Careful Planning Job Analysis Case Study

An important feature of conducting a job analysis is careful planning, including care in planning for who should conduct them.  If an internal or external expert in job analysis is not used, care should be taken in choosing an individual with a thorough understanding of the organizations people, jobs and organizational system. They should have knowledge of how the work should flow within the organization.  Carl, a recent graduate, had only been working in his position for two months and potentially did not have experience conducting job analyses. While being exposed to the theory of the job analysis process in his studies at school is beneficial, Carl should not have been left without guidance from his supervisor, or at least another individual in the HR Department who could have mentored him in the process. The legal importance of the end product should have warranted a more carefully planned roll out of the project.  It would have been more beneficial for the overall outcome of the project, as well as for Carl’s growth and development in his profession.  

Carl was given an unreasonably short timeline to analyze twenty positions. From the reading, it does not appear he began the process with an overview of the organization and its jobs. Beginning the job analysis process by viewing organizational and process charts would have given Carl a greater understanding of the relationships between departments and the work-flow necessary to maintain and streamline production. This is an important step considering Carl had very little experience with the organization.

Carl then should have considered other options in gathering data for the positions to be analyzed.  To have a comprehensive study, Carl should have used a variety of data collection methods. Had he taken a multimethod job analysis approach, he would have conducted interviews with both incumbents and supervisors, while also doing onsite observations. Carl’s approach of interviewing one incumbent per position only gave him a limited perspective of the position. Employee’s tend to either exaggerate or down-play their role. Interviewing multiple incumbents, along with interviewing the supervisor and observing individuals in the position, would have given Carl a more complete and accurate picture of what the position entails. He could have then administered a task survey and analyzed the data to verify uniformity of information gathered, as well as inconsistencies. The differences in how the position was described by incumbents and supervisors could have been addressed at that time and he could have worked to find a consensus regarding the disagreements in how the job was performed. Carl could have also taken the time to consider any existing job descriptions, or researched similar positions on O*Net.

What might explain the supervisors’ unwillingness to cooperate with Carl is that, while Angela preceded Carl’s attempts to interview the supervisors with an email letting the supervisors know that Carl would be contacting them, her email may not have done a sufficient job of communicating the purpose and process of obtaining information for the job analysis. Carl’s request for meetings without a proper explanation could have sent a negative message to the supervisors and put them on the defensive.  Carl had only been at the organization short time and he may not have developed a rapport with the supervisors. This, combined with their apprehension as to why the analysis was being conducted, may have contributed to their uncooperativeness.