Introduction

In this case, Rory was sent by JASPERSON’s Consulting, a respected Australian HR auditing and evaluation consultancy to negotiate a contact with Korean medium-sized telecom company. In his first international assignment, Rory made the mistake of starting the presentation to the director and operational manager of the telecom without their approval. Again, Rosy ignored John’s advice by failing to grab patience and understand that Korean business is done with moderation. However, it was JASPERSON’s HR mistakes of sending inexperienced staff member to Korea, halo effect, and poor job analysis due to use of unverified information that Rory were equal to the task.

HR Issue one: Halo effect

According to (Belle, et al., 2017, p. 275),the halo effect is a cognitive bias which is common when assessing the performance of employees through performance appraisal, and an employee is rated outstanding because of one very impressive accomplishment or trait by assuming that his or her other accomplishments would equally be impressive. In the case of JASPERSON Consulting, the halo effect is a major HR problem given the manner in which Rory was selected for the Korean assignment. As per the case, Rory’s performance review was first done after his 3-month probation period by John his director. The performance review report found Rory to have performed excellently in his position. Also, Rory was found to be outgoing and flexible in working with others. The second performance review, done after 6-months shown that Rory was the most impressive among the three trainees; especially in achieving sound cost savings for clients. Immediately the Korean assignment was announced by JASPERSON Consulting, Rory strongly defended his ability to take the task. By citing his impressive record with the company and his ability to make significant cost savings for clients, John the director gave him the opportunity. This is halo effect as John made this decision based on Rory’s impression assuming that he would be able to represent the company in the same manner to the Korean telecom firm (Bettis, et al., 2014, p. 950).

Halo effect is a performance management HR issue (Belle, et al., 2017, p. 278). Normally, companies conduct a performance review to determine the employee rate of performance and efficiency. In this case, performance management and review on graduate trainees is conducted by the company director. A performance management or review policy of a company requires that the performance of workers be aligned with company goals, mission, and objectives with the available resources (Certo, et al., 2016, p. 2640). In this case, performance management for trainees involved the review of ability to make cost savings for clients, calculation of HR costs, and quality of draft recommendations to consultants, conscientiousness, ability to work with others, and the ease of completing significant assignments with little or no guidance from the experienced team. In the selection process, the three trainees had incredible academic qualifications. Using Rory’s impression in the first year to determine his ability to carry out an international business assignment was purely a halo effect by the director, John (Conger, 2014, p. 200). Other factors should also have been considered. In this doing, John assumed that Rory would excel and impress in the negotiation of this business contract with the Korean telecom given his track record with JASPERSON Consulting over the past 1-year.

Given the failure of JASPERSON Consulting in securing the contract in Korea, the management of the company needs to take certain HR actions to remedy this problem. Making decisions based on halo effect (assumptions) is a risky managerial decision and strategy (Godard, 2016, p. 480). JASPERSON Consulting Company needs to be conscious when judging and interpreting employee prospects in the company.  Such global duties need to be purely based on merit and a commendable track record by the applicant before making the decision to award the opportunity to any employee. Another HR strategy of solving this problem is selecting an employee for an assignment based on diverse capabilities especially the ones required for the project at hand. Also, the management should give the first impression (first year impression) of a graduate the second chance when giving international duties (Godard, 2016, p. 488). Last is by avoiding both positive and negative generalizations.

HR Issue two: Selection Bias

In this case, JASPERSON made a big human resource mistake of sending Rosy to negotiate business with a Korean telecom player because he did not have good experience. International assignments are critical especially for HR audit and evaluation business. In the case, JASPERSON considered Rory’s application to go and coordinate this mega project. However, this was not a right HR decision since Rory has only 12-months of experience in HR audit and evaluation consultancy business. This poor HR decision was made by JASPERSON knowing that the company was gaining interest from Asian, specifically Korea, Singapore, and Japan. With this in mind, the process of selecting the best candidate for this international duty at Korea was supposed to be fair whereby all employees would be invited to apply (Iqbal, et al., 2015, p. 522). However, JASPERSON did not interview the interested employees; the management resorted to send Rory based on his past track record especially that of cutting down HR costs. It is impossible that JASPERSON Consulting had no other employees who had the right experience and proper understanding of the Korean business as John puts it.

In the class, the subject of selection has been well taught. In this topic, the process of selecting the best employee has been taught and learned. According to (Bettis, et al., 2014, p. 952), the HR selection process follows 8-steps from preliminary screening to contact of employment. Although JASPERSON Consulting firm uses a fair selection process when recruiting graduate trainees, this approach was not referenced or put into practice in Rory’s selection. In the case, Rory was given the chance as a graduate trainee together with other two trainees who were also doing well in their assigned HR audit and evaluation duties by the company. However, these two were not considered in this opportunity because of they lacked the needed experience for the project.  This means that Rory was also in the same category and thus his selection was bias, unfair, and discriminative against his graduate trainee colleagues (Iqbal, et al., 2015, p. 550). In such critical projects, graduate trainees do not deserve the opportunity as their experience is limited. In general, selecting Rory was the main reason for JASPERSON Consulting losing the business with the Korean telecom, since his contact was not professional.

