DONE: History Flashcards
Bryan & Vinchur (2013) (the optimists)
This analysis of I-O psychology’s history demonstrates
that the rise of the discipline during the past 100 years was the result of confluences of dynamic external (socioe-conomic, business, legal, military, technological, psycho-
logical) and internal forces (individuals, theories, and applications) at various times.
• I-O psychologists are more proactive and less reactive.
• Both employee goals and organizational goals are now considered rather than only organizational goals.
-The discipline is increasingly a blending of science and practice.
• Increasing objectivity and greater accuracy of measurement are emphasized.
• The underlying theme, improving productivity in the
workplace along with worker lives, remains a steadfast
goal.
Vinchur & Koppes (2010) (the realists)
IO had it’s most genuine nascent in the second half of the 1800s, with Wundt’s 1879 lab in Germany being a decent starting point.
In the US, early psychologists were influenced by functionalism, orientated toward the consequences or utility of behavior & differences, as well as scientific pragmatism. The predictive power of tests re: performance was more important than what the tests actually measured.
In early 1900s, industrialization was on the rise as orgs grew in size & experienced difficulty with management.
Frederick W. Taylor (1911) developed a system to improve worker productivity & efficiency known as Taylorism (AKA scientific management), with his two-pronged approach of improving machinery (e.g., more efficient shovels) and worker efficiency.
Scientific management was supposed to help the org via productivity increase & the worker through increased pay in incentive systems. The Gilbreth’s developed time-and-motion studies, as well as eliminating accidents & fatigue for the workers’ sake.
–Drawbacks to Taylorism: Dehumanized workers, who resented outside experts telling them how to do things, and the system produced labor unrest.
(Wundt’s student) Scott’s (1910) book “Increasing Human Efficiency in Business” was the first serious IO work in the us, and Scott was the first professor at CIT to be called a professor of applied psych.
WW1: 1914-1918 and US entered in 1917, giving psychologist a chance to help classify recruits via cog ability testing, and showing many individuals could be tested quickly for a reasonable cost, though data were sadly often use to reinforce racial stereotypes.
-Selecting & rating officers was important too.
The institute for applied psych in Germany in 1906, and others, which focused on aptitude testing, career counseling & ergonomics, and by 1926, MORE THAN 200 firms utilized selection methods!
In 1941, the APA Division 14 (Ind & Business Psychology division) formed.
3 Major Areas of IO Psych in history include: selection, performance appraisal, and training.
Freyd suggested in 1920s to compare the new procedure with existing measures of their day (now called incremental validity).
In the 1920s, there was pseudoscience re: Blackford’s character analysis system such as face shape & hair color to predict outcomes, along with phrenology put to the test in the 1930s.
WW2 brought the same issue, though: how to eval & place a large number of people into best-fitting positions quickly.
Increasing productivity & safety via simplification & standardization (common to Taylorism & Gilbreths) were common emphases in TRAINING from its start.
HAWTHORNE STUDIES: (1924 - 30s)
CIT to Industrial psych is as Hawthorne studies are to Org psych.
HISTORY of Leadership: In 1930s & 40s, trait approaches, which rested on the “great man approach” dominated, then behavioral (1950s) & situational approaches arose.
Results of trait theories were inconsistent & weak (Vinchur & Koppes, 2010) - though later meta-analytic work in the 1990s has given evidence it represents a piece of the leadership puzzle.
In the 1950s, there were two types of leader behavior categories:
- Initiating structure or task-oriented behaviors
- People-oriented behaviors
This view (and its scales) prevailed for 2 decades
The 1970s - Zeitgeist moves toward situational models of trait effectiveness, which account for situational (moderating) factors, such as “Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1967),” which combines leader traits (task oriented & person oriented) & situational factors.
MOTIVATION:
Taylorism (and prior) focused primarily on financial incentives, though Taylor did recognize others. Given the bland & standardized approach of financial as the standard, though, employees felt interchangeable and unhappy.
Munsterberg at least recognized factors like fatigue, working hours, weather, and mental monotony, though, as potential problems (Vinchur & Koppes, 2010).
Western Electric Plant (where hawthorne studies happened) also found relation between worker & first-line supervisor was most important predictor for employee morale, happiness & efficiency.
Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs - but motivation research really burgeoned in the 1950s & 60s.
Example: Herzberg et al. (1959) Motivation-hygiene (or 2-factor) Theory
AND Job characteristic theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) - both the 2-factor & JCT focused on job enrichment.
Expectancy Theory (1964) views motivation as a function of an individual’s expectations that effort will lead to effective performance (expectancy), and that the effective performance will lead to outcomes & their value (valence)
Lock & Latham (1960s) as well.
Despite IO growing immensely, it’s narrowed, as other fields have taken over certain early aspects of IO psych and which are now studied under field like engineering psych (human factors) or vocational psych.
Also, performance & job sat are hugely studied nowadays, but other original IO variables such as fatigue, injury or performance stability haven’t accelerated as fast in terms of amounts of research done on them.
IO psy may be underappreciated by mainstream psychology academics due to it being so focused on psch in work contexts rather than psychological principles themselves (Vinchur & Koppes, 2010)
And does IO psych serve managers or workers? The management perspective has been more popular in IO psychology’s history (Vinchur & Koppes, 2010).
Mayo (1923)
Said Hawthorne effect was because of increased attention given to the workers by supervisors and to improved group dynamics, which was termed the Hawthorne effect.
said that group processes, norms & communication caused increased production, not environmental variables.
Kraiger (2001)
Fiedler (1967) was the first researcher to advocate a contingency approach—what leader behaviors were the most effective depended on the situation (often defined in terms of task difficulty, characteristics of followers, and/or forms of environmental uncertainty or strain.
*Munsterberg (and his 1913 book) is considered by many to be the father of industrial psychology, as his book noted applications of psych to selection, improving worker safety & designing work environments.
Taylor & the Gilbreths advocated job design training AND SELECTION.
The principles of selection in the 1920s are constructive even today (Kraiger, 2001)
From 1965-1980, much of the research and practice surrounding personnel selection was influenced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin, unless done as a business necessity.
IO’s become more unified since 1980 as people have come to agree successful hiring/placement decision can be made on a fairly narrow set of worker KSAOs.
Through a series of later court decisions, business necessity was interpreted as job relevant which in turn meant that the organization charged with discrimination must provide logical or statistical evidence (through test validation) that performance on the challenged test was related to job performance.
The Civil Rights Act has been humorously referred to as the full employment act for I–O psychologists, but it ultimately led to the reinforcement of a long-held tenet that the determinants of job performance are situationally (i.e., organizationally) specific and that job analysis, test development, and test validation are required each time a new selection system is implemented.
Hunter & Schmidt (1977) had a significant impact on moving the field away from a doctrine of situational specificity and toward one that is beginning to recognize common attributes or worker requirements across jobs as well as a common model of job performance across jobs.
Campbell (1990) has proposed a multidimensional model of job performance applicable to most, if not all, jobs. Campbell suggests that performance in any job is a function of three determinants: declarative (or factual) knowledge, procedural knowledge (operative skill or know-how), and motivation.
O*Net contains data that include training and experience requirements, worker characteristics (abilities, values, and work styles), worker requirements (e.g., technical or problem-solving skills), and occupational-specific information (e.g., labor market forecasts).
Through history, One area of organizational research that has produced consistently positive findings (and successful interventions) is the goal-setting theory of work motivation. While goal setting cannot account for all motivated behavior, as first articulated by Locke (1968), goal-setting theory simply states that employees work harder and perform better with a goal than without.
Moreover, more difficult and more specific goals result in higher motivation (and better performance) than easier or less specific goals.
In the 21st century, change accelerated: Consider the implementation of computers and technology. Not only does the automation of work change worker requirements (e.g., telephone workers who once carried bundles of wire up poles now program fiber optic relay changes on the computer), but hold implications for where work is done (e.g., telecommuting), how information is shared (e.g., the use of video conferencing and e-mail), and even who or what piece of equipment is considered part of a team (e.g., should a robot be invited to an autoworker’s retirement party?).
Demos are changing too, with an older workforce, more women, & more minority people.
It is fair to criticize the overall impact of I–O research on the selection and management of workers. For example, organizations in the USA use unstructured interviews for selection, and organizations in some European countries routinely use handwriting analysis, despite considerable evidence by I–O researchers that neither method is reliable or valid.
