Case Study- Making Selection Decisions

HOMEWORK: COMBINING DATA TO MAKE SELECTION DECISIONS OVERVIEW Personnel selection decisions are typically made based on a collection of information from severa l sources. An organization may have test scores, performance evaluations, interview ratings, biographical inform at ion, and other data on the candidates. Your assignment is to review the crede ntials of candidates for the Plant Manager position for the Pittsburgh plant. OBJECTIVES • Distinguish between candidate information that i s valuable and should be considered in decision making from that which should be ignored . • Articulate the rational for decisions. • Suggest ways in which a selection system could be improved. PROCEDURE Read the background information in the enclosed case study. Based on the information provided, answer the questions in the Canvas Quiz. Note: be prepared next week to discuss your rationale and strategy for making the hiring decision. If you used any sort of a system or formula, be prepared to share that with the class. SCENARIO Unicore is a medium-sized manufacturer of small electrical motors headquartered in Pittsburgh,PA. The company employees 9,900 people and has plants in Detroit, MI, St. Paul, MN, Columbus, OH, Atlanta, GA, and Little Rock, AR. All plants are unionized although the power of the respective unions varies widely. Recently, the company has been trying to hire a new plant manager for the Pittsburgh plant (see job description in Exhibit1). Plant managers report directly to the VP of Production. Although Unicore has experienced slightly above-average growth and profit compared to its competitors, the Pittsburgh plant has been problematic. Over the past 3 years, production costs there have been extremely high and there has been several labor-related issues such as numerous work slowdowns and an excessive number of grievances filed. The most recent plant manager was terminated, although most feel it was a mutual agreement; the company stated he left for a better job with another company. Because of the importance of the plant manager position, Unicore has used several expensive selection devices. These devices are detailed next. After a thorough recruitment effort both within and outside the company and some initial screening, the list of job candidates has been reduced to eight names. Exhibit 2 contains background information on each of the eight candidates. Unicore does not have an established philosophy for filling job openings. In the past, it has favored promotion from within the company. However, t he VP of Production was hired externally. Unicore has no policy on lateral transfers although, in the past, such transfers have been rare. The key issue seems to be whether the company benefits from the transfer.

