Recruitment and Selection - An Informed Agenda

8/8/2019 Recruitment and Selection - An Informed Agenda

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/recruitment-and-selection-an-informed-agenda 1/4

Chris Waugh Ltd.

Recruitment andSelection - An Informed

Agenda

Chris Waugh Ltd. Basement Flat, 8 Holland Park Avenue

London, W11 3QU T 0207 229 1229 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Chris Waugh Ltd.

We must realise a

potential problem exists

What can be done?

The focus of this report is to inform the firms head of human resources

division to its brush with near disaster in the recent recruitment and

selection process. The potential loss of firm funds and potential waste of 5

staff members resources in the form of time spent was only overshadowed

by the potential for legal employment litigation. This could have easily been

avoided had a few steps of the recruitment process been adjusted.

From the outset the firm seemed to have a firm grip on the process by which

to generate potential candidates. The recruitment process began by placing

advertisements in trade magazines and the national press. This initial step of

the process returned 60+ applications and so proving its effectiveness. This

was followed up by the creation of a 5 person panel from the firm to create a

shortlisting of applicants. Between the direct line manager, head of human

resources (HR) division, assistant head of HR division, and the R&D and

launch team members of the new product development department, there

was a sufficient team to achieve an efficient and effective shortlist. Between

them there was a strong shortlist of 7 candidates drawn up that all the

professionals agreed upon. It is at this point in the process where things

began to fall apart.

The assistant head of HR approached the head of HR to inform them of

another applicant whom had previously been employed by the firm as a

trainee, was interested in the position. However, they were not going to be

able to get their application in by the deadline. The head of HR decided to

Recruitment and Selection - An Informed Agenda 1



Chris Waugh Ltd.

allow 3 days leniency for the old trainee anyway and added her name to the

shortlist.

The next step in the recruitment process was to put the shortlist of 8 people

through the presentation stage where they would be asked to what extent

they believed they were matched to the job description and the person

specification, and about what they could bring to the job to further the

companies objectives. This was followed by the interview stage to complete

what was a very thorough examination. The problem here was that only 7 of

the 8 candidates appeared for their interview. The former trainee did not

show and when called by the head of HR to find out why, was informed the

trainee had not received the invitation letter to the interview and so was notpresent. Again, the head of HR allows the former trainee leniency by allowing

her to miss the presentation and interview stage if it was made up when she

came in. However this did not happen and at the end of the process only 2

candidates emerged, one of which being the former trainee who was then

decided on by the panel as the successful candidate. She was informed of

the decision by the assistant HR manager and accepted.

At this point the rest of the panel called the unsuccessful candidates and

explained with feedback why they were unsuccessful. It was then that the

successful trainee called the head of HR to inform them that they would not

be taking the position after all, but would be returning to a better paying role

at their previous company.

Now the firm was left recalling a person that was already turned down for the

position to ask if they still wanted the job. Luckily they accepted, but this

should be a lesson that until a solid confirmation is received and contracted,

the other candidates should not be called.

The final issue here is that if there was a seemingly predetermined

acceptance of the old trainee by the head of HR without the need for the

application or the interview process, why the waste of time on the other

candidates? Why not just confirm the selection and push forward in hiring

her? We must understand the issue is not with the decision to hire her, as




Chris Waugh Ltd.

everyone on the panel already knew her, liked her, and knew she was

previously in-house trained. It was with the treatment of the other applicants

who if were privy to the firms recruitment process could have felt thatthrough national legislation on equal opportunities they were not treated

fairly. They were in fact strung along at a financial loss to themselves for

their days participation in a recruitment process, to which another candidate

who did not even have to follow the recruitment criteria was accepted.

In conclusion...

The firms loose employment agenda dangerously unfolded while attempting

to fill the roll of product development manager in R&D recently. This can not

continue. Many potential candidates could have raised issue with the entire

recruitment process fueling bad publicity. For being strung along while never

really having been in the running for the position from the outset. The firm

could have also been pushed into another costly and time-consuming

recruitment process should the runner up and others have moved on to other

opportunities. With this in mind in future, to employ any new member of

staff, the firm should always have to follow the same process for everycandidate regardless of their previous experience or circumstances.


Documents

Recruitment and Selection - An Informed Agenda