JOB ANALYSIS & EVALUATION METHODS

The job evaluation process begins with securing information about jobs.

I. JOB ANAYLSIS
Job Analysis is a process to identify and determine in detail the particular job duties and requirements and the relative importance of these duties for a given job. Job Analysis is a process where judgments are made about data collected on a job.

II. PURPOSE OF JOB ANALYSIS

The purpose of Job Analysis is to establish and document the 'job relatedness' of employment procedures such as training, selection, compensation, and performance appraisal. Determining Training Needs Job Analysis can be used in training/"needs assessment" to identify or develop:

training content assessment tests to measure effectiveness of training equipment to be used in delivering the training methods of training (i.e., small group, computer-based, video, classroom...)

Compensation Job Analysis can be used in compensation to identify or determine:

skill levels compensable job factors work environment (e.g., hazards; attention; physical effort) responsibilities (e.g., fiscal; supervisory) required level of education (indirectly related to salary level)

Selection Procedures Job Analysis can be used in selection procedures to identify or develop:

job duties that should be included in advertisements of vacant positions; appropriate salary level for the position to help determine what salary should be offered to a candidate; minimum requirements (education and/or experience) for screening applicants; interview questions; selection tests/instruments (e.g., written tests; oral tests; job simulations); applicant appraisal/evaluation forms; orientation materials for applicants/new hires

Performance Review Job Analysis can be used in performance review to identify or develop:

goals and objectives performance standards evaluation criteria length of probationary periods duties to be evaluated

III. METHODS OF JOB ANALYSIS

Several methods exist that may be used individually or in combination. These include: 1. review of job classification systems 2. incumbent interviews 3. supervisor interviews 4. expert panels 5. structured questionnaires 6. task inventories 7. check lists 8. open-ended questionnaires 9. observation 10. incumbent work logs IV. BACKGROUND & HISTORY Job analysis as a management technique was developed around 1900. It became one of the tools with which managers understood and directed organizations. Frederick W. Taylor, through his interest in improving the efficiency of work, made studying the job one of his principles of scientific management. Early organization theorists were interested in how jobs fit into organizations: they focused on the purpose of the job. But this early interest in job analysis disappeared as the human relations movement focused on other issues. It was not until the 1960s that psychologists and other behavioral scientists rediscovered jobs as a focus of study in organizations. The organization with the greatest long-term interest in job analysis has been the United States Department of Labor (USDL). The United States Employment Service (USES) of the USDL's Training and Employment Administration has developed job analysis procedures and instruments over many years. These procedures probably represent the strongest single influence on job analysis practice in the United States. The USDL's Guide for Analyzing Jobs and Handbook for Analyzing Jobs show the development of job analysis procedures over almost 50 years. They are responsible for publishing The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), and they have a policy of helping private employers install job analysis programs. The USDL has led in the development of what is often called the conventional approach to job analysis. Civil Rights Legislation More recently the interest in job analysis has been based on the passage of civil rights legislation.

Job analysis is required in the field of staffing since any predictor used to select a person must be job-relevant. Determining job relevance requires having a knowledge of what is happening in the job, usually through job analysis. Likewise, in compensation, the requirements of the Equal Pay Act requires jobs that are substantially similar to be paid the same. The determination that two jobs are substantially similar is done through job analysis.

Americans with Disabilities Act Perhaps the major legal reason for conducting job analysis in organizations is the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA].

This act requires employers to consider for hire or continued employment any person who can perform the essential elements of the job. The act assumes that if the person can perform the essential tasks or elements of the job, then the employer can provide reasonable accommodation to the employee so that he/she can perform the job. Since the passage of the act, many organizations have begun to place in all job descriptions a statement of the jobs essential tasks or elements. This aids in hiring and placement decisions.

V. APPROACHES TO ANALYZING JOBS

There is no one way to study jobs. Several models of job analysis now exist, but as we will see shortly, each leaves something to be desired. The First USDL Model The 1946 formula consists of 1. what the worker does, 2. how he or she does it, 3. why he or she does it, and 4. the skill involved in doing it. In fact, providing the what, how, and why of each task and the total job should constitute a functional description of work activities for compensation purposes.

