Final answer:
Certain job analysis methods like observation are less meaningful for jobs requiring mental effort, as these processes are not easily observable. Surveys and interviews might be better suited for analyzing these roles, although they also have limitations and are subject to reliability issues and biases.
Step-by-step explanation:
The effectiveness of job analysis techniques can vary significantly based on the type of job being analyzed. For positions that are heavily reliant on mental effort and less on observable physical tasks, certain job analysis methods such as direct observation may not provide meaningful information about job requirements. This is especially true in the context of white-collar jobs, where much of the work involves cognitive processes that aren't easily observable.
A study by Dierdorff & Wilson (2003) indicates that job analyses are less reliable when based solely on descriptions from job incumbents, which might be due to various biases or a lack of objectivity. Moreover, the concepts presented by Graeber (2018) suggest that many white-collar jobs consist of seemingly pointless tasks that don't result in meaningful outcomes, further complicating the job analysis process for these types of roles.
Thus, when job analysis is focused on jobs with a high mental workload, other techniques such as surveys and interviews may be more effective in determining the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) necessary for such positions. However, researchers have found that hiring practices often rely on biases that go beyond the match between job analysis and KSAs.