Week 3 DB 1

Chapter9.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Week 3 DB 1

209

9 ANALYZING JOBS AND WORK

More than two decades ago, Bridges (1994a, 1994b) proclaimed “The End of the Job.” He argued that the use of jobs as a way of organizing work “is a social artifact that has

outlived its usefulness.” If organizations expect to be successful, they need to “get rid of jobs” and “redesign to get the best out of the de-jobbed worker.” One might ask, if we can no longer expect to hold jobs, can we at least expect to hold a position? Unfortunately, no, because posi- tions may be “too fixed.” Roles? Sorry, too unitary, single purposed. Skills and competencies? They will become too obsolete. According to this rationale, post-job workers will likely be self- employed contract workers, hired to work on projects or teams. Just look at Intel or Microsoft, firms that organize work around projects. People will work on 6 to 10 projects, perhaps for different employers at the same time. Some of that is happening now (see Chapter 1), but not on a massive scale just yet.

A funny thing happened along the way—the Internet revolution. Go to any company’s website and discover that it invites applications—for jobs! True, some employees may work on 6 to 10 projects at once but for only one employer. This is not to imply that the concept of work is static. Sometimes changes occur at a dizzying pace as fluid organizations fighting to stay competitive require their people to adapt constantly. They need to adapt to strategic

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to do the following: 9.1 Explain what job or work analysis is and the many purposes for which it is used 9.2 Distinguish the terms task, duty, position, job, and job family from each other 9.3 Distinguish work-oriented from worker-oriented descriptors 9.4 Identify seven key choices that exist in the analysis of work 9.5 Establish legally defensible minimum qualifications 9.6 Construct appropriate interview questions for analyzing work 9.7 Know when to use personality-based job analysis 9.8 Compare and contrast job or work analysis to competency modeling

LEARNING GOALS

Cascio, Wayne F., and Herman Aguinis. Applied Psychology in Talent Management, SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=6403253. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2024-08-27 18:20:40.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

210 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

initiatives like empowerment, reengineering, automation, intranet-based self-service HR, the use of high-performance work practices that push authority and responsibility down to lower levels, and alternative work arrangements such as virtual teams and telework (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008a, 2008b; Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017). Technologies that enhance communica- tions and information management, such as wireless communications, e-mail, and telecon- ferencing, have made the “anytime, anywhere” workplace a reality (Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015).

To be sure, advances in machine learning, automation, and the Internet are changing the ways that work is done, as more activities are performed by intelligent systems rather than by humans (Arthur, 2017). Yet, for all the changes, the job as a way to organize and group tasks and responsibilities has not yet disappeared, especially in large organizations (Newman, Gerhart, & Milkovich, 2016). In the age of intelligent automation, many organizations are reexamining what a “job” actually is: how it is structured and how it should be reconfig- ured, and perhaps redefined. They are actively incorporating multilevel factors into the design of jobs (Parker, Morgeson, & Johns, 2017; Parker, Van Den Broeck, & Holman, 2017). At the same time, they are also asking probing questions, such as the following: How should companies rethink the value of a job, in terms of increased performance through machine intelligence? What sets of skills should they invest in? Which jobs should remain within the company and which should be accessed via talent platforms, or perhaps shared with peers, even competitors (Jesuthasan, Malcolm, & Zarkadakis, 2016)? Answers to many of these questions lie in a process known as work analysis.

DEFINITION, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Work analysis is a broad term that refers to any systematic process for gathering, document- ing, and analyzing three features of work: (1) its content (tasks, responsibilities, or outputs); (2) worker attributes related to its performance (knowledge, skills, abilities, or other personal characteristics, or KSAOs); and (3) the context in which work is performed (e.g., physical and psychological conditions) (Brannick, Pearlman, & Sanchez, 2017).

It is difficult to overstate the importance of job or work analysis (Brannick, Cadle, & Levine, 2012; Brannick, Levine, & Morgeson, 2007; Morgeson & Dierdorff, 2011) to employ- ment research and practice. Like other authors, we see the tools and techniques developed under “job or work analysis” as applicable to changing structures of work, and the use of either term is not meant to convey a focus on rigidly prescribed jobs. If conducted thoroughly and competently, job or work analysis provides a deeper understanding of individual jobs and their behavioral requirements and, therefore, creates a firm basis on which to make employment decisions. As the APA Standards (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014) note,

[W]hen empirical evidence of predictor-criterion relationships is part of the pattern of evidence used to support test use . . . systematic collection of information about the job should inform the development of the criterion measures. However, there is no clear choice among the many available job analysis methods. . . . Job analysis is not limited to direct observation of the job or direct sampling of subject matter experts; large-scale job-analytic databases often provide useful information. (Standard 11.7, p. 180)

The SIOP Principles provide additional guidance (SIOP, 2018):

The term “analysis of work” subsumes information that traditionally has been collected through work and job analysis methods, and more recently, competency modeling efforts,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 211

as well as other information about the work, worker, organization, and work environ- ment. . . . There is no single approach that is the preferred method for the analysis of work. The analyses used in a specific study of work are a function of the nature of the work, cur- rent information about the work, the organizational setting, the workers themselves, and the purpose of the study. Understanding the organization’s requirements or objectives is important when selecting an appropriate method for conducting an analysis of work. . . . The central point . . . is the need to obtain reliable and relevant job information that addresses anticipated behaviors, activities, and/or KSAOs or competencies. (pp. 11, 12)

Although some courts insist on extensive job or work analysis (e.g., as a basis for providing content-related evidence of validity), certain purposes, such as validity generalization, may not require such detail (Landy, 2003; Malos, 2005; Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, & Wiechmann, 2003). As Figure 9.1 illustrates, the analysis of work information might be collected for many uses and purposes.

Work analysis can underpin an organization’s structure and design by clarifying roles (pat- terns of expected behavior based on organizational position). Employee responsibilities at all hierarchical levels—from mail clerk to chairperson of the board—can be specified, thereby avoiding overlap and duplication of effort and promoting efficiency and harmony among individuals and departments. Work analysis is a fundamental tool that can be used in every phase of employment research and administration; in fact, work analysis is to the I/O psy- chologist or HR professional what the wrench is to the plumber.

TERMINOLOGY Talent management, like any other specialty area, has its own peculiar jargon, and, although some of the terms are used interchangeably in everyday conversation, technically there are distinct differences among them. These differences will become apparent as we examine work analysis methods more closely. The definitions that follow generally are consistent with

FIGURE 9.1 ■ Uses of Job Analysis Information

Organization Design HR Management Work and

Equipment Design Additional Uses

Organizing

Strategic workforce planning

Role definition

Job evaluation

Recruitment

Selection

Placement

Orientation

Training and development

Performance management

Promotions and transfers

Career-path planning

Labor relations

Engineering design

Work design

Methods improvement

Safety

Vocational guidance

Rehabilitation counseling

Systems for classifying jobs or work

HR research

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

212 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

the terminology used by Brannick et al. (2007), Gael (1988), McCormick (1979), the U.S. Department of Labor (1972, 1982), and Wills (1993):

� An element is the smallest unit into which work can be divided without analyzing the separate motions, movements, and mental processes involved. Removing a saw from a tool chest prior to sawing wood for a project is an example of a job element.

� A task is a distinct work activity carried out for a distinct purpose. Running a computer program, cleaning cooking utensils, and unloading a truckload of freight are examples of tasks.

� A duty includes a large segment of the work performed by an individual and may include any number of tasks. Examples of duties include conducting interviews, counseling employees, and providing information to the public.

� A position consists of one or more duties performed by a given individual in a given firm at a given time, such as clerk typist–level three. There are as many positions as there are workers.

� A job is a group of positions that are similar in their significant duties, such as two or more mechanics–level two. A job, however, may involve only one position, depending on the size of the organization. For example, the local garage may employ only one mechanic–level two.

� A job family is a group of two or more jobs that either call for similar worker characteristics or contain parallel work tasks as determined by job analysis.

� An occupation is a group of similar jobs found in different organizations at different times—for example, electricians and machinists. A vocation is similar to an occupation, but the term vocation is more likely to be used by a worker than by an employer.

� A career covers a sequence of positions, jobs, or occupations that one person engages in during his or her working life.

