ASSOCIATES (vol. 4, no. 2, November 1997) - associates.ucr.edu
*DO WORDS COUNT? MOTIVATION FOR A THESIS ON JOB EVALUATION OF LIBRARY ASSISTANT POSITIONS* by Margaret Friesen University of British Columbia Library mfriesen@unixg.ubc.ca BACKGROUND Four years ago, the University of British Columbia (UBC) embarked on a campus-wide job evaluation system project for all support staff. The collective bargaining unit represents members in a wide range of job titles: clerks, secretaries, program assistants, clinical secretaries, computer operators, editorial assistants, several one-of-a-kind jobs, such as stage and lighting assistants, buyers, and the full range of library assistants from library assistant 1 to library assistant 5. After a lengthy consultation process, the job evaluation committee developed a customized job evaluation manual, drawn from several other Canadian models. The committee selected a number of criteria (factors) for evaluating job content, including the factor of contacts, which measures the relative value of the position's responsibility for handling contacts with others. The factors and guidelines in the manual were pre-tested by asking a limited number of employees to complete a written questionnaire which elicited job requirements for benchmark jobs. After preliminary evaluations of the benchmark jobs, revisions were made and the questionnaire was administered to all members of the collective bargaining unit for completion. THE PROBLEM During the evaluation phase of the project, several problems surfaced. In some cases, both the written job descriptions provided by employees and the job evaluation methodology seemed inadequate tools for the task. It was difficult to evaluate information-provider jobs based solely on the written sources. It was often necessary for me, as a committee member, to supplement the written documentation by providing analogies and further explanation to non-library managers and non-library employees so they could understand the complex communication process and the nature of information provision as a service. Further, although the job requirement of communications with users was to be included in the evaluation of the contacts factor, the level and skills required to do the job were not captured adequately in the definitions of this or any other factor chosen for this job evaluation system. THE LITERATURE SEARCH A search for examples of other job evaluation systems was undertaken to determine if other institutions had wrestled with this same problem and/or had captured this component of the job in a more explicit and satisfactory way. Some reports of studies provided tantalizing hints that this was so. Upon closer scrutiny, no study was found on the job evaluation factor of contacts as it relates specifically to communications at the front line between information providers (library assistants) and library users, and no study was found comparing the differences in interpreting the contacts factor between job evaluation plans, or testing the terminology of job descriptions for the purpose of rating the contacts factor. An earlier study conducted by Anne Woodsworth and Theresa Maylone (_Reinvesting in the Information Job Family_, Boulder, CAUSE, 1993) emphasized the importance of using appropriate terminology in describing jobs that contribute to a common understanding of the roles of library assistants. The authors invited others to continue the research in a number of areas. CATALYST FOR A THESIS This invitation lured me into proposing the thesis topic _The Terminology of Job Descriptions: the Case of Library Assistants Who Provide Information Services_. My intent was twofold: first, to write a thesis that was manageable and of interest to me and that would lead to the upgrading of my BLS to the MLIS degree, and, second, to examine the job evaluation systems of several institutions to see if their methodology had dealt with the terminology of job descriptions with respect to the contacts factor more explicitly than UBC had. A more long-term goal was to begin the process of planning how to rewrite job descriptions and job specifications. Revisions were needed to describe adequately the requirements of an information service job at its several levels of complexity and to bring requirements for expertise in information technology and instructional roles up to date. In order to make the thesis a manageable project, it was necessary to limit the study by focusing on a small set of research questions. ABSTRACT OF A THESIS The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the kinds of terminology used in writing job descriptions for library assistants who provide information services affected the job evaluation rating for the jobs described. The study provided background information on the importance of the problem, pay equity and job evaluation systems, the nature and purpose of contacts in information and reference services, the changing roles of information providers and the problem of terminology in writing job descriptions. To examine whether the terminology in job descriptions made a difference in evaluation, three experienced job evaluators were asked to rate nine job descriptions representing three levels of jobs and three different terminologies: library, computer and generic. The respondents' ratings, five sets of nine ratings each, were analyzed by comparing the individual job evaluation plans, the respondents' numerical ratings and rationales. The findings revealed the similarities and differences in definitions used in each of the plans, the differences in ratings within and among plans and the extent to which the terminology used in the job descriptions could be attributed to differences in ratings. Some inconsistencies in ratings occurred. In most cases, the job description using library terminology was rated higher than its computer or generic counterparts, but in two cases it was not. Of the three versions of terminology, the generic version led to the least favourable ratings. Considering the complexity of the responsibility of contacts present to some degree in all three levels of jobs, some of the jobs may have been undervalued. Recommendations were made for action and for further study. ANOTHER MODEL One of the most useful discoveries in this investigation was to find another model of written descriptions of library jobs. The Cornell model, referred to in detail in the thesis, retains the library terminology in its descriptions of library functions, categorizes the levels of complexity and responsibility of jobs, including those related to information provision, and is adaptable to the matrix organizational structure and multi-function jobs, now common in restructured library environments. Furthermore, its method of categorization by function and level takes into account both changing job requirements and changing individual competencies. In describing their own jobs, library assistants can select the appropriate components of the job from a whole range of library functions and apply the appropriate level from a ranked list of definitions. It may still be necessary to supplement the written data with further explanations and briefings for non-library colleagues in order for them to interpret library jobs and library function levels accurately, but the Cornell model provides a well-designed and carefully thought out written scheme as a starting point. CONCLUSION In some ways, the process of writing this thesis paralleled that of evaluating jobs. The job evaluation committee and my thesis advisers both needed to be convinced that a problem existed and required a solution; both groups needed to be persuaded that the problem had not been addressed elsewhere; both could only be persuaded through appropriate analogies and convincing words; and both required that concepts and headings be defined and described with precision and clarity. In thesis writing, as in job evaluation, it still comes down to making words count. TO ORDER Print copy (123 pages): Can.$30.00 Contact: Margaret Friesen, Staff Training and Development Coordinator, University of British Columbia Library e-mail: mfriesen@unixg.ubc.ca or fax:(604)822-3335 Loan copy: University of B.C. Library (CaBVAU) Contact: Your interlibrary loan service. The loan copy will be available from the UBC Library in a few months time.