For A-Plus Writer Only

job_analysis.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >For A-Plus Writer Only

Job Analysis

Mathis and Jackson define job analysis as a “systematic way to gather and analyze information about the content, context, and the human requirements of [a job or] jobs” (2003, p. 179). The information should “describe the activities, results, equipment, material, individuals, and working conditions that characterize the job…” (Robinson, McClure Franklin, & Wayland, 2002, p. 92). This information can then be used for three primary outcomes: (a) job descriptions, (b) job specifications, and (c) job performance standards.

Goals of Job Analysis

1. The objective of job analysis should be the description of observable behavior. Sometimes the behavior or trait necessary to perform the task is not observable, but the products or outcomes, kinds of materials or work aids used, and the people included in the decision process can be reported.

2. A job analysis consists of a description of work behavior independent of the personal characteristics of particular people who perform the job. Job analysis describes the particular job to be performed, regardless of who performs it. Here we must distinguish between related terminology that can be confused: performance appraisal describes the performance of the job by a person, whereas job analysis describes the content of the job performed by anyone.

3. Job analysis data must be verifiable and reliable. The organization must maintain records of the data collected, document all decisions that are data based, and be able to justify every job analysis judgment in terms of observable behaviors. For job analysis data to be considered to be reliable means that different sources agree on judgments about the work performed. This is particularly important in cases involving EEO and APA litigation, but may also potentially impact all programs in the human resource function since job analysis is the root of information used.

The Job Analysis Controversy

The requirement for such specific job analysis has many critics. Job analysis can be a very time-consuming and expensive process. Due to the frequency of change in today’s environment, the content of the job may change drastically soon after the job analysis is completed. There are a variety of job analysis methods: surveys completed by job incumbent, interviews of supervisor and job incumbent, observation by trained professionals, and analysis of job descriptions to name a few. Some methods are complex and require a trained professional. Anthony et al. (2002, p. 213) mention and discuss several methods:

1. Job-Element Method (JEM) 2. Ability Requirement Scales (ARS)

3. Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program (CODAP) 4. Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) 5. Management Position Description Questionnaire (MPDQ) 6. Functional Job Analysis (FJA) 7. Common-Metric Questionnaire (CMQ)

Organizations in Japan place much greater reliance on in-house training and job rotation to foster versatility in the skills of each new employee. Japanese managers think job descriptions can be harmful to their team-building approach to management. Many experts in job design and organizational restructuring agree and suggest that job descriptions be written for teams or work groups rather than individual jobs. Individual job descriptions are thought to be detrimental to work group effectiveness.

Another problem lies in the prevalence of litigation and the need for employers to be prepared to defend the decisions that are made that involve employee qualifications for the job. In the case of the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers need to delineate between the essential functions of the job and those that are more easily moved to other workers.

Legal Significance of Job Analysis

Many court cases focus on the results of (or the nonexistence of) a job analysis in cases where there is a dispute regarding the plaintiff’s qualifications for the job. Women file lawsuits contesting the physical ability tests mandated for entry into police or firefighter’s academies. They often claim “adverse impact” because a greater proportion of women than men are disqualified as a result of such tests.

A number of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of older workers who lost their jobs because of mandatory retirement age. The American Association of Retired Persons has been very active in challenging mandatory retirement ages using job analysis data.

Statistics can be used to establish prima facie evidence of discrimination under the disparate impact theory of Title VII. The burden of proof then lies with the employer to show that the selection device or job specification is “job related” or a business necessity.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifies that employers must make reasonable accommodations that would allow qualified disabled workers to perform the essential functions of the job. According to the EEOC, these accommodations may include physical renovations to the job.

Determining Essential and Nonessential Functions

When determining if a person with a disability is qualified for the job, we must first have determined the essential functions of the job (Robinson et al., 2002). That is performed by the human resource professional by first reviewing the job description. We must eliminate the nonessential functions associated with the job (Robinson, et al. 2002). We would review the job description for a listing of the percentages of time that each function or task is performed. If the percentages were not listed, then we would collect that information, and validate it.

Once the percentages of time that functions are performed in the job are available, we could eliminate those that are seldom performed.

The following is an example modified from Robinson, McClure Franklin, and Wayland (2002) for the job description of a secretary. Typing daily correspondence and reports is performed 40% of the time. Answering the telephone is performed 20% of the time. Opening and distributing mail is performed 15% of the time. Proofing and printing final copies for distribution is performed 5% of the time. Taking messages and routing them to the appropriate party are performed 5% of the time. Performing these tasks would be considered essential functions of the job, because they are performed so frequently. If these were not performed, the job would not be done.

Lesser functions may be performed less frequently “or account for a very small percentage of the employee’s job activities” (Robinson et al., 2002, p. 95). One such task seldomly performed (2% of the time) is stocking the secretarial supply room. This task requires that the person lift a box of copy paper to place it on the shelf. The highest shelf is 72 inches from the floor. This would require the secretary to be able to lift twenty-five pounds (weights of a box of copy paper) at least to the highest shelf in the storage room. That would equate to a job specification that an incumbent would need to be able to lift 25-pound containers to a shelf of 72 inches.

In the process of investigation, suppose that we determine that the lifting requirement is not essential to the job. Perhaps another party in the office can help with this task. In that case we would eliminate the function of stocking supplies as a nonessential function of the job. Should there be an individual with a disability applying for the job, it is possible that the employer can accommodate the lifting requirement by having another employee perform this infrequent task. Usually an organization will update job analyses periodically, and determine the nonessential functions in the job prior to any candidate’s application. The job specification would indicate the mandatory requirements along with desired requirements.

For the foreseeable future, it appears that job analysis will continue to play a critical role in organizations.

References

HR-Guide.com. (n.d.). Job analysis homepage. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from http://www.job-analysis.net/

Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2003). Human resource management. (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Robinson, R. K., McClure Franklin, G., & Wayland, R. F. (2002). The regulatory environment of human resource management. Mason, OH: Thomson South- Western.