Linnaeus University
Faculty of Health and life sciences Department of Psychology
Master Thesis 5PS22E, 30 ECTS Spring 2019
Intuitive and Analytic Decision Making in Employee Selection Process
Author: Tara Said Supervisor: Samantha Sinclair Examiner: Andrejs Ozolins
Intuitive Decision
2 Abstract
This experimental study aimed to investigate intuitive and analytic decision making approach when assessing job applicants during employee selection process, and feedback related to employee selection process. Theories used in the study to explain intuition are the dual process model and the recognition model. The population was recruiters and non-recruiters. A sample of 169 participants were included. Recruiters’ and non-recruiters’
were randomly assigned into two conditions: use of intuition or analytic thinking as assessment strategy when assessing eight real job applicants.
A comparison between their decision making approaches was made. Based on previous research, three hypotheses were obtained and tested. The first hypothesis was that intuitive decision making approach, in combination of experience of employee selections, will enhance assessments of the job applicants. The second hypothesis was that there is a positive relationship between feedback related to employee selection and accuracy in assessing job applicants. The third hypothesis was that there is a positive relationship between participants’ guessed cognitive ability test scores of the job applicants, with employability of the job applicants. The last hypothesis was supported, there was a significant and strong positive relationship between the two variables for all eight job applicants. Significant and non- significant results, methodological influences and theories accounted for are discussed.
Keywords: Organizational behaviour, decision making approach, intuition, feedback, employee selection process.
Intuitive Decision
3 Introduction
Decisions in employee selection process is one of the most important decisions in organizations.
Selecting the right or wrong individual to be hired leads to crucial consequences for the
workplace. Should recruiters rely on analytical thinking or intuitively decide about job applicants, or a mix? Due to the importance of this topic, this experimental study investigated two decision making approaches: analytic and intuitive approaches when assessing job applicants during employee selection (also called recruitment) process. The focus was on the role of intuitive decisions made by recruiters and accuracy in assessing the job applicants. This study also focused on feedback (related to employee selection process) to recruiters, and rated employability of the job applicants. Further, this study is part of a bigger research project in Linnaeus University, but the aim of this study is delimited to investigate the aforementioned variables. An extensive search of studies, reviews and meta-analyses was made to investigate if a similar study has been
conducted. To my knowledge, this study is unique and has not been conducted earlier. Next, theoretical frame of organizational behaviour will be described, followed by its’ connection to decision making in general and especially intuitive decision making as the focus in this study.
Organizational behaviour
Organizational behaviour is a multidisciplinary field of behavioural science, built on several disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, economics and management science (Greenberg &
Baron, 2003; Robbins & Judge, 2013). In general, the focus of organizational behaviour is on human behaviour in organizations, specifically on individual’s well-being and organizational effectiveness. Researchers in this field investigate how organization structure and humans, on individual and group level, influence behaviour and performance in organizations. Some examples of organizational behaviour research areas relevant to psychology in general and to industrial-organizational psychology specifically are: judgement and decision making (JDM), employee selection, performance appraisal, and perception. Hereinafter, some theoretical frame will be given about aforementioned research areas, beginning with JDM.
Intuitive Decision
4 Judgement and Decision Making
The research area of judgement and decision making, in industrial-organizational psychology, study how humans evaluate information and make choices and decisions (Highhouse, Dalal &
Salas, 2014). Ddecision making occurs when having alternatives and choosing among them (Greenberg & Baron, 2003; Robbins & Judge, 2013). Decision makings in organizations are made by individuals, whose decision quality are to a high degree affected by their perception (Robbins & Judge, 2013). The concept of perception refers to the process occurring when humans interpret, organize and understand sensory information (Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2014).
So, based on their perception, when individuals make decisions (Robbins & Judge, 2013), they sometimes base the decision on rational analysis or sometimes on intuition. The former concept refers to value-maximizing selections under limited conditions, and the latter refers to an
affectively charged, and unconscious process created from experiences. Diverse scientists explain intuition used in two major areas, namely in creative problem solving and in decision making (Dörfler & Ackermann, 2012). This study focuses on the decision making part of using intuition.
Overall, the basis of a workplace can be reduced to all judgements and decisions made by the employees, individually or in groups (Highhouse, et. al., 2014). Examples of judgments and decisions in a workplace are: performance appraisals and employee selection process. Below, more details will be given about rational and intuitive decision making approaches, but first an overview of performance appraisal and employee selection.
Performance Appraisal. Decisions during employee selections are related to
assessments and predictions of job applicants’ performance at work (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
When appraising job performance, three types of behaviour are considered: citizenship, task performance, and counterproductivity. Firstly, citizenship refers to behaviours positively contributing to the organization’s psychological environment, such as helping co-workers and supporting the goals of the organization. Secondly, task performance refers to job tasks or duties being performed well and contributing to the service the organization is offering. Lastly,
counterproductivity refers to behaviours harming the workplace, such as stealing or aggressive behaviour. So, when appraising performance, favourable job applicants are those doing well on citizenship and task performance, but not contributing to counterproductivity. Therefore, in order to make judgments and decisions about employee performance, raters must search for valid
Intuitive Decision
5
information about applicants, integrate and evaluate the information. Next, more details about this process will be given.
Employee Selection Process. There are lots of decisions for an employer to make during employee selection processes, e.g. decisions about which of the applicants to be rejected, who to invite for interview, or who to offer employment. The aim of selection process is to identify competent candidates and match their characteristics with the job requirements (meta-analysis:
Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005). During the selection process, there are subjective and objective methods to use when assessing performance of job applicants in order to make decisions about selecting certain applicants for a job (Slaughter & Kausel, 2014). So, one important decision to make is the way assessment information about applicants are collected, so called predictor information, which may be mechanical, judgemental, or a combination of both.
Mechanical predictor assessment information is when the decision making process is purely objective, without consideration of any subjective judgements. Examples of mechanical predictors are standardized performance tests, e.g. about personalities or cognitive abilities, to predict task performance. The opposite is judgemental predictor information, which is a decision making process based on subjective opinions and judgments of the applicants. Examples of judgemental predictor information is unstructured interviews or resumes, and decisions based on them. As mentioned earlier, judgemental and mechanical predictor information can also be combined as the basis for decision makings. The combined method can be made mechanically, which is regulated by predetermined formulas, or judgementally, which is subjective and
influenced by the decision maker. Overall, the judgmental composite of predictor information is the commonly used method of decision making for selecting applicants. This imply that
applicants’ performance assessments are done objectively and subjectively, e.g. based on standardized tests and resumes, but the final decision is made by the hiring manager, who will subjectively judge the collected assessment information, as the process in this experiment.
