Strengths and Limitations

Even if Weiss and Rupp's viewpoint and technique differ from the "prevailing paradigm," the
study subjects they offer are in regions where compelling research already exists and is being
developed, and this is simply a complement to Weiss and Rupp. In this portion of the essay,
we'll look at a couple of these topics.

As a starting point, the first category it's essential to pay attention to one's personal work life.
It is defined by Amabile and Kramer (2007) as an individual's continual experience of
emotions, perceptions, and drives as they make meaning of their workday. Furthermore, the
work of Amabile and Kramer (2011) has demonstrated that a qualitative technique of
gathering and examining diary entries can provide us with a glimpse into a person's
subjective lived-through experience (as described by Weiss and Rupp), as well as that it is
possible to track changes in a person's reported inner work life over time. It is a good area of
study (Amabile & Kramer, 2011; Liu et al., 2011). When it comes to an individual's inner
experience, this transition from one affective state to another has been termed "affect spin"
(Kuppens et al., 2007), and it may be linked to their job, social connections, and ideas like a
stream (Nielsen and Cleal, 2010).

The second category is the process of shaping subjective experience. Amabile and Kramer
(2011) provide another real-life instance of this process, this time with persons segmenting
lived experience into different events defined by unique psychological states depending on
the meaning received from these occurrences.

The third category is the fundamental advantages of collecting qualitative data using the
person-centric approach. The qualitative analysis aims to investigate the event or result and
the processes that led to it (Krane & Baird, 2005). The individual's internal processes are
studied in person-centric work psychology. When this form of research is effective, it yields
deep, rich, and descriptive data on individual experiences that can be contextually tagged and
broken down for analysis using a variety of methodologies and even computer tools (Graue,
2015; Amabile & Kramer, 2011; Davis & Meyer, 2009).

This takes us to the problem of the constraints impeding the person-centric approach. The
participants' diaries support Weiss and Rupp's central thesis by demonstrating the
inadequacies of a "between-entities" paradigm to work psychology. Far from becoming
"things with unchanging qualities," these folks became authentic humans via their
recollections of their workdays. Amabile and Kramer (2011) noticed again how each entity's
—each person's—experiences change significantly due to occurrences at work. Although our
findings indicate that investigating the nature, origins, and implications of this heterogeneity
offers significant potential for the area.
It might be challenging to get accurate statistics. Employees are often fearful of disclosing
unpleasant feelings and ideas to anybody inside their companies, and they are similarly afraid
of revealing this information to company-approved researchers (see Detert & Edmondson, in
press). Standard confidentiality protections, such as those employed in quantitative survey
research, are unlikely to be sufficient.
Amabile and Kramer (2011) could not resolve a data quality issue with the richness of the
accurate subjective experience reports. The limitations of unsupervised self-observation
became apparent when we discovered that, despite their attempts to elicit specific,
comprehensive event reports, between 10% and 20% of our participants seldom made
profoundly instructive items in their daily diaries. Indeed, few of our respondents consistently
produced concise, thorough, and descriptive daily reports.

Practical Implications

Although a person-centred approach is preferable to long-term research, it may be expensive

and time-consuming. To better understand how individuals perceive their work environments,
person-centred psychology gives a deeper insight into how people make choices and improve
models (Truxillo and Fraccaroli, 2011). In addition, this might lead to a win-win scenario
since employees would feel appreciated and hence happy at work, which can enhance
performance at the workplace (Zelenski et al., 2008).

According to Truxillo and Fraccaroli (2011), person-centric psychology is commonly

employed in European nations but not in the United States of America. They emphasise the
need to increase international cooperation because it allows for a better knowledge of cross-
cultural differences and, as a result, might potentially increase the awareness of the area.
Additionally, it can affect how practitioners and scholars think about the topic.

Person-centric psychology is commonly employed in European nations but not in the United
States of America, according to Truxillo and Fraccaroli (2011). They emphasise the need to
increase international cooperation because it allows for a better knowledge of cross-cultural
differences and, as a result, might potentially increase the awareness of the area.
Additionally, it can affect how practitioners and scholars think about the topic.

