Recruitment and Selection in Canada 6th Edition Solution Manual

Preview (7 of 22 Pages)

100%

Purchase to unlock

Loading page image...

CASENOTESto accompanyPrepared byJeffrey J. McNallyUniversity of New Brunswick

Loading page image...

Case Notes–Recruitment and Selectionin Canada, Sixth EditionCase Notes–3CHAPTER ONE:AN INTRODUCTION TO RECRUITMENT AND SELECTIONToyota1.Is Toyota’s elaborate selection system justified? What are appropriate criteria for assessing itseffectiveness?ANS:It is clear from itsrecruitment and selection process that Toyota values the talent managementprocess. The company strives to find the “best possible people to hire” and has designed arigorous recruitment and selection strategy to reflect this value. To determine if it is justified wemust, from a human resources management perspective, evaluate the strategy’s outcomes. Forexample, once implemented, Toyota could evaluate the effectiveness of its staffing strategy usingStep 5 of the “Elements of a Recruitment and Selection Action Plan,” as seen in Recruitmentand Selection Notebook 1.1.By determining what went right or wrong, reviewing the outcomesof the recruitment and selection processes, and reviewing the performance of the people it hired,Toyota could evaluate, shape,and change future iterations of its staffing action plan to best meetthe talent management needs of the organization in the future.2.Toyota received over 40 000 applications for 1200 positions. Is this an effective approach? Whatis the cost, particularly the human cost, associated with reviewing all of these applications? Howdo you reduce the number of applicants to a reasonable number that can be run through theselection system?ANS:Toyota’sselectionratio, or thenumber of applications to number of positions,(discussed morein Chapter 7), can be determined by dividing the number of positions (1,200) by the number ofapplicants generated (40,000). The result for Toyota is .03, which is a very low selection ratio.Selection ratios close to zero could indicate that the recruitment process was successful ingenerating a large applicant pool.AlthoughToyota'srecruitment strategy was successful, the costto the organization (both in terms of time and money) to review the applications will berelatively high in terms of selecting the most qualified candidates. Some ways to reduce might beto statistically weight the value of some of the tests (e.g., work samples and motor skills tests),coordinate HR activities with other organizational units to highlight the importance of some ofthe required skills andto think in systems terms(seeFigure 1.1, Example of a Human ResourcesSystem).3.What are some of the cultural issues that might arise with a Japanese-managed auto plant locatedin Ontario?ANS:Some cultural issues that might arise for Toyota in Cambridge could relate to general cross-cultural differences between Japan and Canada. For example, as a collectivist culture, Japaneseworkers tend to place value on pursuing group goals at the expense of individual goals. Canada,as a more individualist culture, places value on both goals but tends to favour individual goalsover group goals in terms of performance evaluations. There are also differences in unionizationrates between the two countries, though both Canada and Japan value the involvement of HR inthe negotiations process. It might also be demonstrated that some of the recruitment andselection tests, while being good at predicting performance in general, might screen out

Loading page image...

Case Notes–Recruitment and Selectionin Canada, Sixth EditionCase Notes–4members of visible minorities at unacceptable rates, creating ethical dilemmas like those seen inRecruitment and Selection Today 1.4.4.Provide examples of how technology might be used to facilitate and improve the recruitmentand selection used by Toyota.ANS:There are a number of ways that modern technology can improve the recruitment and selectionprocesses at Toyota. For example, software is available to digitally screen resumes by looking forkeywords. Job posting and resume-matching services can be designed and offered online. Asdiscussed more in Chapter 6, these and other tools can be used to improve the set ofrecruitment and selection best practices at Toyota. Organizations using “e-recruiting” techniquesoften report having access to larger applicant pools, lower recruiting costs, lower printing costs,and greater access and use of online “dashboard” reports for immediate tracking of results.5.What criteria should Toyota use in selecting “team players”?ANS:The criteria for selecting team players should likely include personality testing and work samples.Personality testing can identify individual differences that are either supportive to teamwork(e.g., agreeableness) or not supportive of it (e.g., low emotional stability). Work samples canidentify can provide “live” samples of individual and group problem solving. Both are testscurrently offered by Toyota, so using these to determine teamwork skills would not addadditional costs to the overall recruitment and selection strategy.

Loading page image...

Case Notes–Recruitment and Selectionin Canada, Sixth EditionCase Notes–5CHAPTER TWO:FOUNDATIONS OF RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION I:RELIABILITY ANDVALIDITYEmotional Intelligence1.What do you think? Do the data that you collected from the Queendom.com exercise help youto answer thisquestion? Is there a relationship between job performance and EQ? Can yousupport your answer with any empirical data? How can the construct of EQ be improved? Is ittoo broad? Is EQ simply another aspect of personality?ANS:It is only possible for us to discern the relationship between IQ, EQ, and personality from ourQueendom.com data. If these scores demonstrate low correlations with one another, asexpected, then we can say with some assurance that the three measures are measuring differentconstructs (i.e., they have divergent validity). Further, if the test scores remain consistent overthe two waves of data collection then we can also assert that our data is fairly reliable. However,because it is not clear that Queendom.com uses the Bar-on EQi, and because Queendom.comdoes not include a measure of performance, we cannot answer whether the Bar-On EQi scoresare statistically related to performance scores. We also cannot really say if EQ is just anotherform of personality from the Bar-On EQi data, though the Queendom.com data might implythat the two are statistically unrelated. It is possible that personality and EQ share commonvariance though this would not necessarily indicate that the variables are empirically identicalconstructs. Current measures of EQ may be too broad to fully capture the content domain ofthe construct. Scales can be improved via scale validation strategiesat both the construct andmeasurement levels(seeFigure 2.2).2.If you planned to use EQ as part of your selection system, discuss the steps that you would taketo ensure that you were able to make reliable and accurate inferences about job performance inyour work situation. That is, what would you have to do to show that your measure was reliableand valid?ANS:There are a number of steps to take to ensure the reliability and validity of our chosen measureof EQ. As an HR manager, you should start by checking the existing reliability and validity dataof your measure in the extant literature (these indices are sometimes easily obtained byconducting a literature review on the topic/construct at hand). In the absence of any such data,or if the data are unclear, you should ensure that factors impacting the potential reliability,including chance, lack of standardization, and temporary characteristics, are minimized at testtime. In terms of ensuring validity, you may take strategies outlined in Figure 2.2 in the textbookand, for small samples, the steps outlined in Recruitment and Selection Notebook 2.1. To avoidrange restriction, you should look at your validity coefficients to ensure that scores fromsubgroups are similar to those from the overall sample. To avoid measurement error, you shouldensure the test is reliable over at least two points of data collection. To avoid sampling error, youshould ensure the tests are taken by the appropriate samples (e.g., applicants and jobincumbents) in as large a population as possible (estimates from small samples will likely be quitevariable so corrections may need to be applied). You should also take steps to ensure that yourtest is perceived to be fair and unbiased by your employees, as described in Recruitment andSelection Notebook 2.2, because adverse reactions to tests can negatively impact, or attenuate,validity scores.

Loading page image...

Case Notes–Recruitment and Selectionin Canada, Sixth EditionCase Notes–6CHAPTER THREE:FOUNDATIONS OF RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION II: LEGAL ISSUESMs. Marita Smith1.Should Smith have received a job offer? Why or why not? (In answering this and the followingquestions, base your arguments on the court cases presented inthis chapter.)ANS:Ms. Smith should likely have been offered the job. This assertion can be justified withinformation from the court cases described in Chapter 3. For example, in Recruitment andSelection Today 3.3,The Ontario Human Rights Commission and Bruce Dunlop and Harold E. HallandVincent Gray v. The Borough of Etobicokediscusses the importance of supporting the existence ofBFORs with concrete evidence. Though it states in the case that management argued that thetesting standards were reasonably necessary for efficient performance, no evidence is presentedto support this claim. Further, it is not clear that management accommodated Ms. Smith per theCentral Alberta Dairy Pool v. Albertadecision, which requires organizations to accommodateindividual employees to the point of undue hardship.2.Was Smith the victim of discrimination because of her disability?ANS:It is reasonable to conclude thatMs. Smith was the victim of discrimination. As a person with adisability, Ms. Smith is in a protected group according to Table 3.1: Prohibited Grounds ofEmployment Discrimination in Canadian Jurisdictions. Though her employer likely establishedits testing requirements in good faith, the tests resulted in an unintended negative impact on Ms.Smith. In theBritish Columbia v. British Columbiacase outlined in Recruitment and Selection Today3.3, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that discrimination applied in cases where reasonableaccommodation is available. Although her employer provided her with an interpreter, the servicedid not meet Ms. Smith’s needs relating to her disability and, as a result, she should have likelyhave been offered equivalent tests that would accommodate her individual disability-relatedneeds. As such, this case likely represents a case of adverse effect discrimination as described intheO’Malley v. Simpsons Searscase.3.Did she receive appropriate accommodation?ANS:Ms. Smith did not receive appropriate accommodation by her employer. As mentioned above, intheCentral Alberta Dairy Pool v. Albertacase, the Supreme Court ruled that employers mustaccommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. Because the skills testshad an adverse impact on Ms. Smith, her employer was obligated to accommodate her to thepoint of undue hardship even if she was the only candidate with a disability applying for the job.Although an interpreter was provided, Ms. Smith felt that the service was subpar and impactedher ability to complete the skills tests. Further, there is no evidence from the case that theemployer suffered anything near undue hardship by providing an interpreter service.4.Are the employer’s standards defensible as a BFOR?ANS:The employer claims that three standards were required BFORs for the transcription job: typing;following instructions; and transcribing. Though these may well be BFORs, nothing wasprovided in the case to show that the employers had measured and established their importance,

Loading page image...

Case Notes–Recruitment and Selectionin Canada, Sixth EditionCase Notes–7statistical or otherwise. This violates theMeiorindecision, as described in Recruitment andSelection Today 3.7. This decision states that policies that discriminate based on prohibitedgrounds are “questionable” and that the size of the affected group is irrelevant. The decisionalso placed a high onus on Canadian organizations to, in good faith, enact nondiscriminatoryrecruitment and selection policies and procedures.5.Based on the material presented in this chapter, do you think the human rights commission willsupport her claim of discrimination?ANS:Yes, it is reasonable for us to believe that the human rights commission would support Ms.Smith’s claim of discrimination. Its decision would likely be based upon two mainconsiderations, namely BFORs and accommodation. In terms of BFORs, despite the fact thatthey appear to have face validity, it is not clear that the tests were developed and/or establishedin accordance with theMeiorindecision. Further, the tests may not meet the of either theAndrewsv. Treasury Board and Department of Transportor theGreen v. Public Service CommissionCanadianHuman Rights Tribunal decision as described in Recruitment and Selection Today 3.5. In termsof accommodating Ms. Smith’s disability, it is not clear that reasonable alternatives to the testingprocedures were offered her to the point that would violate sufficient risk for the employerwhich is held as standard in undue hardship cases. Suggestions for initiating such a search can befound in Recruitment and Selection Notebook 3.4 and are guided by theBritish Columbia (PublicSector Employee Relations Comm.) v. BCGSEUSupreme Court decision.6.If you were the employer’s legal counsel, how would you defend the employer at a human rightstribunal that is called to hear Smith’s complaint? What would you advise your client to do withrespect to the charge?ANS:A legal defense for the employer would likely prove difficult, though not insurmountable. As theemployer’s legal council we could suggest mounting a defense on the grounds that BFORs wereconsidered prior to testing and provide any available evidence to support this claim. Also, withreference to theAlberta Dairy Pooldecision, the employer might suggest that it only hires peoplewith requires BFORs, such as typing skills, because they directly relate to performance. Theemployer could also claim that the BFORs/tests were selected in good faith and, per theMeiorindecision, they had reasonable alternatives to the tests that were offered and accepted by Ms.Smith.

Preview Mode

This document has 22 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Report

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

Recruitment and Selection in Canada 6th Edition Test Bank

CIS 337 Unit 7 Assignment Final Project Part IV Pr

Analysis of Leadership in Monster Inc

Evaluation of Alphabet's Mission, Vision, and 8-29

Boundless Management

Uncovering the Martha Stewart Tax Scandal Insider

Boundless Business

JetBlue Airlines Case Analysis

Effective Speaker Notes Template for BUS 210 Prese

Leading as a Function of Management

Company

Explore

Study Tools