In order to solve this selection bias/ selection mistake problem, JASPERSON needs to lay down the right procedures and policies that all people must observe when such opportunities arise. One HR strategy to solving this problem is doing experimental studies whereby the interested employees are randomly assigned to present the same project to the director and executive leadership of the company (Sahay, 2015, p. 26). The other HR approach is stipulating the required years of experience for an employee to represent the firm in an international assignment, for example 3-5 years of experience in the same field (Minbaeva & David, 2013, p. 1772). The other HR technique is having doing market research over how countries like Korea do business and thus train the employees on them before assigning them international duties. Training programs equip employees with the desired skills, knowledge, and understanding before going to do business internationally. In addition, the company needs to establish an internal interview program where employees apply for any internal opportunities and follow strict screening before selecting the best candidate (Javidmehr & Ebrahimpour, 2015, p. 302). With proper screening of employees, JASPERSON consulting firm will not lose business opportunities like it is the case with Rory’s first assignment for the company in Korea.

HR Issue three: Rushing the hire/ poor job analysis

According to (Khattak, et al., 2015, p. 88), rushing the hire is caused by poor job analysis. The recruitment method in this case is faced with many information problems. Poor job analysis or rushing the hire refers to the selection of an employee for a certain duty prior to keenly analyzing the nature of the assignment. The chances are that rushing the hire would create hefty risks to the employer company (Minbaeva & David, 2013, p. 1765). In this case, JASPERSON consulting firm knew that Asian countries were greatly interested to doing business with them. When the chance to secure a contract with the Korean telecom player came, JASPERSON Consulting failed to follow the right procedures when selecting the employee to represent them in Korea. Hiring Rory was a rush and quick decision because the company did not take times to analyze the nature of the Korean business (Iqbal, et al., 2015, p. 510). In the case, John advised Rory to be patient with the Korean way of doing business. This means that Rory was not briefed of the Korean business nature before leaving to Korea. Again, Rory was not trained by JASPERSON Consulting of anything about Korean business before leaving for the assignment. This is rushing the hire HR mistake done by JASPERSON Consulting.

Poor job analysis by JASPERSON Consulting relates to the concept of job analysis and design, a very crucial factor to consider in the recruitment procedure.  According to (Wei & Gavriel, 2014, p. 284), job analysis and design involves the systematic exploration, study, and recording of duties, accountabilities, responsibilities, skills, work environment, and employee ability requirements to conduct a specific assignment. In the case, the manner in which Korean business is conducted greatly differs with the way of doing business in Australia. Prior to negotiating a business dealing with a Korean player, the responsible employee must have a clear understanding of the nature of business environment in Korea; and this is the essence of job analysis and design (Stroppa & Erika, 2011, p. 234). The mistake done by Rory in Korea, that of showing impatience and inability to show tolerance and flexibleness to the managers of the telecom company was caused by poor job analysis by JASPERSON Consulting. With proper job analysis, the company would have selected an employee for the international assignment based on his skills, accountability, and understanding of the Korean business. The failed prospect of JASPERSON Consulting to secure this contract with the Korean telecom is a clear indicator of information problem to the company; that the company does not do market research on foreign countries they target to start doing business with (Sahay, 2015, p. 29).

For JASPERSON consulting to solve this problem and avoid failed contract negotiations with international players in future, the company needs to do extensive market research especially on the Asian countries. Market research will enable JASPERSON Consulting understand the nature of business environment before going to negotiate contracts or business dealings with companies in these countries (Minbaeva & David, 2013, p. 1765). Another strategy is doing job analysis in terms of the skills, experience, competence, and knowledge needed of an employee to qualify for an international assignment. Good examples of these requirements include ability to show patience, flexibility with the clients’ way of doing business, years of experience, and a good track record for having successfully negotiated international business dealings (Godard, 2016, p. 485). Also, the process of hiring be conducted within the right scope of time, there is no need to rush the hire as this would result in the same mistakes.

References

Belle, N., Cantarelli, P. & Paolo, B., 2017. Cognitive biases in performance appraisal: Experimental evidence on anchoring and halo effects with public sector managers and employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(3), pp. 275-294.

Bettis, R., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C. & Mitchell, W., 2014. Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), pp. 949-953.

Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H. S. & Semadeni, M., 2016. Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), pp. 2639-2657.

Chen, H.-l. & Yin, Z., 2017. Educating data management professionals: A content analysis of job descriptions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(1), pp. 18-24.

Conger, J. A., 2014. Addressing the organizational barriers to developing global leadership talent. Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), pp. 198-204.

Godard, J., 2016. What is best for workers? The implications of workplace and human resource management practices revisited. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 49(3), pp. 466-488.

Iqbal, M. Z., Akbar, S. & Pawan, B., 2015. Effectiveness of performance appraisal: An integrated framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), pp. 510-553.

Javidmehr, M. & Ebrahimpour, M., 2015. Performance appraisal bias and errors: The influences and consequences. International Journal of Organizational Leadership , 4(4), pp. 286-302.

Khattak, A. N., Ramzan, S. & Chaudhry, A. R., 2015. Organization Development through effective Hiring System: A phenomenological study of business organizations. Journal of Commerce, 7(4), p. 88.

Minbaeva, D. & David, C. G., 2013. Seven myths of global talent management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24(9), pp. 1762-1776.

Sahay, P., 2015. Lean Six Sigma tools in the hiring process. Strategic HR Review , 14(1), pp. 22-29.

Stroppa, C. & Erika, S., 2011. International assignments: The role of social support and personal initiative. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2), pp. 234-245.

Wei, J. & Gavriel, S., 2014. The cognitive task analysis methods for job and task design: Review and reappraisal. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(4), pp. 273-299.