Final answer:
The task-oriented approach to job analysis has been criticized for being too narrowly focused on specific job tasks. This can result in missing broader and equally important job requirements beyond mere task execution. Dierdorff & Wilson's research points to the unreliability of job analyses based solely on incumbents' perspectives.
Step-by-step explanation:
A criticism of the task-oriented approach to job analysis is that it may be overly focused on the tasks specific to a job (Option A). Of the choices provided, this is the criticism most aligned with issues that have been observed in practice. This approach creates detailed lists of tasks and rates them on various scales pertaining to frequency, difficulty, and importance. However, it can neglect broader aspects that affect job performance, such as interpersonal skills, adaptability, and strategic thinking, thereby providing a limited view of a job's requirements.
Moreover, research by Dierdorff & Wilson (2003) suggests that the reliability of job analyses can be questionable when the information is solely provided by job incumbents. This could be due to various reasons, including biased self-assessment or a lack of comprehensive understanding of all job facets. Alternatively, information obtained from a blend of observation, surveys, and interviews might provide a more nuanced and representative description of job demands.
Industrial-Organizational psychologists strive to match job analyses with the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required for job applicants, but real-world factors often influence hiring decisions beyond KSAs, demonstrating the complexities and limitations in applying job analysis in practice.