Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4.

Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill

Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR

Job Analysis and Rewards

Types of Jobs
Traditional
Evolving
Flexible
Idiosyncratic
Team Based
Telework
Job Requirements Job Analysis
Overview
Job Requirements Matrix
Job Descriptions and Job Specifications
Collecting Job Requirements Information
Competency-Based Job Analysis
Nature of Competencies
Collecting Competency Information
Job Rewards
Types of Rewards
Employee Value Proposition
Collecting Job Rewards Information
Legal Issues
Job Relatedness and Court Cases
Essential Job Functions
Summary
Discussion Questions
Ethical Issues
Applications
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

140 PART TWO Support Activities

T
his chapter begins with a description of several types of jobs: traditional,
evolving, flexible, idiosyncratic, team based, and telework. These types of
jobs may be analyzed and described in terms of specific job requirements
(tasks, KSAOs, job context), and competency requirements (general and job-
spanning KSAOs). Job analysis is the general process of studying and describing
these requirements. Separate approaches are needed for job requirements and com-
petency requirements.
Job requirements job analysis is discussed first. It is guided by the job require-
ments matrix, which contains the three basic components (tasks, KSAOs, job
context) that must be considered during the job analysis. Detailed descriptions of
each component are provided. Also described are job analysis methods, sources,
and processes for collecting the job requirements information.
Competency-based job analysis is described next. It is very new on the job
requirements scene. It seeks to identify more general KSAO requirements, such
as KSAOs necessary for all jobs to meet the organization’s mission and goals and
KSAOs that cut across interdependent jobs, such as with work teams. These com-
petencies are presumed to provide a foundation for more flexible staffing in initial
job assignments for new hires and in job and project assignments for current
employees.
Attention then turns to job rewards. Discussed first are the multitude of extrinsic
and intrinsic rewards jobs may provide to employees; the totality of these rewards
form the employee value proposition (EVP). Special challenges in creating the
EVP are providing rewards of the right magnitude, mix, and distinctiveness. It is
suggested that job rewards information be collected within, and from outside, the
organization. The focus should be on learning about employee reward preferences,
and various ways to accomplish this are discussed.
Finally, two legal issues pertaining to job analysis are treated. Both issues in-
volve the job requirements approach to job analysis as it applies to EEO/AA under
the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act.

TYPES OF JOBS
Jobs are the building blocks of an organization, in terms of both job content and
the hierarchical relationships that emerge among them.1 They are explicitly de-
signed and aligned in ways that enhance the production of the organization’s goods
and services. Job analysis thus must be considered within the broader framework
of the design of jobs, for through their design jobs acquire their requirements and
rewards in the first place. Several different types of jobs may be designed by the
organization. These include traditional, evolving, flexible, idiosyncratic, team-
based, and telework jobs.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 141

Traditional
The traditional way of designing a job is to identify and define its elements and
tasks precisely, and then incorporate them into a job description. This task core
includes virtually all tasks associated with the job, and from it a fairly inclusive
list of KSAOs will flow. Thus defined, there are clear lines of demarcation between
jobs in terms of both tasks and KSAOs, and there is little overlap between jobs
on either basis. Each job also has its own set of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.
Such job design is marked by formal organization charts, clear and precise job
descriptions and specifications, and well-defined relationships between jobs in
terms of mobility (promotion and transfer) paths. Also, traditional jobs are very
static, with little or no change occurring in tasks or KSAOs.
Certain terms are used frequently in discussions of traditional jobs. Definitions
of some of the key terms, and examples of them, are provided in Exhibit 4.1. Note
that the terms are presented in a logically descending hierarchy, starting with job
category or family, and proceeding downward through job, position, task dimen-
sion, task, and element.

EXHIBIT 4.1 Terminology Commonly Used in Describing Jobs

TERM DEFINITION
Job family A grouping of jobs, usually according to function (e.g., production,
finance, human resources, marketing)
Job category A grouping of jobs according to generic job title or occupation (e.g.,
managerial, sales, clerical, maintenance), within or across job
families
Job A grouping of positions that are similar in their tasks and task
dimensions
Position A grouping of tasks/dimensions that constitute the total work
assignment of a single employee; there are as many positions as there
are employees
Task A grouping of similar types of tasks: sometimes called ‘‘duty,’’ ‘‘area
dimension of responsibility,’’ or ‘‘key results area’’
Task A grouping of elements to form an identifiable work activity that is a
logical and necessary step in the performance of a job
Element The smallest unit into which work can be divided without analyzing
separate motions, movements, and mental processes
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

142 PART TWO Support Activities

Evolving
Traditionally designed and administered jobs may gradually change or evolve over
time, yielding an evolving job. These changes are not radical, are usually inten-
tional, and are often due to technological and workload changes. An excellent
example of such an evolving job is that of “secretary.”2 Traditional or core tasks
associated with the job include typing, filing, taking dictation, and answering
phones. However, in many organizations the job has evolved to include new tasks
such as word processing, managing multiple projects, creating spreadsheets, pur-
chasing supplies and office technology, and gathering information on the Internet.
These task changes lead to new KSAO requirements, such as planning and co-
ordination skills and knowledge of spreadsheet software. Accompanying these
changes is a change in job title to that of “administrative assistant.” It should be
noted that jobs may evolve due to changing organization and technology require-
ments, as well as to employee-initiated changes through a process of job crafting.

Flexible
Flexible jobs have frequently changing task and KSAO requirements. Sometimes
these changes are initiated by the job incumbent who constantly adds and drops
(or passes off) new assignments or projects in order to work toward moving targets
of opportunity. Other times the task changes may be dictated by changes in pro-
duction schedules or client demands. Many small business owners, general man-
agers of start-up strategic business units, and top management members perform
such flexible jobs. These jobs are “loose cannon” ones, characterized by broad job
titles (e.g., administrator, general manager, director, scientist) and job descriptions
with only cursory statements about tasks and duties (e.g., “manages budget plan-
ning, human resources, and marketing processes”). Within this elastic job title–
tasks combination the employee is free to rattle and roll around.
Another example of flexible jobs is project jobs. Here, specific projects are
undertaken (e.g., designing an advertising campaign) and when they are com-
pleted, new projects emerge. Managing and working on project-based jobs requires
task and KSAO flexibility across projects.

Idiosyncratic
Idiosyncratic jobs are unique and created in response to the known (or anticipated)
availability of a specific person with highly valued skills.3 The person may be a
current employee or an outsider to the organization. The person for whom the
position is created may in fact even be the instigator of its creation. He or she may
approach the organization and explicitly communicate availability and the type of
position (both requirements and rewards) desired. Former politicians and high-
level government employees are often hired into such idiosyncratically designed
jobs.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 143

Team-Based
Team-based jobs occur within work teams.4 A work team is an interdependent
collection of employees who share responsibility for achieving a specific goal.
Examples of such goals include developing a product, delivering a service, win-
ning a game, conducting a process, developing a plan, or making a joint decision.
Teams, and thus team-based jobs, occur in multiple forms. One classification
of such forms is as follows:5

1. Advice/involvement teams—such as quality control circles, special com-

mittees, and advisory boards
2. Production/service teams—such as assembly, data processing, and client
service teams
3. Project/development teams—such as research and development, project
management, brand management, engineering, and task force teams
4. Action/negotiation teams—such as sports, collective bargaining, surgery,
and flight crew teams

Each of these teams is composed of two or more employees, and there is an

identifiable collection of tasks that the team is to perform. Usually, these tasks
will be grouped into specific clusters and each cluster constitutes a position or job.
A project management team, for example, may have separate jobs and job titles
for budget specialists, technical specialists, coordinators, and field staff. Each of
these jobs may be traditional, evolving, flexible, or idiosyncratic.
Another type of team, one that encompasses elements of all of the above team
types, is the global virtual team.6 Such a team is composed of members who are
geographically dispersed, from multiple cultures, working in collaboration elec-
tronically. These teams are often assigned temporary, critical tasks such as globally
developing new products, creating and implementing mergers and acquisitions,
conducting global audits, and managing brands.
While teams differ in many respects, two differences are very important in terms
of their staffing implications. The first difference is in the extent to which each
team member performs only one job, as opposed to multiple jobs. When members
each perform only a single job, staffing each job requires a focus on recruitment
and selection for only job-specific KSAOs. To the extent that members must per-
form multiple jobs, however, staffing must emphasize recruitment and selection
for both job-specific KSAOs and job-spanning KSAOs. Another term used to
connote job-spanning KSAOs is competencies. Many of these job-spanning
KSAOs will involve flexibility, adaptability, and rapid learning skills that will
facilitate performing, and switching between, multiple jobs.
As examples of the above points, a product development team may include
mechanical engineers, computer-assisted design specialists, product safety experts,
and marketing specialists. Each team member will likely perform only one of
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

144 PART TWO Support Activities

these jobs, and thus staffing these jobs will be targeted toward job-specific KSAOs.
As a different example, a team responsible for assembly of lawn mower engines
may require different members to perform different jobs at any particular moment,
but it may also require each member to be (or become) proficient in all phases of
engine assembly. Staffing this team will require acquisition of team members that
have both job-specific and job-spanning KSAOs.
The second important difference between teams regarding staffing is the degree
of task interdependence among team members. The greater the task interdepen-
dence, the greater the importance of KSAOs pertaining to interpersonal qualities
(e.g., communicating, collaborating, and resolving conflicts) and team self-man-
agement qualities (e.g., setting group goals, inspecting each other’s work). Thus,
task interdependence brings behaviorally oriented KSAOs to the forefront of job
requirements for team-based jobs.

Telework
Telework is a work arrangement in which the employee works away from the
employer’s work location using telecommunications technology (e.g., personal
computer, e-mail, fax, cellular phone) to accomplish work. It may be done at home,
on the road, or at special satellite locations established by the employer. Also,
telework may involve either full-time or part-time work, with either fixed or flex-
ible work hours. Telework is applicable to many different functional work areas
such as marketing, sales, technical writing, financial analysis, and programming.7

JOB REQUIREMENTS JOB ANALYSIS

Overview
Job analysis may be defined as the process of studying jobs in order to gather,
analyze, synthesize, and report information about job requirements. Note in this
definition that job analysis is an overall process as opposed to a specific method
or technique. A job requirements job analysis seeks to identify and describe the
specific tasks, KSAOs, and job context for a particular job. This type of job anal-
ysis is the most thoroughly developed and commonly used by organizations. A
second type of job analysis, competency-based, attempts to identify and describe
job requirements in the form of general KSAOs required across a range of jobs;
task and work context requirements are of little concern. Interpersonal skills, for
example, might be identified as a competency for sales and customer service jobs;
leadership is a likely competency requirement for managerial jobs. Competency-
based job analysis is more recent in origin, though it has some similarities to job
requirements job analysis. It is discussed separately later in this chapter.
Job requirements job analysis yields information helpful in the recruitment,
selection, and employment domains in such activities as communicating job re-
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 145

quirements to job applicants, developing selection plans for KSAOs to focus on

when staffing a job, identifying appropriate assessment methods to gauge appli-
cants’ KSAOs, establishing hiring qualifications, and complying with relevant
laws and regulations. Competency-based job analysis results will be helpful pri-
marily in identifying a common set of general KSAOs in which all applicants must
be proficient, regardless of the specific job for which they are applying.
Effective staffing definitely requires job requirements information, and possibly
competency information, for each of the types of jobs described above. Traditional
and evolving jobs readily lend themselves to this. Their requirements are generally
well known and unlikely to change except gradually. For idiosyncratic, flexible,
team-based, and telework jobs, job analysis is more difficult and problematic. The
requirements for these jobs may frequently be changing, difficult to pinpoint, and
even unknown because they depend heavily on how the job incumbent defines
them. Due to the often ambiguous and fluid nature of these jobs, the organization
may focus on analyzing and defining them in terms of competencies, rather than
specific tasks and KSAOs.
Job analysis and the information it provides thus serve as basic input to the
totality of staffing activities for an organization. In this sense, job analysis is a
support activity to the various functional staffing activities. Indeed, without thor-
ough and accurate information about job requirements and/or competencies, the
organization is greatly hampered in its attempts to acquire a workforce that will
be effective in terms of HR outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, and re-
tention. Job analysis thus is the foundation upon which successful staffing systems
are constructed.
A framework depicting job requirements job analysis is shown in Exhibit 4.2.
As can be seen, the job analysis begins by identifying the specific tasks and the
job context for a particular job.8 After these have been identified, the KSAOs
necessary for performing these tasks within the work context are inferred. For
example, after identifying for a sales manager’s job, the task of “developing and
writing monthly sales and marketing plans,” the job analysis would proceed by
inferring what specific KSAOs are necessary for performance of this task. The
task might require knowledge of intended customers, arithmetic skills, creative
ability, and willingness and availability to travel frequently to various organiza-
tional units. No particular job context factors, such as physical demands, may be
relevant to performance of this task or to its required KSAOs. The task and job
context information are recorded in a job description, whereas the KSAO require-
ments are placed into a job specification. In practice, these are often contained
within a single document.

Job Requirements Matrix

The job requirements matrix shows the key components of job requirements job
analysis, each of which must be explicitly considered for inclusion in any job
requirements job analysis. Completion of the cell entries in the matrix represents
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

146 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.2 Job Requirements Approach to Job Analysis

Job
requirements
job analysis

Job
Results
analysis

(task-
oriented) Tasks
Job
Identify ⫹
description
Context

(KSAO-
oriented) Job
Infer KSAOs
specification

the information that must be gathered, analyzed, synthesized, and expressed in

usable written form.
A completed job requirements matrix, a portion of which is shown in Exibit
4.3 for the job of administrative assistant, serves as the basic informational source
or document for any job in terms of its job requirements. The resultant information
serves as a basic input and guide to all subsequent staffing activities.
Referring to Exhibit 4.3, five specific tasks identified via job analysis are listed.
Note that only a portion of the total tasks for the job are shown. In turn, these
have been categorized into two general task dimensions—supervision and word
processing. An indication of their importance to the overall job is the percent time
spent on each, specifically 30% and 20%, respectively. For each task dimension
and its specific tasks, several KSAOs have been inferred to be necessary for per-
formance. The nature of these KSAOs is presented, along with a rating (1–5 scale)
of how important each KSAO is for performance of the task dimension. At the
EXHIBIT 4.3 Portion of Job Requirements Matrix for Job of Administrative Assistant

Tasks KSAOs
Heneman−Judge: Staffing

Importance Importance
Organizations, Fifth Edition

Task (% time to Tasks

Specific Tasks Dimensions spent) Nature (1–5 rating)
1. Arrange schedules with office A. Supervision 30% 1. Knowledge of office
assistant/volunteers to ensure operations and policies 4.9
that office will be staffed 2. Ability to match people to
II. Support Activities

during prescribed hours tasks according to their skills

2. Assign office tasks to office A. Supervision and hours of availability 4.6
assistant/volunteers to ensure 3. Skill in interaction with
coordination of activities diverse people 2.9
Rewards

4. Skill in determining types

and priorities of tasks 4.0
4. Job Analysis and

3. Type/transcribe letters, B. Word 20% 1. Knowledge of typing formats 3.1

memos, and reports from processing 2. Knowledge of spelling and
handwritten material or punctuation 5.0
dictated copy to produce final 3. Knowledge of graphics
copy, using word processor display software 2.0
CHAPTER FOUR

4. Prepare graphs and other B. Word 4. Ability to proofread and

visual material to supplement processing correct work 5.0
reports, using word processor 5. Skill in use of WordPerfect
5. Proofread typed copy and B. Word (most current version) 4.3
correct spelling, punctuation, processing 6. Skill in creating
and typographical errors in visually appealing and
order to produce high-quality understandable graphs 3.4
materials
Companies, 2006
© The McGraw−Hill

Job Context: Indoors, cubicle, business clothes, mostly sitting and standing, no environmental or job hazards.
Job Analysis and Rewards
147
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

148 PART TWO Support Activities

bottom of the matrix are indications of job context factors pertaining to work
setting (indoors), privacy of work area (cubicle), attire (business clothes), body
positioning (mostly sitting and standing), and physical work conditions (no en-
vironmental or job hazards).
We now turn to a thorough discussion for each of the components of the job
requirements matrix: tasks, task dimensions and their importance, KSAOs and
their importance, and job context. Discussed are specific definitions, techniques,
and taxonomies useful for successfully gathering and recording the information
needed in a job requirements matrix. After that, the actual process of collecting
job information and conducting the job analysis is discussed.

Task Statements
Job analysis begins with the development of task statements, whose objective is
to identify and record a set of tasks that both includes all of the job’s major tasks
and excludes nonrelevant or trivial tasks. The resultant task statements serve as
the building blocks for the remainder of the job requirements job analysis.
Identification and recording of tasks begins with the construction of task state-
ments. These statements are objectively written descriptions of the behaviors or
work activities engaged in by employees in order to perform the job. The state-
ments are made in simple declarative sentences.
Ideally, each task statement will show several things. These are

1. What the employee does, using a specific action verb at the start of the task
statement
2. To whom or what the employee does what he or she does, stating the object
of the verb
3. What is produced, indicating the expected output of the verb
4. What materials, tools, procedures, or equipment are used

Use of the sentence analysis technique is very helpful for writing task statements
that conform to these four requirements. An example of the technique is shown
in Exhibit 4.4 for several tasks from very different jobs.
In addition to meeting the preceding four requirements, there are several other
suggestions for effectively writing task statements. First, use specific action verbs
that have only one meaning. Examples of verbs that do not conform to this sug-
gestion include “supports,” “assists,” and “handles.”
Second, focus on recording tasks, as opposed to specific elements that comprise
a task. This requires use of considerable judgment because the distinction between
a task and an element is relative and often fuzzy. A useful rule to keep in mind
here is that most jobs can be adequately described within a range of 15–25 task
statements. A task statement list exceeding this range is a warning that it may be
too narrow in terms of activities defined.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 149

EXHIBIT 4.4 Use of the Sentence Analysis Technique for Task Statements

Sentence Analysis Technique

What does the worker do? Why does the What is the final
worker do it? result or
What gets done? technological
objective?

Worker action Purpose of the Materials, products,

worker actions subject matter, and/or
services

(Worker (Work devices, (Work field) (MPSMS)

function) people, or
information)

Verb Direct object Infinitive phrase

Infinitive Object of the

infinitive

Sets up various types of to machine metal aircraft parts.

(setting up) metal-working (machining) (material)
machines
(work device)

Persuades customers to buy automobiles.

(persuading) (people) (merchandising) (product)

Interviews clients to assess skills and abilities.

(analyzing) (people) (advising– (subject matter)
counseling)

Drives bus to transport passengers.

(driving– (work device) (transporting) (service)
operating)

Source: Vocational Rehabilitation Institute, A Guide to Job Analysis (Menominee, WI: University of
Wisconsin-Stout, 1982), p. 8.
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

150 PART TWO Support Activities

Third, do not include minor or trivial activities in task statements; focus only
on major tasks and activities. An exception to this recommendation occurs when
a so-called minor task is judged to have great importance to the job (see the
following discussion).
Fourth, take steps to ensure that the list of task statements is reliable.9 The basic
way to conform to this suggestion is to have two or more people (“analysts”)
independently evaluate the task statement list in terms of both inclusiveness and
clarity. Close agreement between people signifies high reliability. Should disagree-
ments between people be discovered, the nature of the disagreements can be dis-
cussed and appropriate modifications to the task statements made.
Fifth, have at least the manager and a job incumbent serve as the analysts
providing the reliability checks. It is important to have the manager participate in
this process in order to verify that the task statements are inclusive and accurate.
For the job incumbent, the concern is not only that of verification but also accep-
tance of the task statements as adequate representations that will guide incum-
bents’ performance of the job. Ideally, there should be multiple managers and job
incumbents, along with a representative of the HR department, serving as analysts.
This would expand the scope of input and allow formore precise reliability checks.
Finally, recognize that the accuracy or validity of task statements cannot be
evaluated against any external criterion because there is no external criterion avail-
able for use. Task descriptions are accurate and meaningful only to the extent that
people agree on them. Because of this, the preceding recommendation regarding
checks on content validity and reliability takes on added importance.

Task Dimensions
Task statement lists may be maintained in list form and subsequently incorporated
into the job description. Often, however, it is useful to group sets of task statements
into task dimensions, and then attach a name to each such dimension. Other terms
for task dimensions are “duties,” “accountability areas,” “responsibilities,” and
“performance dimensions.”
A useful way to facilitate the grouping process is to create a task dimension
matrix. Each column in the matrix represents a potential task dimension, and a
label is tentatively attached to it. Each row in the matrix represents a particular
task statement. Cell entries in the matrix represent the assignment of task state-
ments to task dimensions (the grouping of tasks). The goal is to have each task
statement assigned to only one task dimension. The process is complicated by the
fact that the dimensions and labels must be created prior to grouping; the dimen-
sions and labels may have to be changed or rearranged to make task statements
fit as one progresses through the assignment of task statements to dimensions.
Several things should be kept in mind about task dimensions. First, their crea-
tion is optional and should occur only if they will be useful. Second, there are
many different grouping procedures, ranging from straightforward judgmental
ones to highly sophisticated statistical ones.10 For most purposes, a simple judg-
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 151

mental process is sufficient, such as having the people who participated in the
creation of the task statements also create the groupings as part of the same ex-
ercise. As a rule, there should be four to eight dimensions, depending on the
number of task statements, regardless of the specific grouping procedure used.
Third, it is important that the grouping procedure yield a reliable set of task di-
mensions acceptable to managers, job incumbents, and other organizational mem-
bers. Finally, as with task statements, it is not possible to empirically validate task
dimensions against some external criterion; for both task statements and dimen-
sions, their validity is in the eyes of the definers and beholders.

Importance of Tasks/Dimensions
Rarely are all tasks/dimensions of a job thought to be of equal weight or impor-
tance. In some general sense, it is thus felt that these differences must be captured,
expressed, and incorporated into job information, especially the job description.
Normally, assessments of importance are made just for task dimensions, though
it is certainly possible to make them for individual tasks as well.
Before actual weighting can occur, two decisions must be made. First, the spe-
cific attribute to be assessed in terms of importance must be decided (e.g., time
spent on the task/dimension). Second, a decision is required regarding whether
the attribute will be measured in categorical (e.g., essential or nonessential) or
continuous (e.g., percent of time spent, 1–5 rating of importance) terms. Exhibit
4.5 shows examples of the results of these two decisions in terms of commonly
used importance attributes and their measurement.
Once these decisions are made, it is possible to proceed with the actual process
of assessing or weighting the tasks/dimensions in terms of importance. It should
be noted here that if the tasks/dimensions are not explicitly assessed in such a
manner, all tasks/dimensions end up being weighted equally by default.
If possible, it is desirable for the assessments to be done initially by independent
analysts (e.g., incumbents and managers). In this way, it will be possible to check
for the degree of reliability among raters. Where differences are found, they can
be discussed and resolved. Just as it is desirable to have high reliability in the
identification of tasks and dimensions, it is desirable to have high reliability in
judgments of their importance.11

KSAOs
KSAOs are inferred or derived from knowledge of the tasks and task dimensions
themselves. The inference process requires that the analysts explicitly think in
specific cause-and-effect terms. For each task or dimension, the analyst must in
essence ask, “Exactly what KSAOs do I think will be necessary for (will cause)
performance on this task or dimension?” Then the analyst should ask “Why do I
think this?” in order to think through the soundness of the inferential logic. Dis-
cussions among analysts about these questions are encouraged.
When asking and answering these questions, it is useful to keep in mind what
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

152 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.5 Examples of Ways to Assess Task/Dimension Importance

A. Relative Time Spent

For each task/dimension, rate the amount of time you spend on it, relative
to all other tasks/dimensions of your job.
1 2 3 4 5
Very small Average Very large
amount amount amount

B. Percentage (%) Time Spent

For each task/dimension, indicate the percentage (%) of time you spend on
it (percentages must total to 100%).
Dimension % Time spent

C. Importance to Overall Performance

For each task/dimension, rate its importance to your overall job
performance.
1 2 3 4 5
Minor Average Major
importance importance importance

D. Need for New Employee Training

Do new employees receive a standard, planned course of training for
performance of this task, other than a customary job orientation?
Yes
No

is meant by the terms “knowledge,” “skill,” “ability,” and “other characteristics.”

It is also very helpful to refer to research results that help us better understand the
nature and complexity of these concepts. As described below, these results have
been synthesized to create the Occupational Information Network or O*NET (see
www.onetcenter.org).

Knowledge. Knowledge is a body of information (conceptual, factual, proce-

dural) that can be applied directly to the performance of tasks. It tends to be quite
focused or specific in terms of job, organization, or occupation. Assistance to the
analyst in identifying and writing statements of knowledge requirements is avail-
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 153

able from the O*NET. It provides definitions of 33 knowledges that might gen-
erally be necessary, in varying levels, in occupations. Exhibit 4.6 provides a listing
of those knowledges. Definitions of the knowledges are also provided by O*NET,
in print and online. For example, “sales and marketing” knowledge is defined as
“knowledge of principles and methods involved in showing, promoting, and sell-
ing products or services; this includes marketing strategies and tactics, product
demonstration and sales techniques, and sales control systems.”12 Use of O*NET
knowledges and their definitions is a helpful starting point in preparing knowledge
statements. As the knowledges are intended for general occupations, they will

EXHIBIT 4.6 Knowledges Contained in O*NET

Knowledge Areas
• Business and management • Health services
Administration and management Medicine and dentistry
Clerical Therapy and counseling
Economics and accounting • Education and training
Sales and marketing Education and training
Customer and personal service • Arts and humanities
Personnel and human resources English language
• Manufacturing and production Foreign language
Production and processing Fine arts
Food production History and archaeology
• Engineering and technology Philosophy and theology
Computers and electronics • Law and public safety
Engineering and technology Public safety and security
Design Law, government, and jurisprudence
Building and construction • Communications
Mechanical Telecommunications
• Mathematics and science Communications and media
Mathematics • Transportation
Physics Transportation
Chemistry
Biology
Psychology
Sociology and anthropology
Geography

Source: Adapted from N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A.

Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin, O*NET Final Technical Report, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Utah Department
of Workforce Services, 1997), pp. 4-1 to 4-26.
Utah Department of Workforce Services on behalf of
U.S. Department of Labor.
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

154 PART TWO Support Activities

probably have to be supplemented with more job-specific statements crafted by

the job analyst. When doing so, analysts should be particularly wary of using
global or shorthand terms such as “knowledge of accounting principles.” Here, it
would be better to indicate which accounting principles are being utilized, and
why each is necessary for task performance.

Skill. Skill refers to an observable competence for working with or applying

knowledge to perform a particular task or closely related set of tasks. A skill is
not an enduring characteristic of the person; it depends on experience and practice.
Skill requirements are directly inferred from observation or knowledge of tasks
performed.
Considerable research has been devoted to identifying particular job-related
skills and to organizing them into taxonomies. Job analysts should begin the skills
inference process by referring to the results of this research.
An excellent example of such useful research is found in the O*NET.13 O*NET
identifies and defines 46 skills applicable across the occupational spectrum. The
first 10 of these are basic skills involving acquiring and conveying information;
the remaining 36 are cross-functional skills used to facilitate task performance.
Exhibit 4.7 provides a listing of all these skills. Definitions are also provided by
O*NET, in print and online. For example, the basic skill “reading comprehension”
is defined as “understanding written sentences and paragraphs in work-related
documents”; the cross-functional skill “negotiation” is defined as “bringing others
together and trying to reconcile differences.” Reference to these 46 skills is a good
starting point for the job analyst. More specific skills may need to be identified
and described for the particular job being analyzed. An excellent example in this
regard is computer-related skills such as use of spreadsheets and databases, use
of software such as MS Word, and various type of programming.

Ability. An ability is an underlying, enduring trait of the person useful for

performing a range of different tasks. It differs from a skill in that it is less likely
to change over time and is applicable across a wide set of tasks encountered on
many different jobs. Four general categories of abilities are commonly recognized:
cognitive, psychomotor, physical, and sensory abilities. O*NET contains a com-
plete taxonomy of these four categories; they are shown in Exhibit 4.8. Definitions
(not shown) accompany the abilities in print and online. The ability “oral expres-
sion,” for example, is defined as “the ability to communicate information and ideas
in speaking so others will understand.” As another example, “dynamic flexibility”
is “the ability to quickly and repeatedly bend, stretch, twist, or reach out with the
body, arms and/or legs.”14

Other Characteristics. This is a catchall category for factors that do not fit

neatly into the K, S, and A categories. Despite the catchall nature of these re-
quirements, they are very important for even being able to enter the employment
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 155

EXHIBIT 4.7 Skills Contained in O*NET

Basic Skills
• Content • Process
Reading comprehension Critical thinking
Active listening Active learning
Writing Learning strategies
Speaking Monitoring
Mathematics
Science
Cross-Functional Skills
• Social skills • Technical skills
Social perceptiveness Operations analysis
Coordination Technology design
Persuasion Equipment selection
Negotiation Installation
Instructing Programming
Service orientation Equipment maintenance
• Complex problem-solving skills Troubleshooting
Problem identification Repairing
Information gathering Testing
Information organization Operation monitoring
Synthesis/reorganization Operation and control
Idea generation Product inspection
Idea evaluation • Systems skills
Implementation planning Visioning
Solution appraisal Systems perception
• Resource management skills Identification of downstream
Time management consequences
Management of financial resources Identification of key causes
Management of material resources Judgment and decision making
Management of personnel resources Systems evaluation

Source: Adapted from N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman,

and K. Y. Levin, O*NET Final Technical Report, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Workforce
Services, 1997), pp. 3-1 to 3-36.
Utah Department of Workforce Services on behalf of U.S.
Department of Labor.
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

156 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.8 Abilities Contained in O*NET

Cognitive Abilities
• Verbal abilities • Reaction time and speed abilities
Oral comprehension Reaction time
Written comprehension Wrist-finger dexterity
Oral expression Speed of limb movement
Written expression Physical Abilities
• Idea generation and reasoning abilities • Physical strength abilities
Fluency of ideas Static strength
Originality Explosive strength
Problem sensitivity Dynamic strength
Deductive reasoning Trunk strength
Inductive reasoning • Endurance
Information ordering Stamina
Category flexibility
• Flexibility, balance, and coordination
• Quantitative abilities Extent flexibility
Mathematical reasoning Dynamic flexibility
Number facility Gross body coordination
• Memory Gross body equilibrium
Memorization
Sensory Abilities
• Perceptual abilities • Visual abilities
Speed of closure Near vision
Flexibility of closure Far vision
Perceptual speed Visual color discrimination
• Spatial abilities Night vision
Spatial organization Peripheral vision
Visualization Depth perception
• Attentiveness Glare sensitivity
Selective attention • Auditory and speech abilities
Time sharing Hearing sensitivity
Psychomotor Abilities Auditory attention
• Fine manipulative abilities Sound localization
Arm-hand steadiness Speech recognition
Manual dexterity Speech clarity
Finger dexterity
• Control movement abilities
Control precision
Multilimb coordination
Response orientation
Rate control

Source: Adapted from N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A.

Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin, O*NET Final Technical Report, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Utah Department
of Workforce Services, 1997), pp. 9-1 to 9-26.
Utah Department of Workforce Services on behalf of
U.S. Department of Labor.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 157

relationship (legal requirements), being present to perform the job (availability

requirements), and having values consistent with organizational culture and values
(character requirements). Numerous examples of these factors are shown in Ex-
hibit 4.9. Care should be taken to ensure that these factors truly are job require-
ments, as opposed to whimsical and ill-defined preferences of the organization.

KSAO Importance
As suggested in the job requirements matrix, the KSAOs of a job may differ in
their weight or contribution to task performance. Hence, their relative importance
must be explicitly considered, defined, and indicated. Failure to do so means that
all KSAOs will be assumed to be of equal importance by default.
As with task importance, deriving KSAO importance requires two decisions.
First, what will be the specific attribute(s) on which importance is judged? Second,
will the measurement of each attribute be categorical (e.g., required-preferred) or
continuous (e.g., 1–5 rating scale)? Examples of formats for indicating KSAO
importance are shown in Exhibit 4.10. The O*NET uses a 1–5 rating scale format
and also provides actual importance ratings for many jobs.

EXHIBIT 4.9 Examples of Other Job Requirements

Legal Requirements
Possession of license (occupational, drivers, etc.)
Citizen or legal alien?
Geographic residency (e.g., within city limits for public employees)
Security clearance
Availability Requirements
Starting date
Worksite locations
Hours and days of week
Travel
Attendance and tardiness
Character Requirements
Moral
Work ethic
Background
Conscientiousness
Honesty and integrity
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

158 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.10 Examples of Ways to Assess KSAO Importance

A. Importance to (acceptable) (superior) task performance

1 ⫽ minimal importance
2 ⫽ some importance
3 ⫽ average importance
4 ⫽ considerable importance
5 ⫽ extensive importance

B. Should the KSAO be assessed during recruitment/selection?

Yes
No

C. Is the KSAO required, preferred, or not required for recruitment/selection?

Required
Preferred
Not required (obtain on job and/or in training)

Job Context
As shown in the job requirements matrix, tasks and KSAOs occur within a broader
job context. A job requirements job analysis should include consideration of the
job context and the factors that are important in defining it. Such consideration is
necessary because these factors may have an influence on tasks and KSAOs; fur-
ther, information about the factors may be used in the recruitment and selection
of job applicants. For example, the information may be given to job applicants to
provide them a realistic job preview during recruitment, and consideration of job
context factors may be helpful in assessing likely person/organization fit during
selection.
O*NET contains a wide array of job and work context factors useful for char-
acterizing occupations.15 The most relevant for specific job analysis purposes are
the physical work conditions: setting, attire, body positioning, environmental con-
ditions, and job hazards. Within each of these categories are numerous specific
facets; these are shown in Exhibit 4.11. The job analyst should use a listing such
as this to identify the relevant job context factors and include them in the job
requirements matrix.
The O*NET also contains work context factors pertaining to interpersonal re-
lationships (communication, types of role relationships, responsibility for others,
and conflictual contact with others) and to structural job characteristics (criticality
of position, routine versus challenging work, pace and scheduling). These factors
might also be considered in the job analysis.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 159

EXHIBIT 4.11 Job Context (Physical Work Conditions) Contained in O*NET

Work Setting Environmental Conditions

• How frequently does this job require • How often during a usual work period
the worker to work: is the worker exposed to the following
Indoors, environmentally controlled conditions:
Indoors, not environmentally Sounds and noise levels that are
controlled distracting and uncomfortable
Outdoors, exposed to all weather Very hot or very cold temperatures
conditions Extremely bright or inadequate
Outdoors, under cover lighting conditions
In an open vehicle or operating open Contaminants
equipment Cramped work space that requires
In an enclosed vehicle or operating getting into awkward positions
enclosed equipment Whole body vibration
• Privacy of work area
• Physical proximity
Work Attire Job Hazards
• How often does the worker wear: • How often does this job require the
Business clothes worker to be exposed to the following
A special uniform hazards:
Work clothing Radiation
Common protective or safety attire Diseases/infections
Specialized protective or safety attire High places
Body Positioning Hazardous conditions
• How much time in a usual work period Hazardous equipment
does the worker spend: Hazardous situation involving likely
Sitting cuts, bites, stings, or minor burns
Standing
Climbing ladders, scaffolds, poles,
and so on
Walking or running
Kneeling, stooping, crouching, or
crawling
Keeping or regaining balance
Using hands to handle, control, or
feel objects, tools, or controls
Bending or twisting the body
Making repetitive motions

Source: Adapted from N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A.

Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin, O*NET Final Technical Report, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Utah Department
of Workforce Services, 1997), pp. 7-1 to 7-35.
Utah Department of Workforce Services on behalf of
U.S. Department of Labor.
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

160 PART TWO Support Activities

Job Descriptions and Job Specifications

As previously noted, it is common practice to express the results of job require-
ments job analysis in written job descriptions and job specifications. Referring
back to the job requirements matrix, note that its sections pertaining to tasks and
job context are similar to a job description, and the section dealing with KSAOs
is similar to a job specification.
There are no standard formats or other requirements for either job descriptions
or job specifications. In terms of content, however, a job description should usually
include the following: job family, job title, job summary, task statements and
dimensions, importance indicators, job context indicators, and date job analysis
conducted. A job specification should usually include job family, job title, job
summary, KSAOs (separate section for each), importance indicators, and date
conducted. An example of a combined job description/specification is shown in
Exhibit 4.12.

Collecting Job Requirements Information

Job analysis involves not only consideration of the types of information (tasks,
KSAOs, and job context) to be collected but also the methods, sources, and pro-
cesses to be used for such collection. These issues are discussed next, and as will
be seen, there are many alternatives to choose from for purposes of developing
an overall job analysis system for any particular situation. Potential inaccuracies
and other limitations in the alternatives will also be pointed out.16

Methods
Job analysis methods represent procedures or techniques for collecting job infor-
mation. There have been many specific techniques and systems developed and
named (e.g., Functional Job Analysis, Position Analysis Questionnaire). Rather
than discuss each of the many techniques separately, we will concentrate on the
major generic methods that underlie all specific techniques and applications. There
are many excellent descriptions and discussions of the specific techniques avail-
able.17

Prior Information. For any job, there is usually some prior information avail-
able about it that could and should be consulted. Indeed, this information should
routinely be searched for and used as a starting point for a job analysis.
There are many possible organizational sources of job information available,
including current job descriptions and specifications, job-specific policies and pro-
cedures, training manuals, and performance appraisals. Externally, job information
may be available from other employers, as well as trade and professional associ-
ations. Both the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) (www.
shrm.org) and the International Public Management Association for Human
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 161

EXHIBIT 4.12 Example of Combined Job Description/Specification

FUNCTIONAL UNIT: CHILDREN’S REHABILITATION

JOB TITLE: REHABILITATION SPECIALIST
DATE: 12/5/04
JOB SUMMARY
Works with disabled small children and their families to identify
developmental strengths and weaknesses, develop rehabilitation plans,
deliver and coordinate rehabilitation activities, and evaluate effectiveness of
those plans and activities.
PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS AND TASKS Time Spent (%)
1. Assessment 10%
Administer formal and informal motor screening and evaluation
instruments to conduct assessments. Perform assessments to identify
areas of strengths and need.
2. Planning 25%
Collaborate with parents and other providers to directly develop the
individualized family service plan. Use direct and consultative models
of service in developing plans.
3. Delivery 50%
Carry out individual and small group motor development activities with
children and families. Provide service coordination to designated
families. Work with family care and child care providers to provide
total services. Collaborate with other staff members and professionals
from community agencies to obtain resources and specialized
assistance.
4. Evaluation 15%
Observe, interpret, and report on client to monitor individual progress.
Assist in collecting and reporting intervention data in order to prepare
formal program evaluation reports. Write evaluation reports to assist in
developing new treatment strategies and programs.
JOB SPECIFICATIONS
1. License: License to practice physical therapy in the state
2. Education: B.S. in physical or occupational therapy required; M.S.
preferred
3. Experience: Prefer (not required) one year experience working with
children with disabilities and their families
4. Skills: Listening to and interacting with others (children, family
members, coworkers)
Developing treatment plans
Organizing and writing reports using Microsoft Word

JOB CONTEXT: indoors, office, business clothes, no environmental or job hazards.

 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

162 PART TWO Support Activities

Resources (IPMA-HR) (www.ipma-hr.org) provide sample job descriptions online.

Also, job information is available commercially on the Web (e.g., www.job
description.com).
Finally there is O*NET (www.onetcenter.org). O*NET contains extensive, re-
search-based taxonomies in several categories: occupational tasks, knowledges,
skills, abilities, education and experience/training, work context, organizational
context, occupational interests and values, and work styles.18 Additionally, O*NET
contains ratings of the specific factors within each category for many occupations;
ratings for additional occupations are constantly being added. For example, oc-
cupational and importance ratings of the specific knowledges, skills, and abilities
shown in Exhibits 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 are provided. The job analyst could use these
ratings as benchmarks against which to compare specific importance ratings the
analyst determined for a specific job. For example, if the analyst was developing
importance ratings for these knowledges, skills, and abilities for the job of registered
nurse in a particular hospital, the compiled ratings could be compared to the ratings
in O*NET for the same occupation. Reasonable similarity between the two sets of
ratings would serve as a source of confirmation of the analyst’s accuracy.
The ready availability of prior job information needs to be balanced with some
possible limitations. First, there is the general issue of completeness. Usually, prior
information will be deficient in some important areas of job requirements, as in
evolving or nontraditional types of jobs. Sole reliance on prior information thus
should be avoided. A second limitation is that there will be little indication of
exactly how the information was collected and, relatedly, how accurate it is. These
limitations suggest that while prior information should be the starting point for
job analysis, it should not be the stopping point.

Observation. Simply observing job incumbents performing the job is obvi-

ously an excellent way to learn about tasks, KSAOs, and context. It provides a
thoroughness and richness of information unmatched by any other method. It is
also the most direct form of gathering information because it does not rely on
intermediary information sources, as would be the case with other methods (e.g.,
interviewing job incumbents and supervisors).
The following potential limitations to observation should be kept in mind.
First, it is most appropriate for jobs with physical (as opposed to mental) com-
ponents and ones with relatively short job cycles (i.e., amount of time required
to complete job tasks before repeating them). Second, the method may involve
substantial time and cost. Third, the ability of the observer to do a thorough and
accurate analysis is open to question; it may be necessary to train observers prior
to the job analysis. Fourth, the method will require coordination with, and ap-
proval from, many people (e.g., supervisors and incumbents). Finally, the incum-
bents being observed may distort their behavior during observation in self-serv-
ing ways, such as making tasks appear more difficult or time consuming than
they really are.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 163

Interviews. Interviewing job incumbents and others, such as their managers,

has many potential advantages. It respects the interviewee’s vast source of infor-
mation about the job. The interview format also allows the interviewer to explain
the purpose of the job analysis, how the results will be used, and so forth, thus
enhancing likely acceptance of the process by the interviewees. It can be structured
in format to ensure standardization of collected information.
As with any job analysis method, the interview is not without potential limi-
tations. It is time consuming and costly, and this may cause the organization to
skimp on it in ways that jeopardize the reliability and content validity of the
information gathered. The interview, not providing anonymity, may lead to sus-
picion and distrust on the part of interviewees. The quality of the information
obtained, as well as interviewee acceptance, depends on the skill of the interviewer.
Careful selection, and possible training, of interviewers should definitely be con-
sidered when the interview is the method chosen for collecting job information.
Finally, the success of the interview also depends on the skill and abilities of the
interviewee, such as verbal communication skills and ability to recall tasks per-
formed.

Task Questionnaire. A typical task questionnaire contains a lengthy list of task

statements that cut across many different job titles and is administered to incum-
bents (all or samples of them) in these job titles. For each task statement, the
respondent is asked to indicate (1) whether or not the task applies to the respon-
dent’s job (respondents should always be given a DNA—does not apply—op-
tion), and (2) task importance (e.g., a 1–5 scale rating difficulty or time spent).
The advantages of task questionnaires are numerous. They are standardized in
content and format, thus yielding a standardized method of information gathering.
They can obtain considerable information from large numbers of people. They are
economical to administer and score, and the availability of scores creates the
opportunity for subsequent statistical analysis. Finally, task questionnaires are (and
should be) completed anonymously, thus enhancing respondent participation, hon-
esty, and acceptance.
A task questionnaire is potentially limited in certain ways. The most important
limitation pertains to task statement content. Care must be taken to ensure that the
questionnaire contains task statements of sufficient content relevance, represen-
tativeness, and specificity. This suggests that if a tailor-made questionnaire is to
be used, considerable time and resources must be devoted to its development to
ensure accurate inclusion of task statements. If a preexisting questionnaire (e.g.,
the Position Analysis Questionnaire) is considered, its task statement content
should be assessed relative to the task content of the jobs to be analyzed prior to
any decision to use the questionnaire.
A second limitation of task questionnaires pertains to potential respondent re-
actions. Respondents may react negatively if they feel the questionnaire does not
contain task statements covering important aspects of their jobs. Respondents may
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

164 PART TWO Support Activities

also find completion of the questionnaire to be tedious and boring; this may cause
them to commit rating errors. Interpretation and understanding of the task state-
ments may be problematic for some respondents who have reading and compre-
hension skill deficiencies.
Finally, it should be remembered that a typical task questionnaire focuses on
tasks. Other job requirement components, particularly KSAOs and those related
to job context, may be ignored or downplayed if the task questionnaire is relied
on as the method of job information collection.

Committee or Task Force. Job analysis is often guided by an ad hoc committee

or task force. Members of the committee or task force will typically include job
experts—both managers and employees—as well as a representative from the
Human Resources staff. These members may conduct a number of activities, in-
cluding (1) reviewing existing information and gathering sample job descriptions,
(2) interviewing job incumbents and managers, (3) overseeing the administration
of job analysis surveys and analyzing the results, (4) writing task statements,
grouping them into task dimensions, and rating the importance of the task dimen-
sions, and (5) identifying KSAOs and rating their importance. Use of a committee
or task force brings considerable job analysis expertise to the process, facilitates
reliability of judgment through conversation and consensus building, and enhances
acceptance of the final results.

Combined Methods. Only in rare instances does a job analysis involve use of
only a single method. Much more likely is a hybrid, eclectic approach using mul-
tiple methods. This makes job analysis a more complicated process to design and
administer than implied by a description of each of the methods alone.

Criteria for Choice of Methods. Some explicit choices regarding methods of

job analysis need to be made. One set of choices involves decisions to use or not
use a particular method of information collection. An organization must decide,
for example, whether to use an “off-the-shelf ” method or its own particular method
that is suited to its own needs and circumstances. A second set of choices involves
how to blend together a set of methods that will all be used, in varying ways and
degrees, in the actual job analysis. Some criteria for guidance in such decisions
are shown in Exhibit 4.13.

Sources to Be Used
Choosing sources of information involves considering who will be used to provide
the information sought. While this matter is not entirely independent of job anal-
ysis methods (e.g., use of a task questionnaire normally requires use of job in-
cumbents as the source), it is treated as such in the sections that follow.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 165

EXHIBIT 4.13 Criteria for Guiding Choice of Job Analysis Methods

1. Degree of suitability/versatility for use across different types of jobs

2. Degree of standardization in the process and in the reporting of results
3. Acceptability of process and results to those who will serve as sources and/or users
4. Degree to which method is operational and may be used “off the shelf” without
modification, as opposed to method requiring tailor-made development and
application
5. Amount of training required for sources and users of job information
6. Costs of the job analysis, in terms of both direct administrative costs and opportunity
costs of time involvement by people
7. Quality of resultant information in terms of reliability and content validity
8. Usability of results in recruitment, selection, and employment activities

Source: Adapted from E. L. Levine, R. A. Ash, H. Hall, and F. Sistrunk, “Evaluation of Job Analysis
Methods by Experienced Job Analysts,” Academy of Management Journal, 1983, 26, pp. 339–348.

Job Analyst. A job analyst is someone who, by virtue of job title and training,
is available and suited to conduct job analyses and to guide the job analysis pro-
cess. The job analyst is also “out of the loop,” being neither manager nor incum-
bent of the jobs analyzed. As such, the job analyst brings a combination of ex-
pertise and neutrality to the work.
Despite such advantages and appeals, reliance on a job analyst as the job in-
formation source is not without potential limitations. First, the analyst may be
perceived as an outsider by incumbents and supervisors, a perception that may
result in questioning the analyst’s job knowledge and expertise, as well as trust-
worthiness. Second, the job analyst may, in fact, lack detailed knowledge of the
jobs to be analyzed, especially in an organization with many different job titles.
Lack of knowledge may cause the analyst to bring inaccurate job stereotypes to
the analysis process. Finally, having specially designated job analysts (either em-
ployees or outside consultants) tends to be expensive.

Job Incumbents Job incumbents seem like a natural source of information to

be used in job analysis, and indeed they are relied on in most job analysis systems.
The major advantage to working with incumbents is their familiarity with tasks,
KSAOs, and job context. In addition, job incumbents may become more accepting
of the job analysis process and its results through their participation in it.
Some skepticism should be maintained about job incumbents as a source of
workplace data, as is true for any source. They may lack the knowledge or insights
necessary to provide inclusive information, especially if they are probationary or
part-time employees. Some employees may also have difficulty in describing the
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

166 PART TWO Support Activities

tasks involved in their job or in being able to infer and articulate the underlying
KSAOs necessary for the job. Another potential limitation of job incumbents as
an information source pertains to their motivation to be a willing and accurate
source. Feelings of distrust and suspicion may greatly hamper employees’ will-
ingness to function capably as sources. For example, incumbents may intentionally
fail to report certain tasks as part of their job so that those tasks are not incorporated
into the formal job description. Or, incumbents may deliberately inflate the im-
portance ratings of tasks in order to make the job appear more difficult than it
actually is.

Supervisors. Supervisors could and should be considered excellent sources for

use in job analysis. They not only supervise employees performing the job to be
analyzed but also have played a major role in defining it and later in adding/
deleting job tasks (as in evolving and flexible jobs). Moreover, supervisors ulti-
mately have to accept the resulting descriptions and specifications for jobs they
supervise; inclusion of them as a source seems a way to ensure such acceptance.

Subject Matter Experts. Often, the sources previously mentioned are called
subject matter experts or SMEs. Individuals other than those mentioned may also
be used as SMEs. These people bring particular expertise to the job analysis pro-
cess, an expertise thought not to be available through standard sources. Though
the exact qualifications for being designated an SME are far from clear, examples
of sources so designated are available. These include previous jobholders (e.g.,
recently promoted employees), private consultants, customer/clients, and citizens-
at-large for some public sector jobs, such as superintendent of schools for a school
district. Whatever the sources of SMEs, a common requirement for them is that
they have recent, firsthand knowledge of the job being analyzed.19

Combined Sources. Combinations of sources, like combinations of methods,

are most likely to be used in a typical job analysis. This is not only likely but also
desirable. As noted previously, each source has some potentially unique insight
to contribute to job analysis, as well as some limitations. Through a pooling of
such sources and the information they provide, an accurate and acceptable job
analysis is most likely to result.

Job Analysis Process

Collecting job information through job analysis requires development and use of
an overall process for doing so. Unfortunately, there is no set or best process to
be followed; the process has to be tailor made to suit the specifics of the situation
in which it occurs. There are, however, many key issues to be dealt with in the
construction and operation of the process.20 Each of these is briefly commented
on next.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 167

Purpose. The purpose(s) of job analysis should be clearly identified and agreed
on. Since job analysis is a process designed to yield job information, the organi-
zation should ask exactly what job information is desired and why. Here, it is
useful to refer back to the job requirements matrix to review the types of infor-
mation that can be sought and obtained in a job requirements job analysis. Man-
agement must decide exactly what types of information are desired (task state-
ments, task dimensions, and so forth) and in what format. Once the desired output
and results of job analysis have been determined, the organization can then plan
a process that will yield the desired results.

Scope. The issue of scope involves which job(s) to include in the job analysis.
Decisions about actual scope should be based on consideration of (1) the impor-
tance of the job to the functioning of the organization, (2) the number of job
applicants and incumbents, (3) whether the job is entry level and thus subject to
constant staffing activity, (4) the frequency with which job requirements (both
tasks and KSAOs) change, and (5) the amount of time lapsed since the previous
job analysis.

Internal Staff or Consultant. The organization may conduct the job analysis
using its own staff, or it may procure external consultants. This is a difficult
decision to make because it involves not only the obvious consideration of cost
but also many other considerations. Exhibit 4.14 highlights some of these concerns
and the trade-offs involved.

Organization and Coordination. Any job analysis project, whether conducted

by internal staff or external consultants, requires careful organization and coor-
dination. There are two key steps to take to help ensure that this is achieved. First,
an organizational member should be appointed to function as a project manager
for the total process (if consultants are used, they should report to this project
manager). The project manager should be assigned overall responsibility for the
total project, including its organization and control. Second, the roles and rela-
tionships for the various people involved in the project—HR staff, project staff,
line managers, and job incumbents—must be clearly established.

Communication. Clear and open communication with all concerned facilitates

the job analysis process. Job analysis will be thought of by some employees as
analogous to an invasive, exploratory surgical procedure, which, in turn, naturally
raises questions in their minds about its purpose, process, and results. These ques-
tions and concerns need to be anticipated and addressed forthrightly.

Work Flow and Time Frame. Job analysis involves a mixture of people and
paper in a process in which they can become entangled very quickly. The project
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

168 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.14 Factors to Consider in Choosing Between Internal Staff or Consultants

for Job Analysis

Internal Staff Consultant

Cost of technical or procedural failure Cost of technical or procedural failure
is low is high
Project scope is limited Project scope is comprehensive and/or
large
Need for job data ongoing Need for job data is a one-time, isolated
event
There is a desire to develop internal There is a need for assured availability
staff skills in job analysis of each type and level of job analysis
skill
Strong management controls are in Predictability of project cost can
place to control project costs depend on adhering to work plan
Knowledge of organization’s norms, Technical innovativeness and quality
‘‘culture,’’ and jargon are critical are critical
Technical credibility of internal staff Leverage of external ‘‘expert’’ status is
is high needed to execute project
Process and products of the project are Process and products of the project are
unlikely to be challenged likely to be legally, technically, or
politically scrutinized
Rational or narrative job analysis Commercial or proprietary job analysis
methods are desired methods are desired
Data collected are qualitative Data collection methods are structured,
standardized, and/or quantitative

Source: D. M. Van De Vort and B. V. Stalder, “Organizing for Job Analysis,” in S. Gael (ed.), The Job
Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry and Government. Copyright
1988 by John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

manager should develop and adhere to a work flowchart that shows the sequential
ordering of steps to be followed in the conduct of the job analysis. This should
be accompanied by a time frame showing critical completion dates for project
phases, as well as a final deadline.

Analysis, Synthesis, and Documentation Once collected, job information

must be analyzed and synthesized through use of various procedural and statistical
means. These should be planned in advance and incorporated into the work-flow
and time-frame requirements. Likewise, provisions need to be made for prepara-
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 169

tion of written documents, especially job descriptions and job specifications, and
their incorporation into relevant policy and procedure manuals.

Maintenance of the System. Job analysis does not end with completion of the
project. Rather, mechanisms must be developed and put into place to maintain the
job analysis and information system over time. This is critical because the system
will be exposed to numerous influences requiring response and adaptation. Ex-
amples of these influences include (1) changes in job tasks and KSAOs—addi-
tions, deletions, and modifications; (2) job redesign, restructuring, and realign-
ment; and (3) creation of new jobs. In short, job analysis must be thought of and
administered as an ongoing organizational process.

Example of Job Analysis Process. Because of the many factors involved, there
is no best or required job analysis process. Rather, the process must be designed
to fit each particular situation. Exhibit 4.15 shows an example of the job analysis
process with a narrow scope, namely, for a single job—that of administrative
assistant (secretary). This is a specially conducted job analysis that uses multiple
methods (prior information, observation, interviews) and multiple sources (job
analyst, job incumbents, supervisors). It was conducted by a previous holder of
the job (subject matter expert), and it took the person about 20 hours over a 30-
day period to conduct and prepare a written job description as the output of the
process.

COMPETENCY-BASED JOB ANALYSIS

A recently emerging view of job requirements comes from the concepts of com-
petency and competency models. These concepts are closely akin to KSAOs in
some respects and are a substantial extension of KSAOs in other respects. They
are an innovative and potentially fruitful approach to the identification, definition,
and establishment of job requirements. Discussed below are the nature of com-
petencies and the collection of competency information.

Nature of Competencies
A competency is an underlying characteristic of an individual that contributes to
job or role performance and to organizational success.21 Competencies specific to
a particular job are the familiar KSAO requirements established through job re-
quirements job analysis. Competency requirements may extend beyond job-
specific ones to those of multiple jobs, general job categories, or the entire orga-
nization. These competencies are much more general or generic KSAOs, such as
 170
PART TWO

EXHIBIT 4.15 Example of Job Requirements Job Analysis

Heneman−Judge: Staffing
Organizations, Fifth Edition

1. Meet with manager of the job, → 2. Gather existing job information → 3. Prepare tentative set of task →
discuss project from O*NET, current job statements
description, observation of
incumbents
II. Support Activities

Support Activities

4. Review task statements with → 5. Finalize task statements, get → 6. Formulate task dimensions, assign →
incumbents and managers; add, approval from incumbents and tasks to dimension, determine %
delete, rewrite statements managers time spent (importance) for each
dimension
Rewards

7. Infer necessary KSAOs, develop → 8. Review KSAOs with incumbents → 9. Finalize KSAOs, get approval from →
4. Job Analysis and

tentative list and managers; add, delete, and incumbents and manager
rewrite KSAOs

10. Develop job requirements matrix →11. Provide matrix or job description →12. Use matrix or job description in
and/or job description in usable to parties (e.g., incumbents, staffing activities, such as
format manager, HR department) communicating with recruits and
recruiters, developing the
selection plan
Companies, 2006
© The McGraw−Hill
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 171

“technical expertise” or “adaptability.” A competency model is a combination of

the several competencies deemed necessary for a particular job or role. Usage of
competencies and competency models in staffing reflects a desire to (1) connote
job requirements in ways that extend beyond the specific job itself; (2) describe
and measure the organization’s workforce in more general, competency terms; and
(3) design and implement staffing programs focused around competencies (rather
than just specific jobs) as a way of increasing staffing flexibility in job assignments.
Despite the strong similarities between competencies and KSAOs, there are two
notable differences. First, competencies may be job spanning, meaning that they
contribute to success on multiple jobs. Members of a work team, for example,
may each hold specific jobs within the team, but may be subject to job-spanning
competency requirements, such as adaptability and teamwork orientation. Such
requirements ensure that team members will interact successfully with each other
and even perform portions or all of each others’ jobs if necessary. As another
example, competency requirements may span jobs within the same category, such
as sales jobs or managerial jobs. All sales jobs may have as a competency re-
quirement “product knowledge,” and all managerial jobs may require “planning
and results orientation.” Such requirements allow for greater flexibility in job
placements and job assignments within the category.
Second, competencies can contribute not only to job performance but also to
organizational success. These are very general competencies applicable to, and
required for, all jobs. They serve to align requirements for all jobs with the mission
and goals of the organization. A restaurant, for example, may have “customer
focus” as a competency requirement for all jobs as a way of indicating that ser-
vicing the needs of its customers is a key component of all jobs.

Competency Example
An illustration of the competency approach to job requirements is shown in Exhibit
4.16. The Green Care Corporation produces several lawn maintenance products:
gas and electric lawn mowers, gas and electric “weed whackers,” manual lawn
edgers, and electric hedge trimmers. The company is in a highly competitive
industry. To survive and grow, the company’s core mission is product innovation
and product reliability; its goals are to achieve annual 10% growth in revenues
and 2% growth in market share. To help fulfill its mission and goals the com-
pany has established four general (strategic) workforce competencies—creativity/
innovation, technical expertise, customer focus, and results orientation. These re-
quirements are part of every job in the company. At the business unit (gas lawn
mowers) level, the company has also established job-specific and job-spanning
requirements. Some jobs, such as design engineer, are traditional or slowly evolv-
ing jobs and as such have only job-specific KSAO or competency requirements.
Because the products are assembled via team assembly processes, jobs within the
assembly team (such as engine assembler, final assembler) have both job-specific
and job-spanning competency requirements. The job-spanning competencies—
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

172 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.16 Examples of Competencies

Company: Green Care Corporation

Products: Gas and electric lawn mowers, gas and electric weed whackers, manual lawn
edgers, electric hedge trimmers
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 173

team orientation, adaptability, communication— are general and behavioral. They

are necessary because of task interdependence between engine and final assembly
jobs and because employees may be shifted between the two jobs in order to cover
sudden employee shortages due to unscheduled absences and to maintain smooth
production flows. Each job in the business unit thus has four general competency
requirements, multiple job-specific competency requirements, and, where appro-
priate, job-spanning competency requirements.

Organization Usage
Organizations are beginning to experiment with the development of competencies
and competency models and to use them as the underpinnings of several HR
applications.22 Research indicates that the experimentation is occurring in orga-
nizations of all sizes, but especially in large ones. The three key strategic HR
reasons for doing competency modeling are to (1) create awareness and under-
standing of the need for change in business, (2) enhance the skill levels in the
workforce, and (3) improve teamwork and coordination. Most of the emphasis has
been on establishing general competencies such as:23
• Customer focus
• Communication
• Team orientation
• Technical expertise
• Results orientation
• Adaptability
• Innovation
Competency models are being used for many HR applications, especially staff-
ing, career development, performance management, and compensation. Pertaining
to staffing, one important application is in HR and staffing planning. Here, work-
force requirements are specified in competency terms and compared to current
workforce competency levels to identify competency gaps. Such comparisons may
be particularly appropriate in replacement and succession planning. Another im-
portant staffing application is in external and internal selection, where applicants
are assessed not only for job-specific competencies but also for general compe-
tencies. For external hiring, competency-based interviews with applicants are con-
ducted to gauge general competencies as a key factor in selection decisions and
then in job placement decisions for those hired. For promotion decisions, com-
petency-based interviews are used in conjunction with supervisory assessments of
promotability.24
Despite their many potential applications to various staffing activities, adoption
of competency models should be undertaken cautiously, since research has iden-
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

174 PART TWO Support Activities

tified many potential barriers to success in their usage. Prominent among these
barriers are (1) a lack of buy-in from top management, who may be unwilling to
apply the competency model to themselves or see its usefulness, (2) the readiness
of employees generally to accept the competency model and learn the new com-
petency behaviors required by the model, (3) conflicts as to whether there should
be separate models for separate units of the organization and the relative emphases
to be placed on general, job-spanning and job-specific competencies, and (4) the
time and resources needed to implement the competency model, train employees
in its usage, and maintain and update the model.25

Collecting Competency Information

Techniques and processes for collecting competency information are still in their
infancy.26 An exception, of course, is job requirements job analysis for job-
specific competencies. For more general competencies, much less is known about
the best ways to identify and define competencies. General competencies at the
organization (strategic) level are likely to be established by top management,
with guidance from strategic HR managers. At a minimum, effective establish-
ment of general competency requirements would seem to demand the following.
First, it is crucial that the organization establish its mission and goals prior to
determination of competency requirements; this will help ensure that general
competencies are derived from knowledge of mission and goals, much as job-
specific competencies are derived from previously identified job tasks. Second,
the general competencies should be truly important at all job levels, so that usage
of the competencies as job requirements will focus and align all jobs with the
organization’s mission and goals. This principle also holds in the case where,
instead of general competency requirements at the organization level, there are
general competency requirements at the strategic business unit or subunit level.
Third, all general competencies should have specific, behavioral definitions, not
just labels. These definitions provide substance, meaning, and guidance to all
concerned.
For job-spanning competencies, these definitions will necessarily be more task
specific. To ensure effective identification and definition, several tasks should be
undertaken. First, it is crucial to know the major tasks for which the competencies
are to be established, meaning that some form of job analysis should occur first.
For now, that process will have to be crafted by the organization, since we lack
prototypes or best practice examples as guidance. Second, SMEs familiar with all
the jobs or roles to which the competencies will apply should be part of the process.
Third, careful definition of the competencies will be necessary. Acquiring defi-
nitions from other organizations, consultants, or O*NET will be useful steps here.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 175

A final cautionary note is that the collection and usage of competencies beyond
job-specific ones will occur in uncharted legal waters. Recalling the legal standard
of job-relatedness for staffing practices that cause adverse impact, will staffing
practices and decisions based on general competencies be construed as job related?
Will it be a defensible argument to say that although a particular competency
requirement may not have a strong contribution to job success, it is necessary for
organizational success? Such questions will inevitably arise; to be able to address
them, the organization should conduct a thorough process for establishing com-
petency requirements using the suggestions above as a starting point.

JOB REWARDS
In the person/job match model jobs are comprised of requirements and rewards.
The focus so far in this chapter has been on job requirements vis-a-vis the dis-
cussion of job analysis. Attention now turns to job rewards. Providing and using
rewards is a key staffing strategy for motivating several HR outcomes—applicant
attraction, employee performance, and employee retention in particular. Success-
fully matching rewards provided with rewards desired will be critical in attaining
the HR outcomes. Doing so first of all requires specification of the types of rewards
potentially available and desired.

Types of Rewards
Organizations and jobs provide a wide variety of rewards. It is common to classify
each reward as either extrinsic or intrinsic in nature. Extrinsic rewards are tangible
factors external to the job itself that are explicitly designed and granted to em-
ployees by representatives of the organization. Intrinsic rewards are the “intan-
gibles” that are more internal to the job itself and experienced by the employee
as an outgrowth of actually doing the job and being a member of the organization.27
Exhibit 4.17 contains a listing of major types of extrinsic rewards. They fall
into the major categories of direct pay (base and variable), indirect pay (benefits),
hours of work, career advancement, and job security. Within each of these cate-
gories numerous examples are provided. The examples are by no means exhaustive
of the total array of extrinsic rewards organizations have at their disposal. The
sheer number of external rewards that might be provided means that the organi-
zation must be very careful in the choice of rewards that will actually be granted
to employees.
Exhibit 4.18 displays a listing of the major intrinsic rewards associated with
the job. The experiential nature of the rewards is evident, meaning that the orga-
nization cannot simply give them to the employee. Rather, the nature of the em-
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

EXHIBIT 4.17 Extrinsic Rewards

Reward Explanation
Direct Compensation— Base Pay
Starting Beginning wage or salary
Range Minimum and maximum pay for job
Raises Increases in base pay
Direct Compensation— Variable
Pay
Short-term incentives Usually one-time cash bonus for performance to
(one year or less) individual, team, or operating unit
Long-term incentives Usually stock options, restricted stock plan, or
(more than one year) performance plan tied to long term performance
growth or targets
Indirect Compensation—Benefits
Health insurance Employer-sponsored health care insurance
Retirement Defined benefit, defined contribution, or cash balance
plan for retirement pay
Work life Examples include childcare, parenting programs,
lactation rooms, concierge services, financial
services, employee assistance programs, home
computer
Perks Examples include cell phones, recreation facilities,
subsidized cafeteria, free snacks, hair and manicure
salon, car wash, student loan payoffs
Other Examples include vacation, paid holidays, sick pay, life
and disability insurance
Hours of Work
Full or part time Typical number of hours per week; more than 40
usually considered full time
Shift Day, swing, or night work hours; premium pay above
base pay for swing or night shift
Flextime Nonstandard starting and ending daily times
Overtime Hours beyond normal; voluntary or mandatory;
premium pay above base pay
Career Advancement
Training and development Opportunities for KSAO and competency
improvement, mentoring
Job changes Opportunities for promotion and transfer
Location changes Opportunities or requirements for relocation
Job Security
Job security enhancements Fixed-term contracts
Performance management
Progressive discipline
Termination process Procedures for terminating an employee
Severance package Pay, benefits, and assistance provided to a terminated
employee
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 177

EXHIBIT 4.18 Intrinsic Rewards

Reward Explanation
Skill variety Use of complex skills to perform different tasks
Task identity Complete a whole piece of work, rather than just a part of it
Task significance Results of your work affect lives of others
Autonomy Freedom to decide how to do your job
Feedback from job Job itself gives you information about how well you are
performing your job
Feedback from agents Manager or coworkers give you information about how
well you are performing your job
Dealing with others Job requires you to work closely with others, such as
coworkers or clients
Management relations Communication from management; trust in management
Note: Based in part on the Job Diagnostic Survey.

ployee’s job, and the relationship and communication with coworkers and man-
agement, create satisfying or dissatisfying experiences for the employee.

Employee Value Proposition

The totality of rewards, both extrinsic and intrinsic, associated with the job con-
stitute the employee value proposition.28 The EVP is akin to the “package” or
“bundle” of rewards provided to employees and to which employees respond by
joining, performing, and remaining with the organization. It is the “deal” or “bar-
gain” struck between the organization and employee, first as a promise to the
prospective employee, later as a reality to the actual new employee, and later still
as a new deal as the EVP changes due to reward improvements and/or internal
job changes by the employee. The EVP thus functions like a glue that binds the
employee and organization together, with the employee providing certain behav-
iors (attraction, performance, retention, and so forth) in exchange for the EVP.
The challenge to the organization is to create EVPs for various employee groups
than on average are both attractive and affordable (how to create an individual
EVP in the form of a formal job offer to a prospective employee is considered in
Chapter 12). No reward, extrinsic or intrinsic, is costless, so the organization must
figure out what it can afford as it creates its EVPs. Regardless of cost, however,
the rewards must also be attractive to those for whom they are intended, so at-
traction and cost must be considered jointly when developing EVPs. The dual
affordable-attractive requirements for EVPs creates some potential problems with
EVPs: wrong magnitude, wrong mix, or not distinctive.29
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

178 PART TWO Support Activities

Wrong magnitude refers to a package of rewards that is either too small or too
great monetarily. To the prospective or current employee, too small a package may
be viewed as simply inadequate, noncompetitive, or an insult, none of which are
desirable perceptions to be creating. Such perceptions may arise very early in the
applicant’s job search, before the organization is even aware of the applicant, due
to word-of-mouth information from others (e.g., former applicants or employees)
or information obtained about the organization, such as through its print or elec-
tronic recruitment information. Alternatively, too small a package may not become
an issue until fairly late in the job search process, as additional bits of reward
package information become known to the applicant. Regardless of when the too-
small perceptions emerge, they can be deal killers that lead to self-selection out
of consideration for the job, job offer turndowns, or decisions to quit. While too-
small packages may be unattractive, they often have the virtue of being affordable
for the organization.
Too large a package creates affordability problems for the organization. Those
problems may not surface immediately, but long term they can threaten the or-
ganization’s financial viability and possibly even survival. Affordability problems
may be particularly acute in service-providing organizations, where employee
compensation costs are a substantial percentage of total operating costs.
Wrong mix refers to a situation in which the composition of the reward package
is out of sync with the preferences of prospective or current employees. A package
that provides excellent retirement benefits and long-term performance incentives
to a relatively young and mobile workforce, for example, is most likely a wrong
mix one. Its attraction and retention power in all likelihood is minimal. It might
also be relatively expensive to provide.
Not distinctive refers to individual rewards packages that are viewed as ho-hum
in nature. They have no uniqueness or special appeal that would either win or
retain employees. They do not signal anything distinctive about the organization
or give the job seeker or employee any special reason to think the “deal” is one
that simply cannot be passed up or given up.
In short, creating successful EVPs is a challenge, and the results can have
important implications for workforce attraction, retention, and cost. To help create
successful EVPs, the organization should seek to systematically collect job re-
wards information in order to learn about rewards that are important or unimpor-
tant to employees.

Collecting Job Rewards Information

Unlike job analysis as a mechanism for collecting job requirements information,
mechanisms for collecting job rewards information are more fragmentary. None-
theless, there are several things that can be done, all of which seek to provide data
about the importance of rewards to employees—which rewards they most and
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 179

least prefer. Armed with knowledge about employee preferences, the organization
can begin to build EVPs that are of the right magnitude, mix, and distinctiveness.
One approach for collecting job rewards information is to gauge the preferences
of the organization’s own employees. A different approach is to learn about em-
ployee preferences, and actual rewards provided, in other organizations.

Within the Organization

To learn about employee reward preferences within the organization, interviews
with employees, or more formal surveys of them, might be used.

Interviews with Employees. The interview approach requires decisions about

who will guide the process, interview content, who will conduct the interviews,
sampling confidentiality, data recording and analysis, and reporting of the results.
The following are a few suggestions to guide each of those decisions. First, a
person with special expertise in the employee interview process should guide the
total process. This could be a person within the HR department, a person outside
of HR with the expertise—such as in marketing research, or an outside consultant.
Second, the interviews should be structured, guided ones. The major content
areas, and specific questions, should be decided in advance, tested on a small
sample of employees as to their clarity and wording, and then placed in a formal
interview protocol to be used by the interviewer. An example of potential questions
is shown in Exhibit 4.19. Note that the major content areas covered in the interview
are rewards offered, reward magnitude, reward mix, and reward distinctiveness.
Third, the interviews should be conducted by people who have sound employee
interviewing skills and will be trusted by the employees interviewed. The person
guiding the overall process might be one of the interviewers and should have a
major say in the selection of other needed interviews. The interviewers should
receive special training in the conduct of the interviews, including a “dry run” to
ensure that the interview protocol is sound and that they are comfortable with it.
Fourth, employees from throughout the organization should be part of the sam-
ple. In small organizations, it might be possible to include all employees; in larger
organizations, random samples of employees will be necessary. When sampling,
it is important to include the sample employees from all job categories, organi-
zational units, and organizational levels.
Fifth, it is strongly recommended that the interviews be treated as confidential,
and that the responses of individuals only be seen by those recording and analyzing
the data. At the same time, it would be useful to gather (with their permission)
interviewees’ demographic (e.g., age, gender) and organizational information
(e.g., job title, organizational unit), since this will permit breakouts of responses
during data analysis. Such breakouts will be very useful in decisions about whether
to create separate EVPs for separate employee groups or organizational units.
Sixth, interviewees’ responses should be recorded, rather than trusted to the
memory of the interviewer. The preferred way to record responses is for the in-
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

180 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.19 Examples of Reward Preferences Interview Questions

Rewards to Offer
• Are there any rewards you wish the organization would provide now?
• Looking ahead, are there any rewards you hope the organization will provide?
Reward Magnitude
• Overall, do you think that the level of pay and benefits is too much, too little, or about
right compared to other jobs like yours?
• Overall, do you think the reward intangibles are too much, too little, or about right
compared to other jobs like yours?
• Would you be willing to start paying for the cost of certain rewards to ensure the
organization continues to provide them?
Reward Mix
• Would you prefer the mix of pay and benefits shift more toward pay, benefits, or stay the
same?
• What are the two most important rewards to you?
• What rewards are irrelevant to you?
Rewards Distinctiveness
• Which rewards that you receive are you most likely to tell others about?
• Which of our rewards really stand out to you? To job applicants?
• What rewards could we start offering that would be really unique?

terviewer to take notes. Verbatim electronic recording of responses will likely

threaten the interviewee’s sense of confidentiality, plus require subsequent costly
transcription. The response data will need to be analyzed with an eye toward
capturing major “themes” in the data, such as the most and least important rewards,
and the rewards that the employee could most do without. These findings can then
be incorporated into a report that will be presented to organizational representa-
tives.

Surveys of Employees. A survey of employees should proceed along the same

lines, following many of the same recommendations, as for an employee interview
process. The biggest difference will be the mechanism for gathering the data—
namely a written set of questions with response scales, rather than a verbally
administered set of questions with open-ended responses. To construct the survey,
a listing of the rewards to be included on the survey must be developed. These
could be chosen from a listing of the organization’s current extrinsic rewards, plus
some questions about intrinsic rewards. For response scales, it is common to use
a 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important) rating format. An example of a partial
employee reward preferences survey is shown in Exhibit 4.20.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 181

EXHIBIT 4.20 Examples of Reward Preferences Survey Questions

Very Neither Very

Unimportant Important nor Important
Unimportant
Extrinsic Rewards
Base pay 1 2 3 4 5
Incentive pay 1 2 3 4 5
Overtime pay 1 2 3 4 5
Health insurance 1 2 3 4 5
Promotion opportunities 1 2 3 4 5
Job security 1 2 3 4 5

Intrinsic Rewards
Using my skills 1 2 3 4 5
Doing significant tasks 1 2 3 4 5
Deciding how to do my job 1 2 3 4 5
Getting feedback from job 1 2 3 4 5
Trust in management 1 2 3 4 5
Communications from 1 2 3 4 5
management

As with interviews, it is recommended that a person with special expertise guide

the project, the survey content be specially constructed (rather than canned), sam-
pling include employees throughout the organization, employees be assured of
confidentiality, thorough analysis of results be undertaken, and reports of findings
be prepared for organizational representatives.

Which to Use? Should the organization opt for use of interviews, surveys, or
both? The advantages of an interview are that it is of a personal nature; employees
are allowed to respond in their own words; it is possible to create questions that
probe preferences about reward magnitude, mix, and distinctiveness; and a very
rich set of data are obtained that provide insights beyond mere rating scale re-
sponses. On the downside, interviews are costly to schedule and conduct, data
analysis is messy and time consuming, and statistical summaries and analysis of
the data are difficult. Surveys are easier to administer (especially online), and they
permit statistical summaries and analyses that are very helpful in interpreting
responses. The biggest downsides to surveys are the lack of richness of data, and
that it is very difficult to construct questions that tap into employees’ preferences
about reward magnitude, mix, and distinctiveness.
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

182 PART TWO Support Activities

Assuming adequate resources and expertise, a combined interview and survey ap-
proach would be best. This would allow the organization to capitalize on the unique
strengths of each approach, as well as offset some of the weaknesses of each.
A final cautionary note is that both interviews and surveys of current employees
miss out on two other groups from whom reward preference information would
be useful. The first group is departing or departed employees, who may have left
due to dissatisfaction with the EVP. In Chapter 14 we discuss the exit interview
as a procedure for learning about this group. The second group is job applicants.
Presumably the organization could conduct interviews and surveys with this group,
but that could be administratively challenging (especially with Internet applicants)
and also applicants might feel they are “tipping their hand” to the organization in
terms of what they desire or would accept in a job offer. The more common way
to learn about applicant reward preferences is from surveys of employees outside
the organization, who might be representative of the types of applicants the or-
ganization will encounter.

Outside the Organization

Other Employees. Data on the reward preferences of employees outside the

organization are available from surveys of employees in other organizations. To
the extent these employees are similar to the organization’s own applicants and
employees, the data will likely provide a useful barometer of preferences. An
example is the Job Satisfaction survey conducted by the Society for Human Re-
source Management. It administered an online survey to a national random sample
of n  604 employees. The employees rated the importance of 21 extrinsic and
intrinsic “rewards” to their overall satisfaction on a 1–5 (very unimportant to very
important) scale. The percentage of employees rating each reward as “very im-
portant” is shown in Exhibit 4.21. The data for 2004 are shown along with data
from a similar survey in 2002.
It can be seen that extrinsic rewards, especially “benefits” and “pay,” topped
the reward preferences, followed by “feeling safe in the work environment,” “job
security” and “flexibility to balance work/life issues.” For the most part reward
importance was very similar in the two time periods. An exception to this was a
large increase in the importance of feeling safe in the work environment.
Not shown in Exhibit 4.21 were two other important findings. First, a sample
of HR professionals was asked to predict the importance that employees attached
to the rewards, and the HR professionals’ predictions did not correspond all that
closely to the actual employee ratings. For example, the two top rewards predicted
by the HR professionals were “relationships with immediate supervisor” and
“management recognition of employee job performance.” And “feeling safe in the
work environment” was the 13th most important reward as predicted by the HR
professionals. A second finding was that there were some differences in reward
importance as a function of employee age, tenure, gender, and industry; these
differences, however, were relatively small.
EXHIBIT 4.21 “Very Important” Aspects of Employee Job Satisfaction (Employees)

Benefits 68%
64%
Compensation/Pay 63%
59%
Feeling safe in the work environment 62%
36%
Heneman−Judge: Staffing

60%
Organizations, Fifth Edition

Job security 65%

Flexible to balance work/life issues 57%
62%
Communication between employees and senior management* 54%
62%
Relationship with immediate supervisor 49%
49%
Management recognition of employee job performance 47%
49%
II. Support Activities

Opportunities to use skills/abilities 47%

The work itself 46%

50%
Overall corporate culture 43%
40%
42%
Rewards

Autonomy and independence 46%

Career development opportunities 40%
51%
38%
4. Job Analysis and

Meaningfulness of job 29%

Variety of work+ 37%

Career advancement opportunities 37%

52%
Contributions of work to organization’s business goal+ 35%

Organization’s commitment to professional development+ 34%

CHAPTER FOUR

Job specific training 34%

34%
Relationship with co-workers 33%
23%
Networking+ 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

2002 (number of respondents = 604) 2004 (number of respondents = 604)

Companies, 2006
© The McGraw−Hill

Note: Aspects are in order of importance by 2004 data.

Job Analysis and Rewards

*This question was modified in 2004 by specifying communication with “senior management” instead of “management.”
This aspect was added in 2004. Therefore, no comparable data exists for 2002.
183

Source: E. Essen, Job Satisfaction Series (Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management, 2004), p. 156. Used with
permission.
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

184 PART TWO Support Activities

Organizational Practices. A less direct way to assess the importance of re-

wards to employees is to examine the actual rewards that other organizations
provide their employees. The assumption here is that these other organizations are
attuned to their employees’ preferences and try to provide rewards that are con-
sistent with them. Since pay and benefits loom large in most employees’ reward
preferences, it is particularly important to become knowledgeable of other orga-
nizations’ pay and benefit practices to assist in the developing of the EVP.
The best single source of pay and benefit information comes from the National
Compensation Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics within the
Department of Labor (www.bls.gov). The pay part of the survey reports average
pay for employees, broken out by occupation, private-public sector, organization
size, and geographic area. Another feature of the pay part is occupational leveling,
in which pay rates for jobs with dissimilar occupation and job titles may be com-
pared to each other because they share common job content. The benefits part of
the survey presents detailed data about the percentage of employees who have
access to a benefit or the average benefit provision. Data about the following
benefits are provided: retirement, health care coverage (medical, dental, vision)
and required employee contributions, short- and long-term disability, paid holi-
days, paid vacation, paid jury duty leave, paid military leave, assistance for child
care, adoption assistance, long term care insurance, flexible workplace, employer-
provided PC for home use, and subsidized commuting. The data are broken out
by white collar, blue collar, and service occupations, full time–part time, union–
nonunion, average wage greater or less than $15/hour, organization size, goods-
service producing, and geographic area.
Another important source of information about benefits is the Society for Hu-
man Resource Management Annual Benefits Survey (www.shrm.org). It provides
very detailed information about specific benefits provided in each of the following
areas: family friendliness, housing and relocation, health care and wellness, per-
sonal services, financial, business travel, leave, and other benefits. The data are
broken out by organization size.

LEGAL ISSUES
This chapter has emphasized the crucial role that job analysis plays in establishing
the foundations for staffing activities. That crucial role continues from a legal
perspective. Job analysis becomes intimately involved in court cases involving the
job relatedness of staffing activities. It also occupies a prominent position in the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP). Finally, the
Americans With Disabilities Act requires that the organization determine the es-
sential functions of each job, and job analysis can play a pivotal role in that
process. As these issues are discussed in the following sections, note the direct
relevance of the job requirements matrix and its development to them.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 185

Job Relatedness and Court Cases

In EEO/AA court cases, the organization is confronted with the need to justify its
challenged staffing practices as being job related. Common sense suggests that
this requires first and foremost that the organization conduct some type of job
analysis to identify job requirements. If the case involves an organization’s defense
of its selction procedures, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Pro-
cedures require the conduct of job analysis. In addition, specific features or char-
acteristics of the job analysis make a difference in the organization’s defense.
Specifically, an examination of court cases indicates that for purposes of legal
defensibility the organization should conform to the following recommendations:
1. “Job analysis must be performed and must be for the job for which the
selection instrument is to be utilized.
2. Analysis of the job should be in writing.
3. Job analysts should describe in detail the procedure used.
4. Job data should be collected from a variety of current sources by knowl-
edgeable job analysts.
5. Sample size should be large and representative of the jobs for which the
selection instrument is used.
6. Tasks, duties, and activities should be included in the analysis.
7. The most important tasks should be represented in the selection device.
8. Competency levels of job performance for entry-level jobs should be spec-
ified.
9. Knowledge, skills, and abilities should be specified, particularly if a content
validation model is followed.”30
These recommendations are very consistent with our more general discussion
of job analysis as an important tool and basic foundation for staffing activities.
Moreover, even though these recommendations were made several years ago, there
is little reason to doubt or modify any of them on the basis of more recent court
cases.

Essential Job Functions

Recall that under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the organization
must not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability who can
perform the “essential functions” of the job, with or without reasonable accom-
modation. This requirement raises three questions: What are essential functions?
What is evidence of essential functions? What is the role of job analysis?

What Are Essential Functions?

The ADA employment regulations provide the following statements about essen-
tial functions:
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

186 PART TWO Support Activities

1. “The term essential functions refers to the fundamental job duties of the
employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. The
term essential function does not include the marginal functions of the po-
sition; and
2. A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, in-
cluding but not limited to the following:
• The function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to
perform the function;
• The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees
available among whom the performance of that job function can be dis-
tributed; and/or
• The function may be highly specialized so that the incumbent in the po-
sition is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular
function.”

Evidence of Essential Functions

The employment regulations go on to indicate what constitutes evidence that any
particular function is in fact an essential one. That evidence includes, but is not
limited to,
1. The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential
2. Written job descriptions, prepared before advertising or interviewing appli-
cants for the job
3. The amount of time spent on the job performing the function
4. The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function
5. The terms of a collective bargaining agreement
6. The work experience of past incumbents in the job
7. The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs

Role of Job Analysis

What role(s) might job analysis play in identifying essential functions and estab-
lishing evidence of their being essential? The employment regulations are silent
on this question. However, the EEOC has provided substantial and detailed assis-
tance to organizations to deal with this and many other issues under the ADA.31
The specific statements regarding job analysis and essential functions of the job
are shown in Exhibit 4.22.
Examination of the statements in Exhibit 4.22 suggests the following. First,
while job analysis is not required by law as a means of establishing essential
functions of a job, it is strongly recommended. Second, the job analysis should
focus on tasks associated with the job. Where KSAOs are also studied or specified,
they should be derived from an explicit consideration of their probable links to
the essential tasks. Third, with regard to tasks, the focus should be on the tasks
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 187

EXHIBIT 4.22 Job Analysis and Essential Functions of the Job

Job Analysis and the Essential Functions of a Job

The ADA does not require that an employer conduct a job analysis or any
particular form of job analysis to identify the essential functions of a job. The
information provided by a job analysis may or may not be helpful in properly
identifying essential job functions, depending on how it is conducted.

The term ‘‘job analysis’’ generally is used to describe a formal process in which
information about a specific job or occupation is collected and analyzed. Formal
job analysis may be conducted by a number of different methods. These methods
obtain different kinds of information that is used for different purposes. Some of
these methods will not provide information sufficient to determine if an individual
with a disability is qualified to perform ‘‘essential’’ job functions.

For example: One kind of formal job analysis looks at specific job tasks and
classifies jobs according to how these tasks deal with data, people, and objects.
This type of job analysis is used to set wage rates for various jobs; however, it may
not be adequate to identify the essential functions of a particular job, as required
by the ADA. Another kind of job analysis looks at the kinds of knowledge, skills,
and abilities that are necessary to perform a job. This type of job analysis is used to
develop selection criteria for various jobs. The information from this type of
analysis sometimes helps to measure the importance of certain skills, knowledge
and abilities, but it does not take into account the fact that people with disabilities
often can perform essential functions using other skills and abilities.

Some job analysis methods ask current employees and their supervisors to rate the
importance of general characteristics necessary to perform a job, such as
‘‘strength,’’ ‘‘endurance,’’ or ‘‘intelligence,’’ without linking these characteristics to
specific job functions or specific tasks that are part of a function. Such general
information may not identify, for example, whether upper body or lower body
strength is required, or whether muscular endurance or cardiovascular endurance
is needed to perform a particular job function. Such information, by itself, would
not be sufficient to determine whether an individual who has particular limitations
can perform an essential function with or without an accommodation.

As already stated, the ADA does not require a formal job analysis or any particular
method of analysis to identify the essential functions of a job. A small employer
may wish to conduct an informal analysis by observing and consulting with people
who perform the job, or have previously performed it, and their supervisors. If
possible, it is advisable to observe and consult with several workers under a range
of conditions, to get a better idea of all job functions and the different ways they

(continued)
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

188 PART TWO Support Activities

EXHIBIT 4.22 Continued

may be performed. Production records and workloads also may be relevant factors
to consider.
To identify essential job functions under the ADA, a job analysis should focus on
the purpose of the job and the importance of actual job functions in achieving this
purpose. Evaluating importance may include consideration of the frequency with
which a function is performed, the amount of time spent on the function, and the
consequences if the function is not performed. The analysis may include
information on the work environment (such as unusual heat, cold, humidity, dust,
toxic substances, or stress factors). The job analysis may contain information on the
manner in which a job currently is performed, but should not conclude that ability
to perform the job in that manner is an essential function, unless there is no other
way to perform the function without causing undue hardship. A job analysis will
be most helpful for purposes of the ADA if it focuses on the results or outcome of a
function, not solely on the way it customarily is performed.
For example:
• An essential function of a computer programmer job might be
described as ‘‘ability to develop programs that accomplish
necessary objectives,’’ rather than ‘‘ability to manually write
programs.’’ Although a person currently performing the job may
write these programs by hand, that is not the essential function,
because programs can be developed directly on the computer.
• If a job requires mastery of information contained in technical
manuals, this essential function would be ‘‘ability to learn technical
material,’’ rather than ‘‘ability to read technical manuals.’’ People
with visual and other reading impairments could perform this
function using other means, such as audiotapes.
• A job that requires objects to be moved from one place to another
should state this essential function. The analysis may note that the
person in the job ‘‘lifts 50-pound cartons to a height of 3 or 4 feet
and loads them into truck-trailers 5 hours daily,’’ but should not
identify the ‘‘ability to manually lift and load 50-pound cartons’’ as
an essential function unless this is the only method by which the
function can be performed without causing an undue hardship.
A job analysis that is focused on outcomes or results also will be helpful in
establishing appropriate qualification standards, developing job descriptions,
conducting interviews, and selecting people in accordance with ADA
requirements. It will be particularly helpful in identifying accommodations that will
enable an individual with specific functional abilities and limitations to perform the
job.

Source: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Technical Assistance Manual for the
Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans With Disabilities Act (Washington, DC: author,
1992), pp. II-18 to II-20.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 189

themselves and the outcome or results of the tasks, rather than the methods by
which they are performed. Finally, the job analysis should be useful in identifying
potential reasonable accommodations.32

SUMMARY
Organizations design and use various types of jobs—traditional, evolving, flexi-
ble, idiosyncratic, team based, and telework. These design approaches all result
in job content in the form of job requirements and rewards. Job analysis is de-
scribed as the process used to gather, analyze, synthesize, and report information
about job content. The job requirements approach to job analysis focuses on job-
specific tasks, KSAOs, and job context. Competency-based job analysis seeks to
identify more general KSAOs that apply across jobs and roles.
The job requirements approach is guided by the job requirements matrix. The
matrix calls for information about tasks and task dimensions, as well as their
importance. In a parallel fashion, it requires information about KSAOs required
for the tasks, plus indications about the importance of those KSAOs. The final
component of the matrix deals with numerous elements of the job context.
When gathering the information called for by the job requirements matrix, the
organization is confronted with a multitude of choices. Those choices are shown
to revolve around various job analysis methods, sources, and processes. The or-
ganization must pick and choose from among these; all have advantages and dis-
advantages associated with them. The choices should be guided by a concern for
the accuracy and acceptability of the information that is being gathered.
A very new approach to identifying job requirements is competency-based job
analysis. This form of job analysis seeks to identify general competencies
(KSAOs) necessary for all jobs because the competencies support the organiza-
tion’s mission and goals. Within work units, other general competencies (job-
spanning KSAOs) may also be established that cut across multiple jobs. Potential
techniques and processes for collecting competency information are suggested.
Jobs offer a variety of rewards, both extrinsic and intrinsic. The totality or
package of these rewards constitutes the employee value proposition. Difficulties
in putting together the right EVP include providing the right magnitude and mix
of rewards, along with having some of them be distinctive. To help form EVPs,
it is necessary to collect job rewards information about employee reward prefer-
ences and rewards given to employees at other organizations. Numerous tech-
niques for doing this are available.
From a legal perspective, job analysis is shown to assume major importance in
creating staffing systems and practices that are in compliance with EEO/AA laws
and regulations. The employer must ensure (or be able to show) that its practices
are job related. This requires not only having conducted a job requirements job
analysis but also using a process that itself has defensible characteristics. Under
the ADA, the organization must identify the essential functions of the job. Though
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

190 PART TWO Support Activities

this does not require a job analysis, the organization should strongly consider it
as one of the tools to be used. Over time, we will learn more about how job
analysis is treated under the ADA.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Identify a team-based job situation. What are examples of job-spanning KSAOs
required in that situation?
2. How should task statements be written, and what sorts of problems might you
encounter in asking a job incumbent to write these statements?
3. Would it be better to first identify task dimensions and then create specific task
statements for each dimension, or should task statements be identified first and
then used to create task dimensions?
4. What would you consider when trying to decide what criteria (e.g., percent
time spent) to use for gathering indications about task importance?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages to using multiple methods of job
analysis for a particular job? Multiple sources?
6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of identifying and using general
competencies to guide staffing activities?
7. Why do you think HR professionals were not able to very accurately predict
the importance of many rewards to employees? What are the implications for
creating the employee value proposition?

ETHICAL ISSUES
1. It has been suggested that “ethical conduct” be formally incorporated as a
general competency requirement for any job within the organization. Discuss
the pros and cons of this suggestion.
2. Assume you are assisting in the conduct of job analysis as an HR department
representative. You have encountered several managers who want to delete
certain tasks and KSAOs from the formal job description having to do with
employee safety, even though they clearly are job requirements. How should
you handle this situation?

APPLICATIONS

Conducting a Job Requirements or Job Rewards Job Analysis

Job analysis is defined as “the process of studying jobs in order to gather, synthe-
size, and report information about job content.” Based on the person/job match
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 191

model, job content consists of job requirements (tasks and KSAOs) and job re-
wards (extrinsic and intrinsic). The goal of a job requirements job analysis is to
produce the job requirements matrix.
Your assignment is to conduct either a job requirements or job rewards job
analysis. In this assignment you will choose a job you want to study, conduct
either a job requirements or job rewards job analysis of that job, and prepare a
written report of your project.
Your report should include the following sections:
1. The Job—What job (job title) did you choose to study and why?
2. The Methods Used—What methods did you use (prior information, obser-
vation, interviews, task questionnaires, committee, combinations of these),
and exactly how did you use them?
3. The Sources Used—What sources did you use (job analyst, job incumbent,
supervisor, subject matter experts, combinations of these), and exactly how
did you use them?
4. The Process Used—How did you go about gathering, synthesizing, and
reporting the information? Refer back to Exhibit 4.15 for an example.
5. The Matrix—Present the actual job requirements matrix.

Maintaining Job Descriptions

The InAndOut, Inc., company provides warehousing and fulfillment (order re-
ceiving and filling) services to small publishers of books with small print runs
(number of copies of a book printed). After the books are printed and bound at a
printing facility, they are shipped to InAndOut for handling. Books are received
initially by handlers who unload the books off trucks, place them on pallets, and
move them via forklifts and conveyors to their assigned storage space in the ware-
house. The handlers also retrieve books and bring them to the shipping area when
orders are received. The books are then packaged, placed in cartons, and loaded
on delivery trucks (to take to air or ground transportation providers) by shippers.
Book orders are taken by customer service representatives via written, phone, or
electronic (e-mail, fax) forms. New accounts are generated by marketing repre-
sentatives, who also service existing accounts. Order clerks handle all the internal
paperwork. All of these employees report to either the supervisor–operations or
supervisor–customer service, who in turn reports to the general manager.
The owner and president of InAndOut, Inc., Alta Fossom, is independently
wealthy and delegates all day-to-day management matters to the general manager,
Marvin Olson. Alta requires, however, that Marvin clear any new ideas or initia-
tives with her prior to taking action. The company is growing and changing rap-
idly. Many new accounts, often larger than the past norm, are opening. Publishers
are demanding more services and faster order fulfillment. Information technology
is constantly being upgraded, and new machinery (forklifts, computer-assisted
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

192 PART TWO Support Activities

conveyor system) is being utilized. And the workforce is growing in size to meet
the business growth. There are now 37 employees, and Marvin expects to hire
another 15–20 new employees within the next year.
Job descriptions for the company were originally written by a consultant about
eight years ago. They have never been revised and are hopelessly outdated. For
the job of marketing representative there is no job description at all because the
job was created only five years ago. As general manager, Marvin is responsible
for all HR management matters, but he has little time to devote to them. To help
him get a better grip on his HR responsibilities, Marvin has hired you as a part-
time HR intern. He has a “gut feeling” that the job descriptions need to be updated
or written for the first time and has assigned you that project. Since Marvin has
to clear new projects with Alta, he wants you to prepare a brief proposal that he
can use to approach her for seeking approval. In that proposal he wants to be able
to suggest to Alta
1. Reasons why it is important to update and write new job descriptions
2. An outline of a process that might be followed for doing this that will yield
a set of thorough, current job descriptions
3. A process to be used in the future for periodically reviewing and updating
these new job descriptions
Marvin wants to meet with you and discuss each of these points. He wants very
specific suggestions and ideas from you that he can use to prepare his proposal.
What exactly would you suggest to Marvin?

ENDNOTES
1. D. R. Ilgen and J. R. Hollenbeck, “The Structure of Work: Job Design and Roles,” in M. D.
Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol.
2 (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991), pp. 165–207.
2. E. R. Silverman, “You’ve Come a Long Way . . . ,” Human Resource Executive, Feb. 2000, pp.
64–68; A. Wrzesniewski and J. E. Dutton, “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active
Crafters of their Work,” Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26, pp. 179–201.
3. A. S. Miner, “Idiosyncratic Jobs in Formalized Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly,
1987, 32, pp. 327–351.
4. W. Bridges, “The End of the Job,” Fortune, Sept. 19, 1994, pp. 62–74; B. Dumaine, “The Trouble
with Teams,” Fortune, Sept. 5, 1994, pp. 86–92; R. J. Klimoski and R. G. Jones, “staffing for
Effective Group Decision Making: Key Issues in Matching People and Teams,” in R. A. Guzzo,
E. Salas, and Associates, Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995), pp. 291–332; M. J. Stevens and M. A. Campion, “The Knowledge,
Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management,”
Journal of Management, 1994, 20, pp. 503–530; R. S. Wellins, W. C. Byham, and G. R. Dixon,
Inside Teams (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).
5. E. Sundstrom, K. P. DeMeuse, and D. Futrell, “Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness,”
American Psychologist, 1990, 45, pp. 120–133.
Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

CHAPTER FOUR Job Analysis and Rewards 193

6. M. Harvey, M. M. Novicevic, and G. Garrison, “Challenges to Staffing Global Virtual Teams”

Human Resource Management Review, 2004, 14, pp. 275–294.
7. W. F. Cascio, “Managing a Virtual Workplace,” Academy of Management Executive, 2000, 14(3),
pp. 81–90; D. C. Feldman and T. W. Gainey, “Patterns of Telecommuting and Their Conse-
quences: Framing the Research Agenda,” Human Resource Management Review, 1997, 7, pp.
369–388; J. A. Segal, “Home Sweet Office,” HR Magazine, Apr. 1998, pp. 119–129.
8. For excellent overviews and reviews, see M. T Brannick and E. L Levine, Job Analysis (Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002); S. Gael (ed.), The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry
and Government, Vols. 1 and 2. (New York: Wiley, 1988); R. D. Gatewood and H. S. Feild,
Human Resource Selection, fifth ed. (Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2001), pp. 267–363; J. V. Ghor-
pade, Job Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1988); R. J. Harvey, “Job Analysis,” in Dunnette
and Hough, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 71–163.
9. E. T. Cornelius III, “Practical Findings from Job Analysis Research,” in Gael, The Job Analysis
Handbook for Business, Industry and Government, Vol. 1, pp. 48–70.
10. C. J. Cranny and M. E. Doherty, “Importance Ratings in Job Analysis: Note on the Misinter-
pretation of Factor Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, 320–322.
11. Gatewood and Feild, Human Resource Selection, pp. 295–298; Harvey, “Job Analysis,” in Dun-
nette and Hough, pp. 75–79; M. A. Wilson, “The Validity of Task Coverage Ratings by Incum-
bents and Supervisors: Bad News,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 1997, 12, pp. 85–95.
12. D. P. Costanza, E. A. Fleishman, and J. C. Marshall-Mies, “Knowledges: Evidence for the
Reliability and Validity of the Measures” in N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P.
R. Jeannerert, E. A. Fleishman, and K. Y. Levin, O*NET Final Technical Report Vol. 1 (Salt
Lake City: Utah Department of Workforce Services, 1997), pp. 4–1 to 4–26.
13. M. C. Mumford, N. G. Peterson, and R. A. Childs, “Basic and Cross-Functional Skills: Evidence
for Reliability and Validity of the Measures” in Peterson et al., O*NET Final Technical Report
Vol. 1, pp. 3–1 to 3–36.
14. E. A. Fleishman, D. P. Costanza, and J. C. Marshall-Mies, “Abilities: Evidence for the Reliability
and Validity of the Measures” in Peterson, et al., O*NET Final Technical Report Vol. 2, pp. 9–
1 to 9–26.
15. M. H. Strong, P. R. Jeanneret, S. M. McPhail, and B. R. Blakley, “Work Context: Evidence for
the Reliability and Validity of the Measures,” in Peterson, et al., O*NET Final Technical Report
Vol. 2, pp. 7–1 to 7–35.
16. F. P. Morgeson, K. Delaney-Klinger, M. S. Mayfield, P. Ferrara, and M. A. Campion, “Self-
Presentations Processes in Job Analysis: A Field Experiment Investigating Inflation in Abilities
Tasks, and Competencies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89, pp. 674–686.
17. For detailed treatments, see Brannick and Levine, Job Analysis; Gael, The Job Analysis Hand-
book for Business, Industry and Government, pp. 315–468; Gatewood and Feild, Human Re-
source Selection, pp. 267–363; Harvey, “Job Analysis,” in Dunnette and Hough.
18. Peterson, et al., O*NET Final Technical Report Vols. 1, 2, 3; N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford,
W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, E. A. Fleishman, K. Y. Levin, M. A. Campion, M. S. Mayfield,
F. S. Morgeson, K. Pearlman, M. K. Gowing, A. R. Lancaster, M. B. Silver, and D. M. Dye,
“Understanding Work Using the Occupational Information Network: Implications for Research
and Practice,” Personnel Psychology, 2001, 54 pp. 451–492.
19. R. G. Jones, J. I. Sanchez, G. Parameswaran, J. Phelps, C. Shop-taugh, M. Williams, and S.
White, “Selection or Training? A Two-fold Test of the Validity of Job-Analytic Ratings of
Trainability,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 2001, 15, pp. 363–389; F. J. Landy and J.
Vasey, “Job Analysis: The Composition of SME Samples,” Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44, pp.
27–50; D. M. Truxillo, M. E. Paronto, M. Collins, and J. L. Sulzer, “Effects of Subject Matter
 Heneman−Judge: Staffing II. Support Activities 4. Job Analysis and © The McGraw−Hill
Organizations, Fifth Edition Rewards Companies, 2006

194 PART TWO Support Activities

Expert Viewpoint on Job Analysis Results,” Public Personnel Management, 2004 33(1), pp.
33–46.
20. See Brannick and Levine, Job Analysis, pp. 265–294; Gael, The Job Analysis Handbook for
Business, Industry and Government, pp. 315–390; Gatewood and Feild, Human Resource Se-
lection, pp. 267–363.
21. American Compensation Association, Raising the Bar: Using Competencies to Enhance Em-
ployee Performance (Scottsdale, AZ: author, 1996); M. Harris, “Competency Modeling: Via-
graized Job Analysis or Impotent Imposter?” The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 1998,
36(2), pp. 37–41; R. L. Heneman and G. E. Ledford Jr., “Competency Pay for Professionals
and Managers in Business: A Review and Implications for Teachers,” Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 1998, 12, pp. 103–122; J. S. Shipmann, R. A. Ash, M. Battista, L.
Carr, L. D. Eyde, B. Hesketh, J. Kehoe, K. Pearlman, E. P. Prien, and J. I. Sanchez, “The Practice
of Competency Modeling,” Personnel Psychology, 2000, 53, pp. 703–740; L. M. Spenser and
S. M. Spencer, Competence at Work (New York: Wiley, 1993).
22. American Compensation Association, Raising the Bar, pp. 7–15.
23. P. K. Zingheim, G. E. Ledford Jr., and J. R. Schuster, “Competencies and Competency Models:
Does One Size Fit All?,” ACA Journal, Spring 1996, pp. 56–65.
24. American Compensation Association, Raising the Bar, pp. 35–36.
25. D. Rahbar-Daniels, M. L. Erickson, and A. Dalik, “Here to Stay: Taking Competencies to the
Next Level,” WorldatWork Journal, 2001, First Quarter, pp. 70–77.
26. Shipman et.al., “The Practice of Competency Modeling.”
27. F. H. Borgen, “Occupational Reinforcer Patterns,” in Gael, The Job Analysis Handbook for
Business, Industry and Government, Vol. 2, pp. 902–916; R. V. Dawis, “Person-Environment
Fit and Job Satisfaction,” in C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, and E. F. Stone (eds.), Job Satisfaction
(New York: Lexington, 1992); C. T. Kulik and G. R. Oldham, “Job Diagnostic Survey,” in Gael,
Handbook for Analyzing Jobs in Business, Industry and Government, Vol. 2, pp. 936–959; G.
Ledford, P. Mulvey, and P. LeBlanc, The Rewards of Work (Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork/
Sibson, 2000).
28. E. E. Ledford and M. I. Lucy, The Rewards of Work (Los Angeles, CA: Sibson Consulting,
2003).
29. Ledford and Lucy, The Rewards of Work, p.12.
30. D. E. Thompson and T. A. Thompson, “Court Standards for Job Analysis in Test Validation,”
Personnel Psychology, 1982, 35, pp. 865–874.
31. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment
Provisions (Title 1) of the Americans With Disabilities Act (Washington, DC: author, 1992), pp.
II–19 to II–21.
32. K. E. Mitchell, G. M. Alliger, and R. Morgfopoulos, “Toward an ADA-Appropriate Job Anal-
ysis,” Human Resource Management Review, 1997, 7, pp. 5–26.