Module 5.

1 A basic model of Performance I-O psychologists have devoted a great deal of their research and practice to understanding and improving the performance of workers. All of us who have participated in a work group (or a classroom learning experience) have observed differences in the performance of group members. Some perform at a very high level while others perform a good deal lower. Research has shown that the ratio of the productivity of the highest performer to the lowest performer in jobs of low difficulty ranges from 2:1 to 4:1, while in jobs of high difficulty, this ratio can be as much as 10:1. This represents a striking degree of variation, vari ation that is crucial to an employer struggling to survive in a competitive environment. Imagine having an employee who resolves an average of 5 customer complaints a day compared to one who handles 15. Or a sales representative who closes on 5 contracts a month versus one who brings in 50. From this it is clear why I -O psychologists and employers are vitally interested in employee performance. But what do we mean when we say performance? In earlier chapters this book presented fairly explicit descriptions of some common psychological variables. We have seen personality decomposed into various factors, intelligence parsed into levels or layers of cognitive abilities, and examined a six-factor model of vocational interest (Hollands RIASEC model). We have presented evidence that these factors help us predict worker success or job performance. But when it comes to performance, we have not yet focused on the question of the type of performance being predicted CAMPBELL'S MODEL OF JOB PERFORMANCE Remember that psychology deals with behavior. In the case of I-O psychology, that means the behavior of workers, or worker performance. Consider the following variables that I-O psychologists have used as measures of performance: - Time to complete a training course. -Number of pieces produced. -Total days absent. -Total value of sales. -Promotion rate within an organization. An important question that is often overlooked is, to what extent does an individual worker have any of these measures of performance under his or her control? Lets examine each of the above performance measur es from that standpoint. Time to complete a training course might be constrained by how much time the worker can be away from the workplace. Number of pieces produced is affected by the technology and equipment used by that worker. Total days absent does not distinguish between excused and unexcused, sick days, personal days, or vacation days. Total value of sales will be affected by discounts or territory or marketing promotions, or by the value of the products the employee is assigned to sell. Promotion rate within an organization will be affected by the turnover rate in that organization.

Thus, we can see that in each of these cases, the performance measure was not really (or at least not

exclusively) an individual behavior. A number of I-O psychologists have argued persuasively that I-O psychology has spent a great deal of time describing the various worker attributes that cause or are related to performance, but little time describing actual performance at the individual worker level. Your authors agree. Campbell and his colleagues have proposed a model of work performance that provides a more detailed view of performance, and one that helps to separate the factors that are directly under the workers control from those that arent. Before presenting his model, some definitions are necessary. Performance is behavior. In its ideal form, it is something that people actually do and can be observed. In many jobs, of course, the behavior is thinking, planning, or problem solving and cannot be actually observed; instead, it can only described with the help of the individual worker. In the work setting, performance includes only those actions or behaviors that are relevant to the organizations goals and can be measured in of each individuals proficiency. Performance is what the organization hires an employee to do and to do well. Performance is not the consequence or result of action; it is the action itself. CRITERION DEFICIENCY AND CONTAMINATION Campbells approach to defining job performance introduces two concepts that are well established in I-O psychology: criterion deficiency and criterion contamination. As will recognize from our treatment of validity in Chapter 2, in the validity context, performance would be referred to as a criterion. In an ideal world, we would be able to measure all relevant aspects of job performance perfectly. A collective measure of all of these aspects would be called the ultimate criterion, but since we can never reliably measure aspects of performance, we settle for an actual criterion. A classic validity study might test cognitive ability (the predictor) by correlating it with a measure of job performance (the actual criterion) to see if higher scores on die test are associated with higher levels of performance. The differences between the ultimate criterion and the actual criterion represent imperfections in measurementcontamination and deficiency. A contaminated actual criterion includes information unrelated to the behavior we are trying to measure. For example, if a production figure for an individual worker is affected by the technology or the condition of the particular machine that worker is using, then we would consider that production figure (i.e., criterion) contaminated. Similarly, if we consider the performance of a police officer to be defined exclusively by the number of criminals apprehended, ignoring many other important aspects of the police officers job, then that statistic would be' considered a deficient criterion. The relationships between criterion deficiency, criterion contamination, and criterion relevance are graphically presented in Figure 5.3. Campbells model of performance, by focusing on worker behaviors and the extent to which the worker has complete control over outcomes, protects against criterion contamination. Similarly, by providing eight of the most important and unique aspects of performance in most jobs, it also protects against criterion deficiency. It is important to in mind that probably not a single job has only one behavior that defines successful performance. Just as the predictor side of the basic work prediction equation is compte requiring a consideration of many different combinations of human attributes, so is the criterion side, requiring a consideration of many different aspects of performance.

