Examine the data provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Write a one page memo describing what

the results show. Be certain to emphasize both the practical and statistical significance of
the results. Also, be certain to note which of the predictors is most related to which of the
relevant outcomes.
After evaluating the data from the stores that employed the traditional selection method
we came to many conclusions about the predictors the stores have been using. The education
predictor has very low correlations with the citizenship and absence performance measures.
Although the correlation between citizenship and education is positive and the one between
education and absence is negative as they should be they are still extremely close to 0, which
would show no relationship. The correlation between education and the performance and
promotion potential performance measures is slightly higher than they were between the
previous two performance measures but they are still undesirably low. Out of the 4 performance
measures the correlation between education and promotional potential is the highest showing that
education is most useful to predict an employees promotional potential, and with a p value of <
.01 it is statistically significant. The work experience predictor has the highest relationships out
of all of the traditional methods used at Tanglewood. This means that the amount of work
experience a person had was the best predictor of the four performance measurements that
Tanglewood keeps track of. The more work experience someone had the more promotional
potential, performance, absence and citizenship the person had. The p values for all of the
performance measures under work experience was <.01 showing statistical significance for all of
them. An interesting detail to notice is that even though the relationship between absence and
work experience is higher with this method then with the education method, the relationship is
positive. This means that the more work experience someone had the more times they were
absent from work, which is an undesirable trait. The only method that bypassed work experience
correlations on any of the performance measures was the interview method and its relationship
with promotional potential. This was the highest relationship with promotional potential and the
p value was < .01 showing statistical significance. Although promotional potential was high, it
was the worst when measuring performance with a low correlation of .01 and a high p value of
.26. The reason for this could be since the managers conduct the interview process subjectively
they choose applicants that they like. The same managers also subjectively measure employees
on their promotional potential, so they reason for this strong relationship could be less about the
validity of the predictor and more about a favoritism issue.
We then evaluated the data collected after a year of experimentation with new methods in
stores in the Seattle area and compared them to the traditional method’s data. Out of all of the
new methods the Customer Service Biodata questionnaire had the best correlation with
citizenship with a .17 and a p value of < .01. The employees with high scores from the
personality test with conscientiousness and extraversion had a high correlation with the absence
and performance measurements all with a p value < .01. The performance measurement had the
highest correlation with the applicant exam and it was statistically and practically significant
with a p value of < .01. The proposed methods lowered the original scores of the 3 traditional
methods and their correlation with every performance measure. The best predictor to use for
absence and citizenship would be the score the applicant received for the conscientiousness.
This shows that this personality trait is important for a retail store associate. The best predictor
to use when measuring performance would be the applicant exam and well as when measuring
promotional potential.
One key question for selection methods is the content validity of selection methods. For
each of the scales proposed by Tanglewood, assess how well it matches the content that it
claims to measure, and how well it corresponds to the specific job of store associate. Make
suggestions for how each method could better capture the content it seeks to measure.
As a group we looked over the validity of each scale and came to a few
conclusions. Education seems to be the best analyst when measuring job performance and
promotion potential. Unfortunately, it doesn’t measure citizenship and absence as well as it
could. As a team we thought that it would be helpful to look at the potential employees
attendance record in school. Education is also important because it will show how an employee
will do with their job responsibilities and if they can answer important questions.
Work experience measures citizenship, job performance and promotional potential. Yet
work experience did not measure well on absence. As a team, we thought that looking at the
amount of sick days they had at their previous job would be a good indicator. Work experience is
important to a new employer because it will show if they were a good or bad employee and could
overall depend on if they receive the job or not.
Interview score scored high on citizenship and even higher on promotional
potential. To be able to measure absence and job performance better, we thought that asking
questions about these topics would help. Such as asking about their pervious job record, reasons
when it is acceptable to leave work, or similar questions. The interview can inform the employer
on if they will fit in with the organization because they can see what the applicant’s personality
is like. Similarly, they can ask them questions about themselves, which will also make them feel
more comfortable and have a better interview.
Retail knowledge measured well on job performance and promotional potential. Retail
knowledge is obviously important to know when applying for a sales position but does not
measure other factors such as citizenship and absence. We thought that questions should be
asked about how important it is to be at work everyday and if it is important to get along with
employees, to make retail knowledge a better predictor and get a feel for the potential employee.
Biodata scored very high on citizenship, absence and job performance. It is a good
indicator for three of the four scales, although it could be expensive and time consuming.
Applicants write an essay about their life experience, which is always difficult to answer and has
no way to be scored. Also, there is the case that some applicants might not have a lot of
experience because of their age or because of the environment they grew up in. In a way, it is
good because you can get to know the applicant and how they would handle the situation.
Applicant exam scored well on job performance and potential promotion. We suggested
asking questions in the interview about how important it is to get along with employees and how
they feel about absences, which are also good questions to put on the retail knowledge exam. The
applicant exam is good to see how the applicant will handle certain situations, but it will also
consume a lot of time by handing out a paper exam and grading it. We suggest that they take it
online so it can be graded automatically and will not consume the company’s time.
Conscientiousness is a great indicator for all four of the scales. As a team we didn’t have
any suggestions because of how well it always does with all four scales.
Extraversion seemed to be one of the worst predictors. We thought removing this
category all together would be the best idea. This seemed to be about the potential employees
personality, which doesn’t tell the employer how well they will do at the job or any other scale
factor.
After summarizing the overall results of the staffing system, write a description of what
Tanglewood should do if it wants to find good candidates. The company would also prefer
to use only two or three predictors. Based on the analyses above and the data provided in
the case, describe which predictors you would recommend for this job, and explain why
these predictors are the best choices.
Using both the data and chart from the Tanglewood case, we have narrowed down
what we would consider the top three predictors that Tanglewood should use when
determining the best candidates to hire. The three we have chosen are Biodata,
conscientiousness, and applicant exam. Biodata are questions about an individual’s
significant life and work experience that can be linked with the candidate’s job
performance. Conscientiousness is to be guided by or in accordance with the dictates of
conscience or in other, simpler words, being thoughtful, careful and precise. We first chose
Biodata and conscientiousness to be specific predictors due to the simple fact that the p-
values had a strong correlation, <0.01, for all four measurable categories citizenship,
absence, performance, and promotion. However, when we chose applicant exam for the
third predictor, the p-value differed. Although it doesn't have a strong correlation in
regards to citizenship and absence, it still has a strong correlation for performance and
promotion. When pairing all three predictors together (Biodata, conscientiousness,
applicant exam), the insignificance of the high p-values for the applicant exam will be
negated based upon the fact that the other two predictors, biodata and conscientiousness,
have a great p-value for all four categories assessed. Applicant exam is a key predictor
based upon the fact that it has the ability to gather information about the applicants
knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics that will make this individual
successful in the marketing industry.

Based on the description of the experimental validation procedure, do you believe that the
observed validity estimates will generalize to other stores? Provide an explanation for why
the traditional method for collecting validation evidence and the experimental procedure
might yield different results. Which method do you believe is more accurate? Why or why
not? What additional information might you use to determine if the results will generalize?
After finding out what experimental validation procedure entails, our team is not
convinced that observed validity estimates will generalize to other stores of Tanglewood.
First, the data given was not even a full representation of the employees; it was a mere
12,510 out of 25,000 employees, not even half. Second, validity is based on the situation,
not the overarching picture. There are different validation evidence yields between the
traditional method and the experimental procedure. The main cause to this is because
subjectivity of the manager's rating promotion potential. The results of the two
examinations are not even comparable, from the experimental validation procedure to the
traditional methods.
Due to the outcomes of the analyzed examinations given, we have concluded that
the proposed validation method comes of more use when in aid of making hiring decisions.
Using the validation method yields more predictors, thus more valuable statistical
relevance and significance. However, just because the method is of more value does not
mean that it can be generalized across the board and used for other stores. There are
multiple differences stores have from one another that would make a generalized system
weakened. Different store's managers are going to have different levels of subjectivity in
their review of their employees when determining their potential to be promoted, given a
raise, etc. Going back even further in the employee timeline, there is also going to be
different levels of subjectivity during the interview process. Plus, another factor worth
mentioning is you are going to find geographic region burdens specific to that area that
may not exist within a sister company located in a different geographic region. Economy,
population, age demographics, labor workforce, etc. are going to differ from location to
location, thus, they should not be generalized and treated as the same.
Our group has decided that using the experimental validation procedure would be
most efficient and should be implemented.