chapter 1 t introduction to organizational psychology

Trim size: 7in x 10in Jex c01.tex V3 - 11/20/2014 4:31 P.M.

Chapter 1

The behavior of individuals actingas members of formal organiza-tions has a tremendous impacton many aspects of our lives.Most things we need—the food

we eat, the cars we drive, the houses welive in—depend on the coordinated effortof individuals in organizations. This impact,in fact, is so pervasive that we typically takeit for granted. In most cases, we only takenotice when the results are at the extremes.For example, we marvel at the coordinatedeffort of a surgical team that successfullyperforms a difficult procedure, and expressdisdain when corruption occurs in a govern-ment agency. In most instances, however, theimpact of behavior in formal organizationsgoes relatively unnoticed.

Organizational psychology is a field thatutilizes scientific methodology to betterunderstand the behavior of individualsworking in organizational settings. Thisknowledge is also used, in a variety of ways,to help make organizations more effective.Effective organizations are typically moreproductive, often provide higher-qualityservices to their constituents, and are usu-ally more financially successful than lesseffective organizations. For private organi-zations, financial success often translatesinto higher wages and greater job securityfor employees, and increased shareholderwealth for investors. For public organiza-tions such as police departments, municipalgovernments, and public universities, suc-cess means higher-quality services and costsavings to taxpayers.

Enhanced organizational effectiveness, andthe success that often comes with it, often

Introduction toOrganizationalPsychology

provides many indirect benefits as well. Suc-cessful organizations provide employmentopportunities, which helps to foster the eco-nomic well-being of society as a whole. Also,in many instances, employees in successfulorganizations are more satisfied and fulfilledin their work than employees in less success-ful organizations. These positive attitudesmay carry over to non-work roles such asparent and community member. Consumersalso benefit from enhanced organizationaleffectiveness because well-managed, efficientorganizations are often able to produce

1

COPYRIG

HTED M

ATERIAL


2 Introduction to Organizational Psychology

products and provide services at a muchlower cost than their less successful competi-tors. Such cost savings are often passed onto consumers in the form of lower prices. Insum, everyone is a potential winner whenorganizations function effectively. Organi-zational psychology seeks to enhance theeffectiveness of organizations through scien-tific research and the application of researchfindings.

WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONALPSYCHOLOGY?

This book provides students with a compre-hensive treatment of the science and practiceof organizational psychology. Organizationalpsychology is the scientific study of individ-ual and group behavior in formal organiza-tional settings. Katz and Kahn, in their clas-sic work, The Social Psychology of Organiza-tions (1978), stated that the primary defin-ing characteristic of an organization is “pat-terned” human behavior. When behavior ispatterned, this means that some structure isimposed on it. In organizations this structuretypically comes from formal job descriptionsand organizational policies. Most organiza-tions also have a set of values that they wantemployees to abide by. Thus, an organiza-tion cannot exist when people just “do theirown thing” without any consideration of thebehavior of others.

Given Katz and Kahn’s (1978) definingcharacteristic of organizations (e.g., pat-terned behavior), it is easy to see that thereare many organizations in this world. Agroup of 12 people who regularly play soft-ball together on Friday nights would fitthis definition, as would a major multi-national corporation. Therefore, to furtherdefine the field of organizational psychol-ogy, it is important to distinguish betweenformal and informal organizations. A formalorganization is one that exists to fulfill some

explicitly stated purpose, and that purpose isoften stated in writing. Formal organizationsalso typically exhibit some degree of conti-nuity over time; that is, they often survive farlonger than the founding members do. Busi-ness organizations obviously exhibit thesedefining characteristics of a formal organi-zation, as do many other nonprofit organiza-tions and government agencies.

An informal organization is one in whichthe purpose is typically less explicit than fora formal organization. Going back to ourprevious example of the softball team, theseindividuals are obviously spending timetogether because they enjoy playing softballand, in all likelihood, each other’s company.It is doubtful, though, that these reasonsfor playing softball are formally stated inwriting, or even explicitly stated. It is alsodoubtful (though obviously not impossible)whether this group would continue to exist ifhalf of the team members moved to anothercity or simply lost interest in playing softball.

The field of organizational psychologyis concerned with the study of formalorganizations. That is not to say that theformal organizations of interest to organi-zational psychologists are always businessor profit-making organizations (a commonmisconception that we have noticed amongmany of our colleagues trained in other areasof psychology). Throughout the chapters inthis book, many studies are described thathave been conducted not only in businessesbut also in government agencies, universi-ties, and nonprofit social service agencies.In some cases, organizational psychologistseven study “virtual” organizations wherepeople never even interact face-to face (Shin,2004), yet these are still considered formalorganizations according to the definitionprovided above (see Comment 1.1).

Another point worth noting is that thefocus on formal organizations does not pre-clude the study of informal organizational


What Is Organizational Psychology? 3

COMMENT 1.1

VIRTUAL ORGANIZATIONS: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Imagine if you needed to buy food, or neededto complete some banking transaction. What’sthe first thing you would do? Most likely youwould look for a grocery store or a bank—orwould you? With increasing advances in infor-mation and telecommunications technology,however, organizations can be (and often are)created by linking people in different physi-cal locations. The term for this organizationalconfiguration is a virtual organization and ithas been defined as “a collection of geographi-cally distributed and culturally diverse peoplewho are linked by electronic forms of commu-nication (De Sanctis & Monge, 1999, p. 693).Really any organization that does not need tomeet face-to-face with its people could usethis type of organizational arrangement.

So what are the advantages of creatinga virtual organization? The primary one iscost. For most “nonvirtual” organizations amajor cost is physical space. Leasing officespace is costly, and this is particularly truein large cities (try leasing any space in Man-hattan!). Having a virtual organization alsosaves employees from long commutes to work,and having to uproot their families due totransfers.

Despite these advantages, which are cer-tainly considerable, there may also be dis-advantages to this type of organization.

Employees in this type of organization mustobviously be comfortable with computerand telecommunications technology—this issomething we often take for granted now, butmay not necessarily be the case for every-one. Another potential disadvantage is thatemployees may miss the face-to-face socialinteraction that comes with working in a tra-ditional organization—as much as a painother people can be at times, they do also pro-vide comfort. Finally, all customers are notnecessarily comfortable dealing with virtualenvironments. When some people invest theyfeel more comfortable meeting face-to-facewith their investment broker as opposed totalking with them on the phone or commu-nicating via e-mail.

Despite these potential disadvantages, vir-tual organizations are here to stay and willlikely increase in number in the future. Aswith any form of organization, the key is tomake sure that people are comfortable work-ing in it and that it is appropriate given thenature of the business.

Sources: DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999). Introductionto the special issue: Communication processes forvirtual organizations. Organizational Science, 10,693–703; Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fitmodel for virtual organizations. Journal of Management,30, 725–743.

processes, or even occasionally informalgroups and organizations themselves. It hasbeen shown, for example, that informalfriendship ties exist in formal organizations,and they have important implicationsfor employees (Nielson, Jex, & Adams,2000). In this same vein, processes thatoccur in informal groups and organizationsmay provide researchers with valuableinsights into processes that occur in formalorganizations. For example, the manner

in which a status hierarchy develops in aninformal group such as on an intramuralbasketball team may help researchers betterunderstand the emergence of leadership informal organizations. Put differently, thelaws of human behavior apply regardless ofthe context in which they occur.

Another point of clarification in the def-inition of organizational psychology has todo with the term psychology itself, sinceorganizational psychology is part of this



larger field. Psychology is the scientific studyof individual human behavior and men-tal processes (Comer & Gould, 2013) Twothings are important to note about thisdefinition. First, like any other psycholo-gist, organizational psychologists use meth-ods of scientific inquiry. This simply meansthat organizational psychologists use a sys-tematic, data-based approach to studyingorganizational processes and solving orga-nizational problems. The “data” used byorganizational psychologists may come in avariety of forms, including survey responses,interviews, observations, and, in some cases,organizational records.