Exhibit 1. P la n t Manage r J o b Description (Written by t he VP of Productio n) The p l a n t m anager (PM) is ultimate l y responsible for th e operating ef i ciency of the ent i re plant. I n fulfilling his/her responsib i l i ties, t he PM regularly consults with subordinate supervisory personne l (the PM frequently delega t es duties). A plant manager m u s t be somewhat kn ow l edgeable of production methods and the capab i lities of equ i pment. Some of the activities the p l a n t manager is directly o r indirectly i nvo l ved in incl ude. 1. P r ocur in g materials. 2. Mai nt ai ning the plant. 3. Contro lling quality. 4. Us i ng manpower. 5. Estab li s hi ng budgets. 6. Revising production schedules because of equipment fa il ure or operation problems. 7. Consul ting with engi n eer ing pe r sonnel concerni n g the modificat i on o f machinery to i mpro v e production quantit y, the qua lit y of products, and employee safety . 8. Conducting hearings to reso l ve employee grievances. 9. Participat i ng in union - management contract negotiations. 10. Ensuring safety. 11. Establishing commun i ty re la tions. Ex hibit 2: Background Information on the Candidates 1. George Martin-age 44. Education: B.A. Uni ve r s i ty of Wisconsin; M.S ( Ind ust r ial R e lati ons), Corne ll University. He is a pla nt manage r of one of Unicore’s competitors: a r e l a ti ve l y s mall (580 nonunion employees) plant located in Cleve l a n d, Ohio. Mart in has held that job for t h e past 6 yea r s. He has been wit h that company for 14 years. N o r eference i nforma t io n was gathered because Mart i n was co n cerned about hi s present emp lo yer's r eactio n. 2. Tony Caciopo-age 59. Education: high schoo l grad uate . H e is a n assistant plant manager at the P r ovidence, RI. Cac i opo has been w i th Unicore fo r 24 years. He h as been ass i sta n t the plant ma n age r in Providence, RI for th e past 10 years . He had a s eve r e heart attack 4 yea r s ago but appea r s to have recove r ed. Ten years ago, he was offe r ed a job as plant manage r by Unicore but turne d i t dow n because of health prob l ems h i s w i fe was having. 3. Kathy Joyce - age 36. Educa t ion: B.A. Indiana University. She i s currently plant manage r of t h e Little Rock plant. She desires a latera l tr a n sfe r because it wou ld enhance job opportu ni ties for her husband . J oy c e has been with Unicore for 5 years. She has been p l ant manager at Littl e R oc k for 2 years . 4. Barry Fein-age 49 . Ed u cat i on: associate degree ( 2 years) from Morehead State Univers i ty. Until 2 mo n th s ago, Fein was plant manager at a l a r ge, unionized t ex til e plant . T wo months ago, the compa n y Fein worked for discontinued his product lin e a n d he was l et go. Fein had been with his fo rm e r company for 20 years a nd was plant manager for 5 yea r s. Hi s l etters of reference were excellent. 5. Ron Jackson-age 33. Education: B.A. , H owa rd University; M.B.A. Northeastern University . H e is cu rr ent l y a n assistant p l ant manager at t h e Pittsburgh plant. H e has been w it h the co mp a n y fo r 4 years; he has been ass i sta n t p l ant manager for 2 years. He h as se rv ed as act in g pla nt manager at Pittsburgh for the past 2 months. 6. Jay Davis - age 46. Education: B.A. Harvard University; M.B.A . Harvard University. He i s current l y assistant p lant manager in the A tl a n ta plant. Dav i s has been with Unicore for 1 0 yea r s; the past 7 years he has been assistant p l ant manager ( 6 years in St. Paul, the past year in Atlanta). 7. Frank Hall-age 58 . Edu c at i on: B.S. (chemistry), Duke University. He is currently VPof Produc ti on for one of Dy n amo's ma j or co co mpet itors. H e says he see k s a demot i on so to reduce his amount of travel . He h as been VP of Production fo r 6 years . Before that, he was a plant manage r for 1 2 years . The plant was o rg an i zed . No r eference in formation i s avai l able; however, he has received o ut sta ndin g reviews i n trade pub l i c at i o ns for h i s performance as VP. 8. Tom D o yle - ag e 36 . Education: B.A, Williams Co llege; M . B .A :. University of Chicago. For t h e . past 2 years, Tom has wor k ed as a spe cia l ass i sta nt to the VP of Production . Before this, he was an assistant P M for 2 years and a P M in Little Rock for 3 years. Tom was the youngest PM ever appointed at Unicore . He was very i n- e ffe c t i ve as a PM and after 3 years, was removed from his position.

General Mental Ability (GMA-IQ) Test Scores and Graphology Analysis C a ndidate GMA-IQ Score Grap hology Rating George Martin 119 2 Tony Caciopo 116 3 Kathy Joyce 141 3 Barry Fei n 12 2 1 Ron J ackson 114 4 Jay Davis 148 4 Frank Hall 112 5 Torn Doyle 125 5 The intelligence test (Wechsler Adult In te lligence Scale) gi ve n by Unicore is commonly used for selecting ca ndidates for management. Individuals scoring below 115 tend not to do well in managerial jobs. Standard error equals 3.5. The graphologist rated the plant manager candidates in terms of their likelih ood of success as the Pittsburgh plant manager (0 = very poor prospect ... 5 = very strong prospect). Promotability Ratings, Performance Ratings, and Work Sample Scores Candidate Promotability Performance Work Sample Score George Martin Not available NA 19.5 Tony Caciopo 6 5 15.5 Kathy Joyce 5 6 17.5 Barry Fein NA NA 18 . 5 Ron Jackson 5.5 5 18 Jay Davis 7 7 16.5 Frank Hall NA NA 19 Tom Doyle 5.5 6 17.5 Note: A promotability rating was made as part of the annual performance review (7 = ready for immediate promotion . . . 1 = should not be promoted). The p erformance rating range s from 1 = poor performance ... 7 = exceptional performance. Company data indicated appraisal and promotability ratings co rrelated . 17 with future performance. As part of the selection process, all applicants went through a series of work sample tests (i.e., in-basket, leaderless group discussion, and production planning exercise). Scoring was done by trained raters f rom the personnel department (20 = hig he st possible score). The Work Sample Score re presents the average rating across the work sample test s.