Case Analysis Strategies: Recruitment, Selection & EI Insights

ADMN 3220H: Individual Case Assignment Case Details: 1. Read the following cases and answer the questions listed below every week. 2. Suggested length for your responses is equivalent to 200-300 words each. 3. Submit to Blackboard by Thursday @ 11:59pm. 4. You should complete the readings for the week before you answer the case questions.

Using the HR thought cycle as a guide, we are able to consistently analyze the case study. When responding to a case study or scenario, it is important to ensure that the human resources practitioner is able to use a consistent, fact-based, problem-solving approach. The development of this skill will allow the human resources practitioner to respond to issues as they arise using an analytical methodology in order to explore possible solutions.

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 1 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 1: Recruitment and Selection at Google Google is consistently ranked by Fortune magazine as one of the best places to work. It provides employees with excellent pay and a series of perks that are unheard of at most corporations. Some of these perks are flex hours; bring your dog to work; casual dress; on-site free massage and yoga; free snacks, drinks, and meals; and a child-care centre among many others. No wonder that Google receives close to 3 million job applications a year. To find the best talent, Google uses carefully selected strategies, methods, and techniques. Google recruits at college and university campuses and through the Careers section of its website. Google is very selective, hiring only about 7000 of the 3 million applicants. Google uses different methods to select people for different jobs, but there are some common elements: preliminary screening, employment tests, interviews, and background checks. Google is looking for intelligence, creativity, leadership, and fit with the Google culture, as well as the role the person will play as part of Google. Hiring decisions are not made by managers but having a committee composed of peers make the decision, which is much like the process a university uses in hiring, promoting, and granting tenure to faculty, rather than hierarchical structures used in industry. One can say that in many ways Google operates in the knowledge industry much like a university. QUESTION 1: Google receives over 3 000 000 applications for 7000 positions. Is this an effective approach? What is the cost, particularly the human cost, associated with reviewing all of these applications? How do you reduce the number of applicants to a reasonable number that can be run through the selection system? QUESTION 2: Is Google’s elaborate selection system justified? What are appropriate criteria for assessing its effectiveness? QUESTION 3: Provide examples of how technology might be used to facilitate and improve the recruitment and selection used by Google. QUESTION 4: Does peer-based hiring lead to better employees?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 2 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 2: Emotional Intelligence or Cognitive Ability? Cognitive ability tests are very reliable and validly measures of job performance ( r = .51). Cognitive ability tests normally assess reasoning, verbal, and quantitative ability. A recent survey, however, found that 71 percent of the 2661 employers sampled valued emotional intelligence (EI) over cognitive ability. EI assesses a person’s ability to accurately perceive emotions in themselves and others; and to be aware of how their emotions shape their thinking, decisions, and coping mechanisms; their ability to understand and analyze their emotions; and their ability to regulate their emotions. EI correlates with job performance at a much lower level, r = .30 at most, and in many cases the specific measure of EI did not correlate with job performance. The survey found that 59 percent of the employers would not hire someone with high cognitive ability but low EI. 75 percent said they would promote someone with high EI over someone with a lower value of EI. When asked why emotional intelligence is more important than high IQ, employers said (in order of importance) high EI employees: • are more likely to stay calm under pressure; • know how to resolve conflict effectively; • are empathetic to their team members and react accordingly; • lead by example; and • tend to make more thoughtful business decisions In discussing the survey results, Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder, the organization that carried out the survey said, “The competitive job market allows employers to look more closely at the intangible qualities that pay dividends down the road—like skilled communicators and perceptive team players. Technical competency and intelligence are important assets for every worker, but when it’s down to you and another candidate for a promotion or new job, dynamic interpersonal skills will set you apart. In a recovering economy, employers want people who can effectively make decisions in stressful situations and can empathize with the needs of their colleagues and clients to deliver the best results.”

QUESTION 1: What do you think? Should the hiring managers prefer EI over cognitive ability in predicting job performance? Why? QUESTION 2: If you planned to use EI as part of your selection system, discuss the steps that you would take to ensure that you were able to make reliable and accurate inferences about job performance in your work situation. That is, what would you have to do to show that your measure was reliable and valid? QUESTION 3: EI tests are prone to applicant faking. What can you do to limit faking on an EI test? Would these procedures lower the reliability and validity of the tests? QUESTION 4: What are the legal considerations of using EI tests with poor reliability and validity? What are the business costs?

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 3 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 3: Victim of Discrimination? Marita Smith works as a data entry clerk in a government department that is undergoing downsizing. Smith, who is severely hearing-impaired, has been a productive employee in her department for the last five years. Her performance has always been above average. Smith has received notice that her position is being eliminated as part of the downsizing. Under her union’s contract, she must be given preference for any government job for which she is qualified. She must be given the job at the expense of other workers, even those already in the position, who may have less seniority. This practice is known as “bumping.” Smith has been invited to apply for a term position in another government department, which is converting archival data from paper to an electronic database. To qualify for the position, Smith will have to pass an interview, a timed typing test, an accuracy test that involves accuracy in transcribing information from a computer screen, and another accuracy test that involves following written instructions to enter written records into the computer database. These are the same tests that all candidates for the position have had to pass to become eligible for the job. Smith was interviewed one week prior to being administered the three skill tests. The interview protocol followed a standardized form used by all government departments. The three skill tests were administered to groups of nine applicants each. The applicants were seated at desks with computers, which were arranged in three rows of three desks each. The instructions for the tests were given verbally by the test administrator. Smith was provided with the services of a sign language interpreter during the testing and interview sessions. Smith passed the interview but failed the skill tests. Her scores are presented in Table 3.5, along with the minimum scores that had to be obtained on each test to receive a job offer. Based on her performance on the tests, Smith did not receive an offer for the job and was laid off when her current job ended. Smith now believes that she was the victim of discrimination based on her physical disability; she claims that during the interview many references were made to her disability and that the interviewer always addressed questions to the sign language interpreter

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

and never made eye contact with her. She feels that she was at a disadvantage in taking the skills tests. Her prospective employer claims that had she passed the tests she would have been hired and her disability would have been accommodated. The employer argues that the testing standards were reasonably necessary for the efficient performance of the work. The standards in Table 3.5 are being justified as bona fide occupational requirements (BFORs). Smith has now filed a complaint with her provincial human rights commission. QUESTION 1: Should Smith have received a job offer? Why or why not? (In answering this and the following questions, base your arguments on the court cases presented in this chapter.) QUESTION 2: Was Smith the victim of discrimination because of her disability? QUESTION 3: Did she receive appropriate accommodation? QUESTION 4: Are the employer’s standards defensible as a BFOR?

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 4 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 4: The Need for Job Analysis Root of the Problem Landscaping is a small yard-maintenance company that got its start in 2006. The company specializes in small-scale operations, including installing and maintaining flower beds, ponds, hedges, and lawns. The company employs five site supervisors and approximately 30 groundskeepers. The owner, Daniel Black, is himself involved in the work performed at most sites and is the sole negotiator of terms with clients. Originally serving only Halifax, Nova Scotia, the company has grown to accommodate clients as far away as the Moncton, New Brunswick area. Now in its third season of operation, however, Black has noticed a decline in his company’s rate of growth because the gains associated with opportunities afforded by new clients have been offset by the loss of older ones and also because he is having difficulty maintaining lasting employer–employee relationships. You have been hired on a consulting contract by Root of the Problem Landscaping to investigate why business growth has stalled. You begin by interviewing Black and his site supervisors to establish what, if any, customer feedback they have received, to find out what qualifications both Black and the supervisors have, and to investigate the state of employment satisfaction. Some negative customer feedback is associated with lack of knowledge and skills on the part of both the supervisors and the groundskeepers. Clients have noted that there have been instances where flowers have been removed that should not have been and weeds have gone unnoticed. In addition, there have been some instances where trees and shrubs were not properly planted and cared for. There has been a lack of attention paid to sun/shade and/or depth considerations, so some plants did not survive the winter. Most negative feedback that has resulted in a lack of repeat business is associated with job sites where Black had little or no involvement in the actual landscaping. You notice a tendency for Black to attribute customer dissatisfaction to the customers’ own personality flaws as opposed to anything his company may be doing wrong. The supervisors can

