This paper examines employee selection processes in competitive corporate environments, with a focused case study on Boeing's hiring methodology. It evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of two core selection tools — structured interviews and psychometric testing — and proposes a combined approach to improve validity. The paper then critically analyzes Boeing's actual selection process, which includes an 11-week certification program, behavioral round-robin interviews, background checks, national security clearance, and drug testing. The analysis concludes that Boeing's multi-layered, balanced approach reduces bias and supports long-term organizational competitiveness in the aerospace and defense sectors.
Over the last several years, corporations have been dealing with increasing amounts of pressure. Globalization has been forcing many organizations to redesign their business models in order to remain competitive. At the heart of this approach is the belief that employees play an increasingly important part in helping a firm adapt to the challenges it faces. Staff members can assist the company in determining the best ways to make necessary transformations. Once this happens, a firm becomes more responsive to the needs of customers by placing employees in critical positions where they will be most effective. This is when productivity increases and the company can adapt to changes inside the marketplace (Mc Tague 2001, pp. 100–104).
To accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of each individual, many firms employ select procedures for interviewing and testing. The combination of these two factors gives a corporation the ability to determine whether a particular individual will be successful in a specific position. Both areas use subjective and impartial factors to decide if someone is an ideal candidate. Moreover, this helps during the evaluation process in determining whether candidates are able to make the adjustments necessary for the position. Mc Tague (2001) found that these two areas work hand in hand to decide if someone is a good leader — by seeing if there is a connection with the interviewer (a more subjective measure) while testing determines whether they can independently perform the required functions. This allows executives to increase the chances of placing someone in a position where they can excel, ensuring that quality remains consistently high and that the company can quickly adjust to new developments (Mc Tague 2001, pp. 100–104).
In the case of Boeing, the firm faces stiff competition from rivals such as Airbus, and sales can become volatile based on changes in the economy. To deal with these challenges, Boeing has been using a distinctive approach that takes into account the different viewpoints of stakeholders. Fully understanding this process requires evaluating the different methods used and conducting an analysis of the strategy employed by the organization (ERT FAQs 2012).
One of the biggest expenses for a business is the significant costs associated with hiring and retaining employees. There is a process that must be utilized to find the right candidate for each position. In most cases, this involves advertising, screening, interviewing, testing, and training. As a general figure, employers spend an average of between $4,000 and $7,000 on recruitment and training. When an employee leaves voluntarily or is terminated after a short period of time, these losses can increase exponentially. To prevent such issues, most firms focus on using a number of different tools in conjunction with one another, designed to ensure that the right candidates with the right attributes are identified (Cassidy 2010, pp. 98–110).
The interview process is considered a core component of employment screening that helps determine whether a particular individual is a good fit for a position. When conducting interviews, executives typically focus on addressing three specific questions:
• Is the person competent?
• Are they motivated to do a good job?
• How will this person fit in with the organization?
In most cases, HR managers will meet with candidates in one or a series of interviews. The basic idea is to discuss the candidate's qualifications and how they can help the firm. This provides HR personnel with specific insights about the person and whether they will be successful at the company over the long term (Armstrong 2009, pp. 341–356).
The biggest advantage of interviewing potential candidates is that executives have a chance to learn about who they are as individuals. This allows managers to identify the specific attributes a particular person possesses. After meeting with several different candidates, each can be compared with the others based on the impressions formed during the interview. This helps managers decide who will be most successful in the position, reducing the chances of wasting time and money on the wrong individual by screening for particular attributes (Armstrong 2009, pp. 341–356).
However, a major drawback of any interview process is that a certain degree of bias is inevitable. Everyone has specific personality preferences and is drawn to particular types of individuals. This means that the interviewer plays a major part in determining whether someone is viewed as a favorable candidate, based on personal impressions. This is problematic because it can limit the pool of talent in an organization by overemphasizing specific personality traits. Over time, this could have an adverse impact by concentrating certain skill sets in select individuals, ultimately hurting the company's ability to innovate and keep pace with marketplace changes (Armstrong 2009, pp. 341–356).
Psychometric testing is used to effectively match the skills of an individual with the requirements of a position. Its biggest advantage is that it gives employers an objective way to evaluate whether a particular individual is qualified for the job. Moreover, when a firm uses this kind of tool, it is able to avoid accusations of neglect by having an impartial procedure for evaluating candidates. These advantages help an employer over the long term by identifying who is qualified to work in what positions, allowing executives to place individuals in areas where they will be most successful based on their attributes and skill sets (Arthur 2005, pp. 233–236).
The biggest drawback of psychometric testing is the risk of overreliance on this single tool. Many firms can use it as an all-or-nothing method of qualifying someone, establishing minimum standards and disqualifying anyone who does not meet the set criteria. However, during this process a number of well-rounded candidates may be disqualified simply because their test scores were not high enough. Over time, this can limit the pool of talent inside an organization and hurt the firm's ability to compete in the marketplace (Arthur 2005, pp. 233–236).
