Deselection Reasons

Guide to choosing deselection reasons in Talent Acquisition Manager

(TAM)
As the official system of record for the campus's hiring process, TAM houses the data that the campus is required to
maintain. We use this data to fulfill mandatory reporting requirements about our hiring practices. Part of the
information we must record is which applicants met the minimum requirements for each position. This information
is recorded in TAM as a deselection reason. Therefore, entering the deselection reason for every candidate is a
very important part of fulfilling our reporting requirements.
Originators should deselect applicants manually at at least two stages of the recruitment process. The first time is
when the hiring manager determines that an applicant is NOT minimally qualified for the position or that an
applicant IS minimally qualified but will not be interviewed for a position. Then throughout the rest of the
recruitment, applicants should be deselected as the decision to not hire them is made. Originators should deselect the
applicant on the Manage Job Openings page.
Originators should deselect applicants manually at two stages of the recruitment process:
1.

When the hiring manager determines that an applicant will not be interviewed for a position, Originators
should deselect the applicant on the Select Applicant for Interview page.

Reason Description

Accepted Another (non-UCB) Job

Ineligible - Empl Condition

Minimally Qualified

Not Minimally Qualified

Offer Rejected

Other Hired Unable to Review

Requisition Cancelled

Selected for Other UCB Position

Unable to Contact

Voluntarily Withdrawn

Destructive Criticism
Destructive critics claim the moral high ground but their message is simple, do what I want. They
pretend they want whats best for others while they pursue whats best for them.
Destructive criticism comes from individuals who dont share your values. Listen and you lose yourself.
Results of listening to destructive critics:

1.
2.
3.

Gun shy. You may pull back because stepping out invites criticism.
Belligerence. You may plug your ears and close your eyes and aggressively push forward. Ive chosen
belligerence many times.
Discouragement. You may hold anger in. Internalized anger always drains and discourages.

In Study 1, 83 undergraduates received either constructive criticism (feedback that was specific, considerate, and did
not attribute poor performance to internal causes) or destructive criticism (feedback that violated these basic
principles) of their work. Those who received destructive criticism reported greater anger and tension and indicated
that they would be more likely to handle future disagreements with the source through resistance or avoidance and
less likely to handle disagreements through collaboration or compromise. In Study 2, 106 undergraduates who
received destructive criticism of their work on an intitial task set lower goals and reported lower self-efficacy on two
additional tasks than did subjects who received constructive criticism or no feedback. In Study 3, 108 employees of
a large food-processing company rated the importance of 14 potential causes of conflict in their organization. Poor
use of criticism was perceived as a more important cause of conflict and received higher ratings than did
competition over resources or disputes over jurisdiction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights
reserved

Vitamin model
The Vitamin Model (Warr, 1987) proposes that certain job characteristics have an effect on mental health that is
analogous to the way thatvitamins work in the human body. Simply put, some job characteristicshave constant
effects where health increases linearly with increasing dose up to a threshold, after which increased dose has no
positive or negative effect, and these may include salary, safety, and task significance(Buunk et al. 1998).

