Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 31 December 2016

Part of a series on
Psychology
Outline History Subfields
Basic psychology Abnormal Affective neuroscience Affective science Behavioral genetics Behavioral neuroscience Behaviorism Cognitive/Cognitivism Cognitive neuroscience Social Comparative Cross-cultural Cultural Developmental Differential Ecological Evolutionary Experimental Gestalt Intelligence Mathematical Moral Neuropsychology Perception Personality Psycholinguistics Psychophysiology Quantitative Social Theoretical
Applied psychology Anomalistic Applied behavior analysis Assessment Clinical Coaching Community Consumer Counseling Critical Educational Ergonomics Feminist Forensic Health Humanistic Industrial and organizational Legal Media Medical Military Music Occupational health Pastoral Political Positive Psychometrics Psychotherapy Religion School Sport and exercise Suicidology Systems Traffic
Concepts Behavior Behavioral engineering Behavioral genetics Behavioral neuroscience Cognition Competence Consciousness Consumer behavior Emotions Feelings Human factors and ergonomics Intelligence Mind Psychology of religion Psychometrics Terror management theory
Lists Counseling topics Disciplines Organizations Outline Psychologists Psychotherapies Research methods Schools of thought Timeline Topics
Psychology portal
v t e

Industrial and organizational psychology (I/O psychology, occupational psychology, organizational psychology, work and organizational psychology) is the scientific study of human behavior in the workplace and applies psychological theories and principles to organizations and individuals in their places of work. I/O psychologists are trained in the scientist–practitioner model. They contribute to an organization's success by improving work performance, motivation, and job satisfaction. An I/O psychologist conducts research on employee behaviors and attitudes, and how these can be improved through hiring practices, training programs, feedback, and management systems.

I/O psychology is one of the 14 recognized specialties in professional psychology in the United States. It is represented by Division 14 of the American Psychological Association (APA), known formally as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In the United Kingdom, industrial and organizational psychologists are referred to as occupational psychologists. Occupational psychology in the UK is one of seven 'protected titles' and specializations in psychology regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. In the UK, graduate programs in psychology, including occupational psychology, are accredited by the British Psychological Society. To become an occupational psychologist in the UK, a doctorate is required.

In Australia, the title organizational psychologist is protected by law, and regulated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). Organizational psychology is one of nine areas of specialist endorsement for psychology practice in Australia. Graduate programs at both the Masters and Doctorate level are offered worldwide.

In Europe someone with a specialist EuroPsy Certificate in Work and Organisational Psychology is a fully qualified psychologist and an expert in the work psychology field. Industrial and organizational psychologists reaching the EuroPsy standard are recorded in the Register of European Psychologists and industrial and organizational psychology is one of the three main psychology specializations in Europe.

Business psychology is a specialist discipline allied with I/O psychology. Business psychology focuses on the management of change in business driven enterprises. The Association of Business Psychologists defines business psychology as "the study and practice of improving working life. It combines an understanding of the science of human behaviour with experience of the world of work to attain effective and sustainable performance for both individuals and organisations.”

Historical overview

The historical development of I/O psychology was paralleled in the US, the UK, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and eastern European countries such as Romania. The roots of I/O psychology trace back nearly to the beginning of psychology as a science, when Wilhelm Wundt founded one of the first psychological laboratories in 1876 in Leipzig, Germany. In the mid 1880s, Wundt trained two psychologists, Hugo Münsterberg and James McKeen Cattell, who had a major influence on the eventual emergence of I/O psychology. Instead of viewing performance differences as human “errors”, Cattell was one of the first to recognize the importance of differences among individuals as a way of better understanding behavior. Walter Dill Scott, who was a contemporary of Cattell, was elected President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1919, was arguably the most prominent I/O psychologist of his time. Scott, along with Walter Van Dyke Bingham, worked at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, developing methods for selecting and training sales personnel.

The "industrial" side of I/O psychology originated in research on individual differences, assessment, and the prediction of work performance. Industrial psychology crystallized during World War I, in response to the need to rapidly assign new troops to duty. Scott and Bingham volunteered to help with the testing and placement of more than a million army recruits. In 1917, together with other prominent psychologists, they adapted a well-known intelligence test the Stanford–Binet, which was designed for testing one individual at a time, to make it suitable for group testing. The new test was called the Army Alpha.

After the War, the growing industrial base in the US was a source of momentum for what was then called industrial psychology. Private industry set out to emulate the successful testing of army personnel. Mental ability testing soon became commonplace in the work setting.

Elton Mayo found that rest periods improved morale and reduced turnover in a Philadelphia textile factory. He later joined the ongoing Hawthorne studies, where he became interested in how workers' emotions and informal relationships affected productivity. The results of these studies ushered in the human relations movement.

World War II brought brought renewed interest in ability testing (to accurately place recruits in new technologically advanced military jobs), the introduction of the assessment center, and concern with morale and fatigue in war industry workers.

The industrial psychology division of the former American Association of Applied Psychology became a division within APA, becoming Division 14 of APA. It was initially called the Industrial and Business Psychology Division. In 1962, the name was changed to the Industrial Psychology Division. In 1973, it was renamed again, this time to the Division of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In 1982, the unit become more independent of APA, and its name was changed again, this time to the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

The name change of the division from "industrial psychology" to "industrial and organizational psychology" reflected the shift in the work of industrial psychologists who had originally addressed work behavior from the individual perspective, examining performance and attitudes of individual workers. Their work became broader. Group behavior in the workplace became a worthy subject of study. The emphasis on "organizational" underlined the fact that when an individual joins an organization (e.g., the organization that hired him or her), he or she will be exposed to a common goal and a common set of operating procedures. In the 1970s in the UK, references to occupational psychology became more common than I/O psychology.

Research methods

As described above, I/O psychologists are trained in the scientist–practitioner model. I/O psychologists rely on a variety of methods to conduct organizational research. Study designs employed by I/O psychologists include surveys, experiments, quasi-experiments, and observational studies. I/O psychologists rely on diverse data sources including human judgments, historical databases, objective measures of work performance (e.g., sales volume), and questionnaires and surveys.

I/O researchers employ quantitative statistical methods. Quantitative methods used in I/O psychology include correlation, multiple regression, and analysis of variance. More advanced statistical methods employed in I/O research include logistic regression, structural equation modeling, and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; also known as multilevel modeling). I/O research has also employed meta-analysis. I/O psychologists also employ psychometric methods including methods associated with classical test theory, generalizability theory, and item response theory (IRT).

I/O psychologists have also employed qualitative methods, which largely involve focus groups, interviews, and case studies. I/O research on organizational culture research has employed ethnographic techniques and participant observation. A qualitative technique associated with I/O psychology is Flanagan's Critical Incident Technique.

I/O psychologists sometimes use quantitative and qualitative methods in concert.

Topics

Job analysis

Job analysis encompasses a number of different methods. It primarily involves the systematic collection of information about a job. A task-oriented job analysis involves an examination of the duties, tasks, and/or competencies required by the job being assessed. By contrast, a worker-oriented job analysis involves an examination of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required to successfully perform the work. Information obtained from job analyses are used for many purposes, including the creation of job-relevant selection procedures, performance appraisals and the criteria they require, and the development of training programs.

Personnel recruitment and selection

I/O psychologists typically work with human resource specialists to design (a) recruitment processes and (b) personnel selection systems. Personnel recruitment is the process of identifying qualified candidates in the workforce and getting them to apply for jobs within an organization. Personnel recruitment processes include developing job announcements, placing ads, defining key qualifications for applicants, and screening out unqualified applicants.

