Tanglewood Case 4

1729 Words7 Pages
CASE FOUR:MEASUREMENT AND VALIDATION | 1. In Table 3.1, the traditional selection model shows a high p-value of 0.26 for education being citizenship and absence. The correlation score is 0.01, which means that education has little to no impact on the correlation between education and citizenship and absence. The interview score also has a p-value of 0.26, so this means that the interview score also does not relate to the correlation between performance and the interview. If the company is going to use the traditional selection model, it would do best by seeking out the lowest p-value with a high correlation score. In this case, work experience has a low p-value of 0.01 with a score of 0.16 for performance and 0.18 for promotion potential. My first suggestion would be to use this as the primary metrics because it shows that those individuals who have work experience in this particular job also have a tendency to be successful in performing the related duties for the job. My second suggestion would be to use education for performance and promotion potential because of similar scores (p-value 0.01 and correlation of 0.08 and 0.14). However, the other key aspect of this company is citizenship, and none of the traditional measurements have a significant impact on success in that aspect. In Table 3.2, there is a high level of citizenship that can be successfully correlated between the biodata information and the candidate. The p-score is only 0.01 and the correlation score is one of the highest at 0.22. This means that this measurement can draw out the individuals who score high on this correlation to be successful in understanding and being a part of the successful team environment. The biodata also has the highest correlation for promotion potential, but I hesitate in advising using this exclusively due to the expense and time needed for this

More about Tanglewood Case 4

Open Document