Job Analysis Is the Process of Identifying

¶ … job analysis is the process of identifying the best person for a job based on examining the tasks performed, the competencies required to perform those tasks, and the connection between the task and the competencies ("Assessment & Selection," 2013). Performing such an analysis allows the company to better understand the requirements of a given job in the hopes of finding the person best suited to fill the role. There are four main elements involved in performing a thorough job analysis. The first is a description of the work activity that is gathered through a vigorous review of the job and the all the tasks related to adequately performing the work. Second, the knowledge, skills, and abilities or competencies required to perform the job are assessed and catalogued. A large amount of data is compiled to study the range of allowable job performance and the characteristics of the workplace (Prien, Goodstein, Goodstein, & Gamble, 2009, p.20).

While this may seem like an inordinate amount of work undertaken to merely attempt to find someone to fill a job, the overall importance of the job analysis cannot be overlooked. For any organization, the proper implementation of job analyses can limit exposure to litigation by ensuring that the company has not engaged in discriminatory hiring practices (Prien etal., 2009, p. 19). Cases involving job analysis have already come before the Supreme Court and have helped establish such analysis as an integral component of hiring practices. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court ruled that a test used to determine fitness for a job "must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract" (Gatewood, Field, & Barrick, 2011, p.249). This implies that employers must examine the job in some way in order to determine a potential employee's fitness for the position. In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, the Court criticized the fact that "no attempt was made to analyze the jobs in terms of the particular skills they might require" (Gatewood, Field, & Barrick, 2011, p.249). It is clear from these cases that the Supreme Court expects employers to perform some type of job analysis before they attempt to find a suitable employee.

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978)

Seven years after the unanimous Griggs v. Duke Power Co. decision, the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, and the Civil Service Board released the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, which sought to "assist employers, labor organizations, licensing and certification boards to comply with requirements of federal law" prohibiting employment discrimination (Biddle, 2008, p.17). This document explicitly states that failure to comply with the outlined criteria constitutes discrimination by the employer and has been used as evidence in thousands of enforcement and judicial settings where employers were required to demonstrate that they have addressed the Guidelines requirements (Biddle, 2008, p.17). Though a companion "Questions & Answers" document was issued in 1980, the original Uniform Guidelines have remained unchanged since their initial release (Biddle, 2008, p.17).

Whenever an employer's testing practice has produced an adverse impact the Guidelines come into force and they assist federal enforcement agencies in their investigation of the employer. These enforcement agencies are attempting only to answer the question of whether the testing practice is "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" (Biddle, 2008, p.20). It is necessary, therefore, for an employer to ensure compliance with the Guidelines and one of the most fundamental ways to do this is through the implementation of job analyses.

Establishing Performance Standards

Experiments that have been conducted over the years seem to confirm the suspicion that rewarding people based on their performance can enhance their motivation and improve their productivity. In fact, it has been shown that people who were rewarded for meeting progressively more challenging performance standards on an activity spend more time on the activity than those who are rewarded for attaining a constant level of performance or not rewarded at all (Pierce, Cameron, Banko, & So, 2003, p.573). This stands to reason as people generally regard their work favorably when they feel they are properly rewarded for performing capably. Management would be well advised to implement some sort of reward system in order to properly motivate employees and improve their productivity. Studies have also concluded, however, that other aspects of management can be equally important. Having a more open, innovative, and risk-taking culture is also associated with higher reported performance information (Moynihan & Pandey, 2010, p.861). All of these factors can make it easier to manage people, but can also help establish the task requirements for the position.