Personnel selection is the systematic process of hiring and promoting personnel. Personnel selection systems employ evidence-based practices to determine the most qualified candidates. Personnel selection involves both the newly hired and individuals who can be promoted from within the organization. Common selection tools include ability tests (e.g., cognitive, physical, or psycho-motor), knowledge tests, personality tests, structured interviews, the systematic collection of biographical data, and work samples. I/O psychologists must evaluate evidence regarding the extent to which selection tools predict job performance.

Personnel selection procedures are usually validated, i.e., shown to be job relevant to personnel selection, using one or more of the following types of validity: content validity, construct validity, and/or criterion-related validity. I/O psychologists must adhere to professional standards in personnel selection efforts. SIOP (e.g., Principles for validation and use of personnel selection procedures and APA together with the National Council on Measurement in Education (e.g., Standards for educational and psychological testing are sources of those standards. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform guidelines are also influential in guiding personnel selection decisions.

A meta-analysis of selection methods found that general mental ability was the best overall predictor of job performance and attainment in training.

Performance appraisal/management

Performance appraisal or performance evaluation is the process of measuring an individual's or a group's work behaviors and outcomes against managers' and others' expectations for the job. Performance appraisal is frequently used in promotion and compensation decisions, to help design and validate personnel selection procedures, and for performance management. Performance management is the process of providing performance feedback relative to expectations and information relevant to improvement (e.g., coaching, mentoring). Performance management may also include documenting and tracking performance information for organization-level evaluation purposes.

An I/O psychologist would typically use information from the job analysis to determine a job's performance dimensions, and then construct a rating scale to describe each level of performance for the job. Often, the I/O psychologist would be responsible for training organizational personnel how to use the performance appraisal instrument, including ways to minimize bias when using the rating scale, and how to provide effective performance feedback. Additionally, the I/O psychologist may consult with the organization on ways to use the performance appraisal information for broader performance management initiatives.

Individual assessment and psychometrics

Individual assessment involves the measurement of individual differences. I/O psychologists perform individual assessments in order to evaluate differences among candidates for employment as well as differences among employees. The constructs measured pertain to job performance. With candidates for employment, individual assessment is often part of the personnel selection process. These assessments can include written tests, aptitude tests, physical tests, psycho-motor tests, personality tests, integrity and reliability tests, work samples, simulations, and assessment centres.

Workplace bullying, aggression and violence

I/O psychologists are concerned with the related topics of workplace bullying, aggression, and violence. For example, I/O research found that exposure to workplace violence elicited ruminative thinking, and ruminative thinking, in turn, is associated with poor well-being. I/O research has found that interpersonal aggressive behaviours is associated with worse team performance.

Remuneration and compensation

Compensation includes wages or salary, bonuses, pension/retirement contributions, and perquisites that can be converted to cash or replace living expenses. I/O psychologists may be asked to conduct a job evaluation for the purpose of determining compensation levels and ranges. I/O psychologists may also serve as expert witnesses in pay discrimination cases when disparities in pay for similar work are alleged.

Training and training evaluation

Training involves the systematic teaching of skills, concepts, or attitudes that results in improved performance in another environment. Because many people hired for a job are not already versed in all the tasks the job requires, training may be needed to help the individual perform the job effectively. Evidence indicates that training is often effective, and that it succeeds in terms of higher net sales and gross profitability per employee.

Similar to performance management (see above), an I/O psychologist would employ a job analysis in concert with principles of instructional design to create an effective training program. A training program is likely to include a summative evaluation at its conclusion in order to ensure that trainees have met the training objectives and can perform the target work tasks at an acceptable level. Training programs often include formative evaluations to assess the effect of the training as the training proceeds. Formative evaluations can be used to locate problems in training procedures and help I/O psychologists make corrective adjustments while training is ongoing.

The foundation for training programs is learning. Learning outcomes can be organized into three broad categories: cognitive, skill-based, and affective outcomes. Cognitive training is aimed at instilling declarative knowledge or the knowledge of rules, facts, and principles (e.g., police officer training covers laws and court procedures). Skill-based training aims to impart procedural knowledge (e.g., skills needed to use a special tool) or technical skills (e.g., understanding the workings of software program). Affective training concerns teaching individuals to develop specific attitudes or beliefs that predispose trainees to behave a certain way (e.g., show commitment to the organization, appreciate diversity).

A needs assessment, an analysis of corporate and individual goals, is often undertaken prior to the development of a training program. In addition, a careful needs analysis is required in order to develop a systematic understanding of where training is needed, what should be taught, and who will be trained. A training needs analysis typically involves a three-step process that includes organizational analysis, task analysis and person analysis.

An organizational analysis is an examination of organizational goals and resources as well as the organizational environment. The results of an organizational analysis help to determine where training should be directed. The analysis identifies the training needs of different departments or subunits. It systematically assesses manager, peer, and technological support for transfer of training. An organizational analysis also takes into account the climate of the organization and its subunits. For example, if a climate for safety is emphasized throughout the organization or in subunits of the organization (e.g., production), then training needs will likely reflect an emphasis on safety. A task analysis uses the results of a job analysis to determine what is needed for successful job performance, contributing to training content. With organizations increasingly trying to identify "core competencies" that are required for all jobs, task analysis can also include an assessment of competencies. A person analysis identifies which individuals within an organization should receive training and what kind of instruction they need. Employee needs can be assessed using a variety of methods that identify weaknesses that training can address.

Motivation in the workplace

Work motivation reflects the energy an individual applies "to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration" Understanding what motivates an organization's employees is central to I/O psychology. Motivation is a person's internal disposition to be concerned with and approach positive incentives and avoid negative incentives. An incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event. While motivation can often be used as a tool to help predict behavior, it varies greatly among individuals and must often be examined along with ability and environmental factors to assess its influence on behavior. Because of motivation's role in influencing workplace behavior and performance, many organizations structure the work environment to encourage productive behaviors and discourage unproductive behaviors.

There is general consensus that motivation involves three psychological processes: arousal, direction, and intensity. Arousal is what initiates action. It is often fueled by a person's need or desire for something that is missing from his or her life, either totally or partially. Direction refers to the path employees take in accomplishing the goals they set for themselves. Intensity is the amount of energy employees put into goal-directed work performance. The level of intensity often reflects the importance and difficulty of the goal. These psychological processes involve four factors. First, motivation serves to direct attention, focusing on particular issues, people, tasks, etc. Second, it serves to stimulate effort. Third, motivation influences persistence. Finally, motivation influences the choice and application of task-related strategies.

Occupational stress

I/O psychologists are involved in the research and the practice of occupational stress and design of individual and organizational interventions to manage and reduce the stress levels and increase productivity, performance, health and wellbeing. Occupational stress can have implications for organizational performance because of the emotions job stress evokes. For example, a job stressor such as conflict with a supervisor can precipitate anger that in turn motivates counterproductive workplace behaviors. I/O research has examined the association between work stressors and aggression, theft, substance abuse, and depressive symptoms. A number of models have been developed to explain the job stress process, including the person-environment fit model and the demand-control model.

