"Measurement" -Staffing Organizations

Feb 4th, 2015
Price: $10 USD

Question description

1. Examine your current job position, or a job position with which you are familiar, and identify three (3) measurable, valid factors that employers could utilize as reliable predictors of job success with potential applicants. Then, determine the significance of each of these factors. Provide a rationale for your response.

2. Based on the case study, determine two (2) advantages and two (2) disadvantages of using the clerical testing and work sample assessment methods that the consulting firm used within in this study. Next, suggest two (2) limitations of the final results of the study that the consulting firm should consider before making a final decision on its choice of assessment method. Justify your response.

Case Study

The Phonemin Company is a distributor of men’s and women’s casual clothing. It sells exclusively through its merchandise catalog, which is published four times per year to coincide with seasonal changes in customers’ apparel tastes. Customers may order merchandise from the catalog via mail or over the phone. Currently, 70% of orders are phone orders, and the organization expects this to increase to 85% within the next few years. The success of the organization is obviously very dependent on the success of the telephone ordering system and the customer service representatives ( CSRs) who staff the system. There are currently 185 CSRs; that number should increase to about 225 CSRs to handle the anticipated growth in phone order sales. Though the CSRs are trained to use standardized methods and procedures for handling phone orders, there are still seemingly large differences among them in their job performance. The CSRs’ performance is routinely measured in terms of error rate, speed of order taking, and customer complaints. The top 25% and lowest 25% of performers on each of these measures differ by a factor of at least three ( e. g., the error rate of the bottom group is three times as high as that of the top group). Strategically, the organization knows that it could substantially enhance CSR performance ( and ultimately sales) if it could improve its staffing “ batting aver-age” by more accurately identifying and hiring new CSRs who are likely to be top performers. The current staffing system for CSRs is straightforward. Applicants are recruited through a combination of employee referrals and newspaper ads. Because turnover among CSRs is so high ( 50% annually), recruitment is a continuous process at the organization. Applicants complete a standard application blank, which asks for information about education and previous work experience. The information is reviewed by the staffing specialist in the HR department. Only obvious misfits are rejected at this point; the others ( 95%) are asked to have an interview with the specialist. The interview lasts 20– 30 minutes, and at the conclusion the applicant is either rejected or offered a job. Due to the tightness of the labor market and the constant presence of vacancies to be filled, 90% of the interviewees receive job offers. Most of those offers ( 95%) are accepted, and the new hires attend a one- week training program before being placed on the job. The organization has decided to investigate fully the possibilities of increasing CSR effectiveness through sounder staffing practices. In particular, it is not pleased with its current methods of assessing job applicants; it feels that neither the application blank nor the interview provides the accurate and in- depth assessment of the KSAOs that are truly needed to be an effective CSR. Consequently, it engaged the services of a consulting firm that offers various methods of KSAO assessment, along with validation and installation services. In cooperation with the HR staffing specialist, the consulting firm conducted the following study for the organization. A special job analysis led to the identification of several specific KSAOs likely to be necessary for successful performance as a CSR. Three of these ( clerical speed, clerical accuracy, and interpersonal skills) were singled out for further consideration because of their seemingly high impact on job performance. Two new methods of assessment, provided by the consulting firm, were chosen for experimentation. The first was a paper- and- pencil clerical test assessing clerical speed and accuracy. It was a 50- item test with a 30- minute time limit. The second was a brief work sample that could be administered as part of the interview process. In the work sample, the applicant must respond to four different phone calls: from a customer irate about an out- of- stock item, from a customer wanting more product information about an item than was provided in the catalog, from a customer who wants to change an order placed yesterday, and from a customer with a routine order to place. Using a 1– 5 rating scale, the interviewer rates the applicant on tactfulness ( T) and concern for customers ( C). The interviewer is provided with a rating manual containing examples of exceptional ( 5), average ( 3), and unacceptable ( 1) responses by the applicant. A random sample of 50 current CSRs were chosen to participate in the study. At Time 1 they were administered the clerical test and the work sample; performance data were also gathered from company records for error rate ( number of errors per 100 orders), speed ( number of orders filled per hour), and customer complaints ( number of complaints per week). At Time 2, one week later, the clerical test and the work sample were re-administered to the CSRs. A member of the consulting firm sat in on all the interviews and served as a second rater of CSRs’ performance

Results For Clerical Test

                                                                Time 1                                                                     Time 2
 Mean score                                            31.61                                                                       31.22

Standard deviation                                      4.70                                                                        5.11
Coefficient alpha                                        .85                                                                           .86
Test– retest r                                                                                                                              .92**
r with error rate                                       –. 31**                                                                      –. 37**
r with speed                                               .41**                                                                         .39**
r with complaints                                     –. 11                                                                        –. 08
 r with work sample ( T)                             .21                                                                           .17
r with work sample ( C)                             .07                                                                           .15

Results from Work Sample (T)

 Time 1                                                                   Time 2

Mean score                                        3.15                                                                         3.11              Standard deviation                               .93                                                                          1.01                        % agreement ( raters)                          88%                                                                       79%                         r with work sample ( C)                        .81**                                                                       .77**                         r with error rate                                  –. 13                                                                       –. 12                            r with speed                                          .11                                                                           .15                          r with complaints                               –. 37**                                                                     –. 35**

Results from Work Sample(C)

                                                             Time 1                                                                     Time 2
  Mean score                                          2.91                                                                            3.07
Standard deviation                                   .99                                                                            1.10                  % agreement ( raters)                             80%                                                                             82%
 r with work sample ( T)                           .81**                                                                           .77**
r with error rate                                      –. 04                                                                           –. 11
r with speed                                              .15                                                                                .14
r with complaints                                   –. 40**                                                                          –. 31**
( Note: ** means that r was significant at p < .05)

on the work sample at Time 1 and Time 2. It is expected that the clerical test and work sample will have positive correlations with speed and negative correlations with error rate and customer complaints.

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Daniel C.
School: New York University

Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students

On Time
Mar 25th, 2017
" The best tutor out there!!!! "
Ask your homework questions. Receive quality answers!

Type your question here (or upload an image)

1821 tutors are online

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors