0

PROBLEM SOLVING (ONLINE ROUND)

HR CALIBRATION 2016
FIRST SKILL BASED DEVELOPMENT COMPETITION IN BANGLADESH

Rules and Regulations (For 1st Round)

1) The solution has to be in Power Point (From 2007 to up to date)
2) The solution has to be submitted on 28th October, 2016 by 11:59 PM (any late submission
will result in mark deduction)
3) A team should send the file name in the following format: Team Serial-Team ColorTeam Name
Example (01-Orange-NSU HR)
4) A team cannot mention its Institutions Name in the Power Point slides. If we get any
slide containing that information, then the team will eventually get disqualified.
5) The first slide should contain Team Name only.
6) If any team sends a Power Point file twice then we will count the first one as the final
one.
7) This competition is based on Consecutive Scoring theme. Every individual rounds
mark will be summed up on the end.
8) The case will be send from nsu.hrclub@gmail.com on 28th October by 11:00 AM to the
team leader (if any team does not get the email then those teams are requested to contact at
01684997307, 01624683869)
9) The analysis of the case should be send at nsu.hrclub@gmail.com
10) All the updates (results or any special considerations) will be posted on the official page
of NSU HR CLUB
11) NSU HR CLUB has the authority to take action against any team that is unethical at
situations.

Criteria for Judgment

Name of the factor

Weight

Slide Design

30%

Slide Content

20%

Solution Representation

40%

Preciseness of The Solution

10%

Problem Solving (1st Round)

The Rhetoric and Reality of Selection
This case describes a situation that was occurring recently in a large company in The Gulf.
Skill shortages are a problem in the labor market. Expatriate labor is available but
nationalization policy limits the number of expatriates that can be employed and the
organization is reluctant to put non-nationals in customer facing positions.
Selection starts with advertisements in Arabic and English placed internally and externally.
The HR department collates CVs and does an initial sorting. Panel interviews are organized
with the HR managers and the head and deputy head of the department with the vacancy.
Candidates performing the best at interview are asked to do written tests. Final decisions are
then made. So far so good you might think- but what is going on at a deeper level?
Several hundred applications can be received for some posts; the HR department does little
initial sifting and does not keep a tally of who has applied. Heads of departments do not want
to read hundreds of applications so they distribute them among their staff to review. Perhaps
through feeling of self-reservation, staff hide the CVs from the applicants they perceive as
good, perhaps as threatening, and put forward the average CVs for consideration. Others are
picked at random as the employee has no idea what the department is looking for. Selected
CVs are returned to HR to arrange interviews, at which point staff in the HR department add
some CVs of their friends and relatives.
By this time, most good CVs are removed. When interviews take place, high ratings are given
to people with connections to the interviewers. A written exam, set by HR non-finance
specialists, cover basic mathematics, but not a knowledge of finance. Exam papers are
marked by HR and not seen by the interviewers. Finally, the HR department selects
candidates who have strong connections to them, overriding departmental preferences. As a
consequence, departments are refreshed with new recruits often unfamiliar with financial
system and procedures, and with poor English language ability.
Appraisal is also compromised. Each year, managers rate their staff on a range of factors such
as attitudes, skills and knowledge, teamwork, and relations with clients. Managers send
completed appraisals to HR, who sends them to the top management, who make judgments
about bonuses, increments, and promotion. The head of departments rating is final and is
influenced by office politics and personal liking. Employees without good with their manager
never get high scores. Appraisal outcomes are not discussed with employees; hence
employees cannot use them to improve their own performance. If employees move between
departments and get a new appraiser, then ratings may fall simply because different personal
relationships are operating. Top management does not follow up on why a series of high
ratings for a person suddenly comes to an end.
This short case shows how HR practices are easily influenced by local cultural practices and
raises some good discussion questions.

QUESTIONS
1. What changes would you make to the selection appraisal procedures in the
organization? Why?
2. Now think about your ideas for change. How culturally embedded is current practice
and what else has to change if your changes are having any chance of working?
3. Whose interests would be served if your changes were successful? Exactly who would
be better off?