Description of this paper

Online R?sum?s Are Here to Stay




Please read the below excerpts and answer the questions at the end of each.;READ THE QUESTIONS CAREFULLY, THEN THINK ABOUT YOUR ANSWER.;Essay Question 1 (75 Possible Points) ? Read the following scenario and answer the;questions at the end ? Please explain your answers fully;Online R?sum?s Are Here to Stay;The trend at many organizations is toward using computer software to match;candidates? qualifications to current job openings. How does it work? Instead of mailing;an 8 ?;-by 11-inch paper r?sum? to a hiring manager or human resource representative;job seekers are now asked to visit the company website to type in their r?sum? online.;After that, the r?sum? is screened and evaluated by a computer program on such factors;as relevant keywords, past experience, and education. For example, NuView software;which costs between $ 6 and $ 15 per month per user, asks candidates questions such as;?What is your level of education?? as they are completing the online application. If their;education level doesn?t match the requirements of the posted job, then the candidate?s;application is immediately ? knocked out? of the process. R?sum?s are even screened for;other reasons. For example, estimates indicate that up to 20 percent of online r?sum?s are;knocked out of consideration due to excessive job hopping and/ or the r?sum? contains;typos and grammatical errors.;What types of companies are using these r?sum? screening software programs?;Companies like Home Depot, BellSouth, Walgreens, United Parcel Service, Blockbuster;and Target all claim that online r?sum? technology saves their hiring managers a lot of;time and money, and the promising r?sum?s are instantly available to company;personnel. This makes the hiring process much more efficient.;Another benefit of the online r?sum? posting process has to do with the geographic;reach the company can have with regard to candidates. At General Electric, every job;opening is posted on the internal career website. If the hiring unit decides that it wants to;?;advertise the ad outside of the company, then the job opening is posted on the company;website and can attract applicants from around the world. Currently, GE receives;approximately 15,000 r?sum?s monthly, roughly half of which are submitted via the;online company website. GE managers believe that some candidates, even though they do;not live in the immediate location of the hiring unit, would be willing to relocate if they;found the right job at GE.;Some organizations, in addition to screening r?sum?s on their own company;websites, pay to post jobs on popular online recruiting websites. The largest online;recruiting web-sites include monster. com, careerbuilders. com, and hotjobs. com.;What does all of this mean for job seekers? The rules of the r?sum? submission;process are changing. Job seekers need to modify their r?sum?s so that they contain;relevant keywords that are more likely to be identified by these online r?sum? screening;software programs. Now more than ever, r?sum?s have to be typo-free and written with;excellent grammar. Also, job seekers need to practice submitting their r?sum?s online.;Perhaps they should start off by submitting their r?sum?s to a smaller online recruiting;website. After that, they can submit their r?sum? to the large boards (monster. com, etc.);and to specific company websites.;QUESTIONS ? Please Explain Your Answers Fully;A.;Why are so many companies shifting to online r?sum? screening programs to;sift through applicants? r?sum?s?;B.;Can you think of any disadvantages associated with the use of online r?sum?;screening? From the company?s perspective? The candidate?s perspective?;C.;What can job seekers do to improve their chances of making it through the;online r?sum? screening process and getting an interview?;Essay Question 2 (75 Possible Points) ? Read the following scenario and answer the;questions at the end ? Please explain your answers fully;The Politics of Performance Appraisal;Every Friday, Max Steadman, Jim Cobun, Lynne Sims, and Tom Hamilton meet at;Charley?s Food Place after work for refreshments. The four friends work as managers at;Eckel Industries, a manufacturer of arc welding equipment in Minneapolis. The one-;plant company employs about 2,000 people. The four managers work in the;manufacturing division. Max, 35, manages the company?s 25 quality control inspectors.;Lynne, 33, works as a supervisor in inventory management. Jim, 34, is a first-line;supervisor in the metal coating department. Tom, 28, supervises a team of assemblers.;The four managers? tenures at Eckel Industries range from 1 year (Tom) to 12 years;Max).The group is close-knit: Lynne, Jim, and Max?s friendship stems from their years as;undergraduate business students at the University of Minnesota. Tom, the newcomer;joined the group after meeting the three at an Eckel management seminar last year.;Weekly get-togethers at Charley?s have become a comfortable habit for the group and;provide an opportunity to relax, exchange the latest gossip heard around the plant, and;give and receive advice about problems encountered on the job.;This week?s topic of discussion: performance appraisal, specifically the company?s;annual review process, which the plant?s management conducted in the last week. Each;of the four managers completed evaluation forms (graphic rating scale format) on each;of his or her subordinates and met with each subordinate to discuss the appraisal.;Tom;This was the first time I?ve appraised my people, and I dreaded it. For me, it?s;been the worst week of the year. Evaluating is difficult, it?s highly subjective;and inexact. Your emotions creep into the process. I got angry at one of my;assembly workers last week, and I still felt the anger when I was filling out the;evaluation forms. Don?t tell me that my frustration with the guy didn?t bias;my appraisal. I think it did. And I think the technique is flawed. Tell me?;what?s the difference between a five and a six on ? cooperation??;Jim;The scales are a problem. So is memory. Remember our course in human;resource management in college? Phillips said that, according to research;when we sit down to evaluate someone?s performance in the past year, we will;be able to actively recall and use only 15 percent of the performance we;observed.;Lynne I think political considerations are always a part of the process. I know I;consider many other factors besides a person?s actual performance when I;appraise him.;Tom;Like what?;Lynne Like the appraisal will become part of the permanent written record that;affects his career. Like the person I evaluate today, I have to work with;tomorrow. Given that, the difference between a five and a six on cooperation;isn?t that relevant, because frankly, if