provide little or no additional information because, as instructed by Black, they rarely communicate with clients. Your interview with Black has revealed that he has extensive knowledge and skills associated with landscaping as a result of a lifetime of hands-on experience. He is also passionate about his work. You also notice that he doesn’t know where his knowledge came from and sometimes thinks specialized knowledge that he has should be common sense to others. Black’s employees have limited knowledge of landscaping compared to Black’s knowledge, and what they have seems to have been gained by learning on the job with Root of the Problem Landscaping. You have noticed that many of the employees seem to be dissatisfied with their workplace environment, and some report that they find Black to be unprofessional and inconsiderate as an employer. Jobs are often interrupted or delayed because of a lack of proper inventory procedures, resulting in frequent trips to hardware stores, etc. You notice some employees having difficulty with lifting tasks and the operating of machinery. Some employees are working with two gloves and others with only one or none. Some employees seem to be suffering from aches and pains, and you can see bad sunburns on their bodies because of a lack of sunscreen use. Some older and less agile employees seem to be attempting physically demanding tasks while the younger, fitter employees are engaged in less strenuous activity. You have been observing Root of the Problem Landscaping both when Black is there and when he is not. When Black is present, the job seems to get done, but you notice he often has to go back and work on tasks that were not completed properly by his employees. When fixing a problem, he tends to complain to the employees but does not instruct them on how to do it properly in the future. You observe instances where Black is unduly harsh in his criticisms of the employees and seems to lack some people skills. There is evidence that the employees do not have respect for Black and his business when you observe them “cutting corners” on the job when he is absent. As a result, there is ongoing turnover. QUESTION 1: If Black had conducted a job analysis prior to employee selection, how might his company have benefited? Include considerations of employer, employees, and clients.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

QUESTION 2: Using the O*NET website, if you type “landscaper” into the space provided for the occupational quick search, a list of job titles appears. Select the “first-line supervisors/managers of landscaping” job title and review the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed. Which of these does Black currently possess? Which of these is he lacking? What about the employees? QUESTION 3: How would you improve the situation? What would you do in hiring new employees? What would you do with Mr. Black?

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 5 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 5: The Quality of Performance Assessment As part of restructuring, a television network decided to close one of its local stations in Cape Breton. Several different unions represented the employees at the station. Employees were given severance packages or opportunities to transfer to the network’s Halifax station if they were qualified for any available positions. Two electronic news-gathering (ENG) camera operators received layoff notices and requested transfer to Halifax, where two ENG positions were open. Two ENG operators—two ENG positions to fill. No problem? Not quite. A recent hire at the Halifax station also applied for one of the two positions. Under the terms of the ENG operators’ collective agreement, during any restructuring the employer had the right to fill positions with employees deemed to be the best performers. The network had never employed any type of performance assessments with its unionized employees and was at a loss as to how to determine which two of the three were the best, other than through their supervisors’ opinions. The collective agreement, however, called for an “objective” assessment. The network’s HR director recalled that a few years previously its Toronto station had had to prepare for compliance with pay equity legislation and had developed a rating system to evaluate all its Toronto employees, from secretaries to on-air news anchors. The survey was a graphic rating scale very similar to the type shown in Figure 5.4(b). It listed 12 traits or characteristics, including “effort,” as shown in Figure 5.4(b). The 12 traits were very general characteristics such as “knowledge,” “willingness to learn,” and so on. The HR director asked two different managers who had worked with the three employees to use the form to rate the employees’ performance. The new hire received the highest rating and was offered a position. The two potential transfers received low ratings and neither was offered a position. Under the terms of the collective agreement, the two laid-off employees had the right to grieve the decisions, and their union carried the case to arbitration. The arbitration panel was composed of a neutral chairperson, who was mutually selected by the other two members of the panel, one of whom was appointed by the employer and the other by the union. In presenting its case to the arbitration panel, the union’s lawyer decided to call an expert in HR to comment on the

performance measure that had been used to assess the employees. After hearing the expert’s opinion, which was not challenged by the employer, the arbitration panel threw out the decision based on the performance measure and declared that the two laid-off employees must be offered the two vacant positions. As part of restructuring, a television network decided to close one of its local stations in Cape Breton. Several different unions represented the employees at the station. Employees were given severance packages or opportunities to transfer to the network’s Halifax station if they were qualified for any available positions. Two electronic news-gathering (ENG) camera operators received layoff notices and requested transfer to Halifax, where two ENG positions were open. Two ENG operators—two ENG positions to fill. No problem? Not quite. A recent hire at the Halifax station also applied for one of the two positions. Under the terms of the ENG operators’ collective agreement, during any restructuring the employer had the right to fill positions with employees deemed to be the best performers. The network had never employed any type of performance assessments with its unionized employees and was at a loss as to how to determine which two of the three were the best, other than through their supervisors’ opinions. The collective agreement, however, called for an “objective” assessment. The network’s HR director recalled that a few years previously its Toronto station had had to prepare for compliance with pay equity legislation and had developed a rating system to evaluate all its Toronto employees, from secretaries to on-air news anchors. The survey was a graphic rating scale very similar to the type shown in Figure 5.4(b). It listed 12 traits or characteristics, including “effort,” as shown in Figure 5.4(b). The 12 traits were very general characteristics such as “knowledge,” “willingness to learn,” and so on. The HR director asked two different managers who had worked with the three employees to use the form to rate the employees’ performance. The new hire received the highest rating and was offered a position. The two potential transfers received low ratings and neither was offered a position. Under the terms of the collective agreement, the two laid-off employees had the right to grieve the decisions, and their union carried the case to arbitration. The arbitration panel was composed of a neutral chairperson, who was mutually selected by the other two members of the panel, one of whom was appointed by the employer and the other by the union. In presenting its case to the arbitration panel, the union’s lawyer decided to call an expert in HR to comment on the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

performance measure that had been used to assess the employees. After hearing the expert’s opinion, which was not challenged by the employer, the arbitration panel threw out the decision based on the performance measure and declared that the two laid-off employees must be offered the two vacant positions. QUESTION 1: What did the expert most likely tell the arbitration panel? QUESTION 2: If you were that expert, what would you tell the arbitration panel? Be as detailed as possible and call upon all the material that has been covered in previous chapters. QUESTION 3: Do you think an “off-the-shelf” measure that was designed for one purpose can be used to assess performance in another context? QUESTION 4: After rejecting the performance measure, the arbitration panel itself was charged with assessing which of the three employees were the best performers. What would you advise the panel to do in this situation? How should they evaluate the employees’ performance?

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 6 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 6: Recruiting in a Competitive Environment When qualified applicants are scarce, recruiting becomes extremely competitive, particularly when two companies go after the same candidate, as often happens in the case of searching for professionals. After interviewing three short-listed candidates, a high-tech company, Company X, made an offer to one and advised the other two candidates that they were unsuccessful. The successful candidate was given one week to consider the offer. The candidate asked for a week’s extension to consider the offer but was granted only an additional three days. At the end of the time period, the candidate verbally accepted the offer and was sent a contract to sign. Rather than returning the signed contract, the candidate informed Company X that he had accepted a position at Company Y. He had received the second offer after verbally accepting the first position at Company X. The second company knew that the candidate had verbally accepted Company X’s offer. Before accepting Company Y’s offer, the candidate had consulted a respected mentor who advised him to ignore his verbal commitment to Company X and to accept Company Y’s offer. There were no substantial differences in the salaries being offered by each company or in the work that each would expect the candidate to perform. The candidate simply saw Company Y as the more prestigious of the two employers. QUESTION 1: Did the candidate act in an appropriate manner? What should the candidate have done? What would you have done if you had been in the candidate’s position? QUESTION 2: Did Company Y act ethically, knowing that the candidate had verbally accepted another offer? Does a verbal acceptance constitute a legal and binding contract? QUESTION 3: Should Company X take any action to enforce the verbal commitment? Should it take any legal action against the candidate or Company Y? Why or why not? QUESTION 4: Describe what Company X should have done to maintain the candidate’s interest in the position.