The other important part of this defini-tion is that psychology focuses on individualbehavior. This may seem a bit odd, given thatsignificant portions of this text are devotedto group and organizational-level processes.What it means is that regardless of the levelat which some process may occur, psychol-ogists view individual behavior as centralto that process (Porras & Robertson, 1992).Thus, to understand the impact of group andorganizational-level variables, we must focuson how they influence, and are influencedby, individual behavior. Groups and organi-zations don’t behave; people do. This strongfocus on individual behavior also serves todistinguish organizational psychology fromother social science disciplines (e.g., sociol-ogy, economics, and political science) thatattempt to explain organizational processesbut are less focused on individual behavior.It is also one, though certainly not the only,way that organizational psychology differsfrom the closely related field of organiza-tional behavior (see Comment 1.2).

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGYIN CONTEXT

While organizational psychology representsa legitimate field of study in its own right, it

FIGURE 1.1A Breakdown of Topics Associated With theIndustrial and Organizational Sides of the Fieldof I/O Psychology

Industrial Side

Recruitment

Selection

Classification

Compensation

PerformanceAppraisal

Training

Organizational Side

Socialization

Motivation

Health and Well-Being

Leadership

Social Norms

Fairness

Industrial/Organizational Psychology

is also part of the broader field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology. I/O psy-chology is defined as the application of themethods and principles of psychology to theworkplace (Spector, 2012). Figure 1.1 pro-vides a comparison of the topics that are typ-ically of interest to those in the industrial andorganizational portions of the field. Noticethat the topics listed on the industrial sideare those that are typically associated withthe management of human resources in orga-nizations. Contrast these with the topics onthe organizational side, which are associatedwith the aim of understanding and predictingbehavior within organizational settings.

Given this distinction between the indus-trial and organizational sides of the field, itis tempting to polarize into different “camps”based on one’s professional interests. Unfor-tunately, this “I” and “O” distinction under-estimates the considerable interdependenceamong the topics that constitute each ofthese subfields.

To illustrate this point, let’s say a largeretail organization wants to take steps toreduce the amount of theft among its hourly


Organizational Psychology in Context 5

COMMENT 1.2

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY VERSUS ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR:WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Many readers, particularly those who havereceived at least a portion of their trainingin a university business school, have heard ofthe field of organizational behavior. What is thedifference between organizational psychologyand organizational behavior? In all honesty,these two fields are quite similar—so muchso, in fact, that many faculty who teach organi-zational behavior in business schools receivedtheir training in departments of psychology.Though less common, there have been someinstances where faculty who teach organiza-tional psychology received their training inbusiness schools. Despite the outward sim-ilarities, there are actually subtle differencesbetween organizational psychology and orga-nizational behavior. Moorhead and Griffin(1995) define organizational behavior as “thestudy of human behavior in organizationalsettings, the interface between human behav-ior and the organization, and the organiza-tion itself” (p. 4). If we focus only on the firstpart of this definition, there is no appreciabledifference between organizational psychologyand organizational behavior. However, the dif-ferences lie in the portion of the definitionstating that organizational behavior is con-cerned with “the organization itself.” Specif-ically, the field of organizational behavior isconcerned not only with individual behaviorin organizations, but macro-level processesand variables such as organizational structureand strategy are viewed as interesting and wor-thy of study in their own right.

The field of organizational psychology isalso concerned with the impact of macro-levelvariables and processes, but only to the extentthat such variables and processes have animpact on individual behavior. Much of the rea-son for this difference is that organizationalbehavior draws from a greater variety of dis-ciplines than does organizational psychology.

While organizational psychology draws pri-marily from various subfields within psy-chology, organizational behavior draws froma variety of disciplines including psychol-ogy, sociology, anthropology, economics, andlabor relations, to name a few. This greatervariety provides organizational behavior witha somewhat more “eclectic” theoretical basethan organizational psychology, although bothfields largely study the same phenomena.

Perhaps the most tangible differencebetween organizational psychology behaviorand organizational psychology is seen by thosewho are on the job market. Faculty in busi-ness schools who teach organizational behav-ior are typically paid significantly more thanfaculty who teach organizational psychologywithin psychology departments. In fact, in asalary survey conducted in 2012 by the Soci-ety for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-ogy (SIOP), the average annual salary for SIOPmembers teaching in business schools wasfound to be approximately $142,000 com-pared to $91,000 for those in psychologydepartments. This explains why many whoare trained in psychology want to teach orga-nizational behavior in business schools; infact, a perusal of the background of faculty atbusiness schools shows that many have beentrained in psychology either at the doctor orsubdoctoral level. In recent years, however,the hiring of psychologists in business schoolsseems to have waned a bit. This is due in partto an overall stagnant job market, and the factthat business schools now produce more PhDsthan they did 25 to 30 years ago.

Sources: Khanna, C., Medsker, G., & Ginter, R. (2013,July). SIOP 2012 income survey. Retrieved fromhttp://www.siop.org/2012SIOPIncomeSurvey.pdf;Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (1995). Organizationalbehavior: Managing people and organizations (4th ed.).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.



employees. To do so, this organization mightwell give applicants some form of integritytest to screen out those who are most likelyto steal (Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark,& Odle-Dusseau, 2012). This organizationmight also develop some type of trainingprogram designed to educate employees onthe negative effects that employee theft mayhave on the organization (Greenberg, 2002).Because selection and training are both “I”activities, what relevance does the “O” sideof the field have for the retail organizationin this example? On first glance, it wouldappear to be very little. However, if you thinkabout it, organizational topics are highly rel-evant. For example, even if “honest” peo-ple are hired, there may still be conditionson the job that could lead to theft. Specif-ically, social norms within work groups ordepartments may reinforce stealing, as theydo other forms of negative behaviors (Fla-herty & Moss, 2007). It is also possible thateven if people are honest, they may steal asa way to get back at this retail organizationif they feel they are treated unfairly (Green-berg, 1990). Thus, in addition to selectinghonest employees and training them on theeffects of stealing, this organization needs tounderstand the social norms associated withtheft, and pay attention to the level of fairnesswith which they treat their employees. As wesee, the impact of social norms and fairnessare both important topics within organiza-tional psychology.

This point can also be illustrated by tak-ing an “O” topic and describing the rele-vance of the “I” side of the field. Let’s saythe U.S. Army is interested in improvingthe mental health and well-being among itsenlisted soldiers. Fortunately, in organiza-tional psychology, there is a considerableamount of research on employee health andwell-being and the Army could draw onthese sources to help guide its efforts (e.g.,Jex, Swanson, & Grubb, 2013). Can issues

that are relevant to the “I” side of the field beignored? Absolutely not. Although it is truethat the health and well-being of employeesis impacted by the conditions under whichthey work, some people are better able totolerate adverse conditions than others (Jex,Kain, & Park, 2013). Thus, regardless ofsteps the Army might take to decrease sol-diers’ exposure to adverse conditions, it isalso important to select resilient individu-als, or alternatively provide training in orderto enhance resilience (Reivich, Seligman, &McBride, 2011). Selection and training, ofcourse, are two of the major topics on the“I” side of the field.

THE SCIENTIST-PRACTITIONERAPPROACH

Organizational psychology is a science. Infact, much of the content of this book isbased on scientific studies of behavior inboth organizational and laboratory settings.Organizational psychology, however, is alsoconcerned with the application of scientificknowledge to enhance the effectivenessof individual employees, work groups,and entire organizations. The scientist-practitioner model captures this dynamicinteraction between generating scientificknowledge and the application of thatknowledge for some practical purpose. Ata general level, the scientist-practitionermodel states that science and practice arenot independent and, in fact, often “feedoff” each other.

To illustrate how the scientist-practitionermodel works, let’s say the branch man-ager of a bank wants to improve the levelof customer service provided to the bank’scustomers. Fortunately, this individual maydraw on the findings of many scientificinvestigations of customer service to guidehis or her efforts to reduce it (e.g., Schneider,


The Scientist-Practitioner Approach 7

White, & Paul, 1998). Conversely, scientificinvestigations of organizational phenomenaare often motivated by the practical concernsof organizations. For example, in the pastdecade there has been a considerable risein research on the process older employ-ees go through when they decide to retire(e.g., Jex & Grosch, 2013; Wang & Shultz,2010). Although such research may certainlybe useful from a purely scientific perspec-tive, another important factor motivatingthis research is that organizations often wantto influence the retirement decisions of olderemployees; in some cases to retire earlier,and other cases to put off retirement.

Within the broader field of I/O psychol-ogy, the scientist-practitioner model has

become so important that it serves as theunderlying philosophy for many if notmost graduate training programs. Graduatetraining guided by the scientist-practitionermodel suggests that, first and foremost,students need to learn the skills necessaryto conduct scientific research. This explainswhy virtually all graduate programs in I/Opsychology require training in statistics,research methodology, and psychologicalmeasurement. The other important impli-cation of the scientist-practitioner modelin graduate training is that students aretypically provided with some opportunity,through internships, practica, or other fieldexperiences, to apply what they have learnedin “real world” settings (see Comment 1.3).

COMMENT 1.3

TRAINING SCIENTIST-PRACTITIONERS: THE ROLE OF PRACTICALEXPERIENCE

Most graduate programs in I/O psychology, aswell as other fields, incorporate some formof practical experience into their curricu-lum. This can be accomplished in a vari-ety of ways. Most programs, for example,encourage students to participate in for-mal internship programs in corporations andconsulting firms. Typically, internships spanbetween 6 months and 1 year, and require thatstudents work under the supervision of anexperienced I/O psychologist. Other less for-mal ways that students obtain practical expe-rience include class projects, working withfaculty on research and consulting projects,and field-based practicum courses.

The major benefit of students participat-ing in field experiences is that they gain achance to put what they’ve learned in theircourses into practice in a real organization.Students also benefit in a more subtle way:They develop a greater understanding of howthe “real world” actually works. For example,

students working on field projects are oftensurprised at how quickly organizations wantthings done, as well as the importance ofbuilding positive interpersonal relationshipswith “clients” in organizations. Many studentsare also surprised that their methodologicaland statistical training comes in quite handyas they work on these field projects.

Despite the many advantages of practicalexperience, there can be some disadvantagesof incorporating it into graduate programs.The primary experience by many doctoral pro-grams is that, in some cases, students who takeinternships never finish their degree. Otherproblems that can occur are lack of competentsupervision, and in some cases, the projectsorganizations assigned to students are notmeaningful. Despite these potential disadvan-tages, carefully monitored practical experienceis usually a valuable component of graduatetraining. It is also an excellent way to teach thescientist-practitioner model to students.



The scientist-practitioner model is also rel-evant to the field of organizational psychol-ogy, and thus was chosen as the guidingtheme for this book. As becomes evidentthrough the chapters, research by organiza-tional psychologists has greatly enhanced theunderstanding of behavior in organizations.For example, research by organizational psy-chologists has provided valuable insightsinto a variety of topics—group effectiveness,socialization of new employees, employeehealth and well-being, deviant employeebehavior, and organizational culture are but afew examples. At the same time, findings gen-erated from scientific research in these andmany other topics have been used to guideinterventions designed to make organizationsmore effective and make the lives of employ-ees healthier and more fulfilling.

The impact of the scientist-practitionermodel can also be seen in the work set-tings and activities of those trained in orga-nizational psychology. Many hold academicpositions—typically, in departments of psy-chology or management. The primary jobduties of most academicians are: teaching,scientific research, and service to one’s aca-demic department and university. However,many in academia also use their researchskills to help organizations solve a vari-ety of practical problems. The careers ofboth authors of this text have certainly con-tained this blend of science and practice (seeComment 1.4).

The training of organizational psycholo-gists who pursue academic careers is notdrastically different from the training oforganizational psychologists who pursuenonacademic careers. Consistent with thescientist-practitioner model, students ingraduate programs in I/O psychology andrelated fields typically receive courseworkin research methodology, statistics, and

measurement, as well as in specific contentareas (e.g., motivation, leadership). It is alsocommon for all students, regardless of theircareer plans, to conduct research and toobtain practical experience in some form.

There are, however, some important com-ponents that future academicians typicallyneed to incorporate into their graduatetraining that are not as crucial for thoseplanning to pursue applied careers. Forexample, students planning to pursue anacademic career need to become involved inresearch early in their graduate training. Thisincreases the chances of gaining author-ship on journal articles, book chapters,and conference presentations—all of whichdefinitely help in a competitive job market.Research involvement also facilitates thedevelopment of close working relationshipswith faculty. These relationships are crucialin learning how to do research.

Another essential component of the train-ing of future academicians is teaching expe-rience. Although the emphasis placed onteaching varies considerably according to thetype of academic institution, teaching is stillan important component of any academicposition and all colleges and universitiesare looking for good teachers. Thus, grad-uate students who obtain significant teach-ing experience are much better prepared foracademic positions than those with little orno experience. Also, given recent trends inthe academic job market (Weir, 2011) it isbecoming more common for new PhDs tobecome employed in smaller colleges anduniversities that traditionally have placed ahigher value on teaching effectiveness com-pared to large research-intensive universities.

Typical nonacademic employment settingsfor organizational psychologists includebusiness organizations, consulting firms,nonprofit research institutes, government


The Scientist-Practitioner Approach 9

COMMENT 1.4

SCIENCE AND PRACTICE IN OUR OWN CAREERS

Steve Jex: When I reflect on my owncareer, the science-practice theme is very evi-dent. Since receiving my PhD in industrial/organizational psychology in 1988, I have car-ried on an active program of research andscholarship in the area of occupational stress.Thus, a good deal of what I do centersaround scientific research and scholarship.However, in addition to my scholarly pur-suits, I have conducted a number of projectsin organizations that have been designed tosolve practical problems. For example, notlong after starting my first job out of grad-uate school, I was the assistant investigatoron a project conducted for the U.S. ArmyResearch Institute. This project involved con-ducting an organizational assessment of therecruiting operations branch of the U.S. Army.The Army was interested in ways that therecruiting branch could facilitate the train-ing of field recruiters. Another major project,which I directed, involved the developmentof an internal customer service satisfactionsurvey for a large medical center in Ohio.Administrators at this facility were concernedwith the level of service departments withinthe hospital (e.g., radiology, nursing) providedto each other—something that is crucial toeffective patient care. In addition to these largeprojects, over the past 25 years I have workedwith a number of organizations on a numberof smaller applied research projects and occa-sionally the development training programs.

What have I learned from working onprojects involving the application of orga-nizational psychology in real organizations?Probably most important, I have developed agreat deal of respect for those who do appliedwork on a full-time basis. As I stated earlier, Iam primarily a researcher/author, but the fewapplied projects I have done over the years hasconvinced me that applying research findings

in organizational settings is tough work thatoften requires a very broad skill set. Anotherthing I have learned is that good science haspractical value; that is, when projects in orga-nizations are conducted in a scientifically rig-orous manner, organizations typically obtainmuch more useful information than whenthey are not. Finally, working in organizationshas really convinced me of the viability of thescientist-practitioner model. The opportunityto do scientifically meaningful work that haspractical value makes the field of I/O psychol-ogy very unique and exciting.

Thomas Britt: The further into my careerI get, the more I realize the importance ofthe scientist-practitioner model. I received myPhD in social psychology in 1994, and thenimmediately started active duty in the U.S.Army as a research psychologist. I quicklyrealized that the Army was not necessar-ily interested in the identity regulation ofromantic partners (the topic of my doctoraldissertation), but was interested in how sol-diers could be motivated to perform well dur-ing stressful military operations. Therefore, Itried to conduct applied research “in the field”that met my own (and journal reviewer’s) stan-dards for scientific rigor. I ended up havinga great experience in the Army conductingresearch on how the identity images of sol-diers as “warriors” and “peacekeepers” influ-enced motivation and health in different typesof operations, how being personally engagedin work could serve as a buffer against manydeployment stressors, and how soldiers couldpossibly derive benefits such as increasedself-confidence and appreciation for life as aresult of successfully handling the rigors ofmilitary operations.

Somewhat to my surprise, I also enjoyedcommunicating the importance of researchfindings to military leaders, and thinking

(continued)



(continued)about the applied relevance of the research Iconducted. I found that leaders were muchmore likely to take recommendations to heartwhen they were backed by data collectedusing a sound research design. I also foundthat leaders in applied settings appreciatedthe utility of a well-supported theory inmaking sense of the findings. Like Steve, Iwas impressed with how leaders were reallywilling to devote the time and attention

necessary to understand the implicationsof scientific research for the well-being andperformance of their personnel. I find myselfbeing guided by the scientist-practitionereven more as I have begun new programsof research on understanding the determi-nants of whether employees in high stressenvironments seek treatment for mentalhealth problems and the factors that promoteresilience to high-intensity work stressors.

agencies and research institutes, and evenmarket research firms. Although actualjob duties vary widely by setting, manyorganizational psychologists employed innonacademic settings are involved in organi-zational change and development activities.This might involve assisting an organizationin the development and implementationof an employee opinion survey program,designing and facilitating the implemen-tation of team development activities, orperhaps even assisting top management withthe strategic planning process.

