|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 115
Minority Report
ERNEST J. MCCORMICK1
The report of the Committee on Occupational Classification and
Analysis deals generally with the issue of alleged discrimination in pay
in the form of inequitable treatment based on sex or race. In connection
with the report there are two issues with which ~ am in disagreement
and that make it impossible for me to concur with portions of the report.
Because of m' disagreement on these issues ~ am writing this minority
report.
Before setting forth the bases of these disagreements, ~ would like to
refer to the composition of the committee, with particular reference to
' Professional background especially relevant to committee activities. Work cxpericncc:
chief, planning unit, occupational research program, U.S. Employment Seneca, 193~1939;
chief occupational analyst. population census, Bureau of the Census, 193~1941; chief,
occupational statistics, Selective Service System, 1941-1943; personnel classification of-
ricer, U.S. Navy, 194~1945; professor of industrial psychology, Purdue University (in-
cluding primary research activities for 20 years in job analogs and teaching courses in job
analysis), 194~1977. Relevant publications: Job Analysis: Methods and Applications,
Amcncan Management Associations, 1979; chapter on "Job ant Task Analysis" in Hand-
book of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, M. D. Du~cnc, cd., Rand McNally,
1976; chapter on "Job Information: Its Development and Applications" in ASPA Hand
look of Personnel Relations, D. Yoder and H. H. Hcacman, Jr., ads., Bumau of National
Affairs, 1974; chapters on "Job and Task Analysis" and "Job Evaluation" us Indus~l
Engu~cenng Handbook, G. Salvendy, cd., John Wiley ~ Sons (io press); 36 technical
reports dealing with job analysis and job cvaJuation; S chapters in tactical reports dealing
tenth job analysis; several papers in professional journals. Other: oomultant on job analysis
to the U.S. Employment Scrvicc; Icader in job analysis worl~sbop~. CU~eDt~: professor
cmcntus, Purdue University; 1315 Sunset Irene, West I^fayettc, Indiana 47906.
~5
OCR for page 116
116
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
the topical domain with which it dealt, namely, the matter of procedures
for establishing equitable pay rates for jobs, which can involve the proc-
esses of job evaluation. The report of any committee that deals with a
controversial subject typically renects the composition of the committee.
In the case of this committee there was no member who was a full-time
practitioner in the field of job evaluation, and only a very few members
had had any specific experience with, or involvement with, practical job
evaluation procedures or with the job analysis processes that are basic
to job evaluation and wage determination. The original committee ap-
pointments did include an industnal engineer who was deeply involved
in job evaluation processes as a consultant, but he resigned shortly after
the committee was formed because of possible conflict of interests. ~
recommended that a person with his background and experience be
appointed to replace him, but this was not done. [Biographical sketches
of committee members and staff appear at the end of the volume.]
Neither was there anyone on the staff who, to my knowledge, had
had practical experience in the field of job evaluation. Furthermore,
most of the members of the staff had had no experience in the occu-
pational field as broadly conceived, including exposure to job evaluation
and its underlying job analysis processes. ~ believe the activities of the
committee were influenced by (and in my opinion seriously impaired
because of) the very limited representation on the committee and staff
of persons with familianty with, or practical experiences in, job eval-
uation processes and the underlying field of job analysis.
Criterion for Determining Job Values
One of the critical issues of this minority statement relates to the
standard or the criterion that should be used in judging the "worth" of
jobs. Before discussing such standards, however, it would be appropriate
to differentiate between two frames of reference in which alleged dis-
cnm~nation is discussed. One frame of reference concerns the matter
of "equal pay for equal work," which deals with pay for jobs that are
the same or very similar in content. Me other reference point concerns
the concept of equal pay for 'comparable" work or work of "comparable
worth" or "comparable" or "equal value." blue committee report deals
largely with the '~comparable worth" frame of reference.)
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VI! of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 both provide for equal pay for equal work and state that it is
discriminatory for men and women performing equal work to be paid
differently. On legal and rational grounds there is no justification for
such discrimination. He report of the committee strongly supports the
OCR for page 117
Minority Report
117
objectives of ensuring equal pay for equal work as construed in the
frame of reference of equal pay for jobs that are similar in content, and
fully concur in the portions of the report that deal with this concept.
My concern deals pnmanly with the question of the standards or criteria
that might be relevant for evaluating the 'comparability" of jobs.
Me committee report is sprinkled with direct references or ~mplica-
tions relating to alleged discrimination in the case of certain jobs In
which women tend to dominate (these are sometimes called "women's
jobs") as contrasted with those in which men tend to dominate (these
are sometimes called 6'men's jobs',). It is alleged that the pay scales for
some women's jobs are lower than they `'should be," and that such rates
are as low as they are because employment in them is dominated by
women. Such alleged discrimination is sometimes referred to as ~nsti-
tutional discrimination, the theory being that cultural and other factors
have resulted in the "tracking', of women into such jobs, with accom-
panying pay scales below what they ''should be." The argument that
differences in the pay of women's jobs and men's jobs reflect a form of
discnmination has given rise to the concept of equal pay for comparable
work (or for work of comparable value or equal value), the implication
being that there is some concept of comparability of jobs that would
make it possible to justify the establishment of equal pay for jobs that
are different in content but comparable in terms of the concept of worth
or value. This argument immediately raises the question as to the basis
on which jobs might be considered comparable in worth (or noncom-
parable).
In the report of the committee there are numerous statements that
either directly, or by implication or inference, take issue with the pnn-
ciple that the prevailing rates of pay in the labor market should serve
as the primary basis for the establishment of pay scales for jobs in specific
situations. Furthermore, the committee report implies that the deter-
mination of the comparability in worth between jobs should be ~nde-
pendent of current wages and salaries found in the labor market. It is
with these portions of the report that ~ am in disagreement, since it is
my firm conviction that current wages and salanes are indeed one in-
dication of the underlying relationship between jobs. This relationship
between worth and pay, albeit imperfect, is a product of real, impartial
forces (as well as of the venous possible biases that trouble the com-
m~ttee) and thus cannot rationally be ignored.
It is my contention that there is no conceptually appropriate, eco
comically Table, or practical basis for determining the comparability
of jobs without considering the value system that underlies the wages
"d salanes paid to all jobs throughout the entire oc~pa?donal structure
OCR for page 118
118
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
of our economy. Stated differently, I am convinced that the comparable
worth or value as reflected in the going rates of pay assigned to jobs
will over time closely correlate with the underlying hierarchy of values
that has evolved in our world of work. This hierarchy of values generally
reflects the fact that job Values are influenced by a vanety of factors
such as skill, effort, responsibility, type of work activity, and working
conditions. Furthermore, this value system is essentially a function of
the supply of, and the demand for, individuals who possess the relevant
job skills, who have the ability to apply the relevant effort, who are
capable of assuming the relevant responsibilities, who can perform the
work activities in question, and who are able and whiling to work under
the working conditions in question. To ignore the value system because
it does not produce results that fit certain preconceptions of job worth
(whether for or against any classy reflects. in mv opinion a hiac~1 frame
of reference.
- ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~r ~ - ~-~ a.l~,
The committee report views the labor market as one that tends to
undervalue "women's jobs" relative to '6men's jobs" and concludes that
the market is discriminatory and therefore should be disregarded in
establishing rates of pay. Such a view of the labor market seems to me
to be naive and unrealistic. The labor market is the generic term for a
value system rooted in the hierarchy of skills, effort, responsibility, and
work activities (and to some extent working conditions) that compose
jobs, and the supply and demand forces that operate as organizations
and workers compete in our economy. As a matter of interest, state-
ments of female or minority "undervaluation" seem to be based upon
the concept that there is a value system but that some types of individuals
in certain jobs are not paid according to the underlying system. If there
is no available hierarchy of worth, there is no objective basis upon which
to make claims of bias. Accordingly, ~ am convinced that the labor
market must be the arbiter of basic rates of pay and that there is no
other logical, economic, or practical basis for determining the values of
jobs, be it in teens of "equal" or "comparable" worth.
There are two general approaches that an organization can follow in
relating pay scales for its jobs to those of corresponding jobs in the labor
market. In the first place, if the jobs in question have identical coun-
terparts in the labor market, the prevailing pay rates (or pay ranges)
can be used directly for setting pay scales within the organization In
thin Anna ^1~^ _~
-__ ~ -~"l~l~ll ~ use some rype of job evaluation
system for setting the compensation rates forits jobs.2 The most effective
2 Age commInBt's UltCnm Sport (Trcim-, 1979) provi-~ CStC~VC discussion of
pb cveluabon, "d I - 1 not discuss the process of job CV~6OD ~ ~ mono repon.
OCR for page 119
Minon0, Report
119
job evaluation system usually is one that accurately examines the content
of jobs (skills, effort, responsibilities, activities, working conditions,
etc.) and yields relative job values (usually point values) that correspond
closely with (i.e., are correlated with) prevailing rates ~ the labor mar-
ket. In effect this means that job evaluation systems (or the procedures
for denying relative job values) should be based on, or related to, those
30b characteristics that gave rise to prevailing market values. To develop
a job evaluation system that did not first examine (and compare) the
content of jobs and, second, relate the job content to a value system
that underlies our entire economy is not realistic, practical, or ecosom-
~caDy or socially desirable.
The Use of Structured lob Analysis Procedures
Lee other point that underlies the preparation of this niinonty report
Is clearly related to the matter of determining the "comparability" of
jobs either to determine their eaualitv (or inequality) or to determine
their comparability in the framework of "comparable worth." Such
comparisons are basic to the processes of resolving questions about the
equity of pay at venous levels at which such questions might be raised,
such as within an organization, when a complaint Is brought to the
. ~
attention of a regulatory agency or in the courts of law.
In this regard the committee lamented the probIcms of making such
comparisons but chose to virtually ignore the very substantial amount
of research and experience over more than two decades relating to the
systematic, quantitative analysis of human work that has been demon-~
strafed to be of substantial value in making oompansons for many types
Of jobs. The most directly relevant research and e~cpenence deals ninth
what usually are called structured job analysis procedures. ActuaBy, the
committee did include a passing, very cursory reference fin Chapter 4)
to such procedures in saying: "Moreover, methods of systematic job
analysis, such as structured job analysis and task analysis, ought to be
explored for their applicability to job evaluation particular, the job
component method of job evaluation (McCormick aDd Dgen, 1980:Ch.
18), which uses structured job analysis." Not only has the committee
chosen to ignore structured job analysis procedures as they have direct
relevance to the issue of comparability, but they also have failed to
recognized the importance of such procedures to the fundamentals of
job analysis per se, which is the foundation for aD job evaluation systems.
Me committee report has alluded to the roic that job analysis serves
in the job evaluation process. ActuaDy, job analysis can be the Achilles'
heel of any job evaluation technique. Clearly, the impact of unrentable,
OCR for page 120
120
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
invalid, and biased job analysis information on the job evaluation proc-
ess could lead to an "unfair" pay plan. Again, the committee failed to
acknowledge the value of structured job analysis procedures in the realm
of job analysis in general and specifically in the application of such
procedures to job evaluation. Else bibliography to this minority report
includes a limited sample of some of the research literature regarding
the systematic analysis of human work, particularly that relating to struc-
tured job analysis procedures. Many of these listed works clearly dem-
onstrate the practical utility of structured job analysis procedures and
support the contention that, for certain purposes such as comparing
jobs with each other in quantitative terms such procedures are superior
to conventional verbal descriptions. Several researchers have clearly
shown how data obtained with structured job analysis questionnaires
can be used for such key personnel administrative functions as job eval-
uation.
Structured job analysis procedures have two possible applications that
are directly relevant to the interests of the committee, these two appli-
cations being closely related. One application deals with the actual com-
panson of jobs In teens of similarities and differences, and the other
deals with establishing pay rates for jobs that would minin~ze possible
differentials based on sex or race. Basically, structured job analysis
procedures provide for the documentation of the content of jobs in
terms of a set of job elements. These elements typically are descnptive
of work tasks ("job~nented" elements) or of basic human job behaviors
("workermnented', elements) and are listed together in a job analysis
questionnaire. In tlte analysis of jobs with such a questionnaire, the
person making the analysis rates each element in terms of its relevance
to the job, or, in certain instances, simply indicates whether the element
does or does not apply to the job. (The reader interested in a further
explanation of the nature of structured job analysis questionnaires is
referred to Appendix A.)
As indicated previously, one relevant application of structured job
analysis procedures is that of comparing jobs in terms of their similarities
and differences. At a simple jo~to-job keel, two or more jobs can be
compared even by a visual review of the ratings given to the jobs on the
venous job elements being used, as illustrated by the following hypo-
thetical example:
OCR for page 121
M`nori~ Report
lob Element Job A Job B Job C lob D
a
c
d
3
4 4 3
O O 0 2
~3 0
n 2 2 2 4
wow Ratings: 0 = low; ~ = high.
121
Jobs A and B are identical' job C is almost the same as jobs A and B.
but job D differs markedly from the other three. Me fact that data for
the job elements are quantified makes it possible to compare jobs in
quantitative tens. Most typically, some statistical index of similarity
is denved for each pair of jobs. In turn, such indexes frequently are
used for grouping jobs into groups that have reasonably similar profiles
of job element values. In the use of task inventories in the U.S. Air
Force, for example, such procedures are used to identify "job types,"
that is, groups of positions that are reasonably similar in the combina-
tions of tasks that are performed (Chnstal, 1974~. As another example,
Taylor and Colbert (1978) obtained data with a "workermnented,' type
of structured job analysis questionnaire used to study jobs in an insur-
ance company, and they found 13 job families, each family being char-
actenzed by a group of jobs with very similar behavioral components.
