|
Background
The aim of the research was to determine the exact traits that make Waitpersons and Cellar Door Salespersons successful in the Wine tourism industry and to determine the relative accuracy of the system to predict success based upon the “job template” that incorporates those traits. The Wine Tourism Industry provided 31 profiles of current employees. One profile was eliminated due to very low consistency score (-96). The low consistency score indicates that the individual either attempted to fool the questionnaire or tried to answer the questions much too quickly. Therefore, the total sample population of valid profiles was 30.
The job analysis undertaken by managers described the roles of Waitperson and Cellar Door Salesperson as two different roles. The sample population included employees holding either the one role or the other. Although analysis of the profiles of these jobholders showed that there were minimal differences related to successful performance, these differences were not sufficient to warrant the construction of two separate job templates.
This case study compares the performance of the employees with the results of the Harrison InnerView profile. All the employees in the sample were rated according to their job performance by supervisors using the performance rating model below. The profiles of the employees were then analyzed in relationship to performance in order to determine the factors that relate to success in the Waitperson/Cellar Door Salesperson position. In addition, the job was analyzed in order to assess the traits that were required for this position. These traits were given special attention when analyzing the traits that relate to performance. However, all 130 traits in the Harrison InnerView system were analyzed in relationship to performance.
Performance scoring
Each employee was given a rating by his/her supervisor. The rating was based upon a scale between 0 and 100 according to the following:
| 90-100 |
Excellent to Best |
| 80-89 |
Very Good |
| 70-79 |
Average to Good |
| 60-69 |
Below average |
| 40-59 |
Poor |
| 0-39 |
Extremely poor |
The Harrison InnerView template methodology
The template methodology formulates the traits that correlate with success for a particular position into “traits to have” as well as “traits to avoid”. The template is then used to measure future applicants and serve as a developmental guide for current employees. The template is shown by a table that indicates how a group of people (current employees in this case) score against each of the required traits. The table includes a “bottom line” job suitability score between zero and one hundred that represents the individual’s level of “total suitability” for a particular position. (It can also be shown as a graph indicating how well an individual person meets each of the job requirements.) A score of one hundred represents a person who is completely suitable for that position. Assuming the person is eligible for a position (has the education, experience and technical skills), a suitability score of 75 or greater represents a person who has a good probability of performing effectively in that position. A score of 74 or less represents a person who is considered to be unlikely to perform well in that position.
Accuracy level of results
The results showed a very high predictive accuracy and a strong correlation (97%) between the InnerView suitability score and the actual job performance. This indicates that the template includes a fairly comprehensive set of traits related to suitability for this position.
The results were analyzed in two ways: the predictive accuracy and the variation between the suitability scores and the performance ratings:
1) Predictive accuracy - A prediction is considered accurate if one or more of the following conditions are met:
a) The suitability score is 75 or greater and the performance score is 75 or greater
b) The suitability score is less than 75 and the performance score is less than 75.
c) The suitability score is within 6 points of the performance score.
The logic behind this definition is that, if the suitability score were 75 or above and the person were eligible for the position, it would indicate a prediction that the person would probably succeed in the position. If the suitability score were less than 75 and the person was moderately eligible (not highly eligible) for the position then this would indicate a prediction of below average performance. Also, if the suitability score were within 6 points of the performance score it would indicate a very close prediction and thus should also be considered accurate. The suitability score for each person appears on the template in the far right-hand column of the table.
From the research sample, 29 of the 30 employees (97%) showed a correlation between the InnerView suitability score and performance to be accurate, according to the definition above.
2) Variation between the suitability ratings and the performance ratings
The degree of variation between the suitability score and the performance ratings provides another means of viewing the accuracy level of the methodology. The variation was examined in two ways: the average variation between the predictive suitability rating and the performance rating, and the percentage of predictions that fall within different ranges of closeness.
The average variation between the suitability score and the performance rating was 5.8 points. This indicates a close relationship between the suitability score and the performance ratings.
Next we examined the percentage of employees whose two scores (performance rating and predicted suitability score) were within 5 points, 8 points, 10 points and 15 points. The table below shows these percentages for each group.
Variation between performance rating and predictive suitability score
| Within 5 points |
Within 8 points |
Within 10 points |
Within 15 points |
| 63% |
77% |
80% |
93% |
If the two scores were within five points, the prediction would be considered to be extremely accurate. If within 8 points, the prediction would be considered to be quite accurate. If within 10 points, the prediction should still be considered to be reasonably accurate. If the two scores are greater than 10 points apart, but within 15 points, it could not be considered to be accurate, but at the same time could not be considered to be very inaccurate. If the two scores are greater than 15 points apart, they should be considered to be inaccurate.
The results show that the template developed is able to predict job success with a high level of accuracy. The sample size was sufficient to gain fairly reliable result, especially considering the close approximation to previous customer service research (see below). However, it is recommended that records of profiles and performance ratings be kept in order to refine this template at a future date. When the sample size reaches 200, it is recommended that the template is adjusted using the larger sample size.
Traits required for success
The research indicates that the success factors for this position include:
Outgoing or extroversion
Being helpful
An optimistic and cheerful outlook
Expressing warmth or empathy
Having a tolerance for the pressure of deadlines and busy schedules
The tendency to collaborate with others
The willingness to enlist the co-operation of others
An interest in food
Having an artistic flair
The tendency to be well organized
Accepting oneself (relates to being self-assured)
The research indicates that there are also factors that will hinder success in this position. These include:
Being defensive or having the attitude “I’m OK and don’t need to improve”.
Being blunt
Being overly dominating or self-centered
Having a strong desire for high pay combined with low self-motivation (risk for theft)
Lacking self-motivation
Having a low tolerance for other people who are blunt
Wanting autonomy without taking sufficient initiative (Rebellious Autonomy)
Being dogmatic
Being harsh or punitive
Lacking persistence
Being overly confident in one’s opinions
Disliking working with the general public
Disliking working in a team setting
These traits as formulated in the Harrison InnerView software will enable a prediction level of success for this position. Although this sample showed an accuracy level of 97%, it is estimated that it will predict success with approximately 85% accuracy for a larger sample size.
Comparison between this position and other customer service research
The results of this research were fairly similar to other customer service research in that most of the traits found to correlate with good performance were consistently found in other customer service positions. However, there were some slight differences. Food and Artistic were included in this template and correspond to dealing with food and making an “artistic” presentation. These were anticipated by the management and correspond to the nature of this particular position.
Collaborative and Enlisting Co-operation did show a stronger relationship to good performance for this position than in most customer service positions. However, it is also not surprising in that these traits indicate that a person is people oriented.
Although it was anticipated by managers that “Systematic” would show a relationship to success, it did not. However “Organized” which is a very similar trait did show a relationship to success. Organized relates to doing things in an orderly fashion whereas systematic is more strategic and emphasizes being able to work out a logical sequence for doing something.
Although it was anticipated by managers that “Influencing”, a trait usually associated with sales roles, would show a relationship to success, it did not. This could be because what was understood by management to be “salesmanship” in the role is not actually persuasion, but rather a knowledgeable presentation of options.
For this position, Outgoing showed a stronger importance level than in most other customer service research and Warmth/Empathy showed a slightly lesser importance. In addition, Diplomatic, which is usually found in customer service research, did not show any relationship to success. However, “Blunt” which is opposite to Diplomatic, did show a negative relationship to success and was thus included.
The “Traits to Avoid” (negative traits) found to correlate with success were very typical for customer service positions.
| 