Module 5.2 EXTENSIONS OF THE BASIC PERFORMANCE MODEL TASK PERFORMANCE VERSUS CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE When performance is discussed, it is usually in the context of one or more tasks fine a job. These tasks can be found in job descriptions, work orders, and so there is more to work life than just assigned tasks. You have probably observed that, it comes to job performance, there are two kinds of workers. The first does they are assigned, and no more. They are reluctant to put themselves out for or to expend any extra effort on behalf of the organization. The second type of worker exact opposite. These workers go out of their way to make life easier for their and supervisor. They can always be counted on to stay a little later or report a little earlier than expected. The term expected is the important concept here. It is not first type of employee is doing anything wrong. Why should you do anything you are paid for? But we can observe that some people do more work than paid for. A number of years ago, Organ and his colleagues labeled this type of behavior -going beyond what is expected- organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and developed questionnaires to assess that behavior in workers. The questionnaires seem to assess two separate aspects of OCB, one labeled altruism -helpful behaviors directed toward individuals or groups within the organization, such as offering to help a co-worker who is up against a deadline- and generalized compliance -behavior that is helpful to the broader organization, such as upholding company rules Borman and Motowidlo (1993) have refined the concept of OCB further and labele d these extra-role behaviors contextual performance, which they contrast with task performance. Task performance is defined as the proficiency with which job incumbents perform activities that are formally recognized as a part of their job (p. 73). Contextual performance, in contrast, is more informal and can be characterized as follows: Supports the organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the job tasks are performed. Unlike task requirements, which vary from job to job, contextual performance is common to most jobs. Although differences among individuals in task performance tend to be tied to abilities and knowledge, differences in contextual performance are more clearly tied to personality. Task activities are part of a job description, contextual activities are not. As a result of their own earlier research as well as the research of others, Borman and Motowidlo identified five specific aspects of contextual performance: 1. Persisting with enthusiasm and extra effort as necessary to complete your own task activities successfully. 2. Volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of your own job. llj Helping and cooperating with others. 3. Following organizational rules and procedures. 4. Endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives. The first three of these dimensions correspond to die altruism aspect of OCB and the last two correspond to what the OCB model calls general compliance. Peterson et al. (1990) demonstrated that while measures of cognitive ability are most closely associated with task performance, measures of personality do a better job of predicting contextual performance. Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit (1997) provided a theoretical explanation of the personal attributes that appear to contribute to contextual and task performance. They proposed that technical task performance is de termined by cognitive ability, predominantly through the effect of cognitive ability on knowledge, skills, and habits. Cognitive ability becomes particularly important in technically complex tasks and tasks requiring problem solving and reasoning. In contrast, contextual performance is best predicted by personality dimensions, particularly conscientiousness, because individuals high in conscientiousness are much more likely to persist with extra effort in completing their work and following organizational rules and procedures. They also proposed that learning experiences will influence both task and contextual performance. Van Scotter, Motowidlo, and Cross (2000) have demonstrated that both contextual performance and task performance

contribute independently to career success, and Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) have shown that contextual performance and task performance contribute independently to ratings of overall performance. This latter point is particularly interesting because it shows that evaluations are influenced not only by what you are assigned to do, but also by what you volunteer to do. Motowidlo et al. (1997) made a strong case for the increasing importance of contextual performance in todays workplace, citing the following factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. Global competition will require more effort from employees. Teams are more common now than solitary work. Downsizing requires adaptability and extra effort Customer service is increasingly important.

The concept of contextual performance fits in nicely with Campbells model, which we considered earlier in this chapter (Campbell et al., 1996). Figure 5.4 shows the relationship between the five contextual performance factors and Campbells eight performance components. You will remember from Chapter 3 that the Big Five factor of conscientiousness could be broken down further into achievement and dependability (Hough, 1992). We see a similar structure here. Campbell s demonstration of effort component can be seen as having at least two distinct facets: persisting and volunteering. Campbells model and the theory of contextual performance actually complement each other. Note that all of the dimensions of co ntextual performance meet the standards that Campbell sets for what should be considered performance; they are observable actions and they are under the control of the individual. It seems clear both from research as well as from our own experience in jobs that contextual performance is an important part of success at any job. Figure 5.4 Matrix with Contextual Factors and Campbell's Performance Components Source: Based on Campbell, Gasser,& Oswald (1996).
(Campbell Factors) Persisting Job specific task proficiency Non-job-specific task proficiency Communication task proficiency Demonstrating effort Maintaining personal discipline Facilitating team and peer performance Supervision/ leadership Management/ administration XX XX XX XX XX XX (Contextual factors) Volunteering Helping Following Rules Supporting

