Microsoft Office Tutorials and References
In Depth Information
service. The CEO contacts a nationally recognized training ﬁrm, EB Associates.
EB has considerable experience and understands the concerns of management. The
CEO expresses her concern and doubts about training. She is not sure that training
can be effective, especially for the type of unskilled workers they hire. EB listens
carefully and has heard these concerns before. EB proposes a test to determine if
the special training methods they provide can be of value for the call center work-
ers. After careful discussion with the CEO, EB makes the following suggestion for
testing the effectiveness of special (EB) versus standard (internal) training:
1. A test will be prepared and administered to all of the customer service representa-
tives working in the call centers—4000 in SC and 8000 TX. The test is designed
to assess the current competency of the customer service representatives. From
this overall data, speciﬁc groups will be identiﬁed and a sample of 36 observa-
tions (test scores) for each group will be a taken–e.g. call center personnel with
standard training in SC.
2. Each customer service representative taking the test will receive a score from 0
to 100. The results will form a database for the competency of the workers.
3. A special training course devised by EB will be offered to a selected group of
customer service representatives in South Carolina: 36 incarcerated women. The
competency test will be re-administered to this group after the special training
program to detect changes in scores, if any.
4. Analysis of the difference in performance for the sample that is specially trained
and those with the current standard training will be used to consider the applica-
tion of the training to all employees. If the special training indicates signiﬁcantly
better performance on the exam after training, then EB will receive a large
contract to perform training for all employees.
As mentioned above, the 36 customer service representatives selected to receive
special training are a group of woman that are incarcerated in a low security prison
facility in the state of South Carolina. The CEO has signed an agreement with the
state of South Carolina to provide the SC women with an opportunity to work as
customer service representatives and gain skills before being released to the general
population. In turn, the ﬁrm receives signiﬁcant tax beneﬁts from South Carolina.
Because of the relative ease with which these women can be trained, they are chosen
for the special training. They are, after all, a captive audience. There is a similar
group of customer service representatives that also are incarcerated woman. They
are located in a similar low security Texas prison, but these women are not chosen
for the special training.
The results of the tests for employees are shown in Table 6.2. Note that the data
included in each of ﬁve columns is a sample of personnel scores of similar size
(36): (1) non-prisoners in TX, (2) women prisoners in TX, (3) non-prisoners in
SC, (4) women prisoners in SC before special training, and (5) women prisoners
in SC after special training. All the columns of data, except the last, are scores for
customer service representatives that have only had the internal standard training.
The last column is the re-administered test scores of the SC prisoners that received