Case :  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 shortlisted candidates, a high-tech company, Company X, made an offer to one and advised the other two candidates that they were unsuccessful. He 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 3 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'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.

 

Case Questions:

 

1.     Did the candidate act in an appropriate manner?

2.    What should the candidate have done?

3.    Did Company Y act ethically, knowing that the candidate had verbally accepted another offer?

4.    Does a verbal acceptance constitute a legal and binding contract?

5.    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?

6.    Describe what Company X should have done to maintain the candidate's interest in the position. 

 

 

Case : Emotional Intelligence or Cognitive Ability?

Cognitive ability tests are very reliable and validly measures of job performance. Cognitive ability tests normally assess reasoning, verbal, and quantitative ability. A recent survey, however found that 71% 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 and in many cases the specific measure of EI did not correlate with job performance. The survey found that 59% of employers would not hire someone with high cognitive ability but low EI. 75% 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 employee:

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 a VP 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 perspective team members. Technical competency and intelligence are important assets for every worker, but when its down to you and another candidate for 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.

Case Questions

 

1.     What do you think? Should the hiring managers prefer EI over cognitive ability in predicting job performance? Why?

 

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?

 

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?

 

4.     What are the legal considerations of using EI tests with poor reliability and validity? What are the business costs?

 

5.    If you were hiring for a leadership positions, what mix of tests related to the questions/case above, would you implement to ensure you are hiring the best person for the role? 

Case : Recruiting in a Competitive Environment:

1. Did the candidate act in an appropriate manner?

The candidate should not have verbally accepted the offer made by Company X. If he did so, he should not have changed his mind by formally accepting the offer from Company Y. This shows the candidate's commitment level. Also it shows that candidate may be fickle minded and an impulsive decision maker.

2.    What should the candidate have done?

Once he committed verbally, the candidate should have honoured his initial statement and accepted the offer from Company X.

3.    Did Company Y act ethically, knowing that the candidate had verbally accepted another offer?

Poaching candidates is not an ethical way of hiring and Company Y should not have made any offer once it got to know that the candidate had already verbally accepted the offer from Y. This kind of impulsive decision also speaks volumes about the candidate's nature and the candidate could also do such a thing to Company Y.

4.    Does a verbal acceptance constitute a legal and binding contract?

An offer once accepted by the candidate is considered legally binding even though its verbally accepted. The candidate can sue the firm if it withdraws the offer and in a similar manner the firm can also sue the candidate.

5.    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?

Company X should try to take action only if it feels that the pursuit is worth the company's time and money. It would be better to drop such a candidate and look for more reliable candidates. Company X cannot take any legal action against Company Y as it cannot prove that Y had any information regarding candidate's previous acceptance. Also there is no contract between X and Y so Company X cannot formally sue Company Y.

6.    Describe what Company X should have done to maintain the candidate's interest in the position. 

Company X should have given the candidate the required time for the decision making process. This way the candidate could have avoided such hasty and quick decisions which put a question on his credibility.

Case : Emotional Intelligence or Cognitive Ability?

1.   What do you think? Should the hiring managers prefer EI over cognitive ability in predicting job performance? Why?

El and cognitive ability are both equally important when considering hiring a new employee. High scores on cognitive tests demonstrate a better ability to learn and understand. A combination of both the screening methods can be a better predictor of a person's ability. The job requirement plays a major role in these decisions. Depending on the job requirement a higher weightage can be attached to either of the above.

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?

If EI was part of the selection system, one should ensure that different processes such as personal interviews, questionnaires, psychometric tests they all indicate a consistent result. In this way one can deduce or draw a logical conclusion from the selection processes. The screening methods should all add up to a logical answer. By choosing candidates with consistent answers over the ones with inconsistent answers, the firm can show that measure was reliable and valid.

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?

EI tests can be set up in such a manner where the candidate with an intention to fake gives inconsistent responses or contradictory answers. Only candidates who give consistent responses across various screening procedures should be considered as authentic. Candidates giving contradictory responses should be rejected. The tests can be correctly set up but have the ability to trick candidates (who have an intention to fake) into giving inconsistent responses. These procedures will not lower the reliability and will instead help the firm choose the candidate with the most logical thought process. 

4. What are the legal considerations of using EI tests with poor reliability and validity? What are the business costs?

Reliability and validity of tests are extremely important for the firm's credibility. If a test yields inconsistent results, it may be unethical to take any decisions on the basis of the test. If a test has poor validity then it does not measure the competencies it should. Making a decision based on poor reliability and validity increase the chances of hiring a wrong person and therefore creates a bad work environment. Each wrong decision costs a business 1.5 times to 5 times that employee's salary and benefits. The benefits of more successful employees far outweigh potential legal costs. Employers should use valid, reliable, and legally sustainable tests in hiring employees, not only because this will reduce potential lawsuits but also because In this way employers can identify the best candidate for the job.

5.If you were hiring for a leadership positions, what mix of tests related to the questions/case above, would you implement to ensure you are hiring the best person for the role? 

A leadership role requires a mature and calm personality who can handle issues with ease. He should be able to give directions to get things done and should also be the go to person for any questions/clarifications. For this kind of role a combination of the EI and cognitive ability tests should be conducted though additional importance should be given to the emotional quotient. When candidates are shortlisted for a leadership role, their cognitive abilities would be the same more or less. What really puts the right candidate apart is the emotional intelligence or how smoothly the person handles all operations. Thus to higher for a leadership position, additional emphasis should be given to tests related to emotional intelligence.