I NEED INSTRUCTIONS TO BE READ THROUGHLY AND FOLLOWED, PLEASE!!! THIS IS DOCTORAL WORK. Turnitin and Waypoint are being used to check for plagiarism, and please use APA format. Please pay close attention to plagiarism, it's not tolerated. make sure to use in-text citations demonstrating that I am citing my references. Please do not use fake references, this instructor will check, and this instructor will check Please keep plagiarism under! 0% or lower. VERY IMPORTANT. Let’s make sure all questions are covered and answered
LET'S MAKE SURE ALL QUESTIONS ARE COVERED AND ANSWERED, AND NO PLAGIARISM.
Analyzing Appropriate Job Analysis Tools [WLOs: 1, 2] [CLO: 2] Morgeson et al. (2020) defined several tools and techniques for gathering data related to a job. Those different tools are (a) self-reports, (b) direct observations, (c) interviews, (d) document review, and (e) questionnaires and surveys. In Week 1, you completed a position questionnaire for a potential job analysis. In addition to a position questionnaire, there are other tools available to gather data and information to support the analysis. In this discussion forum, you will further explore several of the tools defined by Morgeson et al. (2020) for data and information collection and determine and defend the most appropriate tool(s) for a particular scenario. Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, Review the Week 2 - Weekly Lecture. Read Chapter 4 and Chapter 9 in the course textbook, Job and Work Analysis. As a human resource manager, choosing the right tool to do the job is part of the skill and responsibility required for successful outcomes. Based on the first letter of your last name, review the scenario that you have been assigned. 4 HYBRID METHODS In Chapter 2, we covered job analysis methods that are primarily concerned with tasks or the work itself. These focused on observable behaviors and outcomes of worker actions. An example of such a method is the task inventory. In Chapter 3, we covered methods that are primarily concerned with human information processing requirements or worker characteristics. An example of such a method is the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). In this chapter, we describe methods that use multiple kinds of data by design. We call such methods hybrid methods because they are usually developed with an eye toward combining features of two or more job analysis methods. This chapter covers four such hybrid methods: 1. Combination job analysis method (C-JAM). 2. Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire (MJDQ). 3. Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). 4. Occupational Information Network (O*NET). We describe each in turn. As we stated in Chapter 2, there is some wiggle room in our categorizing of methods in terms of whether they are work, worker, or hybrid methods. You can accuse us of fuzzy thinking if you wish. We won’t complain. And while we are at it, let us make another point about job analysis methods. As the analyst, you are not forced to choose a single method described in this book (or outside it, for that matter). You can choose more than one method, or you can choose pieces of various methods to suit your needs. The important thing is to keep in mind precisely what those needs are and to choose accordingly. (For more on this, see the beginning of Chapter 9 on choosing a job analysis method.) On the other hand, it is useful to study the methods as they exist so you will be familiar with them and can choose according to your needs. It might be useful to think of yourself as a chef in training at a culinary academy. At first, you learn the use of the tools of the trade and the classic recipes. As you gain skill, you create your own masterpieces. But be wary of the requirement that the proof is in the tasting. If you decide to adopt an ad hoc approach, proper piloting, testing, and evaluating should be part of the process to ensure a “tasty” method. COMBINATION JOB ANALYSIS METHOD The combination job analysis method (C-JAM; Levine, 1983) borrows a bit from those methods that focus on tasks, such as functional job analysis and the Task Inventory/Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program (TI/CODAP). This gives us information about what gets done on the job and how, which is information that is essential for legal, quasi-legal, and other purposes. C-JAM also borrows from the job element method so that information about the human attributes needed to perform the tasks is summarized. Information about human attributes is essential for purposes such as personnel selection. A few easily understood scales are also provided to allow for the determination of what tasks and what human attributes are most important in a particular job. In C-JAM, task statements are developed and the importance of the tasks is rated. Then the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) needed to perform the tasks are developed and rated on their importance for job performance. (This section on C-JAM borrows heavily from Levine, 1983.) Task Statements The form in which tasks should be written is as follows: 1. There is an implied subject of the task sentence—namely, workers, employees, or managers. The implied subject is plural, not singular. 2. There is a verb that indicates what function the employees are performing. 3. The object of the verb may be data, people, machines, equipment, work aids, or tools. 4. There is a phrase starting with the word to or the words in order to that gives the purpose of the workers’ activity. https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/615632/1954406/OEBPS/s9781544329543.i973.xhtml?#po11 https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/615632/1954406/OEBPS/s9781544329543.i973.xhtml?#po12 https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/615632/1954406/OEBPS/s9781544329543.i973.xhtml?#po11 https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/615632/1954406/OEBPS/s9781544329543.i973.xhtml?#po18 (Okay, this should look kind of familiar. If not, you might want to grab a cup of coffee and review functional job analysis in Chapter 2.) At times, tasks may be written in a shortened form. For example, the phrase that gives the purpose of an action may be left off if the purpose is obvious or well known to the users of the job analysis study. Or the tool used for the task may be excluded if it is obvious based on the action verb. Here are some examples of task statements for different types of jobs: 1. For personnel testing specialists: a. Write multiple-choice test items for particular jobs to evaluate applicant qualifications. b. Ask/answer questions and provide information to applicants to resolve applicant appeals/complaints about test scores. 2. For web designers: a. Interview clients to determine desired web content. b. Write code to display graphics in the desired layout. 3. For auto equipment mechanics: a. Inspect equipment to determine whether repair or replacement is necessary for efficiency of operation or safety. b. Modify equipment to improve its efficiency of operation or safety. 4. For water and fuels analysts in an electric power plant: a. Inspect acid and caustic tank levels. b. Maintain fuel oil additive system to meet environmental standards. 