In general, employee selection process consists a couple of steps (Robbins & Judge, 2013). The first step begins with an initial selection, where a rough review of job applicants’
information is made to choose among those who meet the basic qualification for the specific job.
Next step is the substantive selection methods, in which interviews and various kinds of tests, such as performance test and written test, are completed. Valid written tests, such as personality
Intuitive Decision
6
tests and cognitive ability tests, can help to make an accurate prediction of which applicant will be suitable for the job. Based on the aforementioned, employability of job applicants is
investigated in this study. Lastly, some organizations use contingent selection (Robbins & Judge, 2013) as well as the last step, such as background check or drug tests. However, based on time and various resources employee selection process may differ across organizations or from time to time. Next, theoretical frame of, and a comparison between, rational and intuitive decision
making will be given.
Rational Decision Making. As mentioned previously, individuals may make decisions based on rational analytic thinking or based on intuition. Beginning with rational decision making, it refers to involvement of: ”systematic procedures designed to thoroughly assess all pertinent information, evaluate costs and benefits, and, ultimately, make a decision based on conscious deliberation” (review: Dane & Pratt, 2007, p. 40). Rational decisions are those resulting in maximized chance in individual or collective goal attaining (Greenberg & Baron, 2003; Robbins & Judge, 2013). The rational-economic decision making model (Greenberg &
Baron, 2003) suggest that the decision maker is maximizing profit chances by systematically, accurately and in an unbiased manner considering every relevant option before choosing the most optimal option. The process of rational decision making is analytic, involving logic and a
different kind of information processing system compared to intuition, which is the opposite of rational decision making (Dane & Pratt, 2007). This model has been criticized for describing ideal rational behaviour far away from reality (Greenberg & Baron, 2003; Robbins & Judge, 2013), because people do not always have access to complete information or options. However, they want to find reasonable solutions.
Another model that is argued to be describing actual behaviours of decision makers is the administrative model (Greenberg & Baron, 2003). This model takes bounded rationality into account, which refers to the restrictions in making rational decisions because humans cannot have access to full rationality (Greenberg & Baron, 2003; Robbins & Judge, 2013). Therefore,
according to this model of decision making, individuals do satisfying decisions, which refers to selection of available and acceptable solutions of problem, rather than optimal, in comparison to the rational decision making model. The administrative model has been criticized as well,
Intuitive Decision
7
because not all decisions are following analytical reasoning. Therefore, the following model of decision making is discussed.
The Image theory is another model representing real decision making (Greenberg &
Baron, 2003). According to this theory, decision making may sometimes occur intuitively, i.e.
rapidly and automatically, with minimal cognitive engagement. So, in this theory of decision making, intuition is in focus. Intuitive decision making (Robbins & Judge, 2013) process is affectively charged, it occurs unconsciously and based on earlier experiences. Results from a study (Dunegan, 1995), shows that people tend to make simple decisions based on intuitions. But in order to understand intuitive decision making on a deeper level, the subject which this paper is about, further explanation of intuition will be followed.
Intuitive Decision Making
The concept of intuition can be referred to as a process and as an outcome (Dane & Pratt, 2007;
Dörfler & Ackermann, 2012). As a process, intuiting refers to how information is perceived and sorted (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Intuiting is spontaneous, rapid and alogical, the latter referring to not contradicting logic rules, but neither following them (Dörfler & Ackermann, 2012). Intuition as an outcome is intuitive judgements used for decision makings and problem solving (Dane &
Pratt, 2007) as the focus in this study. Intuitive judgements are holistic, implicit and feel certain (Dörfler & Ackermann, 2012).
Several definitions of intuition have been provided (review: Banning, 2007). One of the definitions of intuition is:
“A component of complex judgement, the act of deciding what to do in a perplexing, often ambiguous and uncertain situation. […] Intuitive judgement is the decision to act on a sudden awareness of knowledge, that is related to previous experience, perceived as a whole and difficult to articulate” (Rew, 2000, p 95.)
Another definition is: “affectively charged judgements that arise through rapid, nonconscious, and holistic associations” (Dane & Pratt, 2007, p. 40). So, intuition is the impulse or initial response that comes to mind (review: Kahneman & Klein, 2009). Intuition is also those things we have learned in unsystematic ways (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Further, intuition is called gut feeling, gut decision, gut instincts, feelings of knowing, or feeling in the marrow, all of which
Intuitive Decision
8
related to emotions and detached from rational reasoning (Dane & Pratt, 2007). However, intuition is not guessing, instincts or insight, which is used as a synonymous to intuition in everyday speech (Dane & Pratt, 2007).
Two Models of intuition. Intuition can be explained as recognition, and by the dual process model. Beginning with the dual process model, it distinguishes between two information processing systems in the brain, namely system 1 and system 2 (Dane & Pratt, 2007; Kahneman
& Klein, 2009). The information processing called System 1, is operating automatic, effortless, rapid, implicitly, and also producing intuitions. System 1 enable humans to learn from their experiences and thereby perceive things automatically. In contrast, the information processing called system 2 is operating controlled, effortful, slow, intentional, and rational. System 2 enable humans to learn consciously and engage in attentive and analytic processes. To sum up, system 1 has been called nonlogical, and system 2 has been called the logical mode of thinking (Dane &
Pratt, 2007). However, intuition can also be explained as “the recognition of patterns stored in memory” (Kahneman & Klein, 2009, p. 516). This model of intuition (Kahneman & Klein, 2009), solely viewed as recognition, is focusing on heuristics, i.e. mental shortcuts, used on a nonconscious level and internalized information patterns. Because of the recognition in intuition, individuals are likely to feel confident in their intuition, compared to guessing when no solution is recognized (Dane & Pratt, 2007). This model of intuition accounts for skill and expertise for effective intuitive judgements, therefore further explanation about the concepts of skill and expertise will be given next.
Intuition in the Workplace.
Skilled individuals or experts, using intuition, are found in various workplaces. When facing time pressure, human being is more likely to use and rely on intuition (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Therefore, under certain conditions, intuition can be important and facilitate rapid decision making and for completing complex tasks successfully under time constrains, such as performance appraisal.
Therefore, intuition can sometimes be useful and effective, and it is often used by experts when making decisions (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Experts are individuals having skills to perform in higher levels (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). Field experts develop schemas, i.e. advanced cognitive maps, in their specific domain which result in effective intuitive judgments (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Task characteristics and knowledge factors in specific domains will have impact on how effective
Intuitive Decision
9
intuition is. Therefore, schema is useful only for that specific field and will not necessarily lead to effective intuitive decisions in other areas.