Alternately, some have a curvilinear or additional decrement effect, where moderate levels are the most beneficial,
but too much or too little can have negative health effects, for example job demands, autonomy, social support, skill
utilisation, skill variety, and task feedback (van Veldhoven, de Jonge, Broersen, Kompier, & Meijman, 2002).
Affective well-being is expressed in the model on three dimensions of discontent-content, anxious-comfortable, and
depressed-pleased and individual characteristics can moderate the effect of job characteristics on
health (Buunk et al, 1998). Despite the interesting premise of the Vitamin model, both Sonnentag &
Frese (2003) and Buunk et al. (1998) state that evidence for the model is mixed and inconclusive, and van
Veldhoven, Taris, de Jonge, and Broersen (2005) state that the full model has yet to be empirically investigated.
Abstract
Three central hypotheses of Warr's Vitamin Model concerning the relationship between job characteristics and wellbeing and health outcomes were tested: (1) differential effects of job characteristics on the various well-being and
health outcomes; (2) predominance of curvilinear associations; and (3) moderate influence of negative and positive
affectivity on these relationships. The study participants were 162 employees from a health care organization (aged
1954 years, 95% women) who completed questionnaires on job demands and job autonomy, as well as on the
outcome variables depression, anxiety, job satisfaction, and health complaints. In addition, data on short-term
sickness absence were collected. A higher level of job demands was significantly associated with a lower level of
well-being and self-reported health. Job autonomy showed weaker relationships with the outcome variables. The
effects of job demands were still large after controlling for negative and positive affectivity, while the effects of job
autonomy in most cases became non-significant. The predicted curvilinear relationship between job characteristics
and outcome variables did not have an additional value over a linear model in predicting the data. It is concluded
that the present data from a homogeneous sample of mostly female nurses support Warr's Vitamin Model to a limited
extent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Work & Stress is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be
abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version
of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Organizational Justice
Greenberg (1987) introduced organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behaviour of the
organization and their resulting attitude and behaviour that comes from this. E.g. If a firm makes redundant half of
the workers at your firm you will feel a sense of injustice and your attitude towards work will drop and so will your
productivity.
Justice or fairness refers to the idea that an action or decision is morally right, which may be defined according to
ethics, religion, fairness, equity, or law. People are naturally attentive to the justice of events and situations in their
everyday lives, across a variety of contexts (Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008). Individuals react to actions and
decisions made by organizations every day. An individuals perceptions of these decisions as fair or unfair can
influence the individuals subsequent attitudes and behaviors. Fairness is often of central interest to organizations
because the implications of perceptions of injustice can impact job attitudes and behaviors at work. Justice in

organizations can include issues related to perceptions of fair pay, equal opportunities for promotion, and personnel
selection procedures.

Types of organizational justice[edit]

Three main proposed components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, and interactional justice
(which includes informational and interpersonal justice).

Distributive justice[edit]
Distributive justice is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of
resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions
of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied (Adams, 1965).

Procedural justice[edit]
Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes. When individuals feel that they
have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and
lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced (Leventhal, 1980).

Interactional justice[edit]
Interactional justice refers to the treatment that an individual receives as decisions are made and can be promoted
by providing explanations for decisions and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986). A
construct validation study by Colquitt (2001) suggests that interactional justice should be broken into two
components: interpersonal and informational justice.Interpersonal justice refers to perceptions of respect and
propriety in ones treatment while informational justice relates to the adequacy of the explanations given in terms
of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness.
Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by
authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes
Informational justice focuses on explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures
were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion

Proposed models of organizational justice[edit]

Three different models have been proposed to explain the structure of organizational justice perceptions including a
two factor model, a three factor model, and a four factor model. Many researchers have studied organizational
justice in terms of the three factor model (e.g., DeConinck, 2010; Liljegren & Ekberg, 2010) while others have used
a two factor model in which interpersonal justice is subsumed under procedural justice while yet some other studies
suggest a four factor model best fits the data (Colquitt, 2001). Greenberg (1990) proposed a two-factor model and
Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) found support for a two-factor model composed of distributive and procedural

justice. Through the use of structural equation modeling, Sweeney and McFarlin found that distributive justice was
related to outcomes that are person-level (e.g., pay satisfaction) while procedural justice was related to organizationlevel outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment).
The accuracy of the two-factor model was challenged by studies that suggested a third factor (interactional justice)
may be involved. Bies and Moag (1986) argue that interactional justice is distinct from procedural justice because it
represents the social exchange component of the interaction and the quality of treatment whereas procedural justice
represents the processes that were used to arrive at the decision outcomes. Generally researchers are in agreement
regarding the distinction between procedural and distributive justice but there is more controversy over the
distinction between interactional and procedural justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Colquitt (2001)
demonstrated that a four-factor model (including procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) fit
the data significantly better than a two or three factor model. Colquitts construct validation study also showed that
each of the four components have predictive validity for different key organizational outcomes (e.g., commitment
and rule compliance).
Another model of organizational justice proposed by Byrne (1999) and colleagues (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2000)
suggested that organizational justice is a multi-foci construct, one where employees see justice as coming from a
source - either the organization or their supervisor. Thus, rather than focus on justice as the three or four factor
component model, Byrne suggested that employees personify the organization and they distinguish between whether
they feel the organization or supervisor have treated them fairly (interactional), use fair procedures (procedural), or
allocate rewards or assignments fairly (distributive justice). A number of researchers used this model exploring the
possibility that justice is more than just 3 or 4 factors (e.g., Karriker & Williams, 2009).