The Expanded USDL Model - 1972 Note that work activities in the above 1946 formula become worker behaviors identified through the use of functional job analysis. Models 2 and 3 are elaborations of the how question in the original format. The fourth model is an elaboration of the why (purpose) question in the original formula. Finally, worker traits or characteristics represent an additional type of job information. Figure 1 Five Types of Job Descriptors 1. Worker Functions. The relationship of the worker to data, people, and things. Work Fields. The techniques used to complete the tasks of the job. Over 100 such fields have been identified. This descriptor also includes the machines, tools, equipment, and work aids that are used in the job. Materials, Products, Subject Matter, and/or Services. The outcomes of the job or the purpose of performing the job. Worker Traits. The aptitudes, educational and vocational training, and personal traits required of the worker. Physical Demands. Job requirements such as strength, observation, and talking. This descriptor also includes the physical environment of the work.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972).

About the expanded model: 1. It implies that the job information needed has changed from work activities (tasks) to worker behaviors. 2. It also suggests that the how and why of work activities (but not the work activities themselves) are more important. 3. Finally, worker characteristics are added to the job information required. 4. It is assumed that worker behaviors (functions), work fields, tools, and products and services represent work performed. 5. The 1972 approach seems to represent neither a consistent model of job information, nor a method of obtaining such information.

McCormicks Model McCormick created job descriptors from a model of the operational functions basic to all jobs, 1. sensing (information receiving), 2. information storage, 3. information processing, and 4. decision and action (physical control or communication). McCormick classifies job descriptors as follows: 1. work activities a. job-oriented activities b. worker-oriented activities 2. machines, tools, and equipment 3. work performed 4. job context 5. personnel requirements This classification suggests that job analysis can yield six kinds of useful job information. These functions vary in emphasis from job to job. Richers Model Richer suggests that the following job information is needed by organizations: 1. job content factors; 2. job context factors; 3. worker characteristics; 4. work characteristics; and 5. interpersonal relations (internal and external). Although this is an interesting approach, the rationale for obtaining these types of information is not clear. WAIT A SEC . . . WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE?

Are worker behaviors synonymous with work activities? And what about organizational goals and expectations for a given position? What about contributions made by the employee, and investments made by the organization?

Pay Systems Exchange Model Since the job is the connection between the organization and the employee, it may be useful to develop a model based upon this common connection. We can say that both the organization and the employee contribute to the job and expect to receive something from it. In order for these results to come about, something has to happen inside the job.

Figure 2 Systems exchange model of job analysis The vertical dimension of the model is the person-job relationship.

The person brings his or her abilities and effort to the job (cell 1). These are used in activities, which are divided into physical, mental, and interactional types (cell 3). The results, for the person, are the rewards and satisfaction received from working on the job (cell 5). These rewards can be both intrinsic and extrinsic.

The horizontal dimension of the model is the organization-job relationship.

The organization brings to the job resources needed to perform the job and ways to do the job that coordinate with organizational needs; the latter are perceived as constraints (cell 2). These resources and constraints determine the way the job activities (cell 3) are carried out. The organizational results are some product created or service performed by the employee; these outcomes are in the form of a change in data, people, and/or objects (cell 4). These results can be defined in terms of quantity, quality, and time. This model suggests that information (descriptors of jobs) can be collected on the purpose of the job (cell 4), the activities of the job (cell 3), the worker requirements of the job (cell 1), the organizational context of the job (cell 2), and the rewards of the job to the worker (cell 5).

Levels of Analysis Building/Justifying a Position By titling the concept we are discussing job analysis we imply that the unit of analysis is the job. Actually, the level or unit of analysis represents a decision that is worthy of discussion. The lowest level is employee attributes,

the knowledge, skills, and abilities required by the job.

One level up is the element.

An element is often considered the smallest division of work activity apart from separate motions, although it may be used to describe singular motions. As such, it is used primarily by industrial engineers.