Intuitive judgements may arise from skills or from heuristics (Kahneman & Klein, 2009).
It is hard to distinguish accurate intuitions from faulty ones or from intuitions resulted by heuristics. People are often not aware of the source of their intuition. Intuition resulted by heuristics may sometimes be correct, yet they are less reliable than intuition based on experiences. Absence of skill results in inaccurate intuitive judgements, because individuals apply skilled response to tasks when it is available. Although intuitive response may come to mind regardless of the existence or nonexistence of skill. However, skilled intuition and experts with effective intuitive judgments are not restricted to any specific occupation, but they can be found in various occupations (Dane & Pratt, 2007; Kahneman & Klein, 2009).
NDM & HB. Naturalistic Decision Making Approach (NDM) focus on the extent of success when experts use intuition (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). The approach aims to identify cues used by experts when making judgements and decisions. For this purpose, Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) methods is often used to identify and investigate different strategies applied by experts. In contrast, Heuristics and Biases Approach (HB) is critical to reliance on intuition when making judgements. To sum up, both approaches are aware of accuracy and inaccuracy in using intuition. Although, NDM researchers stress the role of experts and successful intuitive
performance, in contrast, HB researchers stress flaws in informal judgements, and intuitive and cognitive performance. For NDM researchers, the standard is successful experts in the field, with which they compare professional performance. In contrast, HB researchers compare professional judgements with an outcome which allow for available information being used in the best way.
Regular Environment. Intuition explained as recognition (Kahneman & Klein, 2009), requires the environment to provide adequate cues in different contexts, likewise people must get opportunities to recognize and learn from these cues. Therefore, in order to develop expertise and skilled intuitions, it is important that the environment is regular and provide appropriate cues and opportunities to learn it. Although individual differences in quick learning must be accounted for.
Regarding the workplace, the conditions of existing valid cues and opportunity to learn, is very important, but this may often not be achieved (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). The reason may be an insufficiently predictable or irregular environment, or insufficient opportunities for learning the
Intuitive Decision
10
rules of the situation. Therefore, it is important that workplaces consider the importance of regular and predictable environment, including opportunities to learn it, in order for the
employees to develop expertise e.g. in employee selection processes. For example, availability of static stimuli, extent of experience, and predictable outcomes are important factors for employees to develop expertise and perform better. Another important factor is feedback, which will be described next.
Rational vs Intuitive Decision Making
Intuitive decision making may be the least rational manner of decision making, but it is not necessarily wrong or contradicting rational reasoning (Robbins & Judge, 2013). There is research (Dane & Pratt, 2007) showing different results about whether intuition in decision making is superior or inferior to other ways of decision making. It is established that intuition is useful in some contexts but not in others. For example, evidence show that intuition is useful for
unstructured decisions such as in Human Resource (HR) managements but not in mathematics and structured problems. Sometimes, intuition and intuitive judgements may be skilled and accurate, other times totally inaccurate (Kahneman & Klein, 2009; Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Many studies have confirmed errors in intuitive judgements made by experts (Kahneman &
Klein, 2009). However, we may trust this impulse and be right about it, or we make corrections if faulty (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). It is effortful to check or verify if an intuitive response is correct, and it requires activation of system 2. Therefore, people may feel it is difficult and not bother to put effort in activating system 2. Other research studies (review: Kruglanski &
Gigerenzer, 2011; Robbins & Judge, 2013) show that rational reasoning or rational decision making earlier has, and still is, overemphasized in general. Researchers now have concluded that intuition can actually enhance decision makings in certain situations. However, both rational and intuitive approaches to decision making have received support, and should be seen as
complementary to each other, since several processes may be involved when making a decision (Greenberg & Baron, 2003; Robbins & Judge, 2013). Intuition is complex and rooted in
reasoning, and learning of earlier experiences (Robbins & Judge, 2013). It is rather recommended not to exclude intuition, neither solely rely on it, but enhance intuitive judgements and decisions with evidence. Because sometimes making a decision might be based on rational reasoning, and other times on intuition (Greenberg & Baron, 2003).
Intuitive Decision
11 Feedback
Feedback is defined as “a response to an action or a situation” (Review: Roebuck, 1996, p. 328).
Feedback is information related to individuals’ perceptions or opinions (Roebuck, 1996).
Therefore, feedback may be positive and favourable, or it may be negative and unfavourable (Anseel & Lievens, 2006). In organizations, feedback is related to employees’ performance, organizational effectiveness, and attitudes and perceptions related to the organization (Roebuck, 1996). Specifically, providing feedback is crucial for decision makings in the workplace.
Feedback promote job tasks, teams, and organizations in general. Therefore, feedback is an important part of communication in organizations. Feedback can be given orally and in written, by observers such as direct supervisor, colleagues or external experts (Krause, Rossberger, Dowdeswell, Venter & Joubert, 2011). Research (Krause et. al., 2011) shows that written feedback exclusively can result in misunderstanding, confusion and frustration, which in turn result in reduced organizational commitment and negative work outcomes in general. Timing of feedback is valuable, therefore it is important to give feedback immediately after a behaviour (Kahneman & Klein, 2009; Thornton & Rupp, 2005). Rapid feedback facilitates learning and correction of behaviour. If individuals are given rapid feedback, relevant to the workplace and work-related behaviour, and adequate experience, they will find valid cues when they exist in an environment and in the employee selection process (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). Feedback to recruiters, i.e. related to employee selections process, is one of the focuses in this study.
Focus of this study
Previous research show that intuition may be accurate and useful in some contexts (Kahneman &
Klein, 2009; Robbins & Judge, 2013) such as in HR managements (Dane & Pratt, 2007). It is also established that good and rapid feedback is important for decision makings in the workplace (Roebuck, 1996) and important to develop expertise, which also facilitate for skilled intuition or expert intuition (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). However, there is no experimental study yet
investigating the use of intuition and feedback during employee selection. Therefore, the first aim of this study is to investigate whether the combination of employee selection/recruitment
experience and intuitive decision making approach may enhance recruiting-related assessments.
The first hypothesis is that intuitive decision making approach, in combination of experience of employee selections, will enhance assessments of the job applicants. The second aim is to study if
Intuitive Decision
12
there is any relationship between feedback related to employee selection process and accuracy in assessing job applicants. The second hypothesis is that there is a positive relationship between feedback and accuracy in assessing job applicants. As mentioned in the literature review
(Robbins & Judge, 2013), written tests during employee selection process can help recruiters to predict which applicant will be successful on the job tasks and consequently suitable for the job.
Therefore, the third aim is to study if there is a relationship between participants guessed
cognitive ability test scores for job applicants with estimated employability of the job applicants.
The third hypothesis is that there is a positive relationship between participants’ guessed cognitive ability test scores of the job applicants, with employability of the job applicants.
Method Participants
The populations for this study consisted of recruiters and non-recruiters, in order to make a comparison between them. Therefore, the sample in the study included two groups, one with different extent of self-estimated employee selection experience (n = 91), and the other group not having any experience of employee selection at all, (n = 78), for a total of 169 participants. In order to attain a medium population effect size or to detect differences between four independent sample means at the aforementioned level (power = .80, for Cohen’s d = .05), it is recommended (Cohen, 1992) to include 45 participants in each group. In order to participate, the general requirement was to speak Swedish fluently, because of the instrument being in Swedish.
Regarding the recruiters, further requirement was solely occupational experience of employee selection, irrespective of the extent. Regarding the non-recruiters, requirement for belonging to the population was anyone who does not have any recruitment experience but having work experience. The non-recruiters included mostly psychology and work- and organizational related students in several different universities all over the country in Sweden.
The sample strategy was non-random and consisted of quota sampling and snowball sampling (Christensen, Johnson & Turner, 2015). The former sampling technique indicates that the researcher in advance decide how many participants should be included in the study, and afterwards include the most available people as participants in the study. The latter technique indicates that those who participate in the study are also asked to identify further individuals who potentially meet inclusion criteria. Therefore, participants for this study were approached in
Intuitive Decision
13
different ways. The recruiters were found mostly via the website of the Swedish public employment service, different municipalities’ and recruitment companies’ websites, and
LinkedIn. They were contacted mostly by email (approx. 950), but also by phone (approx. 200).
Some were also found and contacted by personal visits to their workplaces and via personal contacts (approx. 100). The non-recruiters, mostly consisting of students from different
universities, were found and contacted mostly by personal visits to their lectures (20 lectures), via Facebook and personal contacts. The mortality is estimated being high, hundreds of people chose to withdraw their participation. Some of them only after skimming through the survey, others after reading and answering some questions. To all of those who had agreed on participating, reminder of participation was send up to three times.
The participants had an age range of 19 – 64 (Md = 30,8, SD = 9,8), including 115 females and 54 males. Regarding recruitment education: 36% of the recruiters had an education on university level, 21% of the recruiters had a recruitment education offered by their employers, and 4% of the recruiters stated having other types of recruitment education. The rest of the recruiters, i.e. 39%, had no recruitment education. The participants also indicated different extent of recruitment experience (Table 1) (M = 4.75, SD = 1.66), and feedback related to employee selection (Table 2) (M = 4.9, SD = 2.0).
Intuitive Decision
14 Table 1
Self-estimated extent of recruitment experience 1 (not at all), 7 (very much) (N = 91) Extent Frequency
j a
Recruitment experience 2 12
3 9
4 22
5 13
6 17
7 18
Total 91
Table 2
Extent of feedback received by the recruiters 1(never), 4 (sometimes), 7 (very often) (N = 91)
Extent Frequency
Feedback 1 10
2 6
3 1
4 18
5 15
6 13
7 28
Total 91
Intuitive Decision
15 Materials and Procedure
This study is part of a bigger research project, and therefore the instrument for this experimental study was created previously by my supervisor, Samantha Sinclair (senior lecturer), and another researcher in the JDM area, Jens Agerström (professor). For the research project, the instrument was created based on real job applications from 16 students, called job applicants henceforward.
A selection of the job applicants were made based on specific criteria, and resulted in eight applicants. Specifically, the job applicants have written real job applications, including CV and personal letter, for a fictive job announcement as research assistant. The job applicants have also done a real cognitive ability test with 11 questions, measuring: problem solving, probability understanding, analytic thinking, and ability of logical conclusions. Various levels of difficulty were applied on the questions and the applicants had 15 minutes to do the test. The aim was to create real job applications and test the applicants’ real cognitive performance. Hence, the job was fictive but the applications, the cognitive ability test and the test scores were real. The eight applicants included four women and four men, 23-34 years old, who scored from 4 to 11 correct answers on the test. The time duration for participation varied between approximately 15 to 60 minutes.
Lastly, a survey (see appendix A) was created based on the applicants’ CV:s, personal letters, and questions to the participants. In the beginning of the survey an information letter (see appendix A) was included in order to inform people to participate. The letter contained ethical principles about confidentiality, privacy, informed consent, and protection from possible harm and from deception (Aguinis & Henle, 2004), as well as the aim of the study and other relevant information about the study such as phone numbers and emails to the researchers. The survey also included a description of the fictive job and of the cognitive ability test, and the experimental manipulation.
In this study, two experimental conditions were applied: analytic and intuitive assessment strategies, when assessing the eight job applicants. Participants were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions, where they were instructed to either use intuition or analytical thinking when assessing the job applicants. To reduce the order effect or to counterbalance the order of the applicants, there were two different orders of the job applicants in the survey. The participants were randomly assigned to each order of the applicants.
Intuitive Decision
16
The experimental manipulation consisted of written instructions, to use analytical thinking or intuition, when assessing the job applicants. In order to create the manipulation, a review of earlier experimental studies, manipulating analytic reasoning and intuition (e.g. Rusou, Zakay &
Usher, 2013; Thompson & Johnson, 2014) was made and adapted to this study. A translation of the manipulation, for the analytical part is:
“The eight applicants will now randomly be presented for you. When you read the
applications, it is very important that you reflect about them carefully. So we want you to thoroughly analyse different aspects of the applicants, do not rush into conclusions”.
The manipulation for the intuitive part was:
“The eight applicants will now randomly be presented for you. When you read the applications, it is very important that you rely on your intuitive feelings/”gut feeling”, about the applicants. So we want you to base your judgements on your immediate perception of the applicants, without any further reflections”.
After reading each application, the participants got a reminder of the manipulation: “we want to remind you of focusing on your immediate feeling (gut feeling) when answering the following questions about the applicant”, as for the manipulation condition.
The survey included CV:s and personal letters, followed by questions about each job candidate. The answers were measured on a Likert Scale, 1-7 point, except the first question.
Participants were asked to answer the following questions about each job candidate:
- “How many of the 11 questions do you think the job applicant got right?”. The participants could then choose between 0 and 11.
- “How certain are you about your judgment of the job candidate”, the participants could choose between 1 (very unsure) and 7 (very sure).
- “How qualified do you perceive the job candidate be for the job position”, the participants could choose between 1 (very unqualified) and 7 (very qualified).
- “How adequate do you think the job candidate is for the job position”, the participants could choose between 1 (very inadequate) and 7 (very adequate).
- “How employable is the job candidate for the job position?”, the participants could choose between 1 (very unemployable) and 7 (very employable).
Intuitive Decision
17
The survey also included questions about the participants themselves, and the answers were self- estimated, measured on a Likert Scale, 1-7 point:
- The manipulation control: “to what extent did you use intuition/gut feeling compared with analytical thinking, when assessing the job candidates?”. The participants could choose between 1(completely analytical thinking) and 7(completely intuition).
- “How much experience do you have of recruiting?” the participants could choose between 1 (not at all), (4 = moderate) and 7 (very much).
- “How often have you received feedback of your assessments of recruitment, i.e.
afterwards finding out how successful the recruitment process was?” the participants could choose between 1 (never), (4 = sometimes) and 7 (very often).
Participants were also asked demographical questions such as:
- Age
- Gender – participants could choose between: woman, man, other.
- “If you are a student, what programme are you studying”. This was an open question.
- “Have you any education for recruitment and employee selection?”. The participants could choose between “no”, “yes, at university level”, “yes, education offered by employer”, and the last one was open for other answers “yes, other: _____”.
Participants were asked further questions e.g. about what they based their assessments on.
Though, those questions were not included in this study.
An online survey and a paper-and-pencil survey were employed, because of practical reasons such as increased possibility of obtaining participants. The content was identical though.
The online survey from Qualtrics.com was chosen for this experiment because Qualtrics is highly used and evaluated well by researchers in different papers from PsychInfo, and for being
advanced and containing different important tools for conducting research, such as randomization of participants.
To find participants, the information letter was sent online (email, fb, LinkedIn) while others were informed verbally and in writing when meeting them in person. When consent to participation was given, either verbally or by email, the participants got either a paper-pencil- survey, or an email containing instructions, the link and the password to login into the online questionnaire. The participants were given opportunity for debriefing before and after the
Intuitive Decision
18
participation, when meeting or by email, phone, and text messages. The recruiters were offered one cinema ticket each, and the non-recruiters were offered snacks and they were entered into a lottery with a chance of winning cinema tickets.
Data Preparation
The independent categorical variables (IVs) in this experimental study were recruiting experience (self-indicated), with two levels: yes and no, and the assessment strategy, also with two levels:
intuition and analytical thinking. The dependent variable (DV) consisted of the accuracy in assessing job applicants, i.e. how accurate each participant was about estimating each applicants’
cognitive ability test scores. For this purpose, the mean absolute deviation was used, which is defined as: “the mean average of the absolute differences between each score and the overall mean – the amount by which, on average, any figure differs from the overall mean.” (Gorard, 2015, p. 108). In order to create the DV, the absolute deviation from accurate score, i.e. for each participant’s guessed cognitive test score for each job applicant, was calculated in SPSS. So, the higher number on the variable, the more deviation from an accurate guessed test score. The mean accuracy for all eight applicants resulted in the dependent variable. Other continuous variables that were analysed in SPSS were recruitment feedback and guessed scores of each applicant, and employability of the job applicants. The last variable consisted of a scale with three items, with a high reliability, Cronbach’s a = .92.
Results
The aim of this study is to investigate whether the combination of employee selection experience and intuitive decision making approach may enhance recruiting-related assessments. Between subject experimental design was applied in this study, based on the two categorical independent variables (recruitment experience, two levels, and experimental condition as assessment strategy, two levels) and one continuous dependent variable (accuracy in assessing job applicants).
Specifically, a 2x2 independent factorial Anova was run to make a comparison between the two groups, i.e. one group with recruitment experience and one group without, including the
experimental conditions: use of intuition vs analytical thinking.
Assumptions for factorial Anova were checked and resulted in the following. Assumption for independence between the cells was met, as well as the assumption for equal variance
Intuitive Decision
19
F(3,165) = 1,486, p = .220. Further, test for normality showed some departures from normality.
Accordingly, because not all assumptions are met, the result should be interpreted cautiously.
The first hypothesis was that intuitive decision making approach, in combination of recruitment experience, will enhance assessments of the job applicants. The result of the analysis of variance showed no significant effect of assessment strategy F(1,165) = .003, p = .953, η2 <
.001, nor any significant effect of recruitment experience F(1,165) =.007, p = .934, η2 < .001, on accuracy in assessing job applicants (see Table 3 for descriptive statistics). There was no
significant interaction effect between assessment strategy and recruitment experience F(1,165) = .083, p = .774, η2 < .001.
Table 3
Mean and standard deviations of accuracy in assessing job applicants (N= 169) Recruitment Experience Conditions Mean Standard
Deviation
No Analytic 2.47 .82
Intuition 2.49 .75
Yes Analytic 2.49 .94
Intuition 2.45 .62
As a manipulation check, participants were asked to rate the extent of using intuition vs analytic thinking, while assessing job applicants. Participants’ self-rated use of analytical or intuitive thinking was checked against their instructed group. For this purpose, an independent samples t-test across the two groups was run for the variable consisting of participants’ self-rated score on extent of using intuition vs analytic thinking. The result showed that the participants significantly differed on self-rated use of intuition and analytic thinking when assessing the job applicants, t (167) = -4,6, p < .001. Specifically, the group instructed to use intuition rated themselves as using more intuition (M = 4,8, SD = 1,2), and the group instructed to use analytic thinking rated themselves as using more analytic thinking (M = 3.9, SD = 1,3), i.e. though the difference in ratings was significant, the mean difference on a 7-point scale is just under one scale
Intuitive Decision
20
point and both scores are close to the midpoint. For further attempts to analyse the manipulation, a correlation analysis was run between the accuracy variable and the aforementioned variable, namely the self-rated score on intuition vs analytic thinking. The result showed a non significant relationship between the two variables, r= .06, p = .463.
Furthermore, two other correlation analyses were run. The first analysis aimed to analyse the relationship between feedback and accuracy in assessing job applicants. The hypothesis was that there is a positive relationship between feedback and accuracy in assessing job applicants.
For this analysis, only the recruiters were included. The result showed a non-significant relationship between feedback and accuracy in assessing job applicants r= .05, p = .638. The second correlation analysis was run in order to investigate if participants’ guessed cognitive ability test scores correlate with estimated employability of the job applicants. The hypothesis was that there is a positive relationship between participants’ guessed cognitive ability test scores of the job applicants, with employability of the job applicants. The result showed a significant and strong positive relationship between the two variables for all eight job applicants.