a five makes him mad, and he?s happy;with a six....;Max;Then you give him the six. Accuracy is important, but I?ll admit it? accuracy;isn?t my primary objective when I evaluate my workers. My objective is to;motivate and reward them so they?ll perform better. I use the review process;to do what?s best for my people and my department. If that means fine-tuning;the evaluations to do that, I will.;Tom;What?s an example of fine-tuning?;Max;Jim, do you remember three years ago when the company lowered the ceiling;on merit raises? The top merit increase that any employee could get was 4;percent. I boosted the ratings of my folks to get the best merit increases for;them. The year before that, the ceiling was 8 percent. The best they could get;was less than what most of them received the year before. I felt they deserved;the 4 percent, so I gave the marks that got them what I felt they deserved.;Lynne I?ve inflated ratings to encourage someone who is having personal problems;but is normally a good employee. A couple of years ago, one of my better;people was going through a painful divorce, and it was showing in her work. I;don?t think it?s fair to kick people when they?re down.;Tom;Or make her complacent.;Lynne No, I don?t think so. I felt she realized her work was suffering. I wanted to;give her encouragement, it was my way of telling her she had some support;and that she wasn?t in danger of losing her job.;Jim;There?s another situation where I think fine-tuning is merited? when;someone?s work has been mediocre or even poor for most of the year, but it;improves substantially in the last two, three months or so. If I think the guy is;really trying and is doing much better, I?d give him a rating that?s higher than;his work over the whole year deserves. It encourages him to keep improving.;If I give him a mediocre rating, what does that tell him?;Tom;What if he?s really working hard, but not doing so great?;Jim;If I think he has what it takes, I?d boost the rating to motivate him to keep;trying until he gets there.;Max;I know of one or two managers who?ve inflated ratings to get rid of a pain in;the neck, some young guy who?s transferred in and thinks he?ll be there a;short time. He?s not good, but thinks he is, and creates all sorts of problems.;Or his performance is okay, but he just doesn?t fit in with the rest of the;department. A year or two of good ratings is a sure trick for getting rid of him.;Tom;Yes, but you?re passing the problem on to someone else.;Max;True, but it?s no longer my problem.;Tom;All the examples you?ve talked about involve inflating evaluations. What;about deflating them, giving someone less than you really think he deserves?;Is that justified?;Lynne I?d hesitate to do that because it can create problems. It can backfire.;Max;But it does happen. You can lower a guy?s ratings to shock him, to jolt him;into performing better. Sometimes, you can work with people, coach them, tryto help them improve, and it just doesn?t work. A basement-level rating can;tell someone you mean business. You can say that isn?t fair, and for the time;being, it isn?t. But what if you feel that if the guy doesn?t shape up, he faces;being fired in a year or two, and putting him in the cellar, ratings-wise, will;solve his problem? It?s fair in the long run if the effect is that he improves his;work and keeps his job.;Jim;Sometimes, you get someone who?s a real rebel, who always questions you;sometimes even oversteps his bounds. I think deflating his evaluation is;merited just to remind him who?s the boss.;Lynne I?d consider lowering the true rating if someone had a long record of rather;questionable performance, and I think the best alternative for the person is to;consider another job with another company. A low appraisal sends him a;message to consider quitting and start looking for another job.;Max;What if you believe the situation is hopeless, and you?ve made up your mind;that you?re going to fire the guy as soon as you?ve found a suitable;replacement? The courts have chipped away at management?s right to fire.;Today, when you fire someone, you must have a strong case. I think once a;manager decides to fire, appraisals become very negative. Anything good that;you say about the subordinate can be used later against you. Deflating the;ratings protects you from being sued and sometimes speeds up the termination;process.;Tom;I understand your point, but I still believe that accuracy is the top priority in;performance appraisal. Let me play devil?s advocate for a minute. First, Jim;you complained about our memory limitations introducing a bias into;appraisal. Doesn?t introducing politics into the process further distort the truth;by introducing yet another bias? Even more important, most would agree that;one key to motivating people is providing true feedback? the facts about how;they?re doing so they know where they stand. Then you talk with them about;how to improve their performance. When you distort an evaluation? however;slightly? are you providing this kind of feedback?;Max;I think you?re overstating the degree of fine-tuning.;Tom;Distortion, you mean.;Max;No, fine-tuning. I?m not talking about giving a guy a seven when he deserves;a two or vice versa. It?s not that extreme. I?m talking about making slight;changes in the ratings when you think that the change can make a big;difference in terms of achieving what you think is best for the person and for;your department.;Tom;But when you fine-tune, you?re manipulating your people. Why not give;them the most accurate evaluation, and let the chips fall where they may?;Give them the facts, and let them decide.;Max;Because most of good managing is psychology? understanding people, their;strengths and shortcomings, knowing how to motivate, reward, and act to do;what?s in their and your department?s best interest. And sometimes total;accuracy is not the best path.;Jim;All this discussion raises a question. What?s the difference between fine-;tuning and significant distortion? Where do you draw the line?;Lynne That?s about as easy a question as what?s the difference between a five and;six. On the form, I mean.;QUESTIONS ? Please Explain Your Answers Fully;A.;In your opinion, and from an HRM perspective, what are the objectives of;employee performance evaluation?;B.;On the basis of these objectives, evaluate the perspectives about performance;appraisal presented by the managers.;C.;Assume you are the vice president of HRM at Eckel Industries and that you are;aware that fine-tuning evaluations is a prevalent practice among Eckel;managers. If you disagree with this perspective, what steps would you take to;reduce the practice?;Additional Requirements;Min Pages: 1;Level of Detail: Only answer needed


Paper#17224 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $37