JIWAAJOTHESWARRIE THAMILSELVAN 201903040008

-ASSESSMENT II-
MPHR7113 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
13 AUGUST 2022 – 15 AUGUST 2022

Instruction: Candidates are required to answer all three questions from

this case study.
Four months previously Professor Grant's application for additional funding for his
current project was approved. On the recommendation of a colleague (who had
acted as a postgraduate supervisor) in another university, Professor Grant had
named Alex Spender as the research assistant to work on the extension to the project.
Alex joined Professor Grant's research team three months ago immediately after
completing her PhD at another university. Her postgraduate work overlapped
exactly with the expertise needed for the project. She has now been in her first
postdoctoral position for three months. Two other research fellows work on the
project (John and Charlotte), both of whom have been in post for the last two years.
Previously they had been postgraduates within the School.

Charlotte had emerged as the more proactive of the research fellows and Professor
Grant has tended to use her to help coordinate the project. Normally Professor
Grant did not involve research fellows in matters that affected employment or
funding. However, since he would be absent at an important conference when Alex
Spender joined the research group he spoke to Charlotte and explained the
appointment. An appointment of an excellent young researcher in this way helped
the research group avoid the bureaucratic recruitment cycle expected by the
Personnel Department. Since her appointment, Charlotte had introduced Alex to
those parts of the research work that she was to take up. Charlotte had to fit this
mentoring role alongside her other research activities.

Charlotte has met Professor Grants and stated her dissatisfaction with Alex.
Charlotte was frustrated because she had been distracted from her own research by
a number of complaints from technicians and others in the department. These
complaints had focused on Alex asking people to do things that were not their
responsibility. As one example Charlotte explained that it was departmental policy
for technicians to be assigned to particular research groups. No one could simply go
to the technician in another group and ask for help. Charlotte also believed that
Alex was slow in getting through her work. All in all she had formed the opinion
that Alex was not up to the job. These difficulties were sapping the morale of the
1
JIWAAJOTHESWARRIE THAMILSELVAN 201903040008

research group.

2
 Professor Grant has only been able to meet with Alex twice since her appointment
because of his heavy schedule of commitments. Charlotte thinks that as the
Principal Investigator he should “put a shot across Alex's bow”.

Professor Grant has called a meeting at which he intends to confront Alex with
Charlotte's accusations.

Please answer all three questions below:

1. What are the THREE main issues concerning the function of recruitment
and selection in this case? (15-Marks)

The most important factor to consider in this scenario with regard to the function of
recruitment and selection is the fact that Alex was hired on the hearsay basis, which means
he was hired based on the recommendation of a coworker. Because the desired skillset for
the prole has not been outlined, there has been no discussion regarding whether or not
they are compatible with Alex's skillset. Her previous work had, as was mentioned,
overlapped with the specialized knowledge required for the project. She was a member of
the community who was not originally from the school and was therefore unfamiliar with
the people and procedures. Because of his familiarity with both the school and the project,
Brenda was a much more suitable choice.

2. If you were in Professor Grant’s position, what are the TWO appropriate
actions would you take to solve this issue? (15-Marks)

If I were in Professor Grant’s position, I would have picked either Brenda or Josh due to the
fact that they are already familiar with the department, the project, the people, and the
policies and practices. Since they were already a part of the team, delegating responsibility
to any one of them would have resulted in less confusion and more general acceptance of the
situation. In the event that there was no such fellow available, a comprehensive interview
should have been conducted to evaluate the level of expertise, intellectual capacity, and
desired behavioral characteristics.

3
 3. How might the present situation be avoided in future? Suggest in detail TWO
solutions to avoid similar reoccurrences. (20- Marks)

It would have been possible to avoid the current situation if research fellows who had
recently graduated from this institution's postgraduate programmed and had been working
on the project for the previous three months had been recruited. They were familiar with the
regulations of the department, and their strategy has been described as being more
proactive. When there is a disagreement, it is frequently simpler to describe how other
people react than it is to evaluate how we react. Every one of us tends to handle conflict in a
particular way. It is possible for us to improve our comprehension of the influence that our
particular approach to conflict has on the experiences of other individuals. If you have a
better understanding, you will be able to make an informed decision about how to respond
to other people when you are in a conflict situation. Behavioral scientists Kenneth Thomas
and Ralph Kilmann, who developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument,
identified five conflict management styles: competition, collaboration, compromise,
avoidance, and accommodation. Their instrument is called the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict
Mode Instrument. There is no approach to conflict that is inherently better or worse than
any other however, one or more approaches may be inappropriate or ineffective for a
particular circumstance. Because we have a tendency to communicate our positions through
things that are likely to be concrete and explicit, it is not an easy task to comprehend the
interests of other people. In order to help you come up with creative solutions to problems,
you should make an effort to differentiate between positions and interests. People use
positions, which are predetermined solutions or demands, to describe what they want, or
what the person wants to happen with regard to a particular issue. Positions can be
solutions or demands. The problem can be defined by the interests at play, which may be
intangible, unexpressed, or inconsistent. They are the primary reasons–the driving force
behind the decision to take the position. Whenever these motivations and needs are
misunderstood or do not match up in some way, conflict is almost always the result. Keep in
mind that it is equally as important to figure out what your interests are as it is to figure out
what they are.

4
You need to ask questions of the other person to find out what the other person believes to
be the true needs in order to identify the interests that the other person has. Be sure to
clarify that the reason you are asking questions is not to get them to justify their position,
but rather to get a better understanding of their requirements, fears, hopes, and desires
when you pose the questions. When you ask a person open-ended question that encourage
them to tell their story. It helps you begin to understand the interests that they have. Closed-
ended questions, on the other hand, can only be answered with a yes or a no, whereas open-
ended questions invite more than one possible answer. Problem solving requires effective
listening skills. You can help the other person feel heard and calm their emotions by listening
to them in a way that is effective. Both parties will be able to generate options through the
use of cognitive problem-solving once the emotional tension has subsided.

Copyright @ University of St Andrews, United Kingdom.

============================ END =========================

Prepared And Administered By:

NEELAMEHAN (3009)

CITY UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA