Post on 02-Feb-2023
TOWARD AN ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS
Krystin E. Mitchell George M. Alliger
Richard Morfopoulos State University of New York-Albany
This article describes how current job analysis methods can be used to incorporate the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of (1990). First, terms in the ADA such as “qualified individuals with disabil- ities, ” “essential functions,” and “reasonable accommodation” are discussed in reference to their implications for job analysis. Second, survey results gathered from individuals with disabilities are presented to suggest some ways job analysis can be used to identify essential functions and reasonable accommodations. Third, some general suggestions are offered for perform- ing an ADA-appropriate job analysis. Finally, several current job analysis techniques chosen to be representative of the field are evaluated on three criteria: (a) whether the technique has an outcome versus a process focus, (b) whether the technique identifies essential functions, and (c) whether the technique identifies potential reasonable accommodations for a particular job. The job analysis techniques evaluated include: (a) Functional Job Anal- ysis (FJA) (Fine 19881, (b) task analysis (e.g., CODAP, standard task an- alyses), (c) Threshold Traits Analysis (‘ITA) (Lopez et al. 1981), (d) the Posi- tion Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) (McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham 1972), and (e) the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) (Flanagan 1954).
The Americans’ with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990 in an effort to fight discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Since that time, little has been written about the implications the ADA will or should have on job analy- sis, which is the cornerstone of nearly all personnel practices (Cascio 1991). Consequently, human resource practitioners may be uncertain how to use job analysis to meet the mandates of the ADA (19901, or even how to define vague terms in the ADA such as “essential functions” and “reasonable accommoda- tion.” Unfortunately, these terms may eventually have to be defined in the
Direct all correspondence to: Krystin E. Mitchell, KFC, Organization and Management Development, 1441 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, KY 40213.
Human Resource Management Review, Copyright 0 1997 Volume 7, Number 1,1997, pages 5-26 by JAI Press Inc. AI1 rights of reproduction in any form reserved. IkSN:1053-4822
6 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMEER 1,1997
courtroom, as several recent court cases suggest (e.g., Chiari v. City of League City 1991).
Title I of the ADA presents unique challenges for human resource managers that differ from challenges presented by past civil rights legislation. The ADA requires that both essential functions and reasonable accommodations be iden- tified. However, commonly used job analysis methods were developed prior to these ADA requirements, and thus may or may not meet the mandates of the ADA. Human resource managers are left to wonder if current job analysis methods are adequate, or if extensive modifications to these job analysis meth- ods are required. We address how job analysis methods such as Functional Job Analysis (Fine 1988) and task analysis may be augmented to ensure essential functions are identified. In addition, we make suggestions for identifying po- tential reasonable accommodations for jobs based on these essential functions.
The overarching goal of this article is to examine job analysis practices relative to the requirements and definitions of the ADA. This article evaluates how well traditional job analysis methods meet the mandates of the ADA and suggests modifications for certain methods. These methods, however, must allow some flexibility when defining how the same outcomes can be achieved by different means by different individuals within the same job title. This “equi- finality” approach accepts theo~tically what has already been supported em- pirically-namely that there is much within-job variability in job analysis results, and thus aggregating job analysis data within a job-title may mask systematic within-group variability (Alliger 1991; Harvey 1990).
The goals of this article are fourfold. First, some terms in the ADA are defined and discussed in the context of their importance to st~cturing job analysis to meet the provisions of the ADA (1990). Second, survey results gathered from individuals with varying disabilities are presented to suggest some ways job analysis could be used to identify essential functions and poten- tial reasonable accommodations. Third, suggestions are offered for performing an ADA-appropriate job analysis. Finally, we assess the adequacy of several specific job analysis methods to identify essential functions and reasonable accommodations.
ADA TERMINOLOGY RELEVANT TO JOB ANALYSIS
To discuss the ADA and job analysis, some key terms discussed in Title I of the ADA must be defined. Relevant terms include: (a) disability, (b) qualified indi- vidual with a disability, (c) reasonable accommodation, and most importantly for job analysis, (d) essential functions.
The ADA (1990) states that a disability means: (a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; fb) a record of such an impai~ent; or, (cf being regarded as having such an impairment. The term “qualified individual with a disability” means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accom- modation, can perform the essential functions of the job that such an individu-
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 7
al holds or desires (ADA 1990). However, such an individual may be “otherwise quali~ed~-that is, qualified except that there may be some impediments hin- dering job performance under current conditions or in the typical fashion.
If it can be determined that an individual is “otherwise qualified,” the em- ployer must then determine whether or not the individual can perform the essential functions of the job with or without “reasonable accommodation.” “Reasonable accommodation” refers to the employer’s obligation to make changes to existing facilities, job tools, schedules, work assi~ments, and so forth to enable job performance by individuals with disabilities (ADA 19901. Thus, reasonable accommodation may include: (a) providing individuals with equipment or devices (e.g., voice responsive computers), (b) switching tasks (individuals’ with disabilities switching marginal tasks with other employees), and/or fc) modifying work schedules to accommodate individuals’ with disabil- ities (ADA 1990). Such accommodations are “reasonable” in that they must be provided to individuals with disabilities unless the accommodation causes “un- due hardship” on an organization because it is significantly difficult or expen- sive for an organization to implement (ADA 1990).
Essential Functions
Probably the most important term for job analysis, however, is the term “essential function.” As mentioned previously, the essential functions of a job are typically not explicitly identified by standard job analysis methods. This is true because essential functions are not necessarily the same as critical tasks. Essential functions are broader than tasks in that they are outcome-, not method-, oriented. That is, essential functions specify the desired end result of an action, not how the essential functions must be performed. Therefore, in job analysis terminology, essential functions are more like “duties” than tasks. In fact, the EEOC (1991a) defines essential functions as “fundamental job duties.” For example, a task may be to type letters on a personal computer. The essen- tial function required of the individual, however, may be to compose letters to clients. Thus, functions do not specify how the individual will compose the letter.
A blind individual may dictate letters to a tape recorder and ask another individual to type the letter. The task, typing the letter, differs from the essen- tial function, corresponding with clients. Consequently, the process or method by which someone performs an essential function of a job may differ from individual to individual, even within the same job title. The distinction be- tween tasks and essential functions recognizes that individuals with disabil- ities may achieve the same work related outcomes by very different processes than individuals without disabilities.
