This was on Yahoo's front page, so I thought it might be a good idea for me to note a few things. First, this case is in Sweden. As the International Business folks have gotten very tired of hearing, culture and laws differ. True, there have been employment discrimination cases in the US where height requirements and other physical requirements have been struck down (as I recall, some were on gender and others I think on ethnicity). However, in the US cases, the finding was that the requirement wasn't something actually needed for the job [Note 1]. From what was reported here, it sound as though the minimum height requirement was a job requirement -- if a US employer could establish that efficiency or safety really did require the minimum heights, the employer would, I think, probably win the suit.
[Note 1]. The interesting case was with firefighters. Traditional selection requirements for that job included the ability to lift, I think, 250 or 300 pounds. When this requirement was challenged, and a job analysis actually performed, what came out was that the ability to lift that amount of weight wasn't essential; what was essential was the ability to carry a lesser amount over a distance. In other words, endurance rather than strength. Women actually do better on endurence than men. That doesn't mean that many women will qualify as firefighters -- it's not office work. But, if you think through it, doesn't it make sense to take the time to find out what the job really requires, and find people who meet those qualifications?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I think , in general, employers try to come up with basic requirements for specific jobs. It might be too time consuming and or expensive to be overly detailed in the job requirements. Also, most of the time a person is given an opportunity to display talents or skills that allow for dismissal of certain requirements.
Steve Stratton said...
Dr. Prien,
I think that the strength and endurance matter equally, especially if ytou are the one that needs to be rescued from the fire. As with any viewpoint, all that really matters is where the rubber meets the road. Therefore, in the firefighter case, man or woman, I just want to be rescued if need be
10:38 AM
To respond to Steve...
That's the point exactly. Who cares if the firefighter is male, female, or a space alien? What's important is their ability to drag my personal self from a burning building. If a lawsuit results in some women being hired (there won't ever be many), and also gets us a better answer about what it takes to be a good firefighter, go for it !!
Tanza --
It's a balancing act, really. You have to think about the job and the consequences of failure. For, say, a car sales rep, it might be ok to take the quick-and-cheap route to getting some general requirements for the job. After all, if the person doesn't sell cars, out the door they go, and no real harm done. For a firefighter, given what the consequences of hiring the wrong person are, it makes real sense to take more time at the beginning to establish some fairly specific requirements.
That's an extremely good point, and one I haven't seen before, in 10 years of reading all the academic research there is on job analysis and job descriptions.
Anthony Williams said...
Being a past firefighter, I personally think strength is also just as important as endurance. I have been involved a three alarm fire where if not for my immediate strength I could possibly be dead now.
Anthony Williams
Tues. & Thur. Prin. Org & Mgmt.
To Anthony --
I'll have to defer here to your expertise. As far as I recall from the original report (it's been a few years), endurance was also important. It wasn't that strength wasn't important (and I didn't mean to give that impression at all, so I apologize if I did), rather that endurance also mattered just about as much.
Shellee Young posted...
Concerning the article about the firefighters in Sweden, I agree endurence is part of the job, however strength is also a big role. My only concern is the ability to carry an person from a burning building. Say a large man or woman is trapped in a burning building can these women fulfill the job requirements and get the victim and themselves to safety? If so, then let them do their job.
For Shellee -- I agree. Se my responses to Steve and Anthony above; you bring up similar (but both very important) points.
It is true that women have more endurance than men but when it comes to firefighting I think strength may be more helpful.
Gail Zwicker posted.....
I think that all of these things matter as long as they are relevant to the job. Too many times the job descriptions are just thrown together often not even by those that actually know what is necessary. Just as in the case of the firefighter when they dug deeper clarification on the acutal requirement was determined. It takes more involvment between those writting the job description and those actually doing or manageing the job.
Gail Zwicker
International Business
Katie Frederick said....
The only thing that should matter in regards to a job, is if you can get the job done. Unforuantely this is not always the case. There should be a set standard for requirements and who ever can meet these should be able to get the job. I know plenty of men that would not be able to make the firefighters requirements. There is bona fide occupational qualification rule, but in this case it sounds like that wasn't proven.
In response to Joyce --
The real key here, though, isn't what either one of us think; it's what you can actually prove by a systematic examination of job content by people who are experts in the field. That's so often the problem -- what we "think" we know that isn't really so. That was the case here, where conventional wisdom said strength, but it turned out to be strength and endurance.
In response to Gail --
First off, thanks for remembering about job descriptions !!!!!
Also, you're out there actually doing human resouces -- so, folks, pay attention to what Gail is saying.
Katie --
Exactly. Firefighter is an important job. We need to find out what the requirements really are, then pick folks who can meet them. Period.
Quick clarification -- BFOQ (Bona fide occupational qualification) is when you are permitted to use an otherwise illegal criteria (such as gender, age or religion) in employment. It's fairly rare to find these; the classic example is personal service (that is, it's legitimate to require that a fitter for "intimate apparel" be of the same gender as the customers)
In the case of the firefighters, it's hard to see any way that gender itself could be a BFOQ (true, more men than women will probably meet the requirements, but some women will and not all men will). Age might be a BFOQ if you could establish that folks over, say, 50, no longer had, for example, the reaction time to safely perform the job.
Post a Comment