Research has also examined occupational stress in specific occupations, including police, general practitioners, and dentists. Another concern has been the relation of occupational stress to family life. Other research has examined gender differences in leadership style and job stress and strain in the context of male- and female-dominated industries, and unemployment-related distress. I/O psychology is also concerned with the relation of occupational stress to career advancement.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture has been described as a set of assumptions shared by individuals in an organization; the assumptions influence the interpretation and actions that define appropriate behavior for various situations. There are three levels of organizational culture: artifacts, shared values, and basic beliefs and assumptions. Artifacts comprise the physical components of the organization that relay cultural meaning. Shared values are individuals' preferences regarding certain aspects of the organization's culture (e.g., loyalty, customer service). Basic beliefs and assumptions include individuals' impressions about the trustworthiness and supportiveness of an organization, and are often deeply ingrained within the organization's culture.

In addition to an overall culture, organizations also have subcultures. Examples of subcultures include corporate culture, departmental culture, local culture, and issue-related culture. While there is no single "type" of organizational culture, some researchers have developed models to describe different organizational cultures.

Organizational culture has been shown to affect important organizational outcomes such as performance, attraction, recruitment, retention, employee satisfaction, and employee well-being. Also, organizations with an adaptive culture tend to perform better than organizations with an maladaptive culture.

Group behavior

Group behavior is the interaction between individuals of a collective and the processes such as opinions, attitudes, growth, feedback loops, and adaptations that occur and change as a result of this interaction. The interactions serve to fulfill some need satisfaction of an individual who is part of the collective and helps to provide a basis for his interaction with specific members of the group.

A specific area of research in group behavior is the dynamics of teams. Team effectiveness refers to the system of getting people in a company or institution to work together effectively. The idea behind team effectiveness is that a group of people working together can achieve much more than if the individuals of the team were working on their own.

Team effectiveness

Organizations often organize teams because teams can accomplish a much greater amount of work in a short period of time than an individual can accomplish. I/O research has examined the harm workplace aggression does to team performance.

Team composition

The composition of teams is initially decided during the selection of individual contributors that are to be assigned to specific teams and has a direct bearing on the resulting effectiveness of those teams. Aspects of team composition that should be considered during the team selection process include team member: knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs), personalities, and attitudes.

As previously stated, one of the reasons organizations support the use of teams is the expectation of the delivery of higher quality results. To achieve these types of results, highly skilled members are more effective than teams built around those with lesser skills, and teams that include a diversity of skills have improved team performance (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Additionally, increased average cognitive ability of team members has been shown to consistently correlate to increased work group effectiveness (Sundstrom et al., 2000). Therefore, organizations should seek to assign teams with team members that have a mix of KSAs. Teams that are composed of members that have the same KSAs may prove to be ineffective in meeting the team goals, no matter how talented the individual members are.

The personalities and attitudes of the individuals that are selected as team members are other aspects that should be taken into consideration when composing teams, since these individual traits have been found to be good indicators of team effectiveness. For example, a positive relationship between the team-level traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness and the team performance has been shown to exist (Van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001). Differing personalities of individual team members can affect the team climate in a negative way as members may clash and reduce team performance (Barrick, et al., 1998).

Task design

A fundamental question in team task design is whether or not a task is even appropriate for a team. Those tasks that require predominantly independent work are best left to individuals, and team tasks should include those tasks that consist primarily of interdependent work. When a given task is appropriate for a team, task design can play a key role in team effectiveness.

Job characteristic theory identifies core job dimensions that affect motivation, satisfaction, performance, etc. These dimensions include skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. The dimensions map well to the team environment. Individual contributors that perform team tasks that are challenging, interesting, and engaging are more likely to be motivated to exert greater effort and perform better than those team members that are working on those tasks that do not have these characteristics.

Organizational resources

Organizational support systems affect the effectiveness of teams (Sundstrum, et al., 1990) and provide resources for teams operating in the multi-team environment. In this case, the provided resources include various resource types that teams require to be effective. During the chartering of new teams, organizational enabling resources are first identified. Examples of enabling resources include facilities, equipment, information, training and leadership. Also identified during team chartering are team-specific resources (e.g., budgetary resources, human resources). Team-specific human resources represent the individual contributors that are selected for each team as team members. Intra-team processes (e.g., task design, task assignment) are sufficient for effective utilization of these team-specific resources.

Teams also function in multi-team environments that are dynamic in nature and require teams to respond to shifting organizational contingencies (Salas, et al., 2004). In regards to resources, such contingencies include the constraints imposed by organizational resources that are not specifically earmarked for the exclusive use of certain teams. These types of resources are scarce in nature and must be shared by multiple teams. Examples of these scarce resources include subject matter experts, simulation and testing facilities, and limited amounts of time for the completion of multi-team goals. For these types of shared resources inter-team management processes (e.g.: constraint resource scheduling) must be provided to enable effective multi-team utilization.

Team rewards

Organizational reward systems are a driver for strengthening and enhancing individual team member efforts that contribute towards reaching collective team goals (Luthans & Kreitner, 1985). In other words, rewards that are given to individual team members should be contingent upon the performance of the entire team (Sundstrom, et al., 1990).

Several design elements of organizational reward systems are needed to meet this objective. The first element for reward systems design is the concept that for a collective assessment to be appropriate for individual team members, the group's tasks must be highly interdependent. If this is not the case, individual assessment is more appropriate than team assessment (Wageman & Baker, 1997). A second design element is the compatibility between individual-level reward systems and team-level reward systems (DeMatteo, Eby, & Sundstrom, 1998). For example, it would be an unfair situation to reward the entire team for a job well done if only one team member did the great majority of the work. That team member would most likely view teams and teamwork in a negative fashion and not want to participate in a team setting in the future. A final design element is the creation of an organizational culture that supports and rewards employees who believe in the value of teamwork and who maintain a positive mental attitude towards team-based rewards (Haines and Taggar, 2006).

Team goals

Goals for individual contributors have been shown to be motivating when they contain three elements: (1) difficulty, (2) acceptance, and (3) specificity (Lock & Latham, 1990). In the team setting, goal difficulty is related to group belief that the team can accomplish the tasks required to meet the assigned goal (Whitney, 1994). This belief (collective efficacy) is somewhat counterintuitive, but rests on team member perception that they now view themselves as more competent than others in the organization who were not chosen to complete such difficult goals. This in turn, can lead to higher levels of performance. Goal acceptance and specificity is also applicable to the team setting. When team members individually and collectively commit to team goals, team effectiveness is increased and is a function of increased supportive team behaviors (Aube & Rousseau, 2005).

As related to the team setting, it is also important to be aware of the interplay between the goals of individual contributors that participate on teams and the goals of the teams themselves. The selection of team goals must be done in coordination with the selection of goals for individuals. Individual goals must be in line with team goals (or not exist at all) to be effective (Mitchell & Silver, 1990). For example, a professional ball player that does well in his/her sport is rewarded individually for excellent performance. This individual performance generally contributes to improved team performance which can, in turn, lead to team recognition, such as a league championship.

Job satisfaction and commitment

Job satisfaction reflects an employee's overall assessment of their job, particularly their emotions, behaviors, and attitudes about their work experience. It is one of the most heavily researched topics in industrial–organizational psychology with several thousand published studies. Job satisfaction has theoretical and practical utility for the field of psychology and has been linked to important job outcomes including attitudinal variables, absenteeism, employee turnover, and job performance. For instance, job satisfaction is strongly correlated with attitudinal variables such as job involvement, organizational commitment, job tensions, frustration, and feelings of anxiety. A 2010 meta-analyses found positive relationships between job satisfaction and life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and the absence of negative affect. Job satisfaction also has a weak correlation with employee's absentee behaviors and turnover from an organization with employees more likely to miss work or find other jobs if they are not satisfied. Finally, research has found that although a positive relationship exists between job satisfaction and performance, it is moderated by the use of rewards at an organization and the strength of employee's attitudes about their job.