Aligning Method With Purpose

A wide variety of methods and techniques are available for collecting information about jobs and work. They vary on a number of dimensions, and such variation creates choices. Methods for analyzing work must align with the purpose for which such information was collected. It simply is not true that a single type of work analysis data can support any talent management activity. For example, the kind of information necessary to develop a hierarchy of jobs in a pay structure (job evaluation) is usually not detailed enough to provide useful inputs to a human- factors engineer seeking to redesign a person–machine interface. First, define the purpose of the work analysis (see Figure 9.1); then choose a method that fits that purpose.

Choices

Several choices confront the work analyst (Brannick et al., 2017; Morgeson & Dierdorff, 2011; Sackett & Laczo, 2003), although the range of choices can be narrowed once the analyst identifies the specific purpose for collecting work-related information. In brief, some of these choices include the following:

� Activities or attributes? Some techniques focus solely on activities or what gets done (tasks), whereas others focus on how the work gets done (worker attributes, such

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 213

as KSAOs, which might include, for example, personality characteristics, values, and attitudes). The former are termed work oriented; the latter are worker oriented. Competency modeling, which we consider in more detail later in the chapter, incorporates the full range of KSAOs.

� General or specific? These choices concern the level of detail needed in the analysis. A brief description of work for purposes of pay-survey comparisons includes considerably less detail than that needed to develop preemployment assessment procedures based on critical KSAOs.

� Qualitative or quantitative? The same type of work can be described in narrative form—that is, qualitatively—or by means of numerical evaluations on a fixed set of scales (time, frequency, importance, or criticality)—that is, quantitatively. Qualitative methods are fine for applications like career planning, but comparisons of different types of work require quantitative data.

� Taxonomy based or blank slate? The Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) and the Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS), both of which are described later in this chapter, are taxonomy-based approaches in which relatively general work activities apply to a broad range of work. Alternatively, trained observers or job incumbents may develop lists of activities or attributes that apply to specific jobs or job families. Subsequently, the activities or attributes are rated on specific scales, as described earlier. Such blank-slate approaches have the potential for a greater degree of detail than do taxonomy approaches.

� Observers or incumbents and supervisors? Trained analysts sometimes observe work directly and then distill their observations into qualitative descriptions or quantitative evaluations of work activities or attributes. Alternatively, information may come from job incumbents and their direct supervisors, who may be asked to identify activities or attributes and then rate them on numerical scales. When a large number of incumbents and supervisors provide such ratings, it becomes possible to assess the consistency of the ratings and to identify clusters of respondents with differing patterns of work activities.

� Single-job or multiple-job comparison? Sometimes the focus is on a specific job, as when developing an entry-level test for bank tellers. In other cases, the focus is on documenting similarities and differences across jobs (e.g., to justify using the same selection system with different types of work, to justify using a selection system for the same job in different organizations, or to develop job families and career paths).

� Descriptive or prescriptive? Work analysis typically describes a job as it currently exists. Suppose, however, that a job does not yet exist? Under these circumstances, it is necessary to prescribe activities or attributes for the soon-to-be-created job. Such an approach is termed strategic work analysis, which we discuss later in this chapter.

DEFINING THE JOB Work analysis, as we have pointed out, consists of defining work (e.g., in terms of its com- ponent tasks), specifying what employee behaviors are necessary to perform the work tasks, and then developing hypotheses about the personal characteristics necessary to perform those work behaviors. Two elements stand out in this definition: task requirements and people requirements. In this section, we consider task requirements, and, in the next section, we consider behavioral requirements.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

214 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

In many cases, the characteristics of work are “givens” to employees. They include, for example, the equipment used; the arrangement of the work space; the division of labor; and the procedures, methods, and standards of performance. From these data, the analyst pro- duces a job description or written statement of what a worker actually does, how he or she does it, and why. This information can then be used to determine what KSAOs are required to perform the work. Job descriptions are useful communication tools to tell employees about the tasks they are expected to perform, they aid in the interactive process that some laws require regarding reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, they describe mini- mum qualifications (discussed in the next section), and they help justify exempt versus non- exempt status under applicable wage and hour laws (Brannen, 2016).

FIGURE 9.2 ■ A Typical Job Description

CITY ARCHITECT I

NATURE OF WORK

This is professional and technical work in the preparation of architectural plans, designs, and specifications for a variety of municipal or public works building projects and facilities.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Education and Experience

Graduation from an accredited college or university with a specialization in architecture or architectural engineering or equal.

Knowledges, Abilities, and Skills

Considerable knowledge of the principles and practices of architecture; ability to make structural and related mathematical computations and make recommendations on architectural problems; ability to design moderately difficult architectural projects; ability to interpret local building codes and zoning regulations; ability to secure good working relationships with private contractors and employees; ability to train and supervise the work of technical and other subordinates in a manner conductive to full performance; ability to express ideas clearly and concisely orally and in writing; skill in the use of architectural instruments and equipment.

ILLUSTRATION OF DUTIES

Prepares or assists in the preparation of architectural plans and designs all types of building projects constructed by the City, including fire stations, park and recreation buildings, office buildings, warehouses, and similar structures; prepares or supervises the preparation of final working drawings including architectural drawings, such as site plans, foundations, floor plans, elevations, section details, diagrams, and schedules rendering general features and scale details; prepares or supervises some of the engineering calculations, drawings, and plans for mechanical details, such as plumbing, air- conditioning phases, and lighting features; writes construction standards and project specifications; prepares sketches including plans, elevations, site plans, and renderings and makes reports on feasibility and cost for proposed City work; writes specifications for all aspects of architectural projects including structural, mechanical, electrical, and air- conditioning work; confers with engineering personnel engaged in the preparation of structural plans for a building, making recommendations and suggestions as to materials, construction, and necessary adjustments in architectural designs to fit structural requirements; inspects construction in the field by checking for conformity with plans and material specifications; inspects existing structures to determine need for alterations or improvements and prepares drawings for such changes; performs related work as required.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED

General and specific assignments are received and work is performed according to prescribed methods and procedures with allowance for some independence in judgment in accomplishing the assignments.

SUPERVISION EXERCISED

Usually limited to supervision of technical assistants in any phase.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 215

Elements of a job description may include the following:

� Job title: For bookkeeping purposes within the firm, as well as to facilitate reporting to government agencies

� Activities and procedures: Descriptions of the tasks performed, the materials used, the machinery operated, the formal interactions with other workers, and the nature and extent of supervision given or received

� Working conditions and physical environment: Heat, lighting, noise level, indoor/ outdoor setting, physical location, hazardous conditions, etc.

� Social environment: For example, information on the number of individuals in the work group and the amount of interpersonal interaction required in order to perform the work

� Conditions of employment: Including, for example, a description of the hours of work, wage structure, method of payment, benefits, place of the job in the formal organization, and opportunities for promotion and transfer (see Figure 9.2 for an example)

What we have just described is a traditional, task-based job description. However, some organizations are beginning to develop behavioral job descriptions. These comprise broader abilities that are easier to alter as technologies and customer needs change (Joinson, 2001). For example, instead of focusing on communication skills, such as writing, speaking, and making presentations, behavioral job descriptions incorporate broader behavioral statements, such as “actively listens, builds trust, and adapts his or her style and tactics to fit the audience.” These behaviors will not change, even as the means of executing them evolve with technology. Instead of being responsible for simple procedures and predictable tasks, workers are now expected to draw inferences and render diagnoses, judgments, and decisions, often under severe time con- straints (Brannick et al., 2017; Morgeson & Dierdorff, 2011).

JOB SPECIFICATIONS Job specifications represent the KSAOs deemed necessary to perform a type of work. For example, keen vision (usually 20/20 uncorrected) is required of astronauts and test pilots.

In many cases, however, job specifications are not rigid and inflexible; they serve only as guidelines for recruitment, selection, and placement. Job specifications depend on the level of performance deemed acceptable and the degree to which some abilities can be substituted for others. For example, in one investigation of power sewing machine operators, it was thought that keen eyesight was necessary to sew sheets until research demonstrated that manual dex- terity was far more important. The operators could sew sheets just as well with their eyes closed! This illustrates an important point: Some individuals may be restricted from certain jobs because the job specifications are inflexible, artificially high, or invalid. For this rea- son, job specifications should indicate minimally acceptable standards for selection and later performance.

Job specifications identify the personal characteristics (e.g., educational background, expe- rience, training) that are valid for screening, selection, and placement. How are these specifi- cations set, and how does one define “minimal qualifications (MQs)”?