Essential ~u~~tio~ lde~t~~catjo~. The ADA provides guidelines for determin- ing essential functions. A function is considered essential if: (a) the position exists to perform the function, (b) there are a limited number of other employ- ees available to perform the function, or among whom the function can be
8 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1,1997
distributed, and (c) a function is highly specialized, and the person is hired for special expertise or ability to perform it (EEOC 1992, pp. 13-18).
Furthermore, the EEOC (1992) lists several sources of evidence which may be used to determine if a function is essential or only marginal to the job. These sources of evidence are as follows: (a) The employer’s judgment, (b) a written job description prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for a job, (c) amount of time spent performing the function, (d) consequences of not perfo~ing the function, (e) work experience of people who have performed the job in the past and work experience of people who are currently performing the job, (f) terms of a collective bargaining agreement, and (g) other relevant fac- tors such as the nature of work operation and the employer’s organizational structure (EEOC 1992, pp. 13-18).
The ADA does not require a job analysis to be conducted to determine essen- tial functions. However, a job analysis that identifies the previously mentioned factors would clearly be useful to defend function essentiality (Brannick, Bran- nick, & Levine 1992). A brief review of past court cases pertaining to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA (1990) indicates that the sources of evidence for function essentiality listed in the ADA (1990) may be used sepa- rately or in combination to indicate which functions are essential. For example, in Chiari v. City of League City (1991) essential functions were identified by affidavits from the plaintiffs and a written job description. In Carlson v. Inac- om Corporation (1995), the plaintiff argued that she was an “otherwise quali- fied individual with a disability” even though she occasionally had to miss work due to her disability. The court ruled in her favor because she only averaged seven unscheduled absences per year, and the defendant company had not formulated or published a policy relating to unscheduled absences. Therefore, while regular and predictable attendance is essential to most jobs, the lack of unscheduled absences was not deemed to be essential. In Galloway v. The Superior Court of D. C. (1993), however, essential functions were identi- fied by work experience of people who have previously performed the job. In this case, a blind individual wanted to be a juror, but was denied the right to be a juror due to his blindness. The rationale for this denial was that an essential function of jurors is that they must be able to see physical evidence presented in the case, as well as interpret the nonverbal communications of witnesses. However, the Superior Court of the D.C. failed to examine any studies or review any literature on the ability of blind individuals to serve on juries or the ability of these individuals to assess the credibility of witnesses. Furthermore, blind individuals in other courts have routinely been allowed to serve as jurors if the court concluded that the juror was qualified for a particular trial. For example, blind jurors have served during trials where little physical evidence is presented or if the evidence can be easily explained verbally. Moreover, “audio describers” are available as a reasonable accommodation for blind ju- rors. Audio describers are trained individuals who describe the physical move- ments of others and physical settings for the blind. Thus, unlike Chiari v. City of League City (19911, Galloway v. The Superior Court of D. C. 0993) used the
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 9
performance of incumbents as the primary way to identify function essen- tiality.
The previous studies illustrate that there is no “magic bullet” when identify- ing essential functions. Various pieces of information may be used alone or in combination as evidence of function essentiality. With this in mind, it seems logical to gather as much evidence as possible. Additionally, a review of the court cases based on the ADA (1990) reveals that how essential functions are identified is not contested as often as whether or not individuals with disabil- ities can perform particular essential functions. However, although essential function identification is generally not the primary source of controversy, it does not mean that organizations should not take a proactive stance and en- sure that multiple pieces of quantitative evidence are collected to support function essentiality,
The amount of time spent performing a function may also be used as evi- dence of function essentiality. For example, an existing job description for a receptionist may state that filing is an essential function. However, if the receptionists in a particular organization seldom spend any time filing docu- ments, then filing should not be considered an essential function of this job. Thus, generic descriptions such as those provided in the Dictionary of Occupa- tional Titles may not identify essential functions for specific jobs within differ- ent organizations. However, one caveat deserves mention. The amount of time spent performing a function is not always related to function essentiality. For example, a nurse may seldom administer Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), but having the physical ability to administer CPR if necessary may be an essential function of this position.
Overall, the most general method of assessing whether or not a function is essential or marginal is to ask the question “Will the primary purpose of the job be compromised if incumbents are not required to perform this function?” Stated differently, one has to consider the consequences of an incumbent not performing a function as evidence of function essentiality. In the context of the previous nurse example, an essential function of a nurse is to have the ability to administer life saving support such as CPR in certain situations. A nurse who does not have the physical ability to perform CPR compromises the prima- ry mission of a nurse’s job. Therefore, all of the previously mentioned compo- nents can be used to identify essential functions. The goal is to use a job analysis method (or methods) which takes these factors into account.
SURVEY OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
In an effort to better understand how organizations are currently handling issues related to the ADA, we conducted a survey of 74 working individuals with disabilities. The sample was comprised of 41 females and 33 males whose average age was 38 years old. The average tenure of these individuals was 4.8 years, and most of the sample worked in non-management positions (61%).
10 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1, 1997
Nineteen different disabilities were represented, but the three primary disabil- ities were: visual impairment/blindness (15%), mental illness (lo%), cerebral palsy (10%). We do not claim that the results of this survey generalize to all disabilities, or even that all potential disabilities are represented here. What the results do offer is some evidence which suggests the types of reasonable accommodations which are currently being used, how individuals with disabil- ities may perform their jobs differently while achieving the same outcomes, and what pieces of information are important for a job analysis to capture.
Results
One of the primary questions we posed to the individuals in our sample measured whether they believed how they performed their job differed from other “nondisabled” employees, and if so, in what ways. Fifty-four percent indicated that they felt their disability did influence how they performed their jobs. The primary differences in how this subset of individuals performed their jobs included: (a) using different computer software (14%), (b) using different equipment or devices (e.g., phone amplifiers) (16%), (c) switching marginal tasks with others to accommodate their disability (16%), and (d) taking short work breaks during the day (5%).
Forty-three percent of the sample indicated that their employers had provided reasonable accommodations. These reasonable accommodations included: (a) spe- cial equipment (e.g., phone amplifier, computers, readers for individuals with visual impairments) (18%), (b) scheduling of extra breaks or flextime (16%), (c) substituting marginal tasks with other employees (ll%), (d) office redesign (lo%), (e) computer software (lo%), and (f) increased access (10%).
One striking result of this survey was that the reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities did not appear to require great expense on the part of the organization. For example, individuals often indicated that they would like to be able to come in 15 minutes earlier or later to allow them to take public transportation to and from work due to their inability to drive a car. Individuals who discussed office redesign generally wanted such accommoda- tions as having shelves lowered or their desks raised to facilitate access from a wheelchair. Still other individuals suggested that they already informally switched tasks with other employees to accommodate their disability. For ex- ample, one individual with a back injury who worked in landscaping offered to perform a larger share of lighter tasks such as pruning shrubs while other individuals were responsible for transporting heavy equipment. These exam- ples indicate that potential reasonable accommodations could be proactively identified by a job analysis approach which clearly outlined: (a) the essential functions of the job, (b) minimal sensory, motor, and cognitive requirements necessary to perform essential functions, (c) the potential flexibility of work scheduling, (d) what tasks are potentially substitutable without interfering with essential function performance, and (e) the equipment individuals will be expected to use to perform essential functions.
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 11
One additional point is worthy of mention concerning the results of this survey. Probably the single most important piece of information gathered dur- ing this survey became apparent when we tried to classify disabilities into categories such as “invisible” versus “visible” or “mental” versus “physical.” We quickly discovered that such classification schemes masked important individ- ual differences. It became clear that there are not only differences between the impairments created by different disabilities, but also individual differences within a particular disability. For example, an individual with Multiple Scle- rosis (MS) at a later stage of the disease will suffer far more mobility impair- ment than an individual with MS at an earlier stage. Thus, at an earlier stage, this disability may be considered “invisible,” whereas at a later stage this disability may be considered “visible.”
Kochar and Armstrong (1988) created a table where different disabilities were cross-referenced with various forms of sensory, motor, or cognitive im- pairments. For example, MS was said to impact posture, mobility, strength, vision, and mental work capacity. However, as alluded to previously, MS may only influence these factors if it is severe. Individuals in the early stages of MS may not suffer from any or only a few of these deficits. Thus, in theory, a table outlining the impairments sufFered with different disabilities may be useful to outline potential reasonable accommodations. In practice, however, the large variability between and even within disabilities makes such tables a vague starting point for human resource managers. Thus, while job analysis may be used to suggest potential reasonable accommodations for certain types of physical or mental impairments, it is not possible to make global decisions regarding reasonable accommodations for any particular disability. The final determination of reasonable accommodations for specific individuals is best done on a cease by cese basis (EEOC 1991a).
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS
The survey we conducted and the EEOC (1991a) both indicate several dimen- sions which are important to consider when conducting a job analysis in accor- dance with the ADA. These dimensions pose questions which must be an- swered for any given job analysis approach. These questions are as follows:
1. Does the job analysis approach identify essential functions? 2. How outcome versus process oriented is the job analysis method? In other
words, does the job analysis method allow for the possibility that the same outcomes can be achieved by different means?
3. How useful is the method for identifying potential reasonable accom- modations? Does the method allow identification of the degree of job flexibility (i.e., does it determine substitutability of tasks, schedule flex- ibility, various types of equipment which might be employed)? Also, does the method identify minimal requirements for sensory, motor, and cogni- tive requirements for the job?
12 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 1,1997
The first issue, essential function identification, is really the primary job analysis consideration. The job analysis method chosen should provide quan- titative criticality and time spent ratings for all job functions. This will help to ensure that both essential and marginal functions will be identified. Quantita- tive job analysis methods are generally more legally defensible (Harvey 19901, and thus will provide more consistent evidence for function essentiality. How- ever, many organizations conduct job analyses using qualitative approaches which produce narrative descriptions of jobs (Harvey 1990). Narrative descrip- tions may be obtained from public sources (e.g., Dictionary of Occupational Titles), or written by personnel administrators or employees themselves. Qual- itative approaches will not necessarily capture specific pieces of information which support which functions are essential because these descriptions vary widely in the amount of information presented and the type of information obtained.
A job analysis conducted by Brannick et al. (1992) supports the use of quantitative versus qualitative job analyses. These authors used a task anal- ysis in an effort to identify the essential functions of pharmacy assistants. They gathered information on whether the assistants: (a) performed certain tasks, (b) how much time they spent performing the tasks, and (c> the conse- quences of error when performing the tasks. Additionally, Brannick et al. (1992) asked the supervisors of the pharmacy assistants: (a) how essential the task was to getting the work done, and (b) how many people were avail- able to substitute for the individual responsible for performing the tasks if that individual failed to perform the task. They subsequently identified a list of essential tasks. A task was deemed essential if the task met one of the following four criteria: (a) the supervisors’ judgments indicated that the tasks were essential, (b) serious consequences would result if errors were made when performing the tasks, (c) no one else was available to cover the task, and (d) over 70 percent of the incumbents reported performing the task and spent an above average amount of time performing it (Brannick et al. 1992). Although Brannick et al. (1992) made no claims that their job analysis would be endorsed by the EEOC, their approach provides quantita- tive evidence bearing on function essentiality.
The issue of essential function identi~cation is closely tied with the second point, which is outcome versus process orientation. When an essen- tial function is identified, the purpose of the function and the result to be accomplished should be outlined. Again, it is crucial to remember that al- though a function may be identi~ed as essential, often it is not essential that the function be performed in a particular way (EEOC 1991a). Thus, a job analysis method should be chosen which focuses on the outcome desired, not merely the process generally used to achieve a particular outcome.
In addition, the job analysis method should be able to proactively identify potential reasonable accommodations for various sensory, motor, or cognitive impairments. The physical abilities necessary for job performance may be identified in terms of categories such as visual, auditory, agility, strength, and endurance requirements of the job. Cognitive capacity could be identified in
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 13
terms of concentration, memory, comprehension, problem-solving, and cre- ativity. This idea is clearly not new. Threshold Traits Analysis developed by Lopez, Kesselman, and Lopez (1981) assesses the need for just such physical and cognitive abilities. The unique aspect of the recommendation in this arti- cle, however, is that not only are minimal acceptable levels of these traits identified, but that potential reasonable accommodations for deficits in any of these abilities are also suggested. For example, the ability of a pilot to see with reasonable acuity (20/20 vision) is an ability which cannot be accommodated for an individual who is blind. However, c;;her jobs may not require such high levels of sensory acuity. A receptionist who has a hearing impairment may easily accommodate this disability by using a voice amplifier when using the telephone. Thus, a minimal level of hearing acuity may be identified in ad- vance to determine the minimal level of hearing acuity necessary to perform the essential functions of the job.
Additionally, potential reasonable accommodations for certain deficits may be identified. The list of potential reasonable accommodations need not be exhaustive, but should probably include reasonable accommodations used pre- viously within the organization and/or reasonable accommodations used suc- cessfully in outside organizations. This analysis could also illustrate which deficits can be easily accommodated, and which deficits cannot safely be ac- commodated without jeopardizing the safety of the individual with a disability or other employees.
Brannick et al. (1992) discussed the feasibility of creating a table which identified the sensory and motor requirements for essential functions as they are typically done. However, they argued that this approach ignores the possi- bility that individuals with disabilities may achieve the same results in differ- ent ways. We agree. While obtaining such information may be important for outlining the characteristics necessary for performance of essential functions, it overlooks the possibility of equifinality. However, such a table may be useful if minimal levels of motor, sensory, and cognitive capacities are identified for each essential function. Such a table would outline which deficits could be accommodated, and which could not. Kochar and Armstrong (1988) give an example of how such a table would operate in practice. These researchers discussed an example of a paraplegic individual performing the job of a hospi- tal messenger. The primary essential function was to transport blood samples and other specimens to laboratories throughout the hospital. Additionally, Kochar and Armstrong (1988) identified three minimal strength, mobility, and reach requirements necessary to perform the essential functions of this job. The paraplegic individual met the strength and mobility requirements, but failed to meet the minimal reach requirement necessary to push the emergen- cy call button on the elevator. However, this deficit was easily accommodated by providing the individual a stick to reach the call button. Thus, when mini- mal sensory, motor, and cognitive requirement for a position are outlined, an employer can assess: (1) whether the individual can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and (2) which deficits may be accommodated and which deficits cannot.
14 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1,1997
EVALUATION OF CURRENT JOB ANALYSIS METHODS
The ADA (1990) does not state that a certain form of job analysis must be performed to identify essential functions of the job. As suggested in the previ- ous section, different job analysis methods differ in the degree to which they identify ADA-relevant information. Specifically, these methods differ on: (a) their ability to identify essential functions, (b) the degree of outcome versus process orientation, and (c) their ability to outline potential reasonable accom- modations. Therefore, each job analysis method to be examined has its strengths and weaknesses with regard to these criteria. Our goal is not to champion one method over all others, but to provide some insight into how these methods can be used alone, or in combination, to ensure ADA-relevant job analysis information is collected.
For this article, we examined five job analytic approaches on the previously mentioned criteria. However, this comparison is not exhaustive in that more job analysis approaches might have been considered. However, the five ap- proaches we chose are representative of a wide range of available techniques. Specifically, we examined Functional Job Analysis (FJA) (Fine 19881, task analysis (e.g., CODAP, standard task analyses), Threshold Traits Analysis (TTA) (Lopez et al. 19811, Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) (McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham 19721, and the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) (Flanagan 1954). Table 1 presents the summarized form of the comparison of these approaches in reference to the specified criteria.
Functional Job Analysis
Functional Job Analysis (FJA; Fine 1988) was developed within the U.S. Department of Labor as a way to obtain useful information on thousands of federal jobs. Although used most often within the U.S. government, FJA repre- sents a very thorough, systematic approach to job analysis.
FJA has at its root the belief that there are a number of functions which show up in various jobs. These functions can be categorized into three general categories: Data, People, and Things. Examples of functions include compar- ing, analyzing, synthesizing (Data); exchanging information, supervising, mentoring (People); handling, manipulating, precision working (Things). This emphasis on functions suggests that FJA may be particularly ADA-appropri- ate, a possibility we consider below.
Outcome Ofie~faf~o~. FJA explicitly outlines the outcome of a given action or what gets done as well as why the action was performed. Specifically, a func- tion, or outcome, level description of tasks is encouraged. For example, FJA results in statements like the following which describes the job of a firefighter: “Examines walls and ceilings in order to ex~i~~~s~ seco~dury fire sources using a pike pole, charged hose line, and an axe.” FJA also stipulates how the job is performed by answering the questions: (a) “Using what tools, equipment or work aids?” and (b) “Upon what instructions?” However, the primary focus of FJA pertains to the outcome of action.
Tab
le 1
C
ompa
rison
of
Fiv
e Jo
b A
naly
sis
App
roac
hes
on A
DA
-rel
evan
t D
imen
sion
s
Out
com
e O
rient
atio
n
Ess
entia
l F
unct
ion
Evi
denc
e
Rea
sona
ble
Acc
omm
odat
ion -
_--
Sub
stitu
tabM
y S
ched
ulin
g E
quip
men
t
Fun
ctio
nal
Job
Em
phas
is i
s pl
aced
on
Ana
lysi
s w
hat
gets
don
e ra
th-
er t
han
just
on
how
on
e do
es i
t. S
peci
fi-
cally
, a
func
tion,
or
ou
tcom
e,
leve
l de
- sc
riptio
n of
tas
ks i
s en
cour
aged
. F
or e
x-
ampl
e, F
JA r
esul
t in
st
atem
ents
lik
e: “
Ex-
am
ines
wal
ls a
nd
ceili
ngs
in o
rder
to
extin
guis
h se
cond
ary
fire
sour
ces
usin
g pi
ke p
ole,
cha
rged
ho
se l
ine,
axe
” (f
unc-
tio
n ou
tcom
e ita
l- ic
ized
).
Tas
k A
naly
sis
Tas
ks m
ay o
r m
ay n
ot
be w
ritte
n to
ref
lect
ou
tcom
es.
Gen
eral
ly,
task
ana
lyse
s ar
e cr
eate
d w
ithou
t ex
- pl
icit
conc
ern
for
outc
omes
.
Iden
tifie
s th
ree
hier
- ar
chie
s of
tas
k fu
nc-
tion:
D
ata,
Peo
pfe,
T
hing
s.
Iden
tifie
s fu
nctio
n fr
eque
ncy
on a
bsol
ute
scal
e,
cons
eque
nces
of
er-
ro
r, a
nd d
iffic
ulty
. W
hile
FJA
doe
s no
t ex
plic
itly
mea
sure
fu
nctio
n es
sent
ialit
y,
it pr
ovid
es m
uch
supp
ortin
g ev
iden
ce.
