Shift: Part-time, year-round; Must have flexible schedule Rate: $11.00 – $16.50 Job Summary Hourly, nonexempt, nonsupervisory position. Primarily responsible for the daily cleaning of assigned guestrooms to Sparkl Resort’s standard of cleanliness. Supervised by the Assistant Executive Housekeeper and Rooms Supervisor. Responsibilities Essential Duties Performs routine daily cleaning of assigned rooms: changes bed linen; replaces towels; cleans bathroom thoroughly; vacuums, mops and dusts daily; cleans kitchen areas (Casitas); upkeep on vacant rooms; replenishes magazines and paper goods; and maintains orderly cart and storeroom. Prioritizes workload according to guest arrivals and departures. Calls Housekeeping for additional supplies and items when needed. Works as an essential member of a team. Additional Duties Performs periodic heavy cleaning of rooms on an assigned basis. Reports and documents any observed or known safety hazards, conditions or unsafe practices and procedures to management immediately. Performs other job-related duties as directed. Adheres to Sparkl Resort standards for guest service. Refers guest problems or complaints to supervisor according to Sparkl Resort guest problem resolution policy. Qualifications Must be able to physically perform housekeeping tasks that require pushing heavy carts, bending, lifting, and being active all day. Must be flexible and able to work with a variety of people. Must be guest-service oriented. Must be able to work with strong chemicals and safely use chemicals for cleaning purposes. Must be able to prioritize workload, keeping up with assigned schedule. Must be safety conscious; stays alert for potential injuries. Must have pride in completing assigned tasks to Sparkl Resort standards.
pv Applicants Reading Competency Interview with HR HR’s early part in the program Agreeableness
pv Management’s part in the program Interview with short list of candidates Performance Management Data and other Employee Records Data (e.g., absences) If Hired
pv Job-related information Used for early screening Low cost Valid?
pv What job-related functions may be involved here? Critical for success or just ‘nice to have?’ What properties should these scores have? 1. Test administration must be standardized Flesch Reading Index Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
pv What is the purpose of this first interview with an HR member? What traits are likely to be inferred in this interview?
pv How is this interview likely to be different from the first one? How might the questions in this interview be different? What is the purpose of this second interview? Qualifications versus fit assessment
pv What are the ‘criteria’ we might use to evaluate employee success? Are there any you would be particularly interested in? What features should these criteria have?
pv The relative absence of measurement error stability or test-retest equivalence or parallel forms homogeneity or internal consistency agreement or inter-rater reliability Sparkl* Which is best for the Sparkl* EEP? 2. Test scores must have evidence of reliability
Face Validity appearance; important for motivation Test-taker reactions Content Validity rational or judgmental; job-relatedness Criterion-Related Validity empirically demonstrated job-relatedness Regression/Correlation analysis Concurrent versus Predictive validation 3. Test scores must have evidence of validity
Concurrent current employees employee records data cheaper convenient how generalizable? Motivation Restriction of Range Predictive new employees not selected by test scores records data occurs after test data expensive patience is required issues of dynamic validity over time
pv 4. Cut scores must be rationally or empirically established
pv Reading Test Scores RatingsRatings Males r=.32 Females r=.19 Common r=.25 5. Test scores must demonstrate fairness in application
pv 6. Use of the test as a decision device must have utility to the user Validity of the test or device is high Selection Ratio is low Base Rate of Success is low/moderate The variability of performance is meaningful Many positions are to be filled The cost of selection is not prohibitive
pv Test Scores % Employees High Performers 61-70 89% 54-6078% 45-53 66% 38-45 58% 29-37 43% 21-28 37% Simple way to show differences in odds of success that are associated with different test score ranges
pv Test scores minimize selection errors viz.-a-viz. an alternative procedure or absence of one True positives True negatives False negatives type 2 False positives type 1 Acceptable Job Performance Test Score cut-off
pv The score that minimizes decision errors 1. Subgroup folks into low/high performing groups 2. Plot distributions of 2 groups on predictor score 3. Examine overlap 4. Point where they begin overlap is ‘critical score’ Any deviation from critical score increases errors Predictor scores Critical score Low performers High performers
pv Applicant mean on criterion Cut score Hired mean Y Not hired mean Y
pv Taylor-Russell Tables Proportion successful at the job r =.25r =.50r =.95 BR=.5 Selection Ratio r.10.30.50.90.00.50.25.67.184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.951.00.99.90.56 BR=.2 Selection Ratio r.10.30.50.90.00.20.25.34.18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.22
pv $ worth = N x T x r XY x Z X x SD Y - COST N = number hired using the procedure T = average tenure of hired r xy = validity coefficient Z x = mean z-score on predictor for hired group SD y = standard deviation of performance in dollars Big problem is how to get an estimate of SD Y Schmidt & Hunter procedure for deriving SD Y estimates Have supervisors estimate ‘value’ of an employee who performs at 85 th, 50 th and 15 th percentile (corresponds to roughly+1, 0, and -1 SD Y ) Average their estimates Subtract and average again yields SDY
pv 15 th %’tile50th %’tile85 th %’tile 122436 152228 etc Mean = $18kMean = $24k Mean of SD Y differences = $6k Mean = $30k $ worth = N x T x r XY x Z X x SD Y - COST N = 500 T = 3 years r XY =.30 Z X = 1.0 SD Y = $6,000 COST = direct and indirect costs of developing & sustaining
pv Sadacca & Campbell (1985) utility of military MOSs War vs. Peace scenario Negative utility of privates in peace time What do dollars mean in war? UNITS.. Military simulations in desert High (1 SD) vs. normal IQ soldiers High IQ unit killed twice as many enemy soldiers Destroyed 3 times as many tanks Other Issues Salary info biases judges 40% rule on capitalization context of work greatly affects estimates negative utility scenarios Can be applied to a host of organizational interventions smoking cessation programs Self-efficacy training programs in organizations
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.