The Main Methods of Job Analysis - Essay Example

The Main Methods of Job Analysis 08 November 2006-11-08 The Main Methods of Job Analysis: Relative Strengths and Weaknesses Introduction Job Analysis serves as the basic foundation on which adequate personnel functioning, job evaluation and other factors like training are ensured. Therefore methods used in job analysis acquire the utmost significance. The purpose of this essay is to outline the main methods of job analysis: Observation; Interviews; Questionnaires, Checklists and Inventories; Diaries and to bring out their relative strengths and weaknesses and to indicate how best the process of job analysis may be carried out. At present, none of the available tools for job analysis are completely satisfactory. This is because none of them fulfil all the criteria for job analysis. Therefore they are usually used in combination, to counteract the flaws and to supplement and verify the information gathered by an individual method. The available information indicates that more research is needed to develop more sophisticated and foolproof methods of job analysis in order to fine-tune personnel functioning and enhance organizational productivity in the long run. Job Analysis In the words of Ash (1988) job analysis may be defined as "The collection and analysis of any type of job related information by any method for any purpose" (cited by Voskuijl, 2005, p. 27). It is expected to provide information pertaining to the purpose of the job and individual contribution to the job. The elements that constitute job analysis include job description, job specification and the methods used to collect the needed information. Job description indicates the essential characteristics of the job that include factors like the objectives, performance criteria, corresponding responsibilities, training facilities, working conditions and future prospects. Job specification emphasises the requirements of the worker that is motivational factors, areas of skill, knowledge and expertise, abilities and other personal determinants of performance. The main methods of job analysis are discussed in detail below. Observation Observation is the simplest and the most obvious way to determine how a worker performs the tasks that the job entails. It is a hands-on approach that enables the analyst to observe the worker in his natural setting and to provide an eye-witness account. The data generated is therefore extremely accurate and reliable. According to Myers, Observation "is probably the optimum method of collecting data, since the analyst obtains the information firsthand and there is no better way of understanding the tasks in a job than watching as the tasks are performed" (2004, p.212). There are two approaches to this method, as outlined by Markowitz, "continuous observation and sampling observation" (1981, p.113). The former is self-explanatory; the analyst is required to observe the job as it is performed over a given period of time. In the latter case observation takes place in a random manner as only certain aspects of the job is observed over shorter time periods. In order to carry out this procedure, adequate preparations are required to derive the maximum benefit. The tasks that are to come under direct scrutiny, the equipment required for the observation process and the job incumbents to be monitored are to be determined as per the needs of the organization. The analyst is then required to compile notes pertaining to the elements that come under the job description. It is considered ethical to inform the subject being observed and it is good practice to take up a non-threatening stance and to remain as unobtrusive as possible in order to put the subject at ease. The analyst is supposed to gather data about the components of the job, the tasks performed by the workers, and the subsequent duration. Strengths: It is the perfect method for accumulating information regarding manual labour, particularly the ones that call for repetitive action. Since information is gathered from actual work settings as opposed to a remote office, the findings are more acceptable to the employees, and the results are seen as reliable. Information is recorded as the activity is being performed. Therefore there is high validity and little room for error. The analyst is able to observe firsthand, the very factors that contribute to satisfactory performance. With a discerning eye the analyst can discover discrepancies and inefficient practices and take steps to enhance individual as well as organizational or group performance. Weaknesses: It is a slow method, as information is gathered with painstaking attention to detail. It should be undertaken only by trained personnel, who have an in-depth knowledge of what the job entails in order for the results to be meaningful. It has low efficiency and is not cost effective, particularly if there is travelling involved and if repeat visits are required in order to arrive at some concrete information in relation to tasks, working conditions, efficiency and other elements of job description. Invariably the employees become self-conscious on account of their being observed and this usually has an adverse effect on job performance. They may be apprehensive and defensive with a pervading feeling of being under the corporate microscope. Consequently, the data may not be representative of their actual performance. The biggest drawback is the inability of this method to provide any information about the mental or cognitive processes that play an important role in determining the outcome. Or to be more specific it does not take into account the elements of job or person specification such as the underlying attitudes, knowledge, preoccupations and the like. Some of the disadvantages can be countered. For instance the time factor ceases to be a problem when the analyst is efficient and experienced, as with a practiced eye it is possible to gather the required details quickly. By the use of unobtrusive methods like cameras, the worker can be observed without disrupting the routine. The best results are yielded when this method is used in tandem with the interview method as it serves to verify the information gathered by the latter method. Interviews The interview method is a good method for obtaining an insight into the particulars of job description as well as job specification as it is possible for the interviewer to see things entirely from the employee's perspective and to understand the physical characteristics as well as the psychological factors involved. The interview provides a picture of how the employees go about performing their job, their use of time, the decision-making process, the elements that provide creative satisfaction, sources of stress etc. Incumbents' difficulties on the job, prevailing attitude to working conditions, needs, motivation and job satisfaction can also be ascertained. Interviews may be unstructured or structured. Unstructured interviews take the form of a dialogue and it is like a free-flowing conversation. The interviewer takes notes as he listens and absorbs the pertinent information. It is essential that a rapport is established with the interviewee and that the questions are well prepared and lucid. A structured interview meanwhile attempts to reconstruct the tasks performed by the job holder. The latter is the preferred method as it lends itself to analysis; however the two may be used separately or together as per the need, in order to get optimal results. Proper planning is required in this method. Questions have to be prepared in advance, the nature of the information to be elicited must be decided and the interviewer should have the perception needed to better understand the employee. Finally objectivity and a non-judgemental attitude are prerequisites for this method to be effective. The Critical Incidents Technique (CIT) is a method that was described by Flanagan in 1954. According to Woodall and Winstanley (1998, p.98) it "is used to elicit scenarios or incidents in a job or role which are critical to success or failure, to find out what behaviours are critical to good or poor job performance". The interview is commonly used to acquire said information. Here telling incidents are compiled that illustrate good, bad or mediocre job performance. These incidents are revealing as they provide information regarding the factors that led up to the incident, its success or failure and the individual's behaviour and role in it. Thus useful information gathered from this method may be worked into development programmes that seek to enhance performance on the job. The Repertory Grid is a variant of the interview method. It was developed by George Kelly in 1955. The focus is on factors that contribute to effective or ineffective performance from the employee's perspective. Jirasinghe and Lyons (1996, p. 15) state "This is achieved by generating a 'grid' of the individual's thoughts or constructs about elements in the job". The term, elements refer to the human traits that make a difference between success and failure. This method is particularly useful in isolating behaviour patterns that enhance or detract from job performance. Strengths: Using this method it is possible to get highly specific information. Moreover it is a flexible method that allows the interviewer to dig deep and to examine in detail particular points of interest. It is useful in gleaning information that cannot be obtained by direct observation, such as psychological factors. Since this method is centred on the job holder, it will be very revealing. About the CIT, Woodall and Winstanley (1998, p.100) claim that "The anecdotes and stories generated can bring contextual flavour and freshness to the managerial role under analysis". The repertory grid is a highly systematic method that can generate useful information about individual behaviour as well as organizational interaction. Weaknesses: This method requires a lengthy period for completion. The jobholders may not be very objective about their conduct or activities and it is difficult to verify the facts gathered. It can turn out to be costly like the observation method, particularly if interviews have to be held for a large number of people in various branches of the organization. A lot depends on the skill and experience of the interviewer, who needs to have the knack of eliciting the needed information without putting the interviewee on the defensive. Further the interviewer needs to avoid stereotyping and bias. The data obtained using this method is subject to varied and sometimes faulty interpretation. Finally the employee tries to make him/herself sound good which may lead to distortion of facts. Some employees may not be able to articulate their responses properly, if they feel they are under pressure with regard to their jobs or salaries. Data gathered from a number of individuals en masse, using this method may appear incoherent and it is confusing for the analyst. In the CIT method, the problem is that incidents are narrated from memory and as such are susceptible to perceptual bias as well as selectivity with regard to details. Therefore the accuracy of the description is called into question. Moreover, such accounts are difficult to verify. The repertory grid has its limitations as well. It is exceedingly complex and calls for much skill and expertise in terms of implementation. Since individual interviews are so time-consuming, group interviews may be conducted to save time. Such interviews it is believed have the added advantage of preventing individuals from exaggerating their own actions that show them in favourable light. However this technique has its disadvantages as well, because individuals tend to try and conform to the perceived group norm. However, its relative weaknesses notwithstanding, it is the most commonly used method and with good reason, in light of its benefits. Questionnaires, Checklists and Inventories Questionnaires are a set of questions that are designed to collect a wide range of information about the job in written format. They may be constructed to get information on a variety of topics as per the need of the organization. It may be administered to a large number of people. It lends itself to modern technology as it may be constructed, administered and processed using computers, thereby making it efficient as well as effective. They are of two types; the structured questionnaire which is composed of items seen as important to the job and the open-ended questionnaire which asks respondents to describe the job process as they see it. Customized questionnaires cater exclusively to the needs of the organization as well as employees. A checklist is a variant that consists of opposing choices and the respondent has to check the item that best describes his situation. In inventories the individual is asked to rate the item using a given scale in order to indicate his preferred choice. The Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) was developed by McCormick and his colleagues. It is a behaviour-oriented, structured technique. It examines human characteristics and attempts to see their impact on particular aspects of the job. It consists of 195 items that are divided into categories that include, information input, mental processes, work output, relationships with other persons, job context, and other job characteristics. According to Cunningham (1996), "The PAQ is considered to be the best established and most thoroughly researched of the standardized job analysis questionnaires" (cited by Voskuijl, 2005, p.33). The results can be processed using a computer, and is rated using appropriate scales. The Work Profiling System (WPS) is a highly structured questionnaire compiled by Saville and Holdsworth in 1989. It provides data that is task oriented as well as behaviour oriented. It is a detailed questionnaire with about 800 questions that attempts to gather performance-oriented as well as contextual data. It is a well-developed questionnaire that encompasses a wide range of topics. Occupation Analysis Inventory (OAI) was devised by Cunningham, Boere, Neeb and Pass in 1983. It was designed with the intention of overcoming the shortcomings of the PAQ, which lacked depth in terms of specificity. Therefore the OAI consists of questions that attempt to give an in-depth analysis of the job. Its divisions include received information, mental activities, work behaviour, work goals and work context. Task Ability Scales (TAS) was developed by Fleishman et al and it is composed of 52 scales designed with the focus on abilities and their role in job performance. The rating scales have been expertly designed to bring out aptitude and the skills that are characteristic of a satisfactory job performance. Ability Requirements Scales (ARS) was developed by Fleishman et al in 1973 and revised in 1988. According to Fleishman and Mumford (1988) abilities are "relatively enduring attributes of the individual that influences a broad range of task performance" (cited by Voskuijl, 2005, p. 34). It has 37 scales that include cognitive tasks like comprehension as well as physical tasks. Other human characteristics however are not taken into account. Threshold Trait Analysis (TTA) seeks to identify the individual traits that seem to be associated with good performance. As indicated this technique is trait-oriented. It measures physical, mental, learned, motivational and social traits. The first three traits represent capability or the individual's ability to perform. The latter two traits are related to attitude and the performance drive. Personality-Related Position Requirements (PPRF) seeks to identify the personality attributes. This instrument is to be used with other instruments so that there is a perfect amalgam of the physical and psychological factors that contribute to performance. Leadership skills, achievement drive, ethics, emotional make-up and other such attributes are identified. Job Element Method (JEM) was described by Primoff and Dittrich. It serves to isolate all the elements that have significance in relation to job analysis. The four scales used to rate the elements are "Barely acceptable worker", "Superior worker", "Trouble if not considered" and "practical". Thus this is a useful method for identifying promising workers, troublesome ones, poor workers and to keep track of available openings. The Minnesota Job Requirements Questionnaire (MJRQ) is a concise questionnaire. It lists actions or activities and it requires the indication of the importance of the particular action or activity to the performance of the job. Output includes job description based on verbal capacity, numeric ability, administrative capacity and reasoning skills. Strengths: Questionnaires can be administered to a large number of incumbents and is a fairly quick process, when compared to the other techniques of job analysis. Nowadays questionnaires catering to numerous organizational needs are readily available on the market, making it easier and cheaper for the organization, in terms of time and labour that would have otherwise been expended. It is a precise method and can be used to cover a wide range of topics and unlike in the interview method there is no need to sift the data, separation fact from fabrication or opinion. Moreover job holders may be more comfortable with expressing themselves using the written format as opposed to a direct confrontation with the analyst. It is easy to analyze the data obtained in standardized questionnaires as there are extensive provisions that have been developed for this very purpose. The PAQ as well as WPS are efficient methods and can be counted on to generate useful data. Woodall and Winstanley (1998, p.105), state that "Both also offer a wide range of options for uses, including the ability to assess a person, assess a role, and compare the two for possible development needs". They are also useful in selecting personnel and in job evaluation. The PAQ is an established method and a lot of research has been done on it, therefore it is a reliable method. The OAI serves to describe behaviour that is essential in satisfactory job outcomes. The ARS due to the nature of its approach is bound to remain consistent despite changing conditions, further it is believed that its use may be extended to include new job roles and tasks. Weaknesses: Questionnaires that are developed in organizations, call for extensive preparation that can be a long and cumbersome process. Specialists have to be called in to develop the questionnaire and this is likely to be expensive. This technique lacks flexibility. The job holders, particularly with regard to structured questionnaires, checklists and inventories have to indicate one of the given responses, even if they concur with none of them or agree with two or more responses. This may be frustrating for the job holder. Respondents may not be interested in filling out the questionnaire, and may respond haphazardly. This is particularly true of lengthy questionnaires. In open-ended questionnaires, individuals may not be able to express themselves properly owing to inadequate writing skills. Moreover it is difficult to analyse their response. PAQ and WPS require expert analysis and can be distorted in less skilled hands in terms of faulty interpretation of facts. The OAI is not as reliable as PAQ and needs to be used with caution. The ARS does not do much in describing job and person specifications. The JEM is not very well developed and it cannot be used to compare varied jobs. These questionnaires may be used in combination depending on the purpose for which they are needed. They may also be used with the interview or observation techniques in order to obtain good results. Diaries In this method employees record their activities on the sheets provided and fill in particulars regarding their tasks as they execute them in the course of the day. The analyst provides the employees with the headings under job description about which the information is required and the job holder accordingly enters the information in a log for the prescribed period. A systematic record is maintained by the job holder. This is a simple but effective technique. Strengths: This method is the most suited for complex jobs which are not subject to scrutiny and for job holders with good writing and analytical skills. It provides a detailed description of the tasks that a job entails and the methods used to perform it. It is an economical method and is easy to implement. Weaknesses: In an attempt to make themselves seem valuable to the organization, employees tend to exaggerate or play up their roles and in their bid to impress, they work harder in the given time period, so that they have something concrete to put down in the diary. Some job holders may find this sort of evaluation trying and think of it as an additional chore which disrupts their routine. Another disadvantage is that the tasks reported in the diary may not be representative of all the tasks that need to be performed or which are being performed. It is very subjective and accounts may not be easy to verify. Finally the mechanical recording of the actions performed by the individual in relation to the job fails to illustrate the underlying mental processes that play an important role in the performance of the job. The techniques that focus on traits and personality characteristics have been criticized. Harvey (1991) argued that such characteristics "are not observable, not verifiable, and not replicable" (cited by Voskuijl, 2005, p.37). Conclusion In the preceding pages the various methods of job analysis and the strengths and weaknesses peculiar to each one of them has been examined. As seen, none of them are completely satisfactory. They are too time-consuming, expensive, inefficient, and unwieldy or they fall short of the required criteria of job analysis. Therefore the selection process in choosing a suitable method of job analysis is essential. The method that is ultimately selected and the manner in which it is used depends on many factors - organizational needs, financial situation, personnel policy, time constraints etc. For optimal results the organization must select a method that meets their needs or which can be tailored in keeping with their goals. However since none of the methods are completely effective they can be used in combination. Levine et al (1983) have suggested various combinations and the purpose for which they may be used (cited by Voskuijl, 2005). For example he has suggested using the TTA, ARS, PPRF and PAQ in combination for the selection, placement, or personnel requirements and specifications. Therefore at present using a combination of methods is a wise course of action with respect to job analysis. The biggest disadvantage in using the prescribed methods outlined above is their inability to cater to the demands of a rapidly changing organizational world and the new jobs, roles and situations that crop up in the organizational setting. Therefore the need of the hour is to develop new methods of job analysis or a drastic improvement of the existing ones in order to keep up with and to adapt to the changing organizational climate. Reference List Jirasinghe, D. and Lyons, G. (1996) The competent head: a job analysis of head's tasks and personality factors. London: Falmer Press. Markowitz, J. (1981) Four methods of job analysis. Training and Development Journal, 35 (9), p. 112 - 8. Myers, D. (2004) 2004 U.S. Master human resources guide. Chicago: CCH Incorporated. Voskuijl, O. (2005) Job analysis, current and future perspectives. The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection, eds.A.Evers, N.Anderson, and O.Voskuijl, p. 27 - 46. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Woodall, J. and Winstanley, D. (1998) Management development: strategy and practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Bibliography Armstrong, M. (2003) A handbook of human resource management practice. 9th ed. London: Kogan Page. Christin, S., Ash, G., and Shell, R. (1998) A perspective on work system analysis: classification and evaluation of methods. Ergonomics, 41 (6) p. 881-98. Algera, J. and Greuter, M. (1998) Job analysis. Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel Psychology, 2nd ed. Eds. P. Drenth, H. Thierry, and Woff, C, p. 141-64. East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd. Hartley, D. (1999) Job analysis at the speed of reality. Amherst: HRD Press Inc. Jirasinghe, D. and Lyons, G. (1996) The competent head: a job analysis of head's tasks and personality factors. London: Falmer Press Markowitz, J. (1981) Four methods of job analysis. Training and Development Journal, 35 (9), p. 112 - 8. Myers, D. (2004) 2004 U.S. Master human resources guide. Chicago: CCH Incorporated. Tyson, S. and York, A. (2000) Essentials of HRM, 4th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Voskuijl, O. (2005) Job analysis, current and future perspectives. The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection, eds.A.Evers, N.Anderson, and O.Voskuijl, p. 27 - 46. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Woodall, J. and Winstanley, D. (1998) Management development: strategy and practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Read More