Four months previously Professor Grant\'s application for additional funding for

Question

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 postgraduate supervisor) in another university, Professor Grant had named Alex Spender as the research assistant to work on the extension of the project. Alex joined Professor Grant's research team three months ago immediately after completing her Ph.D. at another university. Her postgraduate work had 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 ( Josh and Brenda), both of whom have been in post for the last two years. Previously they had been postgraduates within the School.

Brenda had emerged as the more proactive of the research fellows, and Professor Grant has tended to use her to help coordinate the project. Usually, Professor Grant did not involve research fellows in matters that affected employment or funding. However, since he would be absent at a critical conference when Alex Spender joined the group, he spoke to Brenda and explained about 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, Brenda had introduced Alex to those parts of the research activities. Brenda has met Professor Grants and stated her dissatisfaction towards Alex. Brenda was frustrated because she had been distracted from her own research by some complaints from technicians and others in the department. These allegations had focused on Alex asking people to do things that were not their responsibility. As one example Brenda explained that it was a departmental policy for technicians to be assigned to particular research groups. No one could directly go to the technicians in another group and ask for help. Brenda 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 research group.

Professor Grant has only been able to meet with Alex twice since her appointment because of his massive schedule of commitments. Brenda thinks that as the Principle Investigator he should "Put a shot across Alex's bow." Professor Grant has called a meeting at which he intends to confronts Alex with Brenda's accusations.

1. What are the main issues concerning the function of recruitment and selection in this case?

2. How might the present situation be avoided in future?

3. If you were in Professor Grant's position, what appropriate action would you take to solve this issue?

Explanation / Answer

1.    What are the main issues concerning the function of recruitment and selection in this case?

A.)   The main issue in this case concerning the function of recruitment and selection is that here Alex has been recruited on “Hear say “basis i.e. on the recommendation of a colleague. The desired skillset for the profile has not been framed and so no question of matching it with Alex’s skillset has arised. As mentioned her work had overlapped with the expertise needed for the project. She was a member not from within the school so unfamiliar with people and processes. Brenda was a much suitable option owing to his knowledge of the school and project.

2.    How might the present situation be avoided in future?

A)   The present situation could have been avoided by recruiting those research fellows who have completed post graduation from this school only and have worked on the project for the last three months. They were aware of the departmental policies and are said to be more proactive in their approach.

3. If you were in Professor Grant's position, what appropriate action would you take to solve this issue?

A) I would have firstly chosen either Brenda or Josh because of their familiarity with the department, project, people, policies and practices. They have been a part of the team already so delegating responsibility to any of them would have created less chaos and greater acceptability.

In case, no such fellow was available, a complete interview judging the expertise, intellectual and desired behavioral characteristics should have conducted.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.