1JV00 2024/2025 Group Assignment 1 PDF

1JV00 - Fundamentals of Work and Organizational Psychology 2024/2025 Group assignment 1 Dr.ir. P.A.M. (Ad) Kleingeld Human Performance Management Group Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences September 2024 Table of contents General information and guidelines........................................................................................................ 3 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3 Requirements of the report.............................................................................................................. 3 Handing in the report....................................................................................................................... 3 Assessment: grading rubrics............................................................................................................ 4 Plagiarism notice............................................................................................................................. 4 Assignment 1A. Job characteristics and motivation................................................................................ 6 1A.1. Goal of assignment 1A........................................................................................................... 6 1A.2. Theoretical background......................................................................................................... 6 1A.3. Background information assignment 1A............................................................................... 6 The growth of online shopping....................................................................................................... 6 Amazon.com: controversy and innovation..................................................................................... 6 The Dutch context........................................................................................................................... 7 Soylent4U-NL Vijfheerenlanden...................................................................................................... 8 Introduction of warehouse automation.......................................................................................... 9 Conducting the Job Diagnostic Survey at Soylent4U-NL................................................................. 9 1A.4. Questions for Assignment 1A.............................................................................................. 10 Questions to be answered............................................................................................................ 10 Reporting....................................................................................................................................... 12 References for assignment 1A....................................................................................................... 12 Assignment 1B. Personnel Selection..................................................................................................... 13 1B.1. Goal of assignment 1B......................................................................................................... 13 1B.2. Theoretical background....................................................................................................... 13 1B.3. Background information for assignment 1B........................................................................ 13 1B.4. Questions for Assignment 1B.............................................................................................. 16 Available information.................................................................................................................... 16 Questions to be answered.............................................................................................................. 16 Reporting....................................................................................................................................... 17 References for Assignment 1B...................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 1. Title page of report........................................................................................................... 18 Appendix 2a. The Job Characteristics Model........................................................................................ 19 Appendix 2b. The Job Diagnostic Survey (Job Rating Form).............................................................. 22 Appendix 2c. Reference scores Job Diagnostic Survey........................................................................ 25 Appendix 3. Validity of selection methods and tests............................................................................ 26 Appendix 4. Sample questions Situational Judgment Test................................................................... 28 Appendix 5. Profiles of seven candidates for the function of ‘Logistics Manager Soylent4U-NL’..... 30 2 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 General information and guidelines Introduction In addition to the final (multiple choice) exam, the course Fundamentals of Work & Organizational Psychology (1JV00) consists of two group assignments, one for Block1 and one for Block 2 of the course. These group assignments together determine 40% of the final grade for the course (20% per group assignment). The group assignments are carried out in groups of four students. Working on the group assignment, you are actively applying key concepts of the course. It is strongly recommended that you carry out the group assignments together and that you do not divide them among each other. This document contains two assignments that are part of the group assignment of Block 1. This assignment contains the following themes:  Assignment 1A. ‘Job characteristics and motivation’  Assignment 1B. ‘Recruitment and selection’ The workload for this group assignment is approximately 20 hours per person. Requirements of the report Format. A4 paper size, line spacing 1.15 or 1.5, margins 2.5 cm, and font type 11pt Times New Roman or similar. Maximum word count. The maximum word count is 1000 for part 1A and 850 words for part 1B. These are for the main text only and do not include the title page, table of contents, figures, tables, and appendices. These maximums are non-negotiable; do not exceed them. Points will be deducted if you do. Title page. Please use the standard title sheet, as shown in Appendix 1 (Word version available in Canvas). Complete this with a title, the names and student numbers of the group members, the date of completion of the report, and the word count per assignment. Use of appendices. Please include all essential parts of the report in the main text. Appendices are intended for additional background information, detailed elaborations, etcetera. The body of the document must be fully comprehensible without having to consult the appendices. Do not assume that the assessor will read the Appendices! Use of literature. It may be possible to carry out this assignment only using the course book, lecture slides, and the literature sources available in the reference lists in this assignment document. However, offering support for a decision you made, or a line of reasoning may benefit from using citing additional literature. If you do this correctly, this will positively impact the grade. Handing in the report  Deadline: Monday 23 September, 17:00.  Digital version (PDF or Word) via upload in Canvas. Points will be deducted if the submission of the report is after the 17:00 deadline. Deductions are: 0.5 point if more than 5 minutes late, 1 point if more than an hour late, 2 points if more than 3 hours late. Reports that are submitted after Monday the 23rd will receive the grade 1. Late submissions – that occur each year - are often caused by a lack of clarity about who will upload the report. So, make clear agreements and verify! 3 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Assessment: grading rubrics Details about the assessment are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Assessment Group Assignment 1 Assignment 1A: 50% of overall grade Aspect weight 1. Brief introduction and a calculation of scores of the five task characteristics for order picker function Soylent4U-NL before (1) and (2) after the intervention; 30% Calculation of associated MPS scores. 2. Comparison of the functions pre- versus post-intervention (results only; explanations are graded at 4). Reported in Table(s) and Figure(s). 20% 3. Comparison of the functions pre and post with the reference function (results only; explanations are graded at 4). Reported in Table(s) and Figure(s). 4. Explanation of the differences that have been found at 2 and 3. 25% 5. Comparison of the JCM job characteristics with Smids et al.’s (2020) five aspects 15% of meaningful work; indication of changes in non-overlapping characteristics. 6. Assessment of the suitability of the research design 10% Assignment 1B: 40% of overall grade Aspect weight 1. Choice of decision-making procedure and predictors + argumentation 25% 2. Combining the predictors + argumentation 25% 3. Use of compensatory or (multiple) hurdle model + argumentation 10% 4. Determination of the seven candidates’ scores on the predictors 15% 5. The final ranking of the seven candidates 15% 6. Additional selection instrument 10% Quality of report: 10% of overall grade The report will be graded on nine aspects: 1. The title page meets the requirements. 2. The word limit is not exceeded. Note: grade for reporting quality = 0 if exceeded! 3. A Table of Contents is included; the report sections are consistent with the ToC. 4. A list of references is included (consistent with in-text citations), according to APA style (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/) 5. Pages are numbered. 6. The layout is appropriate and according to formatting requirements. 7. There is accurate numbering and labeling of tables and figures (see APA style); no ‘orphans’ (tables across pages). 8. Correct use of appendices. 9. No grammatical errors and typos. The grade for the quality of the report is 1 + number of sufficient aspects. Plagiarism notice  Academic fraud. Plagiarism will be actively monitored and punished if encountered. To verify that the group assignment report does not contain work of others that is not appropriately credited, all reports will be automatically submitted to a plagiarism check in Canvas. If there is suspicion of 4 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 plagiarism, a procedure with the Examination Board will be started. For more detailed information, see https://canvas.tue.nl/courses/24515/pages/course-information (section on academic fraud).  Use of generative AI. It is acceptable to use AI(-like) software (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Grammarly) to improve the text of the final draft of the report or to assist in reducing the word count if it exceeds the limit. Using such software to generate answers to the questions is unacceptable. In any case, it is unlikely that such answers will be valid and comprehensive given the specific context and information that must be used. If you want to master the course materials (which is also crucial for the exam), you benefit the most from doing the thinking and problem-solving yourselves. 5 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Assignment 1A. Job characteristics and motivation 1A.1. Goal of assignment 1A The goal of this assignment is to obtain insights into the relation between characteristics of the work that people do in their job and the degree to which their job is motivating. In this assignment, you will use the ‘Job Diagnostic Survey’ to establish to which degree a job possesses certain characteristics, what the motivating potential of the job is, and how different jobs may have distinct characteristics leading to higher or lower motivating potential. The core of this assignment is an analysis of the job of fulfillment center employee in the fulfillment center of a leading online retailer before and after the introduction of warehouse automation. 1A.2. Theoretical background Characteristics of the work that someone does determine to some extent how motivated he or she is (and to what degree job satisfaction, stress, and health complaints are experienced). In the Job Characteristics Model, developed by Hackman & Oldham (1980) (Conte & Landy, 2019: 344-345), five key job characteristics are distinguished: skill variety, task identity, task importance, autonomy, and feedback. See Appendix 2a for a detailed description. Hackman and Oldham developed a formula with which the ‘motivating potential’ of various jobs/functions can be calculated. Through a short questionnaire (the ‘Job Diagnostic Survey,’ JDS), the data can be collected that is required to fill in this formula. A description of (a version of) the JDS can be found in Appendix 2b. In Appendix 2c, the scores of several job families are shown. 1A.3. Background information assignment 1A The growth of online shopping Online shopping has surged over the past decade, with an increasing number of consumers opting for online purchases over traditional brick-and-mortar stores. As a result, e-commerce has become the fastest-growing segment of retail trade worldwide. In the United States, online sales reached $1,200 billion in 2023, marking a 111% increase compared to pre-COVID 2019 levels (Oberlo, 2024). Similarly, the European e-commerce market expanded to €741 billion (Ecommerce News, 2024). In the Netherlands, the e-commerce market generated approximately €33.3 billion in sales in 2023 (Ecommerce News, 2024). Notably, about 84% of Dutch consumers aged 15 and over made at least one online purchase of products or services, the highest percentage globally. Roughly half of these purchases were for products, with the main categories being Food/Nearfood, Shoes & Personal Lifestyle, Household Electronics, and Consumer Electronics. The Netherlands boasts a diverse range of web stores, from large companies like Bol.com, Wehkamp, Zalando, Coolblue, Amazon.nl, H&M, and Hema, to over 80,000 individual traders (self-employed without employees; ZZP) operating small, specialized web stores (Ecommerce News NL, 2024). Amazon.com: controversy and innovation By far the largest online retailer is Amazon.com. The company’s annual revenue for 2022 was a staggering $525 billion. Although Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com, is praised as a visionary entrepreneur, he is also criticized for how he fulfills his role as an employer (International Trade Union Confederation, 2014). The BCC documentary "Amazon: The truth behind the click" with undercover recordings in an Amazon fulfillment center in Wales has sparked a lot of discussion (BBC Panorama, 2013). This documentary - available on YouTube - shows, for example, how high the workload is for order pickers. The CNBC documentary "Amazon rising" (CNBC Documentaries, 2014) - available on YouTube - outlines Amazon as a company that wants to achieve high productivity at the 6 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 expense of the well-being of employees. In his book “Hired” Bloodworth (2018) describes that at Amazon employees get penalty points if they are sick, late or fail to meet their targets; When you collect a certain number of points, you are out. Taking bathroom breaks is discouraged to such an extent that some feel compelled to use plastic bottles lying around the warehouse. Amazon emphasizes that it wants to improve the work experience by investing more in the employees. In October 2018, Amazon increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour (BusinessWire, 2018) which was increased to $16 more recently. Amazon is investing millions into this promise to help employees learn more about the technical aspects of the work (e.g., software engineers AI). However, an investigation by the Guardian put these results in doubt (Sainato, 2019). Though Amazon offers $16 an hour, the elimination of bonuses and stock options, which has lessened the impact of the wage rise, poor working conditions, higher productivity demands and the hiring of temporary workers who do not have the same benefits as Amazon staff offset the effects of this benefit. This suggests that Amazon still has not controlled the work-related issues in the organization and is still looking for solutions to maintain profitability at the employees’ expense. In a technological innovation that started on a small scale as far back as 2012, Amazon currently has converted most of its warehouses into ‘Smart Warehouses’ by exploiting technological advances in deep learning Artificial Intelligence and robotization. Amazon’s modern fulfillment centers are now dominated by thousands of robots that pick up entire shelves and bring these to a human picker situated at a stationary workstation (see Figure 1). It is estimated that Amazon’s warehouses can hold 50% more stock and retrieve stock three times faster. This reduces the cost of fulfillment by almost 40% and increases the speed of delivery to customers. See the online video ‘Inside Amazon’s Smart Warehouse’ (Tech Vision, 2022) for more details (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMPbKVb8y8s&t=6s). Figure 1. Two images of a smart warehouse (source: Inside Amazon’s Smart Warehouse; Tech Vision, 2022). The Dutch context In the Netherlands, in 2022, Bol.com (€4.30 billion revenue), Albert Heijn (€1.60 billion), Coolblue (€1.57 billion), Amazon.nl (€1.0 billion), Zalando (€915 million), Wehkamp (€782 million), Jumbo (€650 million), and Picnic (€550 million) are the biggest online retailers (Twinkle100.nl, 2024). The leader on the web is bol.com, with slogans such as “the store of us all” and “ordered today, receive tomorrow” it conquered the online market. Bol.com even has package delivery on Sunday, and customers that have a subscription of €11.99 a year get free delivery whenever they want, even on the same day. These services lead to 24/7 working days, night shifts, and same-day delivery of the products. 7 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Soylent4U-NL Vijfheerenlanden The 10th biggest online retail company in the Netherlands is Soylent4U, based in Vijfheerenlanden 1, which will be the focus of this assignment. Soylent4U Netherlands is part of the Soylent4U holding, established in 1973, which is one of the larger online retailers worldwide, with an annual turnover of 30 billion euros and a workforce of more than 30,000 permanent and temporary employees. Soylent4U is originally a US company (Soylent Inc.), with headquarters in Culver City, California. Before the turn of the century, the company was famous (and a bit controversial) for its food products made of soybeans and lentils (hence soy-lent) and the slogan ‘Soylent Green is people!’ Currently, Soylent4U sells a wide range of products through an online portal, from books and vinyl to skin care products, vegan food, and pet food. Soylent4U's market share has grown strongly in recent years, and in 2022 Soylent4U entered the top 20 online retailers worldwide. Customer surveys show that customers highly value product range, price, and delivery reliability. Being part of this holding and being one of the ten biggest online retail centers of the Netherlands brings many responsibilities. Therefore, Soylent4U-NL is constantly working to optimize its work processes. Soylent4U-NL is one of the eleven fulfillment centers of Soylent4U in Europe. Soylent4U-NL currently has approximately 200 employees (August 2024). Most employees work full-time. On average, 10% of employees have a temporary contract. However, this percentage varies during the year. For example, in November and December, extra employees are temporarily hired in connection with Black Friday, Sinterklaas, and Christmas rush. Approximately 80% of the employees are male, and most of the employees have the Dutch nationality (67%) or Polish nationality (22%). Processes in the fulfillment center, pre-change The most important processes within the fulfillment center of Soylent4U-NL are receipt of products (goods reception), storage of products (shelve stacking/stowing), collection of customer orders (order picking), packaging of customer orders (order packing), and sending of the order (order shipping), as well as reception, checking and restocking of returned goods. In the event of a capacity shortage, there is an exchange of employees between departments (for example, shelve stackers who pick orders for a day). Still, usually, each employee has one main task because this is considered the most efficient. Each department has a supervisor who reports to the manager of the fulfillment center. The General Manager leads the Soylent4U-NL management team, which also includes the logistics manager, the IT manager, the financial manager, and the facilities & personnel manager. The support staff within Soylent4U- NLconsists of Human Resources employees, maintenance engineers, quality controllers, security employees, and logistics and IT specialists. The order pickers’ job (before the introduction of warehouse automation) At the fulfillment center in Vijfheerenlanden, approximately 80 employees – the order pickers - are involved daily in collecting customer orders and picking orders. These employees remove the products that belong to a customer order from the shelves, and place them on a trolley, which they deliver to the packaging department after a number of picks. When collecting orders, they use a handset that combines a hand scanner and a display that shows where the next product to be packed is located. To maintain picker productivity, Soylent4U-NL uses real-time targets (the number of seconds within which the next product must be scanned) and feedback (a countdown mechanism that gives a signal if the target is not achieved and a signal indicating whether the correct product has been scanned). Algorithms developed by logistics specialists ensure that the order picker has an optimal route through the large warehouse. Nevertheless, in the six hours of net working time (excluding breaks), order pickers often cover distances 1 You will not find Soylent4U in the city of Vijfheerenlanden. It is a fictitious company. However, it has a strong foundation in the current reality of online retail in the Netherlands. 8 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 of up to 25 kilometers on foot. Requirements that are linked to the position of order picker (and the other shop floor employees) are: Minimum age of 18 years. Availability for day and night shifts, including Saturday and Sunday (within the legal working conditions regulations). Undergo unannounced alcohol and drug testing and checks for theft and fraud. Lifting weight up to 25 kilograms. Introduction of warehouse automation The management of Soylent Inc. looks to Amazon as a notable example to increase efficiency and delivery speed through warehouse automation. Therefore, Soylent4U-NL was chosen as the testing ground for Soylent’s first foray into warehouse automation, as part of a broader project called ‘Sustainability & Productivity: Optimizing Together (SPOT).' Specifically, the pilot intervention at Soylent4U-NL entailed two major changes. Firstly, a ‘smart warehouse’ was created at a new location, similar to (though not as advanced) the one shown in the video ‘Inside Amazon's Smart Warehouse’ (see reference list). This meant that many robots bring the orders to be picked to the order pickers. So, instead of rushing around, the order pickers are given their own station and pick the orders from the shelves presented to them by the robot. This order picking is combined with packing (previously done by a separate group of employees), so the employee’s workspace includes a packing table and a conveyer belt on which they can place the package to transport it to shipment. Secondly, it was decided to rotate the employees across the different tasks daily. Considering projected order load, work schedules, and employee preferences (if possible), on a specific day an employee is allocated to either goods reception, storage, picking & packing, checking of returns & restocking, or shipping. Employees received training to acquire a broader set of necessary skills. It turns out that, typically, most order pickers perform the ‘new’ order picking task for about three days per week but carry out other tasks on the two remaining days. Some of these other tasks are quite different from picking & packing in the sense that there is more teamwork (e.g., in goods reception and shipping), a longer job cycle (e.g., in checking returns, deciding whether these are valid, and whether it is possible to restock the item), or less frequent system-generated feedback (e.g., in goods reception). It took Soylent4U-NL four months to get the new warehouse up and running (including providing training to all employees in the new picking & packing task). Most employees had already worked in the fulfillment center before the introduction of the innovative technology. Conducting the Job Diagnostic Survey at Soylent4U-NL As part of their Bachelor Thesis Project, a TU/e Industrial Engineering student conducted a job analysis both before and after the introduction of the warehouse automation (January and June 2024, respectively) 2 to investigate the effect of the warehouse automation on the employees’ tasks and – potentially – their motivation and well-being. In January 2024, 62 Soylent4U-NL fulfillment center order pickers completed the Job Diagnostic Survey at (based on the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) in Dutch, English, or Polish. Temporary workers were not included in the study in January 2024, before the change. 2 The student is fictitious, too. Obviously. Because it would be weird to have an actual student conduct research at a fictitious company 9 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 About eight weeks after the change, 82 Soylent4U-NL fulfillment center employees completed the JDS again. Both questionnaires were anonymous to promote a high and honest response. Only the data of respondents who indicated that they had been an order picker before the change – and not a temporary worker – were retained (n = 50). So, note that the order pickers in the new situation not only pick orders but, on some days, also perform other tasks in the fulfillment center (rotation as described above). 1A.4. Questions for Assignment 1A With the Job Characteristics Model as your frame of reference, conduct a job analysis for the job of fulfillment center employee/order picker at Soylent4U based on the Job Characteristics Model. Compare the task characteristics and motivating potential of the job before and after the introduction of warehouse automation. The Excel file "1JV00_JDS_2024_pre_post.xlsx" (see Canvas) contains the "raw", unedited results of the completed Job Diagnostic Surveys. There file contains two worksheets, one for the situation before and one for the situation after introduction of the warehouse automation. Questions to be answered. Question A1) Use the data in the Excel file and the information in Appendices 2a and 2b to calculate the average scores per task characteristic and the motivation potential score (MPS), for the order picker job before and after the change. Select the most suitable reference function for the fulfillment center employee job using Appendix 2c (you can assume that the same reference function applies to the job both before and after the change). There may not be a perfect fit; choose the reference function that comes closest. Briefly substantiate your choice. Display the results in one or more Figures and Tables. Question A2) and A3)  Compare the scores on the task characteristics at both measurement moments (before and after the change) with each other (A2) and with the reference function (A3). For these comparisons, you must employ a so-called t-test for independent means. This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples, considering the scores' distribution in both samples. A significance value (P-value) is reported, which is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis (the difference is zero) were true, i.e., that the difference occurred by chance. If the P-value is lower than 0.050, you may conclude that there is a difference between the two groups. Please use the online calculator at https://www.medcalc.org/calc/comparison_of_means.php, and enter the Means, Standard Deviations (formula in Excel: STDEV), and sample sizes for the groups that you want to compare. Question A4) Draw conclusions about the extent to which the position is motivating for both the pre-change and the post-change situation and describe the strengths and weaknesses. Find explanations for differences found (order picker ‘pre’ versus order picker ‘post’ versus reference function) using the information available in the case description. 10 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Question A5) Please download the article by Smids, Nyholm, and Berkers (2020; see the reference list). In this article, the authors discuss the impact of increasing robotization of the workplace on meaningful work. They identify five key aspects: pursuing a purpose, social relationships, exercising skills and self- development, self-esteem and recognition, and autonomy. Furthermore, they provide an overview of ways in which robotization can represent either a threat to or opportunity for meaningful work. Compare the five job characteristics of the JCM to the five aspects of meaningful work defined by Smids et al. (2020). Which characteristics and aspects are equivalent, and which are (at least partly) different? For the aspects of Smids et al. (2020) that are not – or not fully - included in the JCM, indicate how these may have changed (positive, negative, no change) and why. Question A6) Now, look at the introduction of warehouse automation and the JDS measurements at Soylent4U-NL, from a methodological viewpoint. Table 3 contains six distinct types of research design that can be used to assess the effect of an intervention. To which of these six research designs does the student’s study at Soylent4U-NL (as described in the section Introduction of warehouse automation) correspond? Provide brief support. Given the research design that was employed, the specific changes that were introduced, and the measures that were used, what would be your response be if someone argues that the effect of warehouse automation on the job characteristics of the Soylent4U-NL order pricker job cannot be determined in this case. If you disagree, why do you think this effect can be determined? If you agree, what changes in the research design would have been necessary to assess this effect? Table 3. Types of Research Design Note. R = randomization; O = pretest or posttest; X = experimental intervention. Source: Mi (2012). 11 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Reporting Answer the six questions above in the first part of your assignment report. This should be a coherent whole, not just a list of questions and answers. See Table 1 for the nine reporting aspects you will be graded on. Length of this part: a maximum of 1000 words. Figures, tables, and any appendices do not count towards this number of words. References for assignment 1A BBC Panorama (2013). Amazon behind the scenes Amazon.com The Truth Behind the Click amazon shopping secrets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwrUYS9UTeU Bloodworth, J. (2018). Hired. Atlantic Books. BusinessWire (2018, October 2). Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all U.S. employees, including full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal. Retrieved from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181002005317/en/ on August 23, 2022. CNBC Documentaries (2014). Amazon Rising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZPMr-LX6hE Ecommerce News (2024). Ecommerce in Europe. Retrieved from: https://ecommercenews.eu/ecommerce-in-europe/ on August 16, 2024. Ecommerce News NL (2024). Ecommerce in Nederlamd. Retrieved form: https://www.ecommercenews.nl/tag/nederland/ on August 16, 2024. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. International Trade Union Confederation (2014, May 22). Amazon’s Jeff Bezos Wins ITUC’s World’s Worst Boss Poll. Retrieved from http://www.ituc-csi.org/amazon-s-jeff-bezos-wins-ituc-s on August 23, 2022. Conte, J.M., & Landy, F.J. (2019). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Mi, M. (2012). Evidence based medicine teaching in undergraduate medical education: a literature review. Evidence based library and information practice, 7(3), 98-120. Oberlo (2022). US ecommerce sales 2012-2022. Retrieved from https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us- ecommerce-sales on August 16, 2024. Sainato, M. (2019, August 7). Revealed: Amazon touts high wages while ignoring issues in its warehouses. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/06/amazon-workers-minimum-wage-injuries- working-conditions on August 16, 2024. Smids, J., Nyholm, S., & Berkers, H. (2020). Robots in the workplace: a threat to—or opportunity for—meaningful work? Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 503-522. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13347-019-00377-4.pdf Teach Vision (2020, November 30). Inside Amazon’s Smart Warehouse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMPbKVb8y8s Twinkle100.nl (2024). Albert Heijn passeert Coolblue op lijst grootste webwinkels. Retrieved from https://twinkle100.nl/albert-heijn-passeert-coolblue-op-lijst-grootste-webwinkels/ on August 16, 2024. 12 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Assignment 1B. Personnel Selection 1B.1. Goal of assignment 1B The goal of this second part of assignment 1 is to obtain insights into relevant aspects of personnel selection. The main task is to assess seven candidates for the function of Logistics Manager at Soylent4U_NL. This requires an analysis of the candidate profiles, related to the job description and requirements of this function. The analysis should result in a ranking of the candidates that enables the selection committee (which includes the representatives of the board of Soylent4U Europe, and the general manager and IT manager of Soylent4U) to invite one or more candidates for the next step in the procedure (e.g., a selection interview). 1B.2. Theoretical background A good (valid) selection process leads to the hiring of staff that will perform well in the job, and to the rejection of those who will not. Decisions regarding the selection of staff can therefore have a significant impact on the success of an organization. In selection procedures, various measurements can be used (intelligence tests, personality and integrity tests, assessment centers, work samples, etc.), and information on candidates can be obtained via, among other things, curricula vitae, motivational letters, and structured and unstructured interviews. Combining this data leads to a decision on the suitability of candidates. Through scientific research, much information is available about the validity of tests (i.e., the relationship of test scores with job performance outcomes) and the extent to which combinations of tests will lead to a higher validity. Please consult Appendix 3 for an overview. 1B.3. Background information for assignment 1B For Assignment 1B, assume that it is the beginning of 2023, a year before the implementation of warehouse automation in the fulfillment center of Soylent4U-NL. Soylent4U is looking for a new Logistics Manager (LM) because the current manager will leave the company in four months, before the summer of 2023. The LM to be hired should not only take over the tasks of the current LM but will also become the project leader of the project Sustainability & Productivity: Optimizing Together' (SPOT)'. The assignment to the SPOT project group is twofold: 1) Elaborating various scenarios for the reorganization of the processes in the fulfillment centers using warehouse automation, which lead to joint optimization of effectiveness and efficiency (in terms of delivery reliability, quality, and costs) and retains meaningful jobs for employees. 2) Coordination of the execution of a pilot in the fulfillment center of Soylent4U-NL, where the preferred scenario will be implemented and tested 3. The SPOT project group has a multidisciplinary composition (members come from different disciplines/departments within Soylent4U) so that the issues can be analyzed integrally from all relevant angles. Four years have been earmarked for the project (2023-2026). The management of Soylent4U Europe has drawn up a vacancy for this position in consultation with the management team of Soylent4U-NL (see Figure 2). The recruitment procedure, coordinated by the Human Resources department of Soylent4U Europe, resulted in seven candidates, who remained after clearly unsuitable candidates were screened out. 3 This is the pilot discussed in part 1A of the assignment. 13 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Soylent4U holding is one of the Top 20 online retailers worldwide, with an annual turnover of 30 billion euros, and a workforce of more than 30,000 permanent and temporary employees. Soylent4U sells a wide range of products through an online portal and our market share has grown strongly in recent years. Customer surveys show that customers highly value the range, price and delivery speed and reliability. Soylent4U-NL is one of the 11 fulfillment centers of this holding and being one of the ten biggest online retail centers of the Netherlands brings many responsibilities. Therefore, Soylent4U-NL is continuously working to optimize its work processes and has plans to introduce higher levels of warehouse automation. For Soylent4U-NL, we are looking for a Logistics Manager As a member of the Soylent4U-NL management team, you are responsible for optimizing the efficiency and delivery performance of the fulfillment center, including worker productivity and well-being, safety, and sustainability. You lead a team of purchasing, order processing, and shipping supervisors, and you collaborate with all relevant parties within the various layers of the organization. From a helicopter view, you analyze operational processes in the fulfillment center. You have excellent communication skills and know how to create support from and consensus among all relevant stakeholders through your organizational awareness and your persuasiveness. Key tasks include: Planning, organizing, and managing the work of fulfillment center staff to ensure that the work is accomplished in a manner consistent with organizational requirements. Analyzing all aspects of corporate logistics to determine the most efficient processes in the fulfillment center, taking into account sustainability and worker well-being. Collaborating with other departments to integrate logistics with business systems or processes, such as customer sales, order management, accounting, or shipping. Implementing and monitoring warehouse safety and security programs and activities. Monitoring operations to ensure that staff members comply with administrative policies and procedures, safety rules, environmental policies, or government regulations. Your first major project is to coordinate the project Sustainability & Productivity: Optimizing Together' (SPOT). Under your leadership, this multidisciplinary project group works out different redesign scenarios of the processes in Soylent4U's fulfillment centers, which lead to joint optimization of productivity and sustainability. The preferred scenario will be evaluated under your supervision as a pilot in the fulfillment center of Soylent4U-NL. Four years have been earmarked for the project. Profile A completed degree in higher vocational education (professional education), or a university bachelor’s or master’s degree in operations management, logistics management, supply chain management, warehouse management, industrial engineering, management science, or a similar program (required). At least five years of relevant work experience (required). At least three years of management experience (preferred). Excellent analytical skills Excellent communication and collaboration skills. Preferably experience with change processes. Very good English proficiency (CEFR C1 or higher). At least good proficiency in Dutch (if not, must attain good proficiency within one year (CEFR B2). A passion for improving business processes. Figure 2. Vacancy Logistics Manager Soylent4U-NL (2023). 14 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 The recruitment procedure, coordinated by the Human Resources department of Soylent4U Europe, has yielded seven candidates. An English-language curriculum vitae and motivation letter are available for each of these candidates. All seven candidates have taken part in a cognitive ability test and a Situational Judgment Test and completed a personality questionnaire. The cognitive ability test was provided by a testing agency and consisted of subtests for measuring (1) logical reasoning, (2) spatial reasoning, 3) mental arithmetic, 4) numerical reasoning, 5) verbal analogies, and 6) verbal reasoning. For the verbal subtests, candidates could choose between equivalent English-language and Dutch-language tests. Candidates carried out the test online in a proctored environment. The test duration was 80 minutes. The test content and difficulty were appropriate for candidates with a higher education background. This was also the reference group (thousands of test takers) that was used in the report that was provided to the candidates and the company. Scores were expressed as percentile scores. For example, if a candidate scores in the 75% percentile, she has a higher score than 75% of the test takers in the reference group. An overall percentile score was also provided, in which the six subtests had equal weight. The standardized score represents the number of standard deviations that the candidate’s score differs from the mean of the reference group. For example, a percentile score of 58 equals a standardized score of +0.21 standard deviations above the mean of the reference group. Results of the cognitive ability test are available in Appendix 5, in the candidate profiles. Candidates received a one-page summary of their test results a week after completing the test. The Situational Judgment Test was provided by a testing agency. This test contained eight components, each of which was measured with three questions. The components are: (1) Leadership and Team Management, (2) Operational Efficiency, (3) Safety and Compliance, (4) Public speaking and media relations, (5) Project Management, (6) Sustainability and Worker Well-being, (7) Collaboration and Communication, and (8) Event planning. The candidates carried out the test online, in a proctored environment. For each of the 24 questions, the candidate was allowed two minutes to provide an answer. Overall, the test took about 55 minutes to complete. See Appendix 4 for examples of questions for each of these components. Based on the candidates’ answers, scores for each component were calculated ranging from 0 to 10. Results of the Situational Judgment Test are available in Appendix 5, in the candidate profiles. Candidates received a one-page summary of their test results a week after completing the test. The seven candidates also completed the Big Five Inventory, a validated personality questionnaire measuring Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness, containing 44 statements (Denissen, Geenen, van Aken, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). Examples of statements are. “Is curious about many different things (O); “Does a thorough job” (C); “Is outgoing, sociable” (E); “Is considerate and kind to almost everyone” (A); “Remains calm in tense situations” (N). Compared to the original test, the work context was explicitly added, by having all statement start with “At work, I am someone who.…” Candidates were asked to rate their agreement with each statement regarding their perceptions of themselves, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The candidates carried out the test online, in a proctored environment. A one-page personal feedback profile was provided to the candidates a few days after completing the test. The results of the seven candidates are available in Appendix 5, in the candidate profiles (for comp- arison, reference scores are provided from a sample of the general Dutch adult population). 15 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 1B.4. Questions for Assignment 1B The assignment is as follows: Design and describe a procedure to rank the seven candidates according to suitability for the function of Logistics Manager at Soylent4U-NL and provide support for the procedure you employ and the final ranking order. Available information The following sources of information are available for this assignment: The vacancy text (Figure 2) and the profiles of the seven candidates (Appendix 5). The validity of various selection tests and data sources (Appendix 3). Similar occupations, which can be searched for on O*NET (www.onetonline.org). Course materials on ‘Individual differences and testing’ (lecture slides and Conte & Landy, 2019; Chapter 3) and ‘Personnel selection’ (lecture slides and Conte & Landy, 2019; Chapter 6). Questions to be answered. Question B1) Choose the information that you will use to determine the ranking. In other words, what predictors do you select from the information in Appendix 5, given the job requirements included in Figure 2? Provide a brief argumentation for your choices. Question B2) Determine how you will combine the predictors to arrive at an overall score per candidate. Consider that comparing candidates through a statistical decision-making method is generally superior to employing a more intuitive (clinical) method (Conte & Landy, 2019: 252-255). Provide a brief argumentation for your choices. Question B3) Decide whether you will use a compensatory or non-compensatory (‘(multiple) hurdle’) system (Conte & Landy, 2019: 252-255). Provide a brief argumentation. Question B4) Calculate the overall scores for the candidates, if necessary, considering one or more hurdles. Provide an explanation where necessary. Question B5) Establish the ranking order: Indicate which candidate is most suitable for the function and who are in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th place. Question B6) In the selection procedure, information was available for a personality test, an SJY test, and a cognitive ability test, as well as candidates’ language proficiency and a (partial) CV. The company will also conduct structured interviews with the remaining candidates. Which additional method/test from the overview in Appendix 3 would you recommend the company to add to further improve the validity of the selection procedure? Select only one and provide a brief explanation of your choice. 16 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Please note that in the grading of this assignment, the quality of and rationale for your procedure carries a higher weight than the ranking outcome. Reporting Answer the five questions above in the second part of your assignment report. This should be a coherent whole, not just a list of questions and answers. The maximum length of this part is 850 words. Figures, tables, and any Appendices do not count toward this number. See Table 1 for the nine reporting aspects you will be graded on. References for Assignment 1B Denissen, J. J. A., Geenen, R., Van Aken, M. A. G., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90 (2), 152-157. Landy, F.J., & Conte, J.M. (201). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 17 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Appendix 1. Title page of report 1JV00 - Fundamentals of Work and Organizational Psychology (2024/2025) Group assignment part 1 Teacher: dr. ir. P.A.M. Kleingeld Human Performance Management Group Group < Initials (name) Last name> < Initials (name) Last name> < Initials (name) Last name> < Initials (name) Last name> < Initials (name) Last name> Date Word count 1A xxx Word count 1B xxx 18 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Appendix 2a. The Job Characteristics Model Background information According to the job characteristics approach, certain conditions or (job) characteristics affect the occurrence of job stress and reactions to the work, such as work motivation, job satisfaction, health issues and absenteeism. By identifying these characteristics, tasks or jobs can be assessed. By improving these characteristics, it is possible to prevent or reduce the risk of developing adverse effects (such as low motivation and job stress). The Job Characteristics Model A method for job analysis should be based on a theoretical model that allows for a practical interpretation of the job analysis. It should also indicate which job attributes are central. The Job Characteristics Model by Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1976, 1980) is a good example of such a theoretical model. Hackman and Oldham distinguish five central job characteristics: Skill variety: The degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, which involve the use of a number of different skills and talents of the person. Task identity: The degree to which the job requires completion of a "whole" and identifiable piece of work. That is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome. Task significance: The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people, whether in the immediate organization or the external environment. Autonomy: The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the employee in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. Feedback from job: The degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the individual obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of their performance. The Job Diagnostic Survey For their model, Hackman and Oldham constructed a measurement instrument, the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), in which the job characteristics are estimated by the job performer or a job specialist. The main purpose of the JDS is the diagnosis of existing jobs in support of job (re)design. Although more comprehensive models and tools have been developed in the field of work design, the JDS is still one of the best-known instruments for analyzing work. Establishing the motivating potential of a job The JDS contains 15 questions (three for each job characteristic) which are rated on a seven- point scale from 1 "low" to 7 "high" (see Appendix for some examples). The answer scores are combined into a summary score that expresses the motivating potential (Motivating Potential Score, MPS). The MPS reflects the overall potential of the job to prompt internal motivation of the employee carrying out the job. The formula for the MPS, which is directly derived from the assumptions in the Job Characteristics Model, is as follows: (skill variety + task identity + task significance) MPS = -------------------------------------------------------------------- * autonomy * feedback 3 19 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 The basic assumption of the formula is that autonomy and feedback especially provide an important contribution to the motivating potential of a job. The lowest theoretical score for the MPS is 1, namely ((1+1+1)/3)*1*1, while the theoretically highest score is 343, namely ((7+7+7)/3)*7*7. In practice, the lowest score turns out to be 7 (home typist), and the highest score 300 (organization development consultant). The average MPS in the United States of America is 128 (at the time when Hackman and Oldham conducted their research). Based on the obtained scores a diagnostic profile can be created, which can be compared with reference data (see Figure B2.1 for an example). (4.5 + 5.1 + 6.1) MPS = ------------------------- * 2.7 * 2.0 = 28.3 3 Laboratory technicians, for example, score on average 4.5 on skill variety, 5.1 on identity, 6.1 on task significance, 2.7 on autonomy, and 2.0 on feedback. Entered the MPS formula, this results in a value of about 28. Laboratory technicians thus have a profession with a low motivating potential (compared with reference scores). See Figure B2.1. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 variety identity significance autonomy feedback laboratory technicians reference (MPS=128) Figure B2.1. A Diagnostic profile for laboratory technicians, compared with US reference scores (source: Hackman & Oldham, 1980) Improving job characteristics Based on the diagnostic profile, a remedy may be devised to adjust the job if necessary. Hackman and Oldham name several ways in which jobs can be redesigned (Table B2.1). 20 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Table B2.1. Options for redesigning a job to improve task characteristics. Diagnosis Remedy/redesign options Low scores on: Job adjustment: Skill variety − job enlargement (combining of the same types of tasks) − establishing customer relations Task identity − creating natural groups of tasks − job enlargement (combining of the same types of tasks) Task significance − creating natural groups of tasks Autonomy − vertically loading the job (adding planning, organization, and control) − establishing customer relations Feedback − opening feedback channels − establishing customer relations (Source: Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 135) In Table B2.1, for each job characteristic, adjustments are indicated. Autonomy could for example be enhanced by adding planning, organizing, and control to the job and by stimulating direct relationships with customers. When the intended changes have been realized, one could check with the JDS whether the desired effect has been achieved, both in terms of job character- istics as well as in terms of motivation and health. References Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 21 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Appendix 2b. The Job Diagnostic Survey (Job Rating Form) Part 1 This part of the questionnaire asks you to describe your job, as objectively as you can. Please do not use this part of the questionnaire to show how much you like or dislike your job. Instead, try to make your descriptions as accurate and as objective as you can. You are two circle the number between 1 and 7, that is the most accurate description of your job. -------1------- --------2------ --------3------ --------4------- --------5------ --------6------ --------7------ very little moderately very much To what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own 1 how to go about doing the work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 To what extent does the work involve doing a “whole” and 2 identifiable piece of work, rather than only a small part of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 overall piece of work? To what extent does your job require you to do many different 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 things at work, using a variety of your skills and talents? To what extent are the results of your work likely to 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 significantly affect the lives or well-being of other people? To what extent does doing the job itself provide you with 5 information about your work performance? (That is, aside from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 any “feedback” co-workers or supervisors may provide.) 22 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Part 2 Instruction: Listed below are ten statements that could be used to describe a job. You are to indicate whether each statement is an accurate or inaccurate description of your job. Please try to be as objective as you can in deciding how accurately each statement describes your job, regardless of whether you like or dislike your job. How accurate is the statement in describing your job? 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= very mostly slightly neither slightly mostly very inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate accurate accurate accurate nor accurate The job requires me to use a number of complex or 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 high-level skills The job is arranged so that I do not have the chance to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 do an entire piece of work from beginning to end Just doing the work required by the job provides many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 chances for me to figure out how well I am doing. 9 The job is quite simple and repetitive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The job is one where a lot of other people can be 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 affected by how well the work gets done The job denies me any chance to use my personal 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 initiative or judgment in carrying out the work The job provides me the chance to completely finish 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the pieces of work I begin The job itself provides very few clues about whether or 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not I am performing well The job gives me considerable opportunity for 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 independence and freedom in how I do the work. The job itself is not very significant or important in the 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 broader scheme of things 23 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Calculation The items of the job characteristic scales are preferably analyzed based on so-called mean sum scores. To compose these sum scores all items of a scale (e.g., autonomy) are added together and then divided by the number of items. In case some items are unclear or incorrect, the sum score should not be calculated (and hence also no MPS score) It could be that a question is formulated negatively (see for example question 15). In that case, the item should be reversed. This is done by subtracting the score on the item from '8'. For example, an employee scores '6' on item 15 (it is mostly accurate that my job is not important). Reversed this gives a value of '2' (it is mostly inaccurate that my job is important). Below it is indicated which items should be added together for each task characteristic (Table B2.2). Table B2.2 Mean sum score calculation for each job characteristic of the JDS. Job Characteristic Mean sum score over the items Skill variety ( (item 3) + (item 6) + (reversed item 9) ) / 3 Identity ( (item 2) + (reversed item 7) + (item 12) ) / 3 Significance ( (item 4) + (item 10) + (reversed item 15) ) / 3 Autonomy ( (item 1) + (reversed item 11) + (item 14) ) / 3 Feedback ( (item 5) + (item 8) + (reversed item 13) ) / 3 24 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Appendix 2c. Reference scores Job Diagnostic Survey Based on research by Hackman and Oldham in the USA average scores on the job characteristics of several job families are determined. See Table B2.3 for these scores and the corresponding MPS scores (Oldham, Hackman, & Stepina, 1978; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Table B2.3. Reference scores Job Diagnostic Survey for several job families (n=6930) Professional and Job family Managerial Clerical Sales Service Processing Machine trades Bench work Structural work technical N 780 1352 2760 90 238 704 173 195 95 Job Characteristic M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Skill Variety 5.36 1.00 5.57 0.94 4.09 1.33 4.78 1.15 5.01 1.36 4.15 1.24 5.08 1.21 4.24 1.24 5.20 1.09 Task Identity 5.06 1.16 4.72 1.08 4.70 1.24 4.43 1.37 4.72 1.24 4.34 1.31 4.92 1.30 4.52 1.27 5.11 1.24 Task Significance 5.62 0.95 5.81 0.85 5.29 1.11 5.49 1.25 5.74 1.04 5.32 1.23 5.61 1.19 5.78 1.19 5.51 1.20 Autonomy 5.35 1.05 5.37 0.92 4.47 1.25 4.85 1.43 5.01 1.25 4.50 1.29 4.93 1.34 4.64 1.11 5.04 1.19 Feedback 5.08 1.11 5.15 1.04 4.61 1.27 5.42 1.02 5.08 1.21 4.68 1.22 4.92 1.15 4.39 1.28 4.90 1.19 MPS 145 148 97 129 131 97 126 99 130 Note. N= sample size (estimated based on Oldham, Hackman, & Stepina, 1978), M = mean, SD = standard deviation See the Dictionary of Occupational titles (DOT) for jobs within each job family, e.g., http://www.occupationalinfo.org/. Use the search function to see whether you can obtain the appropriate reference function (job family). 25 1JV00 / 2024-2025 / Assignment Block 1 Appendix 3. Validity of selection methods and tests Table A3.1 contains the correlations between test scores and job performance, derived from meta-analyses. The meta-analysis by Sackett et al. (2022) is the most recent and comprehensive and represents the state-of-the art of knowledge about validity of selection methods and tests. Table A3.1 Meta-analytic correlations representing the validity of selection methods and tests, with Top 5 in parentheses. Schmidt & Hunter (1998) / Sackett et Barrick, Mount, & gain in validity if used with al. (2022) Judge (2001)a Cognitive ability test Cognitive ability tests (GMA) 0.31 (5) 0.51 (2) Interviews – structured 0.42 (1) 0.51 (2) / 0.12 Interviews – unstructured 0.19 0.38 / 0.04 Job knowledge tests 0.40 (2) 0.48 (4) / 0.07 Work sample tests 0.33 (4) 0.54 (1) / 0.12 Integrity tests 0.31 (5) 0.41 (5) / 0.14 Emotional Intellig. - personality-based b 0.30 Emotional Intelligence - ability-based b 0.22 Assessment Center 0.29 0.37 / 0.02 SJT – knowledge c 0.26 SJT - behavioral tendency c 0.26 Conscientiousness - overall d 0.19 0.31 / 0.09 0.27 / 0.25 Conscientiousness - contextualized d 0.25 Emotional stability - overall d 0.09 0.13 / 0.09 Emotional stability - contextualized d 0.23 Extraversion - overall d 0.10 0.15 / 0.21 Extraversion - contextualized d 0.21 Agreeableness - overall d 0.10 0.13 / 0.10 Agreeableness - contextualized d 0.19 Openness to exp. - overall d 0.05 0.07 / 0/10 Openness to exp. - contextualized d 0.12 Empirically keyed biographical data e 0.38 (3) 0.35 / 0.01 Rationally keyed biographical data e 0.22 Job experience (years) 0.07 0.18 / 0.03 Vocational interests 0.10 0.24 / 0.01 Reference checks n/a 0.26 / 0.06 Years of education n/a 0.10 / 0.01 Graphology n/a 0.02 / 0.00 Age n/a -0.01 / 0.00 Note. a The left number is the validity for the overall working population, whereas the right number is the validity for managerial positions. b Personality-based EI concerns emotion-related self-perceptions measured via self-report. It is defined as a constellation of self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007); Ability-based EI concerns emotion-related cognitive abilities that ought to be measured via maximum performance tests. ability EI is defined as “the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). 26 (Table A3.1 continued) c Situational Judgment Tests can be distinguished in ‘Knowledge SJTs’ that use knowledge instructions (e.g., pick the best/worst response instructions: asking the respondent to identify what one “should” do) and ‘Behavioral tendency SJTs’ that use behavioral instructions (e.g., pick the response you would engage in: asking the respondent to identify what one “would” do)(e.g., McDaniel & Whetzel, 2007). d Big Five - general: overall personality, without specification of domain; Big Five - contextualized: personality in the work context ('at work' added to all questions). e Empirically keyed biodata: applicants are presented with a list of questions pertaining to such things as one's economic stability, work ethic orientation, and educational achievement. Applicants' scores are determined by weighing each item according to the item's empirically derived relationship to the criterion of interest. This technique requires a validation study to be carried out to obtain the empirically derived weights for the biodata. Rationally keyed biodata: applicants are presented with a list of questions pertaining to such things as one's economic stability, work ethic orientation and educational achievement. Applicants' scores are determined by weighting each item according to the item's rationally derived relationship to the criterion of interest. Research indicates the predictive validity of this technique may be lower than other available techniques with no evidence for reduced adverse impact against minorities (https://www.hr-guide.com/data/G313.htm). References Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and assessment, 9(1‐2), 9-30. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence 27(4), 267-298 McDaniel, M.A. & Whetzel, D.L. (2007). Situational Judgement Tests. In D.L. Whetzel & G.R. Wheaton (Eds). Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management. Erlbaum. 235-258. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273-289. Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040-2068. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262- 274. 27 Appendix 4. Sample questions Situational Judgment Test (The questions below are relatively easy. The other two questions for each component are of increasing difficulty) 1. Leadership and Team Management Assessing the ability to lead and motivate a team, manage conflicts, and ensure productivity. Example Question: "One of your supervisors is consistently underperforming, which is affecting the team's overall productivity. What would you do?" A. Have a private meeting to discuss the issues and offer support. B. Reassign their responsibilities to other team members. C. Issue a formal warning without further discussion. D. Ignore the issue and hope it improves over time. 2. Operational Efficiency Evaluating the ability to analyze and optimize fulfillment center processes. Example Question: "You notice that the order processing time has increased significantly. What steps would you take to identify and resolve the issue?" A. Conduct a detailed analysis of the current processes. B. Increase the number of staff working on order processing. C. Implement improvements without consulting the team. D. Ignore the issue as it might resolve itself. 3. Safety and Compliance Ensuring adherence to safety regulations and company policies. Example Question: "A new safety regulation has been introduced that requires significant changes to your current processes. How would you implement these changes?" A. Immediately enforce the changes without any training. B. Develop a comprehensive training program for all staff. C. Delay the implementation until the next audit. D. Only partially implement the changes to minimize disruption. 4. Public Speaking and Media Relations Dealing with media and public speaking. Example Question: “How would you prepare for a press conference to announce the new fulfillment center?” A. Write a speech and practice it multiple times. B. Coordinate with the PR team for key messages. C. Focus on internal communication with your team. D. Develop a media strategy and talking points. 5. Project Management Leading and managing complex projects. Example Question: "You are leading a large project and encounter resistance from some team members regarding the proposed changes. How do you handle this?" A. Enforce the changes without addressing concerns. B. Hold a meeting to discuss and address the concerns. C. Abandon the project due to the resistance. D. Implement the changes gradually without consultation. 6. Sustainability and Worker Well-being Balancing productivity with sustainability and employee well-being. Example Question: "You need to increase productivity, but some staff members are already feeling overworked. How do you approach this situation?" A. Increase the work hours for all staff. 28 B. Hire temporary workers to handle the increased workload. C. Implement efficiency improvements to reduce workload. D. Ignore the complaints and push for higher productivity. 7. Collaboration and Communication Working effectively with other departments and stakeholders. Example Question: "You need to integrate a new logistics system with the existing customer sales and order management systems. How do you ensure a smooth transition?" A. Collaborate closely with IT and other relevant departments. B. Implement the system without consulting other departments. C. Delay the integration until you have more resources. D. Assign the task to a junior team member without oversight. 8. Event Planning Planning in-company events. Example Question: “How would you organize a company-wide celebration of winning a retail award? A. Book a venue and arrange catering. B. Delegate the task to the HR department. C. Create a detailed event schedule. D. Focus on optimizing fulfillment center operations. 29 Appendix 5. Profiles of seven candidates for the function of ‘Logistics Manager Soylent4U-NL’ Name Jules Jonkheer Date of birth 05/04/85 Nationality Dutch 1996-2002 VWO (pre-university secondary education] (private school) 2003-2006 BSc. mechanical engineering (TU Eindhoven) (cum laude) 2006-2008 MSc. Operations Management & Logistics (TU Eindhoven) (cum laude) 2008-2013 Ph.D. Optimizing solar panel parks (Wageningen) (cum laude) 2011-2012 Visiting Researcher MIT (USA) 2014-2019 Assistant Professor of Operations Management, tenure track (DTU, Copenhagen, Denmark) 2019-current Associate Professor of Operations Management (DTU, Copenhagen, Denmark) "…I published in several top international journals in the field, such as European Journal of Operational Research, Production and Operations Management, and International Journal of Production Research.” "As part of my tenure track, I have carried out several managerial tasks (e.g., chairman of the Educational Committee). Also, I was the project leader in two large Horizon 2020 projects)." Personality test Score Benchmark (average NL) Openness 2.40 3.65 Conscientiousness 4.67 3.45 Extraversion 1.88 3.43 Agreeableness 3.00 3.48 Neuroticism 3.63 2.90 Situational Judgment Test Leadership and Team Management 5 Project Management 4 Operational Efficiency 8 Sustainability and Worker Well-being 6 Safety and Compliance 4 Collaboration and Communication 4 Public Speaking and Media Relations 3 Event Planning 3 Language proficiency Dutch Native language English CEFR: C1 Cognitive ability test Percentile score (1) Logical reasoning 91 (4) Numerical reasoning 100 (2) Spatial reasoning 80 (5) Verbal analogies 75 (3) Mental arithmetic 97 (6) Verbal reasoning 76 Overall percentile score 94 Standardized score 1.55 30 Name Sasha Silberberg Date of birth 12/08/78 Nationality German 1990-1996 Gymnasium Heidelberg (Germany) 1996-1999 BSc. Business Administration (RWTH Aachen, Germany) 1999-2001 MSc. Business Administration (RWTH Aachen, Germany) 2002-2007 Business consultant IT & finance Deloitte Amsterdam (Netherlands) 2007-2011 Raising children, own consultancy business 2011-2018 Business consultant Operational Excellence Berenschot (Netherlands) 2018-current Manager Business Process Optimization at The Hospital Group (Belgium) "As Manager Business Process Optimization, I see it as my mission to combine efficient operations with patient-centeredness and cooperation between disciplines.” "In my consultancy work, I have gained a lot of experience in executing complex projects in finance, operations management, and logistics, and succeeded in reaching consensus among many different stakeholders." Personality test Score Benchmark (average NL) Openness 3.80 3.65 Conscientiousness 4,00 3.45 Extraversion 4.00 3.43 Agreeableness 3.67 3.48 Neuroticism 2.13 2.90 Situational Judgment Test Leadership and Team Management 10 Project Management 9 Operational Efficiency 8 Sustainability and Worker Well-being 8 Safety and Compliance 8 Collaboration and Communication 10 Public Speaking and Media Relations 5 Event Planning 5 Language proficiency Dutch CEFR: C1 English CEFR: C1 Cognitive ability test Percentile score (1) Logical reasoning 56 (4) Numerical reasoning 60 (2) Spatial reasoning 39 (5) Verbal analogies 90 (3) Mental arithmetic 27 (6) Verbal reasoning 79 Overall percentile score 60 Standardized score 0.25 31 Name Evelyn Evermore Date of birth 16/09/88 Nationality British 1999-2002 GCE A-levels, City of Glasgow School (UK) 2002-2008 Higher National Diploma Business (UK) 2008-2010 Premaster Business Administration (Twente University, not completed) 2010-2015 Junior logistics consultant (4 Supply Chain Consulting, UK) 2015-current Consultant at IBM Business Consulting (UK) 2018-2020 Executive MBA (TIAS Business School, Netherlands) "Although the projects in my current job have a relatively small scope….." "…I would be excited to put into practice my newly acquired MBA knowledge and skills…." “…I have done several retail warehousing projects in the Netherlands, and I know the industry quite well.” Personality test Score Benchmark (average NL) Openness 3.10 3.65 Conscientiousness 4.11 3.45 Extraversion 3.25 3.43 Agreeableness 4.22 3.48 Neuroticism 2.50 2.90 Situational Judgment Test Leadership and Team Management 6 Project Management 8 Operational Efficiency 8 Sustainability and Worker Well-being 6 Safety and Compliance 5 Collaboration and Communication 7 Public Speaking and Media Relations 8 Event Planning 8 Language proficiency Dutch Currently taking a course at Regina Coeli to improve from CEFR A2 to B2 English Native language Cognitive ability test Percentile score (1) Logical reasoning 19 (4) Numerical reasoning 24 (2) Spatial reasoning 27 (5) Verbal analogies 37 (3) Mental arithmetic 61 (6) Verbal reasoning 47 Overall percentile score 31 Standardized score -0.50 32 Name Deniz Demirel Date of birth 18/01/92 Nationality Dutch/Turkish 2003-2009 High School (Scholengemeenschap Were Di, Valkenswaard) 2009-2013 Industrial Engineering (Higher Professional Education, Fontys) 2012-2012 Internship Soylent4U (Belgium) 2013-2014 Pre-master Operations Management & Logistics (TU/e) 2014-2016 MSc. Operations Management & Logistics (TU/e), retail specialization 2016-2016 Combination trajectory The Associate Academy - Sustainability & Responsible Governance 2017-2020 Consultant McCoy (Eindhoven) 2020-current Fulfillment manager at Healthshoppie.nl "…I really enjoyed my internship at Soylent4U…" “Four years ago, I made a career switch from consultancy to a more hands-on job as fulfillment manager at a small retailer. In my view, the experience I gained there makes me a qualified candidate for the position of manager at a larger FC,’ "… I've seen a lot in my job at my current employer that could lead to concrete improvements in the processes of Soylent4U." Personality test Score Benchmark (average NL) Openness 4.30 3.65 Conscientiousness 3.56 3.45 Extraversion 4.13 3.43 Agreeableness 4.22 3.48 Neuroticism 2.63 2.90 Situational Judgment Test Leadership and Team Management 9 Project Management 5 Operational Efficiency 9 Sustainability and Worker Well-being 5 Safety and Compliance 6 Collaboration and Communication 5 Public Speaking and Media Relations 6 Event Planning 10 Language proficiency Dutch Native language English CEFR: C2 Cognitive ability test Percentile score (1) Logical reasoning 89 (4) Numerical reasoning 80 (2) Spatial reasoning 39 (5) Verbal analogies 62 (3) Mental arithmetic 48 (6) Verbal reasoning 50 Overall percentile score 64 Standardized score 0.36 33 Name Henny Hendriks Date of birth 10/01/81 Nationality Dutch 1992-1998 Christelijk gymnasium Utrecht 1998-2003 BSc. Economics (Groningen University) 2004-2008 MSc. Business Information Management (Groningen University) 2003-2003 Praeses Student association Vindicat, Groningen 2006 International semester Universitas Indonesia 2006-2009 Traveling around the world 2009-2010 Management Traineeship (CapGemini, China) 2010-2011 Various Functions (ING) 2011-2015 Advisor board GoWithTheFlow Inc. (Start-up) 2012-2016 Process analyst (Mercedes, Germany) 2016-2017 Business development analyst (Coolblue, Belgium) 2017-2018 Leader ABN AMRO Group Strategy Office 2018-2019 Product Development Coordinator (Deloitte, Germany) 2019-current Project manager CRM (Philips) "Because of my extensive international experience, I have developed an excellent understanding of different cultures, whether these are national or corporate cultures. This knowledge allows me, like no other, to function as a unifying factor between the various stakeholders in a company. " "... You could say that my career has been a process of change that I have managed with vision..." Personality test Score Benchmark (average NL) Openness 4.70 3.65 Conscientiousness 2.11 3.45 Extraversion 4.63 3.43 Agreeableness 2.44 3.48 Neuroticism 1.88 2.90 Situational Judgment Test Leadership and Team Management 5 Project Management 7 Operational Efficiency 7 Sustainability and Worker Well-being 4 Safety and Compliance 4 Collaboration and Communication 3 Public Speaking and Media Relations 10 Event Planning 4 Language proficiency Dutch Native language English CEFR: C2 Cognitive ability test Percentile score (1) Logical reasoning 25 (4) Numerical reasoning 40 (2) Spatial reasoning 50 (5) Verbal analogies 78 (3) Mental arithmetic 9 (6) Verbal reasoning 85 Overall percentile score 46 Standardized score -0.10 34 Name Simone Santini Date of birth 22/01/85 Nationality Italian 1995-2001 Liceo of Scuola Secondaria, Italy 2001-2006 Higher post-secondary education, Industrial Engineering, Italy 2006-2007 Volunteer work Red Cross 2007-2010 BSc Economics and Business (University of Amsterdam) 2011-2015 Internal Sustainability Consultant Philips 2013-2015 Master of Business Administration at NCOI (completed) 2015-2022 Workflow management consultant, Schiphol 2020-2022 Member of COVID-19 task force Schiphol 2022-current Consultant Advisory Group Strategy & Development: Sustainability Charles de Gaulle airport, France "…in the past nine years, I was team leader of various groups of consultants…" "In my current job as an advisory management consultant at Charles de Gaulle, I was the leader of a project in which had as a most important area of attention sustainability within (inter)national agreements, with an eye for new developments and the strategic considerations that the airport has.” Personality test Score Benchmark (average NL) Openness 4.20 3.65 Conscientiousness 3.55 3.45 Extraversion 4.25 3.43 Agreeableness 4.22 3.48 Neuroticism 2.13 2.90 Situational Judgment Test Leadership and Team Management 8 Project Management 9 Operational Efficiency 5 Sustainability and Worker Well-being 10 Safety and Compliance 7 Collaboration and Communication 7 Public Speaking and Media Relations 6 Event Planning 5 Language proficiency Dutch CEFR: B2 English CEFR: C1 Cognitive ability test Percentile score (1) Logical reasoning 77 (4) Numerical reasoning 91 (2) Spatial reasoning 87 (5) Verbal analogies 41 (3) Mental arithmetic 84 (6) Verbal reasoning 39 Overall percentile score 73 Standardized score 0.62 35 Name Sam Simons Date of birth 22/05/80 Nationality Dutch 1992-1997 HAVO Overijssel (general secondary education) 1998-2002 ROC van Twente, retail (post-secondary vocational education, intermediate level) 2002-2008 Soylent4U-NL, customer service employee 2009-2016 Bol.com, supervisor customer service 2016-current Soylent4U-NL, supervisor shipping team "Having been a supervisor of the shipping department, it would be a logical step in my career to become the new FC manager.” “I have worked for Soylent4U-NL for 16 years now, and I know all aspects of the company very well.” "I know that I have to brush up on my English skills, which I am willing to do, of course” Personality test Score Benchmark (average NL) Openness 3.25 3.65 Conscientiousness 3.65 3.45 Extraversion 3.60 3.43 Agreeableness 3.75 3.48 Neuroticism 2.80 2.90 Situational Judgment Test Leadership and Team Management 5 Project Management 5 Operational Efficiency 7 Sustainability and Worker Well-being 5 Safety and Compliance 6 Collaboration and Communication 7 Public Speaking and Media Relations 4 Event Planning 8 Language proficiency Dutch Native speaker English CEFR: B1 Cognitive ability test Percentile score (1) Logical reasoning 11 (4) Numerical reasoning 12 (2) Spatial reasoning 20 (5) Verbal analogies 11 (3) Mental arithmetic 12 (6) Verbal reasoning 17 Overall percentile score 7 Standardized score -0.84 ---------------- End of the assignment document 36

1JV00 2024/2025 Group Assignment 1 PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue