Matching Workload to Resources

by Chuck Schultz

There comes a time when the amount of work we have to do outstrips our resources. Heart-wrenching decisions arise over issues of quality, productivity, fairness, professional ethics, interpersonal relationships, and keeping our jobs. We have the choice to do some of the work poorly, develop speedier methods, substitute alternatives, work overtime, or leave some work undone. Conditions make each of these alternatives appropriate in different situations.

Do some work poorly

Perhaps you will say that doing work poorly is never appropriate, but can you tell me that you have never skipped a quality control procedure in the face of a deadline? Have you never neglected meeting with another subject-matter specialist? Have you skipped an editorial review that you know would improve your product? And, in fact, had to throw out two test items because you skipped it? Have you re-used an old test that you knew to be obsolete? Am I the only one who used a poor selection practice when I didn't have time to make an elegant one?

Was it necessary to do so? What about the time when they wanted to use an obsolete test and only had three candidates, but I didn't want to establish a precedent of not testing for the position? I know there was a more defensible way to handle that situation, but I didn't think taking time to talk management into it would be cost-effective. Especially since they already know whom they were going to hire.

We do a triage, as they say in emergency medical circles. We decide where we can most effectively use our time. How can we most effectively use our resources? There may be some tasks we can't get out of doing that we don't have time do thoroughly.

Develop speedier methods

You should be working on improving procedures before the efficiency commission provides its naive suggestions. A work group's programs always includes developing better ways, not just when workload gets out of hand. Better ways may well take more time not less, but speedier is better when it increases overall effectiveness. Speedier processes allow you to get to more projects. Speedier processes facilitate courting of employment candidates who are also being courted by other employers. Speedier processes dispose clients to cooperate with you.

Substitute alternatives

Developing alternatives rewards the creator and enhances the profession. We savor going from doing things well to doing them excellently. Regardless of how big our workload is, we need to consider the following issues:

measuring elements more accurately
measuring factors we've been missing
giving factors appropriate weight
excluding irrelevant factors from our measures
attracting and maintaining the interest of excellent candidates

We can do these things both by developing new methods and by improving old ones. We hail the advances in usage of computers and video. However, we have only begun to tap the possibilities these technologies provide. Computer-adaptive application and referral await. Branching video testing has barely reached the embryonic stage.

More conventional selection procedures as well (as the saying goes) need further research. We have made strides in interviewing, but good interviews are not yet the norm. Application reviews, or training and experience ratings, fail to show improvement commensurate with efforts on their behalf over the past two decades. Biodata and assessment centers can benefit from careful attention. And what about the multiple-choice test?

Work overtime

Situations occur in which a person puts in extra time to get a job done. Often, a responsible person cannot do otherwise. I object to making overtime the common practice. I object more strongly to enticing, or even allowing, one's staff to make a practice of working long hours.

Doesn't overtime encroach on essential activities of a well-rounded person? What is so great about the rat race? The issue often comes up about career women's need to spend more time with their families. Well, what about career men's need to spend more time with their families. I don't see that there should be a distinction.

Leave some work undone

Well, if you don't work overtime, and you don't do sloppy work, what do you do about the work you don't have time for? Triage! Prioritize! The stuff you don't have time for, don't do!

Corporate management stereotypically squeezes all the work they can out of non-union employees. Like most stereotypes, it's a loose fit. The stereotype fits the taxpayer at least as well. You're a taxpayer, aren't you? Would you like to kick in some extra bucks so that the employee selection program can do everything it ought to?

The selection process is not more seriously under-funded than many other government functions, like child-protection casework, for instance. And you can readily think of a dozen more. So do you want me to work overtime, do sloppy work, or leave stuff undone? I know, you want me to be speedier and come up with alternatives. But I don't even have the time I need to develop new methods and alternative selection devices.

The taxpayer in the street not only doesn't fully appreciate what we do, but hardly knows we exist. His or her elected representative, the representative's staff, governmental agency staff, and sometimes our own co-workers are not much better informed. We need to focus on those we interface with. We need to work with them to determine what our program needs to accomplish.

Once we've defined the ideal, we need to agree on what we can be expected to go given our resources. We need to establish workload standards and factor them into our objectives. Then once we have agreed on what our resources permit, we can go ahead and do ten or twenty percent more because we want to. But we shouldn't feel bad about not being able to do it all, any more than our auto mechanic feels bad about not being able to repair our car in half the time.

Summary

We need to improve out programs by developing better methods and coming up with effective alternative procedures. We need to communicate with management and clients concerning the value of our work and what we should be doing. Communicating your aspirations with management and clients keeps them on your side, provides ideas for improvement, and provides evaluation of the efforts. We need to formulate what the content of our program should be. And we should not let the taxpayer or the client or management talk us into doing something they are not willing to compensate us for.

We need to work with, keep communications open with, and collaborate with management and clients. Maintain rapport with other units so that they will facilitate our program rather than complain about it. Educate groups that have a stake in your program and be educated by them to develop a synergy, so you will be facilitating each other's progress toward your common goals.

Get clients to see the advantage of incorporating psychometric principles into alternative selection procedures. They should appreciate fairness considerations, as well as effective measurement of job-related factors during interviews and other decision processes.

(Editor's Note: This is a copy of the presentation Chuck made at the '96 IPMAAC conference. It was part of the past-presidents's panel discussion on management and technical issues in personnel assessment about which they had a particular interest or concern. In future issues we hope to bring you copies of the presentations/discussions from the other past-presidents (Ted Darany, Kaye Evleth, Jim Johnson, and Joel Wiesen).

Chuck may be reached at (360) 923-5340, 291B Firwood Loop, Olympia, WA 98501.