Running head: WEEK TWO LEARNING TEAM REFLECTION 1

Week Two Learning Team Reflection

David Koch, Frances Ortiz, Umang Shukla

HRM531

March 11, 2013

Brian Frank

WEEK TWO LEARNING TEAM REFLECTION 2

Week Two Learning Team ReflectionIntroduction

The purpose of this paper is to summarize our team members’ thoughts about this week’s

objectives.

Frances Ortiz’s Reflections

During week two we learned about three important concepts. These concepts included

human resources strategies used in alignment with business strategies, job design, and job

analysis. Organizations develop business strategies to meet objectives; hence, fulfill the firm’s

vision. Once business objectives and strategies have been developed, HR must put in place

strategies to effectively develop job positions and recruitment practices that attract the

appropriate candidate for the position who will be able to complete the required tasks and

contribute to meet the firm’s objectives. The initial development process is called job design.

Through job design, firms strive to obtain a clear picture of what they need to accomplish and

organize these jobs in terms of objectives.

HR specialists, managers, and other specialists develop a job description to determine the

tasks that will be required for a specific job position. In addition, the firm also develops a job

specification that summarizes the skills and profile a candidate must have to complete the tasks

required in the job description. The combination of both the job description and the job

specification is considered the job analysis.

These topics were interesting as they explained how firms analyze job openings before

they are published. The methods used were insightful because they give different perspectives

and approaches to implement. Although I was able to grasp all the concepts, initially the

difference between job description and job specifications was a bit vague. However, after

WEEK TWO LEARNING TEAM REFLECTION 3

discussing with teammates I was able to identify the difference and functionality of both these

elements.

Dave Koch’s Reflections

A job analysis develops what are the essential functions that need to be performed as part

of a job. The analysis looks at the job and identifies what skills are needed by whoever fills the

job. According to our text,

"The result of the process of job analysis is a job description (an overall

written summary of task requirements) and a job specification (an overall written

summary of worker requirements) " (Cascio, 2010, p. 167).

I can see how important a job description can be from a legal prospective. It can be

particularly important when dismissing an employee due to poor performance. It can be either

good protection or a liability against a lawsuit, depending how well defined and written out it is.

I find it interesting that there were five popular methods of conducting a job analysis.

The job performance, observation, and interview methods were familiar to me. These methods

are logical to me. I have used these three methods or a combination of them to develop job

descriptions.

However, the critical incident and structured questionnaire methods were new to me. It

may be difficult to develop a thorough job description using the critical incident method, but I

can see how it can be used to more thoroughly define a job description developed with the other

methods. I was surprised to see that many of my classmates were familiar with and preferred the

structured questionnaire method. Although it is a well-accepted method, it may be difficult to

apply when describing more technical jobs.

Umang Shakla’s Reflections

WEEK TWO LEARNING TEAM REFLECTION 4

Job descriptions are vital from several standpoints and also protect the organization from

legal issues. They are a means of communication between the employer and the employee to

provide clarity on the expectations and the job responsibilities. Job descriptions can be better

used to gather information about the relevant profile and also identifying the core specialties

required for the smooth functioning in the job.

According to me talking in terms of set theory, job description is a superset and a job

responsibility is a sub set. Meaning, job responsibilities can be laid out in a job description but

job description is not all about job responsibilities. It also includes salary information and perks

and benefits.

A major merit of the face-to-face interview procedure is that the researcher has the

liberty to modify the question as may be required by the situation, address queries, and

make sure that the responses are communicated effectively with repeatedly rephrasing

questions. This method can be applied for jobs of all categories irrespective of hierarchy.

The interview can also focus on the possible requirements of a hypothetical job. In the

interviews, the conclusive data is descriptive in nature and allows for better interpretation

of activities by the employees. The interviewer can dwell deeper into certain topics

depending on his/her effectiveness. This is not quite possible with structured

questionnaires. Employees can provide a generalist idea about their job and their

perspectives and feelings about the work and environment. The effectiveness of the

interview method lies in the fact that the employee is well aware of the expectations

involved in their job. It enables the interviewers to get glimpses of activities performed in

the job that may not be available in the written format. There is also good scope for

obtaining information about the standard, non-standard, mental work, and data that

WEEK TWO LEARNING TEAM REFLECTION 5

cannot be directly observed but play crucial role in the process of job analysis. (Casico,

2010).

In the interview method, the major disadvantage was that the success of the process

depended heavily on the correctness and relevance of the questions asked and their

construct. In case of wrong or inaccurate questions, the returned data were mostly

irrelevant or flawed. Another factor is the high cost of training the interviewers to

eliminate prejudice if any. For instance, each interviewer may put forth different queries

and infer entirely different information from the response. Also, the employees may feel

uncomfortable in face-to-face interactions. The employees may also doubt the intentions

and authority of the analyst or may misinterpret the questions posed (Casico, 2010).

Conclusion

WEEK TWO LEARNING TEAM REFLECTION 6

Reference

Cascio, W. (2010). Managing Human Resources. Productivity, Quality of Work Life, Profits (8th

ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Company.