An Indiscreet Conversation on Hiring
Case Study 2
Jerdson L. Gamble
The purpose of this case study is to examine the legitimacy of the hiring agenda of four friends Joe, Steven, Matt, and Andrew. The major issue focused on in this paper will be the hiring process, discrimination, employment qualifications, and employment equity. In all this paper will review the responsibility that managers have when thinking about when decisions to make when hiring especially in high-risk reward situations.
An Indiscreet Conversation on Hiring Case Study 2
This case study is centered on the question of hiring a qualified candidate. The candidate is very well qualified and happens to be a female. During the conversation about the consideration of hiring the candidate it is clear that because of her experience, education and other qualifications that she would be the best fit for the job. However, the idea that the candidate may be ready to get married and have kids becomes an issue for the men who are making the hiring decision. During the conversation, it comes to light that two other candidates have been interviewed. The other two candidate options happen to be male. Both male options have similar education backgrounds to the female candidate however they do have less work experience than the female candidate. In the eyes of Joe, Steven, Matt, and Andrew this decision ultimately come down to coast benefit analysis or a risk-reward decision. Regardless of how these men view this decision, because they bought her potential pregnancy into the conversation they are now working with a decision based around sexism and gender discrimination.
The conversation becomes an issue when, according to Fundamentals of Executive Management (2011), Joes brings up the fact that he has just interviewed a very well deserving candidate for a new position. Joe loves the fact that she has an Ivey League MBA and also has a work background...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document