled?
Learners often want to know if they selected the “right” candidate, which provides an opportunity to discuss the importance of high-quality decision-making processes. It is unrealistic to expect to have perfect information available when making a selection decision. The facilitator can address how the following best practices can lead to better decision outcomes and protect the organization from biased selection decisions.
OB Variation
This exercise can also be used in a more general OB setting and can be tied to discussions about groupthink, conformity, and the importance of diverse perspectives in groups. The activity itself is unchanged; however, in an OB setting, the debrief follows a different structure. LOs and instructions for an OB-focused debrief are provided in Appendix G. Teaching slides for an OB focus are also provided as supplemental materials (available online).
Appropriate Formats and Populations
This exercise is designed to be accessible to both student and practitioner participants. We have used both the HR and the OB variants with undergraduate and MBA students as class activities and with working professionals in professional development workshops. Anecdotally, the activity has been very well received in both classroom and workshop settings, with lively discussions during the debrief and requests for having the exercise repeated with other workgroups after the professional development workshops. Both variants have successfully been adapted to both synchronous and asynchronous online modalities.
Summary
This selection exercise allows learners to experience a hiring decision where the “right” choice is not readily apparent. Team decision making is a valuable soft skill (Weiss, 2018). Participants experience the importance of seeking out information or expertise from group members and learn the importance of fully voicing their own opinions, knowledge, and ethical concerns. Evaluators are often privy to information that should not be shared during a selection decision. Using such information could lead to unlawful discrimination or potentially expose the organization to legal liability. Therefore, best practices in HR recommend that organizations take great care in what information is shared during the selection process (Kehoe et al., 2017). This exercise provides a safe, engaging opportunity for learners to practice their staffing and decision-making skills and reflect on ways to improve the selection process.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 – Supplemental material for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise by Amy C. Lewis, D’Lisa N. McKee and Melissa Louis in Management Teaching Review
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-2-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 – Supplemental material for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise by Amy C. Lewis, D’Lisa N. McKee and Melissa Louis in Management Teaching Review
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-3-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 – Supplemental material for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-3-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise by Amy C. Lewis, D’Lisa N. McKee and Melissa Louis in Management Teaching Review
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-4-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 – Supplemental material for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-4-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise by Amy C. Lewis, D’Lisa N. McKee and Melissa Louis in Management Teaching Review
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-5-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 – Supplemental material for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-5-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise by Amy C. Lewis, D’Lisa N. McKee and Melissa Louis in Management Teaching Review
Supplemental Material
sj-pptx-6-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 – Supplemental material for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise
Supplemental material, sj-pptx-6-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise by Amy C. Lewis, D’Lisa N. McKee and Melissa Louis in Management Teaching Review
Supplemental Material
sj-pptx-7-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 – Supplemental material for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise
Supplemental material, sj-pptx-7-mtr-10.1177_23792981211026932 for Sharing Sensitive Information: A Hidden Profile Employee Selection Exercise by Amy C. Lewis, D’Lisa N. McKee and Melissa Louis in Management Teaching Review
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Unique Information by Packet (Do Not share with learners).
| Packet A | Packet B | Packet C |
|---|---|---|
| • Jones graduated at the top of the class • Miller wants a much higher salary than DXHD can offer • Miller has a large social media following • Anderson is highly recommended by the outgoing CFO • Anderson has already spent 5 months visiting the regional hubs • Anderson is a single parent of two young children • DXHD plans to launch an IPO on the NYSE |
• Jones has a 7-year-old misdemeanor fraud charge • Miller’s history of hostile social media • An altercation between Smith and Miller’s CEO 5 years ago • Anderson started in the Toronto office and worked up through the ranks • Smith is excited about the increased buzz • Smith will have to have a close professional working arrangement with the CFO • DXHD stock options should be lucrative |
• Jones worked at a prestigious bank before the NYSE • Miller has an extensive understanding of the industry • Miller is arrogant/conceited and said weak companies use bonuses and stock options • Miller is a leukemia survivor • Anderson is a Canadian citizen • Anderson can’t travel outside of the US in the next year for immigration reasons • Smith questions the judgment of anyone who disregards company values—especially ethics |
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Acknowledgements
We thank the editors and several anonymous reviewers for their suggestions to improve earlier versions of this article. The detailed and constructive feedback significantly enhanced the activity. Additionally, we thank our kind group of test readers who gave feedback on the initial versions of the packets as we developed the exercise.
Authors’ Note
Melissa R. Louis was an MBA student at Texas A&M University–San Antonio, and has since graduated.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
