Consider Alice, who is a staff member in a computer science department in New Zealand. She applies for a job at a university in the UK and is invited to travel to the UK for three-hour interview. Thus, Alice will have to fly some ten thousand miles each way in order to be present for three hours at the interview. Let us suppose that you are heading the interview committee in the UK, and are therefore Alice’s primary point of contact, Alice send you an e-mail asking whether it would be possible for her to be interviewed using video conferencing facilities. She points out that this will not only save her a huge amount of flying time (at least 20 hours each way), buy also who will alleviate stress and furthermore – as she mentions – avoiding long-haul journey that are not absolutely necessary has a positive impact on the environment. in this respect she points out the significant amount of fuel that will be burnt in transporting her from New Zealand to the UK and on her return journey. She has access to high-quality video conferencing facilities and so does your university in the UK.
You bring this situation to the attention of other members of the interview committee, your head of department, and the like — but find that nobody is particularly willing to make use of video conferencing facilities. This surprises you, especially as after all you are working in a computer science /IT department and therefore had supposed that staff would have been quite willing to embrace new technologies. You mention that costs will be saved in not having to pay Alice’s airfare, and also stress that this is an opportunity to make use of computer technologies to avoid negative impact on the environment(in actual fact it is surprising how much fuel is consumed in supporting Alice’s round-trip-the world trip).
What are your views on the situation? Do you feel that this high lights (even in a small way) the opportunity to reduce environmental damage by using technologies to support communication and therefore avoid unnecessary travel?
do you believe that people should be willing to adapt to the use of such videoconferencing technologies — is this ethical issue? Given a willingness to adapt is it possible to interview process can be carried out in such way as to overcome the possible deficiencies of the technology — so that the candidate is not disadvantaged by not being physically present, and also provide the interview committee with the opportunity to gain a clear impression of Alice?
Answer:
Yes, people should take advantage of the new technologies. On Alice’s and the committee’s side it would be practical to use video conferencing, they can save money for the plane ticket, fuel for the plane (also helpful to the environment) and avoid long hours travel. It would be practical if they would use such technology during the interview since nowadays most business transactions can be done online or using the new trends of technology. Although it has pros and cons. If the first plan in which Alice has to travel will be pursued then it would be more hassle and since the interviewers are all employees working in the computer science and IT department they should make use of their available facilities. If the second plan would be pursued then it’s more practical than the first one. Alice can avoid long hours of travel and she can be more relaxed since her energy will not be consumed with the long hours of sitting on the plane. The school committee who will interview her can save the money for her plane fare and also time. It can’t be considered as unethical to conduct an interview using videoconferencing since it is the new way of communication especially if both parties are far from each other. Even big companies use this technology in their board meetings (only if the other participants are abroad).
No comments:
Post a Comment