Pron´ ostico de generaci´ on e´ olica

Green and Stutzman (1986) conducted a job analysis in which they had job incum-bents complete a task inventory. The task inventory included tasks that no one did on the job the researchers were analyzing. Over half of the incumbents indicated that they did at least one fake task. This finding suggests that many people are either careless or not completely honest when they complete task inventories. Whether or not this reduces the accuracy of the task inventory was not determined by this study. Hacker (1996), however, followed up on this research by conducting a similar study and comparing incumbents who endorsed fake tasks with those who did not. He found that both groups of people did not differ in their ratings of all other tasks or in the reliability of their ratings of all other tasks. His results suggest that this phenomenon does not affect job analysis results.

The research on the validity of job analysis ratings suggests that they can provide useful information, but they are not perfect and are potentially subject to some biases because they are based on human judgment (Morgeson & Campion, 1997; Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, Mayfield, Ferrara, & Campion, 2004). Green and Stutzman’s (1986) results emphasize that incumbents are not necessarily accurate in making their ratings.

However, that accuracy is not constant across different kinds of job analysis ratings.

Dierdorff and Morgeson (2009) showed that people are more accurate when rating specific tasks (e.g., recording medical information on patients) than when rating traits people need to do the job (e.g., dependability). They argued that the more specific the task or trait is and the easier it is to observe, the more reliable and accurate ratings will be. Sanchez and Levine (1994) attempted to improve job analysis results by training incumbents in how to rate their jobs. Although their results were only partially successful, such training might prove useful in the future. Even though there is a need to improve job analysis procedures, the various methods are important tools used by I/O psychologists.

! JOB EVALUATION

Job evaluation refers to a family of quantitative techniques that are used to scientifically determine the salary levels of jobs (Morgeson, Campion, & Maertz, 2001). These tech-niques are very much like the job analysis methods we have already discussed. In fact, the job analysis methods sometimes are used to conduct job evaluation. For example, Robinson, Wahlstrom, and Mecham (1974) used the PAQ to conduct a job evaluation. The major difference between job analysis and job evaluation is that job evaluation has the specific purpose of determining the relative salaries for different jobs by mathematically combining job information.

Perhaps the most popular job evaluation method is the point method (Treiman, 1979).

There are four steps involved in conducting a point method job evaluation. First, a panel, often managers or other organization members, determines the compensable factors for the job. Compensable factors are characteristics that will serve as the basis for the evaluation. They include:

Consequences of error on the job Responsibility

Education required Skill required

Second, a panel (comprised of new people or the same people) judges the degree to which each job has each compensable factor. This is done on a quantitative scale so that each job gets points for each factor. A particular job, for example, might get 2 points out

of a possible 20 for consequences of errors made and 20 points out of a possible 20 for education. This would mean that the job would be low on consequences for error and high on education level required.

Third, the points for the factors are summed for each job to provide a total score.

In this example, the job would get a total of 22 points (2 + 20) for the two factors.

These numbers are not in dollar units, and so they do not indicate the actual salary level.

Rather, the numbers are relative, so that the higher the number, the higher the salary the job should have.

The fourth and final step is to plot the actual salaries for each job in an organiza-tion against the point totals for each job. If the salary system is fair according to the compensable factors, the plot should be a straight line. This means that the more points a job has, the higher the salary for that job. If the point for a particular job is not on the straight line, the job is either overpaid (point is above the line) or underpaid (point is below the line). Steps can then be taken to bring the job into line with the other jobs with similar totals. Jobs that are paid too much according to the system can have salaries frozen. Jobs that are paid too little can be given salary increases.

Although the job evaluation can indicate the relative value of a job, other factors enter into salary levels. One of the biggest influences is the market wage for a job. A hospital might find, for example, that physicians are overpaid in relation to nurses. However, it would not be feasible for a hospital to set salaries completely according to compensable factors. The cost of paying nurses much higher salaries would be prohibitive. Paying physicians much lower wages would result in not being able to hire or retain them. Thus, the wages paid throughout the area or country must be considered. A salary survey can be conducted to find out what other organizations pay each position. To conduct such a survey, all hospitals in the area could be contacted to determine their salary levels for nurses and physicians.

The point system is just one of many different job evaluation methods. There are also several varieties of point systems. They are all used to determine the pay levels of jobs by estimating their comparative worth. Research on the various methods suggests that they may be interchangeable. Studies have shown that the results of different methods are often quite similar (e.g., Gomez-Mejia, Page, & Tornow, 1982).

Comparable Worth

It is well known that in the United States and other countries women’s salaries are lower on average than men’s. Some of the differences are attributable to the fact that jobs held primarily by women, such as secretaries, are paid less than jobs held primarily by men, such as electricians (Allen & Sanders, 2002). Although the Equal Pay Act of 1963 made it illegal in the United States to pay women less than men for the same job, there is no law preventing an organization from paying women less than men in a different job.

The concept of comparable worth means that different but comparable jobs should be paid the same. If jobs that are held predominantly by women contribute as much to the organization as jobs held primarily by men, the jobs should be paid the same. The difficulty is finding a common measure by which to gauge the comparable worth of jobs.

Job evaluation provides a means of doing so.

Chapter Summary " 75 To do a comparable worth study with job evaluation, one would first apply one of the job evaluation methods to the jobs of an organization. Those jobs that are held primarily by men would be compared to those held primarily by women. It is likely that at least some of the jobs held mainly by women would be underpaid according to the compensable factors. Using mathematical procedures, it would be possible to calculate how much adjustment each of the underpaid jobs should receive. If made, those adjustments could accomplish comparable worth between the predominantly female and predominantly male jobs.

The use of job evaluation to establish comparable worth has not been without critics (e.g., Eyde, 1983). Part of the difficulty is that the judgments used in a job evaluation can be biased in ways that perpetuate the lower salaries of women. For example, Schwab and Grams (1985) found that people who assign points to jobs in organizations are influenced by knowledge of current salaries. As a result, lower-paid jobs are given fewer points than they deserve, and higher-paid jobs are given more points than they deserve. Job evaluations might undervalue the lower-paid predominantly female jobs and overvalue the higher-paid predominantly male jobs.

Perhaps the biggest impediment to achieving comparable worth is not bias in job evaluation but the cost involved in substantially raising salaries in predominantly female occupations, such as clerks and elementary school teachers. The adjustments of these salaries would be extremely expensive unless they were accompanied by reductions in the salaries of other jobs. In addition, there is the issue of market wages, which is a major influence on the salary levels set by organizations. Although some progress has been made in the United States, it seems unlikely that comparable worth will be achieved in the near future.

! CHAPTER SUMMARY

Job analysis is a method for describing jobs and the personal attributes necessary to do a job. The job-oriented approach provides information about the nature of and the tasks involved in a job. The person-oriented approach describes the KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal characteristics) a person must have for a job. There are dozens of job analysis methods that provide information about the job, the person, or both.

Job analysis information has many purposes. It can be used for:

Career development of employees

Legal issues, such as ensuring fairness in employee actions Performance appraisal

Selection Training

Vocational counseling Research

Most job analysis information comes from one of four different sources:

Job analysts Supervisors

Job incumbents Trained observers

They provide their information through one of the following ways:

Performing the job themselves Interviewing people who do the job Observing people doing the job

Giving questionnaires to people who do the job

Many different methods can be used to conduct a job analysis; no one method stands out as being superior to the others. Each has its particular advantages and limitations. The job analyst’s purpose should determine which method is chosen. Four popular methods are:

Job Components Inventory Functional Job Analysis Position Analysis Questionnaire Task inventory

Most job analysis methods have been found to be reasonably reliable. Inadequate research attention has been given to exploring their validity. Existing research has shown promise, but there is evidence that people are not always accurate in their job analysis ratings. More attention should be directed to studying ways to increase the accuracy of job analysis information.

Job evaluation is one of a family of techniques that are used to set salary levels.

Job evaluation procedures are much like job analysis, and often job analysis methods are used to conduct job evaluation. Research suggests that many of the different job evaluation techniques give similar results when applied to the same jobs. Job evaluation has been used in an attempt to reduce the salary inequities between men and women.

The concept of comparable worth means that jobs that make equivalent contributions to an organization should be paid the same.

I/O PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE

Connections, a human resources consulting company based in Tampa, Florida. The company helps organi-zations improve employee retention by working with organizations to create, implement, and evaluate selec-tion and promoselec-tion processes that assess job fit and culture fit. Prior to starting Brannick HR Connections in 1995, Dr. Brannick worked for Eckerd Corporation, which at the time was one of the largest drugstore chains in the United States. It is a common career path for an I/O psychologist to work for several years for a private corporation and then start his or her own consulting business.

Chapter Summary " 77

A national supermarket chain hired Dr. Brannick to be part of a team that developed and validated a selection test for warehouse workers. A testing com-pany that specializes in physical agility testing actually designed the test. The client wanted an independent consultant to do the initial job analysis that would indicate what sort of test was needed and then to do the validation to show the test worked. The client was concerned about the potential conflict of interest if the testing company were to do the entire project, espe-cially the validation. Dr. Brannick was hired to provide the objective expert point of view. It is quite common for I/O consultants from different companies to work together, each doing a separate piece of a complete job.

The job in question involved the filling of orders received from individual stores. Each day supermar-kets submitted orders for various products. Warehouse employees filled these orders by loading products into large plastic tote boxes at the warehouse and shipping these totes by truck to the stores. The job required physical agility, as various items had to be taken from shelves and put into totes by hand. Dr. Brannick used an observational method of job analysis. She took a tour of the warehouse and then spent many hours watching employees and recording the specific phys-ical motions required. There were three in particular that were important: grasping (picking up an item with all fingers and the thumb of one hand), lifting (picking up an item with both hands), and pinching (picking

up an item with the index finger and thumb only).

Once the specific motions were determined, the test-ing company designed the actual psychomotor test (see Chapter 5) to determine how well applicants were able to perform the required motions.

Once the test was developed, it was administered to 350 employees. Dr. Brannick trained supervisors to rate the quality of their employees’ job perfor-mance. Objective performance data were also col-lected on absenteeism and the number of totes/day each employee filled. She then conducted statistical data analysis to see if the test could predict how well employees perform their jobs. This study was success-ful in showing that the test was valid; in other words, test performance significantly predicted job perfor-mance. The test is being used today to help select warehouse workers.

Discussion Questions

1. Why was it important to conduct a job analysis before developing the test?

2. Would a questionnaire job analysis method of asking employees or supervisors what motions were needed have been as effective?

3. How would this job analysis help a company if it was sued for discriminating against a person with a disability?

4. Why was it important to conduct a validation study?

LEARNING BY DOING

Conducting a Job Analysis Interview

One way to conduct a job analysis is to interview employees who hold the job in question. Choose a person you know (acquaintance, family member, or friend) who is currently employed in a job you have never held yourself. Interview that person about the job, taking careful notes of what he or she tells you.

You should ask about the following:

1. Job title

2. Brief description of the job

3. The most important tasks involved in the job 4. The most important KSAOs needed for

the job

Write a brief report that provides an overview of what you learned about the job.

!

⁴