Chat with us, powered by LiveChat 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 - Essayabode

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. MBS Direct: Staffing Organizations - Google Chrome

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

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?