5. For clerks: a. Fold, assemble, and staple papers. b. Check documents for accuracy. When in doubt, make the statement more detailed rather than less. The kind of equipment used (e.g., truck vs. golf cart) and differences in the objective or goal (e.g., sales vs. support) can have implications for selection, training, and motivation. Generally, 30 to 100 task statements are expected in the final task list for any particular job. If the first list numbers substantially more than 100 tasks, similar tasks should be combined wherever possible to reduce the number to 100 or less. The Task Generation Meeting C-JAM uses a facilitator to guide subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop lists of tasks as well as lists of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). It is the job of the facilitator (that would be you) to gather an appropriate group of SMEs to generate a list of tasks. C-JAM suggests the following group desiderata: 1. There are five to seven incumbents and two supervisors. 2. The group is broadly representative of the jobholders (age, race, sex, experience). 3. The meeting space is conducive to a productive meeting (quiet, well lit, etc.). The facilitator should explain the purpose of the meeting to the participants. Then the facilitator defines task and presents examples of task statements, such as those in the previous section of this chapter. Next, the facilitator asks group members to prepare a list of at least 50 tasks on their own, working as individuals rather than as a group. Each individual is given up to an hour to generate his or her list. The facilitator combines the individual lists into a single document that each participant can see. Each member of the group is asked to individually review all the tasks in the compiled list, delete tasks that are duplicates, and add any tasks https://platform.virdocs.com/rscontent/epub/615632/1954406/OEBPS/s9781544329543.i973.xhtml?#po11 that might have been missed. After about 2 hours of this activity, the group members are thanked, and the meeting is adjourned. The next phase of the analysis is the responsibility of the facilitator, who is responsible for integrating the participants’ lists into a draft of approximately 30 to 100 tasks that are organized into five to 12 duties. If the facilitator is not well versed in the job, he or she might enlist the aid of a supervisor or jobholder to prepare the draft. If the group meeting cannot be arranged, the task list may be generated by conducting a series of individual interviews with a representative sample of workers and their supervisors. Representativeness refers to the inclusion of workers and supervisors at the various locations where the work is performed and the inclusion of workers whose assignments are substantially different or unique within the job category under study. Representativeness also refers to the inclusion of people from diverse backgrounds. The interviews begin with a brief statement about their purpose. Then, if the interviewee is a jobholder, the jobholder is asked to think about his or her most recent complete workday (for example, yesterday) and to describe what he or she did from the start of the day to the end of the day. During the description, the interviewer should ask for more information if a task is unclear, or for a sample of work products. After the description is complete, the jobholder might be asked about other tasks that were not done during the most recent workday but might be done during a particular week or month or at particular times of the year. By contrast, when the interviewee is a supervisor, he or she might be asked to (a) describe a typical day for an employee under his or her supervision, and (b) describe tasks that might arise at a particular time of the week, month, or year. After all interviews are completed, the facilitator creates the compiled draft task list just as would be done following the group meeting. The Task Rating Meeting The next step involves the facilitator convening a second group meeting of subject matter experts. The original participants may or may not join this second meeting, but it should be of similar size and composition as the first. The facilitator explains the purpose of the meeting (namely, to review the draft tasks and to rate each surviving task in ways that will prove useful down the road). Tasks are reviewed (by the group) one by one to determine whether they are good as is, should be combined with another task, or perhaps divided into two or more tasks. When the group is finished with the review, the revisions are complete. Next, the group is instructed to rate all of the tasks on the list. The original version of C-JAM used three rating scales. However, research indicated that eliminating one of the scales produced equivalent information for less work (Sanchez & Fraser, 1992; Sanchez & Levine, 1989). The current version of C-JAM uses two scales that should be carefully described to the group members. Copies of the scales should also be provided to each group member. The scales cover (1) task difficulty and (2) criticality. Scale definitions and point values are as follows: 1. Task difficulty: Difficulty in doing a task correctly relative to all other tasks within a single job. 1 = One of the easiest of all tasks 2 = Considerably easier than most tasks 3 = Easier than most tasks performed 4 = Approximately half of tasks are more difficult, half less 5 = Harder than most tasks performed 6 = Considerably harder than most tasks performed 7 = One of the most difficult of all tasks 2. Criticality/consequences of error: The degree to which an incorrect performance would result in negative consequences. 1 = Consequences of error are not at all important 2 = Consequences of error are of little importance 3 = Consequences are of some importance 4 = Consequences are moderately important 5 = Consequences are important 6 = Consequences are very important 7 = Consequences are extremely important Ratings should be based on the job in general, not on the workers’ own jobs or the positions directly supervised by the supervisory group members. Analysis of Task Importance The facilitator then computes a task importance value for each task. The task importance value is the simple sum of task difficulty and criticality, thus Task importance value = Task difficulty + Criticality A task importance value is computed for each rater, and the mean task importance value is computed across raters to give the overall task importance value for the task. The resulting task importance values may range from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 14. The facilitator generates a list of tasks within duties, sorting the tasks by mean task importance value. In Table 4.1, there is a brief illustration of what the final product might look like for clerical jobs. For completeness, the job analysis report should also include a little information about the qualifications of all those involved in the task generation or task rating meetings. Their race and sex, job-related education, and years and kind of work experience are the kinds of