Strengths and Weaknesses of the Main Methods of Jobs Analysis - Research Proposal Example

The aim of the present work is to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of the main job analysis method. With this aim we will have to give brief introduction into what job analysis is, what are the main methods and what are the key issues with these methods at present. Assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the main methods of jobs analysis Introduction Job analysis at present has become a very well developed sphere of psychological and related sciences. It is evident, that the process of employment is acquiring more scientific coloring and thus various methods of job analysis have become valuable and of need to the employers and employees. It is stated, that job analysis is 'a process used to identify the important tasks of a job and the essential competencies an individual should possess to satisfactorily perform the job'. (Clifford, 1994) The purposes of job analysis are multiple, as well as there are multiple methods for conducting it. The aim of the work is to distinguish the main strengths and weaknesses of the job analysis methods existing at present, with trying to identify the most effective among them, if it appears to be possible; it is also necessary to try defining, which methods are mostly applicable in various instances, and should there be made any amendments to the job analysis methods, which are not most often used. The reasons for conducting the present research are the following: 1. Among the job analysis methods, which are currently used, it is necessary to find out, whether any of them appears to be the most effective and should be used more extensively; 2. It is not yet understood, whether there is the need for the creation of any new methods, with the aim of which it is necessary first to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the existing methods. The arguments to follow in the work will be based first of all, on the literary sources used in the present work, which are four and are represented by the peer reviewed journal articles and books on the topic. The arguments will also be based on the discussion of the existing advantages and disadvantages of the methods. The main aims of the answer are to be specified as follows: 1. It will be necessary to describe and analyze the relative weaknesses and strengths of the job analysis methods existing. 2. It will be conclude which of the job analysis methods at present appear to be the most effective and display minimum disadvantages; 3. It will be necessary to conclude, whether the already described in literature job analysis methods need more extensive learning; 4. It will be necessary to conclude, whether there is need in creating any new job analysis methods. The conclusion to be reached will be based on the set aims, and will include the answers on the abovementioned questions. I guess, it will be beneficial to make the core of the conclusion related to the most effective job analysis methods among the already described. Analysis Identification and coverage of the main issues The rationale for the job analysis in general lies in the aim of protecting the public 'by assuring that individuals, who work in an occupation or profession are at least minimally competent'. (Gael, 1993) Thus, one of the key issues in discussing job analysis methods is in identifying, which of them appears to be more effective, and is thus the most reliable for ensuring this individual safety mentioned. Another key issue, is that despite the extensive literature sources on the topic, the importance of researching job analysis methods with distinguishing their strengths and weaknesses is not given due importance, and thus this work will be an additional attempt to provide the employer with the analysis of the key methods, making him understand the essential role which job analysis methods play in hiring qualified workers. The main methods of job analysis can be identified as follows: 1. Observation. Levin and Ash (1999) state, that the core issue of any observation in relation to job analysis is in observing the potential employee, 'recording, what the worker does, how the work is done and how long it takes.' In fact, observation is usually divided into the two main types - continuous observation and sampling. The first involves observation of the job through the period of time, which is usually a given period; the latter is observing the workers unexpectedly without any system, at random. This method is very popular and is rather simple, as who may argue that to observe workers may be difficult. Comparing these two methods, it should be noted that observation at random is much more efficient, as making the worker being constantly observed over a due period of time, will make the results less effective. The reasons for that is that constant observation as a mechanism of job analysis, makes the worker understand that he is observed, evaluated, and thus he may not display his weaknesses or may hide his drawbacks; on the other hand, sampling is the best and easiest means of evaluating the basic qualifications of the worker. However, objectively this method appears to have more disadvantages, than strengths. Of course, this is the means of acquiring firsthand information and evaluating it directly; it is a simple method and it becomes the means of verifying the data which is received from the other sources in relation to the employee. On the other hand, among the main weaknesses of this method are: - it is time consuming. Observing the worker over the given period of time demands close attention and at times job analysis does not allow the employer to devote so much to the observation of some potential employee. In our world the decisions are to made quickly, and for this reason the observation method is not always suitable; (Clifford, 1994) - in order to make observation effective, the employer should have skilled professional workers, who will conduct observation and make professional conclusions; as it is both cost- and time-consuming, observation may become far from being appropriate in many instances; - as it has been already stated, observation especially on the continuous basis may result in the bias of the worker behavior; - in order to make correct conclusions as for which worker of the present should be hired, it is necessary to perform relevant observation of the several workers at once, which is not possible; on the contrary, observing one worker won't give the employee the objective picture of his performance. (Levine & Ash, 1999) - it is often difficult to judge the reasons of the worker's behavior, watching him continuously and objectively. Thus, the validity and reliability of the results may be doubtful. Thus, considering this method, it appears that despite its simplicity, it is not so easy to be performed, as well as the results acquired through the use of this method, may not be valid and reliable at all. Gael (1993) writes about important limitations for the observation method and gives the main strength and the principal weakness of the method as follows: 'direct observations allow the job analyst to see the work environment, tools and equipment used, interrelationships with the other workers and complexity of the job; on the other hand, the presence of the observer may affect the employee's behavior and this method is not suitable for the works, demanding high level of mental effort'. The evidence, given by various literary sources for this method of job analysis will be extremely useful for coming to the necessary conclusions specified in this work. 2. Another job analysis method is interview. Much has been found about various aspects of interview in literature. For example, Levine and Ash (1999) state, that interview is conducted through the trained job analyst directly speaking to the employee; Clifford (1994) writes, that at times it is more effective to interview several workers simultaneously to aggregate the results and find out relative advantages and deficiencies of this or that employee. However, for better understanding and identifying the effectiveness of the method it is necessary to view it through the weaknesses and strengths it carries. Interview appears to be the most effective for the instances, where observation does not work; it main strength is in the fact that interview allows to view cognitive and psychic processes of employees, which are usually difficult to identify through the observation process. It is also suitable if observation requires too long period of time (with long working cycles, for example), and as it has been already noted, in the need of acquiring fast and relatively reliable results, interview appears to work more effectively than observation. However, it still requires hiring a well-trained interviewer; otherwise the results won't be properly analyzed and concluded. This again requires additional costs and efforts. It is even more important that in comparison to the observation job analysis method, interview appears to present highly subjective information, which will ultimately need very thorough analysis to determine its validity and reliability. As Gael (1993) puts it, 'while interview allows the incumbent to describe tasks and duties that are not observable, he at the same time may exaggerate or omit tasks and duties'. Though interview is the means of easy and quick receiving of the necessary information, the method also has the following relative weaknesses: a. there exists the possibility of the interview bias (Levin & Ash, 1993) b. interview may pay special attention to some job areas and omit or neglect the others, while they may be equally important for the analysis c. it is not to be forgotten, that subjectivity level needs special consideration here. (Clifford, 1994) Thus, it appears that using interview solely is time-consuming and may become the result of the job keepers neglecting certain items and areas, in case they don't want to hire any experiences interviewers. 3. Critical incident. This is another method of job analysis and should also be subjected to evaluation here. As we can read in Levine and Ash (1999), critical incident technique is a number of procedures, which are aimed at observing the behavior of the employee in the critical situation, connected with hazards, safety and the similar. This job analysis method usually involves five main stages, the most important of which is the fifth one, - making the solution based on the evidence given and observations possible. The main strength of this method lies in the fact, that it does not concentrate on the observation of the daily events and behaviors, but rather critically evaluates the reaction and behavior of people in the situations, which are critical or are closer to them. It is essential to base the evaluation of the worker through the exact incident at workplace; it is also easier to judge, when there are the causes and the problems of the incident are known, rather than discussing the results of the general continuous observation. This type of job analysis may not only result in better evaluation of the employee, but also bring additional benefits to the business itself, displaying the sides which are the most vulnerable for this type of work. It may also be used in combination with interviews. However, this method has its limitations and weaknesses in comparison with the other means of job analysis. First of all, Clifford (1994) writes, that 'situations, where one cannot observe behavior due to hazards, security or privacy, make it difficult to implement critical incident techniques'. This type of analysis is mostly used in management of stress situations and is very popular in medicine. This method also makes stress on the certain critical events, and omits the common ones; this means that without combination of this method with other ones, it won't be able to make appropriate conclusions. This method also involves some psychological knowledge, as it is stated that 'it may rely on the events remembered by users and thus defining their future behavior'. (Gael, 1993) This is why, critical incident appears to be a very narrow method of job analysis and may work effectively only in combination with the other relevant job analysis methods. This method carries more weaknesses than strengths, and thus it may be assumed that the use of this method is limited, and is effective only in separate instances. I might agree, that critical incident gathers the data of the events as soon as they happen, but the same judgment may also be applied to observation, which is far broader in its application. 4. Questionnaire. This method of job analysis has many variations, and for now appears to be the most popular after interview among employers. (Levine & Ash, 1999) The two types of questionnaires are usually involved into job analysis - the first one is standardized and carries a specific number of questions to be answered by the incumbent; another one being an open-ended questionnaire where the worker has to describe his work in his own words. In relation to these two types of questionnaires the following may be assumed: on the one hand, standardized questionnaire makes it possible and easier for the worker to describe his work, through simply answering the necessary questions; on the other hand, the open-ended questionnaire gives the employee an opportunity to see how the worker conducts the description of his work in writing, which often becomes an important factor of judgment, though in open-ended questionnaires workers may unintentionally omit certain important aspects, which are easily taken in account in the standardized form. Questionnaire is the easy means of acquiring the data and it does not need any professional workers for the interpretation of the results. It is even more important, that through the use of this job analysis method, it is easier to reach the bigger amount of workers and thus create more objective picture for each of them; questionnaires, especially standardized ones make it possible to compare the skills of the workers through their answers. However, 'responses may also be incomplete and difficult to interpret'. (Clifford, 1994) In order to have clearer idea of what questionnaire is, it may be of use to describe one of its important types, presently used in the employment and analysis of the workers in business structures. I here speak about the Common Metric Questionnaire, and it is known, that it may be used for both exempt and nonexempt jobs. (Levine & Ash, 1999) This questionnaire has five main sections, targeted at the evaluation of: a. background; b. contacts with people; c. decision making; d. physical and mechanical activities; e. work setting. These five aspects appear to be crucial for the evaluation of the incumbent. This type of questionnaire has proved itself to be effective, and being developed in the 1993, it has already been applied for testing about 5,000 positions. (Levine & Ash, 1999) Questionnaire may seem here as the easiest, the cheapest and the most effective means of conducting job analysis, but its disadvantages should not be omitted. It can't be argued, that despite it is stated the results may be interpreted without any specifically hired trained worker, it can't but be admitted that appropriate and proper interpretation of questionnaires, even if they have standard questions and answers, won't be effective without the application of the specific knowledge; and this knowledge may only be carried by professional analysts. If the aim of the analysis is to evaluate a big number of workers, this method may become too time-consuming and only through the use of automated systems of analysis (for standardized questionnaires) it might be possible to reduce these costs. On the other hand, if the job analysts are to use open-ended questionnaires for the big number of workers, it will not only become time-consuming, but will also carry high level of non-validity and non-reliability of the results, as both workers and analysts may omit or neglect certain important aspects in the answers given. 5. The last method of job analysis to be discussed is technical conference. This means that a number of technical experts are gathered for the discussion of the business issues, and job analysis analyze their coming to any agreement (if present) and implementation of the solution made. The advantage of this method is in the fact, that through collaborating it is easy to acquire the necessary direct information about the workers' performance. However, this may remain the only strength of the method described, as in fact, absence of consensus between workers may become the reason of lower evaluation of their performance; second, this method is highly- time-consuming; and third, experts chosen for participating in this method, may have troubles in describing their work in separate tasks. (Landy, 1991) Thus, the first aim of the work is achieved - we have described and analyzed various methods of job analysis. Following the second aim, it may be assumed that there is no single method of job analysis, which may be solely considered to be the most effective. On the contrary, it appears that with the weaknesses distinguished, combination of several methods, depending on the aim of the analysis will be the most effective solution to acquire valid and reliable results. It may also be assumed, that with the broad choice of the job analysis techniques, there is no need for the new job analysis method to be created - the efforts are to be directed at improving the existing methods; but literature sources are scarce as for the possible affects and weaknesses of this or that method, and thus it would be recommended to conduct the further research in relation to each job analysis method separately. Conclusion On the basis of the research aims stated in the introductory part of this work, there has been conducted thorough analysis of the existing job analysis methods through their strengths and weaknesses. It may be concluded, that at present there is no solely effective method of job analysis - all of them have their significant weaknesses and are to be combined for the better results. On the other hand, only four sources of literature have been reviewed for the aims of the present research, but it has appeared, that the number of literary sources carrying the necessary information on the topic is not enough to make more reliable conclusions. What is clear is that none of the methods described is to be used separately, which will minimize the weaknesses and make the results easier for interpretation. It is possible that new methods of job analysis will be invented, but they will hardly be universal, as each type of job carries its peculiarities, which are to be accounted when evaluating and analyzing workers' performance. Thus it would be more beneficial to concentrate the efforts on improving the exiting job analysis types and offer the best combinations of the methods for each specific kind of activity to be analyzed. References Clifford, James P. (1994). Job analysis: why do it and how should it be done. Public Personnel Management, 23 (2): 144-158 Gael, S. (1993). Job analysis: a guide to assessing work activities. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Landy, F.J. (1991). Job analysis: the composition of SME samples. Personnel Psychology 44: 27-50 Levine, E.L. & Ash, R.A. (1999). Exploratory comparative study of four job analysis methods. Journal of Applied Psychology 65: 524-535 Read More