For example, if McDonalds are short on crewmembers (basic staff) what they do is advertise in local newspapers for applicants. All of whom are bought in for a 10 minute orientation and then thrown ‘straight into the deep end’. McDonalds don’t follow any stringent employment guidelines and basically hire who is available. They have a very high staff turnover, perhaps due to the nature of the job. This may be the reason why they don’t fund for stringent centers. In this example of a simple interview, given by a staff member who is available at the time is enough for McDonalds. Basically the approach McDonalds use regarding employment mirrors that of Rodgers seven point plan (1952). They don’t regard the competency-based approach very highly, opting to know only the essentials, which are required for the job i.e. physical make-up, general attainments, general intelligence etc.
Although I believe McDonalds use a very crude method of employment it obviously works for them. They are a global Billion $ organization which is known the world over, perhaps if they used a different method of employment it might not work for them.
Although McDonalds whom are such a big company use such a crude method for Recruitment & Selection, this will not work for all companies. As I previously mentioned, McDonalds don’t expect its employees to be an integral part of the long term plan or future, they see them more as short-term investments.
Although this is a superbly efficient system for McDonalds, this cant be said for many company’s. For instance, when a corporate company is taking on new staff and throwing a lot of money into Recruitment & Selection the employment process will differ a lot to that of a company such as McDonalds. This is because most companies are looking to secure the future of their companies by holding onto their employees for a long-term basis.
Firstly the approach of the company will lean more towards a competency based approach rather than a traditional grading system like Rodgers and Munroe-Fraiser. By using this approach, theoretically, the company will be able to match the candidate and job more closely. “A competencies based approach means that the competencies destined for a role are used as the framework for the selection process”.
I believe any company which takes this approach is thinking of not only short-term solutions to job vacancies, but also taking into account the long-term future of the organization.
For example, Toys ’r’ us believe in a competencies based approach and their approach towards Recruitment & Selection differs drastically to that of McDonalds. Toys ’r’ us favor the use of assessment centers of as a basis for Recruitment & Selection. Allot of money and resources go into the R and S of Toys’r’us. Who scrutinize over their employees.
Toys ’r’ us believe that assessment centers allow them to take a better look at their prospective employees, rather than using a basic interview approach, Although this may be so, it is however very costly and tine consuming and obviously doesn’t always work. Toys’r’us believe that in spite of the higher risk for failure the whole process is worth it.
In order for us to compare and contrast both interviews and assessment centers as mediums for Recruitment & Selection firstly we must look at both more closely.
Firstly of the two: the interview process is the basic method of evaluation as it allows the interviewer to interact face-to-face with the candidate. There are obvious flaws with the basic interview process. For instance, who conducts the interview? This is a very important factor, as the interviewer needs to have a specific idea of what is required to fulfill the job at hand. This in itself becomes a problem, as in most cases a ‘perfect’ candidate may never be found, so who makes the final decision? What framework should the interviewer adhere to, to scrutinize the prospective employee?
Most interviewers use one of the two basic classification schemes, the most familiar being Rodgers Seven Point Plan (1952) and the Two Fold Grading System by Munroe-Fraiser (1954). I have already brushed up on both of these schemes, but I believe both are very important as both provide the criteria for a very high % of interviews given today. By assessing your potential candidate using either of these two frameworks, you able to get an idea of the candidate’s previous career. Although many people still use these traditional classification schemes as a framework for Recruitment & Selection they are becoming somewhat outdated. In today’s world more and more interviewers are using a competencies based approach.
Another, if not one of the biggest problems with the interviews are ‘first impressions’, the initial impression that the interviewer gets. Although this is so trivial it is a fact that the interviewer makes up their mind in the first 3 minutes of meeting the candidate.
Also, how long is the interview? Is it long enough for the interviewer to take an in depth look at the candidate. Is it long enough for the candidate to show his/her true self? Again what if the interviewee gets to nervous? Should the basis for employment hinge entirely on the interview even if the candidate fulfills all of the essential criteria for hiring?
Although a basic interview has many flaws I believe it will continue to be the most efficient and effective means of R and S. The only change! Effective means of R and S. The only change I believe will be more of a competencies based approach rather than the traditional framework.
A more comprehensive approach to Recruitment & Selection is provided by assessment centers, they are the product of an evolving Recruitment & Selection process. They supplement selection with information acquired from psychometric testing and bio data, which allows for a more informed decision to be made. They provide a better in depth look at the candidate(s) by incorporating a wide range of assessment techniques. Assessment Centers allow for greater comparisons to be made between potential candidates, they allow for group exercises, which relate directly to the job. Candidates are subject to scrutiny by a panel of observers so an informed decision can be made. This allows a less biased decision to be made and as the whole assessment process is longer and more interactive, theoretically, it allows for a better decision to be made. Assessment Centers provide a good opportunity for employers to match candidates to the company culture and also enable the candidates to get a better feel for the organization in which it is applying for.
After evaluating interviews and assessment centers as a means for Recruitment & Selection, I believe that both provide essential answers, which are needed in order for the selection of a suitable candidate. However the use of one or the other isn’t as easy as just choosing. As I have mentioned previously it isn’t good management for a very costly means of Recruitment & Selection to be adopted if it is merely for a short-term solution. An interview can provide all the scrutiny, which is needed for selection of a candidate. Although many will argue that interviews are outdated and inefficient “Only 94 out of 1000 interviewees respond honestly in conventional interviews”. believe that they will continue to be the main tool for Recruitment & Selection as they are quick and provide the opportunity for rapport between interviewer and candidate.
Although Assessment Centers allow for a greater in depth look at employees and closer scrutiny, the fact is they are expensive, time consuming and don’t guarantee success.
So I believe that if a choice between the two were being made it cannot just hinge on the effectiveness of either, as obviously the assessment center would win hands down, but it would be a choice of which would be the most efficient and cost effective for that particular organization at that particular time.
Armstrong, M, HRM Practice, Page 389).