Levine, May, Ulm, and Gordon (1997) developed a methodology for determining MQs in the context of a court case that challenged the use of MQs of unknown validity, but high

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

216 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

adverse impact. Their methodology is worth describing, since ultimately a court approved it, and it is consistent with sound professional practice.

Working independently with a draft list of tasks and KSAs for a target job, separate groups of subject matter experts (SMEs) rate tasks and KSAs on a set of four scales, as shown in Figure 9.3.

Since the ratings are aggregated subsequently in terms of means or percentages, there is no need for consensus among SMEs. Tasks and KSAs meeting the criteria shown in Figure 9.3 are used to form the domains of tasks and KSAs from which MQs are derived. After completing their ratings, the SMEs provide suggested types or amounts of education, work experience, and other data they view as appropriate for MQs. Working with the task and KSA domains, as well as aggregated SME opinions, work analysts prepare a draft set of MQ profiles. Each profile is a statement of education, training, or work experience presumably needed to perform a target job at a satisfactory level. Finally, a new set of SMEs is convened to do three things:

1. Establish a description of a barely acceptable employee

2. Decide if the list of MQ profiles is complete or if it needs editing

3. Rate the finalized profiles on two scales, level and clarity (see Figure 9.4)

FIGURE 9.3 ■ Scales Applied to Tasks and KSAs and Criteria for Defining the Domains for MQs

Source: Republished with permission of John Wiley and Sons Inc., from Levine, E. L., May, D. M., Ulum, R. A., & Gordon, T. R. (1997). A methodology for developing and validating minimum qualifications (MQs). Personnel Psychology, 50, 1013; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center.

Tasks

Perform at Entry: Should a newly hired employee be able to perform this task immediately or after a brief orientation/ training period? (Yes/No)

Barely Acceptable: Must even barely acceptable employees be able to perform this task correctly with normal supervision? (Yes/No)

Importance of Correct Performance: How important is it for this task to be done correctly? Think about what happens if an error is made (some delay of service, work must be redone, danger to patients or coworkers, etc.) (1-Little or no, to 5-Extremely important)

Difficulty: How difficult is it to do this task correctly compared to all other tasks in the job? (1-Much easier, to 5-Much harder)

Criteria to be in the domain for MQs: Majority rate Yes on both Yes/No scales, score 3 or higher on Correct Performance, 2 or higher on Difficulty.

KSAs

Necessary at Entry: Is it necessary for newly hired employees to possess this KSA upon being hired or after a brief orientation/training period? (Yes/No)

Barely Acceptable: Must even barely acceptable employees possess the level or amount of this KSA to do the job? (Yes/No)

Useful in Hiring: To what extent is this KSA useful in choosing and hiring new employees? (1-None or very little, to 5-To an extremely great extent)

Unsatisfactory Employees: How well does this KSA distinguish between the barely acceptable and the unsatisfactory employee? (1-None or very little, to 5-To an extremely great extent)

Criteria to be in the domain for MQs: Majority rate Yes on both Yes/No scales, score 2 or higher on Useful and Unsatisfactory scales; and Useful plus Unsatisfactory Index must equal 5.0 or higher.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 217

FIGURE 9.4 ■ Scales Applied to MQ Profiles and Criteria for Defining Content-Oriented Evidence of Validity

Level: To what extent is the profile indicated suitable to identifying the barely acceptable applicant? (0-Not at all, 1-Too little to expect, 2-About right, 3-Too much to expect)

Clarity: To what extent will this profile be clear to applicants and those who will use the profile in screening? (0-Not at all, 1-Not too clear, 2-Reasonably clear, 3-Clear, stands on its own)

Profiles that meet criteria of majority rating 2 on Level, and 2 or 3 on Clarity, are then compared to each Task and KSA in the MQ domains with the following scales:

Linkage

Tasks: Does this profile provide an employee with what is needed to perform at a barely acceptable level on this task? (Yes/ No/Not Sure)

KSAs: Does this profile provide an employee with the level of this KSA needed to perform at a barely acceptable level? (Yes/No/Not Sure)

A valid MQ is considered to be one in which the profile is linked to more than half of either Tasks or KSAs in the MQ domain, OR is linked to all five of the most important Tasks or KSAs.

1Profiles are routinely edited before and after rating to ensure that the determination that a profile is invalid is based on its content and not on clarity of the writing.

Profiles meeting the criteria on the level and clarity scales are then linked back to the tasks and KSAs (in the domains established earlier) by means of two additional scales, one for tasks and one for KSAs, using the criteria also shown in Figure 9.4. Each profile must meet the link- age criterion in order to demonstrate content-oriented evidence of validity (see Chapter 7). Six of the nine MQ profiles in Levine et al.’s (1997) study did so.

Subsequently, Buster, Roth, and Bobko (2005) presented a related method for developing content-oriented evidence of validity for education and experience-based MQs that also was approved by a federal court. They offered the following eight recommendations for practice:

1. Begin with a structured analysis of work that identifies critical tasks and KSAs, noting which KSAs are needed on day 1 of the work (entry-level KSAs).

2. Distribute a list of tasks and KSAs associated with the work at the first MQ- development meeting.

3. Emphasize that the point of reference for the MQs is an individual who is newly appointed to the work.

4. Instruct individuals who are generating potential MQs to think about alternative MQs (e.g., a professional certification).

5. Use straightforward, targeted MQs because they can be rated more easily and reliably.

6. SMEs should rate the list of MQs independently.

7. Have SMEs link all potential MQs back to KSAs or tasks.

8. Bracket potential MQs with both easier and more difficult statements.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

218 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF WORK ANALYSIS INFORMATION A meta-analysis of 46 studies and 299 estimates of reliability identified average levels of inter- and intrarater reliability of job analysis ratings. Interrater reliability refers to the degree to which different raters agree on the components of a target work role or job, or the extent to which their ratings covary. Intrarater reliability is a measure of stability (repeated item and rate–rerate the same work at different times). Data were categorized by specificity (generalized work activity or task data), source (incumbents, analysts, or technical experts), and descriptive scale (frequency, importance, difficulty, or time spent). Across 119 studies, task data demon- strated higher inter- and intrarater reliabilities than did generalized work activity data (.77 versus .60, and .72 versus .58, respectively). Analysts showed the highest interrater reliability and incumbents the lowest, regardless of the specificity of the data. Within task data, descrip- tive scales dealing with perceptions of relative value (importance and difficulty scales) tended to have similar and relatively high interrater reliability levels, whereas descriptive scales involv- ing temporal judgments (frequency and time-spent scales) displayed similar and relatively low interrater reliability levels (Dierdorff & Wilson, 2003).

Job descriptions are valid to the extent that they accurately represent job content, environ- ment, and conditions of employment. Job specifications are valid to the extent that persons possessing the personal characteristics believed necessary for successful job performance in fact do perform more effectively on their jobs than persons lacking those personal characteristics.

As Morgeson and Campion (1997) have noted, however, many job analysis processes are based on human judgment, and such judgment is often fallible. Potential sources of inaccu- racy in work analysis may be due to two primary sources: social and cognitive. Social sources of inaccuracy apply principally in settings where groups, rather than individuals, make judg- ments about the analysis of work. For example, pressures to conform could be a source of inaccuracy if group consensus is required. Cognitive sources, by contrast, reflect problems that result primarily from our limited ability to process information. For example, demand for large numbers of ratings or for very fine distinctions among characteristics of work can cause information overload. In all, Morgeson and Campion (1997) identified 16 potential sources of inaccuracy. Such sources are more likely to affect ratings of subjective and diffuse attributes, such as many KSAOs, than they are ratings of discrete and observable tasks. Thus, questions such as, “Do you do this at work?” require considerably less subjectivity and judgment than do ratings of “criticality.”

In a later study, Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, Mayfield, Ferrara, and Campion (2004) investigated the effect of one particular source of bias: self-presentation—an attempt by some individuals to control the impressions others form of them. Their research showed that self- presentation may be responsible for inflation in ratings, particularly in the case of ability statements.

We also know that the amount of descriptive information about work that is available to raters significantly affects the accuracy of work analysis. Student raters with more detailed work information were consistently more accurate, relative to the averaged ratings of incum- bents, than were those given only a job title. Moreover, data provided by raters who were relatively naive about the work in question showed little agreement with data provided by work-content experts (Harvey & Lozada-Larsen, 1988).