TYPES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES The I-O literature commonly distinguishes among different types of performance indicators. Three different categories have been suggested: objective measures, judgmental measures, and personnel measures Objective performance measures are usually a count of the results of work. This might mean the number of strokes it took a professional golfer to complete a round in the Masters tournament in Augusta, Georgia. It could also be the number of cases heard by a municipal judge, or the number of claims processed by an insurance claims adjuster. Judgmental measures are evaluations made of the effectiveness of an individuals work behavior. The judgments are most often made by supervisors in the context of a yearly performance evaluation. Campbell et al. (1993) referred to evaluations as expert judgments. The supervisor is asked to consider the subordinates performance on a number of discrete aspects of performance, and to assign a rating that represents the supervisors assessment of that subordinate on each performance aspect. We will consider the process and elements of performance evaluation in greater detail in the following chapter. Employers typically keep a record of personnel measures in a personnel folder; these include such data as absences, accidents, tardiness, rate of advancement (in salary or job title), disciplinary actions, and commendations or notes of meritorious behavior. These measures usually record an event rather than an outcome (e.g., production measure) or an evaluation (e.g., a performance rating).

In light of Campbells model, we have reason to be concerned with most objective meas ures as well as many of the personnel measures. Many would fail as indicators of performance because they are not under the complete control of the individual (e.g., total dollars in sales) or are not actual behaviors (e.g., promotional history). To return to Campbells point, as I-O psychologists, we should focus on individually controlled behavior when we examine performance (Campbell et al., 1993). In Campbells view, the type of measure most likely to yield a reasonable estimate of individual behavior is the judgmental measure (e.g., performance rating) that permits the evaluator to account for influences out of the control of the individual worker. For example, if an employee is working a difficult sales territory, the manager is aware of that handicap and can adju st the judgment accordingly. If the manager were required to use an objective measure of sales success, the employee would be at a considerable disadvantage. It is not so much that objective measures are to be avoided or that ratings are to be preferred. They each have their advantages and disadvantages, as we will see in the next chapter. But we should be clear that objective measures are not performance from the psychological perspective -they are the results of performance. Adaptive Performance Campbell (1999) acknowledged that at least one performance component is not included in his model. That is an area known as adaptive performance (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). The changing nature of work would seem to require workers who are flexible and able to adapt to changing circumstances. Pulakos et al. (2000) cited the following circumstances of todays workplace that favor this adaptability: Changing technologies alter work tasks. Mergers, downsizing, and corporate restructuring require employees to learn new skills. Globalization requires individuals to work in different cultures.

Pulakos et al. (2000) proposed that adaptive performance is a valid performance com ponent and that it can be further divided into eight types of adaptive behavior. As Table 5.2 shows, each aspect of adaptability requires flexibility, but in a different way. Cultural adaptability involves an appreciation of differences in values, customs and cultures, while emergency or crisis situation adaptability requires quick response, analysis, decision making, and action. Pulakos et al. (2000) tested this taxonomy on a wide variety of jobs and the results provided support for their proposition. Consider the data excerpted from the results TABLE 5.2 Eight Adaptive Performance Areas and Defmitions
1. Handling emergencies or crisis situations: Reacting with appropriate urgency in life-threatening, dangerous or emergency situations; quick analysis and decision making in emergency situations; maintaining emotional control and objectivity. 2. Handling work stress: Remaining calm in spite of demanding workload or schedule; managing frustration with constructive solutions instead of blaming others; acting as a calming and settling influence on others. 3. Solving problems creatively: Uses unique types of problem analysis; generates new and innovative ideas in complex areas; consider a wide range of possibilities; thinks outside of the box 4. Dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations: Taking effective action without having all the facts or information; easily changes gears; adjusts plans, goals, and schedules to match a changing situation; provides focus for self and others when situation is changing rapidly. 5. Learning work tasks, technologies, and procedures: Enthusiastic about learning new approaches and technologies; keeps knowledge and skill up to date; seeks out and participates in training that will prepare for changes in work demands. 6. Demonstrating interpersonal adaptability: Flexible and open-minded in dealing with others; considers others' viewpoints and opinions and alters own opinion when appropriate; works well with a wide diversity of people; accepts negative feedback without defensiveness. 7. Demonstrating cultural adaptability: Seeks to understand the culture of others; adapts easily to other cultures and behavior patterns; shows respect for others' values and customs; understands the implications of own behavior for maintaining positive relationships with other groups, organizations, or cultures. 8. Demonstrating physically oriented adaptability: Adjusts to challenging physical environments and extremes of temperature, noise, dirt, etc.; pushes self to complete physically demanding tasks; improves physical condition to meet job demands.