Zickar & Gibby (2007)
Themes from Zickar & Gibby (2007) include (in america) that:
The field’s consistent emphasis on productivity & efficiency.
The emphasis on quantification. -Though Ind-psy usually more quantitative and O usually more qualitative as a tension.
The focus on selection (& thus indy diffs)
And interpay between sci & practice.
Consistency of certain practices (e.g., the predictor-criterion validation model).
Hambrick (1993)
AOM Presidential address; What if the academy mattered?
Each August, we come to talk with each other; during the rest of the year we read each others’ papers in our journals and write our own papers so that we may, in turn, have an audience the following August: an incestuous, closed loop.
Yet, The Academy of Management Executive, our vanguard effort to bridge theory and practice, continues to gain practitioner readers.. Our research shows that the Executive is being used widely in our classrooms, but it has yet to reach or influence many executives. We must enhance its editorial content, aesthetics, and marketing.
Second, our professional divisions should be encouraged, possibly with seed money, to conduct joint conferences with practitioner organizations in their respective domains, which are prohibited from combining with external orgs for these conferences, ironically.
Third, we should give a research award for contribution to management practice: Only works published at least 10 years prior would be considered, so the judges can be assured that they are evaluating genuine, sustained impact and not the momentary hype that accompanies so many of the espoused quick fixes that assail managers these days (Bleakley, 1993).
Fourth, and finally, I would like to see the Academy of Management hold its annual meeting outside of the United States or Canada.
Why do we have such a limited role? The answer, I believe, lies not in any conspiracy or antagonism toward the field of management, but rather in our own failure to present ourselves—our body of knowledge and our perspective—to the world of affairs.
Murphy (2017)
Reflections on JAP 1997-2002:
More than half of the articles published during this period fell into six broad categories: job attitudes and affect (82 articles); individual differences and measurement (52 articles); forensic psychology (50 articles); diversity and discrimination (46 articles); research methods, design, and analysis (41 articles); and performance appraisal and performance management (41 articles).
Most notably in the 1990s there was a reemergence of interest in personality measures, first as predictors of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and later as predictors of a wide range of behaviors and organizational outcomes.
An underlying theme of much of this research was that generally supportive and equitable behavior on the part of the organization is not necessarily enough to guarantee commitment and satisfaction; the way the acts of organizations are perceived and understood has an important impact as well.
Two important articles (Steel & Rentsch, 1997; Judge, Locke, Dunham, & Kluger, 1998) served to remind readers that job attitudes are not completely determined by what happens in the work environment and that substantial dispositional factors influence our attitudes toward jobs, work, and organizations.
Wanous et al. (1997) showed that at least with regard to job satisfaction measures, single-item scales might be quite adequate.
Gender was the predominant concern of articles dealing with diversity and discrimination; nearly 60% of the articles published in this area between 1997 and 2002 dealt primarily or exclusively with gender issues.
in general, these articles show that affirmative action programs, or even the perception (sometimes mistaken) that specific decisions are made on the basis of affirmative action policies, are likely to have a mix of positive and negative effects for the people these programs are designed to benefit.
Also during this time:
Maturation of methodological debates—particularly in the area of meta-analysis, earlier debates over which model was best and which corrections should be included in meta-analysis gave way to relatively smaller refinements (e.g. moderators! & MA with MLM) on broadly accepted techniques.
Porter & Schneider (2014)
Summary of timepoints:
1930s - AOM formed
1941 - APA Division 14
Whyte’s Organizational Man (1956)
1960 - the original 12 AOM divisions (included OB)
1973 - Industrial Psy changes to IO psych
1970 - personnel admin -> HR
At the beginning of the early post–World War II decade of the 1950s, there was no OB and no “O” in Industrial Psych. However, by the end of that decade, there were stirrings of fundamental changes to come…
Hawthorne studies did not have an immediate impact on the then field of industrial psychology because of the imminent start (for those in the United States) in the first part of the 1940s of what came to be World War II. Attention of the field was directed elsewhere, especially to selection and training as demanded by the war effort. (Porter & Schneider, 2014).
