Text
Staffing Organizations 8th ed
Heneman's and Judge's Staffing Organisations, 8e, is based on a comprehensive staffing model. Components of the model include staffing models and strategy, staffing support systems (legal compliance, planning, job analysis and rewards), core staffing systems (recruitment, selection, and employment), and staffing system and retention management. Up-to-date research and business practices are the hallmarks of this market-leading text. In-depth applications (cases and exercises) at the ends of chapters provide students with skills-building and practice in key staffing activities and decision making. A comprehensive running case involving a fictitious retailing organisation provides even greater opportunity for in-depth analysis and skills-building. Students also have the opportunity to address ethical issues at the end of each chapter. Sample questions asked in the 8th edition of Staffing Organizations: Application #2: Developing a Lawful Application Blank The Consolidated Trucking Corporation, Inc. (CTCI) is a rapidly growing short-haul (local) firm within the greater Columbus, Ohio, area. It has grown primarily through the acquisitions of numerous small, family- owned trucking companies. Currently it has a fleet of 150 trucks and over 250 full- time drivers. Most of the drivers were hired initially by the firms that CTCI acquired, and they accepted generous offers to become members of the CTCI team. CTCI?s expansion plans are very ambitious, but they will be fulfilled primarily from internal growth rather than additional acquisitions. Consequently, CTCI is now faced with the need to develop an external staffing system that will be geared up to hire 75 new truckers within the next two years. Terry Tailgater is a former truck driver for CTCI who was promoted to truck maintenance supervisor, a position he has held for the past five years. Once CTCI?s internal expansion plans were finalized, the firm?s HR director (and sole member of the HR department), Harold Hornblower, decided he needed a new person to handle staffing and employment law duties. Terry Tailgater was promoted by Harold to the job of staffing manager. One of Terry?s major assignments was to develop a new staffing system for truck drivers. One of the first projects Terry undertook was to develop a new, standardized application blank for the job of truck driver. To do this, Terry looked at the many different application blanks the current drivers had completed for their former companies. (These records were given to CTCI at the time of acquisition.) The application blanks showed that a large amount of information was requested and that the specific information sought varied among the application forms. Terry scanned the various forms and made a list of all the questions the forms contained. He then decided to evaluate each question in terms of its probable lawfulness under federal and state (Ohio) law. Terry wanted to identify and use only lawful questions on the new form he is developing. Shown below is the list of questions Terry developed, along with columns labeled ?probably lawful? and ?probably unlawful.? Assume that you are Terry and are deciding on the lawfulness of each question. Place a check mark in the appropriate column for each question and prepare a justification for its mark as ?probably lawful? or ?probably unlawful.? One of the strategic staffing choices is whether to pursue workforce diversity actively or passively. First suggest some ethical reasons for the active pursuit of diversity, and then suggest some ethical reasons for a more passive approach. Assume that the type of diversity in question is increasing workforce representationof women and ethnic minorities. Application #1: Recruitment in a Changing Internal Labor Market Mitchell Shipping Lines is a distributor of goods on the Great Lakes in the United States. Not only does it distribute goods but it also manufactures shipping containers used to store the goods while in transit. The name of the subsidiary that manufactures those containers is Mitchell- Cole Manufacturing, and the president and CEO is Zoe Brausch. Brausch is in the middle of converting the manufacturing system from an assembly line to autonomous work teams. Each team will be responsible for producing a separate type of container, and each team will have different tools, machinery, and manufacturing routines for its particular type of container. Members of each team will have the job title ?assembler,? and each team will be headed by a permanent ?leader.? Brausch would like all leaders to come from the ranks of current employees, in terms of both the initial set of leaders and the leaders in the future as vacancies arise. In addition, she wants employee movement across teams to be discouraged in order to build team identity and cohesion. The current internal labor market, however, presents a formidable potential obstacle to her internal staffing goals. Based on a long history in the container manufacturing facility, employees are treated like union employees even though the facility is nonunion. Such treatment was desired many years ago as a strategy to remain