Selection in the wrkplace: Whose rights prevail?

Mary L. Connerley, Richard D. Arvey, Stephen W. Gilliland, Fred A. Mael, Ramona L. Paetzold, Paul R. Sackett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

The selection process involves a very difficult balancing act for employers who have to weigh the rights and concerns of applicants, current employees, the organization itself, and society as a whole. Each of these perspectives brings with it its own set of concerns and issues that need to be considered in the broader hiring arena. Applicants assert the right to be treated fairly while being evaluated for a position; current employees assert the right to productive coworkers who will not harm them on the job, organizations assert the right to hire qualified employees while remaining cognizant of the legal issues that surround the hiring process; and society as a whole asserts the right to a process that benefits the greater good. But, with each of these groups pursuing these rights, an important question arises as to whose rights prevail when there is a conflict. This paper, through the use of a true scenario, explores the difficult balancing act between rights and concerns of applicants, current employees, organizations, and society as a whole and discusses whose rights should take priority when they conflict.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalEmployee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Keywords

  • Privacy rights
  • Selection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Selection in the wrkplace: Whose rights prevail?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Connerley, M. L., Arvey, R. D., Gilliland, S. W., Mael, F. A., Paetzold, R. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Selection in the wrkplace: Whose rights prevail? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014466023589