| Course | HR400 Talent Acquisition and Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Job analysis |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HR400 Unit 2
Three to Midnight, Task by Task: A Unit 2 Job Analysis of a Second-Shift Warehouse Supervisor
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR400: Talent Acquisition and Management
Unit 2 Job Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Calloway Building Supply, its staff and every rating are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Purpose
Calloway Building Supply will soon fill a second-shift supervisor vacancy at its central warehouse. The existing posting was written eight years ago. This analysis documents the job as it is done now, so that the job description, selection criteria and interview that follow rest on evidence. Sanchez and Levine (2012) argue that analysis of work should capture what people actually do now, not only the job as it was once defined, because selection, training and pay decisions all draw on it.
Sources
The existing posting. Read for comparison, not as evidence.
Shift reports. Six months of end-of-shift reports, which record late trucks, staffing gaps, incidents and order counts.
Observation. Two full second shifts, three in the afternoon to midnight, observed by the human resources generalist with notes every fifteen minutes.
Structured interviews. Three incumbent supervisors from the company's warehouses and the operations manager, each asked the same twelve questions about tasks, difficulties and what separates good supervisors from weak ones.
The Task Inventory
From the sources, 31 task statements were written, each beginning with an action verb. Nine subject matter experts, the three incumbent supervisors, the operations manager, three lead associates and two day-shift supervisors, rated each task on two five-point scales: how often it is performed, and the consequence of doing it badly. The criticality index is the product of the two mean ratings, and tasks are numbered T1 to T31 in order of criticality, so T1 is the most critical.
Highest criticality, T1 to T4. Re-sequencing pick waves when an inbound truck arrives late, criticality 20.3. Correcting an associate's unsafe forklift practice on the spot, 19.8. Reassigning associates when two or more call out, 18.4. Confirming outbound loads against orders before trucks leave, 17.9.
Middle. Coaching a new associate through the first week, T12, 12.6. Approving overtime within budget, T15, 11.2.
Lowest. Filing the end-of-shift report, T27, 6.1, although it takes about twenty minutes a night. Ordering supplies for the break room, T31, 2.4.
Morgeson and Campion (1997) identify ways job analysis ratings can mislead, among them a tendency for people to rate their own tasks as more important than others would. To reduce that risk, ratings were collected independently, and the operations manager's ratings were compared with the incumbents'. They agreed within one point on 28 of 31 tasks.
Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Other Characteristics
A linkage table connects each characteristic to the tasks it serves and marks it as needed on the first day or learnable within ninety days.
Needed on the first day. Ability to set priorities under time pressure, linked to the re-sequencing and call-out tasks. Knowledge of safe material handling, linked to forklift correction. Skill in giving direct feedback, linked to correction and coaching.
Learnable within ninety days. Knowledge of Calloway's warehouse management system, forklift certification and the company's overtime rules.
A characteristic belongs among the first-day requirements only if a supervisor without it would fail a critical task before training could supply it.
Critical Incidents
Fourteen incidents were collected from the interviews using the method Flanagan (1954) set out: a specific situation, what the person did and what happened as a result. Eight were effective and six ineffective.
An effective incident. A flatbed of drywall arrived two hours late at six in the evening. The supervisor moved two associates from picking to receiving, pushed one outbound route back an hour after calling the driver and finished the shift on time.
An ineffective incident. A supervisor saw an associate lifting a load with forks raised too high, said nothing during a busy period and dealt with it the next day. The load fell an hour later, without injury.
How Night Differs From Day
The observation found that second shift differs from day shift in ways the old posting ignored. Day shift has a warehouse manager, a receiving lead and a safety coordinator on site. Second shift has none of them after five in the evening, so the supervisor makes every call that day shift spreads across four people. Late inbound trucks are also more common on second shift: the shift reports show 41 late arrivals in six months, against 12 on day shift, because carriers that miss morning appointments arrive in the afternoon. These differences explain why re-sequencing and immediate safety correction rank so high, and why the incumbents rated the end-of-shift report low despite the time it takes: nothing goes wrong on the floor if the report is late, while a great deal goes wrong if a late truck is handled badly.
Limits of the Analysis
Only two shifts were observed, both in the same month, so seasonal peaks such as the spring building season may add tasks or change ratings. The nine raters all work at Calloway, so the inventory reflects this company's practice rather than the occupation as a whole. The analysis should be reviewed after the spring season.