Intramural and extramural labour welfare

Employee Welfare - Types of Welfare Facilities
Welfare facilities can be largely categorized into two types:

Intramural facilities: These are provided within the establishment such as rest centers canteen, uniforms.

Extramural facilities: These are activities which are undertaken outside the establishment such as child
welfare, transport facility etc.

Examples of Welfare Facilities

Intramural Facilities

Drinking water

Extramural Facilities

Housing

Toilets

Education facilities

Cr?ches

Maternity benefits

Washing & bathing facilities

Transportation

Rest shelters

Sports facilities

Uniforms

Leave travel

Protective clothing

Vocational training

Recreating facilities

Holiday homes

Canteens

Cooperative stores

Subsidized food

Fair price shops

Medical aid

Social insurance

Benefits of Employee Welfare Measures

They provide better physical and mental health to workers and thus promote a healthy work environment.

Facilities like housing schemes, medical benefits, and education and recreation facilities for worker's
families help in raising their standards of living. This makes workers to pay more attention towards work and
thus increases their productivity.

Employers get stable labor force by providing welfare facilities. Workers take active interest in their jobs
and work with a feeling of involvement and participation.

Employee welfare measures increase the productivity of organization and promote healthy industrial
relations thereby maintaining industrial peace.

The social evils prevalent among the labors such as substance abuse, etc are reduced to a greater extent by
the welfare policies.

Cafeteria Compensation
Looking for a way to customize your benefits plan to the needs of your individual employees? A cafeteria plan is an
employee benefits plan that allows your employees to choose among a variety of options to create a benefits plan
that best meets their needs and those of their family. In a cafeteria plan, an employee receives a certain number of
dollars from the employer to "purchase" particular components of a benefits plan.

Cafeteria plan options can include various levels of health insurance plans, other insurance options, tax advantages
as in a flexible spending account, and retirement plan contributions.
The advantage of a cafeteria plan is that employees have benefits plan options. For example, a young employee with
no health problems might opt to spend cafeteria plan dollars on a minimal health plan. An employee with four
family members might choose to spend the cafeteria plan dollars on a health plan with more comprehensive
coverage. The employee without a family might choose to spend his or her benefits dollars for investments in a
retirement plan.

Coaching V/S Mentoring

COACHING

MENTORING

GOALS

Improve job performance or skills

Support and
guide
personal
career
growth

INITIATIVE

Coach directs learning

Mentee is in
charge of
learning

Protg agrees to accept coaching; may not be

voluntary

Both mentor
and mentee
are
volunteers

Immediate problems & learning opportunities

Longer term
personal
development

ROLE

Focus on telling with appropriate feedback

Focus on
listening,
behavioral
role model,
making
suggestions
and
connections

DURATION

Short term needs; as needed

Longer term

VOLUNTEERISM

FOCUS

Psychological capital
Psychological capital (PsyCap) is a positive state-like capacity that has undergone extensive theory-building and
research. Psychological capital is defined as "an individual's positive psychological state of development and is
characterized by:
1.

having confidence (self efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks;

2.

making a positive attribution and expectation (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future;

3.

persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and

4.

when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain
success."
--Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, Psychological Capital (Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 3),

Thus, PsyCap consists of efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience and when combined has been shown to represent
a second-order, core factor that predicts performance and satisfaction better than each of the four factors that make it
up (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007).

Smile Sheet
Is a common description for an evaluation questionnaire completed by people undergoing training and development
activities (see also happy sheet). Reaction level assessment of training of this type is the most common form of
training evaluation. Smile sheets typically ask individuals if the training they received was well organized, of
relevance and of use to them, and if they assessed the trainer as competent. Despite their extensive use there are
concerns about the validity of smile sheets as means to evaluate training. For example, they may simply assess the
ability of trainers to maintain surface-level interest without gauging the impact of training on work behaviour.