Life in the organizational sciences: achieving consensus on what is reasonable, what is possible, and what is absolutely required
Article first published online: 12 JUN 2008
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 725–729, August 2008
How to Cite
Hollenbeck, J. R. and Mannor, M. J. (2008), Life in the organizational sciences: achieving consensus on what is reasonable, what is possible, and what is absolutely required. J. Organiz. Behav., 29: 725–729. doi: 10.1002/job.542
- Issue published online: 8 JUL 2008
- Article first published online: 12 JUN 2008
- Manuscript Accepted: 17 APR 2008
- Manuscript Received: 9 APR 2008
In our recent paper, we illustrated that despite modest levels of inter-rater reliability at the manuscript/journal level, the reliability of career-level assessments in the organizational sciences is very high because the high frequency of evaluations that accumulates into extremely reliable estimates of true scores over time. This is not a subjective opinion, but rather a straightforward technical issue. Many of the objections raised regarding this conclusion by a response to our work did not deal with the reliability of the career assessments, but rather the difficulty associated with reaching productivity standards that they felt were unreasonable. What constitutes “reasonable” expectations is a subjective opinion that varies across institutions and individuals. We argue that academic institutions and job applicants need to have an open and honest conversation that would allow sound decision making on the part of both parties, and we believe that our previous simulations can help frame such conversations. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.