Objective 02:

The reasons the selection committee had for choosing only those factors for
the selection process which could not be acquired in a two year training
program
Answer 02:
Selection may be expressed as the process of interviewing and evaluating
candidates for a specific job and selecting an individual for employment
based on certain criteria. Employee selection can range from a very simple
process to a very complicated process depending on the firm hiring and the
position. Certain employment laws such as anti-discrimination laws must be
obeyed during employee selection.

To plan for the future recruitment needs of an organization, HR managers

need to consider the future, i.e. changes in mission, strategic goals and
objectives, organizational demand, new legislation or economic conditions.

Human Resources and hiring managers can use an organizational strategic

plan as an input to the recruitment needs assessment process. The aim of
the recruitment needs assessment is to ensure that people with the
required knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) are hired in the numbers
required by the organization in order to meet organizational goals and
objectives.

As in the case of Ovania Chemicals, the selection committee has chosen to

neglect the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) that may justifiably be
deemed to be obtainable during a maximum of Two-Year Training Period.
This was deliberately done to encourage existing System Analyzers to
reapply and existing lower level employees to apply.

The company has had a troubled past with employee discrimination and
most probably seen a high employee turnover as may be expected from a
discriminatory employment environment. Under such conditions, the

management seems to be leaning toward creating a fairer and just

employment environment. As such, it is reasonable for them to try and retain
the current employees when it is justifiable.
When faced with the option of hiring new System Analyzers, retaining
existing System Analyzers or promoting lower level employees to the System
Analyzer position; the selection committee in trying to follow the
managements lead of trying to retain existing employees and creating a
more healthy work environment has decided to leave out the KSAs that may
be justifiably expected to be attained within a Two-Year period which is the
amount of time left till the new job responsibilities come into effect.
This ensures a fair chance for the existing employees to be re-hired and/or
promoted as the case may be. The selection committee in effect is expecting
the bare minimum from the recruits or promotees which if not demanded
may render the whole selection process ineffective. This will eventually mean
that any existing employee who may be selected for the position may need
to be trained for a period of Two Years or less (depending upon the level of
KSAs the employee possesses).
This does not necessarily mean that new blood is being discriminated
against as they are also being evaluated using the same bare minimum
KSAs. It should however be noted that this also encourages some new
blood to apply for this position and possibly be accepted for the role who
may need a two year training program as well to function properly. This may
increase the costs for the company in training the new bloods
unnecessarily as they might have been able to recruit more fit personnel if
they had chosen to evaluate them on the full range of KSAs required to
function optimally.
On the positive side, this move by the management may increase employee
loyalty and reduce overall employee turnover which may eventually lead to
lower costs in terms of lower recruitment costs in the future, less training
needed due to skilled employees remaining in the company for longer, etc.
Also, this pushes the company toward creating and maintaining a more
healthy work environment.

Objective 03:
Discussing whether the concern for women getting down into the dirty
treatment tank should have been a selection issue and how that might be
included in a selection battery.
Answer 03:
The issue is not whether women would be comfortable or willing to get down
into dirty treatment tanks. This issue is whether recruits would be
comfortable or willing to get down into dirty treatment tanks. Phrasing it in
terms of women or minorities is simply racism and gender discrimination.
The existing System Analyzers are all white males, some selection
committee members think women and minorities may not possess the
required KSAs, many did not consider women were fit for holding a
prestigious job such as System Analyzer and finally, many thought women
would not get into dirty treatment tanks. The facts when put together into a
single sentence clearly explain Ovanias unenviable history of employment
discrimination charges.
It is fair to say that some women may not want to work in a dirty work
environment but it should also be a concern that some men may not be
willing or comfortable to either. The notion that women cant work in hostile
work environments, dirty work environments or any other work environment
is simply wrong and discriminatory. The issue should be phrased as Would
the potential recruit be willing and comfortable to get down into the Dirty
Treatment Tanks?

Since the System Analyzer position is one of the most prestigious nonmanagerial jobs at Ovania, it is easy to imagine that a dirty work
environment may not be expected by many of the potential recruits being
evaluated and as such, this should be a major concern for the selection
committee. Also the fact that this specific task was not mentioned anywhere
in the job description may be further evidence that the candidates are not
expecting such a task.
In conclusion, the selection committee has no valid reason nor legal ground
for being worried about women getting down into the dirty treatment tanks.
However, they have every reason to be worried about their candidates not
willing or comfortable getting down into the dirty treatment tanks. This issue
should definitely be addressed.
If I had to include it in the selection battery, I would do it in the following
ways:
-

I would first and foremost phrase it more appropriately and effectively

as Would the potential recruit be willing and comfortable to get down
into the Dirty Treatment Tanks?

I personally would have preferred including it in the job description

from the beginning but as that has not been done, an amended job
description (including this task marked clearly as newly added) may be
presented to all the candidates for their consideration.

I may ask the candidates individually during a personal interview

session regarding their comfort and willingness regarding the
respective task.

I may opt to include a new step in the selection process where the
candidates take a practical gauge reading in the dirty treatment tanks
so as to observe their willingness and comfort doing the task.

ANSWER 2 POINTS FOR SLIDES:

-

done to encourage existing System Analyzers to reapply

existing lower level employees to apply

Fair chance for existing employees
Fair chance for new employees
Choosing employees based on the requirements that can not be trained
within the time frame estimated for the new job requirements and skill
needed to kick in
Should be noted that this might pose higher costs for Ovania
But it may increase employee loyalty
May decrease overall employee turnover
May lead to a more healthy employment environment

ANSWER 3 POINTS FOR SLIDES:

-

The issue is not just of women getting down into Dirty Treatment Tanks
Issue of gender discrimination
May also be an issue of Racism
Notion that women cant work in hostile environments is wrong
Agreed some women might not want to just as some men might have an
issue with that
Should at least be given a fair chance

Issue should be would the recruit object to getting down into dirty treatment
tank
So, NO on concern for women
YES on concern for Recruit
Could have been included in the job description to root out all concerns
completely
May be asked during personal interviews
Could include a final practical test for checking gauge readings at Tanks