Marie Pendergrass has been a data processing supervisor for two years. She is in the process of selecting a candidate for a programmer trainee position she has created. Her plan is to develop the trainee into a systems analysis within two years. Since this is a fast track, she needs a candidate whose aptitude and motivation is high. Fourteen candidates applied for the job in the employment section of the personnel department. Six were women, eight were men. An employment specialist screened the candidates for Mary, using a carefully prepared interview format that included questions to determine job-related skills. Six candidates, three women and three men, were referred to Marie. Marie then conducted structured, in-depth interviews and further narrowed the selection to one woman and two men. Her boss, a company vice-president, agrees wither judgment after hearing Marie’s description of the candidates. However, Marie’s boss feels particularly unsure of the abilities of the female candidate. From the selection interview, past job experience, and education, there is no clear indication of the candidate’s ability to perform the job. The vice-president is insistent that Marie screen the candidate with a programmer aptitude test devised by a computer manufacturing firm. The test had been given four years ago, and some of the most successful current analysis had scored high on it. Marie went to the personnel department and asked them to administer the test to the “questionable” candidate. The personnel manager informed her that the company policy had been to do no testing of any kind during the last two years. Marie explained that the request had come from a vice-president and asked that she be given a decision on her request by Friday.

Questions

1. Identify and evaluate the stages of the selection process reflected in the case.

2. If you were Marie, what would you do and why?