While Weiss and Rupp make a compelling case for using a person-centred approach, they do
not suggest a methodology. However, according to Amabile and Kramer (2011), self-report
techniques such as daily diary entries are viable for obtaining an in-depth knowledge of
people's work experiences. There are also drawbacks to this, as participants may dread
disclosing any unfavourable information about their organisation due to a lack of trust in
secrecy. To prevent this, researchers must establish a high degree of confidence.

Amabile and Kramer (2011) discovered that quantitative approaches enabled them to conduct
statistical analyses of the relationships between work-life and workplace events and the
associations between professional life and performance. However, qualitative studies gave a
more nuanced view of professional life and the relationship between in-work events and
effectiveness. Thus, although scientific research scrutinises introspection, it is beneficial to
comprehend individuals' experiences.

Many organisations apply the person-centred approach to improve employee experience and
well-being at work. For example, Glassdoor named Anglian Water one of the most
outstanding companies to work for. According to reports, workers have a favourable attitude
toward the organisation due to the organisation's primary focus on its employees. The
company provides a variety of employee perks, including career development, physical well-
being, financial well-being, and more—person-centred psychology supplements standard O/I
psychology (Weiss & Rupp, 2011).

It assists practitioners in comprehending employees' experiences at work, beginning with

recruitment and selection processes (Truxillo & Fraccalori, 2011) and ending with retirement
arrangements (Alder, 2011).
Although psychology has depended heavily on the introspective study, it has been chastised
by many psychologists throughout the years for its lack of a scientific methodology (e.g.
Skinner).

According to Amabile and Kramer (2011), one of the key constraints is the quality of the data
sources and data collection and processing. For example, participants failed to provide all
relevant information. Participants may be hesitant to reveal details about their organizations
because they are concerned about the organization's possible implications if detailed
information is published. Even though participants are promised anonymity, they may be
worried about how personal data will be exploited. A self-report study is also susceptible to
unconscious bias and forgery.

Longitudinal research requires a significant amount of time from both researchers and
participants. Employees will lose interest and be less willing to participate if data is gathered
often. Furthermore, a longitudinal study may result in repetitious and tedious content, and
participants may be unable to recollect past events and sentiments, resulting in vital
information being ignored (Bergman, 2011).

For example, in Amabiles and Kramer's (2011) research, participants were requested to write
a journal entry every day, and it was discovered that not all entries were detailed. This had an
impact on the richness of the data analysis. Although interviews may provide superior results,
they may require a significant amount of time and money.

Personality traits may be modified, and individual qualities, for example, may alter based on
the context. As a result, it is impossible to conduct research based only on traits without
considering other aspects (Foti et al., 2011). Furthermore, people's feelings regarding the
same subject might alter on various days (Bergman, 2011).

According to Weathington (2011), a person-centric strategy focuses only on the individual

and overlooks organisational and personal interaction. There is a lack of emphasis on the
person within the corporate framework. Employees, for example.

Furthermore, other variables to examine to comprehend their lived experience in a broader

context, such as age and gender, must be considered.
Liu, Zhen, and Wang (2011) gave more insight into the heritage of person-centric psychology
in O/I psychology, outlining the approach's utility. They noted, for example, that it has been
extensively employed in occupational health psychology (OHP) to enhance job quality and
workers' health, safety, and well-being at work (Sauter et al., 1999). Over the previous five
years (2005-2009), over 70% of OHP research has concentrated on unique advantages such
as stress, work and family life interference, physical health, and more, rather than
organisational benefits such as absenteeism and job choice (Liu, Zhen, & Wang, 2011).
Furthermore, Allen and Poteet (2011) argue that the person-centred method may be valuable
in analysing the functioning of mentoring since subjectivity can capture emotional and
behavioural information in ways that survey research cannot. Furthermore, the person-centred
approach enables practitioners to develop workplace regulations such as flexible working
hours, policies for working moms, etc. (Shockey & Allen, 2011).

It enables employers to see employees as a 'complete person,' as Rothbord (2011) says that an
employee's experiences outside of work may intersect with those at work, adding value to the
employee.