Questions

CASE STUDY (20 Marks)

PEERING INTO YOUR PAST

In this age of seemingly social and humanitarian values, its ironic that employers are peering deeper than ever into our backgrounds, often without our knowledge. In large part, this change is a reflection of our economic times. Though there are skill shortages in some industries, most employers have plenty of applicants from which to choose, meaning they can afford to carefully check into applicants backgrounds. And check they haveemployment screening is booming.

Background checks are done with the applicants authorization in most, but not all, cases. One staffing expert said, Im shocked how many employers are not getting applicant authorizations. Moreover, when a background check does reveal a problem, most employers dont inform the applicant that this is the reason for their rejection. When Theodore Pendergrass was rejected for a store supervisor job at Walgreens, the company, unlike most, told him the background screening firm ChoicePoint found a past employer had accused him of stealing $7,313 in merchandise. Pendergrass was shocked. I wanted to cry, he said. Despite proving the charges false, Pendergrass was similarly rejected by other employers that used ChoicePoint, including CVS and Target. Eventually Starbucks, which doesnt use screening firms for entry-level positions, hired him.

This is not to suggest background checks have no merit. Past behavior often forecasts the future, and malfeasance is a huge problem for most companies. Across industries, roughly 10 percent of applicants have criminal records, and more have driving violations (48 percent), employment verification problems on their application or rsum (48 percent), or credit problems (43 percent). Background checks dont stop with screening firms. A lot of companies also mine the Internetincluding Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, message boards, and blogsfor information about prospective job candidates. Flight attendant Ellen Simonetti lost

her job at Delta after she posted some suggestive pictures of herself in uniform (even though she didnt identify Delta as her employer). She sued Delta and lost. Heather Armstrong wrote about her job in a blog

and was fired. She started a Web site (Dooce.com), which spawned a neologismDoocedto describe workers fired for what they post on the Web.

Questions

Do you think employers have a right to investigate applicants by Googling them or exploring sites such as MySpace or Twitter? What about checking out their current employers? (5)

When applicants apply for a job, typically they give employers permission to look into their background. Do you agree this absolves employers of moral blame for such digging? (5)

If you worked for a consumer products company that asked you to develop a background check policy, what would be some central tenets of your recommended program?(5)

As we noted in this chapter, if an employer doesnt check the background of an applicant with a criminal history who then harms others at work, the employer can be liable for negligent hiring. What do you think of such a policy? Does it influence your attitudes toward background checking? (5

STRUCTURED QUESTIONS

1. By way of a diagram explain the various steps in the communication process in any organisation that you are familiar with. Provide suggestions on how you think communication can be improved in that organisation (10)

2.By way of practical examples discuss the different sources of power and indicate which power bases are based within the individual and which ones are derived from the organisation?(10)

3.Men Make better leaders than women . Discuss your view about this statement and motivate your answer with relevant examples. (10)