The Objective Of Conducting Job Analysis

The Objective Of Conducting Job Analysis Job analysis helps in analyzing the resources and establishing the strategies to accomplish the business goals and strategic objectives. Effectively developed, employee job descriptions are communication tools that are significant in an organizations success. The main objective of conducting job analysis is to know whether the job description and job specification which was mentioned to hire right quality of work force by the company is appropriate or not. Secondly, to know whether any training is given to the employees after their recruitment to a particular specified job as if there is any confusion about what the job is and what is supposed to be done, proper training efforts cannot be initiated without knowing the specific requirements of the job are identified. Thirdly, to study the skill levels of the employees, work environment, responsibilities and required level of education as job analysis identifies the performance criteria so that it promote worker for a better performance. Finally, to study the pharmaceutical industry and its environment as the industry deals with the production it can reveal if any unsafe conditions associated with the job. Literature Review: Job Analysis is a term used by the human resource managers for the process of collecting information related to job contents compared tasks performed on the job with knowledge, skills and abilities of the jobholders (Schuman, et al, 1994). Job Analysis is a process where judgements are made about data collected on a job. Job Analysis data may be collected from the incumbents through interviews or questionnaires; the main concept of the analysis is description or specifications of the job, not a description of the person. An important concept of Job Analysis is that the analysis is conducted of the Job, not the person. Job analysis is a pattern of tasks, duties and responsibilities that can be done by a person. Job analysis seeks to study about the activity to determine the tasks, duties and responsibilities needed for each job. It is a process of gathering, analyzing and synthesizing information about jobs. According to Werther and Davis (1996) Job analysis is the process of defining the work, activities, tasks, products services or processes performed by the employees of an organisation. Henderson (1982) explained that a job analysis is a systematic exploration of the activities in a job. On the other hand, Decenzo and Robbins (1988) depicted that job analysis indicates what activities and accountabilities the job entails. It says that it is just an accurate recording of the activities involved in the job. According to Robert. B (2008) the organisation should invest time to analyse the value, mission and goals before undertaking the organizational analysis as from the organizational analysis will flow the job analysis, job descriptions and hiring protocols. Job analysis can be used for developing a variety of human performance management team. Sometimes when job analysis is inadequately conducted, it results in incomplete or inaccurate information. Cascio (1978) says that one must gather information regarding the specific job attributes and he defined the attributes into 8 segments and these are called job analysis information hierarchy. The segments are element, task, duty, position, job, job family, occupation and career. Finally, job analysis provides critically important information that will guide management in decision-making. The main purpose of the job analysis is to identify the experience, education, training and other qualifying factors, possessed by candidates for specific jobs. There are two key elements of a job analysis they are identification of major job requirements and the identification of knowledge, skills and abilities required to perform the accomplished task or job. Decenzo and Robbins (1996) have developed some basic principles concerning jobs and the process of analyzing them. The principles are: 1. All jobs can be analyzed and recorded 2. Job analysis can enhance communication among the employees in the organisation. 3. The process of job analysis can easily make changes. 4. If the job analysis process is clear then employees and employers can understand and contribute their part for the process. 5. Job analysis based on observable behaviour and work products contributes to efficient HRM. 6. Clearly everything regarding the job (job description) should be written and explained well to the employees. The job analyst gathers the data about each job but not about every person in the organisation and pass this required information to the HR specialists, who actually recruits the employees. According to Nancy (1988) recorded job information plays a crucial role because it influences most HR activities. Before collecting the information about specific jobs, employees should be informed about why the job analysis is being done. In this dissertation, the result of job analysis will be used in job evaluation and decision-making of job description. The purpose of job analysis is to elicit information pertaining to various types of jobs. The job analyst is naturally perceived by others with suspicion since his/her investigations are going to be used as the basis for job evaluation. People should be elucidated as to the purpose of the exercise, the reasons why it is necessary, what it is hoped will be achieved, ways in which information obtained will be collected and processed, and how deci sions affecting their jobs will be arrived at. Shifting the important from the trivial aspects of a job during and after analysis is really what the whole exercise is about. A common danger is to collect too much information, making it difficult to see the wood for the trees. On the whole, this is a more common pitfall than making just a cursory examination and ending up with a sketchy, incomplete picture. In making the analysis, if a fact is unimportant, it should immediately be discarded. To provide a framework on which to structure both the analysis and the information obtained, it is useful to look at the job from two points of view: first, the duties and responsibilities entailed; second, the skills and personal attributes necessary for the successful execution of that job (Myers, 1986). What an individual does and what personal attributes he needs to bring to the job provide us with the dimensions critical for making evaluative decisions between the relative worth of one job and another. The process of job analysis is much more difficult than might appear at first sight. The conventional techniques listed all have limitations (Prasad, 1997). For managerial jobs, the matter can become very complicated, and it may well be necessary to construct the analysis in terms of the criteria by which the job is to be evaluated, for example, problem-solving, accountability, and know-how. Job analysis can be misleading; therefore, the totality of a job is greater than the sum of its individual parts. Schweiger (1983) explained that recent interest in studying managerial cognitive style has led to the development and use of a variety of instruments. For the purpose of job evaluation, the evidence from job analysis should be treated with caution. Stewart (1982) worked on a model having for understanding managerial jobs and behaviour was conceived in one study and developed and applied in 3 others. Some forms of flexibility are common to many managerial jobs. The need is to move from Mintbergs (1973) roles and propositions about managerial work to an analysis that takes into account the variations in behaviour and the differences in jobs before attempting to generalize the managerial work. Kay .G (2005) says that the job evaluation acts as a tool to provide the means of assessing jobs to make an equal value decision. A major purpose for job analysis is to obtain information for a job evaluation project that may be organisation-wide or simply consist of an individual employees request for his or her job to be re-evaluated. Cascio (1995) states that there are different number of methods to study jobs. Some combination of methods must be used to obtain a total picture of the task and physical, mental, social and the environmental demand of a job. Job analysis is the process of looking at exactly what a job requires in order to determine the necessary job qualifications. Through the job analysis a jobs skills, knowledge and ability (KSA) can be defined in operational terms. This is essential if the job analysis data are to have any utility for example, it may be used for the performance assessment. Once the jobs have been sorted using the KSA level their scores are entered in to the system to get the ranking for the jobs. The jobs with less KSAs tend to be lower in the organisation than the jobs with greater KSAs; this is relevant in determining the key job elements required for the job in the organisation. Job Characteristics Model If the type of work a person does is so important, the specific job characteristics that affect productivity, motivation and satisfaction can be identified. Hackman and Oldham (1975) has developed a model to identify 5 such job characteristics and their interrelationship and they called it job characteristics model. The early research with this model indicates that it can be useful in redesigning the jobs of individuals. The 5 core characteristics of the model are: Skill Variety: The degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities so one can use a number of different skills and talents. Task Identity: The degree to which the job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work. Task Significance: The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people. Autonomy: The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. Feedback: The degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the individual obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance. In this model first three dimensions combine to create meaningful work. That is, if these 3 characteristics exist in a job, we can predict the incumbent will view their job as being important, valuable, and worthwhile. The jobs that possess autonomy give the employee a feeling of personal responsibility for the results and if it provides feedback the employee will know how effectively they are performing. From a motivational standpoint, the model says that internal rewards are obtained by individuals when they learn that they personally have performed well on a task that they care about. Dodd and Ganster (1996) objectively manipulated job dimensions of autonomy, variety and feed back to evaluate their effect on perceptions of job characteristics and on job outcomes. In a high variety task, increased autonomy led to increased satisfaction, while in a low variety task, increased autonomy had a negligible effect on satisfaction. Saks and Waldman (1998) examined the relationship between age and job performance evaluations for newcomers recently hired into entry-level positions. They found a negative relationship between age and job performance evaluations. This relationship was eliminated after controlling for undergraduate grade average and prior work experience, operationalized as the number of jobs that a newcomer had previously held. Glick, Jenkins and Gupta (1986) compared the relative strengths of the effects of method versus substance on relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes. They compared the reports from both job incumbents and non-incumbents on job characteristics and job attitude. Substantive relationships were observed between job characteristics and effort, supporting the job characteristics model. Common method effects, however, inflated relationships between job characteristics and affective outcome, thereby supporting the social information-processing model. Gist (1987) described that self-efficacy (ones belief in ones capability to perform a task) affects task effort, persistence, expressed interest and the level of goal difficulty selected for the performance. Despite this, little attention has been given to its organizational implications. He reviewed the self-efficacy concept and then explores its theoretical and practical implications for organizational behaviour and human resource management. Taber and Peters (1991) analyzed employee perception of the completeness of a self-report, point factor job evaluation system. Complementary qualitative and quantitative techniques were used to identify characteristics of jobs, characteristics of employees and characteristics of the job evaluation procedure that affected employee perceptions of the system. Analyses indicated that the job evaluation instrument might describe some classes of jobs more completely than others. Spector, Jex and Chen (1995) examined the possibility that intervals with certain personality traits tend to be found in certain types of jobs. They examined specially correlations between two personality traits, optimism and anxiety and measures of job characteristics obtained through job analysis. The results have showed that those who were high in traits anxiety tended to be in job characterized by low autonomy, variety, identity, feed-back, significance and complexity. On the other hand those reporting high levels of optimism tended to be in jobs characterized by high levels of each of these job characteristics. Taber and Alliger (1995) described that research on job satisfaction traditionally has gathered data at the level of the overall job. As a job consists of many tasks some of which may be enjoyable, complex, and important and some not. Global and facet measures of job satisfaction were found to be consistent with, but only partially predictable from, individual task properties. Task analysis is a cumbersome process; nevertheless, by complementing traditional, global measurement procedure, task level assessment may facilitate new research into the nature of job satisfaction. Somers and Bimbaum (1998) tested the proposition that relationships among the various types of work activities are related both to the form of commitment and the facet of performance under consideration affect commitment and job performance. They suggested that job involvement was related only to performance tied to intrinsically rewarding elements of work, and career commitment was positively related to overall performance activities. These forces effect the individual organisation in different ways and can bring change in organisations. Evaluation plans used to translate job duties into relative job worth may take different forms (James, 1991). Essentially, however, the principal measuring techniques for determining relative job worth differ from one another in three ways. First, what is measured the whole job or identifiable elements of the job. Second, whether or not point values are assigned to establish quantitative measures of job value. Third, how jobs are measured against other jobs, or against a pre-described yard-stick. Application of these techniques can result in four basically different types of job evaluation plans. These are, and have been for many years, the ranking system, the classification system, point evaluation plans, and factor comparison plans. Combinations of these systems can also be used. The Ranking System The most widely used method of job evaluation is the ranking system. Under this plan, a job is ranked against other jobs, without assigning point values. Evaluators simply compare two jobs and judge which is more difficult. Once this determination has been made, a third job is compared with the first two and similar decision made. The process is repeated until all jobs have been ranked, from the most difficult to the least difficult. The greatest advantage of the ranking system is its simplicity. The evaluation process is quick and inexpensive. Also, the ranking system uses a job against-job comparison, which is the most accurate method of evaluation, because it is far easier to judge which of two jobs is more difficult than it is to judge the absolute difficulty of either. On the other hand, the system does little to guide the judgment of evaluators. There is a tendency to judge each job on the basis of its dominant characteristics, which can result in inconsistencies. In addition, it is extremely difficult to explain or justify the results of ranking to employees or managers, because there is no record of the judgements of evaluators. Finally, the ranking system can indicate only that one job is more difficult than another, not how much more difficult it is. The Point System Under the point evaluation system, various factors which measure a job are selected and defined. A separate yard-stick for different degrees of each factor is prepared. A job is then rated against every yard-stick. In essence, this is the same process as the classification system except that the job is evaluated on a separate scale for each factor. In addition, each degree of each factor has point weightings. Point evaluation systems provide a written record of judgements made. In addition, the degrees in each factor provide a guideline for judgements. Because points are assigned for each factor, each job can be given a total numeric point value, which provides a measure of how much more difficult one job is than another. The main problems of the point evaluation system are the difficulty of selecting relevant factors, of defining degrees for each factor and assigning appropriate point values. In addition, there is the problem of determining the correct number of degrees. Ideally, ju st enough degrees are established to identify minimum measurable differences in each factor. Finally, the various degree definitions must be written so as to serve as guides that are both useful and meaningful in terms of the jobs being measured in each specific company. Factor Comparison The final basic approach used in traditional job evaluation is the factor comparison system. In this system, factors must also be identified, as under the point system. Within each factor, a ranking system rather than a classification system is used. That is, for each factor, the evaluator ranks all jobs from highest to lowest. Various degrees result, but they are not defined or described. Points are assigned to each of these degrees. Factor comparison has two basic advantages. First, it uses the job-by-job comparison technique. Second, it does not involve the semantic problems encountered in defining factor degrees. However, because of the lack of definitions, it is always difficult to explain the results of factor comparison evaluations to employees or supervisors. Combination Systems In practice, most companies use combination plans. The most typical approach is to use a combination factor comparison and point system (Hartley D.E, 2004). In this way, the advantages of each system are obtained, and the difficulties of each are neutralised. In the combination system, there are five steps involved. Firstly, factors are selected and defined. These are usually the five basic factors of responsibility, authority, knowledge, skill, and working conditions. Secondly, benchmark jobs are selected and priced if they can be priced in the market, and all benchmark jobs are ranked under each factor. This includes both those which were priced in the market-place and those which were not. Ranking of market-priced jobs, however, must reflect market pay relationships. Ranking of other jobs is done primarily by comparison with jobs that have been priced. Thirdly, points are assigned to each degree of each factor on the basis of a standard system. The relative maximum weight of each factor is a function of the number of degrees established in the ranking process. Fourthly, each degree is defined. This is done in terms of the company jobs that have been ranked in each degree. Finally, all other jobs are evaluated, by comparison against degree definitions and on a job-against-job ranking system, particularly using benchmark jobs priced under each factor. Edmund .H (1996) says that new methods of pay are introduced by many companies. Each form or element of pay serves a different objective for the company. Each has evolved over time to deal with specific company needs. Each element of compensation also tends to meet different employee aspirations or objectives. The elements of compensation may be categorised in six ways. There are premium payments, bonus payments, long-term income payments, pay for time not worked, benefits, and estate building plans. Each of these elements is more applicable to some groups of employees than to others. For instance, overtime is applied only to operations persons. Long-term income plans are typically restricted to higher-paid persons. There are also non-financial rewards, which are difficult to categorise. Basically, some company characteristics represent a form of remuneration to employees. The work done and the work environment can have value, even though no monetary payments are involved.(Risher .H, 1979) Other characteristics whose value cannot readily be expressed in terms of dollars but which to the employee represent income value or remuneration include titles and various perquisites. There are, of course, many different ways in which job analysis can be tackled. Some cover the information which would normally go into a job description, and some cover the main points of a job specification (McCormick, 1980). The suggestion here is that a comprehensive job information sheet should be compiled for each job. It does not matter whether it is called a job description or job specification, provided all relevant information about the job is recorded clearly, accurately, and so far as is possible, with brevity. The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) is an attempt to identify the more important, or noteworthy, aspects of job behaviour. Originally it was developed as a check-list rating procedure for performance appraisal, but its merits lend itself to other investigatory activities such as job analysis for the purpose of job evaluation. In this latter context, the idea is to highlight the critical aspects of a job which are crucial to its successful performance. It can usefully be applied to multi-task jobs as a means for establishing priorities between job elements. The diary method is a self-reporting analysis of the activities engaged in over a period and the amount of time spent on all of them, recorded in the form of a diary. It can become tedious and onerous for the job incumbent, and is probably the method most open to abuse and faking. To conduct job analysis effectively, managers have the obligation to keep all the job information up to date. It is vital that they report changes in the organisation, job assignments, and methods of work to ensure that classifications are kept current. Even when staff specialists evaluate jobs, line managers still have the basic responsibility of reviewing both the job analysis and the results of job evaluation. This review carries with it the authority to approve or appeal. Line managers have the basic responsibility for making pay decisions. Decisions must be made within the framework of policies, practices, techniques, and controls. Clearly, the individual supervisor is involved in interpreting compensation policies and applying them to many individual situations. The supervisor also has the job of gaining employee acceptance of the company evaluation and compensation programme. The supervisor is not likely to gain that acceptance unless employees understand basic policies and pr actices, and unless they perceive that the application of those policies and practices in individual situations is equitable and reasonable. Information, knowledge, programmes, and practices must be continuously reviewed and re-thought. Management of job analysis, job evaluation and compensation administration, like many other fields, requires a never ending search for excellence. Findings: The author has used the questionnaire to collect the information regarding the employees job specification and their actual job performance. From the questionnaire employees answered the author has analyzed the data in the following way. Table 1 Describes about the employees participated in the research Males 65 Females 35 Under Graduates 47 Graduates and above 53 Part-time Workers 30 Full time Workers 70 Had training on their job performance 80 No training 20 People performing single role 85 People performing more than 1 role 15 People working less than a year (new) 13 People working from more than a1/2 yrs (old) 87 The above data can be represented in chart format as below. Where, M-males FM-females UG-undergraduate G-graduate PT-part-time FT-full time T-training NT-no training SR-single role MR-many roles LT-less time MT-more time Table 2 Describes about the employees responses to the Questionnaire sent by the author on job analysis. Characteristics Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Job Description 74 24 2 _ _ Training 80 20 _ _ _ Job performance 85 13 1 1 _ Essential skills for job 70 26 1 3 _ Workload 73 21 2 2 2 Co-operation of higher officials 88 10 2 _ _ Pay and performance relation 92 5 3 _ _ Security at work place 96 4 _ _ _ Administration 69 28 1 2 _ Basic Salary 87 10 3 _ _ Physical working environment 77 20 1 1 ! Opportunity for personnel development 65 20 3 8 4 Job security 74 18 5 3 _ Job Satisfaction 86 10 1 3 _ Job duties are clear 90 6 4 _ _ Evaluation of job 78 29 2 1 _ About additional responsibilities 70 21 6 1 2 Purpose of job 77 17 5 _ 1 Job definition 92 8 _ _ _ About additional skills 73 24 2 1 _ Using the above data collected the major attributes of the research can be depicted in pie diagrams as follow: From the total findings the research the whole analysis of the company data can be plotted in to an area graph to show the employees overall feeling about their job.