An Indiscreet Conversation on Hiring Case Study 2 Jerdson L. Gamble Lasell College Abstract The purpose of this case study is to examine the legitimacy of the hiring agenda of four friends Joe, Steven, Matt, and Andrew. The major issue focused on in this paper will be the hiring process, discrimination, employment qualifications, and employment equity. In all this paper will review the responsibility that managers have when thinking about when decisions to make when hiring especially in high-risk reward situations. An Indiscreet Conversation on Hiring Case Study 2
This case study is centered on the question of hiring a qualified candidate. The candidate is very well qualified and happens to be a female. During the conversation about the consideration of hiring the candidate it is clear that because of her experience, education and other qualifications that she would be the best fit for the job. However, the idea that the candidate may be ready to get married and have kids becomes an issue for the men who are making the hiring decision. During the conversation, it comes to light that two other candidates have been interviewed.
The other two candidate options happen to be male. Both male options have similar education backgrounds to the female candidate however they do have less work experience than the female candidate. In the eyes of Joe, Steven, Matt, and Andrew this decision ultimately come down to coast benefit analysis or a risk-reward decision. Regardless of how these men view this decision, because they bought her potential pregnancy into the conversation they are now working with a decision based around sexism and gender discrimination. The Conversation
The conversation becomes an issue when, according to Fundamentals of Executive Management (2011), Joes brings up the fact that he has just interviewed a very well deserving candidate for a new position. Joe loves the fact that she has an Ivey League MBA and also has a work background to match. However, Joe does remember that she did say that the reason she wanted to move from New York to Canada is because she intendeds to start a family. With this information on the table for discussion, Joe does his best to not sound as if his concerns are purely sexists.
Joe’s reasoning for his concerns seem legitimate as he is concerned that he will not be able to afford the time and money that it will take to replace the female candidate during maternity leave. Joe is in a tough position. Drucker (2009) suggest that making the right people decisions is the best way to lead an organization. It seems that in this cases Joe may not be able to lead by making a good decision no matter what side of the argument he chooses.
When looking at the ideas of Drucker (2009) however, Joe would understand that “even if executives follow his decision steps, some of their people decisions will still fail” (p. 66). Even knowing this however, Drucker suggest that a good manager still has to be able to make these types of high-risk decisions about hiring someone. Overall, when upper management makes a bad decision, Drucker suggest that he is failing the organization. People decisions are not the only decision that a manager has to make but they are a very important part of what they do.
In all, a manager’s ability to choose good people will reflect a manager’s ability to lead the organization in the right direction. Moreover, despite the fact that Joe is having this conversation just with his friends the decision he makes will ultimately be seen by the rest of the organization. Drucker (2009) suggest that even if you try to keep other employees out of the loop with hiring decision, that those decisions ultimately cannot be kept a secret. Employees will ultimately see what decision are being made and will be able to understand what they mean.
What Joe has to think about, as a risk outside of his investment in her maternity is the risk of loosing the respect of the organization. Lawler (2003) suggest that, “organizations must hire people who fit with their values, core competencies, and strategic goals” (p. 106). For Joe to be the leader that his organization needs he must look into ways to make his decision making within the hiring process more clearly defined and more disciplined. One suggestion for Joe would be to follow one of Drukers 2009) decision steps by looking at a number of potentially qualified people. Given the information that has been given in the case study Joe has only looked at three candidates to this point. Drucker suggest that “an executive should look at three to five qualified candidates” (p. 63). In all, Joe must make good decision based on qualifications for the job. Doing so will improve his leadership and maintain the respect and willingness to perform by his organization. The question of sexism does come into play in this case study.
However, that is a distraction to the real problem. Joe is trying to make decisions based on criteria that has little to do with his needs for the organization. Reference Drucker, P. F. (2009). Classic Drucker: essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from the pages of Harvard Business Review.. Boston: Harvard Business Review Book. Pierce, J. L. , & Newstrom, J. W. (1990). The Manager’s bookshelf: a mosaic of contemporary views (2nd ed. ). New York: Harper & Row. Mark, K. (2011). Fundamentals of executive management . New York: McGraw-Hill.