In actual organizational settings, however, there is not a readily available standard to assess the accuracy of a work analysis. As Guion (1998) pointed out, work analysis is not science. It always reflects subjective judgment and is best viewed as an information-gathering tool to aid researchers in deciding what to do next. Careful choices and documented decisions about

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 219

what information to collect and how to collect it are the best assurances of reliable and useful information (Brannick et al., 2017; Sackett & Laczo, 2003). In the next section, we consider how such information may be obtained.

OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT JOBS AND WORK Numerous methods exist for describing jobs and work, although they differ widely in the assumptions they make, in breadth of coverage, and in precision. Some are work oriented and some are worker oriented, but each method has its own particular set of advantages and disadvantages. For purposes of exposition, we present the various methods separately, but, in practice, several methods should be used to complement each other so that the end product represents a valid and comprehensive picture of job duties, responsibilities, and behaviors.

Direct Observation and Job Performance

Observation of incumbents and actual performance of the work by the analyst are two meth- ods of gathering job information. Data then may be recorded in a narrative format or on some type of checklist or worksheet such as that shown in Figure 9.5. Both methods assume that jobs are relatively static—that is, that they remain constant over time and are not changed appreciably by different job incumbents or different situations. Job observation is appropriate for jobs that require a great deal of manual, standardized, short-cycle activities, and job per- formance is appropriate for jobs that the job analyst can learn readily.

Observations should include a representative sample of work behaviors. For example, the activity “copes with emergencies” may be crucial to effective nursing performance; yet a con- tinuous eight-hour observation of the activities of a group of staff nurses tending to the needs of a dozen sleepy postoperative patients may reveal little in the way of a valid picture of work requirements.

Furthermore, the analyst must take care to be unobtrusive in his or her observations, lest the measuring process per se distort what is being measured (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 2000). This does not imply that the analyst should hide from the worker and remain out of sight, but it does imply that the analyst should not get in the way. Consider the follow- ing incident, which actually happened: While riding along in a police patrol car as part of a job/work analysis of police officers, an analyst and an officer were chatting away when a call came over the radio regarding a robbery in progress. Upon arriving at the scene, the analyst and the officer both jumped out of the patrol car, but in the process, the overzealous analyst managed to position himself between the robbers and the police. Although the robbers were apprehended later, they used the analyst as a shield to make their getaway from the scene of the crime.

Observation and job performance are inappropriate for work that requires a great deal of mental activity and concentration, such as lawyer, computer programmer, or architect, but these methods are perfectly appropriate for many types of work. A technique known as func- tional job analysis (FJA) often is used to record observed tasks (Fine, 1989). FJA attempts to identify exactly what the worker does, as well as the results of the worker’s behavior—that is, what gets done. Figure 9.6 provides an example of an FJA worksheet summarizing an analyst’s observations of a firefighter performing salvage and overhaul operations in response to an emergency call. Let’s consider the various sections of the worksheet.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

220 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

Duties are general areas of responsibility. Tasks describe what gets done. Under the “WHAT?” heading, two pieces of information are required: “Performs What Action?” (i.e., describe what the worker did, using an action verb) and “To Whom or to What?” (i.e., describe the object of the verb). “WHY?” forces the analyst to consider the purpose of the worker’s action (“To Produce or Achieve What?”). “HOW?” requires the analyst to describe the tools, equipment, or work aids used to accomplish the task and, in addition, to specify the nature and source of instructions. This section also indicates whether the task is prescribed (e.g., by a superior or departmental procedures) or left to the worker’s discretion.

Under “WORKER FUNCTIONS,” the analyst describes the orientation and level of worker activity with data, people, and things. All jobs involve workers to some extent with informa- tion or ideas (data); with clients, coworkers, superiors, and so on (people); and with machines or equipment (things). The percentages listed under “Data,” “People,” and “Things” indicate

FIGURE 9.5 ■ Job/Work Analysis Worksheet

JOB ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

NAME OF EMPLOYEE DATE:

CLASSIFICATION: ANALYST:

DEPARTMENT: DIVISION:

LENGTH OF TIME IN JOB: LENGTH OF TIME WITH ORGANIZATION:

A description of what the classification duties currently are and what is actually needed to do the job. No indications need be made of experiences, abilities, or training acquired after employment.

1. General summary of job (primary duties):

2. Job tasks (tasks with X in front indicate observed duties: use actual examples, indicate frequency, consequences of error [0–10], difficulty [0–10], training received, supervision).

3. How detailed are assignments? Describe the form work comes in, decisions that have been made, and what still needs to be done with the work.

4. Relation to others in position:

5. Higher positions job prepares one for:

6. Equivalent positions:

7. Tools, machinery, aids:

8. Physical activity: (climbing, lifting, walking, standing, operating heavy equipment, etc.)

9. (Observe) Hazards, or unusual working conditions:

10. (Supervisor-Dept. Head) Qualifications: (competency needed)

11. (Supervisor-Dept. Head) Knowledge, skills, abilities required to do the job:

12. (Supervisor-Dept. Head) Special requirements, licenses, etc.:

13. Clarification of employee written specs, if any:

14. Contacts (inside/outside organization):

15. Supervisory responsibility, if any:

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 221

FIGURE 9.6 ■ Behavior Observation Worksheet in Functional Job Analysis Terms

Position Series: Firefighter

Duty: Response to emergency dispatches

Task Statement: Performing salvage and overhaul

WHAT? WHY? HOW? WORKER FUNCTIONS Orientation and Level

Performs What Action? (Action Verb)

To Whom or to What? (Object of Verb)

To Produce or Achieve What?

Using What Tools, Equipment, or Work Aids?

Upon What Instructions? Data People Things

1. Piles and covers

Furniture, clothing, and other valuables

In order to protect material from fire and water damage

Salvage covers

Prescribed content:

a. Company officer

b. Departmental procedure

Discretionary content:

a. As to the best location for preventing damage to materials

10% 2

10% 8

80% 7

2. Examines Walls, ceilings, floors, and furniture

In order to locate and extinguish secondary fire sources

Pike pole, charged hose line, portable nozzle, power saw, axe

Prescribed content:

a. Company officer

b. Departmental procedure

Discretionary content:

a. As to the area examined for secondary fire sources

b. As to the tools used for locating secondary fire sources

50% 2

10% 8

40% 4

3. Carries Smoldering mattresses and furniture from buildings

In order to reduce fire and smoke damage to buildings and their contents

Crowbar Prescribed content:

a. Company officer

b. Departmental procedure

Discretionary content:

a. As to whether article or material needs to be removed from building

20% 2

10% 8

70% 7

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

222 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

the relative amount of involvement (orientation) with each of these functions. Numbers indi- cate the level of complexity according to the following scales, developed by the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor:

Data People Things

0 Synthesize 0 Mentor 0 Set up

1 Coordinate 1 Negotiate 1 Precision work

2 Analyze 2 Instruct 2 Operate, control

3 Compile 3 Supervise 3 Drive, operate

4 Compute 4 Divert 4 Manipulate

5 Copy 5 Persuade 5 Tend

6 Compare 6 Speak-signal 6 Feed

— 7 Serve 7 Handle

— 8 Take instruction —

Of course, each of these terms is defined more fully for the analyst, but the important thing to note is that since the level and orientation measures can be applied to all tasks, and therefore to all jobs and types of work, the worker function scales provide a way of comparing all tasks and all types of work on a common basis.

We noted earlier that analysts should be unobtrusive. One possible solution is to use high- resolution digital cameras to obtain comprehensive views of work activity. The video informa- tion can then be reviewed and coded offline. One can then follow particular employees as they wander through a facility, such as a department store or a warehouse, as if the observer were walking behind them (Saad, 2009). Video information is just one source of informa- tion about work, however, and it suffers from the following disadvantages: (a) One cannot hear what employees are saying; (b) it is not possible to track interactions among employees; (c) ceiling-mounted video cameras cannot tell what a person is actually looking at; and (d) if an employee steps out of the frame of vision of the camera, there is no adjoining view of his or her actions unless additional cameras cover multiple visual fields (Banks, 2017).