"Combined testing and interview model reduces bias"
In some cases, individuals have the opportunity to apply for a waiver due to a particular disability, such as dyslexia or difficulty with standardized testing formats. These situations can be handled by offering candidates a practical examination that does not involve a traditional test-taking format. Instead, they would be allowed to demonstrate their skills in a workshop-type setting. This ensures that no one is overlooked and that all interested parties are given the opportunity to show what they can do (Williams 2011, pp. 218–222).
Once this has taken place, candidates proceed through a series of interviews. Under this part of the strategy, there would be a total of two meetings, each involving the candidate speaking with executives who have different personalities and professional backgrounds. This helps a firm identify the best candidates while addressing the key weaknesses of each individual assessment method. The process can be visualized as follows:
Improving the Interview and Testing Process:
Testing → Alternate Testing (for candidates with waivers) → Interview 1 → Interview 2
In the future, this balanced approach to screening procedures seeks out the right person with the best skills and most favorable psychological attributes for the position (Williams 2011, pp. 218–222).
The process of being hired by Boeing requires candidates to demonstrate that they possess the skills the company is looking for. The firm uses a program called ERT — a tool that managers use to match individuals with the skill sets Boeing requires in specific positions. The most common way to receive this training is to attend the company's 11-week certification program at an affiliated Aerospace Training and Research Center. Completion of this program guarantees an interview with the firm (Dunlop 2011; Boeing Interview Questions 2012; Arkel 2007).
Once someone reaches the interview process, they agree to be subject to a background check and a drug test. Boeing uses a round-robin behavioral interview format, which can take place at the company's facilities or over the telephone. During the interview, a total of three executives take turns asking candidates a series of questions designed to assess how they would handle various ethical and work-related challenges. In some cases, candidates are invited back for a second round of interviews with a completely different set of executives, who ask new questions intended to identify the individual's underlying strengths and weaknesses (Dunlop 2011; Boeing Interview Questions 2012; Arkel 2007).
After this stage, the candidate must obtain a national security clearance to work in select divisions and must pass a criminal background check. This process takes at least four to six weeks and can involve working with federal agencies such as the FBI, given that Boeing works on sensitive projects for various governments around the world. At the same time, the individual must receive confirmation that they have passed the firm's drug testing program. Only then does Boeing begin placing employees in different positions. The hiring process can be summarized as follows:
Summary of the Hiring Process at Boeing:
11-Week Certification → Interview → Background Check / National Security Clearance → Drug Test → Hiring Decision
These steps illustrate how Boeing uses a distinctive approach to selecting the right candidates. The certification program ensures the firm knows when someone is qualified before the interview stage begins. The three-manager interview panel is designed to ask a wide range of questions and evaluate responses from multiple perspectives, preventing the process from being unduly influenced by any single interviewer's preferences. Instead, all viewpoints are used to decide whether a candidate should advance further in the hiring process (Dunlop 2011; Boeing Interview Questions 2012; Arkel 2007).
In the final stage, all statements and information provided by the individual are verified for accuracy. The combination of these factors allows Boeing to find the right employees without overemphasizing any single area. In many ways, this approach has helped Boeing weather the financial challenges that have impacted other firms. Over time, these tools have assisted executives in adjusting to changes inside the marketplace, enabling the company to continue designing cutting-edge aircraft and defense systems used around the globe (Dunlop 2011; Boeing Interview Questions 2012; Arkel 2007).
Boeing has an effective approach for hiring employees. The company uses a combination of impartial data — including certification training — alongside structured interviews and thorough background checks to find the right candidates for various positions. These elements have helped the company adapt to changes in the defense sector and aerospace industries by focusing on how employees can assist the firm in remaining competitive.
As a result, this strategy has allowed Boeing to find the right employees to support long-term growth. These elements illustrate how all employers must use specific tools and tactics during the hiring process. Companies that maintain flexibility and utilize a combination of approaches will achieve the most success, because they are able to draw on the strengths of each method to decide whether someone is right for a position. Over time, this helps a company find the best talent capable of addressing a host of challenges — and it is precisely these skills that will determine how quickly any organization is able to evolve, which is the key to both current and future success.
Armstrong, M 2009, Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management, Kogan Press, Philadelphia, pp. 341–356.
Arkel, D 2007, Bringing it all Together, Boeing. Available from: < [17 March 2012].
Arthur, D 2006, Recruiting, Interviewing and Selecting, AMACOM, New York, pp. 233–236.
Boeing Interview Questions 2012, Glassdoor.com. Available from: < [17 March 2012].
Cassidy, S 2010, Supervision, South-Western, Mason, pp. 98–110.
Dunlop, M 2011, 'Boeing Hiring 100 a Week', Herald Net. Available from: < [17 March 2012].
ERT FAQs 2012, Boeing. Available from: < [17 March 2012].
Mc Tague, S 2001, Hiring in Good Times and Bad, Quorum Books, Westport, pp. 100–104.
Williams, C 2011, MGMT, Nelson Education, Toronto, pp. 218–222.
You’re 94% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.