IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v13y2020i2p246-271_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing the so-called validity–diversity trade-off: Exploring the practicalities and legal defensibility of Pareto-optimization for reducing adverse impact within personnel selection

Author

Listed:
  • Rupp, Deborah E.
  • Song, Q. Chelsea
  • Strah, Nicole

Abstract

It is necessary for personnel selection systems to be effective, fair, and legally appropriate. Sometimes these goals are complementary, whereas other times they conflict (leading to the so-called “validity-diversity dilemma”). In this practice forum, we trace the history and legality of proposed approaches for simultaneously maximizing job performance and diversity through personnel selection, leading to a review of a more recent method, the Pareto-optimization approach. We first describe the method at various levels of complexity and provide guidance (with examples) for implementing the technique in practice. Then, we review the potential points at which the method might be challenged legally and present defenses against those challenges. Finally, we conclude with practical tips for implementing Pareto-optimization within personnel selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Rupp, Deborah E. & Song, Q. Chelsea & Strah, Nicole, 2020. "Addressing the so-called validity–diversity trade-off: Exploring the practicalities and legal defensibility of Pareto-optimization for reducing adverse impact within personnel selection," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 246-271, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:246-271_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S175494262000019X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:246-271_25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.