ED 099 674

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYREPOPT NOPUB DATENOT?

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME.

CE 002 794

Garza, Andrew T.; Carpenter, James B.Comparative Job Attributes of Airmen and CivilService Personnel Having Similar Job Types.Air Force Human Resources Lab., Lackland AFB, Tex.Occupational Research Div.Air Force Human Resources Lab., Brooks AFB, Texas.AFERL-TV-74-45May 741Bp.

Mr40.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGECareer Ladders; *Comparative Analysis; CostEffectiveness; Data Analysis; *Government Employees;Job Analysis; Job Development; Job Satisfaction;Manpower Utilization; *Military Personnel;*Occupational Information; Occupational Surveys;*Personnel Evaluation; Personnel Needs; Tables(Data); Task Analysis; Task Performance; WorkAttitudes; Work SimplificationAir Force

ABSTRACTMilitary and civil service personnel having similar

job types and from comparable accounting. and finance career ladderswere compared on several attributes. The data reveal certain distinctdifferences between the two populations with the magnitude of thedifferences being highly variable as functions of specific job typesconsidered. Generally, civilians perform a larger number of ta: ;ks,the tasks and overall jobs they perform are more difficult, they findtheir jobs more interesting, and feel that their jobs make greateruse of their talents and training. In view of these differences inattributes and the potentially higher cost of military personnel,conversion of certain military positions to civilian positions tomeet operational needs appears feasible. Unique attributes ofcivilian and military personnel also point out the necessity forfurther research into their causes and consequent effects in suchareas as promotion, skill upgrading, career progression, workerattitudes, and retention. The need for investigation appears morecritical for the airmen population because of their expressed jobdissatisfaction, particularly those performing disbursementaccounting functions where simple highly repetitive tasks tend topredominate. (Author)

AIR FORCE 1.3.

I HI I U

-!

.1 AM

WIc)

C=3

I i

RES0URCES

AFHR L.TR-74-45

COMPARATIVE JOB ATTRIBUTES OF AIRMEN AND CIVILSERVICE PERSONNEL HAVING SIMILAR JOBTYPES

By

Andrew T. GarzaJames B. Carpenter, LtCoL USAF

OCCUPATIONAL RESEARCH DIVISIONLackland Air Force Base, Texas 78238

May 1974Final Report for Period July 1972 Merdt 1974

Ap 'roved for public release:distribution unlimited.

LABORATORY

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMANDBROOKS MR FORCE BASE,TEXAS 78235

2

NOTICE

When US Governnwnt drawings, specifications, or other data are usedfor any purpose other than a definitely related Governmentprocurement operation, the Government thereby incurs noresponsibiiity nor any obligation whatsoever, and the tact that theGovernment may have formulated, furnished, or in any way suppliedthe said drawings. specifications, or other data isnot to be regarded byimplication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or anyother person or corporation. or conveying any rights or permission tomanufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any waybe related thereto.

This final report was submitted by Occupational Research Division,Air Fora Human Resources Laboratory, Lack land Air Force Base,Texas 78236. under project 7734, with Hq Air Force Human ResourcesLaboratory ( AFSC ), Brooks Air Force Base. Texas 78235.

This report has been reviewed and cleared for open publication and/orpublic release by the appropriate Office of Information (01) inaccordance with AFR 190-17 and DoDD 5230.9. There is no objectionto unlimited distribution of this report to the public at large. or byDDC to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

This technical report has been reviewed and is approved.

RAYMOND E. CHRISTAL, ChiefOccupational Research Division

Approved for publication.

HAROLD . FISCHER. Colonel, USAFCommander

sEC cq, ATO-sfy De Tw15 P 45,f 'Slum nate r were.",

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRVCTIONSBEFORE. CUMPLETING FORM

i REPaRT %,..o.iresz '2 GC11, ACCESSION NO.AFIIRL-TR-74-$5

I

3 AEc,PIENT's CATALOG NUMBER

4 TIT6E ,Arid burirte:COMPARATD:l. JOB ATTRIBUTI'S OF AIRMFN ANDCIVIL SfRVICI. P1 RSONNIT IIAVINU SIMILARJOB TYPIS

S Tv Pt DC REPORT 8 PERIOD COH'ERE'D

Final July 1972 March 1974

S PERFORMING ORG REPORT NuMBEW

7 Au THOR A.

Andrew T. Ciarta!antes B. Carpenter

8 CONTRACT DR GRANT NUMBERes;

4 FE RFORMtNG DPGAN./ATiON NAME AND ADDRESS

Occupational Research DivisionAir Force !Ionian Resources Laboratorylickl.ind Air force Base. TOWS 78236

10 PROGRAM ELEMENT PROJECT. TASKAREA 8 WORK uNtT NumeLmy

77340108

pr CONRO6LING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

11,1 Air I orcc Human Resources Laboratory t AFSC!Brooks Air f nice Base. 'NSW 78235

12 REPORT DATE

May 19743. NUMBER OF PAGES

18

'-I4 MONITOPIN1 AGEN :r NAME 4 ADDRESSerf filferefif rrnm ContrnIttra Othrej 15. SECURITY GLASS. (of rhos typo''.

Unclassified

.._,ism DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

IS OIS.TRIBuTION STATEMENT +il this Rrpnrt.

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

1" c4s.ri;$13,j710 STATEMENT /of the ehstrert entered to Mork )11. if &Hermit from Report)

'8 SuPPL f MEN- AP NOTES

IO .' EN' .JP"'S , ul"nur ..r re v.rAe star ri nee e4 van- 4171 'thong& NV hint). niee+Ser)

L1101 v..' rw !LT job comparisons, t if retain iti job descnptionsilratic: job difficulty indexIt 111 .01.4%1' (fib -type groupsjob iftni-nife, task difficulty

." A 01 Pr °T -C .^+,11-1,J. s,. PV,FfIR if fr ¶1 me..., 4Rry in f ,frnftiV Pt) hb)et. numberNidiiar and :ivil service personnel having similar job types and from comparable accounting and finance

:.s ,-,-r + Adel.. were compared on several attributes. The data reveal certain distinct differences between the two'1,1! 11,1,n with tlie magnitude of the differences being highly variable as functions of specific job types considered.

t ,,-,.,:-.111. , lv,li:inv nerfiirni a larger number of tasks, the tasks and overall iobs iliq perform are more difficult. theytil:1 ro...ir Col,. more intervsurw. and feel that their nibs make !.,reilier use of their talents and training. In view of

: !.... , ,.. it, ,i' (Om le% an.! the rotentialIN higher ,.ost Ili Indira) personnel, Lonversion of certain military;,....0, .111.01i,ositions to meet operational needs appears feasible. Unique attributes of civilian and military

.,..' ,,ii the tit% i .':i1). for furtlici r,search into Men causes and t' 4 qtgetliien I effeCli in cacil areas as

DD 1473 ' Pe. 45 ,SrANL'inclas,siticd

SECURITY ASSIP ATIONI CF Tt4i5 PAGE 'When Inve rntrred)

t fl. lassitied

SEZ.,IRCT" e."1.7tv OF '041i kTtart rate FM...tacit

ti %1 2U ( otitinued

1'11'111°11"n, skill c'jrver PloWsmon. %otket attitudes. and retention. The need tot investiption appearssnore i:titt. al tin the airmen population be,:anse 1 then expressed job dissatisfaction. panic:Wail), those perfninnykilShUrNelitCni furklins %here highl% repetitive tastes lend to predominate.