That appear in Table 5.3. The rows represent job families and the columns represent the eight different types of adaptability. Incumbents in each of the jobs represented by the rows were asked to indicate the extent to which their jobs required the various types of adaptive performance. A value of 3.00 or higher means that the incumbents considered that particular aspect of adaptive performance critical for job success. An exanimation of the figure confirms what one might expect with respect to the unpredictability of - certain jobs. Special Forces soldiers, combat noncommissioned officers, and military police experienced the highest need for adaptability. In contrast, equipment repair technicians (Craft A), accountants, and administrat ors required the least amount of adaptability. It is also informative to look across the occupations at the dimensions of adaptability most commonly required. By far the most important was handling work stress, followed by learning work tasks and technologies and dealing with unpredictable work situations. Although this research is very new, it appears promising. We conclude from it that adaptive performance can be added to Campbells performance components, and that occupations will vary nor only in the extent to which adaptability is required, but also in terms of the type of adaptive performance that is most critical. The Case of Expert Performance Most of us admire the performance of experts in various settings. We marvel at the intricacy of a worldclass pianist or violinist, or the speed and ruthlessness of a master chess player. In our daily lives, we also appreciate expert performance when we encounter a software engineer who solves our computer problem in minutes after we have struggled fruitlessly for hours, or the garage mechanic who listens to our-car for 30 seconds and is able to diagnose with incredible accuracy a problem deep in the bowels of the engine. We tend to assume that expertise of this level is a result of an innate ability, a talent bestowed on few mortals and, unfortunately, not on us. This common assumption appears to be wrong. It is not that the experts are more intelligent or have faster reaction times. What separates the experts from you and me is depressingly simple: They practice. Of course, you may practice too and still not be at the level of the expert you admire. But the difference is in the type of practice and the duration of that practice. In virtually any area, including sports, music, chess, science, and work, people have become experts by following a demanding regimen. They have been practicing for at least 10 years, spend an average of four hours a day in practice, and their practice is deliberate In the world of work, you might wonder why there are not more experts, since many people perform their work duties for at least four hours a day and have been doing same type of work for 10 years or more. The answer is that their activities do not constitute deliberate practice. In many, if not most, organizations, there is an acceptable level of performance and individuals are compensated for that level. There is no reason to become an expert, short of the intrinsic value of knowing you are an expert or the extrinsic value of being recognized by others as an expert. In addition, at work there is little opportunity for deliberate practice. Deliberate practice means individualized training on tasks selected by a qualified teacher. To use ail sports example, if you have trouble returning a tennis serve to your backhand, you may have an opportunity to practice that return 10 or 12 times in a set with no feedback other than the flight of the tennis ball Deliberate practice would be done with a coach who delivers hundreds of serves per hour to your backhand and provides feedback on technique after each serve. How many workers have the luxury of going back over a poorly performed task hundreds of times with the assistance of a personal coach? The fact is, however, that we will encounter some expert workers in our work lives. Instead of thinking of them as gifted (i.e., the fortunate recipients of an innate Godgiven ability), think of them as dedicated and focused on their areas of expertise. These are individuals who have spent thousands of hours honing their skills over 10 or more years, with at least some form of deliberate practice. Golfer Tiger Woods and tennis player Andre Agassi are often thought of as prodigies since they came to national prominence their respective sports as adolescents. What we often overlook, however, is that both of these stars began their deliberate practice before the age of fouranother piece of evidence that becoming an overnight success takes 10 or more years. Consider what Campbells performance model has to say about expert performance. Note particularly the importance of the three areas of DK, PKS, and M. The ex performer has increased declarative knowledge as well as procedural knowledge: skill through extensive and deliberate training (one o f the precursors to DK and PKS), and has made the decision to persist in performing at high levels of effort. Not everyone has the time, energy, and desire to be a world-class performer at any activity. But whatever ones baseline level of performance is, one can improve upon it by increasing DK, PKS, and M. And these performance determinants

can, in turn, be increased with sustained deliberate practice. CONSTRAINTS ON PERFORMANCE Above, we have considered the sunny side of performance and productivity: leverag ing organizational goals through human attributes that lead to high levels of worker performance. But there is a cloudy side to the picture as well. There are constraints to this leveraging process, and they can lie collected under the heading counterproductive employee behavior. Robinson and Bennett (1995) broke counterproductive behavior into two separate aspects: deviance directed toward the organization, and deviance directed to ward other individuals. They defined counterproductive behavior as voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization, its members or both (p. 556). Rather than contributing to the goals of the organization, these actions run directly counter to those goals. Although we deal with counterproductive behavior in detail when we discuss job dissatisfaction in Chapter 10, it is-also worthwhile to consider it here so that we can fully understand performance from an organizational perspective. Sackett and DeVore (2001) provided a good description of the concept of counterproductive work behavior. They proposed a hierarchical explanation with a broad factor of counterproductive behavior at the top level, two less broad factors of organizational deviance and interpe rsonal deviance in the middle level, and individual counterproductive behaviors such as theft, absence, sabotage, and substance abuse at the lowest levels (Figure 5.5). We will consider three common counterproductive behaviors: dishonesty, absenteeism, and sabotage. Dishonesty Employee theft is a major issue in many organizations, particularly retail businesses. In 1993 Murphy estimated that annual losses to American corporations as a result of employee theft fell somewhere between $5 and $50 billion dollars. Greenberg and Scott (1996) stated that theft among employees has reached epic proportions (p. 112). And recorded theft is generally assumed to underestimate actual theft figures. Dishonesty involves more than employee theft of goods. It can also invo lve theft of time (arriving late, leaving early, taking unnecessary sick days) or dishonest communications with customers, co -workers, or management. Each of these behaviors lowers productivity by raising the cost of production, lowering output, or both. Typical approaches to controlling dishonesty are through the modification of attitudes toward the organization, as we discuss in Chapter 10, or the use of selection batteries that include integrity and/or conscientiousness assessments (Chapter 4) There is some research suggesting; theft, at least in part, may be precipitated by feelings of inequity and perceived potions of principles of justice . Absenteeism Employers lose money with every employee absence, for an absent employee cannot be a productive employee. Although absence for reasons of illness or injury of course, recognized as legitimate, many employers strive to minimize these kinds of absence through stress reduction or increases in workplace safety type of absenteeism that most attracts the interest of I-O psychologists, however is avoidable absence; those occasions when an employee decides to stay away from or reasons other than illness (excluding stressrelated absences) or injury. Nicholson and his colleagues suggested that absenteeism is really a function of an informal agreement between a worker and a supervisor, or a workers estimate of what is permitted by the organization. In Chapter 10, we will address the issue of absenteeism through the concepts of commitment and job dissatisfaction. Sabotage Employee sabotage can be defined as "the intention to damage, disrupt, or subvert the organizations operations for personal purposes of the saboteur by creating unfavorable publicity, damage to property, destruction of working relationships, or harming employees or customers (Crino, 1994, p. 312). In the early 1970s, at the height of the microassembly movement in automobile production, line workers were often expected complete their operation on a moving auto body in 30 seconds or less. As stress and frustration among the workers grew, acts of sabotage increased. Workers intentionally dropp ed nuts and bolts into the engine, or neglected to anchor parts to the car body appropriate! This became known as the Lordstown Syndrome, named after one General Motors plan particularly plagued with these acts of sabotage. Although Chen and Spector (1992) found that high levels of sabotage were associated with low levels of satisfaction, this type of acting out clearly includes other dynamics as well. There are many dissatisfied workers in some work environments, yet few of them resort to sabotage. There is likely to be some combination of personality factors (e.g., extremely low levels of conscientiousness and emotional stability bordering on the patholog ical) and high levels of dissatisfaction and alienation. When we think of sabotage, we usually conjure up a picture of an employee engaging in some action that will harm rather than help the organization. But there are occasions when life is not so simple. On January 1, 2003, a Frontier Airlines mechanic working at Denver International Airport was so concerned about the

condition of a 737 jet about to take off for Dallas that he tossed a wheel chock into one of the engines to prevent the pilot from leaving the gate area and departing (Leib, Morgan, & Hughes, 2003). The mechanic had brought his concern to die attention of his supervisor, who nonetheless had decided that the plane was safe to depart, so the mechanic took matters into his own hands. The mechanic was suspended from his job and was charged with a federal crime destruction of an aircraftwhich could result in a jail sentence of up to 20 years plus a $250,000 fine. Was this an act of sabotage, or an instance of contextual behavior driven by conscientiousness? Module 5.3 JOB ANALYSIS: FUNDEMENTAL PROPERTIES AND PRACTICES In earlier chapters, we have used the term job analysis in a general sense to mean process that determines the "essence of a collection of tasks falling within the scope particular job title. We will now consider that process in much greater detail. The purpose of a job analysis is simple. The analyst wants to understand what the important tasks of the job are, how they are carried out, and what human attributes are necessary to carry them out successfully. In short, job analysis is an attempt to develop a- theory of human behavior about the job in question. This theory will include performance expectations (properties of the job in the context of the organizations expectat ions) as well as the required abilities, knowledge, experience, skill, and personal characteristics necessary to meet those expectations. THE USES OF JOB ANALYSIS INFORMATION The results of a job analysis can be used for many different purposes, including: Job Description This is a description of the job in relatively simple terms, listing the type of tasks that are carried out, the required worker attributes, and training and experience requirements. Job descriptions are very useful for recruiting purposes. Recruiting If we know what the job requires and we know which human attributes are necessary to fulfill those requirements, we can target our recruiting efforts to specific groups of potential candidates. For technical jobs, these groups might be defined by credentials (a bachelors degree in engineering) or experience (five years programming in C+ +). Selection Once we know the attributes most likely to predict success, we can identify and choose (or develop) the actual assessment tools. Based on the job analysis, we may choose a personality test that measures the Big Five, a commercially available test of general mental ability or reasoning, or develop an interview format intended to get at some subtle aspects of technical knowledge or experience. Training A job analysis helps us to identify the areas of performance that create the greatest challenge for incumbents; based on this, we can provide preassignment or post- assignment training opportunities. We may discover that in automobile manufacturing subassembly, one of the most troublesome tasks is installing the dashboard console without pinching the bundled wiring that powers the displays on that dash. Newly hired assembly line workers who will be assigned to that subassembly task can receive specific training modules designed to help them perform this task better. Modules can also be pre- pared for the line supervisors who direct that subassembly operation so that they can follow up the initial training with online coaching. Compensation Since a job analysis identifies the major performance components and expectations for each job, management can place a monetary value to the organizational mission on each of those components. Management can also determine the level of performance expected on each of those components or each job in the organization as a way of identifying the comparative value of each job. These components and levels of performance can then help set the budget for the organizations human resources. An organ ization may decide, for example, that rapidly changing technology makes their market so unstable that they will place higher value on demonstrated individual adaptability (as defined above by Pulakos et al., 2000) and non-job-specific task proficiency (as defined above in Campbells model), and less value on written and oral task communication proficiency or the maintenance of personal discipline (from the Campbell model). This means that jobs that depend heavily on the first two performance components will pay better than jobs with heavy concentrations of the latter components. Promotion/Job Assignment The concept of a job ladder or job family is based on the observation that a

particular job may have closer connections to a subset of other jobs than to a job chosen at random. Accounting jobs are closer to budgeting and invoicing positions than they are to engineering or production positions. Job analysis permits the Identification of clusters of positions that are similar, either in terms of the human attributes needed to be successful at them or in terms of the tasks carried out in those jobs. This in turn allows the organization to identify logical career paths as well as the possibility of transfer from one career ladder to another. Workforce Reduction/Restructuring Mergers, acquisitions, downsizing, and right- sizing are all terms that imply job changesoften involuntary ones on the part of the employees. Mergers and acquisitions ca ll for identifying duplicative positions and centralizing functions. The challenge is to identify which positions are truly redundant and which provide a unique value added. In downsizing and rightsizing interventions, posi tions with somewhat related tasks are often consolidated into a single position. The job descriptions of those who slay with the organization are enlarged with the result that more responsibilities are assumed by fewer people. In both the merger/acquisition and the downsizing/rightsizing scenarios, managements key role is deciding which tasks to fold into which positions; detailed job analyses provide a template for making these decisions rationally. Criterion Development As you will recall from our discussion of validity in Chapter 2, the criterion is the behavior that constitutes or defines successful performance of a given task. It is the dependent variable in criterion-related validity studies. Independent variables such as scores on a test of mental ability are correlated with criterion measures to demonstrate that those scores are valid predictors of probable job success. In content- related validity studies, as we saw in Chapter 2, the 1-0 psychologist establishes logical links between important task-based characteristics of the job and the assessment used to choose among candidates. It is the job analysis that provides the raw material for criterion development. For example, m a criterion -related validity study of a problem-solving test for software consultants, a job analysis might tell us that one of the most common and important tasks of the consultant is to identify a flaw in a software program. As a result, we might then develop a measure of the extent to which the consultant does consistently identify the flaw without asking for assistance. This measure might be in the form of a rating scale of troubleshooting that would be completed by the consultants supervisor. We would then have both the predictor score and a criterion score for the calculation of a validity coefficient. Performance Assessment An extension of the use of job analysis for criterion development is the development of performance assessment systems. Once the job analyst identifies critical performance components of a job, it is possible to develop a system for evaluating the extent to which an individual worker has fallen short of, met, or exceeded the standards set by the organization for performance on those components. We will deal with the issue of performance evaluation in detail in Chapter 6. A BRIEF HISTORY OF JOB ANALYSIS One of the first I-O psychologists to introduce standardized job analysis was Morris Viteles. As early as 1922, he used job analysis to select employees for a trolley car company (Viteles, 1922). An example of his job analysis areas is presented in Figure 5.6, showing how the technique was applied to the job of Quiller in a knitting mill. As you can see, the analyst first de- scribed the duties of the incumbent, then the nature and conditions of work, and finally, some basic qualifications. Having done that, the analyst then completed a form called a job psychograph which displayed the mental requirements of the job. The re ason we present these artifacts is to show that the purpose of job analysis has not changed in over 70 years: it remains one of understanding t he behavioral requirements of work. It was then and is now the analysts best attempt at developing a theory of work performance. Over the years, experts have presented many different systems to accomplish job analysis. There are many excellent reviews of these systems (Gael, 1979, 1988), but since many are no longer in use, we will not describe them here. What we can say is that these Systems became increasingly detailed over the decades, with greater concentration on tasks and lesser concentration on human attributes. Fortunately, that trend has been reversed in recent years, and we will present some newer systems that have brought I-O psychology back to an examination of the behavioral roots of work. TYPES OF JOB ANALYSIS As you saw from the examples above, the purpose of a job analysis is to combine the task demands of a job with our knowledge of human attributes and produce a theory of behavior for the job in question. There are two

ways to approach building that theory. One is called the task-oriented job analysis; this approach begins with a statement of the actual tasks as well as what is accomplished by those tasks. A second method is called the worker-oriented job analysis; as a starting point, this approach focuses on the attributes of the worker necessary to accomplish the tasks. The following example might help to make the distinction clearer. For the job of a snow-cat operator at a ski slope, a task-oriented job analysis form might include the statement:
Opcrat.es Bombardier Sno-Cat to smooth out snow rutted by skiers and snowboard riders, and new snow that has fallen.

In contrast, a worker-oriented job analysis statement might be:

Regardless of which approach is taken, the next step in the job analysis is to identify the attributesthe KSAOs we covered in Chapter 3 on individual differencesthat an incumbent needs for either performing the tasks or executing the human behaviors described by the job analysis. KSAOs can be defined as follows: Knowledge: A collection of discrete but related facts and information about a particular domainacquired through formal education or training, or accumulated through specific experiences Skill: A practiced act. Ability: The stable capacity to engage in a specific behavior. Other characteristics: personality variables, interests, training and experience