Interview

The interview is probably the most commonly used technique for establishing the tasks, duties, and behaviors necessary both for standardized or nonstandardized activities and for physical as well as mental work. Because the worker acts as his or her own observer in the interview, he or she can report activities and behaviors that would not often be observed, as well as those activities that occur over long time spans. Moreover, because of his or her thor- ough knowledge of the job, the worker can report information that might not be available to the analyst from any other source. Viewing the interview as a “conversation with a purpose,” however, makes it obvious that the success of this technique depends partly on the skill of the interviewer.

Thorough advance planning and training of the analyst in interview techniques should precede the actual interviewing, and, for reasons of reliability and efficiency, the ana- lyst should follow a structured interview form that covers systematically the material to be

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 223

gathered during the interview. As a guide, questions used by interviewers may be checked for their appropriateness against the following criteria (McCormick, 1979):

� The question should be related to the purpose of the analysis.

� The wording should be clear and unambiguous.

� The question should not “lead” the respondent; that is, it should not imply that a specific answer is desired.

� The question should not be “loaded” in the sense that one form of response might be considered to be more socially desirable than another.

� The question should not ask for knowledge or information the interviewee doesn’t have.

� There should be no personal or intimate material that the interviewee might resent. (p. 36)

Workers often look on interviewers with some suspicion, and they are understandably wary of divulging information about their jobs. For this reason, the analyst should provide a comfortable atmosphere where the worker or team feels free to discuss job duties and responsibilities.

The major stumbling block with the interviewing technique is distortion of information, whether this is due to outright falsification or to honest misunderstanding. For example, if the worker knows (or thinks) that the results of the work analysis may influence wages, he or she may exaggerate certain responsibilities and minimize others. Hence, interviews may require time and a good deal of adroit questioning in order to elicit valid information.

As a check on the information provided by a single incumbent, it is wise to interview several incumbents, as well as immediate supervisors who know the work well. Both high- and low-performing incumbents and supervisors tend to provide similar information (Conley & Sackett, 1987), as do members of different demographic subgroups (Schmitt & Cohen, 1989). However, this may be true only for simple, as opposed to complex, jobs (Mullins & Kimbrough, 1988). Multiple interviews allow analysts to take into account features of work made dynamic by time, people, and situations. This is only a partial solution to the problem, however, for often it is difficult to piece together results from several dissimilar interviews into a comprehensive picture. For this reason, additional information-gathering techniques might well be used to supplement and refine interviewing results.

SME Panels

Panels of 6 to 10 SMEs are often convened for different purposes in work analysis: (a) to develop information on tasks or KSAOs to be used in constructing work analysis question- naires and (b) in test development, to establish linkages between tasks and KSAOs, KSAOs and test items, and tasks and test items. The total group of SMEs usually represents about a 10–20% sample of incumbents and supervisors, representative of the race, gender, location, shift, and assignment composition of the entire group of incumbents. Evidence indicates, however, that a key attribute of SME groups is experience (Landy & Vasey, 1991; Morgeson & Dierdorff, 2011). Failure to include a broad cross-section of experience in a sample of SMEs could lead to distorted ratings. However, representative panels of SMEs provide results very similar to those obtained from broad surveys of respondents in the field (Tannenbaum & Wesley, 1993).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

224 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

SMEs are encouraged to discuss issues and to resolve disagreements openly. For example, to promote discussion of KSAOs, panel members might be asked questions such as the following:

� Think of workers you know who are better than anyone else at (a particular task). Why do they do so well?

� If you were going to assign a worker to perform (a particular task), what kinds of KSAOs would you want this person to have?

� What do you expect workers to learn in training that would make them effective at the tasks?

� Think of good workers and poor workers. What KSAOs distinguish one from the other?

If the task for SMEs is to establish linkages for test-development purposes, quality-control statistics should be computed to ensure that the judgments or work products of the SMEs are meaningful (Hughes & Prien, 1989; Morgeson & Dierdorff, 2011). For example, question- naires might include repeat items and “carelessness” items (those that are inappropriate for the job under study). High levels of interrater agreement and, for individual SMEs, a near-zero endorsement of “carelessness” items are important checks on the meaningfulness of the data.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires usually are standardized and require respondents either to check items that apply to a job or to rate items in terms of their relevance to the job in question. In general, they are cheaper and quicker to administer than other job analysis methods, and sometimes they can be completed at the respondent’s leisure, online or via hard copy, thereby avoiding lost production time. In addition, when there are many workers in each job, questionnaires provide a breadth of coverage that would be exorbitantly expensive and time consuming to obtain by any other method.

There are problems with this method, however. Questionnaires are often time consuming and expensive to develop, and ambiguities or misunderstandings that might have been clari- fied in an interview are likely to go uncorrected. Similarly, it may be difficult to follow up and augment information obtained in the questionnaires. In addition, the rapport that might have been obtained in the course of face-to-face contact is impossible to achieve with an impersonal instrument. This may have adverse effects on respondent cooperation and motivation. At the same time, the structured-questionnaire approach allows work analysis information to be quantified and then analyzed statistically.

Task inventories and checklists are questionnaires used to collect information about a particular type of work. An analyst completes a list of tasks or job activities, by checking or rating each item as it relates to the work in question, in terms of the importance of the item, frequency with which the task is performed, judged difficulty, time to learn, or relationship to overall performance. Although these data are adaptable for computer analysis, checklists tend to ignore the sequencing of tasks or their relationships to other jobs. Thus, an overall perspec- tive is extremely difficult to obtain with checklist information alone.

However, if one purpose of a task inventory is to assess the relative importance of each task, then a unit-weighted, additive composite of ratings of task criticality, difficulty of learning the task, and relative time spent may provide the best prediction of average task importance across SMEs (Sanchez & Fraser, 1992).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 225

The Position Analysis Questionnaire

Since task inventories basically are work oriented and make static assumptions about jobs, behavioral implications are difficult to establish. In contrast to this, worker-oriented information describes how a job gets done and is more concerned with generalized worker behaviors. The Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ), an instrument based on statisti- cal analyses of primarily worker-oriented job elements, lends itself to quantitative statistical analysis (McCormick & Jeanneret, 1988; McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1972). The PAQ consists of 194 items that fall into the following categories: information input (where and how the worker gets the information he or she uses to accomplish work); mental pro- cesses (the reasoning, planning, decision making, and so forth involved in the work); work output (the physical activities performed by the worker and the tools or devices he or she uses); relationships with other persons; and work context (physical and social contexts in which the work is performed). The individual items require the respondent either to check an item if it applies or to rate it on an appropriate rating scale, such as importance, time, or difficulty (see Figure 9.7).

FIGURE 9.7 ■ Sample Items From the PAQ

Source: McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., & Mecham, R. C. (1969). Position analysis questionnaire: PAQ. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PERSONS

This section deals with different aspects of interaction between people involved in various kinds of work.

Code Importance to This Job (1)

DNA Does not apply 1 Very minor 2 Low 3 Average 4 High 5 Extreme

Rate the following in terms of how important the activity is to the completion of the job. Some jobs may involve several or all of the items in this section.

4.1 Communications

4.1.1 Oral (communicating by speaking)

Advising (dealing with individuals in order to counsel and/or guide them with regard to problems that may be resolved by legal, financial, scientific, technical, clinical, spiritual, and/or other professional principles)

Negotiating (dealing with others in order to reach an agreement or solution, for example, labor bargaining, diplomatic relations, etc.)

Persuading (dealing with others in order to influence them toward some action or point of view, for example, selling, political campaigning, etc.)

Instructing (the teaching of knowledge or skills, in either an infornal or a formal manner, to others, for example a public school teacher, a journeyman teaching an apprentice, etc.)

Interviewing (conducting interviews directed toward some specific objective, for example, interviewing job applicants, census taking, etc.)

99 1

100

101

102

103

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

226 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

The average item reliability of the PAQ is a respectable .80. Similar results were obtained with a German form of the PAQ (Frieling, Kannheiser, & Lindberg, 1974). A meta-analysis of 83 studies that used the PAQ revealed an average interrater reliability of .66. The same study revealed an average intrarater reliability of .82 (Dierdorff & Wilson, 2003).

Personal and organizational factors seem to have little impact on PAQ results. In a con- trolled study, similar profiles resulted, regardless of whether the analyst was male or female, whether the incumbent portrayed his or her work as interesting or uninteresting, or whether a considerable amount of information or less information about the work was presented (Arvey, Davis, McGowen, & Dipboye, 1982). However, as has been found using other methods, PAQ ratings from expert and job-naive raters are not equivalent (DeNisi, Cornelius, & Blencoe, 1987). There simply are no shortcuts when using the PAQ. For example, one study found near-zero convergence of results based on the rating of each PAQ job dimension as a whole, compared to rating a number of items for each dimension and then combining them (Butler & Harvey, 1988).