nonunion. It was management?s belief that if employees were treated like union employees, there should be no need for employees to vote for a union. A cornerstone of the strategy is use of what everyone in the facility calls the ?blue book.? The blue book looks like a typical labor contract, and it spells out all terms and conditions of employment. Many of those terms apply to internal staffing and are very typical of traditional mobility systems found in unionized work settings. Specifically, internal transfers and promotions are governed by a facility- wide job posting system. A vacancy is posted throughout the facility and remains open for 30 days; an exception to this is identified entry- level jobs that are filled only externally. Any employee with two or more years of seniority is eligible to bid for any posted vacancy; employees with less seniority may also bid, but they are considered for positions only if no two-year-plus employees apply or are chosen. Internal applicants are assessed by the hiring manager and a representative from the HR department. They review applicants? seniority, relevant experience, past performance appraisals, and other special KSAOs. The blue book requires that the most senior employee who meets the desired qualifications receive the transfer or promotion. Thus, seniority is weighted heavily in the decision. Brausch is worried about this current internal labor market, especially for recruiting and choosing team leaders. These leaders will likely be required to have many KSAOs that are more important than seniority, and KSAOs likely to not even be positively related to seniority. For example, team leaders will need to have advanced computer, communication, and interpersonal skills. Brausch thinks these skills will be critical for team leaders to have, and that they will more likely be found among junior rather than senior employees. Brausch is in a quandary. She asks for your responses to the following questions: 1. Should seniority be eliminated as an eligibility standard for bidding on jobs?meaning no longer giving the two- year-plus employees priority? 2. Should the job posting system simply be eliminated? If so, what should it be replaced with? 3. Should a strict promotion- from-within policy be maintained? Why or why not? 4. How could career mobility paths be developed that would allow across- team movement without threatening team identity and cohesion? 5. If a new internal labor market system is to be put in place, how should it be communicated to employees? Assume that you?re the staffing manager in an organization that informally, but strongly, discourages you and managers from hiring people with disabilities. The organization?s rationale is that people with disabilities are unlike to be high performers or long term employees, and are costly to train, insure, and integrate into the work unit. What is your ethical assessment of the organization?s stance? Do you have an ethical obligations to try to change the stance, and if so, how might you go about that? Application #1: Improving a College Recruitment Program The White Feather Corporation (WFC) is a rapidly growing consumer products organization that specializes in the production and sales of specialty household items such as lawn furniture cleaners, spa (hot tub) accessories, mosquito and tick repellents, and stain- resistant garage floor paints. The organization currently employs 400 exempt and 3,000 nonexempt employees, almost all of whom are full time. In addition to its corporate office in Clucksville, Arkansas, the organization has five plants and two distribution centers at various rural locations throughout the state. Two years ago WFC created a corporate HR department to provide centralized direction and control for its key HR functions?planning, compensation, training, and staffing. In turn, the staffing function is headed by the senior manager of staffing, who receives direct reports from three managers: the manager of nonexempt employment, the manager of exempt employment, and the manager of EEO/AA. The manager of exempt employment is Marianne Collins, who has been with WFC for 10 years and has grown with the organization through a series of sales and sales management positions. She was chosen for her current position as a result of the WFC?s commitment to promotion from within, as well as her broad familiarity with the organization?s products and customers. When Marianne was appointed her key area of accountability was defined as college recruitment, with 50% of her time to be devoted to it. In her first year, Marianne developed and implemented WFC?s first- ever formal college recruitment program. Working with the HR planning person, WFC decided there was a need for 40 college graduate new hires by the end of the year. They were to be placed in the production, distribution, and marketing functions; specific job titles and descriptions were to be developed during the year. Armed with this forecast, Marianne began the process of recruitment planning and strategy development. The result was the following recruitment process. Recruitment was to be conducted at 12 public and private schools throughout the state. Marianne contacted the placement office(s) at each school and set up a one- day recruitment visit for each school. All visits were scheduled during the first week in May. The placement office at each school set up 30-minute interviews (16 at each school) and made sure that applicants completed and had on file a standard application form. To visit the schools and conduct the inter-views, Marianne selected three young, up- and-coming managers (one each from production, distribution, and marketing) to be the recruiters. Each manager was assigned to four of the schools. Since none of the managers had any experience as a recruiter, Marianne conducted a recruitment briefing for them. During that briefing she reviewed the overall recruitment (hiring) goal, provided a brief rundown on each of the schools, and then explained the specific tasks the recruiters were to perform. Those tasks were to pick up the application materials of the interviewees at the placement office prior to the interviews, review the materials, conduct the interviews in a timely manner (the managers were told they could ask any questions they wanted to that pertained to qualifications for the job), and at the end of the day complete an evaluation form on each applicant. The form asked for a 1?7 rating of overall qualifications for the job, written comments about strengths and weaknesses, and a recommendation of whether to invite the person for a second interview in Clucksville. These forms were to be returned to Marianne, who would review them and decide which people to invite for a second interview. After the campus interviews were conducted by the managers, problems began to surface. Placement officials at some of the schools contacted Marianne and lodged several complaints. Among those complaints were that (1) one of the managers failed to pick up the application materials of the interviewees; (2) none of the managers were able to provide much information about the nature of the jobs they were recruiting for, especially jobs outside their own functional area; (3) the interviewers got off schedule early on, so applicants were kept waiting and others had shortened interviews as the managers tried to make up time; (4) none of the managers had any written information describing the organization and its locations; (5) one of the managers asked female applicants very personal questions about marriage plans, use of drugs and alcohol, and willingness to travel with male coworkers; (6) one of the managers talked incessantly during the interviews, leaving the interviewees little opportunity to present themselves and their qualifications; and (7) all of the managers told the interviewees that they did not know when they would be contacted about decisions on invitations for second interviews. In addition to these complaints, Marianne had difficulty getting the managers to complete and turn in their evaluation forms (they claimed they were too busy, especially after being away from the job for a week). Based on the reports she did receive, Marianne extended invitations to 55 of the applicants for second interviews. Of these, 30 accepted the invitation. Ultimately, 25 of these were given job offers, and 15 of them accepted the offers. To put it mildly, the first- ever college recruitment program was a disaster for WFC and Marianne. In addition to her embarrassment, Marianne was asked to meet with her boss and the president of WFC to explain what went wrong and to receive ?guidance? from them as to their expectations for the next year?s recruitment program. Marianne subsequently learned that she would receive no merit pay increase for the year and that the three managers all received above- average merit increases. To turn things around for the second year of college recruitment, Marianne realized that she needed to engage in a thorough process of recruitment planning and strategy development. As she began this undertaking, her analysis of past events led her to the conclusion that one of her key mistakes was to naively assume that the three managers would actually know how to be good recruiters and were motivated to do the job effectively. Marianne first decided to use 12 managers as recruiters, assigning one to each of the 12 campuses. She also decided that she cannot send them off to the campuses with just a recruitment ?briefing.? She determined that an intensive, one- day training program must be developed and given to the managers prior to the beginning of the recruitment ?season.? You are a professional acquaintance of Marianne?s, and you work in HR at another organization in Clucksville. Knowing that you have had some experience in both college recruiting and training, Marianne calls you for some advice. She asks you if you would be willing to meet and discuss the following questions: 1. What topics should be covered in the training program? 2. What materials and training aids will be needed for the program? 3. What skills should the trainees actually practice during the training? 4. Who should conduct the training? 