The possibility of being able to use statistical procedures for comparing
positions or jobs in terms of their similarities, and of grouping them into
job types or job families, would seem to be substantially relevant in
instances of possible discrimination. In this regard the use of job-on-
ented questionnaires (task inventories) would be most appropriate in
connection with the equal work concept if '`equal work" is viewed in
the framework of the specific tasks of the positions or jobs in question.
If the equal work concept were interpreted as embracing similarities in
the basic human behaviors involved in jobs, however, the workermn-
coted type of structured job analysis questionnaire would be appropriate.
The second possible application of data from structured job analysis
questionnaires that would be relevant to the charge of the committee
th regard to their use in job evaluation. Their use for this purpose
is distinctly different from conventional job evaluation methods in that
the judgmental evaluation process is eluntnated, the job values berg
denved statistically. Such a procedure is caned the job component job
evaluation method (Jeanneret, 1980; McCormick, 1979:317-21; Mc-
Cormick and Ilgen, 1980:37~78~. The procedure as typically corned
out involves the following steps:
OCR for page 122
122
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
1. The analysis of a sample of jobs in terms of an appropriate struc-
tured job analysis questionnaire with job elements consisting of tasks
or basic human behaviors, and usually working conditions. The ind~-
vidual job elements, or statistically related groups thereof, can be con-
sidered as job components.
2. Me derivation, for this sample of jobs, of money values for the
individual components, in particular indexes of the extent to which the
individual components contribute to the going rates of pay for the jobs.
(This is a statistical procedure.)
3. The analysis with the structured job analysis questionnaire of sne-
c'fic jobs for which evaluations are to be made.
- - -r
4. The denvation of an index of the total monetary value for each
such job. This is done by "building up" the total value for each job from
the indexes of the relevance of the individual components to the job,
In combination with the money values of the components as previously
derived from the original sample of jobs as described in steps 1 and 2.
(A more specific description of the job component method of job eval-
uation can be found in Appendix B.)
In line with the comments made earlier, if the concept of equal work
is interpreted in terms of specific work activities such as tasks, the job-
onented type of questionnaire (a task inventory) would be required in
the job component method of job evaluation. Certain applications of
this approach serve as illustrations' such as the study by Miles (1952)
in the case of office jobs and the study by Tornow and Pinto (1976) in
the case of managerial jobs. A variation of this general approach is
suggested by Chnstal (1974~.
If the concept of equal work were interpreted as applying to the
similarity of basic human behaviors in jobs (as contrasted to work tasks),
the worker-oriented type of structured questionnaire would be relevant.
In this regard, for example, Jeanneret (1972) used such 8 questionnaire
to place venous utility company jobs in several pay grades and then
compared the average actual pay of men and women in each of the
Mew" pay grades. In this instance he found a salary difference of SLOB
a month in favor of men. In studies completed for another utility com-
pany and for a savings and loan organization, similar comparisons also
revealed appreciable salary differences (Ieanneret, 1978). (In these com-
panies the salaries of women were subsequently adjusted.) The general
undication from such studies is that a worlcermnented type of structured
job analysis questionnaire can, as Jeanneret (1978) expresses it, "docu-
ment the content of jobs without regard to sex of the Incumbents . . . and
fairly evaluate jobs without regard to the sex of the Incumbents."
OCR for page 123
Minority Report
123
If the objective of a job evaluation plan is to derive estimates of equal
pay for comparable work (as opposed to equal pay for equal work) the
worker-onented type of structured job analysis questionnaire definitely
would be Me more appropriate. Thus, it is believed that such structured
job analysis questionnaires could serve as the basis for determining the
"comparability of jobs if ultimately the law or the courts would provide
the basis for "equal pay for comparable work" as contrasted with '6equal
pay for equal work."
In summary, ~ would like to emphasize the point that there have been
significant developments in the past couple of decades in the develop-
ment and use of systematic methods of analysis of human work and in
the use of such methods for venous practical purposes such as the quan-
titative comparison of jobs with each other, the identification of job
types or job families, and job evaluation. There seems to be no question
but that the nature and scope of these developments have~substantial
potential relevance to the objectives of the committee. In Mew of this
~ fee] that the committee report is seriously deficient since it refers to
such work with only a casual one-sentence comment. In my opinion the
failure of the committee to include more adequate discussion of struc-
tured job analysis procedures reflects the fact that the staff and most
members of the committee were not sufficiently familiar with the de-
velopments in this area over the past couple of decades and therefore
failed to appreciate the possible relevance of such procedures to the
objectives of the committee.
Me two issues raised in this minority report would seem to be com-
patible with each other. The job component method of job evaluation
is of course based on the use of going rates of pay as the standard or
criterion for Staining the money values of venous types of work
behaviors, but at the same time the use of structured job analysis pro-
cedures in this process seems to make it possible to "document the
content of jobs without regard to sex of the incumbent . . . and fairly
evaluate jobs without regard to sex of the incumbents" (Ieanneret,
1978~.