Specifically, the result for job applicant 1 was r= .45, p < .001; for job applicant 2 r= .54, p <
.001; for job applicant 3 r= .62, p < .001; for job applicant 4 r= .51, p < .001; for job applicant 5 r= .58, p < .001; for job applicant 6 r= .70, p < .001; for job applicant 7 r= .52, p < .001; and for job applicant 8 r= .52, p < .001.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of employee selection
experience and intuitive decision making approach may enhance recruiting-related assessments.
The hypothesis was that intuitive decision making approach, in combination of experience of employee selections, will enhance assessments of the job applicants. The analysis showed a non- significant result, and therefore the hypothesis was not supported. This means that there were no effects of recruitment experience or instructed decision making strategy on accuracy of assessing job applicants, and no interaction between the two variables. Another way of interpreting the result is that the assessment strategy, i.e. using intuition or analytic thinking, had no significant effect on accurate assessments of job applicants. Further, having recruitment experience or not had no significant effect on accurate assessments of job applicants. There was also no interaction effect, which means that the effect of assessment strategy on accurate assessments of job
Intuitive Decision
21
applicants, did not interact with, or depend on recruitment experience and vice versa. To test the manipulation and if participants in the instruction groups used the decision making strategy instructed, self-rated score on use of analytical vs. intuitive thinking was examined between instruction groups, and there was a significant difference in the expected direction. The result showed that there was a significant self-rated difference among the participants, in reporting use of assessment strategy, when assessing the job applicants. Participants in general reported using the instructed assessment strategy but not perfectly, which is indicated by the mean differences with only 1 scale point difference between the groups. More specifically, if participants had purely used the instructed assessment strategy then the mean difference would be expected to be bigger. For example, the group instructed to use intuition would then have a mean closer to 7, and the other group having a mean closer to 1, according to the scale. But in this case, the two groups had mean differences of 4.8 and 3.9. However, 1 scale point difference between the two groups is not much, and this indicates that too many participants used a mixture of assessment strategies.
Consequently, this can perhaps explain the null effect, i.e. failure to find an effect of the independent variable consisting of the assessment strategy. Therefore, from the self-ratings we can deduce that people did not or were unable to use the instructed strategy perfectly. Further attempts to test the manipulation was to correlate self-ratings of strategy, as opposed to instructed strategy group, with accuracy of assessment, because some participants may have disregarded instructions and used another strategy, perhaps their natural preference instead. However, there was no significant relationship. So, neither instruction group nor self-rated decision making strategy showed a relationship to accuracy. An effect in the main analysis might not have been found as some people did not follow the instructions and used another strategy anyway.
However, self-report measures may not be accurate or precise. Therefore, this makes it hard to generalize from the results that decision making strategy has no effects. A speculation might be that perhaps they found it hard to use an instructed style and fell back on their natural preference.
Another aim was to investigate if there is any relationship between feedback related to employee selection process and accuracy in assessing job applicants. The hypothesis was that there is a positive relationship between feedback and accuracy in assessing job applicants. The correlation analysis showed non-significant result which also means that the hypothesis was not supported. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between those
variables.
Intuitive Decision
22
Further, the third aim was to study if there is a relationship between participants guessed cognitive ability test scores for job applicants with estimated employability of the job applicants.
The hypothesis was that there is a positive relationship between participants’ guessed cognitive ability test scores with employability of the job applicants. The hypothesis was supported because the correlation analysis resulted in a significant positive and strong relationship between guessed test scores and employability of the same candidates. The result means that when a job candidate was estimated receiving higher scores of the cognitive ability test, employability of the same candidate was also estimated to be in a higher level. So, participants estimated scores of the test and employability of each job candidate to be in the same level, i.e. if high level in guessed scores of the test, then high level of employability of the job candidate. Accordingly, there is a possibility that during recruitment process and when assessing job candidates, recruiters will perceive a candidate to be more employable if the job candidate gets more accurate test scores.
This result brings us closer to the real-life recruitment process, especially because different kinds of personalities and cognitive tests are increasingly used during the recruitment process in order to assess the job applicants. However this requires the recruiter to be accurate in their judgements and decision makings. If not, there is a risk to not hire the right person for the job. In the
following part, the aforementioned theoretical frame in the literature review will be integrated into the results of this study.
The participants in this study were exposed to decision making which according to aforementioned theories is defined as choosing among options. Decision making is affected by perception and therefore the decision may be based on rationality or intuition. Evidence suggests that the judgemental composite of judgmental and mechanical predictor information is likely to be the most used method. In this study, we used the judgemental composite method when collecting predictor information by resumes (judgemental) and standardized tests (mechanical).
The participants had access to the applicants’ resumes but they did not have access to the test scores, although they were offered information about applicants implementing such tests. The literature review also showed that intuition may be skilled and accurate, or it can be totally inaccurate, depending on the context, which might be in the case of this study. Of course, in this study it was difficult to fully control the use of only one of the assessment strategies, i.e. intuition or analytic thinking. Maybe some participants were using intuitions as told but their intuitive judgments were inaccurate. In addition, intuition (and indeed analytical thinking) might be good
Intuitive Decision
23
for some people and bad for others. This might also relate to their natural strategies or
preferences. So, it depends on the person and how s/he uses it. However, it is effortful to verify if an intuitive response is correct or not because it requires activation of system 2 of the human information processing systems. This difficulty may have led to participants previously not trying to verify their intuitive responses, and therefore, some of them may not have used intuition as instructed because of lack of trust for intuition. Moreover, to develop skilled intuition, it requires the environment to provide adequate cues in different contexts and individuals must also get opportunities to recognize and learn from these cues. Additionally, absence of skill results in inaccurate intuitive judgements. Therefore, one conclusion about the results could be that many participants did not possess skilled intuition because of lack of adequate cues from their
environment and in different contexts. However, intuition is useful in some contexts but not in others and could be possibly useless in this context, or at least for some participants in this study.
Further, feedback is important for decision making and it promotes job tasks such as the ones that occur during employee selection. In this study, 74 of 91 recruiters estimated receiving feedback between sometimes and very often which is a high number and estimation of feedback. This may have led to the findings related to feedback and their accuracy in assessment. In the following part speculations about methodological influences will be discussed.
Strengths and Limitations
One of the possible methodological factors that might have influenced the non-significant results is that recruitment experience was self-indicated and the extent was self-estimated. There was no possibility to verify participants’ extent of expertise with a standard, or verify the extent of recruitment experience than to trust their subjective estimation. Therefore, there is the possibility that recruiters have indicated the extent of experience extremely various. Another factor might be that 39%, of the recruiters had no recruitment education and this could be both an advantage and a disadvantage for this study. For example, it could be favourable if those participants were assigned intuitive assessment strategy but unfavourable if assigned analytic assessment strategy.
In the former case, the chance of using intuition might be higher. However random assignments into conditions, which was used in the study, controls for this to be correct.
Furthermore, it is difficult to make conclusions about self-ratings on Likert scales, and they could be only weakly related to the actual strategies that participants used in the task. Scale
Intuitive Decision
24
self-ratings can be hard to interpret, and different people may use scales in different ways, i.e.
one person may rate their experience as a 3, and another person might use a 2 on scale but have the same experience in which case it does not reflect any real difference between people and weakens the analysis. In addition, people also may lack insight into their own cognitive
processes, or metacognition, and they might not really know what cognitive strategies they have used or be able to accurately report them (Haeffel & Howard, 2010; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
They might just make a judgment without knowing how. Thus, when asking them, they are not accurate.
Additional influence might be that many participants indicated the survey to be too long and to be time consuming. Lots of people chose to withdraw their participation after reading the instructions, or leafing through the survey, or reading and answering the survey, which also resulted in an extended time period for the data collection. Although, attempts to attract
participants weremade e.g. by explaining the importance of research in the area, offering cinema tickets and snacks, choosing between paper-and-pencil or online survey, and an extended time period for participation. Of course, the time duration for participation was individual,
approximately 15 to 60 minutes for various participant. Therefore, participants got the chance to participate or fill in the survey when time was available for them. Some of them send in their answers several weeks later after giving consent for participation. Nonetheless, the survey was already concentrated, i.e. from 16 job applicants only 8 of them was included in the survey. An additional shorter version of the survey might have been incomplete and inadequate.
Further influence might be the power being low. As mentioned in the method part, it is recommended (Cohen, 1992) to include 45 participants in each group for a 2x2 design (power = .80, for Cohen’s d = .05). In this study, fewer participants were included due to difficulty to find and attract people to participate. However, it is worth mentioning that in this study, the job announcement was fictive but the job applications, the cognitive ability test and the test scores were real. Therefore, participants were exposed to decisions based on real cases or job
applications, which brings the experiment closer to reality. Investigating guessed cognitive test performance is relevant when judgements of job applicants are made. Even though the cognitive test was not an IQ-test. Therefore there is a risk for the test not detecting characteristics or competence that these individuals possess, which may lead to incorrect conclusion and
Intuitive Decision
25
judgements of the job applicants’ competence. Furthermore, the manipulation was written and simple and also repetitive in order to remind participants to follow the manipulation rules. The manipulation was inspired by successful studies using written manipulations, but of course the manipulation was adapted in order to be suitable for this study.
Suggestions for Further Research
This experimental study has contributed to the organizational behavioral research area,
specifically in judgement and decision making, by implementing a quantitative method in order to investigate intuition and judgements during employee selection process. Based on this study, some suggestions for future research studies are to train participants in strategies used, and therefore be able to better use the instructed strategies. Or maybe more focus on analytic assessment strategies while comparing two different independent groups. Perhaps the recruiters should all have a relevant recruitment education and comparing different groups with different amount of experience, objectively measured, not self-indicated. Another suggestion is to let participants use their own preferred strategy and afterwards let them indicate the extent of used intuitive or analytical strategy. Additional suggestion is that focus should be on stereotypes as well, e.g. the same group making a second decision after taking part of the job candidates’ names, ages, or a picture of them. An additional suggestion is to investigate different types of recruitment feedback and their respective influence on decision making.
Intuitive Decision
26 References
Ashcraft, M. H., & Radvansky, G. A. (2014). Cognition (5th Edition). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
Aguinis, H., & Henle, C., A. (2004). Ethics in Research. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.),
Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp 34- 56). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2006). Certanty as a Moderator of Feedback Reactions? A Test of the Strength of the Self-verification motive. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 533-551. DOI: 10.1348/096317905X71462.
Banning, M. (2007). A Review of clinical Decision Making: Models and Current Research.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(2), 187/195. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01791.x.
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L.A. (2015). Research Methods, Design, and Analysis (12th Edition). USA: Pearson Education Limited.
Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring Intuitions and its Role in Managerial Decision Making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54.
Dörfler, V., & Ackermann, F. (2012). Understanding Intuition: The case for two forms of Intuition. Management Learning, 43(5), 545-565. DOI: 10.1177/1350507611434686.
Dunegan, K. J. (1995). Image Theory: Testing the Role of Image Compatibility in Progress Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(1), 79-86. DOI:
10.1006/obhd.1995.1033.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Edition). London: SAGE.
Gorard, S. (2015). Introducing the mean absolute deviation ‘effect’ size. International
Intuitive Decision
27
Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(2), 105-114, DOI:
10.1080/1743727X.2014.920810.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work (8th Edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education International.
Haeffel, G.J., & Howard, G. S. (2010). Self-Report: Psychology’s Four-Letter Word. The American Journal of Psychology, 123, 181-188.
Highhouse, S., Dalal, R. S., & Salas, E. (2014). Introduction to Judgement and
Decision Making. In S. Highhouse, R. S. Dalal, & E. Salas (Eds.), Judgement and decision making at work (pp 1-9). New York: Routledge.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for Intuitive Expertise: A Failure to disagree.
American Psychological Association, 64(6), 515-526. DOI: 10.1037/a0016755.
Krause, D. E., Rossberger, R. J., Dowdeswell, K., Venter, N., & Joubert, T. (2011).
Assessment Center Practices in South Africa. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(3), 262-275. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00555.x
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of Individual’s Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person- Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology 58(2), 281–342.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and Deliberate Judgments Are Based on Common Principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97-109. DOI:
10.1037/a0020762.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
Intuitive Decision
28
Rew, L. (2000) Acknowledging intuition in clinical decision making. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 18(2), 94–108. DOI: 10.1177/089801010001800202.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational Behavior (2nd Edition).
USA: Pearson Education.
Roebuck, C. (1996). Constructive Feedback: Key to higher performance and commitment.
Long Rang Planning, 29(3), 328-336. DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(96)00028-3.
Rusou, Z., Zakay, D., & Usher, M. (2013). Pitting Intuitive and Analytical Thinking Against Each Other: The Case of Transitivity. Psychon Bull Rev, 20, 608-614. DOI
10.3758/s13423-013-0382-7.
Slaughter, J. E., & Kausel, E. E. (2014). Employee Selection Decisions. In S.
Highhouse, R. S. Dalal, & E. Salas (Eds.), Judgement and decision making at work (pp 57-79). New York: Routledge.
Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014). Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking.
Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 215-244. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2013.869763.