Productive behavior

Productive behavior is defined as employee behavior that contributes positively to the goals and objectives of an organization. When an employee begins a new job, there is a transition period during which he or she is not contributing positively to the organization. To successfully transition from being an outsider to a full-fledged member of an organization, an employee typically needs job-related training as well as more general information about the culture of the organization. In financial terms, productive behavior represents the point at which an organization begins to achieve some return on the investment it has made in a new employee. Industrial–organizational psychologists are typically more focused on productive behavior rather than simple job or task performance because of the ability to account for extra-role performance in addition to in-role performance. While in-role performance tells managers or researchers how well the employee performs the required technical aspects of the job, extra-role performance includes behaviors not necessarily required as part of the job but still contribute to organizational effectiveness. By taking both in-role and extra-role performance into account, industrial–organizational psychologists are able to assess employees' effectiveness (how well they do what they were hired to do), efficiency (their relative outputs to relative inputs), and their productivity (how much they help the organization reach its goals). Jex & Britt outline three different forms of productive behavior that industrial–organizational psychologists frequently evaluate in organizations: job performance; organizational citizenship behavior; and innovation.

Job performance

Job performance represents behaviors employees engage in while at work which contribute to organizational goals. These behaviors are formally evaluated by an organization as part of an employee's responsibilities. In order to understand and ultimately predict job performance, it is important to be precise when defining the term. Job performance is about behaviors that are within the control of the employee and not about results (effectiveness), the costs involved in achieving results (productivity), the results that can be achieved in a period of time (efficiency), or the value an organization places on a given level of performance, effectiveness, productivity or efficiency (utility).

To model job performance, researchers have attempted to define a set of dimensions that are common to all jobs. Using a common set of dimensions provides a consistent basis for assessing performance and enables the comparison of performance across jobs. Performance is commonly broken into two major categories: in-role (technical aspects of a job) and extra-role (non-technical abilities such as communication skills and being a good team member). While this distinction in behavior has been challenged it is commonly made by both employees and management. A model of performance by Campbell breaks performance into in-role and extra-role categories. Campbell labeled job-specific task proficiency and non-job-specific task proficiency as in-role dimensions, while written and oral communication, demonstrating effort, maintaining personal discipline, facilitating peer and team performance, supervision and leadership and management and administration are labeled as extra-role dimensions. Murphy's model of job performance also broke job performance into in-role and extra-role categories. However, task-orientated behaviors composed the in-role category and the extra-role category included interpersonally-oriented behaviors, down-time behaviors and destructive and hazardous behaviors. However, it has been challenged as to whether the measurement of job performance is usually done through pencil/paper tests, job skills tests, on-site hands-on tests, off-site hands-on tests, high-fidelity simulations, symbolic simulations, task ratings and global ratings. These various tools are often used to evaluate performance on specific tasks and overall job performance. Van Dyne and LePine developed a measurement model in which overall job performance was evaluated using Campbell's in-role and extra-role categories. Here, in-role performance was reflected through how well "employees met their performance expectations and performed well at the tasks that made up the employees' job." Dimensions regarding how well the employee assists others with their work for the benefit of the group, if the employee voices new ideas for projects or changes to procedure and whether the employee attends functions that help the group composed the extra-role category.

To assess job performance, reliable and valid measures must be established. While there are many sources of error with performance ratings, error can be reduced through rater training and through the use of behaviorally-anchored rating scales. Such scales can be used to clearly define the behaviors that constitute poor, average, and superior performance. Additional factors that complicate the measurement of job performance include the instability of job performance over time due to forces such as changing performance criteria, the structure of the job itself and the restriction of variation in individual performance by organizational forces. These factors include errors in job measurement techniques, acceptance and the justification of poor performance and lack of importance of individual performance.

The determinants of job performance consist of factors having to do with the individual worker as well as environmental factors in the workplace. According to Campbell's Model of The Determinants of Job Performance, job performance is a result of the interaction between declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts or things), procedural knowledge (knowledge of what needs to be done and how to do it), and motivation (reflective of an employee's choices regarding whether to expend effort, the level of effort to expend, and whether to persist with the level of effort chosen). The interplay between these factors show that an employee may, for example, have a low level of declarative knowledge, but may still have a high level of performance if the employee has high levels of procedural knowledge and motivation.

Regardless of the job, three determinants stand out as predictors of performance: (1) general mental ability (especially for jobs higher in complexity); (2) job experience (although there is a law of diminishing returns); and (3) the personality trait of conscientiousness (people who are dependable and achievement-oriented, who plan well). These determinants appear to influence performance largely through the acquisition and usage of job knowledge and the motivation to do well. Further, an expanding area of research in job performance determinants includes emotional intelligence.

Organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational citizenship behaviors ("OCBs") are another form of productive behavior, having been shown to be beneficial to both organization and team effectiveness. Dennis Organ is often thought of as the father of OCB research and defines OCBs as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization." Behaviors that qualify as OCBs can fall into one of the following five categories: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue.

Researchers have adapted, elaborated, or otherwise changed Organ's (1988) five OCB categories, but they remain popular today. The categories and their descriptions are as follows:

• AltruismSometimes referred to as "prosocial behavior" altruistic OCBs include helping behaviors in the workplace such as volunteering to assist a coworker on a project.
• CourtesyThese behaviors can be seen when an employee exhibits basic consideration for others. Examples of courteous OCBs include "checking up" on coworkers to see how they are doing and notifying coworkers of commitments that may cause you to be absent from work.
• SportsmanshipUnlike other forms of OCBs, sportsmanship involves not engaging in certain behaviors, such as whining and complaining about minor issues or tough work assignments.
• ConscientiousnessConscientiousness is basically defined as self-discipline and performing tasks beyond the minimum requirements. Conscientious OCBs involve planning ahead, cleanliness, not "slacking off," adhering to the rules, punctuality, and being an overall good citizen in the workplace.
• Civic virtueCivic virtue differs from other OCBs because the target of the behavior is the group or organization as a whole, rather than an individual coworker. Civic virtue OCBs include being a good representative of the organization and supporting the organization, especially in its efforts outside of its major business objectives. Examples of civic virtue OCBs are participating in charitable functions held by the organization and defending or otherwise speaking well of the organization.

OCBs are also categorized using other methods. For example, Williams and Anderson categorize OCBs by their intended target, separating them into those targeted at individuals ("OCBIs"), supervisors ("OCBSs"), and those targeted at the organization as a whole ("OCBOs"). Additionally, Vigoda-Gadot uses a sub-category of OCBs called CCBs, or "compulsory OCBs" which is used to describe OCBs that are done under the influence of coercive persuasion or peer pressure rather than out of good will. This theory stems from debates concerning the reasons for conducting OCBs and whether or not they are truly voluntary in nature.

Jex & Britt offer three explanations as to why employees engage in organizational citizenship behavior. One relates to positive affect; for example, an overall positive mood tends to change the frequency of helping behavior to a higher rate. This theory stems from a history of numerous studies indicating that positive mood increases the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors.

A second explanation, which stems from equity theory, is that employees reciprocate fair treatment that they received from the organization. Equity theory researchers found that certain forms of fairness or justice predict OCB better than others. For example, Jex & Britt mention research that indicates that interactional justice is a better predictor than procedural justice, which is in turn a better predictor than distributive justice.

A third explanation Jex & Britt offer is that, on the one hand, some employees hold personal values that tend to skew their behavior positively to participate in organizational citizenship activities. On the other hand, Jex & Britt's interpretation of research results suggest that other employees will tend to perform organizational citizenship behavior merely to influence how they are viewed within the organization, not because it reflects their personally held values. While these behaviors are not formally part of the job description, performing them can certainly influence performance appraisals. In contrast to this view, some I/O psychologists believe that employees engage in OCBs as a form of "impression management," a term coined by Erving Goffman in his 1959 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman defines impression management as "the way in which the individual ... presents himself and his activity to others, the ways in which he guides and controls the impression they form of him, and the kinds of things he may and may not do while sustaining his performance before them." Researchers such as Bolino have hypothesized that the act of performing OCBs is not done out of goodwill, positive affect, etc., but instead as a way of being noticed by superiors and looking good in the eyes of others. The key difference between this view and those mentioned by Jex & Britt is that the intended beneficiary of the behavior is the individual who engages in it, rather than another individual, the organization, or the supervisor.

With this research on why employees engage in OCBs comes the debate among I/O psychologists about the voluntary or involuntary nature of engaging in OCBs. Many researchers, including the "father of OCB research," Dennis Organ have consistently portrayed OCBs as voluntary behaviors done at the discretion of the individual. However, more recently researchers have brought attention to potential underlying causes of OCBs, including social pressure, coercion, and other external forces. For example, Eran Vigoda-Gadot suggests that some, but not all, OCBs may be performed voluntarily out of goodwill, but many may be more involuntary in nature and "may arise from coercive managerial strategies or coercive social pressure by powerful peers." As mentioned previously, Vigoda-Gadot categorizes these behaviors in a separate category of OCBs as "compulsory OCBs" or CCBs, which he suggests are a form of "abusive supervision" and will result in poorer organizational performance, similar to what has been seen in other research on abusive supervision and coercive persuasion.

Innovation

Industrial and Organizational Psychologists consider innovation, more often than not, a variable of less importance and often a counter-productive one to include in conducting job performance appraisals when irrelevant to the major job functions for which a given job exists. Nonetheless, Industrial and Organizational Psychologists see the value of that variable where its consideration would, were its reliability and validity questioned, achieve a statistically significant probability that its results are not due to chance, and that it can be replicated reliably with a statistically significant ratio of reliability, and that were a court to raise a question on its reliability and validity testing, the Industrial and Organizational Psychologist behind its use would be able to defend it before a court of justice with the belief that it will stand before such a court as reliable, and valid.

With the above in mind, innovation is often considered a form of productive behavior that employees exhibit when they come up with novel ideas that further the goals of the organization. This section will discuss three topics of interest: research on innovation; characteristics of an individual that may predict innovation; and how organizations may be structured to promote innovation. According to Jex & Britt, individual and organization research can be divided into four unique research focuses.

• Focus One: The examination of the process by which an employee develops innovations and the unique characteristics of an individuals which enables them to be highly innovative. This stream of thought focuses primarily on the employee or the individual contributor.
• Focus Two: The macro perspective which focuses upon the process that innovation is diffused within a specific organization. In short, this is the process of communicating an innovation to members of an organization.
• Focus Three: The process by which an organization adopts an innovation.
• Focus Four: A shared perspective of the role of the individual and the organization's culture which contribute to innovation.

As indicated above, the first focus looks specifically to find certain attributes of an individual that may lead to innovation, therefore, one must ask, "Are there quantifiable predictors that an individual will be innovative?" Research indicates if various skills, knowledge, and abilities are present then an individual will be more apt to innovation. These qualities are generally linked to creativity. A brief overview of these characteristics are listed below.

• Task-relevant skills (general mental ability and job specific knowledge). Task specific and subject specific knowledge is most often gained through higher education; however, it may also be gained by mentoring and experience in a given field.
• Creativity-relevant skills (ability to concentrate on a problem for long periods of time, to abandon unproductive searches, and to temporarily put aside stubborn problems). The ability to put aside stubborn problems is referred to by Jex & Britt as productive forgetting. Creativity-relevant skills also require the individual contributor to evaluate a problem from multiple vantage points. One must be able to take on the perspective of various users. For example, an Operation Manager analyzing a reporting issue and developing an innovative solution would consider the perspective of a sales person, assistant, finance, compensation, and compliance officer.
• Task motivation (internal desire to perform task and level of enjoyment).

In addition to the role and characteristics of the individual, one must consider what it is that may be done on an organizational level to develop and reward innovation. A study by Damanpour identified four specific characteristics that may predict innovation within an organization. They are the following ones:

1. A population with high levels of technical knowledge
2. The organization's level of specialization
3. The level an organization communicates externally
4. Functional Differentiation.

Additionally, organizations could use and institutionalize many participatory system-processes, which could breed innovation in the workplace. Some of these items include providing creativity training, having leaders encourage and model innovation, allowing employees to question current procedures and rules, seeing that the implementation of innovations had real consequences, documenting innovations in a professional manner, allowing employees to have autonomy and freedom in their job roles, reducing the number of obstacles that may be in the way of innovation, and giving employees access to resources (whether these are monetary, informational, or access to key people inside or outside of the organization).

According to the American Productivity & Quality Center ("APQC") there are basic principles an organization can develop to encourage and reward innovation.

• The creation of a design team.
• Acknowledging those who contribute time, effort, and ideas. This recognition may come from senior leaders or through peer recognition.
• Provide special recognition to innovators while keeping names associated with contributors.
• Disseminate success stories concerning invention.
• Make innovation self-rewarding, such as the perception of being a subject matter expert.
• Linking innovation to the cultural values of the organization.
• Creating a committee of business leaders from various lines of business and human resources focused on developing guidelines and suggestions to encourage

innovation.

In discussing innovation for a Best-Practice report, APQC Knowledge Management expert, Kimberly Lopez, stated, "It requires a blending of creativity within business processes to ensure good ideas become of value to the company ... Supporting a creative environment requires innovation to be recognized, nurtured, and rewarded."

Counterproductive work behavior

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) can be defined as employee behavior that goes against the goals of an organization. These behaviors can be intentional or unintentional and result from a wide range of underlying causes and motivations. Some CWBs have instrumental motivations (e.g., theft). It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors (Fox and Spector, 1999). For instance, an employee who sabotages another employee's work may do so because of lax supervision (environment) and underlying psychopathology (person) that work in concert to result in the counterproductive behavior. There is evidence that an emotional response (e.g., anger) to job stress (e.g., unfair treatment) can motivate CWBs.

The forms of counterproductive behavior with the most empirical examination are ineffective job performance, absenteeism, job turnover, and accidents. Less common but potentially more detrimental forms of counterproductive behavior have also been investigated including violence and sexual harassment.

Leadership

In I/O psychology, leadership can be defined as a process of influencing others to agree on a shared purpose, and to work towards shared objectives. A distinction should be made between leadership and management. Managers process administrative tasks and organize work environments. Although leaders may be required to undertake managerial duties as well, leaders typically focus on inspiring followers and creating a shared organizational culture and values. Managers deal with complexity, while leaders deal with initiating and adapting to change. Managers undertake the tasks of planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling and problem solving. In contrast, leaders undertake the tasks of setting a direction or vision, aligning people to shared goals, communicating, and motivating.

Approaches to studying leadership in I/O psychology can be broadly classified into three categories: Leader-focused approaches, Contingency-focused approaches, and Follower-focused approaches.

Leader-focused approaches

Leader-focused approaches look to organizational leaders to determine the characteristics of effective leadership. According to the trait approach, more effective leaders possess certain traits that less effective leaders lack. More recently, this approach is being used to predict leader emergence. The following traits have been identified as those that predict leader emergence when there is no formal leader: high intelligence, high needs for dominance, high self-motivation, and socially perceptive. Another leader-focused approached is the behavioral approach which focuses on the behaviors that distinguish effective from ineffective leaders. There are two categories of leadership behaviors: (1) consideration; and (2) initiating structure. Behaviors associated with the category of consideration include showing subordinates they are valued and that the leader cares about them. An example of a consideration behavior is showing compassion when problems arise in or out of the office. Behaviors associated with the category of initiating structure include facilitating the task performance of groups. One example of an initiating structure behavior is meeting one-on-one with subordinates to explain expectations and goals. The final leader-focused approach is power and influence. To be most effective a leader should be able to influence others to behave in ways that are in line with the organization's mission and goals. How influential a leader can be depends on their social power or their potential to influence their subordinates. There are six bases of power: coercive power, reward power, legitimate power, expert power, referent power, and informational power. A leader can use several different tactics to influence others within an organization. These common tactics include: rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, consultation, ingratiation, exchange, personal appeal, coalition, legitimating, and pressure.

Contingency-focused approaches

Of the 3 approaches to leadership, contingency-focused approaches have been the most prevalent over the past 30 years. Contingency-focused theories base a leader's effectiveness on their ability to assess a situation and adapt their behavior accordingly. These theories assume that an effective leader can accurately "read" a situation and skillfully employ a leadership style that meets the needs of the individuals involved and the task at hand. A brief introduction to the most prominent contingency-focused theories will follow.

Fiedler's Contingency Theory holds that a leader's effectiveness depends on the interaction between their characteristics and the characteristics of the situation. Path–Goal Theory asserts that the role of the leader is to help his or her subordinates achieve their goals. To effectively do this, leaders must skillfully select from four different leadership styles to meet the situational factors. The situational factors are a product of the characteristics of subordinates and the characteristics of the environment. The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Model focuses on how leader–subordinate relationships develop. Generally speaking, when a subordinate performs well or when there are positive exchanges between a leader and a subordinate, their relationship is strengthened, performance and job satisfaction are enhanced, and the subordinate will feel more commitment to the leader and the organization as a whole. Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model focuses on decision making with respect to a feasibility set which is composed of the situational attributes.

In addition to the contingency-focused approaches mentioned, there has been a high degree of interest paid to three novel approaches that have recently emerged. The first is transformational leadership, which posits that there are certain leadership traits that inspire subordinates to perform beyond their capabilities. The second is transactional leadership, which is most concerned with keeping subordinates in-line with deadlines and organizational policy. This type of leader fills more of a managerial role and lacks qualities necessary to inspire subordinates and induce meaningful change. And the third is authentic leadership which is centered around empathy and a leader's values or character. If the leader understands their followers, they can inspire subordinates by cultivating a personal connection and leading them to share in the vision and goals of the team. Although there has been a limited amount of research conducted on these theories, they are sure to receive continued attention as the field of I/O psychology matures.

Follower-focused approaches

Follower-focused approaches look at the processes by which leaders motivate followers, and lead teams to achieve shared goals. Understandably, the area of leadership motivation draws heavily from the abundant research literature in the domain of motivation in I/O psychology. Because leaders are held responsible for their followers' ability to achieve the organization's goals, their ability to motivate their followers is a critical factor of leadership effectiveness. Similarly, the area of team leadership draws heavily from the research in teams and team effectiveness in I/O psychology. Because organizational employees are frequently structured in the form of teams, leaders need to be aware of the potential benefits and pitfalls of working in teams, how teams develop, how to satisfy team members' needs, and ultimately how to bring about team effectiveness and performance. An emerging area of research in the area of team leadership is in leading virtual teams, where people in the team are geographically-distributed across various distances and sometimes even countries. While technological advances have enabled the leadership process to take place in such virtual contexts, they present new challenges for leaders as well, such as the need to use technology to build relationships with followers, and influencing followers when faced with limited (or no) face-to-face interaction.

Organizational change/development

Organizational development

I/O psychologists are also concerned with organizational change. This effort, called organizational development (OD). Tools used to advance organization development include the survey feedback technique. The technique involves the periodic assessment (with surveys) of employee attitudes and feelings. The results are conveyed to organizational stakeholders, who may want to take the organization in a particular direction. Another tool is the team building technique. Because many if not most tasks within the organization are completed by small groups and/or teams, team building is important to organizational success. In order to enhance a team's morale and problem-solving skills, OD consultants help the groups to build their self-confidence, group cohesiveness, and working effectiveness.

Relation to organizational behavior

The I/O psychology and organizational behavior have manifested some overlap. The overlap has led to some confusion regarding how the two disciplines differ.

Ethics

In the consulting field, it is important for the consultant to maintain high ethical standards in all aspects of his or her professional relationships: consultant to client, consultant to consultant, and client to consultant. The APA’s ethical principles apply to I/O psychologist consultants. For example, ethically, the consultant should only accept projects for which he or she is qualified. With more organizations becoming global, it is important that when consultants work outside their home countries they become aware of rules, regulations, and cultures of the organizations and countries in which the consultants work, while adhering to the ethical standards set at home.

Industrial/organizational consultancy

Definition

An industrial/organizational (I/O) consultant helps clients and organizations improve productivity and create an optimal working environment. Areas of consulting include but are not limited to selection and recruiting, training, leadership, development, compensation and benefits, employee relations, performance management, succession planning, and executive coaching.

Types

Consultants can be categorized as internal or external to an organization. An internal consultant is someone who works for the organization that employs him/her. An external consultant can be either a sole proprietor or an employee of a consulting firm who is hired by another organization on a project basis or for a certain period of time.

Competencies

There are many different sets of competencies for different specializations within I/O psychology and I/O psychologists are versatile behavioral scientists. For example, an I/O psychologist specializing in selection and recruiting should have expertise in finding the best talent for the organization and getting everyone on board while he or she might not need to know much about executive coaching. Some consultants tend to specialize in specific areas of consulting whereas others tend to generalize their areas of expertise. There are basic skills and knowledge, which most consultants agree, an individual needs in order to be an effective consultant, including include intrapersonal skills (e.g., being an independent learner), interpersonal skills (e.g., listening skills), and general consultation skills (e.g., skills and knowledge in the problem area).

