Yes Virginia, thereis an objective reality in job analysis

We fundamentally disagree with Sanchez and Levine (this issue) on several issues. Terminologically, we are troubled by their failure to differentiate between the descriptive process of rating verifiable work characteristics (i.e., job analysis) versus the subjective process of inferring worker ability and ‘other’ (AO) requirements (i.e., job specification). Although ‘consequential validity’ is crucial for evaluating job specifications, it is largely irrelevant for assessing properly conducted job analyses. Ontologically, we reject their relativist view that an objective reality does not exist when describing work activities. When verifiable descriptors are rated using sound rating scales, independent judges can definitively assess position rating accuracy; such a review constitutes all the ‘validity’ evidence needed for the job analysis per se. We discuss a number of additional concerns, including the way in which practitioners deal with true cross-position ratings variability, and the role of holistic inferences. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Economics · Epistemology · Job analysis · Job satisfaction · Position (finance · Process (computing · Relativism · Verifiable secret sharing · Work (physics · Computer Science · Engineering · Multi-Criteria Decision Making · Occupational Health and Safety Research · Psychology · Quality and Supply Management · Social Psychology

• Análise Do Trabalho Em Organizações - Definição, Usos E Métodos De Realização

  Open Access•Andrea V Steil, Carolina Esteves Garcia•Psicologia em Estudo•2016

  Incluir item

• A meta‐analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness–performance relationship

  Open Access•Rustin D Meyer, Reeshad S Dalal et al.•Journal of Organizational Behavior•2009

  Incluir item

• Job and Work Analysis

  Open Access•Paul R Sackett, Philip T Walmsley et al.•Handbook of Psychology, Second…•2012

  Incluir item