Reference no: EM133278243

Monica is the HR manager at a family owned medium sized company in Kamloops, BC. Monica, a graduate of Simon Fraser University with a degree in Psychology joined the company just over a year ago. Prior to joining she worked in the HR department of Telus for 3 years.

The company manufactures a specialty line of high-end bindings for skis and snowboards and has about 45 employees. Recently the company displayed its line of products at the "European Snow Show" in Munich, Germany. This show is an annual event and attended by equipment manufacturers from around the world, both large and small. A number of well-known international ski and snowboard manufacturers expressed an interest in the company's products and unique designs. In a preliminary discussion with prospective customers it became evident the company would need to implement a formal quality control program and obtain designation to expand into the international market. In the past the company was very careful in hiring practises and employees were treated like family members. It seemed a quality assurance program was unnecessary. However to grow and be an international supplier a quality program was a must and Monica was asked to get started. Her first step was to hire a Quality Assurance Manager. The owners and management all agreed that the successful candidate must have the both the personality and skills to lead the program but also respect the loyalty and dedication of current employees.

Monica advertised in regional newspapers and brought the opportunity to the attention of the company's employees. After a few months she indentified 3 possible candidates including one from a US competitor, another from Toronto and one of the of the company's own employees. All had relevant training in quality management and appeared capable of doing the job. After a telephone interview and a lengthy off- site interview attended by the owner and VP Operations, each candidate was brought to the company's plant for a final interview and an opportunity to see the company's operation first hand. It was Monica's intention to carefully observe each candidate as they interacted with peers and employees during the on-site visit.

The first candidate was a quality assurance supervisor for a well-respected US competitor. He seemed confident, interviewed well and his experience and background were impressive. During the plant tour he seemed to be in a hurry and seemed dismissive with employees. He expressed concern that certain assembly stations were slow and the company's technology was outdated. He made several other recommendations comparing the operation of his company to Monica's. They seemed reasonable but Monica was concerned his comments may have been hasty and she had an uneasy feeling with the undertone of criticism.

The second candidate had an excellent background in all aspects of quality assurance in the automotive industry. She was a mechanical engineer and had worked for the Ford Motor Company in Oakville, Ontario for 22 years. She was laid off for economic reasons and had good references from Ford. Although soft spoken she was clearly knowledgeable in the design and implementation of quality assurance programs. During the plant tour she often paused and examined various assembly stations. She asked employee's a number of questions. She was polite and seemed genuinely interested in what employees were doing. She commented on the cleanliness and organization of the plant's workstations, inventory and final assembly.

Candidate 3 had worked for the company for over 5 years and for the last year was Purchasing and Inventory Supervisor. In the course of 5 years he had worked every job in the plant. He was well known and well liked by the owners, his peers and employees. He had completed a Business Administration Degree from a local college at night. Prior to joining the company he worked for a large local construction firm and during that time was trained in quality assurance including attendance at a 1 week off-site program sponsored by his employer. He did not feel it necessary to have a formal tour. Monica agreed. She had observed his behaviour for some time. He was often on the shop floor visiting with employees and from all reports was performing well in his current role. He was close to the owner, an avid snowboarder and frequently tested the company's products on local ski hills.

On Friday afternoon after a long week of on-site interviews, Monica met with the owners and senior managers to discuss their observations and get feedback. They discussed each candidate at length but there was no consensus as to the best candidate. All seemed to have good and bad points. Monica was asked to write a final report over the weekend and recommend a candidate.

Questions

Monica Case

1. What is your team's initial "perception" of each of the 3 candidates? Consider both motivation and bias including attribution theory, self-serving, selective perception, halo effect and contrast effect.

American competitor - Senior QC Supervisor

Mechanical Engineer Ford, Oakville

Internal candidate - Purchasing and Inventory Supervisor

2. What is your preferred candidate from an "emotional perspective"? Explain.....

3. Who is your preferred candidate from a "business perspective"? Explain....

4. What is your recommendation to Senior Management. How will you defend your selection if quizzed by your senior executives and peers? Be clear and, both, explain and defend your position. This is your professional responsibility in the company.