Analysis of Recruitment Failure: A Case Study of CITPR Ltd
The major issues
This case study deals with the recruitment issues faced by the company named CITPR. Ltd in recruiting students from TTC College of Engineering and Management. The major issues highlighted were the decision to recruit without considering sure vacancies, revealing the details of recruitment drive unofficially on the basis of personal relationship, stopping students from sitting for selection process without formal or official offers by the college placement officer, Mr. Ravi Sampat, not providing proper response for the queries about the offer letters by the company, no proper interfering or enquiry by the HR director, Mr. Ganesh in the recruiting manger, Mr. Swami’s working and ultimately losing the trust and reputation by the company due to all these issues. The decision to recruit a greater number of students was made on the basis of a preliminary stage talk of getting a project from the client. There was no vacancy for net professionals in the company and need for recruitment only arises if the company won the project. Without sure information recruitment process was conducted. After that Mr. Swami revealed the details unofficially to Mr. Ravi Sampat on basis of relationship with him. This was suited for a professional HR official who is working in a company known for quality HR practices. Mr. Ravi Sampat announced this to the students through a congratulatory mail with any formal offer letter and stopped those students from attending further recruitment drives which is not according to the rule of college as the college is mentioning that only after the receipt of formal offer letter, the student is said to be placed in a particular company. Then the company does not responded to the mails sent by the college which is expected from a company with high reputation. The HR director did not enquired about the recruitment drives conducted. Due to the denial of placements for 25 students from the college, the company lost its trust and reputation.
Could Mr. Ganesh have taken some measures to avoid the embarrassment caused to CITPR? Yes, in my opinion Mr. Ganesh could have saved the company from the embarrassment by his timely interference and enquiry on the process or working of Mr. Swami. Since he was satisfied with the working style of Swami he did not wanted to interfere into it. But he should have enquired about the decisions or the recruitment plans. He could have stopped Swami from recruiting a greater number of people from the college as there were no ascertained information about the huge requirement of professionals. He could have told Swami to choose other alternative decision such as not deciding it soon in a hurry or not recruiting these much students from a college itself or to recruit students for other profiles for which the company had vacancies.
The serious omissions by Mr Swami
Mr. Swami omitted various things which he needs to taken care of while recruiting in a college. First of all, the recruiting decision should be made by considering the sure vacancies in the company. Forecasting demand for the resources is good but it should be reliable. Due to persuasions one human resource professional should not be making any decisions, here Mr. Swami made the decision to recruit more from the TTC college. Since Mr. Swami had a good rapport with Mr. Sampat he revealed the names and no: of students who had been selected which was highly unethical. Results of recruitment should always be announced through official communication with offer letters. Then responding to a mail is something expected from an educated professional whatever matter is it. Since the company do not have vacancy and the selected students cannot be placed in the domain they were chosen, Mr. Swami did not respond to the mails sent from the college which was not expected from him. Then Mr. Swami should have been informing Mr. Ganesh about the matter before it becoming an issue.
Do the actions taken against Mr. Swami and Mr. Sampat were justified? According to my opinion action taken against Mr. Sampat was justified and action taken against Mr. Swami was not justified. Action taken against Mr. Sampat was justified because he should not have been persuading the HR manger to select more students and he cannot take advantage of the good relationship he had with the recruiter to know the recruitment results. Even after knowing the results he is not supposed to reveal it to the students since it was unofficial and he should have allowed those students who got selected to sat for next recruitment drives until they receive official offer letters from the company. Then he should have informing this to the director earlier itself. The action taken against Mr. Sampat was issue of show-cause notice and no increment for next four years which is justified as he will consider all the mistakes next time. On the other hand, Mr. Swami was fired from the job which was not so justified. He should have given some considerations. He was a good recruiter which is evident from the statement made by Mr. Ganesh that Mr. Ganesh was satisfied with the working style of Mr. Swami. He should have been given a lesser punishment than firing from job.
