Recruitment and Placement
Recruitment and Placement
MGMT 2203
Les Kauer
May 2, 2012
Overview At BMG they are having a little problem with a recent hire and the process that landed that employee in that position. The VP of HR is dealing with an upset hiring manager about a new hire that is not going well. The VP wants her to understand that it is not HR’s fault that the person was eventually chosen. She on the other hand wants him to admit fault. The back and forth gets a little heated and ultimately no solution is found and agreed upon for the blame of their circumstances.
1. Do you agree or disagree with BMG’s HR vice president when he tells the hiring manager that “your department picked him, so if the candidate did not work out it’s your fault, not ours.” What, if anything, does an approach like that say about the extent to which HR in this company views itself is a strategic partner?
I disagree with BMG’s HR vice president when he tells the hiring manager that it isn’t HR’s fault for hiring the wrong person. Though I’m a little confused by what he means when he says “We went with someone who didn’t meet all the criteria” because I don’t know if he meant before he sent the three candidates to her or after when they agreed to hire Roger on. The HR VP does a little double talking himself but he does so much finger pointing in his defense that I can’t really respect him. He accidently admitted where he was at fault, then instead of owning it still found a place to lay the blame. This says that HR sees themselves as a strategic partner but without any full responsibility. They might have seen that the three people out of the four that were interviewed out of the 60 and knew that they hadn’t found a fully qualified person. But then just sent the problem over to the hiring manager because they knew time was running out and it wouldn’t be there problem. If they didn’t do this, the VP’s attitude and defensive blaming nature don’t help me think otherwise. 2. If you had been
MGMT 2203
Les Kauer
May 2, 2012
Overview At BMG they are having a little problem with a recent hire and the process that landed that employee in that position. The VP of HR is dealing with an upset hiring manager about a new hire that is not going well. The VP wants her to understand that it is not HR’s fault that the person was eventually chosen. She on the other hand wants him to admit fault. The back and forth gets a little heated and ultimately no solution is found and agreed upon for the blame of their circumstances.
1. Do you agree or disagree with BMG’s HR vice president when he tells the hiring manager that “your department picked him, so if the candidate did not work out it’s your fault, not ours.” What, if anything, does an approach like that say about the extent to which HR in this company views itself is a strategic partner?
I disagree with BMG’s HR vice president when he tells the hiring manager that it isn’t HR’s fault for hiring the wrong person. Though I’m a little confused by what he means when he says “We went with someone who didn’t meet all the criteria” because I don’t know if he meant before he sent the three candidates to her or after when they agreed to hire Roger on. The HR VP does a little double talking himself but he does so much finger pointing in his defense that I can’t really respect him. He accidently admitted where he was at fault, then instead of owning it still found a place to lay the blame. This says that HR sees themselves as a strategic partner but without any full responsibility. They might have seen that the three people out of the four that were interviewed out of the 60 and knew that they hadn’t found a fully qualified person. But then just sent the problem over to the hiring manager because they knew time was running out and it wouldn’t be there problem. If they didn’t do this, the VP’s attitude and defensive blaming nature don’t help me think otherwise. 2. If you had been