FJA
job
anal
y-
sis
wor
k-
shee
t al
low
s fo
r su
bsti-
tu
tabi
lity
of
pers
onne
l by
lis
ting
rela
- tio
n to
oth
ers
in p
ositi
on
and
equi
va-
lent
pos
i- tio
ns.
Pro
visi
on
of
subs
ti-
tuta
bilit
y of
pe
rson
nel
coul
d fa
cili-
ta
te
re-
sche
dulin
g fo
r re
ason
- ab
le a
ccom
- m
odat
ion.
Spe
cifie
s to
ols,
m
a-
chin
ery
and
unus
ual
wor
king
co
nditi
ons
requ
ired
for
norm
al
job
perf
orm
ance
. A
d-
ditio
nal
info
rmat
ion
rega
rdin
g po
tent
ial
reas
onab
le
acco
m-
mod
atio
n co
uld
eas-
ily
be
colle
cted
at
tim
e of
job
anal
ysis
.
If ta
sks
are
writ
ten
at
Cro
ss-jo
b su
b-
func
tiona
l le
vel,
then
st
ituta
bilit
y st
anda
rd t
ask
anal
y-
only
po
ssib
le
sis
may
pro
vide
a l
ist
if cr
oss-
job
of c
ritic
al
or i
mpo
r-
sim
ilar
task
ta
nt f
unct
ions
. T
his
scal
es
used
. ca
n be
sup
port
ing
The
new
ev
iden
ce f
or f
unct
ion
Com
mon
es
sent
ialit
y.
One
is-
M
etric
Que
s-
sue
is h
ow c
ritic
ality
tio
nnai
re
is
May
obt
ain
time-
spen
t or
fr
eque
ncy
ratin
gs,
but
it is
not
lik
ely
that
th
ese
will
as
sist
re-
sc
hedu
ling.
Equ
ipm
ent
is u
sual
ly
spec
ified
in
tas
k an
- al
yses
, bu
t no
t al
- w
ays
in a
det
aile
d or
sy
stem
atic
m
anne
r. I
f cl
early
spe
cifie
d,
rea-
so
nabl
e ac
com
- m
odat
ion
sugg
estio
ns
coul
d al
so b
e ob
tain
ed.
cont
inue
d
Tab
le 1
co
ntin
ued
I
Out
com
e O
rient
atio
n
Ess
entia
l F
unct
ion
Evi
denc
e
Thr
esho
ld
TT
A o
nly
gene
rally
T
raits
Ana
lysi
s el
udes
to
outc
omes
. B
ette
r fo
r jo
b sp
ecifi
- ca
tions
tha
n jo
b de
- sc
riptio
ns.
is ju
dged
. C
OD
AP
, fo
r ex
ampl
e, d
eter
- m
ines
im
port
ance
la
rgel
y in
ter
ms
of
rela
tive
time
spen
t in
ta
sks.
Pro
babl
y, d
i- re
ct e
stim
ates
of
crit-
ic
ality
or
im
port
ance
sh
ould
be
obt
aine
d fo
r be
st s
uppo
rtin
g ev
iden
ce.
Dis
cuss
es f
unct
ions
, bu
t th
ese
are
not
nece
ssar
ily w
ork
out-
co
me
orie
nted
-e.g
., ph
ysic
al
exer
tion
or
bodi
ly
activ
ity
Rat
es “
impo
rtan
ce
to
the
job,
” “a
mou
nt
of
time
spen
t,”
or “
ap-
Rea
sona
ble
Acc
omm
odat
ion
--.-
____
_ _~
--
. _l
_l_.
-.
. .-
~--
z
Sub
stitu
tabi
lity
Sch
edul
ing
Equ
ipm
ent
5 %
an e
xam
ple
of s
uch
a m
etho
d th
at
wou
ld
pro-
vi
de s
uch
in-
form
atio
n.
N/A
N
/A
N/A
Pos
ition
Ana
l- Ite
ms
are
not
writ
ten
to
ysis
Que
stio
n-
be o
utco
me-
orie
nted
. na
ire
For
exa
mpl
e,
PA
Q
N/A
N
/A
E
8i
Gen
eral
equ
ipm
ent
de-
9 m
ands
are
col
lect
ed.
f T
hese
wou
ld n
eed
to
2
Crit
ical
In
ci-
dent
Tec
h-
niqu
e
item
s un
der
“lnfo
r-
mat
ion
Inpu
t”
incl
ude
“Writ
ten
mat
eria
ls,”
“Q
uant
itativ
e m
ate-
ria
ls, ”
“M
echa
nica
l de
vice
s.”
The
se a
re
rate
d fo
r “e
xten
t of
us
e” -n
omin
al
to
very
sub
stan
tial.
Fla
naga
n st
ates
tha
t a
criti
cal
inci
dent
sh
ould
ha
ve a
“pu
r-
pose
or
inte
nt .
.
. tha
t se
ems
fairl
y cl
ear
to t
he o
bser
ver
and
whe
re i
ts c
onse
- qu
ence
s ar
e su
ffi-
cien
tly
defin
ite
to
leav
e lit
tle
doub
t co
ncer
ning
its
ef-
fe
cts,
” F
or e
xam
ple,
a
gene
ral
aim
of
an
activ
ity
mig
ht b
e “s
usta
ined
hi
gh q
ual-
ity a
nd q
uant
ity
of
prod
uctio
n.”
plic
abili
ty,”
of
sev
eral
sc
ales
(In
form
atio
n In
put,
Men
tal
Pro
- ce
sses
, W
ork
Out
put,
Rel
atio
nshi
ps,
Job
Con
text
).
Res
ults
co
uld
be s
uppo
rtiv
e of
ess
entia
l fu
nctio
n id
entif
icat
ion.
T
he j
ob d
escr
iptio
n re
- N
/A
sulti
ng
from
CIT
may
be
im
port
ant
evi-
denc
e of
ess
entia
lity,
pa
rtic
ular
ly
in t
erm
s of
con
sequ
ence
s of
er
ror
or n
on-
perf
orm
ance
.
N/A
be m
ore
part
icul
arly
sp
ecifi
ed,
afte
r w
hich
re
ason
able
ac
com
- %
m
odat
ion
reco
mm
en-
datio
ns
coul
d be
3 n
Equ
ipm
ent
norm
ally
5
used
may
be
spe-
?
cifie
d.
Rea
sona
ble
2 Gi
acco
mm
odat
ion
sug-
ge
stio
ns
coul
d al
so
be.
18 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1,1997
Essential Function Evidence. Additionally, as was stated previously, FJA asks the question of any a task is performed. This forces the job analyst to consider the desired result of action. This method of job analysis could be easily supple- mented to directly identify essential functions of job performance by identify ing which of the reasons listed under why actually represented essential, ver- sus only marginal, functions of the job. Cascio (1991) gives the example of a firefighter who performs the action of carrying smoldering mattresses and fu~iture from buildings in order to reduce fire and smoke dosage to buildings and their contents. At this point of the analysis, it may be possible to rate the reasons for action that are identified in terms of their essentiality/nonessen- tiality. And, while FJA does not directly provide evidence of function essen- tiality, it does provide much supporting evidence with ratings of function fie- quency on a cross-job relative scale, consequences of error, and difIiculty.
Reasonable A~co~~odatio~ Evidence. FJA worksheets allow for substituta- bility of personnel by relation to others in the target position and equivalent positions. The provision of information pertaining to the substitutability of personnel could facilitate rescheduling for reasonable accommodation. FJA specifies tools, machinery, and unusual working conditions required for nor- mal job pe~ormance. Additional information regarding potential reasonable accommodation could be easily collected at the time of job analysis.
Task Analysis
A typical task analysis, or task inventory (Harvey 19901, is conducted in the following way. First, inte~iews with a sample of job incumbents (and, usually, supervisors of incumbents) are conducted to obtain a list of tasks in the job. This list is reviewed several times by different parties for completeness and accuracy. Second, a survey is conducted on a much larger sample of job incum- bents, in which the tasks are rated on a number of dimensions (e.g., task frequency, importance, or difficulty). Analyses of survey results yield a list of tasks, sorted by criticality. Task analyses are non-transportable job analyses which focus primarily on how a job is performed by outlining the tasks involved in job performance.
Outcome Orientation. Such task analyses are usually performed without ex- plicit concern for outcomes of task performance. Thus, if the task analysis focuses only on what work is completed and not why it is completed, then the task analysis will not allow flexibility when determining how a job can be performed in different ways while achieving the same outcome. For example, the task “Lifts packages of up to 20 pounds off truck, placing them on conveyor belt” would be behaviorally specific rather than outcome oriented. If the same task could be rewritten as “Transports packages, either by manual lifting or with machine assistance, from truck to conveyor belt,” this would be more function or outcome-oriented in nature.
Essential Function Evidence. Similarly, if tasks are written at a high level of specifity (and Harvey 1991, includes task analyses under “high specificity”
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 19
approaches) then standard task analyses cannot provide a list of critical or important functions, but only critical or important tasks. On the other hand, if written at a more functional level, a task analysis could provide supporting evidence for function essentiality.
One issue is how criticality is judged. CODAP (Christal 19741, for example, determines importance largely in terms of relative time spent in tasks. How- ever, direct estimates of criticality or importance should be obtained to provide clear evidence that a function is essential.
Reasonable Accommodation Evidence. A task analysis allows for cross-job comparison if a cross-job relative task rating scale is used. Additionally, task analyses often provide time spent or frequency ratings for task performance. More frequent tasks might be more or less substitutable, depending on job incumbent capabilities. If ratings could be obtained on task schedules (e.g., morning versus afternoon) such ratings might assist in allowing flexibility in determining when an individual with a disability could take work breaks throughout the day.
Equipment is usually specified in task analyses, but not always in a detailed or systematic manner. If clearly specified, reasonable accommodations sugges- tions could also be obtained.
Threshold Traits Analysis
Threshold Traits Analysis (TTA; Lopez et al. 1981) is a method which sug- gests what human characteristics are important for a job. Subject matter ex- perts rate jobs in terms of the traits necessary to perform the job such as physical abilities (e.g., strength), mental abilities (e.g., memory), learned skills (e.g., craft knowledge), motivational factors (e.g., initiative), and social factors (e.g., influence).
Outcome Orientation. TTA only generally eludes to outcomes. This approach is better for job specifications than job descriptions.
Essential Function Evidence. TTA specifically discusses job functions. How- ever, these are not necessarily work outcome related-e.g., physical exertion or bodily activity. Traits are then identified for various functions. So, the “func- tion” Sensory Inputs requires the “traits” of vision and hearing. In any case, deriving essential functions from a typical TTA does not appear to be straight- forward.
Reasonable Accommodation Evidence. As stated previously, TTA identifies the particular physical and cognitive abilities which are required for perfor- mance of the job. Physical requirements include strength, stamina, agility, vision, and hearing. Mental requirements identified include perception, con- centration, memory, comprehension, problem-solving and creativity. If nini- mum acceptable levels of each of these requirements are identified below which individuals would be considered unable to perform the essential func- tions of their job, then this information could be very useful when an employer
20 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7. NUMBER 1. 1997
must determine whether or not an individual with a disability can perform the essential functions required. Cascio (1991) suggests that some individuals with disabilities may be excluded from certain jobs because the job specifications for the job are “inflexible, artificially high, or invalid” (pp. 195-196). Thus, we agree with Cascio (1991) that job specifications should outline minimun levels of acceptable standards for selection. This would help to ensure that individu- als’ with disabilities are not being artificially restricted from being selected for a job for which they are capable. Additionally, this information may indicate which deficits can and cannot be safely and easily accommodated.
Position Analysis Questionnaire
The Position Analysis Questionnaire is a “worker-oriented” job analysis method. Worker-oriented methods examine general job demands and charac- teristics rather than tasks per se. Therefore, these methods generally focus less on outcomes and essential functions than ‘tjob-oriented” methods such as FJA. One big advantage of worker-oriented methods is that vastly different jobs can be compared on degree of demand in various areas of human function- ing. So, for example, an air traffic controller and a stock analyst might have similar jobs in that both are require quick processing of large volumes of information.
Outcome Orientation and Essential function Evidence. Items in worker-ori- ented approaches such as the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) are not written to be outcome oriented. For example, PAQ items under “Information Input” include “written materials, ” “quantitative materials,” and “mechanical devices.” These are rated for “extent of use” ranging from nominal to very substantial. Suppose for a particular job the extent of use of written materials is “substantial.” Such a specification does not indicate the desired outcome of working with written materials, it only captures how the job is currently per- formed. Again, the key point to remember with an ADA-appropriate job analy- sis is that how a job is currently performed in not necessarily how the job must be performed.
Essential Function Evidence. Using the previously stated example, a job anal- ysis which indicates that the use of written material is “substantial” also fails to indicate the essential function of the job-possible functions requiring sub- stantial use of written materials might include managing correspondence or proofreading. However, the PAQ does request that incumbents rate “impor- tance to the job, ” “amount of time spent,” or “applicability,” of several scales (Information Input, Mental Processes, Work Output, Relationships, Job Con- text). Results from such analyses could be used to identify essential functions if the functions were specified separately and linked to relevant PAQ scales. However, the PAQ does not provide evidence for essential functions as directly as other job analysis approaches such as FJA.
Reasonable Accommodation. Worker-oriented methods do collect information concerning general equipment demands. However, this information would
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 21
need to be particularly specified, after which reasonable accommodation rec- ommendations could be made.
Critical Incident Technique
The Critical Incident Technique (CIT) (Flanagan 1954) requires subject matter experts to generate job behaviors or events which exemplify outstand- ing or substandard performance. These job behaviors are grouped into catego- ries, and the categories are named. So, for each job category (e.g., Inspection), good and bad performance examples are available.
Although useful for some purposes, such as developing training or perfor- mance appraisal instruments, CIT is clearly a descriptively interesting but potentially incomplete technique-the job may or may not be completely repre- sented by the critical incidents elicited (Harvey 1991).
Outcome Orientation. Flanagan (1954) states that a critical incident should have a “purpose or intent . . . that seems fairly clear to the observer and where its consequences are sufficiently definite to leave little doubt concerning its effects.” For example, a general aim of an activity might be “sustained high quality and quantity of production.”
Essential Function Evidence. The job description resulting from CIT may be important evidence of essentiality, particularly in terms of consequences of error or non-performance. A CIT adapted for ADA purposes, however, would need to assure that functions are focused on. Typically, CIT will only yield particularly behaviors which occur in a particular setting with a particular good or bad consequences.
Reasonable Accommocfation. Equipment normally used will be specified in critical incidents, which may allow for the suggestion of potential reasonable accommodations. Interestingly, Harvey (1990) states that a drawback to CIT is that it may yield results that are “contaminated” by job behaviors unique to a particular job incumbent. That is, the same function might be characterized by different approaches, which could be useful in suggesting substitutability of personnel or alternate methods of job performance which could be performed by individuals with disabilities.
DESIRED OUTCOME OF AN ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS
As stated previously, the goal of this article is not to champion one particular job analysis method over all others. Undoubtedly, an ADA-appropriate job analysis can be carried out in many ways. Most job analysis methods could be adapted to produce useful, ADA-appropriate job analyses. Table 2 presents part of a hypothetical job description which might result from such a job analy- sis. The “What” column contains the tasks that are typically produced in a task analytic approach. However, in the “Why” column the essential functions are identified. In the “How” column typical ways of function accomplishment are
Tab
le
2 P
ossi
ble
Con
stru
ctio
n of
AD
A-A
ppro
pria
te
Job
Des
crip
tion
Why
(E
ssen
tial
How
vyp
ical
W
ho
Wha
t (T
ask)
F
unct
ions
) M
etho
d)
Com
men
t
Job
Incu
mbe
nt
Ana
lyze
s D
ata
To
Det
erm
ine
Tre
nds
Usi
ng
Com
pute
r C
ompu
ter
Use
R
e-
Pac
kage
qu
ired.
S
ome
visu
al,
Mot
or
Acc
omod
atio
n C
urre
ntly
in
Pla
ce,
Oth
ers
Pos
sibl
e.
Writ
es
Rep
ort
To
Doc
umen
t R
e-
In S
tand
ard
For
mat
, S
ee
abov
e.
Fun
ctio
n su
lts
Usi
ng
Wor
d-
Can
B
e P
erfo
rmed
P
roce
ssor
. by
Oth
ers.
P
rese
nts
Res
ults
to
T
o P
rovi
de
Info
rma-
T
hrou
gh
Ora
l P
re-
Acc
omm
odat
ion
for
and
Con
sults
w
ith
tion
for
and
Ass
ist
sent
atio
n.
Spe
ech
Dis
abili
ties
Man
agem
ent
Dec
isio
n-m
akin
g P
ossi
ble
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 23
listed. Finally, the “Comment” column records the analysts observations about ADA-relevant issues. In order to fill this column, structured questions should be asked of all incumbents. These questions should directly address issues of substitutability, scheduling, and reasonable accommodations. Reasonable ac- commodations need not be in place, nor need they be exhaustively identified. However, gathering information on what accommodations are currently in place for a given job should not be difficult. Suggesting what accommodations might be reasonable in the future, should the need arise, would simply require the job analyst to use his or her own informed judgment, or to gather such judgment from subject matter experts. It is always open to revision, as might be necessary should an incumbent develop an unanticipated disability. Such a job description as outlined in Table 2, therefore, should clearly be viewed as an updatable, “living” document.
It should be noted that the job description in Table 2 is almost what one gets now from FJA. So, although almost any job analysis method could be used to obtain ADA-appropriate results, FJA seems to be the closest among those we considered. The comment by Howell and Dipboye (1986) about FJA seems prescient:
We know that it is possible with other methods to provide plenty of detail without capturing the essence of what people do-thus missing the forest for the trees. Maybe FJA gives us a glimpse of the forest (pg. 205).
CONCUJSION
We have described how current job analysis methods can be used to incorporate the mandates of the ADA (1990). This article indicated that a job analysis method chosen must focus on three criteria:
1. Identification of essential functions. 2. The job analysis must be outcome-, not method-, oriented. In other words,
the job analysis method should allow for the possibility that the same outcomes can be achieved by different means.
3. The job analysis method should be useful for identifying potential rea- sonable accommodations. The method should allow identification of the degree of job flexibility (Le., does it determine substitutability of tasks, schedule ~exibility, various types of equipment which might be em- ployed). Also, the method should allow the identification of minimal re- quirements for sensory, motor, and cognitive requirements for the job.
When specific job analysis methods were reviewed such as the PAQ and task analysis, FJA by Fine (1988) seemed to provide the strongest evidence for identifying essential functions and potential reasonable accommodations. However, we did not review a comprehensive list of all of the available job analysis methods. Therefore, while FJA appears to be a good job analysis method to identify essential functions, other methods may be tailored to meet
24 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1, 1997
the mandates of the ADA. It is the responsibility of the job analyst to ensure that the particular job analysis method chosen meets the previously men- tioned criteria.
Past court cases do not definitively outline which pieces of evidence are most important when identifying essential functions, or how job analysis can be used to proactively identify potential reasonable accommodations. This is not to say, however, that human resource managers should take a reactive stance and wait until court cases shape how job analyses should be conducted. While it can be argued that the ADA (1990) is vague in its prescriptions for how essential functions may be defined, the ADA does suggest multiple pieces of evidence for function essentiality that can easily be collected through job anal- ysis.
In summary, one of the primary goals of this article was to demonstrate to practitioners that a proactive position can be taken to ensure that the man- dates of the ADA (1990) are met. Overall, the ADA may benefit human resource managers in ways that may not have been anticipated. First, the nature of work and how work is described is changing. Technological developments, downsizing, and rapid organizational change have all had a major impact on how we understand work (Howard 1995). Indeed, some have suggested that the very concept of “job” is outdated (Church 1996). The ADA (1990) is an event which raises questions about how job analysis is best applied to the description of work. These questions force human resource managers to develop job analy- sis strategies which are flexible enough to accommodate the changing nature of work.
The second way the ADA will shape human resource management is related to the first point. As has been reiterated repeatedly in the literature over the last several years, the nature of the workforce is changing. Minorities and women are going to comprise a much larger portion of the workforce (Offerman & Gowing 1990), and human resource managers are going to have to respond to these changes. The ADA may provide the impetus for human resource manag- ers to begin to view job analysis as a potential vehicle to be used to incorporate diversity into the workplace. Thus, the ADA can be viewed as a catalyst for “modernizing” job analysis in preparation for both the rapidly changing nature of work, as well as the changing nature of the workforce performing that work.
Brannick et al. (1992) state that a company they worked with worried that falsely identifying functions as essential presented more of a legal problem than not identif~ng essential functions at all. This approach suggests that burying the organization’s head in the sand is a more effective legal technique than proactively trying to comply with the ADA. It is unfortunate that a law designed to encourage diversity in the workplace is now feared rather than embraced as an opportunity to diversify the workplace.
Future Research
This article suggested several avenues for future research. First, future research should assess how Fortune 100 companies are currently conducting
ADA-APPROPRIATE JOB ANALYSIS 25
job analyses to meet the mandates of the ADA. It would be interesting to assess how many companies take a proactive view of the ADA and strive to identify essential functions and potential reasonable accommodations through job analysis methods. Additionally, it would be interesting to assess what pieces of evidence these companies use to determine function essentiality.
Second, future research should identify a specific way that information may be combined to ensure that essential functions are identified. Brannick et al. (1992) suggested using a policy capturing approach which makes a quantita- tive estimate of how much various pieces of evidence contribute to the judg- ment of function essentiality. Clearly, research is needed in this area.
In addition, the survey results indicated that individuals with disabilities may perform their jobs differently while achieving the same results. However, future research could assess how individuals with various disabilities perform their jobs, and the types of reasonable accommodations requested and imple- mented most frequently. In fact, organizations such as the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) have collected data on the types of reasonable accommodations provided for different disabilities. It would be helpful if organizations such as JAN could work together with human resource managers to publish a menu of reasonable accommodations used by other companies for varying levels of sen- sory, motor, and cognitive deficits. This list of potential reasonable accom- modations could be matched with a list of the minimal requirements for partic- ular jobs identified by a job analysis. Thus, while each particular reasonable accommodation may ultimately be handled on a case by case basis, this does not mean that human resource practitioners cannot benefit from the learning of other human resource managers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Micheal T. Brannick, Qian Yang, and Dianna Stone for their help with this article.
REFERENCES
Alliger, G. M. 1991. Job Descriptions and Subjectivity: Toward a More Idiographic Job Analysis. Paper presented at the Ninth International Congress on Personal Con- struct Psychology, Albany, NY.
Americans with Disabilities Act. 1990. 1990. Federal Register 56: 35726-35756. Brannick, M. T., J. P. Brannick, and E. L. Levine. 1992. “Job Analysis, Personnel Selec-
tion, and the ADA.” Human Resources Management Review 2(3): 171-182. Cascio, W. F. 1991. Applied Psychology in Personnel Management (4th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chiari u. City of League City. 1991. U.S. court of appeals for the fifth circuit, No. 89-
6310. Church, A. H. 1996. “From Both Sides Now: The Changing of the Job.” The Industrial
and Organizational Psychologist 33(3): 52-61.
26 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1.1997
Christal, R. E. January, 1974. The United States Air Force Occupational Research Project, (AFHRL-TR-73-75) Lackland Air Force Base, Texas: Occupational Re- search Division.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1991a. “Equal Employment Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities 1991a.” Federal Register 56: (144).
-. 1991b. The Americans with Disabilities Act: Your responsibilities as an employ- er. Washington, DC: Government document.
-. 1992. A Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Government document.
Fine, S. A. 1988. “Functional Job Analysis.” Pp. 1019-1035 in The Job Analysis Hand- book for Business, Industry, and Government (Vol. 2), edited by S. Gael. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Flanagan, J. C. 1954. “The Critical Incidents Technique.” Psychological BuEZetin 51: 327-358.
Harvey, R. J. 1990. “Job Analysis.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd. ed. Vol. 2), edited by M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Howard, A. 1995. The Changing Nature of Work. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Howell, W. C. and R. L. Dipboye. 1986. Essentials of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. Kochar, D. S. and T. J. Armstong. 1988. “Designing Jobs for Handicapped Employees.”
In The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government, edited by S. Gael. White Plains, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Lopez, F. M., G. A. Kesselman, and F. E. Lopez. 1981. “An Empirical Test of a Trait- Oriented Job Analysis Technique.” Personnel Psychology 34: 479-502.
McCormick, E. J., R. C. Mecham and P. R. Jeanneret. 1972. “A Study of Job Characteris- tics and Job Dimensions as Based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ).” Journal of Applied Psychology 56: 347-368.
Offerman, L. R., M. K. and Gowing. 1990.” Organizations of the Future: Changes and Challenges.” American Psychologist 45(2): 95-108.