Improving employee retention through recruitment interview process analysis at Luke & Associates

¶ … Luke & Associates depicted low rates of employee retention. Retention levels did not promote sustainability in the organization, and did not generate any significant revenues in case of some departments of the organization. Recruitment, hiring, and employee training processes incurred high costs. Although these costs proved equitable when amortized over 8-10 years, they weren't sustainable when absorption was required within 2-3 years. The organization's management expressed anxiety over these low retention levels. Management was also concerned about the recurring ill fit of newly hired personnel with company culture and position demands, in relation to basic knowledge and demonstrated competences. To tackle this problem, the firm decided to take into account a venture involving action research program to study various tactics for improving key recruitment interview processes.

Action research, which comes under the participatory research category, involves stakeholders affected by practices, strategies and systems linked to specific situations or issues, which form a part of their professional life (Tiffany, 2006). In general, this kind of research aims at making an official critical thinking analysis regarding a practice issue, to ascertain the most suitable alternative, and to define an implementation strategy that has great chances of garnering the acceptance of stakeholders. Luke & Associates' action research plan would be executed under the tutelage of the company's department of human resources. This included staunch backing and approval from management executives, and significant involvement of workforce across every organizational level. In the form of a two-branched process, action research enabled this company to focus on its needs. First of all, it underlined that change necessitated action- the company aimed at attaining this. In addition, it realized that effective action was grounded on accurate analysis of the situation, determination of every likely alternative solution, and adopting the solution most suitable to the issue (Burnes, 2004).

Data collection and compilation

Amassed data comprised of information on cultural fit, network fit, and indicated proficiencies. Interview transcripts were studied to seek reference to know-how, values, leader behavior, and career experience. Standards of fit encompassed two kinds of styles: complementary and conformist (this style was in accordance with the views of in-house research panel). Data accumulated was quantitative as well as qualitative, as it took into consideration employment duration, retention rate, chosen candidates' pre, post, and exit interviews, and all-round performance assessment data.

Instruments for qualitative research are devised to assist an analysis of interviewees' world from their perspective. Such instruments accord interviewees the chance for in-depth discussion of subjects, or answering questions; interviewers gain the opportunity of making follow-up inquiries. In case of overly structured instruments, interviewees are unable to speak out their views and experiences. Outcomes from studies employing qualitative techniques can elucidate quantitative research parameters and design, so that quantitative surveys can put forth the right questions. While statistical data might distinguish correlational associations between variables, it fails to properly evaluate how or why such associations exist; nor does it shed light on what is implied by these associations. Aside from utilizing qualitative research techniques, exploring secondary data was appropriate for focus assessment research (Fountain, 2004).

The physical environment wherein feedback was obtained from respondents was kept as neutral as could be to facilitate the data collection process. A major factor in this venture was acquiring access to the study's population. Finances and time determined the method of sampling for the study; however, it is apparent from focus assessment research's definition that it isn't meant to be carried out using a representative target population sample. Instead, purposive or convenience samples are made use of. This particular study employed purposive sampling, incorporating individuals targeted intentionally, as they are assumed to possess information which may facilitate accomplishment of study objectives.

Confidentiality

Respondents were assured that whatever information they may pass on to interviewers is confidential and won't be accessible to any individual outside of the research unit. This was applicable to every bit of information obtained, no matter how inconsequential it may seem to the researcher. This moral consideration is especially applicable in instances where respondents reveal personal behavioral information. Data storage is another element in safeguarding confidentiality. Completed questionnaires, interview transcripts and tapes were stored securely, and not left open to free access in the researcher's office. In case of computer storage of transcripts, password protection guaranteed restricted access to designated team members (Fountain, 2004).

Analysis of outcomes

All analytic abilities of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) are retained by participant-driven recruitment (PDR), while enhancing respondent participation in developing research questions and instruments, interpretation of data, and other research process elements. In almost all participatory research programs, researchers work in collaboration with formal and informal stakeholder companies for framing and improving research objectives and questions. These companies, in PDR, also find certain limited potential research participants with different outlooks for piloting, reviewing, revising and modification of research questionnaires and content, and serving as 'seeds' (basis of coworker recruitment process). PDR seeds have a critical role in research, with many participation opportunities and responsibilities, aside from their role as coworker recruiters and respondents in RDS. These seeds participated in pilot units for discussing study objectives, evaluating and perfecting instruments of research, and in some instances, extensively co-designing instruments in by partnering closely with researcher (Tiffany, 2006).

Reflection / Future

In case of customary methods of sampling, researchers pick respondents depending on a pre-fixed design and accumulate data via a process which can be guided and supervised. However, in case of hidden populations, these researcher-chosen samples may most likely be biased; also, they are typically logistically impractical. RDS sampling shifts sampling tasks typically conducted by researchers to respondents, counting on a coupon system for keeping track of recruitment, and a system of dual-incentive for inspiring involvement. RDS sampling is shown to be effectual in gathering large assorted samples in diverse settings; however, engaging respondents in the process of sampling means that data generation in RDS is essentially outside the researcher's control and view. However, in spite of its extensive use, little is presently known regarding the real (in comparison to theoretic) RDS performance; some recent studies indicate causes for concern (Salganik, 2012).

Earlier efforts in assessing RDS performance typically went into three groups: (1) simulation studies, (2) studies employing hidden population data, and (3) analytic outcomes. All these approaches come with their pros and cons, but considering them with regards to trade-off between relevance and precision can prove useful. Certain strategies- like simulation studies and analytic outcomes- enable precision and perfection in inferences; however, these inferences may not be relevant in actual RDS research as they may rely on assumptions having insignificant associations with what happens in actual practice. Alternatively, studies that involve data obtained from hidden target populations, while undoubtedly relevant, seldom give explicit, accurate results, since the underlying fact isn't known. Without statistical modifications, data gathered from RDS sampling approximately represented the population. But, carrying out inference using the two most frequently employed RDS estimators- RDS-I and RDS-II- tended to worsen estimates, not improve them. This startling and alarming outcome depicts that further research, with respect to sampling and inference in RDS, is required (Salganik, 2012).

Luckily, a way to advance exists. Research by McCreesh et al. (2012) depicts numerous characteristics, which I believe and hope would contribute to further research into RDS. Firstly, the research integrates qualitative data gathering and assessment for producing understandings on the probable causes of bias with regards to quantitative estimates. Such qualitative work integration before as well as during the course of RDS sampling would boost several future RDS researches. Secondly, the research clearly takes into account numerous RDS inference procedures, which include sample mean. According to various researchers, a significant difference exists between complex RDS estimators and sample mean. The former may, however, be worse than or analogous to simple estimators. As development of more RDS inference procedures takes place, more work to compare their performances in diverse settings will be required, and researchers will find it imperative to plainly indicate which estimator has been employed (Salganik, 2012).

Conclusion

RDS aims at enabling qualified participants to intelligently judge their own involvement level in studying potentially sensitive matters. RDS creates informal and formal settings to conduct civic discussions that research participants, not in attendance in community gatherings, or adopt other traditional ways to voice opinions and experiences, can access. It forms a socially entrenched research process wherein research questions can be discussed in informal peer meetings, and also in formal data analysis sessions. Recruitment into research programs by peers acts like a medium to civic involvement, by some, and cultivates deep-rooted interest in issues and questions addressed in the research. Therefore, this strategy for recruiting participants from vulnerable, side-lined and hidden populations in research ventures can promote more comprehensive civic dialogue.