PLEASE HELP WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

Your task: 1) Discuss which selection tools you think are useful and discuss why (base this on what you are learning in the chapter and/or personal experience.) Are there any assessments you think should be eliminated from this decision?

2) Rank order your top 4 candidates and provide a brief discussion of how this rank ordering was reached (a rationale for some candidate being ranked higher than others.) Give a brief justification for applicants you are not ranking in the top 4. Take into account any factors you feel may be relevant.

3) Discuss how you will change the selection process in the future. Include what you mentioned above in question 1 regarding assessments you would get rid of AND talk about anything else you would change.

INFORMATION BELOW..

Dynamo Industries Plant Manager Selection Case

Dynamo Industries is a medium-sized manufacturer of small electrical motors headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. The firm employs 9,800 people. Dynamo Industries has plants in St. Paul; Columbus, Ohio; Atlanta; San Diego; Pittsburgh; Providence, Rhode Island, and Little Rock, Arkansas. All these plants are unionized, although the power of the respective unions varies greatly.

Recently, the company has been trying to hire a new plant manager (see job description in Exhibit 6.2.1) for the Pittsburgh plant (plant managers report directly to the vice president of production). Although Dynamo Industries has experienced slightly above average growth and profit compared to its competitors, the Pittsburgh plant has been a trouble spot. Over the past three years, production costs there have been extremely high and there has been labor strife (e.g., numerous work slow-downs, an excessive number of grievances files.) The most recent Pittsburgh plant manager was terminated although by mutual agreement the company stated he left for a better job with another company. Because of the importance of the plant manager position, Dynamo Industries has used several expensive selection devices. These devices are detailed below. After a thorough recruitment effort (both within and outside the company) and some initial screening, the list of job candidates has been reduced to eight names. . Dynamo Industries does not have an established philosophy for filling job openings. In the past, it has favored promotion from within the company. However, the vice president of production was hired externally. Dynamo has no policy on lateral transfers. The key issue seems to be whether the company benefits from the transfer.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CANDIDATES

1. Geroge Feinage 44. Education: B.A., University of Wisconsin; M.A. (Industrial Relations), Cornell University. He is a plant manager of a relatively small (580 nonunion employees) plant (located in Cleveland) of one of Dynamos competitors. George has held that job for the past six years. He has been with the company for 14 years. No reference information was gathered because George was concerned about his present employers reaction.

2. Tony Caciopoage 59. Education: high school graduate. He is an assistant plant manager (Providence). Caciopo has been with Dynamo for 24 years. He has been assistant plant manager in Providence for the past 10 years. He had a severe heart attach four years ago but appears to have recovered. Ten years ago, he was offered a job as plant manager by Dynamo but turned it down because of health problems his wife was having.

3. Kathy Joyceage 36. Education: B.A., Indiana University. She is currently plant manager of the Little Rock plant. She desires a lateral transfer because it would enhance job opportunities for her husband. Joyce has been with Dynamo for five years and has been plant manager at Little Rock for two years.

4. Barry Martin age 49. Education: associate degree (2 years) from Morehead State University. Until two month ago, Martin was plant manager at a large, unionized textile plant. Two months ago, the company Martin worked for discontinued this product line and he was let go. Martin had been with his former company for 20 years and was plant manager for 5 years. His letters of reference were excellent.

5. Ron Jacksonage 33. Education: B.A., Howard University: M.B.A., Northwestern. He is currently an assistant plant manager at the Pittsburgh plant. He has been with the company for four years: he has been assistant plant manager for two years. He has served as acting plant manager at Pittsburgh for the past two months.

6. Jay Davisage 46. Education: B.A., Harvard; M.B.A., Harvard. He is currently assistant plant manager (Atlanta). Davis has been with Dynamo for 10 years; the past 7 years he has been assistant plant manager (6 years in St. Paul, the past year in Atlanta)

7. Frank Hallage 58. Education: B.S. (chemistry), Duke University. He is currently vice president for production for one of Dynamos major competitors. He says he seeks a demotion so that he is required to travel less. He has been vice president of production for six years. Before that, he was a plant manager for 12 years. The plant was organized. No reference information is available. However, he has received outstanding reviews in trade publications for his performance as vice preside

8. Tom Doyleage 36. Education: B.A., Williams College: M.B.A., University of Chicago. For the past two years, Tom has worked as a special assistant to the vice president of production. Before this he was an assistant PM for two years and a PM (Little Rock) for three years. Tom was the youngest PM ever appointed at Dynamo. He was very ineffective as a PM and after three years was removed from this position

PERSONALITY PROFILE INFORMATION BELOW

Each of the eight candidates was examined by a psychiatrist. She utilized personality tests (e.g., 16PF, the MyersBriggs Type Indicator, and the Thematic Apperception Test) in drawing the following conclusions. Note: The intelligence test (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) given by Dynamo Industries is commonly used for selecting candidates for management. Individuals scoring below 115 tend not to do well in managerial jobs. Standard error equals 3.5