'TicLisitt ied-_.t ASS!' .3";'71. '14/5 P A ,5f. ripir 1,(PT.,1

r.4'1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageI. Intro duction 3

II. Approach and Findings 3

Comparisons on Number of Tasks Performed 4Comparisons on Average Task Difficulty per Unit of Time Spent 4Job Difficulty Index Comparisons 4Position Tenure ComparisonsCompanions on the Degree of Interest Firund in Jobs 6Comparisons on Jobs' Use of Talents and Training 6Relative Grade Comparisons

6Specific Job-Type Considerations

7Correlations Among Selected Variables 8

HI. Sununu!), and Conclusions8

References 9

Appendix A. Job Type Level Statistical Comparisons of Military and Civilian Personnel I I

Appendix B: Task Level Difference D-icriptions of Paired Military and Civilian Groups 12

LIST OF TABLES

TablePage

I Comparisons of Military and Civilian Personnel on Seven Variables c

2 Intercorrelations of Selected Variables 8Al Comparison of Military and Civilian Personnel on Seven Variables at the Job Type Level 11B1 Group Difference Descriptions of Paired Groups 12

Ef

COMPARATIVE JOB ATTRIBUTES 01: AIRMEN AND CIVIL. SERVICEPERSONNEL HAVING SIMILAR JOB TYPES

I. 11 Kt WI.

Job content comparisons between military andcivil service personnel working in the same careerfields have several potentially fruitful outcomes. Acorollas of determining the relative equivalencyof military and civilian jobs in terms of thenumber and complexity of tasks performed wouldprovide valuable information for determiningmanning interchangeability of civilian and militarypersonnel. standarduing position descriptions andtraining requirements, improving career develop-ment. and lob restructuring. Of these potentialuses. and Ili view of actual and anticipatedproblems in recruitment within an alt - volunteerforce atmosphere. a problem of most immediateinterest is the conversion of military jobs tocivilian jobs throughoui the Department ofDefense. Another promising area lies in comparingmilitary and civilian personnel performing thesame jobs on such attributes as pay grade. iontenure. and attitudes. These analyses wouldprovide inhumation to evaluate skill upgrading.promotion, and manning policies with regard tocost effectiveness, career progression, and person-nel motivation. Investigation of the relative meritsof divergent military versus civil service classifica-tion and assignment policies would have thesalutary effect of obtaining the more favorableaspects of each for mutual benefit and consolida-tion of effort.

H. APPROACH AND 1INDINGS

The data were extracted from the occupationaland background information collected during anAir Force-wide administration of a job inventoryto civil service personnel within seven Accountiigand Finance series. A total of 5,485 cases w;reobtained. representing )455 of the populationwithin these General Schedule series: GS-501.GS-520. GS-525. GS-530, GS-540. GS-544. andGS-545. The data wen, analyzed according tocurrent job analysis methodology which has beendescribed in various publications including Marshand Christal 11966). and Marsh and Archer(1967). Results of this analysis are reported byMaria ( 1972) and the effectiveness of occupationalsurvey data in predicting GS grade is reported byCarpenter and Christal (1972). The data onmilitary Accounting and Finance personnel were

3

obtained from a job inventory survey involving3.246 airmen representing befX of the totalpopulation within the General Accounting. AESC671X1. and Disbrusement Accounting, AFSC671X3. career ladders including AFSCs 67170 and6721)0.

The I ,99b cases used in this study were randomsamples obtained from the two surveys describedabove. Samples of 9)S cases each were selectedfrom the total military (3.246) and total civilian(5.485) accounting and finance populations. Thesetwo subsamples were merged and computerjob- type analyses performed. The computedhierarchal job-type grouping program yielded acareer field structure very similar to those foundwhen the military and civilian populations wereanalyzed individually.

For the military and civilian comparisonstreated, job type groups which form 10 clustersand which have a reasonable amount of overlap interms of the percentage of time members spendperforming the same tasks were selected. Also.groups were selected which had a sufficientlyrepresentative number of military and civilianmembers to make the comparisons somewhatmeaningful. Although an equal membership inmilitary-civilian categories was sought, some biaswill he noted since the job-type groupings formedunequally in most of the clusters. A chi-square testof the group Ns revealed 6 out of the 10 pairs hadsignificant differences beyond the 5% level ofconfidence. These are identified in Table 1 with an-a" or "b" indicating statistical signifiance at thea = .01 and a ..05 levels. respectively. Since thesubsample used in this analysis was drawnrandomly from large samples of airmen andcivilians representing a major proportion of thetotal Accounting and Finance population in thecareer ladders surveyed, it may be assumed thatthe Ns compared here are generally representativeof actual field conditions. Thus, a hypothesis thatairmen and civilian accounting and finance perstin-nel tend to be assigned to somewhat differentspecialized jobs is partially supported. This isborne out by observing that the more significantdifferences occur in such subject matter areas ascivilian pay, travel accounting, and military pay.

The civilian and military members within eachselected job type group were compared on sevenvariables considered important in personnel

selection. assignment. and upgrading. Althoughthese people were performing basically similar jobsin terms of overall cor' It and were thereforegrouped into mutual job clusters. there is asufficient contrast in Pie number of tasksperformed, percentage of members pertOrmingthese tasks, and the amount of time they spend onthem to allow certain comparisons. As shown inTable I. there is also considerable differencebetween the two categories in the various back-ground characteristics of the members. Table Ialso includes a total group composite on thevariables of interest.

Similar information on the spit lob typesubclusters comprising a further .down ofcertain groups, reported in Table I. is provided inAppendix A (Table Al).

Comparisons on Numberof Tasks Performed

In most of the groups compared. civil servicepersonnel performed a considerably larger numberof tasks than did military personnel. In 9 of the 10group pairs, civilian members performednumerically more tasks. A t-test of the differencebetween the means indicated statisticallysignificant differences in the number of tasksperformed for six pairs beyond the 5% level ofconfidence. These groups are identified in Table Iwith an "a" or "b" indicating the level ofsignificance. in this table, the our identifier"fly" or "Mil" designates whether the group sub-division is composed of civilian or militarypersonnel. The t-ratios are listed opposite the lastgroup of each pair. The overall differences innumber of tasks performed by civilian and militaryin the total sample is highly significant with meansof 54.85 and 38.80, respectively. Of particularinterest is the fact that significant differences innumber of tasks performed occur among thosepaired groups which are also unique with regard tothe other variables shown in Table I.

The number of tasks performed in a job canhave a substantial effect on the job description furthat job. This can be well illustrated by comparingjob descriptions generated by a computer programfor producing group difference descriptions.Appendix B (Table 131) contains sample descrip-tions which contrast the military and civiliangroup pairs. and are significantly different withregard to the number of tasks performed. Groupdifference descriptions show the differencebetween two groups in terms of percentages of

4

members performing each task Or the percentagesof work time spent on each task. Differences areordered from the greatest positive differencethrough /ero to the greatest negative difference. Inthis manner. differences between groups in termsof individual tasks can be readily noted. AppendixB contains group difference descriptions for sixpairs of military and civilian groups in terms of thepercentage of members performing tasks. Only 10tasks from each end of the group differencedescriptions are offered for illustrative purposes.Of particular note is the large differences inpercentage of members performing tasks;maximum differences between the paired groupsshown range from 31% to 79%.

Compatisons on Average TaskDifficulty per Unit of Time Spent

The average task difficulty per unit of timespent (ATDPUTS) was derived from task difficultyratings provided by Accounting and Financesupervisors in the field. The relative difficulty ofeach task in the Accounting and Finance JobInventory was rated independently by 75 militaryand 100 civilian supervisors using a 7-point relativescale ranging from I fur the very simple tasks to 7for the extremely difficult tasks. ATDPUTS valueswere derived by multiplying the mean taskdifficulty rating by the incumbent's percentage oftime spent on the task, summing the products. anddividing by 100. Resulting ATDPUTS values thusrepresent average task difficulty indices with amaximum range of I through 7 (Mead & Christal.1970).

The ATDPUTS comparisons between militaryand civil service cases shown in Table I indicate apattern similar to that of the Job Difficulty Indexwhich will be discussed later. In 3 out of the 10job pairs civilian personnel have a significantlyhigher average task difficulty level than themainly members. In two job pairs the militaryincumbents perform more difficult tasks. Thelarger differences between the military and civilservice personnel exist essentially in the same pairsin both the ATDPUTS and a closely relatedcriterion, the Job Difficulty Index. Also, thesignificant overall mean difference suggests thatcivilians tend to perform tasks of greaterdifficulty.

Job Difficulty Index Comparisons

The Job Difficulty Index (JIM) was derivedusing the constant standard weight regression

8

a,uarjuos Jo 1,344 maia3.1 3a9 atit rw

iaq ausssudisSfi

1,/t10 P

A.11 t11311.3d 3klo asp puniai w

esupukse

ciigrurit Iltuaur %M

M. 4611 'S

A.) Jul aagiuuu IIP

IAlktu N

I 11 jv - IINN

M

Ion. IIlihO

ititeLtti. II

IVA

14 tIm

it 'IM

Zht

41-476r. I

it trZ

6V t

641 I11t4 1.

I t ortIti t

tk

LH( II

11141 P'061 P

417, 161

41111E7

-1191, 611 0ti V

AIY

phII1111 1

L 1 1H

olt H161 t

411111V

4 1si t

roli P ihZ

1411L P

imq P

1.96L aW

C I

ti tIIL11

s911V

outift'i

LIPIt

144611 619 t

Itt Pr4b9

i$ 1ttu

:411116.6.'6

11110111:

Im

r. V

rti4u t14i 1

tLi P411

1ht I

4$ fZ

IAl 142.$

:101, sLi 1

1st1441*Z

Yilt

1it 111'4

'1t$£1111

11, lM

I)0111 164

11,11$1N

lt HO

1,

11641 601 %IC

Y41i 9

ttt 1t114

ft,111 1

1611 *,*.t 4

611 1I $

Or 1

11414114114 t

_6111'rM

a LIt l

ttioi-W

411fth t

'4;14 0L

I Itt t

rti t P Il l

99iItIb 4

411111Lt

I106 t

t1

:.:717 4I '1$ 4

LI I14,0

rtIii1111

4itt1+

01.I

Lt

4%1 I

t1114'1

1111

4.9

019t"41 6% 1

14'1,01111111

Ill'i 1£0 £1

.4146111V

L't 4*-11rbit i

Zbi'to

t41-1?tw

o 44'ifri:Y

ft 6CIP

t11114

Viti

6sile LtZ's

r44 L 4E

AI

9Z-t

rioel'01Ili Z

1ti9"11

44.441ZSt"'it

441Y

k.t. I'Lilo blurs

WI I

Lt.ihilt

t i'Ltt Lvt

4L IItiti:A

i)117,110

t IA 4/

£111 IH

Y t.

rcirt'tZ

NI

Ifi'tyvyt,

lit:)1+

Z1.111'11

16I II tact,..1%

, liiv* i

4470,LIZ

leiri%

Iti

16111 OZ

,,11.1 t

;7%1

Viol"

estiti9 V

Z41v$ I

ItItutcurt cr II

Lig IILbiril

k ti p6611

Pt $

641-1149Z

II141 LIIi

zz Do C

.9t1tliai

IA I

;ht 40:Z

L `I14111

rliiir,"1Z

41 iiyin l'Z

'txursi M

ull14641

),`1 i4L' L'$

I'S at

HZ

tt Z

. itIII-1S

eZ

cZ s

rIlliki/V

1IL V

rt It LS

IP/111

91,01,1$11:1-Z

lIZ t

14141i,16 I

LITO

£IiWt

46 11111 't

)1 LW 11115

LOS

17.1 I: 1Li III 11111

44,4741101'1

bi trtvi is

st.f+6V

tl 494i-Z91-i

19 ZI

rPht I

iti IIlt,. t

t tit.:. i

ti i.4118 III

it 191 It

Mill It

VIC

Z't

001L'It'A

Iti..4 $

1th IW

illt 1 LI

41 VC

MI i

killkititY

riC

III'll910 V

LL IIth i

.L'4t Pt LO

Vi 1

$1011141 11

+1Z

i. 4rithy'L

4t 1'1'

enut 4£11 11

16-itr&

941'1114

1111111,,O

M t

01.11$141.,

w, 'I

9,s,1,'lilt

lkitri4i 0 14011

orcl11

till t:41,11

1611IO

N b

0114$L: W

Iti la

14111I

;', $1.1Z

611 kr10111 tZ

t ^.711'n

OW

,14111

L t ht$141

L$ WI

41 i IItuov t

0411111$ 1

611104.6 4

zr"6;lit I

k to Iti t

14 41,14;tZ

.:L

L i

,-,t stti.'.

4LriIt'Ilt

CI 9?

tilt16 Li

NZ

, III,...-t

.9/46 6)a-ha

ER

tiN

S'Ip

tit*,yit

tail1L111

9(94

W V

(

OH

itIII

%;

11Irl if

09 a'IL

9)

seirLZ

q SsZ

Z, I it

:dol. /1

riti tLou 41

eiS C

ZO

h 6O

f tit

ebttl t9t P

Z1111t

91r 9i1,6 1.

tierLL

4411111'

I It14611

It it 101.74th tt

1 C4s4

%Lim

ui.) UV

moo

9Z.11

Nsin"I9 N

V trill

t9L'40

("14111tir.i.titm

.Pti 017:

IqialtuP

11 "ft le Nut/ I'll(

t11.1

JutlitH.kw

pantu..1

Ii0*1414sItoulf 1'1011.

r$L%

I)%

Nu uripm

'PA

)if I

'0*al

) Mir W

ItPd

biP

ithIW

I N11110 PU

P Ail O

A 401

Isten ',mat%

as pro +um

Iz;

trounli Irt

Art

l'74P011

9PaPnol

so11 )

utumriti yeas In lisousgeo 1

0111116

1,1i:11s1R V

Nm

s In 1431.1411,10 I901

tt..)

xuturui46.111%

mm

411111 V .itulan.1w

Ir1111

1I.11

%turn,. 4,

ILins

d OW

1luel.,$v

ri iI

st. )

stlAtei

asm

gmf.

uU.w

*1W'1

asm

oan wool

astom

owl

asvev,

.403Lw

ow)

(mam

mal ow

simaertil I4ot

L11nwL out

011,114otroi-o

asam

p1eN

taslosow

o Assrenosoa otor

Null ass 1111,1 sad

asslIN

.patuaolissa

.Vent

1111111111 60 1111111 QO

14410211410 71441 G

aylion

10 Holkukost

sou saissa maw

N04 del"

aX3

IllaitAS

WO

FlU

llinsaJj(teoptok) puit

141111J0111.110.)'1 -11.1I

equatiiiii developed by Mead and ('hristal (1970).This index includes as predictor variables thenumber of tasks performed. number of tasksperformed squared, and the average task difficultyper unit of tune spent I ATDPUTS).

Joh difficulty comparisons between militaryand civil service personnel in the same tots typegroups, shown in Table 1. indicated a considerablylarger number of civilian groups with a higher JIMthan military groups. Out of the 10 paired groupsshown. 9 civilian groups have a higher difficulty.index with the difference between means beingstatistically significant for 5 pairs beyond the SI.level of confidence. Only in the Financial SystemAnalyst job type do military show a higher jobdifficulty index, and this job cluster must beevaluated with cafe since the civilian/military splitis very uneven and the military have a much higherrelative grade when compared to their civiliancounterparts. The Metall comparison stronglyreflects that civilians tend to perform the moredifficult jobs within the joh type.

The differences in number of tasks performed.discussed previously. affects the criterionemployed in this analysis since the number oftasks and the number of tasks squared comprisetwo of the three variables in the JDI equation.

Posidon Tenure Comparisons

On the basis of comparative amount of timepent in their current position. the civil servicepersonnel far exceed the military personnel. Atendency in this direction is to be expected sincecivilian employees are less subject to frequenttransfers than irmen. However, the degree ofdifference is considerable. With only oneexception. all of the paired groups show civilianemployees having more than twice as much time intheir current poSition. The difference betweenmeans IA significant beyond the 5(.7 level cifconfidence for 9 out of the 10 pairs as well as forthe overall group.

Comparisons on the Degreeof Interest Found in Jobs

The degree to which the surveyed incumbentsfound their john interesting was obtained with a

Job inventory background information item ratedon a 7-point scale. The scale ranged from 1 for"extremely dull" to 7 for "extremely interesting."In all job type groups compared. civil servicepersonnel found their jobs more interesting thandid their military counterparts. Differencesbetween the means of 6 pairs were foundsignificant beyond the level of confidence a'was the overall difference for the vital group_

Comparisons on Jobs' Useof Talents and Training

The job inventory background informationitem asking for the extent to which jobs use theincumbents' talents and training consisted of a7-point scale which ranged from "nut at all" at thelower end to perfectly" at the upper end. likethe tot) interest item, this item elicited a greaterdegree of favorable response from the civilianmembers than from military members. Out of the10 pairs of military and civil service personnelcompared. S showed that the latter group foundtheir jobs a greater challenge to their talents andtraining than did their military counterparts with 6groups wheeling statistical significance beyond the.01 level.

Of note is that the significant t-ratios and lowermeans for military in their jobs's use of theirtalents and training tend to occur primarily in suchdisbursement accounting areas as paying andcollecting, civilian pay. travel accounting, andmilitary pay where highly repetitive, simple taskstend to predominate. This observation issupported in findings reported by Gould (1972)where a ranking of 97 airmen career ladders placedthe Disbursement Accounting AFSC 671X3 nearthe lower end of the continuum in job satisfaction.In the same study it was also found that nearlyhalf of the 3- and 5-skill level airmen in theDisbursement Accounting ladder felt that theirtalents and training were either not used at all orused very little. Thus. in view of the significantlylower overall mean use of talents and trainingexpressed by the airmail population, there appearsto he a definite need to investigate further thereasons for the expressed discontent to determineremedial job restructuring possibilities. Compara.five military and civilian personnel survey datagathered thus far provide encouragement thatfruitful hypotheses can be accrued for improvedjob restructuring. Among other studies underway.a multiple prediction study is in progress whichwill consider the relative contribution of a broadselection of variables in predicitng certain criticalattributes such as job interest and the use oftalents and training on the job.

Relative Grade Comparisons

No attempt is made here to establish a preciserelationship between the grade levels of militaryand civil service personnel regarding salary scalesand total cost to the government per jobincumbent. More pertinent data on relative salariesand benefits would he necessary to accon;plish anexact comparison and methodologies for estab-lishing and evaluating actual costs are currently

6

10

under investigation. 'These comparisons are madeat the numerical grade level merely to demonstratethe relative differences between civilian andmilitary grades within the job pairings underctnsideration.

The overall grade means for civilian andmilitary cases in the entire sample are GS-5.2.4 andF -4.64. respectively. These means were used todetermine a composite weighted mean grade for allmilitary and civilian Job incumbents. Then themean for each military and civilian segment ofeach job group was corrected according to itsdeviations from this overall weighted compositemean. The corrected means. therefore, serve toequate the joatiur means so that a westbetween means reflects the relative grading ofeither the civilian or military segment of the jobcluster in terms of the mean grade of the othersegment. Differences between seven pairs aresufficiently large to he significant beyond the 55level of cnfidenee. In five of these, militarygroups have a higher relative average gradewhereas civilians have a relatively higher averagegrade in two job dusters. Thus. grade differencesare seen to be specifically related to job type. andthe grade difference between airmen and civiliansis not always in the same direction. For example,civilians have a significantly higher relative gradelevel in the Accounts Control and Paying andCollecting dusters, while the airmen in theAccounting and Finance Supervisor, FinancialSystems Analyst. and Travel Accounting and%Mat) pay clusters have a relatively higher grade.The relative incumbent grade thus eitheremphasiies or minimizes the seriousness of theobtained differences in the other variables ofinterest,

Specific Job-Type Considerations

When the varied clusters are individuallycompared on the variables of interest some uniquecharacteristics dependent upon the job cluster areevidenced. Little difference in the specific jobcharacteristics of civilian as opposed to militarypersonnel are noticed in the Accounts Controlduster even though the relative grade of thecivilian personnel is miticeably higher whencompared to their military counterparts. However,civilians do show significantly greater job interestand view their job as making better use of theirtalent:: and training. The four specific job typescomprising this cluster, as shown in Appendix A.further reflects the existing relationships betweenthe specific job type and the distribution ofvariables,

7

The Accounting and Finance Supervisor dustetgenerally evidences the same conditions as doesthe Accounts Control cluster although the relativegrade of the military within this cluster issignificantly higher than that of their civiliancounterparts. However. when the two job typescomprising the duster are independently amity/edit may be easily observed that one type, containingrelatively higher graded civilian personnel, alsoreflects consistently significantly higher values onall variables within this study. Conversely, in theother job type where the military is markedlyhigher graded, the military tend to perform moretasks with great"r difficulty and in fact tendtoward having greater interest in the job andgreater perceived use of their talents and training.even though. as is commonly noted. their jobtenure is much less than their civilian counterparts.

In reviewing the Commercial Services andMateriel cluster a general equivalency in relativegrade between the military and civilian jobincumbents is observed. However, within thiscluster the civilians perform significantly moretasks of greater difficulty, have been on the joblonger, and show greater interest and use of talentsand training. The same general findings may beobserved in each of the six specific job typescomprising this cluster although the greaterdisparities on the variables is most evidencedwithin the specific job type identified as C20/%121(Appendix A).

Generally similar findings arc obtained in allother clusters reported. The Civilian Pay cluster isparticularly unique in terms of the consistentlyhigher number of tasks performed, task difficulty.and job difficulty of the civilian incumbents. eventhough the civilians within this duster arerelatively under-graded in relation to their militarycounterparts. The extremely low military jobinterest and use of talents and training should henoted. In both of the latter two clusters reported:Accounting Clerical and Administrative, andMilitary Pay, civilians tend to report performingthe more difficult jobs with significantly greateruse of talents and training although in both casesthe civilian is under-graded in relation to hismilitary counterpart. The data for the seven jobtypes comprising the Military Pay cluster is shownin Appendix A. allowing similar evaluations of theunique characteristics of the incumbents at thespecific job types to he evaluated.

11

Cotre Iations AmongSelected Variables

The tint two variables shown in Table 2.number of tasks performed and Average TaskDifficulty. per Unit Time Spent t ATDPUTSL showa relatively high relationship with the lob Diffi-culty. Index (1D1 variable. This relationship is tohe expected since the number of tasks andATDPUTS enter into the equation used tocompute the 11)1. There is also a moderate rela-tionship between these three variables and grade

level of both the military and civilian comes. Thelowest correlations tend to be associated with thejob tenure variable. Further, there is a low butpositive relationship between the two attitudinalvariables and the number of tasks performed.ATDPUTS.31111. and grade level. This relationshipis higher for the airmen than it is for civilians.Understandably. there is a strong relationshipbetween expressed job interest. and thy use oftalents and training on the job.

Table 2. lnterconebtioto of Selected Variables

Va nobles Orevo 1

1. \a11)110 of Tasks Civmil

2. Task Difficulty Civ .:344Mil .1698

3. Job Difficulty Civ .9140 .5353Mil 8033 .6971

4. Uncorrected Pay Grade Civ .4145 .4469 .5262Mil .3660 .4483 .5118

5. Job Tenure Civ .1527 .0567 .1585 .2510Mil .0878 .1314 .1540 .1247

6. Job Interest Civ .2483 .0988 .2568 .1790 .0578Mil .2525 .2616 .3307 .3571 .0705 .

7. Use of Talents and Training Civ .2155 .1452 .2468 .2543 .1221 .6380Mil .3166 3066 .4004 .4449 .0974 .7269

Ht. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

When considering the total group data for allpersonnel evaluated in this study, the number oftasks performed. average task difficulty. and jobdifficulty for civil service employees show anoticeably higher quantitative level than they dofor their military counterparts. The t-ratiosindicating significant differences between meanperk/11T once on thew factors are all highlysignificant beyond the 111 level of confidence.Thew same findings hold true with regard to jobtenure. job interest, and job use of talents andtraining. where the civilians demonstrate markedly!Unger job tenure as well as greater interest in theooh and greater satisfaction in terms of fulfillingtheir expectations with regards to the use of theircapabilities. These variables are likewise all signifi-cant beyond the 15 level of confidence.

It Is particularly interesting to note that thework are in which the airmen expressed the!neater lob dissatisfaction were the disbursementaccounting areas such as paying and collecting.

Mmieya..

travel. and civilian and military pay. This findingagree s with other repot fed findings previouslycited.

Correlations among the variables discussedabove indicate similar relationships for militaryand civil service personnel despite the magnitudeof the differences noted earlier. For example.correlations between the pay grade variable andthe number of tasks. ATDPUTS. and 31)1 variableswere generally equivalent for military and civilians.Thus% it appears that grade level is positivelyrelated to the number of tasks performed, diffi-culty of the tasks performed, and the overalldifficulty of the job. There is also evidence thatgrade level, number of tasks performed, and taskand jolt difficulty are associated with the interestfound in the job and the feeling that the job makesadequate use of the incumbents' talents andtraining. This relationship is somewhat higher formilitary personnel.

Length of time in the current rositinn was onlyslightly related to the other variables treated here.

The only noticeable exception was its correlationof .25 with civilian grade; a low relationship, butindicative of the markedly longer job tenure ofcivilian personnel.

In summary, the data reveal some distinctdifferences between military and civil servicepersonnel performing the same jobs. Civilians tendto perform a larger number of tasks, the tasks theyperform are more difficult, the jobs are moredifficult, they find their jobs more interesting, andfeel that their jobs make greater use of theirtalents and training. In view of these differences inattributes and the potentially higher cost ofmilitary' personnel, meeting operational needs byconversion of military positions to civilianpositions in selected job types appears feasible.

These unique attributes of civilian and militarypersonnel also point out the necessity for furtherresearch into their causes and effects. Forexample, there is a need to determine why theairmen perform less tasks of lesser difficulty andwhy the jobs they perform are less eomplex.Further, a determination should be made of theeffects of these airmen job characteristics onpromotion, skill upgrading, and career progressionand retention. It would also be of value todetermine the effects of these job attributes onmotivation and attitudes in order to determinemethods for job enrichment. The data indicate thepotential value of additional research in thisdirection in that grade and job complexity show apositive relationship with expressed job interestand job use of talents and training.

REFERENCES

Carpenter, J.B.. & Christal. R.E. Predicting civilianposition grades from occupational and back-grr,und data AFEIRL-TR-72-24, AD-754 966.Lack land AFB. Tex.: Personnel ResearchDivision, Air Force Human Resources Labora-tory, March 1972.

Garza. A.T. Occupational survey of sevenaccounting and finance civil service serks.AFHRL-TR-72-67, AD-754 967. Lack landAFB. Tex.: Personnel Research Division. AirForce Human Resources Laboratory, July1972.

Gould, R.B. Reported job interest and perceivedutilization of talents and training by airmen in97 career ladders. AFHRL-TR-72.7, AD-745099. Lack land AFB, Tex.: Personnel ResearchDivision, Air Force Human Resources Labora-tory. January 1972.

Mead, D.P., & Orbital, R.E. Development of aconstant standard weight equation for evdua-ting job difficulty. AFHRL-TR-70 -44. AD-720255. Lackland AFB, Tex.: Personnel ResearchDivision. Air Force Human Resources Labora-tory. November 1970.

Monk & Archer, W.B. Procedtaul guide forconducting occupational surveys in the UnitedStates Air Force. PRL-TR-67-11, AD-664 036.Lackland AFB, Tex.: Personnel ResearchLaboratory, Aerospace Medical Division,.September 1967.

Marsh, & Christal, R.E. Impact of thecomputer on fob analysis in the United StatesAir Force. PR L-TR-66-19, AD-656 304.Lackland AFB, Tex.: Personnel ResearchLaboratory. Aerospace Medical Division,October 1966.

Ifrr

1114

1I

UR

I'. IN

N II

VII

s$1.

41 IS

II11

IMM

I+IN

ICs.

%II

VIII

I'O

n%

%1'

4 1%

1111

i\R

's)\

.\I

I 4'

.411

1 5

5180

1411

181

111

1111

111.

117L

mut

4 h

i1tt1

1 P

en ii

iii k

i

on %

eke.

, JriA

tik4,

Iht J

obpc

I ev

e!

Mn

...14

..480

1U4

10.4

44 th

ew!.

en..

.,24

141

IL 1

,0,1

,1 4

1.. ,

% M

0:1

1 I

'II

r441

1. .

% 1

1 os

.,01

'I's

.0 S

.., a

%I .

...M

. IM

:N

loM

ilk r

..1

t1'

s14

.4.,:

.1.1

1111

.4t.

1,1

11 :,

et.

1.

114

.. 1.

II 4.

4,A

II o

'

4,14

1Ir

I41

,...,1

TO

,r.

1I .

., I

14no

ntm

.

oI.

14.

1441

1,1

1114

81.

4,I

1,1i

1 '4

I:1%

111,

,,P

tliS

I"IC

1111

1Jr

t11

11, +

Ire

PA

L

'-a14

4.1.

1 P

o.

1 44

4'11

111v

irs

1144

'Woo

s1

IA.

14'

%III

OS

PA

.11

.111

1814

1.1

PA

.

1/1.

211

11uj

ry P

A.

410,

/*l

ox, P

a.ne

.4

1414

,1.4

111,

,,1T

,11

,1 +

411.

I1,4

4'"

Sla

l vs

14.4

4

117.

,N

IM

INIM

S P

ik

Tbt

r -

%v.

011.

...11

.,

...4

4 ...

174s

.

unix

!, ,4

11 te

lks

P..4

.44,

n4re

sita

ftlo

t,t s

ag..

4; :'

:1'

4 I'

I11

4"14

+01

I1

:a -

1..,

i. ;

I:I -

4 4

- I..

.4 II

.z

) /

'.,.

.4.

I.. 4

4h

IPI

.O

S.,

41. '

4: 4

1-

-.

..

:'I4::

:t,:

4. '4

:4..,

I'4'..

4. I.

I, 4:

.1"

4:

II...

1' 1

1.4

Cl "

,-

.401

:1 1

'11

.1.4

1.

14 -

4Ir

a'I

It+41

.P1

!,4h

1 41

II1'

441

-2

.",'"

I I4

-

.1I .

4

:I

- . 1

4'11

N1.

414

4"

.

yl -

; .1

.

4..

i s1

11

' . .

.

SI

'N

Lb.,.

5t

.I

I I-.

1I

IC

,01

4 -

II

sr1

.i.!

105

, I:I

'.,,

1'

',4,

24 1

,'

1.1

I1

%.

...11

P41

1, c

4s

.!A

,.I

I oh'

+ 1

'I.

44M

I. -

I1

1t

.,

' . .

.. A

1 1

, 1, "

1a

.-

I44

1'k

rI

2 . '

1-

.orA

A M

O1

I, ll

4'4

4I.'

I.

tLo

i s..

, A C

l,'. .

..1,1

:4:s

I..

'44.

`114

I. .

. t .

1 . 4

1 s

o- -

A I

I o '

.1

4 '

114

: : t.

.:

...."

.I.

1: :

:A

'I

4,1.

7.,1

1 ,,,

, Mo.

..,1

-.1

:1.

"

' . 1

: 1A

t.I

..4

14

55..,

mo

.,I-4

4..

: -44

..1

1

'

.,

I'.7.

.7

bC10

7111

13V

' It 4

c1 .R

Itn

fitit

ttk 4

..

/4.4

4. T

oo tl

to.ta

lyP

4114

.8,..

11 o

f Tom

e-

.'A

ron

o om

oo,

tub

1.)M

osul

ty In

tItla

g V

enue

sJo

b In

otro

po

Mea

nS

Dt +

elm

Moa

n*D

I .41

sto

Moa

n S

OI 4

40/.,

lub

UN

u. 4

081,

4414

40 T

44no

ora

_.

Od5

.441

415

.1I r

a141

4lin

ed 1

1

I. ta

ds

C11

4.W

OW

.S

E/

4 -1

-.

II42

4'

...'

i...

I

.44,

1'4

4 44

!4

4.:.

It

II.

I :4

t'I.

I'41

.14.

41.

i44

4I

.,...

I...

44.4

1 4

'.

4 A

'1

4I

..1

"I '

4 .

.142

41

.L.

11:1

1

4.

. 1.

14,4

'41

4I

oI

...4

4 44

4 -

I'1

1 nV

'i :

^45

44

;4

" :

I.8

.4

-.,.

T-

-4

....

4 14

14

-1

TI.'

4 .1

-4

/lit

.44

, II,

I 1,2

'dr

.I

4I

I .A

I,

4II

! 4 I

..'"I

1'

! r I

'4.

I.I

.:I.

1' r

.I'

11'1

447

"::'

..41

4'1

4.:

' 41',

1,41

.7,

14'

.44

4I

I''4'

1 V

e

111.

0

4,..

..

o1

''

.' .

4,1

III ..

.L:I

X't

I /44

.'. 4

-. '

''.!6

11'

44.

1 14

'-

F

141,

1.1

11I

.a/

1 -I

'1

AI

Ir.

T. 0

4

1 I '

,.1

I'

t4

,1

...

R.:1

I-

%1

4 ..,

-...

.'...

'!1

t:1.

.4'

-..

,.

1...

...4

-: 1

'II .

1 4

.' 4

1 4

4-I

41..3

1 4

14

144_

1

,. ..

I11

I ,10

1115

I I-

I. ,

.:4'

'14

.4:

..,

1,4

4 ...

....1

I.

ie.

..1.:

4.

-1.1

1I1

...IA

1441

1 4

..1. .

51 4

,1,

k ;1

15,

41.

I 14

41

.'4

' ,I.

1 V

, 2

" 14

11

: c-1

4 "

.I

.I

.- I

: .4

14:

, "44

."I

I'

4 44

..4

1 4

'4

4-.N

.C4

-..

4 I .

t;-

.4

.$4f

,II,

.'

4-:

'. .

44

is1

14

' 4 4

. .i '

.

414

.. 1

'2%

.. '1

4,1

^:

I. 'I

11.

:t 1

41'

41,1

1...

14'

1 1

I2

4 --

-41

,1...

.44

i.1

4s4

,,"/

.1.

-11,

:.1

. . ,,

'. 1

1 "

4'4

r.r.

1.I -

..I

"I''''

'

.1'4

,1:1

14'

:11

I:::

I' 2

111

' -.1

4 1'

4414

411

.4

1 -

II '

111

so.

1 44

' 4 +

4I 4

10.

:14

s...

14 4

1

4 1.

.41.

#11

II ..1

,1,4

.4 ,:

.'.

I1

^1 !,

I

14.'.

...4.

:::

:4.4

;0

%ft

i'Y

11

'1"

W.!

1:t..

11":

I-:

'1::

.14

: ".1

1,

111 1:

'1'

two'

411i:

I I''

"1"2

:.4

1'

1 4.

-41

4 ..

pi.

11.1

!""

I3'4

I: :1

in C

l .4

'4;1

.41

14I,1

1 4

1,4

4 11

1.1

'- 1:

41

1 ,.,

i.

4, to

o4.

11 4

4'

.

4.

I,

t.7

4 III

. 1

I...

4.1

I 44

1"

". 1

'4I '

.2I!

42

'40

4 flk

144

t f P

A '

41 4

4 4,

4It

"I4

:?..s

:4:

IA1

-Cl

o.o.

+

4 04

411

-1'1

oo '

441.

.4,-

44

la.N

. 14

134:

I'' C

l 4' 1

r' .

4 -I

I 1,4

.....,

11

Illw

eI N

s4:

' M.

4:1,

; 4

44'

,11,

:!4

isi,1

,1.

1-1

4 14

1,.1

...,.'

'P.

1....

.2:',

.8I"

114.

.71.

....!

5414

-"4

1:!II

.4

1..1

1414

to 1

11III

1.0

:o.

1.4

.11

2.7

*h.^

,. N

.? 1

1,1.

44.4

.,I:1

...11

4;I:

''''':

1141

.04'

4,1

144

1.A

4 1

31I

1'4

44%

,h :4

111

..14

4N2'

44

I'- c

11.

.44

. 4:P

111%

;44

'1'

41.

141

.42.

114

'I 4:

4{'

I414

,4

5 0,

4 ..$

1.2

2.:'

4.,

:I A

I11

, in

114

A "

III

'4I %

To

., :h

i1,

1;1

44:

2 .1

..,C

,.,-

:44,

''41

"c:'

4 .

AI

t

4 17

4I 7

04I

I1

111'

x/44

,5.1

4 -A

2 1-

4 ;II

:to1

IL.

I11

I4I'I

44..

4 41

4Is

1.4

11'1

44:4

I

4 00

1.41

2I

41*

',Y.'.

/0I I

ht:,t

I1

1I%

'.-14

`24

I.4

44

'N,t.

I 04

1104

1 . 1

11,1

114

1[4

4 ...

:14

'1

244.

144

.140

4k

41

:64

,4

144

It A

llk

'11

44

IS:,

311'

4 tit

T-

1 o.

"1

4 ...

1I r

14.1

4,11

143

f.w

.'.1

4 14

:4.4

4447

I I.4

II

:-.

4 4.

.4

12.

..1.4

'1

.1,

I' .

...11

,71.

4 '1

1:.r

.14

IIN

-4

I4 '

4 4.

11

...1

4'e4

4.'4

1 11

4a

41.

I II 4

4"11

.4

14,1

. ,W

,I

.0.7

A 4

1..1

1'.

.1 t,

I .1.

1411

4 W

III

C4

'I

4.,

14.4

/'I,

i4

let

444E

I 4 .4

4A

1 4,

611

J .0

1 1.

!41

414.

1 ct

,PI

"11'

1"11

.14

141,

194

1'11

141.

14

I'4

1. 4

411,

' 'J'

14' .

X44

'4 4

1 :I.

1144

'I^

4 -0

.1'

4I

.c44

,..

-'4

41I r

oa1

1I!'

1 N

O4

.41

1 .4

:1.

,4I

1'44

414

3114

11

I.14

114

1 .0

74

4 14

1"

''Si.'

411

..44

;"1.

'

4 ^

I ....

!4

!ar

I-1

1111

4:,1

4.1.

.114

210

.44

APPENDIX Et TASK LEVEL DIFFERENCE DESCRIPTIONS OFPAIRED MILITARY AND CIVILIAN GROUPS

Table RI. Croup Difference Descriptions of Paired Groups

Task

Percent MembersPerforming

PercentDifference

Task Title CIO 11111

C17B7117

16

114

89122

148C5D141381112

813A34135A23

A29126174

C16

Alta

NitC6N4N5N I S

D4N14N3N7C10CS

Group CIO Versus Group MI1Prepare Civilian Employee performance ratingsSupervise Civilian EmployeesCoordinate with other activities to reconcile

commercial services descrepanciesCertify fund availability or cite funds for

commercial services transactionsCoordinate with funds manager or procurement

for funds for specific purposesSupervise commercial services sectionInitiate corrective action for commercial

services imbalancesPerform financial analysesDetermine propriety of claimsPlan on -the job training programjMaintain materiel document filesTake corrective action on management notices.

out-of-balances, or improper transactionsSupervise materiel sectionPlan space, equipment or supply requirementsMaintain machine listing filesMaintain library of manuals, directives. or

publicationsPlan and schedule computer usageKeypunch or verify cards for materielPrepare posting data transfers ( PDT's or TRT's)

for materiel transactionsPrepare airman performance reports (APR's)

9191.38.

89.66

75.86

79.31

79.3170.69

60.3460.3453.4539.6618.97

55.1763.7967.2434.48

56.906.90

29.31

24.1482.76

C12

36.3645.45

36.36

40.91

40.9136.36

27.27

2722.730.09

31.82

68.1877.2781.8250.00

72.7322.7345.45

40.91100.00

M13

55.0244.20

39.50

38.40

38.4034.33

33.0733.0730.7230.56

-. 12.85

-13.01-13.48-14.58-15.52

-15.83-15.83-16.14

116.77.274

55.5255.1748.8548.2848.2848.2846.4441.4941.3841,38

-39.54-4632

Group C12 Versus Group M13Coordinate with supply activity on procedures

or problemsAnalyze cost reportsI'Valtlate accuracy of account codesAccount for materiel costsAccount for labor costsPrepare cost statements or reportsConduct on-the-job trainingMonitor reimbursement transactionsAccount for material and labor variancesAccount for work units ofactivity costsEvaluate results of quality examinationsDetermine propriety of claims

65.5255.1765.5248.2848.2848.2893,1044.8141.3841.3813.7910.34

1-0.000.00

16.670.000.000.00

46.673.330.000.00

53.3356.67

12

15

Table B1 (Continued)

Task Toils TAM

Peraaat MambasParforath10

MireantC12 M13 panorama

E34 Monitor applications submitted for cancellationor remission of indebtedness 3.45 50.00 -46.55

E21 Coordinate processing of military pay documentswith other accounting and finance areas 6.90 60.00 -53.10

B14 Supervise military pay section 6.90 63.33 -56.44E 14 Certify and verify payment documents 6.90 63.33 -56.44510 Supervise Disbursement Accounting

Specialists (67153) 0.00 56.67 -56.67E2 Answer inquiries concerning military pay

or allowances 6.90 73.33 -66.44Lbti Write correspondence about military pay matters 6.90 76.67 -69.77B 1 Supervise Accounting and Finance Supervisors

(67170) 10.34 90.00 -79.66

C20 M21

Group C20 Versus Group M21

186 Process DSA. GSA, or other billings 73.81 32.35 41.46195 Reconcile commercial services files with

allotment ledgers or listings 73.81 38.24 35.57C6 Evaluate accuracy of account codes 42.86 11.76 31.09G73 Prepare or process journal vouchers for accounts

control section 30.95 0.00 30.9514 Audit vouchers or subvouchers 95.24 64.71 30.5316 Certify fund availability or cite funds for

commercial services transactions 71.43 41.18 30.25G96 Review daily audit listings 28.57 0.00 28.57G99 Review obligations for accuracy of coding 28.57 0.00 28.57132 Maintain contract indebtedness files 45.24 17.65 27.59114 Coordinate with funds manager or procurement

for funds for specific purposes 73.81 47.06 26.75175 Prepare PDT's or TRT's for commercial services

transactions 71.43 82.35 -10.92A6 Coordinate with base data systems for preparation

of machine listings 11.90 23.53 -11.62A7 Coordinate with civil engineering for procedures

Of problems 38.10 50.00 -11.90A 12 Coordinate systems requirements with data

automation 4.76 17.65 -12.89137 Maintain medical and dental stock fund

documents and trial balances 4.76 17.65 -12.89161 Prepare journal vouchers for medical and dental

stuck fund supply transactions 0.00 14.71 -14.711111 Take corrective action on computer rejects 66.67 82.35 -15.69152 Prepare commercial services input to

computer system 64.29 8235 -18.07111 Compute charges on telephone work orders 14.29 32.35 - 18.071102 Record orders outstanding 57.14 76.47 - 19.33

13

Table B1 (Ccottintioil

Task Task Titie

Percent MembenPerforming

PercentDifferenceC60 M61

Group C60 Versus Group M61F31 Maintain military pay manuals 85.71 41.03 44.69AS Coordinate with base tenants on procedures

or problems 57.14 12.82 44.32EIO Maintain military pay document control logs 100 00 61.54 3)4.461.25 Wilier military pay documents or papers

for audit 57.14 23.08 34.07A23 Maintain library of manuals. directives

or publications 64.29 33.33 30.951.21 (4 N uti ilia te processing of military pay documents

with other accounting and finaance areas 78.57 48.72 29.851.17 Collect military pay data for the report of

accounting and finance activities 50.00 23.08 26.921140 Prepare money list for cash payments 28.57 2.56 26.011-.34 Mt initor applications submitted for cancellation

or remission of indebtedness 64.29 38.46 25.82140 Prepare duplicate or corrected W-2 forms 71.43 46.15 25.27D4 Conduct on-the-job training 28.57 43.59 15.02E39 Prepare casual pay receipts 71.43 87.18 15.75D7 Counsel individuals on training progress 14.29 30.77 16.48A3)4 Schedule leaves or passes 28.57 46.15 -17.58Ab Coordinate with base data systems for preparation

of machine listings 7.14 25.64 18.50D13 Monitor individuals taking CDC courses 0.00 20.51 20.51B4 Supervise Apprentice Disbursement Accounting

Specialists (67133) 7.14 30.77 23.63B10 Supervise Disbursement Accounting Specialists

167153) 14.29 43.59 29.30C16 Prepare Airman Performance Reports( APR's) 28.57 58.97 - 30.401)12 Maintain OJT records 7.14 43.59 --36.45

CS2 MS3

Group C62 Versus Group M63E30 Maintain military pay document control logs 60.00 13.56 46.44E.50 Process transfer-in MPR's 60.00 15.25 44.75E2S Maintain files of military pay documents

or locator cards 60.00 18.64 413651 Process transfer -out MPR's 60.00 18.64 41.36E34 Monitor applications submitted for cancellationor remission of indebtedness 40.00 3.39 36.61142 Prepare payrolls or payroll money listings 60.00 23.73 36.27E63 Use document control logs to monitor workflowof military pay section 40.00 5.08 34.92

1.3 Arrange allotment documents in transmittalsequence 40.00 6.78 33.22E 17 Collect military pay data for the report ofaccounting and finance activities 40.00 6.78 33.22E57 Review or edit MPO's or MPR's 40.00 8.47 31.53

Table B I (Continued)

Tun Ta Ii Tette

Percent MembersPerforming

PercentDifferenceC52 M63

E31 Maintain military pay manuals 0.00 10.17 10.17E43 Prepare posting media fur military pay section 0.00 10.17 10.17E48 Process submission of MPR's to AFAFC 0.00 10.17 -10.171-A Assemble MPR's into batches 20.00 30.51 -10.51E53 Punch paper tape from input data fonns 0.00 11.86 -11.86F52 Provide counter service for military pay section 60.00 72.88 12.88F12 Audit pay vouchers 0.00 13.56 13.56F I Align military pay records for p..,), computation 4U.00 54.24 14.242 Answer inquiries concerning military pay

or allowances 80.00 96.61 -16.611.23 Operate military pay computer 0.00 22.03 -22.03

CU M70

Group C69 Versus Group M70

1.13 Input military pay vouchers into MAFR system 100.00 21.31 78.69F20 Maintain military pay subsidiary ledgers 100.00 26.23 73.77F35 Reconcile military payments and deductions with

console control register and summaryof vouchers 100.00 26.23

F5 Collect military pay accounting data foraccounts control 100.00 27.87 7723.'7137

F14 Maintain accrual control of military pay ledgers 100.00 29.51 70.49F27 Prepare EOM voucher or report data for

military pay 100.00 29.51 70.49El2 Audit pay vouchers 75.00 8.20 66.80F35 Monitor reconciliation of payments of military

pay area 75.00 8.20 66.801:42 Prepare payrolls or payroll money listing: 75.00 8.20 66.80F2 Balance daily or EOM cumulative payments and

collections for military pay section 100.00 36.07 63.9301 11-47

Indoctrinate newly assigned personnelProcess separation or discharge actions

0.000.00

22.9524.59

-22.95-24.59

012 Maintain OJT records 0.00 26.23 -26.23F53 Punch paper tape from input data forms 25.00 52.46 -27.46F 10 Edit change tape input for errors 50.00 78.69 -28.69A20 Interpret accounting and finance procedures to

subordinates 0.00 31.15 -31.15t' 16

e llPrepare airman performance reportsE ncode magnetic strips on MPR's

0.0050.00

31.1581.97

-31.15-31.97

F4 (lose or open NPR's by computer 50.00 90.16 -40.16F31 Process allotment PCAM cards to MPR's

and prepare submission for ALI-ODIN system 0.00 44.26 -44.26

15