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 7 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 7: In Search of a Communications Director at ABC Glass, Inc. ABC Glass, a Canadian-based manufacturer of glass with a dominant share of the international market, seeks to fill a newly created position of “director of communications.” This person will be responsible for both internal and external communications of the company, including writing corporate newsletters, communicating with the press in a public relations function, coaching senior officers on ways to improve their presentation skills, communicating orally and in writing the corporate directions (mission statements) and policies to employees, and soliciting news from employees for reporting in corporate newsletters to enhance cohesiveness and morale following the merger of French- and English speaking companies. The president of the merged company has hired you to recruit and screen for this position, referring to him the top three candidates. He, along with the HR director, will select their top candidate from among these three, using one or more focused assessments. The position requirements for this appointment, developed from the job analysis workshop, include: • fluency in both written and spoken French and English; • excellent oral and written communication skills; • ability to manage interpersonal conflict; • ability to work under tight timelines, with multiple conflicting demands; • ability to plan and organize; • ability to remain calm when demands considered unreasonable are being made by one’s boss; • ability to solicit information and cooperation from others and overcome personal obstacles; • ability to extract relevant information from an abundance of reports and summarize it; • ability to present relatively difficult material in an easily understandable way; • ability to provide effective coaching to senior officers for improving their presentation skills; • ability to motivate others to embrace and execute corporate policies; and • willingness to “go above and beyond the call of duty.”

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The president has contracted you to (1) establish a recruitment plan, specifying the specific recruitment outlets; (2) propose a screening strategy, outlining each stage of screening and the tools to be used; (3) describe a post-screening selection assessment; and (4) speak to the merits of your proposal. Finally, develop biodata items that are likely to be useful for screening for this position and provide your rationale for each. (Of course, before using such items, you would need to determine empirically whether they are appropriate.) QUESTION 1: Should background checks be mandatory for all jobs or only for certain jobs? Explain your reasoning. QUESTION 2: How can the Internet be used to do background checks and to speed up the process? Are there any risks in this process? QUESTION 2: If you discover that a job applicant has a criminal record, can you disqualify the candidate solely on that ground and without fear of violating the candidate’s human rights? QUESTION 4: What should you do if you discover someone has fudged her application form information or résumé or lied during the screening interview? Does it matter how big the lie is? Explain and argue your case.

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 8 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 8: Applicant Testing at the RCMP Applicants to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police must pass a written examination,an interview, and a physical ability test before being accepted for basic training at the RCMP’s training centre in Regina. As a federally regulated agency, the RCMP falls under the jurisdiction of the Employment Equity Act, designed to further the employment of women, visible minorities, and other designated groups. The RCMP has had difficulty meeting recruiting targets of 20 percent women, 4.5 percent Aboriginal people, and 8.3 percent visible minorities that were set in compliance with the objectives of the Act. A review of testing data showed that Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities scored slightly lower than other groups on the written tests and that 40–50 percent of women applicants fail the physical ability test, a rate considerably higher than that for men. In response to concerns over failing to meet its recruiting objectives, the RCMP undertook a revision of the examination, which assesses cognitive ability. The new test retains “academic” items related to composition and computation, but it also has new items in the form of scenarios that are directed at problem solving. The new questions are more job directed and operational in nature. Test items were rewritten to minimize the impact of different regional language styles to ensure that the questions are fair and equitable for all applicants. With respect to the physical ability test, women had particular difficulty with the upper-body strength requirements. To deal with this problem, the RCMP instituted a six-week pre-training fitness program to help women prepare for the fitness test. It also revised the evaluation procedure. This document provides information on the new physical ability requirements and provides information on how to prepare for the test. QUESTION 1: It appears that the RCMP is trying to incorporate a “practical intelligence” component into its examinations. Is this appropriate? What type of “job knowledge” should be assessed of applicants? QUESTION 2: If physical ability is a job requirement for police officers, is it appropriate to have different standards for male and female applicants to the RCMP? Argue your point.

