Premium
Yes Virginia, there is an objective reality in job analysis
Author(s) -
Harvey Robert J.,
Wilson Mark A.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of organizational behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.938
H-Index - 177
eISSN - 1099-1379
pISSN - 0894-3796
DOI - 10.1002/1099-1379(200011)21:7<829::aid-job30>3.0.co;2-4
Subject(s) - verifiable secret sharing , relativism , position (finance) , work (physics) , psychology , process (computing) , job analysis , social psychology , computer science , economics , epistemology , job satisfaction , engineering , mechanical engineering , philosophy , set (abstract data type) , finance , programming language , operating system
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.