A Consensus Method of Job Analysis.

In organizations, problems can be caused by imprecise or non-existent descriptions of job positions and equally imprecise or non-existent training of newly appointed job incumbents. Secondary problems may take the form of a lack of mutual underst and ing of performance expectations by the job incumbent and the supervisor, not to mention deficient performance vis-a-vis expected performance, and resultant inaccurate performance appraisals. It is possible that the lack of a valid job analysis may be a fundamental cause of such problems. The job analysis process is all too frequently undertaken by "Staff" versus "Line" persons. If "Line" people are included, it is by means of a survey questionnaire, or interview, with the results interpreted by the "Staff" person with little, if any, clarification and resolution of disparate opinions obtained from "Line" persons. The major objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of consensus decision making as applied to job analysis to develop a job description and ancillary training needs. A secondary objective of the study was to develop a job description for the position of first-level supervisor of manufacturing. The job description was intended to encompass the position's Key Elements (major responsibilities), the Activities performed, Skills and Knowledges required to perform the Activities, and When training in the skills and knowledges should occur. The study was conducted by convening a carefully selected group of individuals familiar with the job. The group included persons representative of: (1) the cooperating Corporation's five major Groups of manufacturing operations; (2) fifteen of the manufacturing operations (plants--three from each Group); (3) the functional work disciplines of the target population (e.g., Production, Quality Control, etc.); (4) the hierarchical system of which the target population is a part, i.e., the first-level supervisor; and (5) U.S. and Canadian operations. The task team completed pre-work which they brought to a three-day workshop. The workshop format followed a sequence of individual work, small group consensus decision making, and total group consensus decision making--each step in the sequence designed to define and refine aspects of the job under study, using consensus as the facilitating catalyst. At the time of, and subsequent to the workshop, task team members evaluated both the job description and the consensus process used to develop it. Next the description was evaluated and rated by other groups, with a composition similar to the task team, from three different operations. The statistical treatment of the data demonstrated validation of the consensus process and the job description. The task team ratings directly validated the job analysis results which were confirmed by independent ratings from two U.S. operations, but not by the Canadian plant. The accuracy of the job description was also verified by a sample group of Department Heads. The study indicates the viability of using the consensus process for job analysis, but limited to "white-collar" positions. The validation data suggest caution in mixing subjects from different cultures where values may differ, i.e., U.S. versus Canada, etc. Finally, the study suggests that replication efforts consider using the Delphi survey process and /or the McCormick Position Analysis Questionnaire in concert with the consensus method to improve outcomes.Ph.D.Adult educationUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/157760/1/8017285.pd