Final Essay

Aaron Moreno

Prof. Wallace Williams

MGT 305

5-4-18

To Hire or Not to Hire

Problem Identification

In the case, the company is looking to hire a computer analysis. It is the duty of the HR manager to identify the right personnel for the post. After a series of interviews, the selection panel settled on a candidate with superior qualifications when compared to the other applicants. However, she lied on her application by stating that she had never had a criminal record. A background check indicated that she had been convicted for writing a fake check 18 years ago. Despite her flaw, the supervisor still recommended her for the job and suggested that the manager should approve her selection.

The main question in the case is if people with a past criminal record should be given a second chance in employment. In addition, it also raises the issue of trust and its bearing on the decision made by managers. Given that the candidate failed to disclose her criminal record in her application, it is a contentious issue whether she should be considered for the job solely on the basis of her superior qualifications.

Analysis/Evaluation

There are several stakeholders in the case. The applicant fits this criterion since she is looking for a chance to join the company’s staff. Therefore, the decision of the HR department determines her future in the job market. Nevertheless, she poses a threat for the company due to her past. It is unclear if she is still a dishonest person or she has changed. The applicant is also an opportunity for the organization due to her impressive skills and resume.

The second stakeholder is the supervisor. He has put his reputation on the line by endorsing the applicant. If his judgment about her is wrong, he faces the possibility of losing his job and causing loses for the company. However, if his intuition is right, then his stock in the company would rise.

The manager is also a stakeholder in the case. He has to determine if the applicant is fit to work in the company. If he misjudges the situation, he might lose a real asset for the organization or hire an unethical employee. The company is also in this category since the performance of the staff directly affects its success.

It is the ethical responsibility of the applicant to disclose the truth even though it might hurt her chances of being employed. In addition, the HR department and the company have the legal and ethical responsibility of ensuring that the employees do not undermine the interest of shareholders (Deckop). Finally, the supervisor and the manager have the economic responsibility of ensuring that the employees they recruit are an asset for the organization.

Recommendations

The best ethical framework in the case is the duty-based approach (Köster). It is always important to give people a second chance so that they can live with dignity and purpose. Therefore, I would recommend hiring the applicant on probationary basis. If she proves that she is trustworthy and competent, then her positions would be made permanent. The alternative would be to turn her away or encourage her to apply for programs that did not put emphasis on criminal records to avoid ethical issues.

If it is discovered that the applicant lied unintentionally, then she would be given a permanent position without probation. Finding out that the candidate was honest would make a big difference in how she will be perceived.

Normally, lying in an application should result in automatic disqualification. However, her conviction occurred 18 years ago, and the supervisor showed confidence in her skills. Therefore, if she stayed out of trouble after her poor judgment, she should be given a chance to earn a decent living using her skills. In this context, her situation should be given further consideration.

The manager should also be allowed to hire the applicant based on his intuition. Even though the job contender lied in the application, she did not show any signs of being a serial lawbreaker. Therefore, if the manager is willing to put his reputation on the line and back the candidate, he should hire the analyst. Nevertheless, the company should make it clear that the HR head is responsible for the recruit, and if anything goes wrong, he will be liable.

If the applicant disclosed her criminal record, it is the duty of the manager and the company to give her a chance to redeem herself and live purposeful life. A minor mistake done nearly 2 decades ago should not be used as an excuse to block people from fulfilling their potential. It is likely that the criminal record came as a result of immaturity as she was relatively young at the time. Considering that she was the most talented and qualified applicant, her past should not have a bearing on her current situation. However, people who are serial offenders or perpetrators of capital crimes should be disqualified as potential candidates. In addition, convictions which are less than 10 years should also render an applicant ineligible for employment.

Works Cited

Deckop, John. R. Human Resource Management Ethics. Information Age Pub, 2006.

Köster, Marco. Ethics in Human Resource Management. GRIN, 2002.