This matching process requires that those in charge of career planning know the skill requirements of the various jobs. This allows them to guide individuals into jobs in which they will succeed and be satisfied.
Work Redesign
Often an organization will seek to redesign work to make it more efficient or effective. To redesign work, detailed information about the existing job(s) must be available. In addition, redesigning a job will, in fact, be similar to analyzing a job that does not yet exist.
Job Analysis and Line Managers
Job analysis is clearly important to the HRM function’s various activities, but it is even more important to line (or operations) managers. There are many reasons. First, managers must have detailed
information about all the jobs in their work group to understand the workflow process—specifically, identifying the tasks performed and the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform them. In addition, an understanding of this workflow process is essential if a manager chooses to redesign certain aspects to increase efficiency or effectiveness.
Second, managers need to understand the job requirements to make intelligent hiring decisions. Very seldom do employees get hired by the HRM function without a manager’s input. Managers will often interview prospective applicants and recommend who should receive a job offer. However, if the manager does not have a clear understanding of what tasks are performed on the job and the skills necessary to perform them, then the hiring decision may result in employees whom the manager ‘‘likes” but who are not capable of performing the job successfully.
Third, a manager is responsible for ensuring that each individual is performing his job satisfactorily (or better). This requires the manager to evaluate how well each person is performing and to provide
feedback to those whose performance needs improvement. Again, this requires that the manager clearly understand the tasks required in every job.
The uses of job analysis are many and can contribute substantially to an organization’s overall success and competitiveness. As noted earlier, however, competition is not the only force acting to increase the importance of job analysis to business and industry.
collected and analyzed. In addition, the KSAs that workers need in order to perform their jobs may also be identified and analyzed. The individuals who collect, analyze, and interpret job data are generally referred to as job analysts. Although there is no such thing as a typical job analyst, preferred analysts are internal HRM specialists or external consultants trained to conduct job analysis. Sims and Veres (1985) and Siegel (1987) have emphasized the importance of training job analysts and have made specific recommendations on a desired curriculum.
Sources of Data
Most methods of job analysis require that a knowledgeable person describe what goes on in the job or make a series of judgments about specific activities required to do the job. Such information can be obtained from anyone who has specific information about what the work involves. A job analyst may consult diverse sources. Among these sources are documents such as technical manuals, organization studies, and training materials. Additional sources of data are job incumbents, supervisors, managers, engineers, and technical experts who provide information about the jobs being studied. The term job agent is generally used to refer to an individual who provides or collects the desired job information. In addition, the term subject matter expert (SME) is sometimes used to refer to a job agent who is familiar with the target job or possesses special expertise that is relevant to job activities. Each of the sources sees the jobs from a different perspective, and associated with each source are different advantages and disadvantages. There are three classes of job agents typically employed to collect job analysis
information: (1) job analysts, (2) job incumbents, and (3) job supervisors (McCormick, 1979).
Job analysts. In many instances, outside consultants or members of the organization’s HRM function take on the role of job analyst. Job analysts are specially trained individuals whose mission is to collect and process job information. Formally trained job analysts should require less orientation to the job under study and less time to analyze it because they are already well versed in the method of job analysis being used (Gatewood and Feild, 2001). Gatewood and Feild also point out that job analysts should provide more objective, reliable, and accurate job data. Furthermore, trained analysts are more likely to appreciate fully the legal issues associated with conducting job analysis. However, there are some drawbacks associated with their use as job agents. Certain nuances and subtleties of a job may escape them because job analysts are less familiar with specific jobs than are incumbents or supervisors. Job analysts may rely on preexisting stereotypes of job content, particularly when they have prior experience with particular jobs or when commonly held jobs are studied (Harvey, 1991).
Job incumbents. An employee who performs a job is generally in the best
position to describe it. Incumbents are often best able to detail “what is actually done, rather than what should be done” (Gatewood and Feild, 2001, p. 293). In addition, involving incumbents in the job analysis process might increase their acceptance of any work changes stemming from the results of the analysis. Large numbers of employees may be available, allowing the job analyst to obtain differing perspectives on a given job. However, it should be noted that incumbents may have a vested interest in not portraying their jobs accurately. They may paint an inflated picture of their jobs if they believe it is beneficial to do so (McCormick, 1979; Smith and Hakel, 1979). Another concern in using incumbents is adequacy of verbal skills because they must convey their impressions to job analysts in written or oral form.