The other major activity of organizationalpsychologists employed in nonacademic set-tings is research. This is particularly trueof those employed in nonprofit researchinstitutes, government research institutes,and market research firms. Given the diver-sity of these settings, it is difficult to pindown the exact nature of the research thatis conducted. However, in the most gen-eral sense, these individuals conduct sci-entific research that is designed to havesome practical benefit to the organization oreven to society in general. Both authors, forexample, have conducted research to helpthe Army better understand how soldierscope with stressors (e.g., Britt, Adler, Bliese,& Moore, 2013; Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, &Primeau, 2003).

To prepare for a nonacademic career, grad-uate students need training in most ofthe same areas as those pursuing academiccareers. These include courses in researchmethodology, statistics, measurement, andseveral substantive topical areas. There is oneimportant difference, however: Compared tothose seeking academic employment, it ismore essential for students planning nonaca-demic careers to obtain practical experienceduring their graduate training. This experi-ence can often be gained by assisting facultywith consulting projects, or, in some cases,through formal internship programs (seeComment 1.5). Obtaining practical experi-ence is crucial not only because it enhancesa student’s credentials, but because it pro-vides valuable opportunities to apply whathas been learned in graduate courses.

So how does a student decide on whichcareer path they want to pursue? Given thatPhD students are generally capable, mosttypically have the option of pursuing aca-demic or nonacademic employment so thisdecision ultimately hinges on what studentsenjoy and value. In our experience, aca-demic employment is typically favored bystudents who enjoy teaching and have devel-oped a well-defined set of research interests.Academia is also well-suited for those whoenjoy a great deal of autonomy and control


Historical Influences in Organizational Psychology 11

COMMENT 1.5

THE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND APPLICATION (IPRA)

One of the most important features of thegraduate program in I/O psychology at Bowl-ing Green State University is the experiencestudents receive working on projects throughthe Institute for Psychological Research andApplication (IPRA). IPRA was created by theI/O faculty at Bowling Green in the late 1980sto provide graduate students with the oppor-tunity to apply, in actual organizational set-tings and under the supervision of faculty,what they learn in the I/O program. A sec-ondary purpose of IPRA is to provide graduatestudents with funding to attend professionalconferences.

Typically, local organizations approach theIPRA director (or some other I/O facultymember) with some proposed organizationalneed that might match the expertise of theI/O faculty at Bowling Green. Examples ofprojects that have been done through IPRAinclude: employee opinion surveys, trainingneeds assessment, customer service satisfac-tion surveys, and performance appraisal sys-tem development. After an organization hasexpressed a need, a faculty member is sought

to serve as a supervisor on the project. Once afaculty member agrees to supervise a project,a meeting is typically set up with a represen-tative from that organization to obtain moreconcrete information about the projects. Thisis typically followed by the submission tothat organization of a formal proposal thatincludes the nature of the work to be done,the time frame under which the work will bedone, the “deliverables” that the organizationwill receive at the conclusion of the project,and an itemized budget.

The vast majority of students who gradu-ate from the I/O program at Bowling GreenState University feel that their work onIPRA projects was one of the most valu-able components of their education; thisis particularly true for students who endup working for corporations and consult-ing firms. Students feel that work on theseprojects helped them to sharpen their tech-nical skills, provided valuable opportunitiesto apply what they learn in their classes, andprovided a realistic preview of the world ofconsulting.

over their time as opposed to a great dealof structure.

In contrast, nonacademic careers are typ-ically favored by students who really enjoyworking in organizational settings and see-ing organizational psychology applied in ameaningful way. Applied careers are alsowell-suited to those who desire a little morestructure, because those in applied settingstypically have less freedom to decide whatthey work on; those decisions are usu-ally determined by external factors such asclient needs, government funding, and topmanagement preference. Another factor thatoften determines the choice of one’s career

path, and one that we don’t talk about alot, is the reality of the job market (seeComment 1.6).

HISTORICAL INFLUENCES INORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Compared to many other scientific disci-plines, psychology is very young. In fact, thefield as a whole is just a little more than100 years old. Because much has been writ-ten about the history of the broader fieldof I/O psychology (Koppes, 1997; Koppes,2007; Vinchur & Koppes, 2011, for a recentexample) we do not attempt to provide a



COMMENT 1.6

REALITY OF THE JOB MARKET

As many readers know all too well, a stagnanteconomy in recent years has led to high lev-els of unemployment in the United States andmany other countries (Bureau of Labor Statis-tics, 2011) and these trends certainly impactthose in the field of organizational psychology.This has depressed the job market for organi-zational psychologists in both academic andnonacademic settings. On balance, though,academia has been hit harder because univer-sities are under pressure not only to cut costsin general but also to keep the cost of tuition atmoderate levels in order to make higher edu-cation affordable.

So how does the reality of the job marketimpact graduate students’ choice of careers?What we don’t see, and to a certain extent don’texpect to see, is graduate students rejecting aparticular career path altogether based solelyon the job market. Graduate students whoare highly motivated to seek out a particular

career path will continue to do so regardlessof short-term trends in the job market. Whatwe have seen, however, is that many grad-uate students are “hedging their bets” a bitwhen it comes to preparing for their career.For example, a graduate student who is pur-suing an academic career may also pursuean internship or gain other applied experi-ences to make themselves competitive in casethey decide to pursue nonacademic employ-ment. Conversely, students pursuing nonaca-demic career paths may still try to publishand obtain teaching experience in case theydecide to pursue an academic position. In ouropinion, having a more flexible approach tocareer planning makes a great deal of sense,and in fact is a necessity given the current jobmarket.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Regionaland state unemployment (annual) news release(USDL-12–0371).

comprehensive treatment here. Rather, ourintent is to provide a relatively concisesummary of people and historical eventsthat have shaped the field of organizationalpsychology.

Historical Beginnings

As Katzell and Austin (1992) point out,interest in the behavior of individuals inorganizational settings undoubtedly datesback to ancient times: “In the organiza-tional field, perhaps the earliest recordedconsultant was the Midianite priest, Jethro,who advised his son-in-law, Moses, on howto staff and organize the ancient Israelites(Exod. 18)” (p. 803). Formalized attempts to

study and influence such behavior, however,have a much more recent history.

Based on most historical accounts of thedevelopment of the field of I/O psychology,the industrial side of the field was muchquicker to develop than the organizationalside. Chronologically, the beginnings of thefield of I/O psychology can be traced to workin the United States, during the early part ofthe 20th century, by pioneers such as HugoMunsterberg, Walter Dill Scott, and WalterBingham (Vinchur & Koppes, 2011). Theapplication of psychology to the workplaceat that time was also beginning to occursimultaneously in Europe.

In the United States most of the workat that time dealt with topics such as skill



PEOPLE BEHIND THE RESEARCH

LAURA KOPPES BRYAN

While teaching my first introductory to indus-trial and organizational (I-O) psychologycourse, I would spend the first two classesreviewing the history of the discipline. Ibelieve that knowing our history deepens ourunderstanding and broadens our perspectiveswhen teaching, practicing, or researching I-Opsychology. One day, while using a typicaltextbook, I presented the “fathers” of I-O psy-chology. There are different opinions aboutthe original founders, but frequently citedindividuals include Hugo Munsterberg andWalter Dill Scott. While writing the word“fathers” on the chalkboard, it occurred tome that I had not read any historical accountsof I-O psychology that included women whomay have been involved early in the disci-pline. This observation led to over a decadeof research, looking for women psychologistswho contributed to I-O psychology during itsinception.

It was unusual for a tenure-track facultymember early in her career to study history.In fact, one tenured professor told me to quitthe research because it would jeopardize mytenure decision. He wanted me to conducttraditional empirical research. He said thatonly senior level professionals later in theircareers are interested in history. Because I

highly valued knowing our historical rootsand desired to provide a more completehistorical account, I ignored the advice andcontinued my research. I immediately con-tacted Frank Landy, who was known for hishistoriography of I-O psychology during theearly years of the discipline. I asked him ifhe came across women psychologists in hisresearch. These women were not his focusso he was not sure, but encouraged me tocontinue the research. He then mentored meon how to study archival material. We visitedthe Northwestern University archives whileresearching Walter Dill Scott and the ScottCompany. During this trip, I found MaryHolmes Stevens Hayes, who was the onlyconsulting psychologist working for the ScottCompany. I traced her to the National Archivesbecause she had a very successful career ofapplying psychology to solve problems whileworking for the federal government.

I continued my search in which I actu-ally felt like a detective, looking for clues thatwould provide connections between womenand men psychologists. I reviewed letters writ-ten by famous psychologists of the time (e.g.,Cattell, Munsterberg), examined newspapersand conference programs, analyzed companymaterials, and studied other primary and sec-ondary material. The research was very grat-ifying when I made connections. I rememberthe feeling of success when I first saw a photoof Mary Holmes Stevens Hayes, a psychologistI researched for 5 years. I remember think-ing “that’s what she looks like!” I also inter-viewed living psychologists (e.g., Pat Smith),who were retired and could recall the earlyyears of the discipline.

I became fascinated with these women’slives. I was enthralled with their capacities toearn doctorates, pursue professional careers,and in some cases, have children, all during

(continued)



(continued)a time period where these efforts were notcommon for women. I was especially pleasedthat I discovered Marion Bills, Elsie Breg-man, and Millicent Pond, all who worked inindustry and made significant contributionsto the field. I also spent a considerable amountof time in understanding the work of Lil-lian Gilbreth who conducted time and motionstudies with her husband while also seekingemployees’ perspectives. Lillian Gilbreth wasone of the first full-time consulting psycholo-gists; she carried on her husband’s consultingbusiness after he died. She then proceeded tosupport her 12 children through college, andhas been the only psychologist honored with aU.S. postage stamp. A book and movie Cheaperby the Dozen were made to recognize their pro-lific work.

After conducting this research, I realizedthat a text that pulled together various aspectsof the discipline did not exist. I then embarkedon a project, which results in an edited vol-ume on historical perspectives of I-O psychol-ogy. This project took over 5 years, workingwith discipline experts and historians. Todate, it’s the only text that captures individ-ual contributors as well as specific topics, suchas selection, training and development, con-sumer psychology, and so forth. I believe thiswork enhances our understanding of ques-tions asked and problems solved. As notedby others “the past is the prologue of ourfuture.”

Dr. Laura Bryan is dean of the Yale GordonCollege of Arts and Sciences at the Universityof Baltimore (UB).

acquisition and personnel selection, whilethere was very little attention given to theorganizational side of the field. This was not,however, the case in other parts of the worldat the beginning of the 20th century. In GreatBritain, for example, H. M. Vernon, who isacknowledged as one of that country’s firstindustrial psychologists, investigated suchtopics as industrial fatigue, accidents, theimpact of long work hours, and worker effi-ciency. Fatigue of employees was also ofinterest to psychologists in Australia, mostnotably Bernard Muscion. Most of these top-ics are today considered part of the organi-zational side of the field, and in fact part ofthe recently emerging field of OccupationalHealth Psychology (see Chapter 7).

Table 1.1 provides a chronological sum-mary of some of the major events that shapedthe development of the field of organiza-tional psychology in the 20th century.

Somewhat surprisingly, the beginnings ofthe organizational side of the field wereheavily influenced by the work of several

nonpsychologists. Perhaps the best knownof these was Frederick Winslow Taylor, whodeveloped the principles of scientific man-agement (Taylor, 1911). Although for manythe term scientific management typically con-jures up images of time-and-motion study, aswell as piece-rate compensation, it was actu-ally much more than that. Scientific manage-ment was, to a large extent, a philosophy ofmanagement, and efficiency and piece-ratecompensation were the most visible man-ifestations of that philosophy. When onelooks past these more visible aspects of sci-entific management, three underlying prin-ciples emerge: (1) those that perform worktasks should be separate from those whodesign work tasks; (2) workers are rationalbeings, and they will work harder if pro-vided with favorable economic incentives;and (3) problems in the workplace can andshould be subjected to empirical study.

In considering the underlying principlesof scientific management described earlier,the first principle is certainly contrary



TABLE 1.1A Chronological Summary of the Major Historical Influences on the Field of Organizational PsychologyDuring the 20th Century

Early 1900 Development and growth of scientific management (Taylor); beginning of the scientificstudy of organizational structure (Weber).

1920–1930 Hawthorne Studies; growth of unionization; immigration of Kurt Lewin to the UnitedStates.

1940–1950 WWII; publication of Vitele’s book Motivation and Morale in Industry; development of the“Human Relations” perspective; Lewin conducts “action research” projects for theCommission on Community Relations and establishes the Research Center for GroupDynamics at MIT.

1960–1970 U.S. involvement in Vietnam; Division 14 of the APA is changed to “Industrial/Organizational Psychology”; “multilevel” perspective in organizational psychology;increasing attention to nontraditional topics such as stress, work-family conflict, andretirement.

1980–1990 Increasing globalization of the economy; changing workforce demographics; increasingreliance on temporary or contingent employees; redefining the concept of a “job.”

2000–2010 Advances in communication technology, continued increases in globalization, greaterflexibility in work arrangements, boundaries between “work” and “nonwork” lessclear.

2010–Present Greater focus on the retirement process due to the rapid aging and ethnic diversificationof the world population, new focus on emergency preparedness in post 9/11 world,increasing advances in communication technology, resurgence of research onunemployment and job insecurity after 2008 recession, evermore increasingglobalization.

to much of the thinking in the field oforganizational psychology today. Manyorganizational psychologists, in fact, haverecommended that employees be involvedin decisions impacting the design of theirwork (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Thesecond principle, namely that employeeswill respond to financial incentives, hasactually received considerable support overthe years (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta, & Shaw,1998; Locke, 1982). Most organizationalpsychologists, however, do not believethat financial incentives will completelycompensate for extremely dull and repet-itive work—something that seems to bean assumption of scientific management.The third principle, empirical study, hasbeen fully embraced by the field of orga-nizational psychology and is clearly theone that establishes the link between the

two fields. It is also worth noting that byemploying scientific methodology to studyproduction-related processes, Taylor wasahead of his time and is considered a pioneerby some. (Most of his studies dealt withcutting sheet metal.) Despite the widespreadimpact of scientific management, manyof Taylor’s ideas met with a great deal ofcontroversy (see Comment 1.7).

Other early nonpsychologists who con-tributed greatly to the development oforganizational psychology were Max Weber,Frederic Engels, and Karl Marx. Weber’sacademic training was in law and history,but his legacy is largely in the field of organi-zational design. Weber is best known for hisdevelopment of the notion of “bureaucracy”as an organizing principle. The basic idea ofa bureaucratic organization is that employ-ees know exactly what they are supposed



COMMENT 1.7

FREDERICK WINSLOW TAYLOR: FATHER OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

Frederick Winslow Taylor was born in 1856in Germantown, Pennsylvania, a suburb ofPhiladelphia. Taylor was the son of affluentparents and spent a great deal of his child-hood traveling in Europe. Perhaps the biggestturning point in Taylor’s life came when, atthe age of 18, he turned down the opportu-nity to study at Harvard, and instead accepteda position as an apprentice at the Enter-prise Hydraulic Works in Philadelphia. Taylorworked there for 2 years before moving toMidvale Steel. He prospered at Midvale, work-ing his way up to the supervisory ranks bythe age of 24. It was during his time at Mid-vale that Taylor developed an interest in workmethods and procedures—an interest thatwould lead to the famous pig iron experi-ments and ultimately to the development ofscientific management.

The impact of scientific management dur-ing the early part of the 20th century can-not be overstated. Most manufacturing wasdesigned according to scientific managementprinciples; in some cases, even white-collarjobs had elements of this approach. For Tay-lor, the emergence of scientific managementmeant a great deal of professional successand notoriety. Taylor eventually left Midvale,worked for several other organizations, andultimately went out on his own and becameone of the first management consultants.

Many organizations contracted with Taylor tohelp them implement scientific managementprinciples.

Despite these successes, Taylor’s later yearswere not happy. Taylor’s wife, Louise, sufferedfrom chronic ill health, and Taylor himself wasill a great deal. In addition, scientific manage-ment came under fire, primarily due to thecharge that it was inhumane to workers. Infact, this controversy became so great that, in1912, Taylor was forced to testify before a con-gressional committee investigating the humanimplications of scientific management. Thiscontroversy took a toll on Taylor, both men-tally and physically. He died in 1915 at theage of 59.

Regardless of the controversy that sur-rounded Taylor’s scientific management, thereis no denying its impact. For organizationalpsychology, the impact of Taylor was not somuch in the principles he espoused, but inthe methods that he used to develop thoseprinciples. By using data to solve work-relatedproblems, Taylor pioneered an approach thathas become a major part of modern organi-zational psychology and many other relatedfields.

Source: Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: FrederickWinslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. New York,NY: Viking.

to be doing, and the lines of authority areclearly stated. Another major principleof bureaucracy is that advancement andrewards should be based on merit and noton things such as nepotism or social class.

Frederic Engels, who was from Germany,published the book The Condition of theWorking Class in England in 1845. In this

book Engels described in great detailthe mental and physical health problemssuffered by many workers in trade occu-pations. Engels believe that the causes ofthese problems could be traced to not onlyphysical conditions within the workplace,but also the design of work and the socialconditions present in the workplace. Many



organizational psychologists today focusconsiderable effort on both topics (Barling& Griffiths, 2011).

Karl Marx, who is known to most read-ers, wrote Das Kapital in 1867 where hedescribed the ways in which industrial cap-italism exploited employees, and describedhow workers became alienated under thissystem. Although Marx is typically associatedwith the political ideology of socialism, he wasinfluential in the development of organiza-tional psychology because of his emphasison the needs of employees as opposed tomanagement. This is not to say that orga-nizational psychology is “anti-capitalism” or“anti-management,” by any means; rather,we mention Marx simply to make the pointthat much of organizational psychology is“worker-focused,” and does not merely viewemployees as a means of production. In fact,in our opinion, the field or organizationalpsychology largely developed as a reaction tothis point of view.

The Field Takes Shape

Despite the early work of Taylor, and theinfluences of those such as Weber, Engels,Marx, and others, the vast majority of effortin “Industrial” psychology in the early 20thcentury was focused on what were describedearlier as industrial topics. The event thatchanged that—an event many see as thebeginning of organizational psychology—was the Hawthorne studies. The Hawthornestudies, a collaborative effort between theWestern Electric Company and a groupof researchers from Harvard University,took place between 1927 and 1932 (Mayo,1933; Whitehead, 1935, 1938). The originalpurpose of the Hawthorne studies wasto investigate the impact of environmen-tal factors—such as illumination, wageincentives, and rest pauses—on employee

productivity. When one considers the timeperiod in which the Hawthorne studies wereinitiated (early 1920s), it is not surprisingthat these topics were investigated becausescientific management was the dominantschool of managerial thought at the time.

What made the Hawthorne studies soimportant to the field of organizational psy-chology were the unexpected findings thatcame out of this series of investigations. Per-haps the best known were the findings thatcame from the illumination experiments.Specifically, the Hawthorne researchersfound that productivity increased regardlessof the changes in level of illumination. Thisbecame the basis for what is termed theHawthorne effect, or the idea that peoplewill respond positively to any novel changein the work environment. In modern orga-nizations, a Hawthorne effect might occurwhen a relatively trivial change is madein a person’s job, and that person initiallyresponds to this change very positively butthe effect does not last long.

The significance of the Hawthorne studies,however, goes well beyond simply demon-strating a methodological artifact. Forexample, in subsequent studies, Hawthorneresearchers discovered that work groupsestablished and strongly enforced produc-tion norms. The Hawthorne researchers alsofound that employees responded differentlyto different styles of leadership. A lesserknown outcome of the Hawthorne studieswas that it represented one of the firstattempts to provide an employee counselingprogram (Highhouse, 1999), which was theforerunner to current Employee AssistancePrograms (EAP).

The overall implication of the Hawthornestudies, which later formed the impetus fororganizational psychology, was that social fac-tors impact behavior in organizational settings.This may seem a rather obvious conclusion



today, but when considered in the histori-cal context, it was a very novel and impor-tant finding. Focusing only on the specificconclusions published by the Hawthorneresearchers, as well as the methodologicalshortcomings of this research (e.g., Bramel &Friend, 1981; Carey, 1967), misses the muchlarger implications of this historical researcheffort.

During roughly the same time period inwhich the Hawthorne studies took place,another important historical influence onorganizational psychology occurred: union-ization. This is somewhat ironic, consid-ering that I/O psychology is often viewedwarily by unions (Zickar, 2004) despitethe fact that there has been cooperationbetween the two. The union movement inthe United States during the 1930s wasimportant because it forced organizationsto consider, for the first time, a numberof issues that are largely taken for grantedtoday. For example, organizational topicssuch as participative decision making, work-place democracy, quality of work life, andthe psychological contract between employ-ees and organizations are rooted, at least tosome degree, in the union movement. Manyof these issues were addressed in collectivebargaining agreements in unionized organi-zations. Many nonunionized organizationswere also forced to address these issues dueto the threat of unionization.

During the period of union growth in the1930s, another event occurred that wouldprove to be very significant for the devel-opment of the field of organizational psy-chology: Kurt Lewin fled Nazi Germanyand ultimately took a post at the Univer-sity of Iowa Child Welfare Research Station.By the time he immigrated to the UnitedStates, Lewin was already a prominent socialpsychologist who had a variety of researchinterests, many of which were relevant to

the emerging field of organizational psychol-ogy. Lewin’s ideas, for example, have had amajor impact in the areas of group dynamics,motivation, and leadership. Perhaps Lewin’sgreatest contribution was his willingness touse research to solve practical problems inboth organizational and community settings.The term action research, which is typicallyassociated with Lewin, refers to the ideathat researchers and organizations can col-laborate on research and use those findingsto solve problems. The scientist-practitionermodel can be traced to the action researchmodel and thus stands as one of Lewin’smost important contributions to the field(see Comment 1.8).

A Period of Growth

World War II had a tremendous impacton the growth of organizational psychology.For example, one of the results of WorldWar II was that women were needed to fillmany of the positions in factories that werevacated by the men called into military ser-vice. Also, shortly after World War II in 1948,President Harry S. Truman made the deci-sion to pursue racial integration of the mil-itary. Both events were extremely importantbecause they represented initial attempts tounderstand the impact of diversity in theworkplace, a topic that has become quitepertinent in recent years.

World War II also served as the impetusfor major studies of morale and leadershipstyles. Although Hollywood has managedto portray a somewhat idealized version ofWWII, the U.S. military experienced prob-lems with low morale and even desertion.Thus, troop morale and the influence ofleadership were issues of great practicalimportance during this time.

Another important event in the develop-ment of organizational psychology was the



COMMENT 1.8

KURT LEWIN: THE PRACTICAL THEORIST

Kurt Lewin was born in 1890 in the villageof Mogilno, which was then part of the Prus-sian province of Posen (now part of Poland).Lewin’s father owned a general store, as wellas a small farm, so the family was prosper-ous although not wealthy. In 1905, Lewin’sfamily moved to Berlin, largely to gain bettereducational opportunities than were availablein Mogilno. Lewin entered the University ofFrieberg in 1909, initially with the goal ofstudying medicine. His distaste for anatomycourses contributed to Lewin’s abandoningthe goal of becoming a physician. He switchedhis interest to biology. This led to a trans-fer first to the University of Munich and ulti-mately to the University of Berlin, where heeventually earned his doctorate in 1916. Afterreturning from military service during WorldWar I, he began his academic career.

The years at Berlin were very productive,and Lewin’s work became quite influential. Atthis time, Lewin began to develop an inter-est in the application of psychology to appliedproblems such as agricultural labor, produc-tion efficiency, and the design of jobs. Lewinbecame quite interested in scientific manage-ment, particularly the impact of this systemon workers. Lewin and his family left Ger-many in 1933 due to the rise of the Nazi party.He initially received a temporary appoint-ment at Cornell University, and ultimately

moved to the University of Iowa Child WelfareResearch Station. While at Iowa, Lewin con-ducted influential studies on a variety of top-ics, including child development, the impactof social climates, and leadership. Follow-ing his years at Iowa, Lewin became deeplyinvolved in the Commission on CommunityRelations, which was established by the Amer-ican Jewish Congress. During his involve-ment, Lewin initiated a number of “actionresearch” projects aimed at enhancing under-standing of community problems such asracial prejudice, gang violence, and integratedhousing. Remarkably, during this same time,Lewin also founded the Research Center forGroup Dynamics at MIT. Lewin’s work at theCenter continued until his death in 1947, atthe age of 56.

In retrospect, it is hard to imagine any-one having a greater impact on the field oforganizational psychology than Kurt Lewin.His ideas continue to influence the study ofa number of areas such as employee motiva-tion, leadership, group dynamics, and orga-nizational development. However, perhapsLewin’s most enduring legacy was his inno-vative blending of science and practice.

Source: Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The lifeand work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY:Basic Books.

publication of Morris Viteles’ book Moti-vation and Morale in Industry (1953). Thiswas significant because Viteles’ 1932 book,Industrial Psychology, had contained very lit-tle on the organizational side of the field,largely because there simply wasn’t muchsubject matter at that time. Thus, the 1953book signified that the organizational side

of the field had finally “arrived” and had asignificant role to play in the broader fieldof industrial psychology. It was also dur-ing the post-WWII period that the humanrelations perspective emerged within the field.Those who advocated this perspective (e.g.,McGregor, 1960) argued that the way orga-nizations had traditionally been managed



kept employees from being creative andfulfilled on the job. During this time, forexample, Herzberg conducted his studies ofjob design and job enrichment, and majorresearch programs investigating both leader-ship and job satisfaction were conducted. Bythe early 1960s, organizational psychologywas clearly an equal partner with the indus-trial side of the field (Jeanneret, 1991).

At roughly this same point in time, therewas considerable work being done onemployee health and well-being in Nordiccountries such as Sweden, Norway, Finland,and Denmark (Barling & Griffiths, 2011).Notable examples from this time periodwere Einar Thorsrud in Norway who wasexploring empowerment in work groups,and Lennart Levi at the Karolinska Insti-tute in Stockholm who was investigatingthe physiological effects of stress in theworkplace. Contrary to the United States,the industrial side of the field never reallyflourished in Nordic countries, due largelyto the strong influence of labor unionsand perhaps cultural factors. This strongemphasis on employee health and well-beingformed the foundation of what is now thefield of Occupational Health Psychology(see Chapter 7), and continues today. It isalso worth noting that many organizationalpsychologists today, even if they do not studyemployee health and well-being directly,examine topics (e.g., job design, organiza-tional commitment, job satisfaction) that areindirectly related to occupational health.

Another broader social factor impactedthe development of organizational psychol-ogy during the 1960s and early 1970s:the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War,which led to many cultural changes in theUnited States and in other countries. Duringthis period, for example, many young peo-ple began to question conventional societalnorms and the wisdom of traditional societal

institutions such as education, government,and the legal system. Many, in fact, sus-pected that the federal government was nottruthful about many important details of thewar. Furthermore, subsequent accounts ofthe war by historians have proven that manyof these suspicions were justified (e.g., Small,1999). People at that time also began to feelas though they should have much more free-dom to express themselves in a variety ofways (e.g., hairstyles, dress, and speech).

For organizations, the cultural changesthat arose out of the 1960s had major impli-cations. In essence, it was becoming lessand less common for people to blindly fol-low authority. Therefore, organizations hadto find methods of motivating employees,other than simply offering financial incen-tives or threatening punishment. It was alsobecoming more common for employees toseek fulfillment in areas of their life otherthan work. Thus, it was becoming increas-ingly difficult to find employees who werewilling to focus exclusively on work.

Maturity and Expansion

From the early 1970s into the 1980s,organizational psychology began to matureas a field of study. For example, during theearly 1970s, the name of Division 14 of theAmerican Psychological Association (APA)was formally changed from “IndustrialPsychology” to “Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology.” Also during this period, orga-nizational psychologists began to breaksignificant new ground in both theoryand research. As just a few examples,Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) proposed SocialInformation Processing Theory (SIP) as analternative to more traditional need-basedtheories of job satisfaction and job design.Also, roughly during this period, organi-zational psychology began to “rediscover”



the impact of personality and dispositionson organizational constructs such as jobattitudes (Staw & Ross, 1985) and percep-tions of job-related stress (Watson & Clark,1984).

Another noteworthy development thattook hold during this period, and continuestoday, was the recognition that individualbehavior in organizations is impacted byforces at the group and organizational levels(e.g., James & Jones, 1974; Rousseau, 1985).This “multilevel” perspective has had majorimplications for the field in guiding theorydevelopment as well as the use of statisticalmethodology (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, &Yammarino, 1984; James, Demaree, &Wolf, 1984). During this same period,organizational psychologists began to devoteincreasing attention to what could be called“nontraditional” topics. For example, moreliterature began to appear on work/familyissues (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985),job-related stress and health (Beehr & New-man, 1978), as well as retirement (Beehr,1986), and customer service (Schneider &Bowen, 1985). This willingness to explorenontraditional topics was significant becauseit served as evidence that the interests oforganizational psychologists had broadenedconsiderably.

From roughly the late 1980s to the year2000, a number of trends have impactedthe field of organizational psychology. Ifone takes a global perspective, perhaps themost significant event of this period was thebreakup of the Soviet Union and the even-tual fall of many Communist regimes. Theseextraordinary events have implications fororganizational psychology because a num-ber of the nations that embraced democracyduring this period have also attempted toestablish free market economies. As many ofthese new democracies found out, managingand motivating employees in state-owned

businesses is quite different from doing so ina free market economy (Frese, Kring, Soose,& Zempel, 1996; Puffer, 1999; Stroh & Den-nis, 1994). The science and the practiceof organizational psychology can potentiallyhelp organizations in these nations make thisdifficult economic transition.

Another important trend, both in theUnited States and worldwide, is the changein the demographic composition of the work-force. The world population is aging rapidlyand becoming more ethnically diverse. Oneof the implications of these demographicshifts is that organizational psychologistshave devoted much more time and atten-tion to understanding the process of retire-ment (e.g., Jex & Grosch, 2013; Wang &Shultz, 2010). Based on the knowledge gen-erated from this research, organizational psy-chologists will likely help organizations asthey assist employees in making the retire-ment transition. The increasing level of cul-tural diversity will also have wide-rangingimplications. Organizational psychologistswill increasingly be called on to investigatethe impact of cultural differences on organi-zational processes such as socialization, com-munication, and motivation (Erez, 2011).

A third trend that has become evident dur-ing this period is the move away from highlyspecific jobs, and toward more temporary,project-based work. Some have labeled this“dejobbing” (Bridges, 1994), but other termsused have included temporary work, contin-gent work, and in European countries theterm “portfolio work” is often used (Gal-lagher, 2005). This trend has a numberof implications for organizational psychol-ogy. At the most fundamental level, thistrend impacts the “psychological contract”between organizations and employees. Whatdoes an organization owe its employees?What do employees owe the organizationthey work for? In the past, the answers



to these questions were rather straightfor-ward; now, they have become increasinglycomplex.

Another implication of this trend is thatmany individuals are not “employees” in theway this word has typically been used inthe past. This suggests a number of interest-ing and challenging issues for organizationalpsychologists. How does an organizationmaintain a consistent culture and philoso-phy with a relatively transient workforce? Isit possible to motivate temporary employ-ees to perform beyond an average level ofperformance? Although some research hasbeen done on the implications temporary,project-based work for organizations (Gal-lagher, 2005), more research clearly needsto be done before these questions can beanswered with any degree of certainty.

RECENT PAST AND BEYOND

On the morning of September 11, 2001hijacked commercial aircraft crashed intothe World Trade Center in New York Cityand the Pentagon outside of Washington,DC. In terms of casualties, the 9/11 terror-ist attack represents one of the worst in his-tory, and certainly the worst on U.S. soil.For many readers of this text, 9/11 representsone of the defining moments of their gener-ation, much the same way that the Kennedyassassination, the first moon landing, or theattack on Pearl Harbor were for previousgenerations.

What are the implications of 9/11 fororganizational psychology? This is a difficultquestion to answer with a high degree ofcertainty because of the magnitude of theseevents. Probably the most direct way thatmany organizations were impacted was inthe area of emergency preparedness. That is,9/11 made many organizations aware of theneed for having plans in place in case of

emergencies. Had it not been for the emer-gency plans of many of the organizationswith offices in the World Trade Center thedeath toll of 9/11 could have been muchhigher.