See also

References

Footnotes

1. Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2016). Psychology and Work: Perspectives on Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Psychology Press-Taylor & Francis.
2. Building Better Organizations Brochure published by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Retrieved from SIOP.org
3. http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/recognized.aspx
4. HPC – Health Professions Council – Protected titles. Hpc-uk.org. Retrieved on 2013-09-01.
5. .
6. "Psychology Board of Australia – Endorsement". Psychologyboard.gov.au. 2010-07-01. Retrieved 2013-09-01.
7. http://www.europsy-efpa.eu/
8. Chimiel, N. (2000). History and context for work and organizational psychology. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to work and organizational psychology :A European perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
9. Shimmin, S., & van Strien, P. J. (1998). History of the psychology of work and organization. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 71–99). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
10. Pitariu, H. D. (19912). I/O psychology in Romania: Past, present and intentions. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 29(4), 29–33.
11. Landy, F. J. (1997). Early influences on the development of industrial and organizational psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 467–477.
12. Feruson, L. (1965). The heritage of industrial psychology. Hartford, CT: Finlay Press.
13. Mayo, E. (1924). Recovery and industrial fatigue. Journal of Personnel Research, 3, 273–281.
14. Griffin, M. A., Landy, F. J., & Mayocchi, L. (2002). Australian influences on Elton Mayo: The construct of revery in industrial society. History of Psychology, 5(4), 356–375.
15. ^ Kopes, L. L. (2006). A brief history of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Accessed June 3, 2013.
16. Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equations modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17. Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA.
19. Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1994). Estimation of sampling error variance in the meta-analysis of correlations: Use of average correlation in the homogeneous case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 171–77.
20. Rosenthal, R. & DiMatteo, M.R. (2002). Meta-analysis. In H. Pashler & J. Wixted (Eds.). Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed.), Vol. 4: Methodology in experimental psychology, pp. 391–428. Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley.
21. Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Du Toit, M. (2003) IRT from SSI. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
23. Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–58.
24. Rogelberg, S. G., & Brooks-Laber, M. E. (2002). Securing our collective duture: Challenges facing those designing and doing research in industrial and organization psychology. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 479 – 485). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25. The SIOP principles
27. Uniform guidelines on eemployee selection procedures
28. Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings]. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–74.
29. Miner, J.B. (1992). Industrial-organizational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30. ^ Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Coyne, I., Garvin, F. (2013). Employee relations and motivation. In Lewis, R., & Zibarris, R. (Eds.), Work and Occupational Psychology: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage
32. Niven, K., Sprigg, C., Armitage, J., & Satchwell, A . (2013). Ruminative thinking exacerbates the negative effects of workplace violence Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(1), 67–84.
33. Aube, C, & Rousseau, V . (2011). Interpersonal aggression and team effectiveness: The mediating role of team goal commitment Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(3), 565–580.
34. ^ Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
35. Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P.S., & Bell, S.T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234–245.
36. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311 – 328.
37. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S.H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38. cite book|last=Schultz|first=Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen|title=Psychology and work today: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology|year=2010|publisher=Prentice Hall|location=Upper Saddle River, N.J.|isbn=0-205-68358-4|edition=10th}}
39. Dierdorff, E. C., & Surface, E. A. (2008). Assessing training needs: Do work experience and capability matter? Human Performance, 21, 28–48.
40. Zohar, D. (2002a). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 587–596.
41. Shippmann, J. S., et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740.
42. Pinder, C. C.(2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd edition). New York: Psychology Press
43. Deckers, L. (2010). Motivation: Biological, psychological and environmental (3rd ed., pp. 2–3). Boston, MA: Pearson.
44. ^ Jex, S.M. & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational psychology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley
45. ^ Mitchell, T.R.; Daniels, D. 2003. Motivation. Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 12. Industrial Organizational Psychology, ed. W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, R.J. Klimoski, pp. 225–54. New York: Wiley.
46. Vinchur, A.J, & Koppes, L.L. (2010). A historical survey of research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
47. Griffin, M.A, & Clarke, S. (2010). Stress and well-being at work. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
48. Hart, P.M & Cooper, C.L. (2002). Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework, In D.S. Anderson, N. Ones, and H.K. Sinangil, (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Vol. 2, Organizational Psychology (pp.93–115). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
49. ^ Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox and P.E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
50. Chen, P., & Spector, P. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with workplace aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 177–184.
51. Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2002). Social stressors at work, irritation, and depressive symptoms: Accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi-wave study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 33–58.
52. Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S. French, J.R.P., Jr., Harrison, R.V., & Pinneau, S.R., Jr. (1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publication No. (NIOSH) 75–160. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
53. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–307.
54. Hart, P, Wearing, A & Heady, B. (1995). Police stress and well-being: Integrating personality, coping and daily work experiences Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 133–156
55. Twellaar, M, Winnants, H & Houkes, I . (2008). Specific determinants of burnout among male and female general practitioners: A cross-lagged panel analysis Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 249–276
56. Demattio, M, Shuggars, D & Hays, R. (1993). Occupational stress, life stress and mental health among dentists Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 153–162
57. Swanson, V, Power, K & Simpson, R. (1998). Occupational stress and family life: A comparison of male and female doctors Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 237–260
58. Vinokur A.D., Pierce P.F., Buck C.L. (1999). Work-family conflicts of women in the Air Force: their influence on mental health and functioning. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20, 865–878.
59. Gardiner, M., & Tiggemann, M. (1999). Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and mental health in male- and female-dominated industries Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(3), 301–315.
60. Paul, K., & Moser, K. (2006). Incongruence as an explanation for the negative mental health effects of unemployment: Meta-analytic evidence. Journal Of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(4), 595–621. doi:10.1348/096317905X70823
61. Ullah, K. (1990). The association between income, financial strain and psychological well-being among unemployed youths. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 317–330.
62. VanYperen, M., & Schaufeli, K. (1992). Unemployment and psychological distress among graduates: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 291–305.
63. Yang, L, Che, H, & Spector, P. (2008). Job stress and well-being: An examination from the view of person-environment fit Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 567–587.
64. Goldstone, R.; Roberts, M. & Gureckis, T. (2008). Emergent processes of group behavior. Group Behavior, 17, 1–15.
65. Rousseau, V. & Aube, C. (2011). Interpersonal aggression and team effectiveness: The mediating role of team goal commitment Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(3), 565–580.
66. Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000) Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44-67. doi:org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.44
67. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
68. Bowling, K., Eschleman, J., & Wang, Q (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 915–934.
69. ^ Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
70. Morrison, E.W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–67.
71. ^ Van Dyne & LePine (1998). Helping and Voice Extra-role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Feb. 1998, pp. 108–19).
72. ^ Campbell, J.P. (1994). Alternative models of job performance and their implications for selection and classification. In M.G. Rumsey; C.B. Walker & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 33–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. ^ Murphy, K.R. (1994). Toward a broad conceptualization of jobs and job performance: Impact of changes in the military environment on the structure, assessment, and prediction of job performance. In M.G. Rumsey; C.B. Walker & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 85–102), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
74. Murphy, K.R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In R. Dillon & J.W. Pelligrino (Eds.), Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 218–47). New York: Praeger
75. Jex, S.M. & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational Psychology. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
76. Pulakos, E.D. (1984). A comparison of rater training programs: Error training and accuracy training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 581–88)
77. Baron, R.; Handley R. & Fund S. (2006). The impact of emotional intelligence on performance. In V.U. Druskat; F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 3–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
78. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
79. ^ Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA England: Lexington Books/D.C. Heath and Com.
80. Organ, D.W. (1977). Inferences about trends in labor force satisfaction: A causal-correlational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20(4), 510–19. doi:10.2307/255353
81. Organ, D.W. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and the good soldier. In M.G. Rumsey; C.B. Walker; J. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 53–67). Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
82. Williams, L.J. & Anderson, S.E. (1994). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior. Journal of Management, 17, 601–17
83. ^ Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory Citizenship Behavior: Theorizing Some Dark Sides of the Good Soldier Syndrome in Organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(1), 77–93. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2006.00297.
84. George, J.M. & Brief, A.P. (1992). Somewhat like the idea that "feeling good" leads to "doing good." A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.310
85. Goffman, E. (2006). The Presentation of Self. In D. Brissett; C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook (2nd ed.) (pp. 129–39). New Brunswick, NJ US: AldineTransaction.
86. Bolino, M.C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82–98. doi:10.2307/259038
87. Frank, K.; Zhao, Y.; Borman, K. (2004) Social Capital and the Diffusion of Innovations within Organizations: The Case of Computer Technology in Schools. Sociology of Education 2004, Vol 77 (April): 148–71.
88. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–90.
89. ^ Leavitt, Paige (2002). Rewarding Innovation. American Productivity & Quality Center. Copyright 1994–2002 APQC
90. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
91. Daft, R.L. (2011). Leadership (5th Ed.). Australia: Cengage.
92. Hughes, R.L.; Ginnett, R.C. & Curphy, G.J. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (6th Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
93. ^ Jex, S.M. & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational Psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
94. Goleman, Daniel (2002). Primal Leadership. USA: Harvard Business School Press.
95. Schultz, Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2010). Psychology and work today : an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-205-68358-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
96. Miner, J.(2006) Organizational behavior 3: Historical origins, theoretical foundations and the future. Wiley.
97. Jex, S.M., & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
98. Biech, E. (Ed.) (2007). The ethics of the business. The business of consulting: The basics and beyond (pp. 231–244). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
99. Mobley, W. H. (2008). Rules of thumb for international consultants. In J. W. Hedge, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), The I/O consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 309–314). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
100. Block, P. (Ed.) (2011). A consultant by any other name. Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (pp. 1–11). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
101. Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2015). Organization development and change. Boston: Cengage.

Sources

• Aube, C. & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 189–204.
• Barrick, M.R.; Stewart, S.L.; Neubert, M.J. & Mount, M.K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to Work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–91.
• Dematteo, J.S.; Eby, L.T. & Sundstrom, E. (1998). Team-based rewards: Current empirical evidence and directions for future research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 141–83.
• Guzzo, R.A. & Shea, G.P. (1992). Group Performance and intergroup relations in organizations. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269–313).
• Hackman, J.R.; Brousseau, K.R. & Weiss, J.A. (1976). The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 350–65.
• Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Haines, V.Y. & Taggar, S. (2006). Antecedents of team reward attitude. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 194–205.
• Lock, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and beyond: An operant and social learning approach (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
• Mitchell, T.R. & Silver, W.R. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent. Effects on task strategy and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 185–193.
• Salas, E.; Stagl, K. & Burke, C. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs, in C. Cooper & I. Robertson (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19 (pp. 47–91). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
• Sundstrom, E.; De Meuse, K.P. & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–33.
• Sundstrom, E.; McIntyre, M.; Halfhill, T. & Richards, H. (2000). Work Groups: From the Hawthorne Studies to Work Teams of the 1990s and Beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice (Vol 4, No 1. 44–47).
• Van Vianen, A.E.M. & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 97–120.
• Wageman, R. & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 139–58.
• Whitney, K. (1994). Improving group task performance: The role of group goals and group efficacy. Human Performance, 7, 55–78.

Further reading

• Anderson, N.; Ones, D.S.; Sinangil, H.K. & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Volume 1: Personnel psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
• Anderson, N.; Ones, D.S.; Sinangil, H.K. & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Volume 2: Organizational psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
• Borman, W.C.; Ilgen, D.R. & Klimoski, R.J. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of psychology: Vol 12 Industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Borman, W.C. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Chapter in N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection. San Francisco: Josey-Bass (pp. 71–98).
• Campbell, J.P.; Gasser, M.B. & Oswald, F.L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258–99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Copley, F.B. (1923). Frederick W. Taylor father of scientific management, Vols. I and II. New York: Taylor Society.
• Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.). (1976). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Dunnette, M.D. & Hough, L.M. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (4 Volumes). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Guion, R.M. (1998). Assessment, measurement and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Jones, Ishmael (2008). The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture. New York: Encounter Books.
• Koppes, L.L. (Ed.). (2007). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Lant, T.K. "Organizational Cognition and Interpretation," in Baum, (Ed)., The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Lowman, R.L. (Ed.). (2002). The California School of Organizational Studies handbook of organizational consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills and techniques. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Rogelberg, S.G. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Sackett, P.R. & Wilk, S.L. (1994). Within group norming and other forms of score adjustment in pre-employment testing. American Psychologist, 49, 929–54.
• Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–74.

External links

• Canadian Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• British Psychological Society's Division of Occupational Psychology's (DOP) website
• Society for Industrial & Organisational Psychology of South Africa
• European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology
• Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

v t e Psychology
History Philosophy Portal Psychologist
Basic psychology	Abnormal Affective neuroscience Affective science Behavioral genetics Behavioral neuroscience Behaviorism Cognitive/Cognitivism Cognitive neuroscience Social Comparative Cross-cultural Cultural Developmental Differential Ecological Evolutionary Experimental Gestalt Intelligence Mathematical Moral Neuropsychology Perception Personality Psycholinguistics Psychophysiology Quantitative Social Theoretical
Applied psychology	Anomalistic Applied behavior analysis Assessment Clinical Coaching Community Consumer Counseling Critical Educational Ergonomics Feminist Forensic Health Humanistic Industrial and organizational Legal Media Medical Military Music Occupational health Pastoral Political Positive Psychometrics Psychotherapy Religion School Sport and exercise Suicidology Systems Traffic
Methodologies	Animal testing Archival research Behavior epigenetics Case study Content analysis Experiments Human subject research Interviews Neuroimaging Observation Psychophysics Qualitative research Quantitative research Self-report inventory Statistical surveys
Concepts	Behavior Behavioral engineering Behavioral genetics Behavioral neuroscience Cognition Competence Consciousness Consumer behavior Emotions Feelings Human factors and ergonomics Intelligence Mind Psychology of religion Psychometrics Terror management theory
Psychologists	Wilhelm Wundt William James Ivan Pavlov Sigmund Freud Edward Thorndike Carl Jung John B. Watson Clark L. Hull Kurt Lewin Jean Piaget Gordon Allport J. P. Guilford Carl Rogers Erik Erikson B. F. Skinner Donald O. Hebb Ernest Hilgard Harry Harlow Raymond Cattell Abraham Maslow Neal E. Miller Jerome Bruner Donald T. Campbell Hans Eysenck Herbert A. Simon David McClelland Leon Festinger George A. Miller Richard Lazarus Stanley Schachter Robert Zajonc Albert Bandura Roger Brown Endel Tulving Lawrence Kohlberg Noam Chomsky Ulric Neisser Jerome Kagan Walter Mischel Elliot Aronson Daniel Kahneman Paul Ekman Michael Posner Amos Tversky Bruce McEwen Larry Squire Richard E. Nisbett Martin Seligman Ed Diener Shelley E. Taylor John Anderson Ronald C. Kessler Joseph E. LeDoux Richard Davidson Susan Fiske Roy Baumeister
Lists	Counseling topics Disciplines Organizations Outline Psychologists Psychotherapies Research methods Schools of thought Timeline Topics
Wiktionary definition Wiktionary category Wikisource Wikimedia Commons Wikiquote Wikinews Wikibooks

• Industrial and organizational psychology
• Applied psychology
• Behavioural sciences
• Branches of psychology
• Systems psychology