5. What other changes might have to be made to ensure that the training has a strong impact on the managers and that during the recruitment process they are motivated to use what they learned in training? Application #1: Age Discrimination in a Promotion? The Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC) handled a massive volume of claims each year in the corporate claims function, as well as in its four regional claims centers. Corporate claims was headed by the senior vice president of corporate claims (SVPCC); reporting to the SVPCC were two managers of corporate claims (MCC-Life and MCC- Residential) and a highly skilled corporate claims specialist (CCS). Each regional office was headed by a regional center manager (RCM); the RCM was responsible for both supervisors and claims specialists within the regional office. The RCMs reported to the vice president of regional claims (VPRC). Here is the structure before reorganization: BPIC decided to reorganize its claims function by eliminating the four regional offices (and the RCM position) and establishing numerous small field offices throughout the country. The other part of the reorganization involved creating five new CCS positions. The CCS job itself was to be redesigned and upgraded in terms of knowledge and skill requirements. It was planned to staff these new CCS positions through internal promotions from within the claims function. The plaintiff in the case was Gus Tavus, a 52-year-old RCM. Since his job was being eliminated, Gus was asked by the SVPCC to apply for one of the new CCS positions, as were the other RCMs, all of whom were over 40 years of age. Neither Gus nor the other RCMs were promoted to the CCS positions. Other candidates were also bypassed, and some of them were also over 40. The promotions went to five claims specialists and supervisors from within the former regional offices, all of whom were under age 40. Two of these newly promoted employees had worked for, and reported to, Gus as RCM. Upon learning of his failure to be promoted, Gus sought to determine why he was not promoted. What he learned (described below) led him to feel he had been discriminated against because of his age. He then retained legal counsel, attorney Bruce Davis. Bruce met informally with the SVPCC to try to determine what had happened in the promotion process and why his client Gus had not been promoted. He was told that there were a large number of candidates who were better qualified than Gus and that Gus lacked adequate technical and communication skills for the new job of CCS. The SVPCC refused to reconsider Gus for the job and said that all decisions were ?etched in stone.? Gus and Bruce then filed suit in federal district court, claiming a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. They also subpoenaed numerous BPIC documents, including the personnel files of all applicants for the CCS positions. Based on these documents, and discussions with Gus, the following information emerged about the promotion process actually used by BPIC. The SVPCC and the two MCCs conducted the total process; they received no input from the VPRC or the HR department. There was no formal, written job description for the new CCS position, nor was there a formal internal job posting as required by company policy. The SVPCC and the MCCs developed a list of employees they thought might be interested in the job, including Gus, and then met to consider the list of candidates. At that meeting, the personnel files and previous performance appraisals of the candidates were not consulted. After deciding on the five candidates who would be offered the promotion (all five accepted), the SVPCC and MCCs did scan the personnel files and appraisals of these five (only) to check for any disconfirming information about the employees. None was found. Inspection of all the files by Bruce Davis revealed no written comments suggesting age bias in past performance appraisals for any of the candidates, including Gus. Also, there was no indication that Gus lacked technical and communication skills. All of Gus?s previous appraisal ratings were above average, and there was no evidence of decline in the favorability of the ratings recently. Finally, an interview with the VPRC (Gus?s boss) revealed that he had not been consulted at all during the promotion process, that he was ?shocked beyond belief? that Gus had not been promoted, and that there was ?no question? but that Gus was qualified in all respects for the CCS job. 1. Based on the above facts, prepare a written report that presents a convincing disparate treatment claim that Gus had been intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his age. Do not address the claim as a disparate impact one. 2. Present a convincing rebuttal, from the viewpoint of BPIC, to this disparate treatment claim. .NULL.NULL
Call Number | Location | Available |
---|---|---|
Tan 658. 3 Hen s | PSB lt.dasar - Pascasarjana | 4 |
Penerbit | New York McGraw Hill., 2015 |
---|---|
Edisi | - |
Subjek | Human resource management Organization Staffing Staffing Organizations |
ISBN/ISSN | - |
Klasifikasi | - |
Deskripsi Fisik | - |
Info Detail Spesifik | - |
Other Version/Related | Tidak tersedia versi lain |
Lampiran Berkas | Tidak Ada Data |