Job supervisors. Individuals who supervise incumbents performing the job under study can provide accurate job data because they observe the work being performed. Gatewood and Feild (2001) note that supervisory assessments assume that supervisors have worked closely enough with incumbents to possess “complete information about employees’ jobs” (p. 294), an assumption that may not be correct.
Although supervisors have direct information about the duties associated with a job, researchers have observed a tendency for supervisors to describe subordinates’ jobs on the basis of what should be done rather than what has been done in actuality (Sparks, 1981). Despite this limitation, supervisors can provide the analyst with an additional perspective on a given job. This perspective can be especially important when incumbents have limited verbal skills. Further, supervisors may be in a better position to describe what tasks should be included in the job and what tasks could be included if the job is to be redesigned (Schneider and Konz, 1989).
Cornelius (1988) reviewed the research pertaining to the choice of job agent and summarized that literature with the following conclusion:
1. Supervisors and subordinates agree more about the tasks performed than they do about the personal characteristics necessary for job performance.
2. Incumbents and supervisors may provide higher ratings than analysts on job elements that are high in social desirability.
3. Supervisors and incumbents attach different meanings to various descriptions of work and may organize work activities differently.
4. Trained observers (i.e., job analysts) can give similar estimates of job characteristics.
Cornelius recommends that supervisors and subordinates be used to collect data on job activities and that trained job analysts be used to collect data regarding the knowledge, skills, abilities, or other
characteristics (KSAOCs) necessary to perform the job. Moreover, he suggests that the tendency of
supervisors and incumbents to inflate their ratings of job characteristics high in social desirability
prohibit their use as job agents in situations where job analysis data will be used in certain decisions (for example, salary decisions).
Although job incumbents and supervisors are typically the prime source of job analysis data, a good analyst will consult with multiple sources to collect the information he or she needs to understand the job in question and to complete the job analysis (Bemis, Belenky, and Soder, 1983). In choosing the sources of job data, a job analyst should be familiar with the research on the optimum source for obtaining job data. In cases in which job processes are extremely complex, it may be wise to add technical experts (e.g., production engineers, scientists) as job agents.
Data Collection Techniques
Not surprisingly, numerous techniques exist for collecting job information. HRM specialists tend to prefer different approaches in different situations. Jobs with substantial physical demands require different data collection techniques than those that call primarily on mental skills. Some jobs entail extensive documentation of task completion in the form of detailed paper trails, whereas others do not.
Job characteristics play an important role in the selection of a specific technique. Some job analysis techniques include background research, performance of the job, site observations, individual
interviews, group interviews, job analysis questionnaires, and employee diary/logs.
Background research. Background research involves a review of job-relevant documents. It should be the first step in any job analysis process. Initially, the analyst should review the job analysis literature to identify previous job analyses or studies of the job in question. Literature might include the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor, 1977); volume two of Sidney Gael’s Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government (1988); and professional publications such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Public Personnel Management. This initial research serves to familiarize the analyst with the data collection and analytic techniques used by others, the problems they encountered, and their results (Gatewood and Feild, 2001). Familiarity with past research helps the analyst choose the most effective techniques for the analysis effort. The review of the professional literature should be followed by an examination of organization documents such as existing job descriptions, technical manuals, training materials, organization charts, and previous job analyses.
Job performance. Performing the job may be an effective data collection technique when the job involves primarily either physical operations that can be learned readily or psychomotor skills.
Performance-related data may
prove very useful in cases where no substitute exists for actually performing the job. Equipment
operation that demands hand-eye coordination or fine motor skills may require performing the task for full understanding. Generally, however, because of time constraints, it is more efficient to rely on observation or interview techniques than to expend effort in training an analyst to perform the job.
Site observations. Visiting incumbents at their work sites allows the job analyst to observe the specifics of task performance and determine the degree to which tasks are interrelated. Direct observation
familiarizes the job analyst with the materials and equipment used on the job, the conditions under which work is performed, and the factors that trigger the performance of a given task. To minimize distortion, the analyst should explain the reasons for the visit and take care to be unobtrusive.
Observation is usually not appropriate when the job primarily entails unobservable mental activity (upper-level manager, lawyer, design engineer). Nor is it as useful if the employee engages in important activities that might occur only occasionally, such as a nurse who handles emergencies. Additionally, reactivity—an employee changing what he or she normally does because the analyst is watching—can also be a problem. The effective use of site observations as a part of the job analysis process requires a trained observer and an analyst with the ability to form varying tasks into a structured format.
Individual and group interviews. The interview is probably the most commonly used technique for collecting job data. The job analyst questions experienced job incumbents or supervisors to determine the tasks that are performed on the job as well as the requirements workers must meet to carry out those tasks. Interviews may be structured or unstructured. However, structure is usually desirable to ensure that the analyst obtains the needed information. Interviews are sometimes conducted concurrently with the site visit so that the performance of job activities can be observed and discussed simultaneously.
In the group interview technique, subject matter experts are convened to discuss the job in question.
Typically, job incumbents or supervisors serve as subject matter experts. However, technical experts (such as design engineers or top management) are used to identify tasks when a new job is being created or an existing one updated. Like individual interviews, group sessions may be structured or unstructured.
Typically, the job analyst directs the session and imposes structure upon the discussion to elicit the necessary information in the desired format.
Interviews are difficult to standardize. Different interviewers may ask different questions and the same interviewer might unintentionally ask different questions of different respondents. There is also a real possibility that the information provided by the respondent will be unintentionally distorted by the interviewer. The interview method can also be quite time
consuming, especially if the interviewer talks with two or three employees doing each job. Finally, the costs of interviewing can be very high, especially if group interviews are not practical.
Questionnaires. A questionnaire presents a list of items that are assumed to be job related and asks SMEs to rate each item on its relevance to the job under study. Subject matter experts identify, among the tasks listed on the inventory, the ones that job incumbents perform, and they rate each task on factors such as the importance to successful job performance and the frequency with which the task is
performed. In addition, some questionnaires also require SMEs to identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job and to rate discrete KSAs on factors such as their importance to acceptable job performance and the extent to which their possession distinguishes between superior and adequate job performance. A commercially available questionnaire may be used, or one may be tailored to fit the job of interest. The items on tailor-made questionnaires can be developed on the basis of information derived from background research, job performance, site observations, individual interviews, or group interviews.
A major disadvantage of the questionnaire method is the possibility that either the respondent or the job analyst will misinterpret the information. Also, questionnaires can be time consuming and expensive to develop. Further, the questionnaire method assumes that employees can accurately analyze and
communicate information about their jobs. However, employees may vary in their perceptions of the jobs, and even in their literacy. For these reasons, the questionnaire method is usually combined with interviews and observations to clarify and verify the questionnaire information.
Employee diaries or logs. One drawback of observations, interviews, and questionnaires is that the information they yield is likely to be dependent on the time it happens to be collected. Whatever is most salient at the time of the interview is most likely to find its way into the job and organizational analysis results. Diaries/logs offer one solution to this problem.
This method asks employees to keep a diary/log or list of what they do during the day. For every activity the employee engages in, the employee records the activity (along with the time) in a log. This can
produce a very complete picture of the job, especially supplemented with subsequent interviews with the employee and his or her supervisor. The employee might, of course, try to exaggerate some activities and underplay others. However, the detailed, chronological nature of the log tends to mediate against this. If job incumbents and supervisors keep a diary over a period of several weeks, the results are less likely to be biased by the timing of the analysis. For jobs that vary at different times of the year, diaries may be especially valuable.
Some organizations today take a high-tech approach to diaries/logs. They give employees pocket dictating machines and pagers. Then, at random
times during the day they page the employees, who dictate what they are doing at that time. This approach can avoid one pitfall of the traditional diary/log method, namely relying on the employee to remember what he or she did when the log is filled out at the end of the day.
A concern about this approach is that it may be burdensome for employees to complete an accurate log, especially since many employees are too busy to record accurate diary entries. Also, employees
sometimes perceive this approach as creating needless documentation that detracts from the performance of their work. However, if a diary is accurate, it is useful when analyzing jobs that do not lend
themselves to direct observation, such as those of managers, engineers, outside salespeople, or scientists.