What the Analysis Changes
The old posting led with paperwork and listed forklift certification and a four-year degree as requirements. The analysis shows the job is mainly about adjusting work under pressure and correcting unsafe practice, and that certification can follow hire. Those findings carry into the job description in Unit 3.
References
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Social and cognitive sources of potential inaccuracy in job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 627-655. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.627
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2012). The rise and fall of job analysis and the future of work analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 397-425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100401
The Purdue Global HR400 Unit 2 instructions
The second HR400 assignment asks you to conduct a job analysis for a position your organization will fill. State the purpose and why existing documents are not enough. List your sources, such as records, observation and interviews, and explain why several are used. Build a task inventory of task statements, have subject matter experts rate each one for frequency and the consequence of error, and compute a criticality index. Address ways ratings can mislead, citing research, and say what you did about them. Then link knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics to the tasks they serve, marking which are needed on the first day and which can be learned. Collect critical incidents, effective and ineffective. Note how the work differs by shift or setting, the analysis's limits and what it changes. Six pages is common.
Inside the HR400 Unit 2 example
The sample explains why the eight-year-old posting needs replacing and cites Sanchez and Levine on analyzing work as done. Four sources follow, with a margin note on combining them. The inventory reports criticality for tasks T1 to T31, from re-sequencing at 20.3 to break room supplies at 2.4, and Morgeson and Campion inform a check on rater agreement. The linkage section separates first-day characteristics from those learnable in ninety days, as the highlighted sentence explains. Two of fourteen incidents gathered with Flanagan's method are shown, with a margin note on ineffective incidents. Sections on night versus day work, limits and the changes the analysis makes complete it.
HR400 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
The HR400 job analysis is graded on method, evidence and usefulness for selection. Instructors give credit for multiple sources and an explanation of why each is used. Task statements should be specific, and ratings should come from several experts on clear scales. A criticality index shows how tasks were ranked. Addressing rating error with research shows methodological care. The linkage between characteristics and tasks is weighted heavily, especially the distinction between first-day and learnable requirements. Critical incidents should include ineffective behavior. Noting how the setting shapes the job and stating limits show judgment. Each finding should feed the documents the next units build, with APA 7 citations throughout.
Common HR400 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many HR400 job analyses rewrite the old posting in new words rather than gathering evidence. Others list tasks without ratings, so nothing shows which matter most. Students often rely on one incumbent's account, which invites inflation. Characteristics are listed without linking them to tasks. Every requirement is treated as needed on day one. Incidents are only success stories. Use several sources, rate tasks with several experts, compute criticality, address rating error, link each characteristic to tasks, separate first-day from learnable, collect effective and ineffective incidents and state limits. Send your sources, and our team can help organize the analysis.
Get an HR400 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
A role you can actually observe produces the sharpest analysis, though the position named in the Unit 2 prompt works as well. Pass that on, grading rubric included. The first sample is free and turnaround is 24-48h; task ratings and incidents come back bracketed as composite, ready for later units to build on. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HR400 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples
- HR400 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HR400 Unit 3: Job Description Draft
- HR400 Unit 4: Recruitment Sourcing Plan
- HR400 Unit 5: Selection Criteria Matrix
- HR400 Unit 6: Structured Interview Guide
- HR400 Unit 7: Candidate Evaluation Memo
- HR400 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HR400 Unit 9: Onboarding Plan
- HR400 Unit 10: Talent Acquisition Strategy
HR400 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which job analysis method does the example use?
Several, combined. Observation and interviews generate the task statements, a rating questionnaire orders them, and critical incidents describe performance at its best and worst. Sections that name a single method, such as the critical incident technique or a structured questionnaire, can be matched exactly; the example states its method in its own section so a reader sees what produced every result.
Does the analysis have to cover the whole job?
It covers the tasks that matter for selection, which is most of the job but not every minute of it. The example keeps low-criticality tasks in the table because their low rating is itself a finding: it shows why a time-consuming report does not become a hiring criterion. A shorter prompt may ask only for the top tier.
Where can I find a free HR400 Unit 2 sample paper?
A complete HR400 Unit 2 job analysis is on this page, documenting a second-shift warehouse supervisor's work through a rated 31-task inventory and fourteen critical incidents.
What is a criticality index in job analysis?
It combines how often a task is done with how costly an error would be, often by multiplying the two ratings, so the most consequential tasks rise to the top.
Why collect ineffective critical incidents?
They show what poor performance looks like on the job, which gives later interview rating scales a realistic bottom level as well as a top.