Thornton, G. C., & Rupp, D. R. (2005). Assessment centers in human resource
management: Strategies for prediction, diagnosis, and development. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Intuitive Decision
29 Appendix A
Undersökning om rekrytering och urval
Denna studie är en del av ett forskningsprojekt vid Linnéuniversitetet och handlar om
bedömningar vid rekrytering och urval av personal. Projektet syftar till att generera ny kunskap om hur man bäst går tillväga för att säkerställa objektiva och rättvisa rekryteringsförfaranden. Det är därför av största vikt att alla instruktioner och frågor läses noggrant. Det är frivilligt att delta och du har när som helst rätt att avbryta din medverkan. Alla som deltar i undersökningen är anonyma.
Om du har frågor om studien är du välkommen att kontakta:
Tara Said (ansvarig för genomförande av studien), ts222rr@student.lnu.se. Tel: 0739501052 Samantha Sinclair, fil. dr. (projektansvarig), Samantha.Sinclair@lnu.se. Tel: 0725941757
Du kommer att få ta del av meritförteckningar och personliga brev från åtta sökanden till en tjänst som forskningsassistent. Din uppgift är att utifrån ansökningarna 1: gissa hur väl de sökande har presterat på ett test som mäter bland annat problemlösningsfråga, och 2: göra bedömningar av de sökandes lämplighet för den aktuella tjänsten som forskningsassistent. Enkäten avslutas sedan med några allmänna frågor.
Stort tack för din medverkan!
Jag har förstått vad projektet handlar om och samtycker till att medverka i studien.
(Sätt kryss)
󠄷󠄷
På nästa sida finns en beskrivning av den lediga tjänsten och testet.
Intuitive Decision
30 Beskrivning av den lediga tjänsten:
Typ av tjänst: projektassistent i ett stort forskningsprojekt.
Arbetsuppgifter: datainsamling och rekrytering av undersökningsdeltagare. Projektassistenten ska även vara behjälplig i planering av delstudier och i framtagning av teststimuli, samt sköta
kontakten med flera företag. Det är även önskvärt att assistenten klarar av att tolka och förstå resultaten i projektet. För att kunna utföra arbetsuppgifterna krävs att man är noggrann, kreativ, effektiv, och har god problemlösningsförmåga, då olika typer av praktiska problem ofta uppstår.
Beskrivning av test:
Samtliga sökanden har besvarat sammanlagt 11 frågor som mäter kreativ
problemlösningsförmåga (2 st), sannolikhetsförståelse (2 st), analytiskt tänkande (5 st), samt logisk slutledningsförmåga (2 st). De har haft 15 minuter på sig att besvara frågorna, som är av varierande svårighetsgrad. Några exempel är:
• I en sjö finns ett område som är täckt med näckrosor. Området med näckrosor blir dubbelt så stort varje dag. Om det tar 48 dagar för området att täcka hela sjön, hur lång tid skulle det ta för området att täcka halva sjön?
• En fånge försökte rymma från ett torn. Han fann ett rep i sin cell, som var hälften så långt som behövdes för att nå ner till marken. Han delade repet på hälften, knöt ihop de två delarna, och rymde. Hur kunde han göra detta?
• Premisser: 1. Allt som är levande behöver vatten. 2. Rosor behöver vatten. Slutsats: Rosor är levande. Följer slutsatsen logiskt från premisserna?
• Tänk dig att du får se två brickor med svarta och vita kulor: en stor bricka med 100 kulor och en liten bricka med 10 kulor. Kulorna är utspridda i ett lager. Du måste dra en kula (utan att
tjuvkika) från en av brickorna. Om du drar en svart kula vinner du 20 kr. Den lilla brickan har 1 svart och 9 vita kulor, och den stora brickan har 8 svarta och 92 vita kulor. Från vilken bricka skulle du välja att dra en kula?
Du kommer nu att få ta del av de åtta ansökningarna, som presenteras i slumpmässig ordning.
När du läser ansökningarna och bildar dig en uppfattning om kandidaterna är det väldigt viktigt att du tänker efter ordentligt. Vi vill alltså be dig att noggrant analysera betydelsen av olika aspekter i ansökningarna utan att förhasta dig. Mot slutet av undersökningen kommer du att få besvara frågor om hur du viktade de olika aspekterna vid bedömningarna.
Intuitive Decision
31 Sökande 1
Sökande 1: Personligt brev
Hej!
Jag såg er annons och blev genast intresserad av att söka denna tjänst. I dagsläget studerar jag på det internationella marknadsföringsprogrammet på Lunds Universitet med ett fåtal veckor kvar till examen.
Under min studieperiod har jag studerat företagsekonomiska kurser med inriktning på marknadsföring.
Varför jag har valt att studera just detta, är för att jag är har ett stort intresse av försäljning och olika strategier för att kunna sälja en viss produkt eller service. Jag har tyvärr inte kunnat utöva mina färdigheter inom området än, men hoppas på att jag kan dra nytta av dem hos er.
Jag är född och uppvuxen i Göteborg. Under min uppväxt har jag tränat tennis och fotboll. Jag både tränade och tävlade inom tennisen på elitnivå, och har alltid haft en drivkraft som trycks framåt hela tiden.
Utöver detta, är jag en person som gillar att ha många bollar i luften. Många kan tycka att detta kan vara stressigt men eftersom att jag trivs med ett högt tempo så påverkar det inte mig negativt utan snarare positivt.
Som person är jag väldigt nyfiken, framåtriktad och social. Jag gillar att träffa nya människor och nära mig något nytt.
Min största styrka skulle jag säga vara att jag är kreativ och vågar testa nya på nya utmaningar då jag hela tiden vill lära mig något nytt och utvecklas som person.
I framtiden vill jag grunda ett eget företag inom marknadsföring. Men föra att få så mycket kunskap och erfarenhet inom områden vet jag att vägen dit kan ta tid. Därför har jag delmål som jag måste uppnå. Jag har ett brinnande intresse för sport. På min fritid tränar jag väldigt mycket men kan likväl umgås med vänner och familj också.
Sökande 1: Meritförteckning
Ålder: 25 år. Kön: Man Utbildning
Internationella marknadsföringsprogrammet: pågående. Examen: Planerad kandidatexamen
Arbetslivserfarenhet
1. Titel/beskrivning: Kassör/valutahanterare. Arbetsgivare: Svenska spel/ Casino
Cosmopol. Arbetsuppgifter: Hantera ingående och utgående pengar. Period: från juni 2016 till nuvarande.
2. Titel/beskrivning: Montör. Arbetsgivare: Volvo PV. Arbetsuppgifter: Bygger bilar.
Period: från januari 2015 till juli 2015.