Since the tragedy of 9/11, and the warsin both Iraq and Afghanistan that havefollowed, the United States and manyother countries around the world haveexperienced a sustained period of economicrecession that has led to high levels ofunemployment (Bureau of Labor Statistics,2011). This has led to a resurgence ofinterest in the impact of unemployment(McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki,2005), and a growth in research on jobinsecurity (Cheng & Chan, 2008). At a morefundamental level, the economic recessionhas forced people once again to rethink thecontract that exists between organizationsand individuals employees.

Another historic event that certainly hasimpacted the United States, and the study oforganizations indirectly, occurred in Novem-ber of 2008 when Barack Obama became thefirst African American to be elected presi-dent. Obama was subsequently reelected bya wide margin in November of 2012. Whatare the implications of the Obama presi-dency? As of this writing there are nearly twoyears left in Obama’s second term so it isclearly too soon to determine what his legacywill ultimately be.

One clear implication, however, is thatit certainly signaled that the highest levelpositions in organizations can be achievedby anyone regardless of race. In some waysthis is a natural progression of the trendto increased diversity that was mentionedin the previous section. Another implicationof the Obama presidency, which is perhapsless obvious, is that it has come with anincreased level of intervention on the partof the federal government in private sector


The Chapter Sequence 23

organizations (Walsh, 2009). Whether oneviews this as positive or negative obviouslydepends on one’s political views; however,the reality is that organizations must be moreaccountable for what they do, and how theytreat their employees. This has undoubtedlyled to an increased awareness of equity andfairness within organizations, and perhapsa greater emphasis on employee well-being.Yet, at the same time, keeping up withmore government regulations and mandatestakes a great deal of time and organizationalresources.

Another recent trend that has had a greatimpact on life within organizations, as well asthe research within organizational psychol-ogy, is the rapid development of communi-cations technology. Although technologicalchange has certainly impacted organizationsfor many years, within the past 5 years thistechnology has developed at an even greaterrate. It is now possible for people to accesse-mail and the full resources of the Inter-net on a device as small as a cell phone.Although these technological advances havecertainly had some positive effects on indi-viduals’ productivity (Park & Jex, 2011) andhave allowed for much more flexible workarrangements, many view these gains as com-ing at a cost. More specifically, the lines ofdemarcation between work and other areasof people’s lives are almost nonexistent, andtherefore it is literally possible to work 24hours a day. This has led to a great deal ofresearch on how people are able to detachfrom work (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker,2012), and the activities they can engage into recover from work (Sonnentag & Fritz,2007).

A final recent trend that has greatlyimpacted organizations is increased glob-alization. In most industries the numberof competitors has increased greatly, andthose increased competitors span the globe.

In addition, most large organizations havebranch offices or subsidiaries around theworld. This increased level of global com-petition has forced organizations to becomemore innovative in the products and servicesoffered to consumers. Globalization has alsoincreased the realization within the field oforganizational psychology that many of ourtheories and research findings are “culturebound” and may not apply as widely as wehope. At a more practical level, organizationswith global operations have recognized thechallenges associated with employees work-ing in cultures that are vastly different thantheir own, and this has led to consider-able research on expatriation (e.g., Takeuchi,Wang, & Marinova, 2005).

Considering all of these recent histori-cal events and trends, it is clear that thework world of the recent past and not toodistant future will be highly complex andfast-paced. This may seem rather intimidat-ing, but it is also an exciting prospect for thefield of organizational psychology because itwill allow for truly groundbreaking researchand practical applications. In fact, we believethat this is one of the most exciting timesin history to be involved in the science andpractice of organizational psychology.

THE CHAPTER SEQUENCE

A textbook should function as a tour guidefor the student. In our experience, both asstudents and course instructors, the best wayto guide is in a logical sequential fashion. Thesequence of chapters in this book was devel-oped with this consideration in mind. Thechapters in the first part provide introductorymaterial on the field of organizational psy-chology as well as its methodological foun-dations. Some students (and maybe evensome instructors) may find it unusual to havea chapter on research methodology. We’veincluded it for three primary reasons. First,



having at least a rudimentary understand-ing of research methodology is fundamentalto understanding many of the concepts andresearch findings discussed throughout thetext. Second, research methodology is a legit-imate area of inquiry within organizationalpsychology. In fact, some very interestingresearch within organizational psychologyin recent years has been methodologicallyoriented (e.g., Carter, Dalal, Lake, Lin, &Zickar, 2011). Finally, as a course instruc-tor and supervisor of student research, I havefound that students often forget (or perhapsrepress) what they learn in research meth-ods courses. Covering research methods incontent courses often compensates for thisforgetting.

The next section, which contains the nexteight chapters, focuses on the behavior ofindividuals in organizational settings. Giventhe definition of organizational psychologyprovided earlier in this chapter, this is obvi-ously a key section of the book. A closeexamination of these chapters reveals some-what of a sequential ordering. It is assumedthat individuals are initially socialized into anorganization (Chapter 3), are forced to bal-ance the demands of their role as employeeswith other aspects of their lives (Chapter 4),and eventually become productive mem-bers of that organization (Chapter 5). It isalso recognized, however, that employeesmay engage in number of behaviors thatrun counter to the goals of their employers(Chapter 6), and that work may have bothpositive and negative effects on employeehealth and well-being (Chapter 7). Alongthese same lines, we recognize that workmay evoke feelings of satisfaction and com-mitment within employees (Chapter 8). Thelast two chapters in this section focus onthe mechanisms that organizations use toinfluence employees’ behavior. Chapter 9covers the major motivation theories inorganizational psychology, while Chapter 10

examines the various ways in which orga-nizations attempt to influence employees’behavior.

In the next section we focus on the studyof groups within organizational settings.Since most organizations consist of seriesof interdependent work groups, this hasbecome a very important level of analysis.In Chapter 11 we examine one of the mostimportant processes that occurs within workgroups; namely leadership. Chapter 11 alsoexamines power and influence processes thatare at the core of leadership within groups,yet influence many other behaviors in orga-nizations. In Chapter 12 we go beyond lead-ership and delve into the myriad of otherfactors that may influence the effectivenessof teams within organizations.

In the final three chapters, the focus shiftsfrom the group to the organization—the“macro” level. Chapter 13 reviews severaltheoretical approaches used to define anorganization and examines approaches toorganizational design. Chapter 14 probesthe concepts of organizational climate andculture. Chapter 15 describes the varietyof ways in which organizations engage inplanned change with the assistance of behav-ioral science knowledge.

One topic that readers will notice is notthe focus of any one chapter is internationalor cross-cultural issues. This book examinescross-cultural issues in the context of thevarious topics covered in the chapters. Thiswas done intentionally because we believecross-cultural findings are best understoodand assimilated in the context of specifictopics.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Organizational psychology is the scientificstudy of individual and group behavior informal organizational settings. Although itis a legitimate field of study in its ownright, organizational psychology is part of


Suggested Additional Readings 25

the broader field of industrial/organizational(I/O) psychology. Organizational psycholo-gists use scientific methods to study behav-ior in organizations. They also use thisknowledge to solve practical problems inorganizations; this is the essence of thescientist-practitioner model, the model onwhich most graduate training in I/O psy-chology is based. Thus, those with trainingin organizational psychology are employedin both academic and nonacademic settings.Historically, in most countries (the Nordiccountries being the exception) organizationalpsychology was slower to develop than theindustrial side of the field. The event thatis usually considered the historical begin-ning of organizational psychology was theHawthorne studies, although many otherevents and individuals throughout the worldhave helped to shape the field over the yearsand will continue to do so. A constant threadthrough the history of the field is the dynamicinteraction between science and practice; inmost cases for the betterment of organiza-tions and their employees.

SUGGESTED ADDITIONALREADINGSCascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Researchin industrial and organizational psychol-ogy from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices,and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,1062–1081.

Highhouse, S., & Schmitt, N. W. (2013). Asnapshot in time: Industrial-organizationalpsychology today. In N. W. Schmitt & S.E. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology(2nd ed., Vol. 12, pp. 3–13). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010). Organi-zational psychology and the tipping pointof identity. Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3,241–258.

Zickar, M., & Gibby, R. E. (2007). Fourpersistent themes throughout the historyof I-O psychology in the United States.In L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectivesin industrial and organizational psychology.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

chapter 1 t introduction to organizational psychology

Documents