The next level is the task,

a discrete unit of work performed by an individual. It consists of a sequence of activities that completes a work assignment, a series of elements.

When sufficient tasks accumulate to justify the employment of a worker, a position exists. A job is

a group of positions that are identical in their major or significant tasks. The positions that are sufficiently alike, in other words, to justify being covered by a single analysis and description. One or many persons may be employed on the same job. Jobs found in more than one organization are termed occupations.

A job family is

a group of occupations.

Obviously, the level or unit of analysis chosen may influence the decision of whether the work is similar or dissimilar. By law (the Equal Pay Act of 1963) if jobs are similar, both sexes must be paid equally; if jobs are different, pay differences may exist.

VI. METHODS OF OBTAINING JOB INFORMATION

After deciding on descriptors and the level of analysis, the organization must determine which method is to be used to collect job information. Although there are a number of methods of obtaining job information, to include

observation, interviews with job incumbents or experienced personnel and supervisors, structured and non-structured questionnaires, diaries kept by workers, data on critical incidents, and work sampling.

Todays most common approach is referred to as conventional job analysis programs.

Conventional Job Analysis Programs Conventional job analysis programs typically involve

collecting job information by observing and/or interviewing job incumbents, then job descriptions are prepared in essay form.

Conventional job analysis treats

work activities as the primary job descriptor. As a consequence, the use of the conventional approach by private organizations focuses largely on work activities rather than on the five types of descriptors used in the USDL job analysis schedule (Figure 1).

Also, conventional job analysis seeks

ratings of education, training, and experience required, as well as information on contacts required, report writing, decisions, and supervision.

Some conventional job analysis programs

ask job incumbents to complete a preliminary questionnaire describing their jobs. The purpose is to provide the analyst with a first draft of the job information needed. It is also meant to be a first step in obtaining incumbent and supervisor approval of the final job description.

Reliability and Validity Conventional job analysis is subjective. It depends upon the

objectivity and analytical ability of the analyst as well as the information provided by job incumbents and other informants.

Measuring reliability (consistency) and validity is difficult because the data are non-quantitative. Having two or more individuals analyze the job independently would provide some measure of reliability but would also add to the cost. Perhaps the strongest contributor to both reliability and validity is the common practice of securing acceptance from both job incumbents and supervisors before job descriptions are considered final. Cost is also an issue here.

VII. JOB DESCRIPTIONS

Regardless of who collects job information and how they do it, the end-product of job analysis is a standardized job description. A job description describes the job as it is being performed. In a sense, a job description is a snapshot of the job as of the time it was analyzed. Ideally they are written so that any reader, whether familiar or not with the job, can "see" what the worker does, how, and why.

What the worker does describes the physical, mental, and interactional activities of the job. How deals with the methods, procedures, tools, and information sources used to carry out the tasks. Why refers to the objective of the work activities; this should be included in the job summary and in each task description.

Hints for writing style for job descriptions include

a terse, direct style; present tense; an active verb beginning each task description and the summary statement; an objective for each task, and no unnecessary or fuzzy words.

A basic task statement should be structured:

present-tense active verb, immediate object of the verb, infinitive phrase showing the objective.

An example would be: (1) collects, (2) credit information, (3) to determine credit rating. Sections Conventional job descriptions typically include three broad categories of information:

identification, work performed, and performance requirements.

The identification section distinguishes the job under study from other jobs. Obviously industry and company size are needed to describe the organization, and a job title is actually used to identify the job. The number of incumbents is useful, as well as a job number if such a system is used. The work-performed section usually beings with a job summary that describes the purpose and content of the job. The summary is followed by an orderly series of paragraphs that describe each of the tasks. Job analysts tend to write the summary statement after completing the work-performed section. They find that the flag statements for the various tasks provide much of the material for the summary statement. The balance of the work-performed section presents from three to eight tasks in chronological order or in order of the time taken by the task. Each task is introduced by a flag statement that shows generally what is being done followed by a detailed account of what, how, and why it is done. Each task is followed by the percentage of total job time it requires.

