Autoaccess – Managing People
Essay Preview: Autoaccess – Managing People
Report this essay
Managing People Table of contentExecutive summary……………………………………………………………………………………2Report……………………………………………………………………………………………………….2Research…………………………………………………………………………………………………4Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………..5References………………………………………………………………………………………………..7Executive SummaryA situation comes to the notice of managing directors of AutoAccess regarding the new recruitments of HR in the company. Many of the new applicants did not perform up to the standard that was expected of them and 15% of the initial employees had left the organization. The situation was directly affected by the decisions made by Rhonda Thomas, Bob Deakin and Georgia Banks. While hiring new employees, experience and cultural fit in the work place were not taken into account, thus creating a situation that could have been easily avoided. In order to hire new employees a screening process should be utilized and the interviews must be conducted by an experienced recruiter with experience in that industry. As these basic processes were not utilized in AutoAccess, a report is submitted, underlining the cause of this situation and methods that can be used to resolve such circumstances.ReportTo have a clear understanding of how this problem started there are many different aspects to take into consideration. First and foremost, we should criticize AutoAccess for taking on several new contracts without having a clear plan on how to handle the extra workload that has been bestowed upon the company. While AutoAccess did take the extra HR needed into account, it did not consider hiring more personnel to give more time and attention to the new recruits. The second aspect to consider is Rhonda Thomas’s decision to hire Georgia Banks without taking other candidates into account and not having any screening process. Rhonda recommended Georgia without having complete background information on her, furthermore she assumes that the call center’s success was solely based on Georgia’s work. The question that should have been asked was whether Georgia was the only person doing the recruitment at the call center. Another miscalculation on Rhonda’s part was taking Georgia’s claim as to being more than adequate for the job to be true. Bob Deakin, the managing director, made another assumption that anyone who has success in recruiting that many people must be good at recruiting suitable employees. This again goes back to having a clear understanding of Georgia’s role in the call center. While there are many other errors that may have had a part in how this situation came to be, the top four reasons had the most significant impact on this situation. The second part of this report will focus on whether using the same recruitment sources as Georgia had used in the past was the way to go. Georgia obviously had a good reputation and was well regarded, but her resources were related to her previous job at the call center. The change of industry should have had a large influence on determining whether Georgia’s previous recruitment sources would have been the correct choice. The recruitment itself is not the only detail that should have been considered. There are many other details such as experience, cultural fit and etc. that should have been taken into account. Georgia did deliver the numbers, but the complaints from other managers confirms that the people that were recruited had not gone through the appropriate screening process to ensure they fit within the company, whether job wise or culture fit.
Another angle to consider is the type of work the recruitments were been asked to do, which is in a completely different industry to the one that Georgia was working in. This in turn indicates that Georgia may or may not have had the adequate understanding of the expected workload from the new employees. A better way would have been to use sources from within the same industry to recruit more suitable personnel for the job. The reason being that people with experience in that industry would have a clearer understanding as to what type of candidates should have been considered, as the problem was not solely recruiting personnel, but rather recruiting people that would be suitable for that work type and would be a better fit in that work place in general. There is a point made in the report that 15% of the first 70 people that were recruited left the work place. This should have been a clear indication that there was a situation that should have been taken into account. Another point made in the report is that the productivity of the new personnel was not what the managers had expected. This is a vague statement that does not specify what the managers expected from the new personnel and whether it had been shared with Georgia before she recruited them. Another statement that was made by David was that the new employees were not the right sort of people for the environment, nice people and smart enough, but were like fish out of water. This could be taken in different ways, one might be that the new employees were not experienced in that field, they might not be a fit with the working environment and culture and many other explanations. While there is no definite way to say who or what is responsible for this situation, there are many decisions that were made without enough consideration. To summarize, one could say that Bob Deakin, Rhonda Thomas and Georgia Banks are the main reasons for this situation. There were other factors that contributed to this situation, but the majority of the faults were caused by the decisions made by these three people.The report presented for analysis contained many vague descriptions and information. It is mentioned that 15% of the initial employees had left the job but there is no clear reason given for this incident. One could speculate that lack of experience in that industry caused the employees to leave, but also work place culture might have been different to what they had expected. The standard of work expected from the new personnel was not mentioned and could create a contrast in what Georgia thought was expected from the new recruites and what was actually going to be expected from the new employees. Whether new HR personnel were recruited to help with the new employees was not mentioned which leads us to believe that hiring new personnel to help with the new recruitments was not considered by AutoAccess.