There are a variety of different means for collecting the job analysis data. It is not difficult to see that the best collection means is by way of triangulation. This simply means utilizing more than one means of data collection to better approximate the truth, in this case about the job. Each method of perform- ing a job analysis inherently has advantages and disadvan- tages. Triangulation allows some of the disadvantages to be offset by using another collection method as well as capitaliz- ing on the advantages of the different methods.
Self-report methods
Perhaps one of the easiest ways of collecting job analysis data is by means of self-report by an incumbent—someone who cur- rently holds a position in the job to be analyzed. The person may complete a step-by-step work diary of everything done over a couple of days, including the durations and detailed descriptions of each. This can be time consuming and expensive as employees are losing valuable productivity time by recording every move. A faster, and less expensive option for this is to have incumbents complete a structured questionnaire that directs employees to focus their answers on the major work
34
● ● ●
duties, tasks, etc. of the job. Allowing workers to complete this at home or as their schedule permits is an advantage for the organization. Perhaps the most widely used such structured interview survey is the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) which is comprised of 194 job elements that are evaluated on an ordinal scale of one to five on each of six scales (i.e. impor- tance to job, extent of use, etc.) (McCormick, Jeanneret, &
Mecham, 1972). One of the nice things about the PAQ is that it is easily scored via computer. However, while leaving human job analysts out of the equation at this juncture saves time, it may also have the disadvantage of unintentionally arousing suspicion on the part of the job incumbents. Sometimes the whole process of analyzing jobs, and particularly in cases of less human interaction, leads employees to the conclusion that their positions are in jeopardy. They may worry of potential organizational restructuring or down-/right-sizing.
Another means of self-report involves a job analyst interview- ing an incumbent about what he/she does in his/her position.
Compared to the PAQ, this method is more time-consuming as it takes not only the employee’s time, but also the job analyst’s.
However, one advantage lies in the ability of the information taker to gain immediate clarification when an ambiguous work duty, task, or KSA is presented. The other plus of utilizing this technique is that some jobs that involve much cognitive work can be analyzed. Often, this takes the form of the “think aloud”
technique (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Employees will verbalize the step-by-step thinking process they use when they are doing a cognitive task. For example, a computer programmer who works for a cruise line may be trying to debug some compu- ter code. The programmer would verbalize his/her thoughts on what to test as a means of troubleshooting the problem.
This leaves the job analysts with a much clearer picture of the programmer’s mental demands and thus the suggested KSAs more appropriate to such a position.
While there are a great many advantages to the self-reported means of data collection, there is a sizable disadvantage and that is observed when incumbents tend to inflate aspects of their positions. In particular, research shows incumbents tend to add importance to the KSAs required to perform the job, when compared with job analysts and supervisors who also rated the same position (Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, Ferrara, Mayfield, &
Campion, 2004). Fear, baseless or not, could impel workers to engage in a general “rounding up” of how important duties are, the frequency with which certain tasks are done, or even the fab- rication of additional duties. As previously mentioned, workers may be fearful that this microscopic examination of what they do
Job analysis: the basis for all things H.R.
35 ● ● ● ●
on a daily basis may be for the purpose of trimming the organi- zational fat, i.e. their positions. If they give the impression that a higher level of KSAs are required for anyone to fill the position, for example, it makes finding a replacement all the more difficult and thus secures their positions.
In order to combat the self-reported inflation that often occurs, there are a couple of techniques that get around this problem. One of them is direct observation of the worker in action. This prevents the employee from saying his work is so much more important than it is or that he accomplishes five times as much as he typically does. However, as was seen in the now-famous Hawthorne studies, employees tend to behave differently when they know they are being observed (Mayo, 1933). This may lead to such changed behaviors as fewer breaks and increased productivity.
Non-self-report methods
Another job analysis collection method is to have the job ana- lyst actually perform the work. This only works for jobs that are easily learned and that do not involve hazardous consequences for poor performance (i.e. tour bus driver). While this gives the job analyst an excellent idea of the working conditions and nec- essary KSAs, there may not be the exposure to infrequent occur- rences such as end-of-year inventory duties of kitchen staff.
Utilizing the critical incidents technique (CIT) is yet another data collection technique. It differs from other techniques by focusing on either outstandingly good or bad performance of employees in that particular position. These critical incidents end up forming anchors on rating scales of work behavior for that particular job. Other than taking a great deal of time to com- pose, the main disadvantage is that the embedded emphasis on extreme work performance, by definition omits typical behavior on the job, which is the whole point of conducting a job analysis.
There are variants of the above, often involving an incum- bent’s supervisor(s). However, it is important to remember that sometimes supervisors are unaware of what their supervisees do, or, worse yet, they are under severe misimpressions. It is generally considered best that the incumbent is the subject mat- ter expert (SME) for the position. Yet, it is standard procedure in conducting a job analysis to have the final product reviewed by one or two people, often supervisors, to verify accuracy. This can ameliorate the inflated importance problem previously mentioned. It is also wise, wherever possible, to focus on observ- able behaviors rather than outcomes that are more subjective.
36
● ● ●
Steps in conducting a job analysis
As the chapter title suggests, job analyses are done for a vari- ety of purposes. As such a multi-functional tool, the purposes of the job analysis might govern the breadth and depth or means of conducting the job analysis. For example, the CIT lends itself to an organization gathering the data to revise its performance appraisal system as it delivers high and low behavioral ratings. So, keep in mind that these steps are gen- eralized and will vary depending upon many factors such as who conducts the analysis, etc. But, in general,
1. determine the purpose of the job analysis;
2. determine which jobs will be analyzed;
3. review existing literature (i.e. job description, job specification);
4. conduct initial tour of worksite;
5. collect data from incumbent (i.e. self-report, interview, observation);
6. verify the collected information* (i.e. with supervisor);
7. consolidate the job information;
8. draft job description and job specification; and
9. verify job description and job specification* (i.e. with supervisor).
For more information on jobs and job analyses
An excellent resource for so many aspects of jobs is called O*NET and found at www.online.onetcenter.org. This web- site is an occupational network that basically replaces the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). The Department of Labor manages this online source that includes databases, job families, taxonomies, questionnaires, career exploration tools, etc. Moreover, to be more accessible, many of the features, including databases, are available in Spanish versions. Thus, there are many available resources to aid you in your under- standing of the job analysis process.
References
Clifford, J. P. (1994). Job analysis: Why do it, and how should it be done? Public Personnel Management, 23(2).
Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293–299.
*Sometimes only one verification step takes place.
Job analysis: the basis for all things H.R.
37 ● ● ● ●
Datamonitor. (2006, December). Hotels & motels in the United States: Industry profile (Reference Code: 0072-0520).
Datamonitor. (2007, July). Foodservice in the United States:
Industry profile (Reference Code: 0072-2333).
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Justice.
(1978). Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290–
58315.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization.
New York: MacMillan.
McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., & Mecham, R. C. (1972). A study of job characteristics and job dimensions as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 347–368.
Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., Ferrara, P., Mayfield, M. S., &
Campion, M. A. (2004). Self-presentation processes in job analysis: A field experiment investigating inflation in abili- ties, tasks, and competencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 674–686.
Viteles, M. S. (1922). Job specifications and diagnostic tests of job competency designed for the auditing division of a street railway company. Psychological Clinic, 14, 83–105.
38
● ● ●
Jalane Meloun, Ph.D., SPHR
Director, Affirmative Action SME: Thomas Kuthy, Incumbent