QUESTION 3: Is the existing test fair and equitable for all candidates? Will the new procedures discriminate against white males? QUESTION 4: Design and describe a recruiting campaign to attract more women and visible- minority applicants to the RCMP.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 9 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 9: Attracting and Retaining Millennials Cango Distribution (not the actual name) is a large, rapidly growing, multinational transportation logistics and delivery company. The company has administrative offices in Toronto and New York with about 150 and 500 administrative employees, respectively. In addition, the company has delivery depots in over 200 cities in North America (as well as other depots around the world). There are about 1500 employees distributed in depots across Canada and another 6500 employees across the United States (and a total of about 30 000 employees worldwide). Hiring for field operations (e.g., line haul drivers, couriers, dispatchers, customer service agents, data systems agents, customs brokerage agents, package handling/sorting, warehouse operations, etc.) is done at the local depots, although policies and procedures are developed at the head offices and recruitment is also centralized (e.g., websites, advertising, posting jobs). Job listings are up 186 percent in the transportation/logistics industry as a whole and, given the rapid growth of the company and industry demand, Cango will have strong competition from other organizations in recruiting new talent and the company expects the bulk of new hires to come from the “millennial” generation (i.e., those born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s). In addition to the recruitment challenge, Cango is concerned about maximizing retention. Retention is an important concern because preliminary research suggests that millennials are likely to be “job hoppers.” According to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics, most millennials will have ten jobs by the time they turn 38. Expending resources to hire employees who stay only a short time is not cost-effective. A related concern is the reputation millennials have as the “instant gratification generation.” According to a survey conducted by I Love Rewards,1 two-thirds of millennial responders indicated they want to be rewarded early and often for their individual efforts. Razor Suleman, the chief executive and founder of I Love Rewards, indicates that the expectations of millennials will likely exceed the reality of entry- level jobs. That leaves recruiters with the challenge of getting potential hires excited about the company without painting too rosy a picture.

Until now Cango has left the hiring process to the local depots. However, the company is concerned that this has resulted in rather haphazard selection procedures which often result in poor hiring decisions. Cango wants to standardize selection procedures by implementing new testing procedures as well as structured interviews that would be used across all depots. The company hopes that the new selection procedures will not only improve its ability to select better performers but also reduce the likelihood of turnover among its employees. QUESTION 1: Do you agree with the findings of the I Love Rewards survey and the comments by the chief executive and founder of I Love Rewards, Razor Suleman, concerning the motivation and attitudes of millennials? Why or why not? In what other ways do you think millennials differ from older employees? QUESTION 2: What measures can Cango take to maximize the likelihood of attracting and retaining millennial employees? What part would the selection system play in these measures? QUESTION 3: Does the fact that millennials are a major recruitment target of Cango now and in the future have implications for how structured interviews should be developed and/or used with this cohort? If not, why not? If so, how might structured interviews be adapted for this group? QUESTION 4: One of the concerns at Cango is employee retention. Develop two or three interview questions that would allow you to assess the likelihood that an applicant is likely to stay at Cango for a longer period of time. Do you believe the questions you developed will result in an honest answer from the applicants? If so, why? If not, why not? How might you assess the concern about employee retention in a less transparent way?

ADMS 3260H: WEEK 10 Individual Case Assignment Case Study 10: Selection System at Google The Google organization is best known for its Web search engine, which now accounts for over 92 percent of worldwide market share, to the point that the term “Googling” has become synonymous with Web browsing. Actually, the name “Google” was derived from the word “googol,” a mathematical term for the number 1 followed by 100 zeros, which was intended to convey Google’s mission to organize the huge amount of information on the Web. Of course, Google offers a wide variety of other products and services, including Gmail, Google Calendar, Blogger, Google Docs, Google Maps, Google Groups, and others. Google’s official mission is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Google was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, three years after they met at Stanford University. They started working out of a garage with one employee in 1998 but the Google corporation has now grown to over 70 000 employees internationally, including Canadian offices in Kitchener-Waterloo, Montreal, and Toronto. Although Google has grown a lot since 1998, it strives to maintain a small-company feel. Google needs to innovate in order to survive and depends on its employees to provide the necessary innovation. Casual interactions among employees and the sharing of ideas and opinions at the office café or break rooms are strongly encouraged. Every employee is expected to contribute in a variety of ways, often wearing several hats. In turn, Google treats its employees very well, providing a wide variety of perquisites and generous compensation and benefits packages for its employees. It is therefore understandable that Google was ranked first in the most recent Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For.” Given its reputation, it is not surprising that Google attracts more than 3 million job applications every year. Although this number of applications provides a great opportunity for Google to be highly selective, it also creates a challenge in terms of how to efficiently sort through the more than 3 million applications every year to determine which applicants are most suitable. Fortunately, Google has been able to apply search algorithms, similar to the ones it uses for Web searches, to its online job applications. This automated system makes the selection process much easier and also more effective.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

In the past, Google’s selection system required successful applicants to have a grade-point average of at least 3.7 and to go through more than half a dozen interviews. However, management at Google was not satisfied with the outcomes of this system. In addition to seeking greater efficiency, they were interested in hiring more “well-rounded” candidates who demonstrated abilities in leadership, teamwork, creativity, and other areas, not just those who did well academically. To accomplish its objectives, Google developed an online biographical information blank (BIB) or biodata form (see “Biographical Data” in Chapter 7). Every employee who had worked with the company for at least five months was asked to fill out a 300-question survey. The survey included questions about what programming languages employees were familiar with, what Internet mailing lists they subscribed to, what magazines they subscribed to, whether their workplace was messy or neat, whether they were introverts or extraverts, whether they preferred working alone or in groups, whether they had ever tutored, what pets they had, whether they had ever made a profit from activities such as a catering business or dog walking, whether they had ever set a world record, etc. Data from the initial survey were compared with 25 separate measures of job performance, including supervisors’ ratings, peer ratings, and measures of organizational citizenship. Eventually, patterns of responses were identified that predicted performance in various areas such as engineering, sales, finance, or human resources. The resulting online biodata form is now completed by applicants and their responses are sorted by Google’s algorithm to identify which applicants are best suited to the various positions available. The online application form has not eliminated the interview as part of the selection process but it seems to have reduced the number of interviews in which successful candidates participate. Now, applicants who are identified as a possible match for a position by Google’s algorithm are contacted by a recruiter for a 30- to 40-minute telephone screening interview. The recruiter makes a preliminary assessment of their technical skills and proficiency and determines whether they should be brought in for in-person interviews. Applicants who proceed to an on-site interview are further assessed in terms of their job-relevant skills. For example, applicants for a technical position would be evaluated in terms of their core software engineering skills including coding, algorithm development, data structures, design patterns, and analytical thinking skills. Applicants for business and general positions are

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

evaluated with respect to their problem solving and behavioural abilities. Google no longer uses puzzle interview questions (see “Puzzle Interviews” in Chapter 9). Instead, interviewers use structured interviews with a combination of situational and behavioural questions. Google has developed a tool called qDroid, which allows interviewers to custom-build an interview guide with questions designed to predict performance for any particular job at Google. The program draws from a question bank that has interview questions categorized in terms of their assessment of particular attributes that are deemed important for jobs at Google. The onsite visits include interviews with at least four interviewers, including both managers and potential colleagues. Applicants are also given a tour of the facilities and exposed to various work activities at the site during their visit. Following the interviews, an independent hiring committee evaluates the interview scores in combination with paper-and-pencil assessments of cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and leadership and makes recommendations to a senior executive, who makes the final decision. This process means that it can take up to two additional weeks for hiring decisions to be made. However, the people at Google believe it helps them make the most effective decisions possible. QUESTIONS: Pretend you have been put in charge of staffing at Google. Your job is to review the new selection system and to explore ways of improving the system. 1. How would you determine whether the online BIB and interviews are helping Google accomplish its employee selection objectives? 2. If you found that the BIB has adverse impact on minority applicants, what would you do to address the problem? 3. What suggestions would you make to help Google further improve its selection system? How would you determine whether these suggested changes are effective? 4. What decision-making model (e.g., multiple regression, multiple cutoff, multiple hurdle, combination, profile matching) is currently being used by Google? Is this the most appropriate model? If so, why? If not, why not and what alternative model would you recommend? Why?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

ADMN 3220H- Individual Case Assignment

Related Documents