ABSTRACT
The analysis of work—that is, the decomposing of tasks, bundles of tasks, or activities that constitute positions, jobs, occupations, and even entire systems—has been of great usefulness in education, ergonomics, industrial engineering, organizational development, and human resource management (Gael, Cornelius, Levine, & Salvendy, 1988). The methods of analysis traditionally captured under the rubric of job analysis have deep and well-established historic roots (Mitchell, 1988; Primoff & Fine, 1988). Despite the longstanding tradition and the demonstrated pragmatic benefits, job analysis has come under fire (Harvey, 1991; Morgeson & Campion, 1997; Sanchez & Levine, 1999b). The nature of these attacks is twofold. First, some have argued that job analysis is an obstacle to organizational innovation because it creates artificial boundaries that interfere with the successful adoption of innovative management practices (Olian & Rynes, 1991). Sanchez (1994) and Sanchez and Levine (1999a) argued that this line of criticism is off target, in part because such criticisms are directed at obsolescent uses of job analysis information, not at the analysis of work per se. To deal with these criticisms, they advocated the use of the term work analysis instead of the traditional term job analysis. The former term obviates the negative connotations associated with antiquated aspects of scientific management and smokestack industry, and it conveys more accurately the full range of the applications or purposes that such analyses may serve.