APPENDIX A: STRUCTURED JOB ANALYSIS
QUESTI ONNAI RES
A structured job analysis questionnaire consists of a specific list of
job elements that can be used in the analysis of jobs. There are various
types of job elements that can be used In structured job analysis pro-
cedurcs, although there are two types that are particularly relevant. In
the first place, some structured job analysis questionnaires, commonly
OCR for page 124
124
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
called task inventories, provide for the analysis of jobs in teens of each
of a number of tasks that might be performed by individuals within a
given occupational area. Examples of such occupational areas are health
services, office operations, automobile mechanics, and engineenng.
Examples of tasks that might be included in task inventories are: types
straight copy from rough draft; removes and replaces spark plugs; takes
orders for meals Mom customers; and estimates costs of building ma-
tenals from building plans and specifications. Task inventories have
been referred to as "job-onented" questionnaires in that they provide
for describing jobs In teens of the output or end-result of tasks. In the
usual task inventory it is typically the practice for the job incumbent to
indicate, for each task, whether he or she performs the task or not, and
in addition, to indicate something about the degree of involvement with
each task, such as the frequency of performance or the time spent on
the task.
Task mventones frequently are used as the basis for identifying `'job
types" that consist of jobs or positions with relatively similar combi-
nations of tasks. This sometimes is camed out with a hierarchical group-
ing technique that involves the denvation of a statistical index of the
degree of similarity of the tasks performed for every possible pair of
jobs or positions in the sample being used. Such statistical indexes con-
ceivably could be relevant in comparing the similanty of jobs about
which some discrimination issue has been raised. Furthermore, the pos-
sibility of identifying job types by statistical procedures might also have
some relevance in connection with charges relating to discnmination.
It should be pointed out that the use of any given task inventory would
be restricted to the specific occupational area for which it was prepared.
It is expected that there are certain types of occupational areas for which
task inventories might not be feasible.
The second type of structured job analysis questionnaire provides for
the analysis of jobs in terms of more generalized, basic human job
behaviors that transcend or cut across occupational areas. Such ques-
tionnaires are referred to as "worker-onented" questionnaires in that
they provide for analyzing jobs in teens that descnbe, or imply, the
basic human behaviors involved In work activities. One such question-
naire, reported by McCormick (1979, pp. 147~9) and McCormick,
Jeanneret, and Mecham (1972) proxies for analyzing jobs in terms of
each of 187 job elements. Some examples (in paraphrased form) are:
uses visual displays (as a source of job information); uses measuring
devices; arranges or positions objects in a specific position or arrange-
ment; operates keyboard deuces; oonduas interviews with others;
works under high-temperature conditions. In the analysis of a job with
OCR for page 125
M`nonty Report
125
this questionnaire the analyst uses an appropriate rating scale to indicate
the involvement of the job incumbent with each job element. Vanous
types of rating scales are used, such as the degree of importance, the
amount of time involved, the "extent of use" of venous kinds of ma-
tensis, and so forth.
This particular questionnaire has been subjected to a form of factor
analysis (specifically, principal components analysis) that identifies the
job elements that tend to "go together" in jobs and that form what are
caned job dimensions. Each such job dimension can be thought of as
being based pumanly on the group of job elements that tend to occur
common across jobs in general. Some examples of job din~cosions
are: interpreting what is sensed; processing ~fo`'llation; performing
handling and related activities; exchanging jo~related ~formation;
being alert to changing conditions; and potentially hazardous situations.
Collectively, these job dimensions can be viewed as reflecting the "struc-
ture" of human work in terms of the basic types of bunnan behavior that
are involved in work activities. With the analysis of a job using the
structured job analysis questionnaire In question it is possibIc to denve
a score for the job on each dimension. Such scores represent a "profile"
for the job, and can be used as quantitative mdexes of the dimensions.
APPENDIX B: THE JOB COMPONENT METHOD OF
JOB EVALUATION
Me job component method of job evaluation is based on the use of
a structured job analysis questionnaire in the analysis of jobs. There are~
venous ways in which data from such questionnaires can be used in the
denvation of money values of jobs, but the basic procedure referred to
carlier is the one dealt with In this appendix. In actual use ~ denying
indexes of job values the method involves two steps. In the first place
the jobs are analyzed with the structured job analysis questionnaire
being used. In the second place a statistical equation is used to denve
an index of the total value for each job. The equation incorporates a
weight for each job "component.'" The job components may be m~i-
vidual job elements, or combinations of elements based on factor analy-
~s, the factors usually being caned job dimensions. ~ denying a total
value for a job the "weight" for each component is multiplied by the
value of that component for the jobs resulting ~ an anthme~cic '~prod-
uct," for each component. These products for ad components are then
added together to denve a total value for the job.
Me central basis for the job component method of job equation Is
in the derivation of the weights for the individual components. For this
J
OCR for page 126
126
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
purpose data for a dangle of jobs are used. Each job is analyzed with
the structured job analysis questionnaire, producing a value for each
component for each job. In addition, information on the rate of pay for
each job is obtained. Regression analysis is then used for the total sample
to determine the statistical contribution of each component to the rates
of pay for the jobs in the sample. From this analysis it is possible to
denve the appropriate weight for each component. These weights can
be thought of as reflecting the money "values" of the individual com-
ponents In the labor market; that is, how much the individual compo-
nents are `'worth" in the labor market. If, collectively, data on the
"`ralues" of the job components of a structured job analysis question-
na~re predict going rates of pay tenth acceptable accuracy for a sample
of jobs, these money values can then be used as the basis for the esti-
mation of total rates of pay for other jobs.
In a sense, then, the central objective of the job component method
of job evaluation is to develop regression equations that, by and large,
reflect the approximate contributions of different job components to
the market values of jobs. In the operational use of this method a
regression equation based on a broad, vaned sample of jobs from venous
~ndustnes and geographical areas has been found to be reasonably ap-
plicable in venous situations. However, it would be expected that, in
the long run, the denvation of job values would be more accurate if the
money values of the venous job components were denved from data
on samples of jobs of different major types and within particular labor
market areas.
Although the job Component method of job evaluation has not as yet
been used extensively, research and experience with it offer substantive
evidence that could be used in many situations to provide the basis for
the establishment of equitable rates of pay for jobs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, W. B. Computation of group job descriptions Tom occupational survey data.
USAF, Personnel Research L~bantory, PRL-TR~12, 1966.
Archer, W. B. and Pruchtcr, D. A. The constn~ion, renew, and administration of Air
Force job inventoncs. USAP, Personnel Research Laboratory, Technical l~oa~mcutsry
Report No. 63 21, 1963.
Icy, R. D. "d Mossbolder, K. V. ~ Axed methodology for detenn~ng similarities
"d dificrcDoes among jobs. Pcrsormcl Psychology, 1977, 30, 363~73.
Icy, R. D., Passino, E. M. aDd Lounsbury, I. W. Job analysis results as mfluenecd by
ae% of is0mbcat "d hex of aD - t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 411-16.
Bachr, M. E. ~ factorial fnmewo~ for job "aiptions for higher~kvel personnel.
Indus~l Relations Center, lbc Umveruty of Chicago, 1967.
OCR for page 127
Minority Report 127
Boast, R. R. and Cunningham, J. W. Systematically derived dimensions of human work.
Center for Occupational Education, North Carolina State Um~crsity, 1975.
Brumback, G. B., Romashko, T., Hahn, C. P. and Flcishman, E. A. Model Procedures
for Job Analysis, Test Dcvelopmcat and Validation, City of New Yorlc, Dcpartmcut
of PcrsonocI, July 1974.
Brumback. G. B. and Vincent, J. W. Factor analysis of work-performed data for a sample
of administrati~c, professional, and scientific positions. Personnel Psychology, 1970,
23, 101~7.
Cam, M. J. The Samoa method of determining technical, orgen~tional, and commu
mcational dimensions of task clusters. USN, Naval PcrsonDel Research Activity, Tech-
nical Bulletin STB 68-5, 1967.
Canter for Vocational Education, The Ohio State University. Directory of taslc in~catoncs
Volumes 1, 2, and 3~.
Cbristal, R. E. Stability of consolidated job dc~ptions based OR task m~coto~ icy
information. USAF, Pcrsonocl Research Division, Air Force Systems Command,
AFHRL~ 71~48, 1971.
Christal, R. E. New directions in the Air Force occupational recomb program. USAF,
Pcrsonocl Research Division, AFHRL, 1972.
a~nstal, R. E. The United States Air Fores occupational arch project. USAF, Air
Force Systems Command, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, January 1974.
Cragun, ]. R. and McCormick, E. J. Job inventory information: taslc and scale reliabilities
and scale interrelationships. USAP, Personnel Research Laboratory, PRO 67-15,
1967.
Cunningham, J. W. An S-O-R approach to the study of job commomlides relevant to
occupational education. Center for Oct:upatiional Education, Now Carolina State
Un~vcrsity. 1968.
C~ngham, J. W. The job-cluster concept and its curncWar implications. Center for
Occupational Education, Center Monograph No. 4, North Carolina State University,
1969.
Cunningham, J. W., Tuttle, T. C.. Floyd, J. R. and Bates, J. A. Arc development of the
Occupation Analysis Invocatory: an "ergometric" approach to as educational problem.
Center for Occupational Education, Center Research Monograph No. 6, North Carolina
State University, 1971.
Fanna, A. J., Jr. Development of a taxonomy of human performance: a rc~cw of de-
scnpt~ve schemes for human task behavior. American Institutes for Research, Technical
Report No. 2,1969.
Fenna, A. J. and Wheaton, G. R. Development of a taxonomy of bumaD performance:
Zinc task charactenstics approach to performance prediction. Amp Institutes for
Monarch, Technical Report No. 7,1971.
Farrell, W. T. Hierarchical clustering: A bibliography. E~luadon of die Divide Colps
task analysis program. California State University, Los Angeles, July 197S.
Enroll, W. T., Stone, C. H. and Yoder, D. Guidelines for rc~rch ~ and design
task analysis, Technical Report No. 4, Evaluation of the Mume Amps l-lo His
Program. California State University, LLos A~geles, September HIS.
Fine, S. A. Functional Job Analysis Scales: A Desk Aid. W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Mich., April 1973.
Dcishman, E. A. Development of a behavior taxonomy for describing human tams: a
corrclational~c~perimcntal approach. Amcnc" Institutes for R~h, 1966.
Fugill, 1. W. K. Task difficulty and task aptitude b@D~m=i ~ I"
OCR for page 128
128
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
and electronics career ficids. USAP, Air Force Systems Command, Brooks Air Force
Base, Texas, April 1972.
Gilbert, A. C. F. Dimensions of certain anny officer positions dented by factor analysis.
U.S. Army Rcscarch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Dceembcr 1975.
Gregg, D. B. Identification of logistics officer job type groups. USAP, AFHRL-7~39,
lg70.
Gregg, D. B. An occupational survey of an airman career ladder: supply warchousing-
mspection. USAF, Pcrsonncl Rcscarch Laboratory, Technical Report No. 62-19, 1962.
Hcmphill, J. K. Describing managenal work. l~c Confercoce on the Executive Study.
Educational Testing Service, 1961.
Hcmphill, ]. K. Job descriptions for c%crutives. Harvard Busuless Review, 1959, 37, pp
S3 67.
~canncrct, P. R. Personal conununication, 1978.
Jcanocrct, P. R. Equitabic job evaluation and classification with the Position Analysis
Questionnaire. Cornpcns~on Reavow, First Quarter, 1980, pp. 3202. AMACOM,
American Managemcat Aviations.
l-=nar, W. B. Ares methods for estimating difficulty of job tasks. USAP, AFHRL-
TR-71-30, July 1971.
Lends, I. M., Romashl~o, T. and Freshman, E. A. Dc~clopment of a Economy of
human performance: evaluation of an abilities classification system for integrating and
cacralizing research findings. American Institutes for Research, Technical Report No.
12, 1971.
McCormick, E. I. Job Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: AMACOM,
American Management Associations, 1979.
McCormick, E. J. and Ilgen, D. R. ludh~strial Psychology (7th cd.~. Englewo~od Miffs,
New Jersey, 1980.
McCormick, E. I., ~canncret, P. R. and ldecham, R. C. A study of job charactenstics
and job dimensions as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 3470.
Mayo, C. C. A method for determining job types for low aptitude airmen. USAF,
AFHRL-TR 69-35, 1969.
Mead, D. F. sod Distal, R. E. Development of a constant standard weight eanat'an
for evaluating job difficulty. USAF, AFHRL-~-70~4, 1970.
Mead, D. F. Dc~elopmcat of an equation for e~raluadog job difficulty. USAP, AFHRL-
TR-70~42, 1970.
Mccham, R. C. and McConnick, E. ]. Tic use in job evaluation of job clemcuts sad job
dimensions based on the Position Analysis Qucstionnairc. Psychology Department,
Purdue University, Report No. 3, 1969.
Melching, H. W. and Boucher, S. D. Procedures for constructing and using Task h~cn-
toncs. Crater for Vocational and Tc~cal Education, We Ohio State Ll~vcrsity,
Rcscarch and Dc~clopment Series No. 91, 1973.
Mikes, M. C. Studies in job c~ralustion: a. Validity of a cheelc List for evaluating office
jobs.Joun~lof Applied Psychology,l9S2, 36, 97-101.
Morsh9 J. E. Analog WON Chariot. ~ paper presented at the A=cncan Psychological
Association, 1963.
Morsh, J. E. Evolution of a job mvcDtory "d tryout of teslc rating factors. USA,
Per~onocl Research I^boratory, Tropical Repon No. 65~22, 1965.
Morsh, J. E. Identification of job types ~ the personnel career field. I1SAF, Pcrsomcl
Researeb Iaboratory, Technical Report No.6S-9, 1965.
a -, ~
OCR for page 129
Minority Report
129
Morsh, J. E. Job Apes identified with an inventory constructed by Tclectromcs c - nears.
USAF, Personnel Research Laboratory, Technical Rcpon No. 66~6, 1966.
Morsh, 1. E. and Archer, W. B. Procedural guide for conducting occupational surveys
in the United States Air Force. USAP, PCESODDCI Research I~boratory, Technical
Report 67 11, 1967.
Morsh, J. E. and Chnstal, R. E. Impact of the computer on job analog ~ the United
States Air Force. USAF, Pcrsonacl Research I~bc~ratory, TO Report 6619,
lo.
Pass, J. J. and Cunningham, J. W. A systematic p~durc for estimating the attribute
requirements of occupations. Report No. 11 of the Ergometric Re~:h and Dc~cl-
opmcnt Scncs. Center for Occupational Education, North Carolina State Umvcrsity,
a.
Riccobono, J. A. and Cunningham, J. W. World dimensions denved through systematic
job analysis: a study of the Occupation Analysis Invcotory. Center for Occupational
Education, Center Research Monograph No. 8, North Carolina State University, 1971.
Riccobono, J. A. and Cunningham, J. W. Work dimc~ons Denver through systematic
job analysis: a replicated study of the Occupation Analogs Invcotory. Center for Oc-
cupational Education, Center Rcscarch MoDograph No. 9, North Carolina State Um-
vcrsity, 1971.
Riccobono, J. A., Cunningham, J. W. and Boesc, R. R. austere of oocupations based
on systematically derived work dimensions: an c%ploratory' study. Report No. 10 of the
Ergometric Research and Development Scnes. Center for Occupational Education,
North Carolina State VnjYCrS.itY, 1974.
Silverman. J. A computer technique for clustering tasks USN, Naval Pcrsonacl Rcscarch
Activity. Technical Bulletin STB 66-23, 1966.
Silverman. ]. Nc~ techniques in task analysis. USN, Naval Personnel Rcscarch Activity,
Research Memorandum No. SRM 68-12, 1967.
Sprecher. T. B. Dimensions of engineers' job performance. Educational Testing Scnocc,
Research Bulletin, 1965.
Stone, C. H. Evaluation of the Manne Corps Teslc Analysis Program, Technical Report
No. 16. California State UniYcrs.ity, Las Angeles, dune 1976.
Taylor. L. R. and Colbert, G. A. Empincally denoted job families as a foundladon for the
study of validity generalization: Study I1. Mine construction of job families based on
oompany-specific PAQ job dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 341-S5.
Tcichncr, W. H. and Whitehead, J. Development of a Economy of human performance:
Evaluation of a task classification system for gener~li~ng research findings Mom a data
base. American Institutes for Research, Technical Rcpon 8, April 1971.
Torno~, W. W. and Pinto. P. R. Tic development of a ~agenal job taxonomy: A
System for dewing. classifying, and evaluating c~ccutive Motions. Fount of Applied
Psychology, 1976, 61, 41~18.
Treiman, Donald. Job Evaluanor': An Analytic Reavow. Istenm Report to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. Co~nec on Occupational Cl~ificat~ and
Analysis, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sci.
caces, 1979.
Tuttle, T. C. and Cunningham, J. W. Affe~vc corvettes of - ~madcally dented world
dimensions: Validation of the Occupation Analysis Invocatory. Ergometric r~h and
development sends, Report No. 7. Ccutcr research moDo~aph No. 10. Cctltcr for
Ocx:upational Education. North Carolina State University, 1972.
U.S. Dcpa. unent of Health, Education, aDd Welfare. Major Oslo aDd }~kdgc chimers
Involved in performance of electronic Cans' world, 1966.
1
OCR for page 130
130
WOMEN, WORK, AND WAGES
U.S. Air Force, PcrsoQ~cl Rcscarch Division. AFHRL. Pro~ngs of Division 19 of
the American Psychological Association. Division of Military Psychology Symposium:
Collecting, yang, and reporting information Ascribing jobs and occupations, 1969.
U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Task analysis inventories: A
method for collecting job information, 1973.
Whcaton, G. R. Dc~elopmcut of a taxonomy of human performance: 8 review of clas-
sificatory systems relating to testis and performance. American Institute for Research
Technical Report 1,1968.
Wiley, L. N., Jenkins, S. and Cagwin. L. P. Job types of communications officers, USAF,
Pcrsonscl Research I^boratory, Technical Report No. 6617, 1966.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
job evaluation
