Develop case study, must be a minimum of 3 FULL pages of original discussion and analysis, not counting the title page, reference page, figures, tables, and appendixes. The statements in each Cas
Develop case study, must be a minimum of 3 FULL pages of original discussion and analysis, not counting the title page, reference page, figures, tables, and appendixes. The statements in each Case Study must be supported by at least 1 scholarly reference, cited throughout the narrative and placed on the reference list in the APA format. Organize content under Level 1 headings.
CASE INFORMATION & GRADING RUBRIC ATTACHED
Evaluation of Two New Assessments for Selecting Telephone Customer Service Representatives
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. CSR 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 (i.e., 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 average” 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 page 357the 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 the possibilities of increasing CSR effectiveness through sounder staffing practices. It is not pleased with its current methods of assessing job applicants; it feels that neither the application blank nor the interview provides an accurate and in-depth assessment of the applicant 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 is a paper-and-pencil clerical test assessing clerical speed and accuracy. It contains 50 items and has a 30-minute time limit. The second is 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: a customer who is irate about an out-of-stock item, a customer who wants more product information about an item than was provided in the catalog, a customer who wants to change an order placed yesterday, and a customer who has 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 performance 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.
After reading the description of the study and observing the results above,
1. How do you interpret the reliability results for the clerical test and work sample? Are they favorable enough for Phonemin to consider using them “for keeps” in selecting new job applicants?
2. How do you interpret the validity results for the clerical test and work sample? Are they favorable enough for Phonemin to consider using them “for keeps” in selecting new job applicants?
3. What limitations in the above study should be kept in mind when interpreting the results and deciding whether to use the clerical test and work sample?
image1.tmp
,
Criteria Ratings Points
Topic, domains and concepts
35 to >31 pts
Advanced
Clearly addresses the topic assigned, stays on topic, evaluates all domains, comprehensive in content, uses terms and concepts from reading, demonstrates clarity of expression. Statements are supported by at least 1 scholarly source published within the past five years, correctly cited throughout the narrative.
31 to >28 pts
Proficient
Addresses the topic assigned, stays on topic, evaluates most domains, discusses content, uses terms and concepts from reading, and demonstrates clarity of expression. Statements are supported by at least 1 scholarly source published within the past five years, cited at least once in the narrative.
28 to >0 pts
Developing
Does a poor to fair job of addressing the topic assigned, stays on topic, evaluates some domains, discusses content, does not use terms and concepts from reading, does not demonstrate clarity of expression. Statements are not supported by at least 1 scholarly source published within the past five years and cited in the narrative.
0 pts
Not Present
Failing. Student shows evidence of refusal or inability to provide the required content.
35 pts
Work Habits
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Superior work in all areas. Student consistently exceeds minimal expectations in all areas regarding content analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of topics, participation, timeliness, and writing style.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Good work in most areas. Student demonstrates minor deficiencies in some areas regarding content, analysis, writing style, and/or participation.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Poor to fair work in most areas. Student exhibits need for improvement in most areas regarding content, analysis, writing style, and/or participation.
0 pts
Not Present
Failing. Student shows evidence of refusal or inability to meet minimum standards of work.
30 pts
Personal application
5 to >4 pts
Advanced
The student provides thorough applications as a result of his/her professional life.
4 to >3 pts
Proficient
The student provides good applications as a result of his/her professional life.
3 to >0 pts
Developing
The student provides poor to fair applications as a result of his/her professional life.
0 pts
Not Present
The student provides zero applications as a result of his/her professional life.
5 pts
Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320
Criteria Ratings Points
APA Formatting
10 to >9 pts
Advanced
APA format followed, organizes content under APA headings, no large filler quotes, clearly does not plagiarize, clearly finds supportive reasons in reading and applies them in the case study. APA-formatted reference list and in-text citations are included.
9 to >7 pts
Proficient
APA format followed most of the time, headings contained some errors, has no large filler quotes, does not plagiarize, finds supportive reasons in reading and applies them in the case study. Reference list and in-text citations contain 2 – 5 errors.
7 to >0 pts
Developing
APA format inconsistent throughout; missing headings; some large filler quotes; does not plagiarize; finds few supportive reasons in reading and applies them in the case study; reference list, in-text citations, and headings contain more than 5 errors.
0 pts
Not Present
APA format was not followed; large filler quotes present; does not plagiarize; does not find supportive reasons in reading or apply them in the case study; reference list and in-text citations are not included.
10 pts
Spelling, Grammar and Mechanics
10 to >9 pts
Advanced
The Case Study begins with a title page and was typed in 12-point Times New Roman fonts on all pages; all pages were double-spaced; 1-inch margins on all four sides were used. Correct grammar and punctuation were present throughout. Correct spelling and spacing were present throughout. The paper was typed in a formal style and written in the third person.
9 to >7 pts
Proficient
Some errors with the title page, 12-point Times New Roman fonts, double-spacing; or 1-inch margins were present. Some errors with errors with one or more of the following were present: • Grammar, and/or; • Punctuation, and/or, • Spelling, and/or; • Spacing. Some errors with formal style and/or third person were present. 1 – 3 errors were present.
7 to >0 pts
Developing
Significant errors with the title page, 12-point Times New Roman fonts, double-spacing; align text left; extra spacing; or 1-inch margins were present. Significant errors with one or more of the following were present: • Grammar, and/or; • Punctuation, and/or, • Spelling, and/or; • Spacing. Significant errors with formal style and/or third person were present. More than 3 errors were present.
0 pts
Not Present
Errors with spelling, grammar, and/or mechanics were so pervasive that the readability and level of scholarship of the paper were substantially reduced.
10 pts
Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320
Criteria Ratings Points
Page count
10 to >9 pts
Advanced
At least 3 complete pages of original graduate-level analysis, evaluation, and discussion (plus title page, reference page, and tables or figures).
9 to >7 pts
Proficient
At least 2.9 pages of original graduate-level analysis, evaluation, and discussion (plus title page, reference page, and tables or figures).
7 to >0 pts
Developing
2.0 – 2.8 pages of original graduate-level analysis, evaluation, and discussion (plus title page, reference page, and tables or figures).
0 pts
Not Present
Less than 2 pages submitted.
10 pts
Total Points: 100
Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.