The performance-requirements section sets out the worker attributes required by the job. This section is called the job specification. Job descriptions used for job evaluation may or may not include this section. An argument can be made that worker attributes must be inferred from work activities. This would require the job analyst to not only collect and analyze job information but also make judgments about job difficulty. Managerial job descriptions Managerial job descriptions differ from non-managerial job descriptions in what are called scope data.

The identification section of managerial job descriptions is usually more elaborate and may include the reporting level and the functions of jobs supervised directly and indirectly. The number of people directly and indirectly supervised may be included, as well as department budgets and payrolls. The work-performed section of managerial job descriptions, like that of non-managerial job descriptions, includes the major tasks, but gives special attention to organization objectives. Writers of managerial job descriptions need to remember that "is responsible for.. does not tell the reader what the manager does.

For two examples of job descriptions, see Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 Non-managerial Job Description JOB TITLE: Sales Clerk JOB SUMMARY: Serves customers, receives and straightens stock, and inspects dressing rooms. TASKS 1. Serves customers to make sales and to provide advice: Observes customers entering store, approaches them and asks to help, locates desired articles of clothing, and guides customers to dressing rooms. Decides when to approach customers and which articles of clothing to suggest. Sometimes gets suggestions from other sales clerks or supervisor. Rings up purchases on cash register and takes cash or check or processes credit card. Decides whether check or credit-card acceptance is within store policy. (80%) Receives and arranges stock to attractively exhibit merchandise: Unpacks boxes, counts items, and compares with purchase orders. Reports discrepancies to supervisor. Arranges and inspects new and old merchandise on racks and counters. Removes damaged goods and changes inventory figures. Decides where to place items in the store, within guidelines of supervisor. Twice a year helps with taking inventory by counting and recording merchandise. (15%) Inspects dressing rooms to keep them neat and discourage shoplifting: Walks through dressing area periodically, collecting clothing left or not desired. Remains alert to attempts to shoplift clothing from dressing area. Decides when security needs to be called in. Re-hangs merchandise on sales floor. (5%)

2.

3.

Figure 4 Managerial Job Description JOB TITLE: Branch Bank Manager JOB SUMMARY: Promotes bank in community and supervises branch operations and lending activities. TASKS 1. Promotes bank services in the community to increase total assets of the bank: Engages in and keeps track of community activities, both commercial and social. Identifies potential customers in community. Analyzes potential customer needs and prospects, plans sales presentation, and meets with potential customers to persuade them to use bank services. (40%) Supervises branch operation to minimize cost of operation while providing maximum service: Plans work activity of the branch. Communicates instructions to subordinate supervisors. Observes branch activity. Discusses problems with employees and decides or helps employees decide course of action. Coordinates branch activities with main office. Performs personnel activities of hiring, evaluating, rewarding, training, and disciplining employees and financial activities of budgeting and reviewing financial reports. (35%) Evaluates and processes loan requests to increase revenues of the bank: Reviews and analyzes loan requests for risk. Seeks further information as appropriate. Approves (or denies) requests that fall within branch lending limits. Prepares reports to accompany other loan requests to bank loan committee. Keeps up with changes in bank lending policy, financial conditions, and community needs. (25%)

2.

3.

VIII. JOB EVALUATION

Job analysis describes the job; Job evaluation develops a plan for comparing jobs in terms of those things the organization considers important determinants of job worth. Determinants of Job Status The next step in job evaluation is to determine compensable factors.

Compensable factors are those yardsticks that help to determine what the organization is "paying for" those things the organization considers important determinants of job worth - what aspects of jobs place one job higher in the job hierarchy than another job.

But what aspect or aspects of work activities and/or which worker requirements are to be used? The choice of yardstick will strongly influence where a job is placed in the hierarchy.

Whole-Job Methods Some job evaluation methods are classified as whole-job methods,

implying that compensable factors are not used because "whole jobs" are being compared.

If this means that one broad-based factor rather than several narrower factors is employed, no problem occurs. But if whole-job means that jobs can be compared without specifying the basis of comparison, the result may be a different basis of comparison for each evaluator. If this reasoning is correct, then useful job evaluation must always utilize one or more compensable factors. About Compensable Factors To be useful in comparing jobs, compensable factors should possess certain characteristics. 1. they must be present in all jobs. 2. the factor must vary in degree (without varying degrees no comparison can be made). 3. if two or more factors are chosen, they should not overlap in meaning. 4. employer, employee, and union viewpoints should be reflected in the factors chosen; consideration of all viewpoints is critical for acceptance. 5. compensable factors must be demonstrably derived from the work performed. 6. they must be observable in the jobs. 7. they need to fit the organization (fit technology, culture, and values) Methods of Evaluating Jobs Using Your Yardsticks The next step in the job evaluation process is to select or design a method of evaluating jobs. Four basic methods have traditionally been said to describe most of the numerous job evaluation systems:

ranking (involves creating a hierarchy of jobs by comparing jobs on a global factor that presumably combines all parts of the job), classification (defines categories of jobs and slots jobs into these classes), factor comparison (involves job-to job comparisons on several specific factors), and the point plan (compares jobs on rating scales of specific factors).

Job Ranking 1. This method ranks the jobs in an organization from highest to lowest. 2. It is the simplest of the job evaluation methods and the easiest to explain. 3. Another advantage is that it usually takes less time and so is less expensive. Its primary disadvantage is that its use of adjacent ranks suggests that there are equal differences between jobs, which is very unlikely. 4. Other disadvantages stem from the way the method is often used. For example, ranking can be done without first securing good job descriptions. 5. This approach can succeed only if evaluators know all the jobs, which is virtually impossible in an organization with many jobs or with frequently changing jobs.

Although job ranking is usually assumed to be applicable primarily to small organizations, it has been used in large firms as well. Computers make it possible to use paired comparison for any number of raters, jobs, and even factors. But the other disadvantages remain. Unless job ranking is based on good job descriptions and at least one carefully defined factor, it is difficult to explain and justify in work-related terms. Although the job hierarchy developed by ranking may be better than paying no attention at all to job relationships, the method's simplicity and low cost may produce results of less than the needed quality.

Figure 5 A job comparison matrix Job Classification 1. The classification method involves defining a number of classes or grades of jobs and fitting jobs into them. It would be like sorting books among a series of carefully labeled shelves in a bookcase. 2. The primary task is to describe each of the classes so that no difficulty is experienced in fitting each job into its proper niche. Jobs are then classified by comparing each job with the class description provided.

3. The major advantage of this method is that most organizations and employees tend to classify jobs. It may therefore be relatively easy to secure agreement about the classification of most jobs. 4. The classification method also promotes thinking about job classes among both managers and employees. If jobs are thought of as belonging in a certain grade, many problems of compensation administration become easier to solve. In fact most organizations classify jobs into grades to ease the task of building and operating pay structures. When jobs are placed into grades or classes subsequent to job evaluation by any method (or even by informal decision) those grades often become the major focus of compensation administration. When jobs change or new jobs emerge, they may be placed in the job structure by decision or negotiation. It may be necessary to use formal job evaluation only infrequently, if agreement cannot be reached without it. 5. Perhaps the greatest advantage of the method is its flexibility. Although classification is usually said to be most useful for organizations with relatively few jobs, it has long been used successfully by the largest organization in the world, the United States government. 6. Disadvantages of classification include (1) the difficulty of writing grade level descriptions and (2) the judgment required in applying them.

Factor Comparison 1. This method, as the name implies, compares jobs on several factors to obtain a numerical value for each job and to arrive at a job structure. 2. Factor comparison itself is not widely used: it probably represents less than 10 percent of the installations of job evaluation plans. But the concepts on which it is based are incorporated in numerous job evaluation plans, including the one that is probably used the most, the Hay Plan. 3. Factor comparison involves judging which jobs contain more of certain compensable factors. 4. Jobs are compared with each other (as in the ranking method), but on one factor at a time. The judgments permit construction of a comparison scale of key jobs against which other jobs may be compared. 5. The compensable factors used are usually (1) mental requirements, (2) physical requirements, (3) skill requirements, (4) responsibility, and (5) working conditions. These are considered to be universal factors found in all jobs. This means that one job-comparison scale for all jobs in the organization may be constructed, and this practice is often followed upon installation of factor comparison. However, separate job-comparison scales can be developed for different functional groups, and other factors can be employed. A major advantage of factor comparison is that it requires a custom-built installation in each organization. Such a plan may result in a better fit with the organization. 6. Another advantage, according to its developers, is that comparable results accrue whether the plan is installed by management, employee representatives, or a consultant. 7. The type of job comparisons utilized by the method is another advantage. Since relative job values are the results sought, comparing jobs with other jobs seems logical. Limiting the number of factors may be another advantage in that this tends to reduce the possibility of overlap and the consequent overweighting of factors. 8. Still another advantage would seem to be the job-comparison scale. Once employees, union representatives, and managers have been trained in the use of the scale, visual as well as numerical job comparisons are easily made. 9. One disadvantage of the method is its use of "universal" factors. Although, as mentioned it is quite possible for an organization to develop its own compensable factors, factor comparison uses factors with common definitions for all jobs. This means using the same factors for all job families. 10. The definition of key jobs may be another disadvantage. A major criterion of a key job in factor comparison is the essential correctness of its pay rate. Since key jobs form the basis of the jobcomparison scale, the usefulness of the scale depends on the anchor points represented by these jobs. 11. When jobs change and when wage rates change over time, the scale must be rebuilt accordingly. Otherwise users are basing their decisions on what might be described as a warped ruler. 12. The use of monetary units may represent a disadvantage if, as is likely, raters are influenced by whether a job is high-paid or low-paid. 13. Finally, the complexity of factor comparison may be a serious disadvantage. Its many complicated steps make it difficult to explain and thus affect its acceptance.

Variations of the Basic Method We have seen that factor comparison concepts are used in other job evaluation plans. The potential bias from the use of dollar-and-cent units, for example, has been met by multiplying monetary values by some constant, resulting in points. Figure 6 The Wage Structure Decision

The Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method 1. Undoubtedly the best-known variation of factor comparison, this plan is reportedly used by more than 4,000 profit and nonprofit organizations in some 30 countries. 2. It is described by the Hay Group (a team of management consultants) as a form of factor comparison for the following reasons: it uses universal factors, bases job values on 15 percent intervals, and makes job-to-job comparisons. 3. The plan is tailored to the organization. Profiling is used to adjust the guide charts and to check on the evaluation of jobs. The plan may be used for all types of jobs and is increasingly used for all jobs in an organization. 4. The universal factors in the Hay plan are know-how, problem solving, and accountability. 5. These three factors are broken down into eight dimensions.

Know-how (skill) involves (1) procedures and techniques, (2) breadth of management skills, and (3) person-to-person skills. The two dimensions of problem solving are (1) thinking environment and (2) thinking challenge. Accountability has three dimensions: (1) freedom to act, (2) impact on results, and (3) magnitude. A fourth factor, working conditions, is sometimes used for jobs in which hazards, environment, or physical demands are deemed important.

Point-Factor Method 1. The point-factor method, or point plan, involves rating each job on several compensable factors and adding the scores on each factor to obtain a point total for a job. 2. A carefully worded rating scale is constructed for each compensable factor. 3. This rating scale includes a definition of the factor, several divisions called degrees (also carefully defined), and a point score for each degree. 4. The rating scales may be thought of as a set of rulers used to measure jobs. 5. Designing a point plan is complex, but once designed the plan is relatively simple to understand and use. Numerous ready-made plans developed by consultants and associations exist. Existing plans are often modified to fit the organization. 6. The major advantage of the point method is the stability of the rating scales. Once the scales are developed, they may be used for a considerable period. 7. Carefully developed point plans facilitate job rating. Factor and degree definitions can greatly simplify the task of raters. 8. Developing a point plan is complex. There are no universal factors, so these must be developed. Then degree statements must be devised for each of the factors chosen. All this takes time and money. 9. Further, point plans take time to install. Each job must be rated on the scale for each factor, usually by several raters, and the results must be summarized and agreed to. 10. Considerable clerical work is involved in recording and collating all these ratings. Much of this time and cost, however, can be reduced by using a ready-made plan.

IX. ACCEPTANCE, RELIABILITY, VALIDITY

Acceptance

One way of testing acceptance is a formal appeals process, whereby anyone questioning the evaluation of his or her job may request a reanalysis and reevaluation. Organizations would be wise to include such a process in their job evaluation system. A second option is to include questions about job evaluation in employee attitude surveys.

Reliability (consistency) Not much research has been conducted on the reliability of job evaluation. Early research found that job rating could be improved by a reduction in overlap among factors, good job descriptions, and rater training. Higher reliability results when scale levels, including the use of benchmark jobs, are carefully defined. Familiarity with the jobs also seems to increase reliability. Validity (the best results)

The question of which method is the most valid (yields the best results) depends on the circumstances. Ranking methods yield results in less time and at less cost, but work-relatedness may be difficult to defend and inconsistencies among organizational units are quite possible. Factor comparison involves high cost, complexity, and explanation difficulties. The point and classification methods seem more acceptable to managers and employers. The question of whether the different methods yield similar results has not been finally answered.

X. DISCRIMINATION ISSUES
Although jobs and logically job evaluations are both color-blind and sexless, job evaluation has been cited as both a potential source of and a solution to discrimination against women and minorities. Discrimination may result from multiple job evaluation plans in the organization, from the choice or weighting of factors, and from stereotypes attached to jobs. The National Science Foundation study cited previously maintains that job evaluation may be a solution to problems of pay discrimination. But it suggests that single rather than multiple plans would help and that factors should represent all jobs and be defined without bias

SUMMARY 1. The first step in developing a wage structure based upon jobs is to collect information on jobs. This is the function of job analysis. The end product of this collection and analysis is a job description. This document becomes important not only for developing a wage structure but for almost all Human Resource functions. 2. There is little commonality as to what information to include in job analysis or how to go about collecting such information. 3. Methods for collecting job information vary greatly from very informal to highly structured questionnaires. However, the most common method of collecting data is the interview. This leaves the data collection process flexible but subject to great variation. The use of the computer in the future will probably increase the standardization of the data collection process. 4. The second step toward a wage structure is job evaluation. This is the process by which the organization develops a job structure. The job structure is the hierarchy of jobs within the organization, ordered according to their value and importance to the organization. Job evaluation involves comparing jobs to each other or to a standard, and then ranking them by the standard of organizational importance. 5. The first decision to be made in developing a job evaluation plan is to decide on the factors that account for the importance of jobs to the organization, called compensable factors. 6. Second, a decision must be made as to what jobs will be placed into the job evaluation plan all jobs in the organization or some sub-set of jobs. 7. Third, a decision needs to be made as to the type of job evaluation plan that will provide the organization with the best results. 8. Job evaluation plans are categorized as being either non-quantitative or quantitative. Nonquantitative plans, ranking or classification, rate the job as a whole, clearly rely on the judgments of the evaluator, and are generally simpler and more flexible. These non-quantitative plans are used mainly in small organizations and governmental units. Quantitative plans, factor comparison and point factor, evaluate the job by the use of factors. These are more difficult to set up, provide a basis for determining their accuracy, and are more popular in industry. 9. Job evaluation has a basic dilemma. On one hand, it is a technical function that requires training and expertise to perform. On the other hand, the usefulness of job evaluation depends on the acceptance by management and employees of the job structure that results from the process. The best way to obtain acceptance is to allow managers and employees a role in the decision making that creates the job structure. Too often, job evaluation is seen by managers and employees as some mysterious, incomprehensible process that has a considerable impact on their wages.