Job Analysis: Why Do it, and How Should it Be Done?

• Author: James P. Clifford
• Published date: 01 June 1994
• Date: 01 June 1994
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/009102609402300211
• Subject Matter: Article

Job

Analysis:

Why Do It, and

How Should

It Be

Done?

"Any validity study should be based upon

a

review

of

information

about

the

j

ob

for

which

the

selection

procedure

is

to

be used.

The

review

should include

a

job

analysis..."

Uniform

Guidelines

1978

By

James

P. Clifford

James

P.

Clifford is

a

Partner

in

the

Human

Resources Systems Insti-

tute.

He has worked in city gov-

ernment

for over twenty years,

holding the positions of Human

Resources

Director, Grants Man-

agement

Director,

and the Direc-

tor

of Employee Development.

He

has a Master's Degree from

Michigan State University in

La-

bor

and Industrial Relations and

teaches

a

graduate

course in Hu-

man

Resources

Management.

He

is an active member of;

Interna-

tional

Personnel

Management

As-

sociation,

American Society of

Training

Developers, American

Society

for

Public

Administration,

and

the Industrial Relations Re-

search

Association.

There

is an established legal need

for

job

analysis. In an

article

entitled

Selection's

Uniform Guidelines

Help,

Hindrance,

or Irrelevancy? Christopher

Daniel

points out, "Courts continue to decide selection cases, often defer-

ring to The Uniform Guidelines on Employee

Selection

Procedures"

(1989,

p.68).

The Uniform Guidelines published in the Federal

Register

has a great

deal to say about the legal need for

job

analysis. As stated in the Guidelines,

job

analysis is a critical element to the three types of validation: content,

criterion-related, and construct. If an employer wishes to demonstrate to

the courts

that

the selection process used for an employment decision was

valid, the employer will need to start from the

basis

of

a

current

job

analysis.

Not only are there legal reasons for job analysis but there are also

important management considerations as well. Long before the August

1978

publication of the Guidelines and the legal significance attached to

job

analysis,

there was considerable published

data

and information on the

subject.

The ASPA

Handbook

of

Personnel

and Industrial Relations

(1974

PP.

4-43,

4-81)

cites a variety of methods for conducting job analysis. Func-

tional Job Analysis, Task Inventories, Job Information Matrix System

(JIMS),

Position Analysis Questionnaire

(PAQ)

are some of the approaches

discussed. The U.S. Department of Labor published the

Handbook

for

Analyzing

Jobs

(1972)

which served as the "bible" for job analysis. Health

Education and Welfare published the

National

Task

Bank

(1975),

a significant

contribution of eight volumes to list the tasks in social welfare. Dr. Eleanor

Gilpatrick

director of the

Health

Services

Mobility

Study

(1971),

analyzed the

work of the health system for the

purpose

of developing critical training

programs. The United States Air

Force

Occupational

Research

Project

(1973),

headed by Raymond E. Christal, conducted job surveys of occupations in

the Air

Force.

The

desire by business and government to manage work and the

human

resources of an organization requires the

study,

analysis, and

organization of work activities which make up

jobs.

The need to manage

work activities established a need for job analysis before the Uniform

Guidelines called attention to its legal significance.

An important question to consider

is:

will compliance with the Guide-

lines

not only result in a "legal" personnel system but an improved process

Public

Personnel

Management

Vol.

23

No.2

(Summer

1994)

321

for

obtaining, retaining and managing an organization's work and its

human

resources? This question raises for consideration the issue of the

quality of

job

analysis practices prior to the Guidelines. How well do the

job

analysis techniques developed prior to the guidelines comply with the

standards

set by the guidelines? Many of the job analysis procedures

developed prior to the Uniform Guidelines are very complicated. They

included elements such as traits, aptitudes, and interests which put the job

analysis process in the criteria-related or construct categories of the Guide-

lines.

Because

job analysis procedures developed before the Guidelines

used these complicated concepts, they require very difficult and costly

validation procedures.

Job Analysis Principles

It

is important to take note that the Uniform Guidelines

(1978)

state,

"Any job analysis should focus on the work behavior(s) and the tasks

associated

with them. If work behavior(s) are not observable, the job

analysis should identify and analyze those aspects of the behavior(s) that

can

be observed and the observed work products"

(1978,

p.38302).

The

above reference comes from the technical

standards

for content validity of

the Guidelines. This description is very important for establishing what is

meant

by

job

analysis. According to the Guidelines,

job

analysis is a record

of

observable behaviors or observable work products. Job analysis is not a

record of thought processes, attitudes, traits, constructs or initiatives. This

definition is a significant

departure

from much of the job analysis proce-

dures

which preceded the Guidelines. The Department of Labor approach

to

job

analysis includes "Worker

Traits"

which contain

aptitudes

including

intelligence;

temperaments, including adaptability; and interests which

includes "a tendency to become absorbed in an experience"

(1972

pp

8-9).

These

worker traits are outside the restrictions of observable behaviors or

observable work products. The Uniform Guidelines

call

for a different

approach to

job

analysis

than

those practiced in the past.

With

nearly fourteen years experience analyzing

jobs

based on "con-

tent valid" criteria, a number of fundamental principles concerning

jobs

and the process of analyzing them have been identified.

These

principles are:

1.

All

jobs

can be analyzed and recorded.

2.

Job

analysis can enhance communication.

3.

The process of analyzing

jobs

can easily accommodate change.

4.

The process can be clear enough so employees and employers can un-

derstand and contribute to the process.

322 Public Personnel Management

Vol.

23 No.2

(Summer

1994)