McCormick et al. (1972) believe that structured, worker-oriented instruments hold considerable potential for establishing the common denominators required to link different jobs. Thus,

the kinds of common denominators one would seek are those of a worker-oriented nature, since they offer some possibility of serving as bridges or common denomina- tors between and among jobs of very different technologies. One cannot possibly relate butchering, baking, and candlestick-making strictly in these technological terms; their commonalities (if any) might well be revealed if they were analyzed in terms of the more generalized human behaviors involved, that is, in terms of worker-oriented elements. (p. 348)

Despite these claims, research seems to indicate that much of the content of the PAQ is more suited for use with blue-collar manufacturing jobs than it is for professional, managerial, and some technical jobs (Cornelius, DeNisi, & Blencoe, 1984; DeNisi et al., 1987). The PAQ also is subject to two further limitations. First, since no specific work activities are described, behavioral similarities in jobs may mask genuine task differences between them—for example, a police officer’s profile is quite similar to a housewife’s (according to Arvey & Begalla, 1975) because of the troubleshooting, emergency-handling orientation required in both jobs. A second problem with the PAQ is readability, for a college-graduate reading level is required in order to comprehend the items (Ash & Edgell, 1975). The lesson? Don’t administer the PAQ to incumbents and supervisors unless their work requires educational levels substantially higher than 10–12 years.

In an effort to make the worker-oriented approach more widely applicable, the Job Element Inventory (JEI) was developed. The JEI is a 153-item, structured questionnaire modeled after the PAQ, but with a much lower reading level (10th grade). Controlled research shows that JEI factors closely parallel those of the PAQ (Harvey & Lozada-Larsen, 1988).

Fleishman Job Analysis Survey

The Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS) (Fleishman, 1975, 1992; Fleishman & Reilly, 1992a) is one of the most thoroughly researched approaches to job or work analysis. Its objective is to describe work in terms of the abilities required to perform it. The ability- requirements taxonomy (based on Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984) is intended to reflect the fewest independent ability categories that describe performance in the widest variety of tasks.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 227

Areas covered by the taxonomy include 21 cognitive abili- ties (e.g., oral comprehension, deductive reasoning, number facility), 10 psychomotor abilities (e.g., reaction time, con- trol precision, finger dexterity), 9 physical abilities (e.g., gross body coordination, static strength, stamina), and 12 sen- sory/perceptual abilities (e.g., depth perception, visual color discrimination, hearing sensitivity). In addition, 21 social/ interpersonal abilities (e.g., persuasion, dependability, social sensitivity) have now been included. The methodology has also been extended to the identification and definition of 33 types of general occupational knowledge and skill require- ments (e.g., customer and personal services, administration and management, building and construction; Costanza, Fleishman, & Marshall-Meis, 1999).

To facilitate a common understanding among raters, rating scales define each ability, distinguish it from related abilities, and provide examples of tasks that require different levels of the ability. An example of one such scale, cognitive ability 10, “Number Facility,” is shown in Figure 9.8. Inter- rater reliabilities for the scales are generally in the mid-.80s, and there is considerable construct and predictive evidence of validity in a variety of studies to support the meaningfulness of the scales (Fleishman & Mumford, 1988, 1991; Fleishman & Reilly, 1992a).

In addition, the Handbook of Human Abilities: Defini- tions, Measurements, and Job Task Requirements (Fleishman & Reilly, 1992b) integrates definitions of the full range of human abilities with information about the kinds of tasks and jobs that require each ability and about published tests that can be used to measure each ability. A portion of the Handbook entry for “Number Facility” is shown in Figure 9.9.

Critical Incidents

This is the same method we discussed in connection with performance management (Chap- ter 5). The critical-incidents approach involves the collection of a series of anecdotes of work behavior (collected from supervisors, employees, or others familiar with the job) that describe especially good or especially poor performance. The method has value, for typically it yields both static and dynamic dimensions of jobs and work. Each anecdote describes (a) what led up to the incident and the context in which it occurred, (b) exactly what the individual did that was so effective or ineffective, (c) the perceived consequences of this behavior, and (d) whether or not such consequences were within the employee’s control.

Typically, an analyst gathers a broad sampling of observations of a large number of employ- ees doing their jobs; depending on the nature of the work, hundreds or even thousands of incidents may be required to cover adequately the behavioral domain. Incidents then are cate- gorized according to the job dimensions they represent and assembled into a checklist format. In their entirety, the incidents provide a composite picture of the behavioral requirements of a job or type of work.

FIGURE 9.8 ■ Rating Scale for “Number Facility,” in the Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS)

Source: Fleishman, E. A. (1992). Fleishman Job Analysis Survey rating scale booklet (F-JAS). Potomac, MD: Management Research Institute.

How Number Facility Is Different From Other Abilities

7 Requires fast and accurate calculations using many different operations, with complex numbers.

Requires simple calculations when more than enough time is available.

Manually calculate flight coordinates of an aircraft, taking into account speed, fuel, wind, and altitude.

Compute the interest payment that should be generated from an investment.

Balance a checkbook.

Add 2 and 7.

Number facility: Involves adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing.

Mathematical reasoning: Involves understanding and organizing mathematical problems.

vs.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

228 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

OTHER SOURCES OF JOB INFORMATION AND JOB ANALYSIS METHODS Several other sources of job information are available and may serve as useful supplements to the methods already described. An examination of training materials (such as training manuals, standard operating procedures, or blueprints of equipment used) may reveal what skills, abilities, and behaviors are required for successfully learning to do the work and operat- ing essential equipment. Technical conferences composed of experts selected for their broad knowledge and experience and diaries in which incumbents record their work tasks day by day also may prove useful.

The Job Analysis Wizard

The Job Analysis Wizard (JAW) was developed at Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Pearlman & Barney, 2000). Based on the Web, it capitalizes on advances in computer technology and the availability of sophisticated information search-and-retrieval methods. The JAW incorporates characteristics such as these:

� The use of thousands of different elements organized into broader work- and worker- related dimensions. For example, a first level of the JAW taxonomy includes work

FIGURE 9.9 ■ Portion of the Handbook of Human Abilities Entry for “Number Facility” in the F-JAS

Source: Fleishman, E. A., & Reilly, M. E. (1992b). Handbook of human abilities: Definitions, measurements, and job task characteristics. Potomac, MD: Management Research Institute.

10. Number Facility

Definition: Number facility is the ability to add, subtract, multiply, divide, and manipulate numbers quickly and accurately. It is required for steps in other operations, such as finding percentages and taking square roots. This ability does not involve understanding or organizing mathematical problems.

Task: Number facility is involved in filling out income tax returns, keeping track of financial accounts, computing interest payments, adding up a restaurant bill, and balancing a checkbook.

Jobs: Jobs that require high levels of number facility include those of an accountant, audit clerk, bookkeeper, cashier, and teller.

Test Examples: Tests of number facility usually require subjects to quickly perform numerical operations such as addition or subtraction. Tests of this type require subjects to either provide the correct answer or choose the correct answer from multiple-choice items.

Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey; Numerical Operations Consulting Psychologists Press

This is a paper-pencil, multiple-choice test including simple problems of addition, subtraction, and multiplication. The results yield C-scale, centile, and T-scale norms for college groups Eight minutes are allowed to complete the test. It has been used with accountants, sales persons, and many types of clerical workers.

Employee Aptitude Survey Test #2—Numerical Ability (EAS #2) Psychological Services, Inc.

This 75-item, paper-pencil, multiple-choice test assesses addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division skills. Ten minutes are allowed to complete the test. It has been used to select and place executives, supervisors, engineers, accountants, sales workers, and clerical workers.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 229

requirements. Its second level includes work context, generalized work behaviors, and tools and equipment. Another first-level dimension is worker requirements. Its second level includes abilities, knowledge, skills, education, certifications, languages, and work styles.

