Are there cracks in our foundation? An integrative review of diversity issues in job analysis.

Abstract

Job analysis forms the foundation for accurate, fair, and legally appropriate human resource systems. However, the notion that personnel practices provide fair opportunities, if they are based on systematically collected job analysis data, relies on the assumption that job analysis accurately captures the essence of jobs as they exist for all individuals. This integrative conceptual review provides a framework that integrates the diversity and job analysis literatures, finding that: (a) employees from different demographic groups can have unique yet predictable work experiences and (b) issues and biases in gathering and reporting job analysis data may cloud the documentation of diverse work experiences and perspectives. The conclusions of this review pose implications for both research and practice as we consider the extent to which job analysis may fail to capture wide and inclusive conceptualizations of successful job performance. If job analyses can be approached in a way that facilitates the collection of diverse perspectives, the inclusiveness of HR systems built-off job analyses can be improved, and job analyses can be positioned as a tool for detecting if employees from different demographic groups are assigned objectively different tasks or subjected to different expectations. Our theoretical perspective offers a promising means to understand the experience of work across various groups of employees through job analysis and mitigate (likely unintentional) discrimination that can be facilitated by one of our field's most foundational tools. It also suggests a new and important area of research.

Stronger Together: A Call for Gender-Inclusive Leadership in Business Schools

“…This has led to a call for solution-based organizational justice research that focuses on the differential work experiences of women and persons of color in addition to disabled workers, LGBTQ+ employees, and members of other historically marginalized demographic subgroups (cf., Avery, Hall, Preston, Ruggs, & Washington, 2023). Examples of such research include the development and validation of new job analysis and job evaluation methods that allow for the detection of differences in how work is perceived, distributed, and rewarded within and between positions (Strah & Rupp, 2022).…”

“…The gendered, masculine organizational structure of many business school environments is reflected in numerous ways. For instance, chaired professorships are dominated by men (Treviño et al, 2018), and women are greatly underrepresented at star-player performance levels (i.e., higher levels of productivity; Aguinis, Ji, & Joo, 2018). When women do rise to leadership positions, they are highly visible and are often tokenized in largely male-dominated committees and masculine subcultures within departments.…”

“…Indeed, research has shown that relative to men, women faculty who meet performance standards tend to experience less favorable promotion outcomes (e.g., receiving tenure, promotion to full professor, chaired professor appointments; cf. Treviño et al, 2018).…”

“…However, little attention has been paid to the so-called academic glass ceiling, especially in business schools (cf. Treviño, Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Mixon, 2018). For example, Kossek and Lee (2021, p. 2) noted, “Although shining a light on societal gender equality gaps is ‘big business for business schools,’ most are rarely the model employers that they exhort other employers to be .…”

“…Still, women represented only 23.5% of all business school full professors in the most recent AACSB report (2021). Women could face systematic barriers that lead to rising levels of gender inequity on their upward trajectories in business schools (cf., Kossek & Lee, 2021; Treviño et al, 2018). Such patterns raise two fundamental questions: Why the gender discrepancy in business schools?…”