BUSI 443 Week 3 Case Study 2 Example

Recruiting and Keeping Front-Desk Agents at Harborview Hotels: Sources, Messages, Realistic Previews and Internal Mobility

Question 1: Evaluating Recruitment Sources

Harborview Hotels operates eleven hotels and hires about 260 front-desk agents a year. Most applicants come from online job boards, which the recruiting team considers its best source because they produce the most applications. The case data, however, show a different picture when sources are compared on early turnover.

Job boards produce volume but the weakest retention. Reviewing the research on where hires come from, Zottoli and Wanous (2000) reported that people recruited through insiders, such as referrals and returning former employees, usually stayed longer than those found through outside channels, and they discussed explanations including the more realistic information insiders receive about the job and the screening that referrers provide. Heneman et al. (2015) likewise advise evaluating sources on the quality and retention of the people they produce, not only on cost and volume. Harborview should therefore expand referrals with a modest bonus paid after the new agent completes ninety days, invite strong former employees back each season and deepen its hospitality school partnerships, while keeping job boards for volume during busy periods.

A Caution About Referrals

Referral programs carry one risk the hotel group should manage. Because people tend to refer friends who resemble them, heavy reliance on referrals can narrow the diversity of the applicant pool and, if the current workforce is not representative of the local labor market, can create adverse impact. Heneman et al. (2015) discuss the legal side of recruitment, including the need to reach the full relevant labor market. Harborview can keep the benefits of referrals while protecting diversity by continuing partnerships with hospitality programs at community colleges that serve diverse students, posting openings with workforce agencies, and monitoring the composition of hires by source each quarter.

Comparing Costs

The case also reports what each source costs per hire. Job board postings cost about $180 per hire once screening time is included, referrals about $350 with the bonus, and school partnerships about $220. At first glance, job boards look cheapest. But when the cost of replacing an agent who leaves within ninety days, which the case estimates at about $2,400 in recruiting, training and lost productivity, is added, the picture reverses. Of every 100 job board hires, 42 leave early, adding about $100,000 in replacement costs, while 100 referral hires lose only 17, adding about $41,000. Measured by the cost of a hire who stays, referrals and partnerships are the bargains.

Question 2: Rewriting the Recruitment Message

Harborview's current job board advertisement lists duties and requirements in generic terms and says nothing about pay, schedules or advancement. Across the studies combined by Chapman et al. (2005), applicants were drawn to employers by what the job and company offered, how recruiters behaved, how the hiring process felt, how well they thought they fit and how likely they believed an offer was, and these same factors shaped their final job choices. Applicants respond to information that helps them judge whether the job fits them.

The revised message should state the starting pay range and shift differentials, describe the typical schedule and how far in advance it is posted, explain the path from agent to supervisor with the share of supervisors promoted from within, and include a brief quote from a current agent about the work. It should also state plainly that the job involves weekends and holidays. Heneman et al. (2015) describe the recruitment message as a choice among realistic, targeted and branded approaches; Harborview's situation calls for a realistic message targeted at people who enjoy service work.

Question 3: Designing a Realistic Job Preview

The case reports that many agents who leave early cite the stress of handling upset guests and the unpredictability of late-night shifts, aspects of the job the hiring process never mentions. A realistic job preview would address this directly. Earnest et al. (2011) combined the preview studies and traced how previews reduce quitting: the main route ran through newcomers' sense that the employer had been honest with them, more than through lowered expectations.

Harborview's preview should include a short video in which current agents describe a typical shift, including a difficult guest interaction and how they handled it, a frank description of night and weekend scheduling, and a half-hour job shadow at the front desk before an offer is made. Candidates who withdraw after the preview are likely those who would have left within ninety days, and those who accept will know what to expect. Breaugh (2008) emphasizes that recruitment outcomes depend on applicants receiving accurate information early, and the preview places that information before the hiring decision rather than after the first difficult shift.

Question 4: Recruiting Supervisors From Within

Harborview currently fills front-desk supervisor openings by having general managers choose someone they know, and agents report that they do not know how promotions happen. Heneman et al. (2015) treat internal recruitment as a planned activity in its own right, with postings, published criteria and attention to the paths people follow as they move up inside the organization.

Harborview should post every supervisor opening across all eleven hotels for at least a week, with the selection criteria stated. It should also create a development pool of agents who have completed a year of service and a short leadership course, so that qualified internal candidates are ready when openings arise. Posting openly would widen the candidate pool beyond a general manager's acquaintances and show agents that advancement is possible, which also supports retention among the agents recruited under the new approach.

Building the Development Pool

The development pool should be open to every agent with a year of satisfactory performance, not only to those a manager nominates. Members would complete a short program over three months, covering scheduling, handling escalated guest complaints, cash controls and coaching other agents, and would act as shift leads when supervisors are absent. Completing the program would not guarantee promotion, but it would give members the experience the selection criteria require. The program also gives agents a reason to stay through their first year, which supports the retention goals in the earlier answers.

Question 5: Measuring Whether the Changes Work

Harborview should track a handful of measures by source and by hotel: retention at ninety days and one year, days to fill each opening, cost per retained hire, new agents' guest satisfaction scores after three months and, for internal recruitment, the share of supervisor openings filled from within and the number of applicants per posting. Comparing these measures before and after the changes, and between hotels that adopt the realistic preview early and those that adopt it later, would show which changes make the difference. Heneman et al. (2015) emphasize evaluating recruitment against its objectives, and these measures connect directly to the problem the case describes.

Conclusion

Harborview's recruiting problem is not a shortage of applicants but a mismatch between what applicants expect and what the job requires. The group should shift toward insider sources that produce agents who stay, rewrite its message to describe the job honestly, add a realistic preview before offers, and make internal promotion visible and fair. Each change can be measured by ninety-day retention by source, which the company should track for every hire.

References

Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.003

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928-944. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928

Earnest, D. R., Allen, D. G., & Landis, R. S. (2011). Mechanisms linking realistic job previews with turnover: A meta-analytic path analysis. Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 865-897. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01230.x

Heneman, H. G., III, Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2015). Staffing organizations (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Zottoli, M. A., & Wanous, J. P. (2000). Recruitment source research: Current status and future directions. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 353-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00032-2