Perhaps the key, development in the late 1950s and beginning of the 1960s was the publication of several seminal books that focused directly on organizational environments and their powerful effects on the behavior of those who worked in them. One such book, by a journalist rather than a behavioral scientist, was Whyte’s (1956), The Organization Man. It demonstrated with vivid description how organizations of that time period were dominating, if not totally controlling, the lives of the managers who worked in them.
AOM, founded in the late 1930s, had been a relatively small and not very important organization through the 1950s and into the 1960s. AOM finally created divisions in the 60s, one of the initial dozen Divisions was Organizational Behavior.
in the early 1970s, when a proposal was made to change the Division’s name from industrial psychology to organizational psychology. It ended in 1973 with the new name of IO psych.
Also around the 1970s, the term human resource management emerged as a successor title to the now somewhat fusty designation of personnel administration.
…what began to emerge was some degree of conflict between the old industrial psychology orientation toward people at work, with its almost complete focus on individual differences, and the newer focus on organizations and group/social processes.
the early work by Schneider on organizational climate was carried out at the individual level of analysis, and it took decades of effort to get to the point where such climate data were accepted at work group and organizational levels of analysis…
Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) published its first issue in 1917, and Personnel Psychology (PP) its first issue in 1948, so the more individual differences–oriented researchers had a considerable head start by the time the O in the field was introduced. Journals that were more O in nature emerged in the mid-1950s [Administrative Science Quarterly in 1956, Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) in 1958],
OB membership is much larger than SIOP since 2010 - OB seems to be bigger than all of SIOP! So of course AOM takes up 4-5 hotels!
Almost all members of the OB Division are in academic positions, whereas only about 45% of SIOP members are in academia, with a similar percentage working in consultant organizations (most of them) or as in-house practitioners/researchers in a wide range of industries.
*SO SIOP members do way more applied work!
is that if you are a PhD student in an OB program and you say you are interested in practice, your career is over. Paradoxically, although senior faculty members in Biz schools appear to do quite well as gurus in the world of consulting, their graduate students and junior colleagues typically do not appear to have such work as an option.
Most business schools do not to date have separate academic units labeled HRM. Either they do not offer any curriculum under this specific designation, or they place it inside OB units (such units are sometimes labeled OB/HRM).
For the 2013 annual meeting of AOM, the OB Division received 893 program submissions of papers, whereas the Human Resources Division received only 300.)
HRM represents an area of practice that utilizes the research that is produced by I/O and OB scholars.
Austin et al. (2002)
1904-1935:
Measurement: Classical test theory (CTT) (from Galton’s measures of indy diffs)
Analysis: Inference, multiple regression
- Even early 1920s-1930s discussed criterion validation via correlation-regression analysis.” - Kraiger 2001 noted some ideas of selection from 20s still being very useful today
- It wasn’t until after 1920 that the importance of random sampling was realized.
1936-1968:
Measurement: Item response theory emerged in the 1950s, construct validity
Design: internal, external validity (In the 50’s validity had a growth spurt & was about ‘testing the tests” (Austin et al., 2002)
Analysis: More new multivariate methods, ANOVA/ANCOVA
1969-2000
Measurement: Generalizability theory
Design: MLM, causal inference
True experiments with control groups emerged in the 1940s and 50s (Austin et al., 2002)
In the 1990s, researchers began shifting away from two-occasion designs due to the importance of time for IO (e.g., more toward longitudinal).
*Interesting stats-history sidenotes:
Correlation and regression were well elaborated by 1920! Fisher, as well as Neyman and Pearson worked hard on this in 1915-1935.
ANOVA started becoming more commonplace since WW2.
Though the general linear model (Cohen, 1968) is now well understood, the different GENERALIZED linear model that additional models (e.g., logistic) are based on is still not as much.
Hotelling (1936) was working on multivariate analyses in the 1930s.
Factor analysis existed as far back as 1900!
MLM was a major contribution both statistically and methodologically, during the 80s and 90s (Austin et al. 2002)
In third interval, 1969-2000, there was a significanat sophistication of methods, narrowing the audience even more to IO psychologists. A challenge in such sophistication & proliferation of methods is that choosing is more challenging, and misuse is increasing. - Perhaps more difficult to bridge science-practitioner gap as well.
