can streamline organizational functioning. Jobs that have changed in response to new technology create a somewhat different problem. Employers must find individuals with the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform adequately the activities required. It is through effective HRM planning that
adjustments and refinements are made, transforming an organization’s workforce to meet the projected future needs of the organization. Job analysis is one of the building blocks of the HRM planning process and is a fundamental source of information for this process.
The cornerstone of the organization is the set of jobs performed by its employees. These jobs provide the vehicle for coordinating and linking the various activities of the organization to achieve the overall
mission and objectives. Job analysis is such an important activity to HRM that it has been called the building block of everything that personnel does (Cascio, 1991). This statement refers to the fact that almost every HRM program requires some type of information that is gleaned from job analysis.
Despite the tremendous positive impact of job analysis on organizational functioning, perhaps the most profound factor increasing the use of job analysis techniques is the EEO legislation discussed in Chapter 3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
and other laws passed over the last 35 years have served to dramatically increase the use of job analysis, making it an integral part of establishing the job relatedness of employment practices. The large number of court cases involving allegations of employment discrimination has been highly instrumental in enhancing the importance of job analysis. One judge noted the following in an employment test validation case:
The cornerstone of the construction of a content valid examination [an examination based on
qualifications really needed in the job] is the job analysis. Without such an analysis to single out the critical knowledge, skills, and abilities required by the job, their importance to each other, and the level of proficiency demanded as to each attribute, a test constructor is aiming in the dark and can only hope to achieve job-relatedness by blind luck. (Kirkland v. New York Department of Corrections, 1974) It is hard to imagine a stronger endorsement of job analysis, particularly when we consider that the judge’s words have the force of law.
In 1978 the federal agencies charged with enforcing EEO laws issued the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (EEOC, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, and
Department of Justice, 1978), which confirm the place of job analysis as a fundamental prerequisite for proving employment practices to be free of discrimination (Holley and Jennings, 1983). The Uniform Guidelines make the following statement:
There should be a job analysis which includes an analysis of the important work behavior(s) required for successful performance and their relative importance and, if the behavior results in work product (s), an analysis of work product(s). Any job analysis should focus on the work behavior(s) and the tasks associated with them. If work behavior(s) are not observable, the job analysis should identify and analyze those aspects of the behavior(s) that can be observed and the observed work product(s). The work behavior(s) selected for measurement should be critical work behaviors and/or important work behavior(s) constituting most of the job. (p. 38302)
The principle that job analysis should precede any HRM practice is thus well established in the federal Uniform Guidelines.
The courts have worked to define further the role of job analysis in demonstrating job relatedness.
Thompson and Thompson (1982) reviewed a number of employment discrimination lawsuits to
determine the criteria the federal courts use in assessing job analysis in the context of selection tests. The following were among their conclusions:
• Expert job analysts must perform the job analysis.
• The results of the analysis should be reduced to written form.
• The job analysis process employed must be described in detail.
• Data should be collected from a variety of sources (i.e., incumbents, supervisors, job experts).
• Information on tasks performed must be included in the job analysis.
• Knowledge, skills, and abilities should be clearly specified and must be operationally defined in terms of work.
More recently, Buckner (1989) reviewed 185 court cases from 1979 through 1987 dealing with hiring, promotion, reclassification, and training issues. Among her findings for content-related validation (job relatedness) studies were that courts generally ruled for employers when the following conditions existed:
• Job content was well defined.
• Work behaviors were defined in behavioral terms.
• KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities) were operationally defined.
• Subject matter experts (i.e., incumbents and/or supervisors) rated KSA importance.
These findings, taken together with the Thompson and Thompson (1982) results and the language in the federal Uniform Guidelines, present a clear picture of the importance of job analysis in this context. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 focused even more attention
on job analysis outcomes. So long as EEO laws remain on the books, job analysis is here to stay.