Finally, when the appropriate KSAOs are identified, tests and other assessment techniques can be chosen to measure those KSAOs (see Figure 5.8). Job analysis methods have evolved using both task-oriented and worker-oriented systems (e.g., Fine, 1989; McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1972). Since both approaches end up in the same place -a statement of KSAOs- neither can be considered the right way to conduct a job analysis. For practical purposes, since worker-oriented job analyses tend to be more generalized descriptions of human behavior and behavior patterns, and less tied to the technological aspects of a particular job, they produce data more useful for structuring training programs and giving feedback to employees in the form of performance appraisal information. In addition, as we have seen, the volatility that exists in todays typical workplace can make specific task statements less valuable in isolation. Tasks move from job to job, are ma de obsolete by technology changes, or are assumed by teams rather than individuals. For all of these reasons, employers are significantly more likely to use worker-oriented approaches to job analysis today than they did in the past. Morgeson and Campion (1997) suggested a staggering number of potential distorting influences in job analysis data collection, and concluded that task-oriented job analysis is less vulnerable to those influences than is the worker-oriented approach. The potential distorting influences include such factors as a need on the part of the employee doing the reporting, commonly referred to as a subject matter expert (SME), to conform to what others report, the desire to make ones own job look more difficult, attempts to provide the answers that the SME thinks the job analyst wants, and mere carelessness. Although task-based analysis may be a good measuring tool, in the opinion of your authors it is hardly of value to measure the wrong thing (task-level analysis) well. To borrow a euphemism once applied to Cattells brand of psychometrics, doing so would be like losing your wallet on a dark Street and hunting for it on the next block where there are streetlights. HOW JOB ANALYSIS IS DONE Regardless of the approach the job analyst decides to use, information about the job is the backbone of the analysis, and there are many ways to get it. The more information and the more ways the analyst can collect that information, the better the understanding of the job. Some common methods include: 1. ObservationThis was perhaps the first method of job analysis I-O psychologists used They simply watched incumbents perform their jobs and took notes, Sometimes they asked questions while watching, and not infrequently they even performed )ob tasks themselves. Near the end of World War II, Morris Viteles studied the job of navigator on a submarine. He attempted to steer the submarine toward the island of Bermuda. After five not-so-near-misses of 100 miles in one direction or another,

one frustrated officer suggested that Viteles raise the periscope, look for clouds, and steer toward them (since clouds tend to form above or near land masses). The vessel found Bermuda shortly thereafter. One of your authors has observed or participated in jobs as diverse as police patrol, iron ore mining four miles beneath the surface north of the Arctic Circle, cookie packing, airport subway repair, packing baggage into the cargo hold of a Boeing 727 and 747, nuclear control room operation, and overhead crane operation. The more jobs one seriously observes, the better ones understanding of not only the jobs in question, but of work m general. 2. Interviewsit is important to supplement observation by talking with incumbents, either at the worksite or in a separate location. These interviews are most effective when structured with a specific set of questions based on observations, other analyses of the types of jobs in questions, or prior discussions with HR reps, trainers, or managers knowledgeable about the jobs. 3. Critical Incidents and Work Diaries I-O psychologists have used other techniques to capture important information about jobs. The critical incident technique asks: SMEs to identify critical aspects of behavior or performance in a particular job that led to success or failure. The supervisor of a Computer programmer might report, say, that in very time-urgent project, the programmer decided to install a subroutine without taking the time to debug it; eventually, the entire system crashed because of a flaw in the logic of that one subroutine. The second methoda work diaryasks workers and/or supervisors to keep a log of their activities over a prescribed period of time. They may be asked to simply jot down what they were doing at 15 minutes after the hour for each hour of their work day. 0 they may list everything that they have done up to a lunch break. 4. Questontiaires/SurveysExpert incumbents or supervisors (SMEs) often respond to questionnaires or surveys as part of a job analysis. These questionnaires include task statements in the form of worker behaviors. SMEs are asked to rate each statement from their experience on a number of dimensions such as frequency of performance, importance to over- all job success, and whether the task or behavior must be performed on the first day of work or can be learned gradually on the job. Questionnaires also ask SMEs to rate the importance of various KSAOs for performing tasks or task groups, and may ask the SMEs to rate work context. Unlike the results of observations or interviews, the questionnaire responses can be statistically analyzed to provide a more objective record of the components of the job. Over the years, several commercially available job analysis surveys have been popular. Perhaps the best known and most widely used of these instruments is the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by McCormick et al. (1972). Jeanneret (1992) has expanded and revised the PAQ system and maintained a substantial database of job analysis information for many occupations over the 30 years of its use. Other survey-based systems include the Fleishman Job Analysis System (based on the Fleishman taxonomy that we examined in Chapter 3); the Occupational Analysis Inventory (Cunningham, Boese, Neeb, & Pass, 1983), best suited for occupational education and guidance work; the Common Metric Questionnaire (CMQ) developed by The Psychological Corporation (1993); and the Work Profiling System (WPS) developed by Saville & Holdsworth Limited (2001), which is an example of Computer-based job analysis data collection augmented by an expert system that matches people and jobs. We will examine this system more deeply in a later section of this chapter. A book published by the National Research Council (1999) provides an excellent description of each of these commercially available systems. Module 5.4