� The use of fuzzy logic as a decision aid to assist in the placement of new dimensions (e.g., knowledge of new or emerging technologies) into the JAW taxonomy. Fuzzy logic creates a sort of fingerprint by comparing quantitative ratings on a new knowledge (gathered from a confirmatory survey) with the pattern of data for all knowledge elements in the dictionary across every task and tool. If a new programming language, such as TypeScript, Rust, or Swift, is discovered to be important, the system would calculate similarity indices with all other knowledge elements in the database. Then it would recommend a placement near the other programming languages based on the similarity of the patterns they share with related tasks and tools.

� Automation of the entire work analysis process, coupled with the ability to provide information on products created in the past to support business initiatives.

� Use of electronic surveys that are completed by incumbents, supervisors, and other SMEs anywhere in the world as long as they have access to the internal Lucent website.

� The ability to filter data using the JAW’s statistical software. The system then creates a series of linkage-matrix surveys designed to link the key work (tasks, tools, equipment) and worker (knowledge, skills) dimensions.

� The use of high-quality graphic reports for ease of data interpretation. When complete, the JAW allows an analyst to upload the results to the common website for others to use and immediately to identify preexisting materials (such as tests or interviews) that are relevant to a job or type of work of interest.

Incorporating Personality Dimensions Into Job Analysis

Personality is the set of characteristics of a person that account for the consistent ways that he or she responds to situations. In recent years, there has been a revival of interest in personality as a determinant of work performance, largely because of the demonstrated positive relation- ship between personality characteristics and work performance in some contexts (Hough & Dilchert, 2017; Oswald & Hough, 2011). Although there is controversy about the value- added contribution of personality relative to other predictors of performance (Morgeson et al., 2007a, 2008b), some personality traits, such as conscientiousness, can be used as valid predic- tors for many different types of occupations (Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007).

Personality-based job analysis (PBJA) may be particularly useful for cross-functional and difficult-to-define work that cannot be described in terms of simple tasks or discrete KSAs (Brannick et al., 2007). Such work is becoming increasingly common in twenty-first-century organizations (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008a, 2008b).

Perhaps the most credible peer-reviewed PBJA tool available in the public domain is the Personality-Related Position Requirements Form (PPRF) (Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997), a worker-oriented job analysis method that assesses the extent to which each of the Big Five personality traits is needed for a particular job. The Big Five is the most established and thoroughly researched personality taxonomy in work settings (Barrick & Mount, 2003; Ones et al., 2007). It includes the following dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

230 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

Although we describe the Big Five model in detail in Chapter 13 in the context of staffing, here we merely define each of its components. Neuroticism concerns the degree to which an individual is insecure, anxious, depressed, and emotional versus calm, self-confident, and cool. Extraversion concerns the degree to which an individual is gregarious, assertive, and sociable versus reserved, timid, and quiet. Open ness to experience concerns the degree to which an individual is creative, curious, and cultured versus practical with narrow interests. Agreeableness concerns the degree to which an individual is cooperative, warm, and agree- able versus cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic. Conscientiousness concerns the degree to which an individual is hardworking, organized, dependable, and persevering versus lazy, dis- organized, and unreliable.

The PPRF consists of sets of behavioral indicators associated with the five personality traits. Respondents (typically job incumbents) indicate the extent to which each behavioral indicator is relevant to the job or work under consideration. Averaged scores across respon- dents indicate the extent to which each trait (or subdimension of each trait) is relevant.

More recently, Aguinis, Mazurkiewicz, and Heggestad (2009) demonstrated that cognitive biases may lead to inflation in correlations between PBJA ratings and raters’ own personal- ity characteristics, and that PBJA ratings may be higher than they should be (inflation in mean ratings). They developed a 15-minute, Web-based frame-of-reference training program designed to instill a common mental framework in all raters (see Chapter 5) and demonstrated that it effectively reduced such biases. This should enhance the overall accuracy of PBJA ratings.

Strategic or Future-Oriented Work Analyses

There are times when organizations want information concerning specific skill and ability requirements for jobs or positions that do not yet exist. Examples include jobs related to new technology or hardware that is expected to be in operation three to five years in the future, new plant start-ups with unusual approaches to the organization of work (e.g., the use of “co-bots” in manufacturing), and the reconfiguration of existing work into a process-based structure of work (e.g., credit issuance, procurement). Given the dramatic changes that have occurred in the world of work in recent years (Arthur, 2017; Cascio, 2010; Jesuthasan et al., 2016), the likelihood of even more change in the future makes strategic work analysis (SWA) ever more important. Competency models (see next section) are future oriented, but standard work analysis methods can also be adapted for this purpose.

Brannick et al. (2017) have called for a reconceptualization of work analysis as a strate- gic tool. Doing so requires a collaboration between those with a “micro” view of jobs and work (e.g., I/O psychologists, training specialists, industrial engineers) and those with a more “macro” perspective (e.g., labor economists, sociologists, management consultants). Such a reframing and associated changes in the practice of work analysis underlie SWA, which is a systematic effort to identify or define current or anticipated work or worker requirements that are strategically aligned to an organization’s mission and goals. This would subsume other terms currently in use, such as future-oriented job analysis, strategic job analysis, and competency modeling (see next section).

An example of such collaboration is a study by Landis, Fogli, and Goldberg (1998). A large insurance company was condensing 11 existing jobs into 3 new ones, and it had hired a con- sulting team to develop valid selection tests for the new work. The consultants recognized that at least three different perspectives on this new work existed: those of the organization’s steer- ing committee, those of an outside firm responsible for technological changes (e.g., updated computer systems), and those of current members of the organization (e.g., supervisors and incumbents doing similar work, experts in system design, training coordinators). To account

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 231

for these differences, the consultants used SMEs from each of these groups throughout the work-analysis procedure. As a result, changes in technology, work design, and training that could impact the future work were identified and addressed early. Scheduled meetings at critical phases of the process provided important feedback and early warning to the organiza- tion’s steering committee about employee concerns.

Competency Models

Competency models attempt to identify variables related to overall organizational fit and to identify personality characteristics consistent with the organization’s vision (e.g., drive for results, persistence, innovation, flexibility) (Schippmann et al., 2000). As such they are writ- ten in terms to which operating managers can relate.

Competency models are a form of work analysis that focuses on broader characteristics of individuals and on using these characteristics to inform HR practices. They focus on the full range of KSAOs (e.g., motives, traits, attitudes, and personality characteristics) that are needed for effective performance on the job, and that characterize exceptional performers. Ideally, such a model consists of a set of competencies that have been identified as necessary for successful performance, with behavioral indicators associated with high performance on each competency specified (Goffin & Woychesin, 2006; Mihalevsky, Olson, & Maher, 2007).

Unfortunately, there is no consistent definition of the term competency (Schippmann et al., 2000). As Brannick et al., (2017) and Pearlman and Barney (2000) note, many competen- cies that appear in the literature and in competency models (e.g., “visioning”) are ill-defined concepts with no clear meaning. Needless to say, such deficiencies transfer to selection tools that make use of those constructs.

How does competency modeling differ from job or work analysis? A rigorous comparison concluded that competency approaches typically include a fairly substantial effort to under- stand an organization’s business context and competitive strategy and to establish some direct line-of-sight between individual competency requirements and the broader goals of an organi- zation. Job or work analyses, by contrast, typically do not make this connection, but their level of rigor and documentation are more likely to enable them to withstand the close scrutiny of a legal challenge. As currently practiced, therefore, competency modeling is not a substitute or replacement for job or work analysis.

It also is worth noting that the unit of analysis of a competency model can vary from a single job to an entire organization. When the focus is on a single job or job family, differences between competency modeling and traditional job or work analysis tend to be smaller. The notion of an organizationwide competency model is quite different, however. Specifying a set of attributes valued across the organization may reflect top managers’ vision regarding what will be valued and rewarded in the future and is one part of an organizational-change effort. In that sense, competency modeling is more prescriptive, or future oriented, whereas job or work analysis is more descriptive in nature (Sackett & Laczo, 2003).

Neither job or work analysis nor competency modeling is a singular approach to studying work, and there is much variability in the ways they are implemented in practice (Brannick et al., 2017; Schmieder & Frame, 2007). Moreover, no single type of descriptor content (com- petencies, KSAOs, work activities, performance standards) is appropriate for all purposes, and purpose is a key consideration in choosing any particular approach to the study of work.

Work Analysis for Star Performers

As described in Chapter 4, in many types of organizations—academia, sports, financial ser- vices, entertainment, and knowledge-based—some individuals just stand out—way out—in

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

232 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

terms of the quality or quantity of their performance, relative to their peers (Aguinis & O’Boyle, 2014; Joo, Aguinis, & Bradley, 2017; O’Boyle & Aguinis, 2012; O’Boyle & Kroska, 2017). In analyzing the work that these individuals do, Brannick et al. (2017) suggested two promising approaches. One, instead of conducting a typical task analysis and subsequently comparing the responses of better and poorer performers, reverse the procedure. Begin with groups of better and poorer performers and systematically explore differences in what they do, how they do it, and what personal qualities distinguish the two groups.

A second approach is to partner I/O psychologists or HR professionals with SMEs or pro- fessionals from other areas, such as economics or operations management. Doing so might broaden and deepen our understanding of factors that contribute to high performance (e.g., the quality of organizational support or robust social networks). When incorporated into a statistical model that also includes individual-difference variables such as ability, personal- ity, or emotional intelligence, the broader set of predictors might well improve the ability to forecast successful performance.

Cognitive Task Analysis

Cognitive task analysis (CTA) is particularly appropriate for knowledge-based work, such as that of surgeons, financial analysts, or scientific researchers. Its objective is to bridge the gap between what gets done and how it gets done (Brannick et al., 2017). To do that, CTA focuses on the cognitive skills or mental demands needed to perform a task proficiently, often by comparing the responses of novices and experts (Militello & Hutton, 1998).

The process of CTA involves three steps: (1) selection of the participants (novices and experts); (2) elicitation of knowledge, using any of the more than 100 distinct methods (Yates & Feldon, 2011); and (3) analysis and representation of the knowledge (Craig et al., 2012). Methods of knowledge elicitation most commonly applied to the workplace are structured interviews and think-aloud protocols (process tracing) while performing a task or solving a problem. To be useful in employment settings, CTA requires explicit linkage of cognitive processes to required job knowledge, skill, or other characteristics. At the same time, however, it is laborious, time consuming, and expensive. It probably makes most sense to use it in situ- ations in which the work requires effective performance under time pressure and when the consequences of error are severe (Brannick et al., 2017).

OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION—FROM THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES TO O*NET®

The U.S. Department of Labor published the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) in the 1930s to help deal with the economic crisis of the Great Depression by allowing the new public employment system to link skill supply and skill demand. The last version of the DOT, published by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1991, contains descriptive information on more than 12,000 jobs. However, that information does not provide a cross-job organiz- ing structure that would allow comparisons of similarities and differences across jobs. Also, by focusing on tasks, or what gets done, the DOT does not indicate directly what personal characteristics workers must have to perform the work or the context in which the work is performed (Dunnette, 1999).

To deal with these problems, the U.S. Department of Labor sponsored a large-scale research project called the Occupational Informational Network (O*NET). It incorporates

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 233

information about jobs and work obtained over the many decades since the DOT was devel- oped. The O*NET database is a national occupational information system that provides com- prehensive descriptions of the attributes of workers and jobs. It is based on four broad design principles: (1) multiple descriptor domains that provide “multiple windows” into the world of work, (2) a common language of work and worker descriptors that covers the entire spectrum of occupations, (3) descriptions of occupations based on a taxonomy from broad to specific, and (4) a comprehensive content model that integrates the previous three principles (LaPolice, Carter, & Johnson, 2008; Peterson et al., 2001).

Multiple Windows

The use of multiple descriptor domains allows people to work with the kinds of descriptors that are most useful for the questions they are asking. These descriptors include tasks, abili- ties, skills, areas of knowledge, and work context. Such organization allows one to ask how specific skills are related to different types of work activities.

Common Language

Since job-specific information can change rapidly, the O*NET database uses general descrip- tors that are more stable. It permits job-specific information but does so within the organiz- ing structure of broader descriptors, such as generalized work activities (as in the PAQ) like “selling or influencing others” and “assisting or caring for others.”

Taxonomies and Hierarchies of Occupational Descriptors

The use of hierarchical taxonomies for occupational classification allows information to be summarized and assigned to fewer categories. Because the O*NET system is concerned with both positions and occupations, a broad range of descriptors has been developed. For example, some focus on key skills needed to perform specific types of work, while others are concerned with broader organizational and contextual factors, such as organizational climate. Descrip- tors within each content domain are then arranged in a hierarchy (Rivkin, Gregory, Norton, Craven, & Lewis, 2017).

The O*NET® Content Model

The O*NET content model incorporated the three design principles—multiple windows, common language, and hierarchical taxonomies—to include the major types of cross-job descriptors and to provide a general descriptive framework of occupational information. Fig- ure 9.10 shows the six major domains of the O*NET content model and the major categories within each one. This information is contained in a relational database that is accessible to the general public at www.onetonline.org. The system is quite flexible as well. One can start with a skill or ability profile and find occupations that match it. Conversely, one can start with an occupation and find others with similar characteristics. For more in-depth information about the O*NET system, see Rivkin et al. (2017) or Peterson et al. (2001).

The O*NET system is a comprehensive database for collecting and disseminating infor- mation on occupational and worker requirements for 974 occupations, covering the U.S. economy (Rivkin et al., 2017). The basic framework for conceptualizing occupational informa- tion is now in place, and future research will enhance the value of the O*NET system. Stud- ies of adult literacy requirements across occupations (LaPolice et al., 2008) and incumbent ratings from the O*NET database (Dierdorff & Morgeson, 2009) provide construct-oriented

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

234 Applied Psychology in Talent Management

evidence of validity for O*NET and generally favorable results for incumbent ratings of O*NET tasks, generalized work activities, knowledge, and skills.

Once behavioral requirements have been specified, organizations can increase their effec- tiveness if they plan judiciously for the use of available human resources. We consider that topic in greater detail in Chapter 10.

FIGURE 9.10 ■ The O*NET Content Model

Source: O*NET Resource Center, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (USDOL/ETA). Used under the CC BY 4.0 license. O*NET® is a trademark of USDOL/ETA. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from www. onetcenter.org/content.html.

Worker oriented

Job oriented

Occupation specific

Cross occupation

Abilities Occupational interests

Work values Work styles

Work activities: general • intermediate • detailed

Organizational context Work context Labor market information

Occupational outlook

Title • description Alternative titles

Tasks Tools and technology

Skills • Knowledge Education

Worker Characteristics

Occupational Requirements

Workforce Characteristics

Occupation-Specific Information

Worker Requirements

Experience Requirements

Experience and training Skills–entry requirement

Licensing

o*net®

EVIDENCE-BASED IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

When collecting work-related information, a variety of choices confront the analyst. Begin by defining clearly the purpose for collecting such information. Since the many methods for collecting such data have offsetting advantages and disadvantages, choose multiple meth- ods that best suit the purpose identified. Here are some other evidence-based guidelines:

zz If using panels of subject matter experts, be sure to include a broad cross-section of experience.

zz If using interviews, be sure to include both incumbents and supervisors, and take the time to train interviewers in interviewing techniques.

zz If using personality-based job analysis, be sure to incorporate frame-of-reference training.

zz Recognize that competency models are not substitutes for job or work analysis. Both include a range of useful information across the practice continuum.

zz When establishing minimum qualifications for education or experience, be sure to assess content-oriented evidence of validity using methods described in this chapter.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Chapter 9 ■ Analyzing Jobs and Work 235

Discussion Questions

1. Describe some of the choices that need to be made in deciding how to analyze jobs and work. How would you choose an appropriate technique in a given situation?

2. Develop an outline for a work analysis workshop with a panel of subject matter experts.

3. Your boss asks you to incorporate personality characteristics into work analysis. How would you proceed?

4. What is strategic work analysis, and why might it subsume other terms that are currently in use?

5. How might you conduct a future-oriented work analysis?

6. What are the similarities and differences between competency modeling and job or work analysis?

7. You have been asked to conduct a work analysis for astronauts on the international space station. Which technique(s) might be most appropriate in this situation, and why?

8. How might you study the work of star performers in the field of human resource management? In other words, how would you conduct a work analysis of “HR management stars”?

9. When does it make sense to use cognitive task analysis?

10. Go to the O*NET website (www.onetonline.org). Develop a profile of five skills or abilities, and find occupations that match it.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. S

A G

E P

ub lic

at io

ns , I

nc or

po ra

te d.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .