Industrial and organizational psychology

From Psychotherapedia
Revision as of 12:41, 19 June 2012 by 106.187.91.118 (Talk) (→‎Training and training evaluation)

Jump to: navigation, search

Kick the tires and light the fires, problem officially solevd!

Industrial and organizational psychology (also known as I-O psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, work psychology, organizational psychology, work and organizational psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, personnel psychology or talent assessment) applies psychology to organizations and workplaces. These organizations and workplaces include for-profit businesses, non-profits, government agencies, colleges, universities, and graduate and professional school programs. Industrial-organizational psychologists contribute to an organization's success by improving the performance and well-being of its people. An I-O psychologist researches and identifies how behaviors and attitudes can be improved through hiring practices, training programs, and feedback systems.[1] In the academic context, an I-O psychologist's research might similarly focus on improving admissions systems, learning outcomes, academic achievement, degree completion, and teaching and assessment methodologies.

Overview

Guion (1965) defines I-O psychology as "the scientific study of the relationship between man and the world of work:... in the process of making a living" (p. 817). Blum and Naylor (1968) define it as "simply the application or extension of psychological facts and principles to the problems concerning human beings operating within the context of business and industry" (p. 4). I-O psychology has historically subsumed two broad areas of study, as evident by its name, although this distinction is largely artificial and many topics cut across both areas. It has roots in social psychology; organizational psychologists examine the role of the work environment in performance and other outcomes including job satisfaction and health. I-O psychology is also represented by Division 14 of the American Psychological Association. Sometimes, I-O psychology is considered a sister field or branch of organizational studies, organizational science, organizational behavior, human resources, and/or management, but there is no universally accepted classification system for these related fields.

Common research and practice areas for I-O psychologists include:

I-O psychologists are trained in the "scientist-practitioner" model. The training enables I-O psychologists to employ scientific principles and research-based designs to generate knowledge. They use what they have learned in applied settings to help clients address workplace needs. I-O psychologists are employed as professors, researchers, and consultants. They also work within organizations, often as part of a human resources department where they coordinate hiring and organizational development initiatives from an evidence-based perspective.

History

The "industrial" side of I-O psychology has its historical origins in research on individual differences, assessment, and the prediction of performance. This branch of the field crystallized during World War I, in response to the need to rapidly assign new troops to duty stations. After the War the growing industrial base in the US added impetus to I-O psychology. Walter Dill Scott, who was elected President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1919, was arguably the most prominent I-O psychologist of his time, although James McKeen Cattell (elected APA President in 1895) and Hugo Münsterberg (1898) were influential in the early development of the field.[2] Organizational psychology gained prominence after World War II, influenced by the Hawthorne studies and the work of researchers such as Kurt Lewin and Muzafer Sherif.

Research methods in I-O psychology

Template loop detected: Template:See also 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 both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative methods used in I-O psychology include both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (e.g., correlation, multiple regression, and analysis of variance). More advanced statistical methods employed by some I-O psychologists include logistic regression, multivariate analysis of variance, structural equation modeling,[3] and hierarchical linear modeling[4] (HLM; also known as multilevel modeling). HLM is particularly applicable to research on team- and organization-level effects on individuals. I-O psychologists also employ psychometric methods including methods associated with classical test theory[5] (CTT), generalizability theory, and item response theory (IRT).[6] In the 1990s, a growing body of empirical research in I-O psychology was influential in the application of meta-analysis, particularly in the area of the stability of research findings across contexts. The most well-known meta-analytic approaches are those associated with Hunter and Schmidt,[7][8][9] Rosenthal,[10][11] and Hedges and Olkin.[12] With the help of meta-analysis, Hunter and Schmidt[13][14] advanced the idea of validity generalization, which suggests that some performance predictors, specifically cognitive ability tests (see especially Hunter [1986][15] and Hunter & Schmidt [1996][16]) have a relatively stable and positive relation to job performance across all jobs. Although not unchallenged, validity generalization has broad acceptance with regard to many selection instruments (e.g., cognitive ability tests, job knowledge tests, work samples, and structured interviews) across a broad range of jobs. Qualitative methods employed in I-O psychology include content analysis, focus groups, interviews, case studies, and several other observational techniques. I-O research on organizational culture research has employed ethnographic techniques and participant observation to collect data. One well-known qualitative technique employed in I-O psychology is John Flanagan's[17] Critical Incident Technique, which requires "qualified observers" (e.g., pilots in studies of aviation, construction workers in studies of construction projects) to describe a work situation that resulted in a good or bad outcome. Objectivity is ensured when multiple observers identify the same incidents. The observers are also asked to provide information about what the actor in the situation could have done differently to influence the outcome. This technique is then used to describe the critical elements of performance in certain jobs and how worker behavior relates to outcomes. Most notably, this technique has been employed to improve performance among aircraft crews and surgical teams, literally saving thousands of lives since its introduction. An application of the technique in research on coping with job stress comes from O'Driscoll and Cooper.[18]

I-O psychologists sometimes use quantitative and qualitative methods in concert. For example, when constructing behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), a job analyst may use qualitative methods, such as critical incidents interviews and focus groups to collect data bearing on performance. Then the analyst would have SMEs rate those examples on a Likert scale and compute inter-rater agreement statistics to judge the adequacy of each item. Each potential item would additionally be correlated with an external criterion in order to evaluate its usefulness if it were to be selected to be included in a BARS metric.

Topics in industrial-organizational psychology

Job analysis

Job analysis is often described as the cornerstone of successful employee selection efforts and performance management initiatives. A job analysis involves the systematic collection of information about a job. Job-analytic methods are often described as belonging to one of two approaches. One approach, the task-oriented job analysis, involves an examination of the duties, tasks, and/or competencies required by a job. The second approach, a worker-oriented job analysis, involves an examination of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required to successfully perform the work. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Various adaptations of job-analytic methods include competency modeling, which examines large groups of duties and tasks related to a common goal or process, and practice analysis, which examines the way work is performed in an occupation across jobs.

Job-analytic data are often collected using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods. The information obtained from a job analysis is then used to create job-relevant selection procedures, performance appraisals and criteria, or training programs. Additional uses of job-analytic information include job evaluations for the purpose of determining compensation levels and job redesign.

Personnel recruitment and selection

I-O psychologists typically work with HR 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 new hires and individuals who can be promoted from within the organization. Common selection tools include ability tests (e.g., cognitive, physical, or psychomotor), 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, evidence that bears on the validity of selection tools.

Personnel selection procedures are usually validated, i.e., shown to be job relevant, using one or more of the following types of validity: content validity, construct validity, and/or criterion-related validity. I-O psychologists adhere to professional standards, such as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology's (SIOP) Principles for Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures[19] and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.[20] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines[21] are also influential in guiding personnel selection although they have been criticized as outdated when compared to the current state of knowledge in I-O psychology.

I-O psychologists not only help in the selection and assessment of personnel for jobs. I-O psychologists also assist in the selection of students for admission to colleges, universities, and graduate and professional schools as well as the assessment of student achievement, student aptitude, and the performance of teachers and K-12 schools. Increasingly, I-O psychologists are working for educational assessment and testing organizations and divisions.

Performance appraisal/management

Performance appraisal or performance evaluation is the process of measuring an individual's work behaviors and outcomes against the expectations of 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 improvement information (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, physical tests, psychomotor tests, personality tests, work samples, and assessment centers.

Psychometrics is the science of measuring psychological variables, such as knowledge, skills, and abilities. I-O psychologists are generally well-trained in psychometric psychology.

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.

Dear Sam,I believe you sohlud just jump into a job and get some real interactive marketing training!Are you working in the field now?I can give you a little coaching, if you are interested just reply here I will get back with you.Diane

Motivation in the workplace

Understanding what motivates an organization’s employees is central to the study of I/O Psychology. A number of various theories and topics define employee motivation within the discipline of I/O Psychology: Motives and Needs, Work Design, Expectancy Theory, Equity Theory, Goal-Setting, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Reinforcement Theory, Creativity, Groups, and Culture.[22]

Motives & Needs

Most recently, research in motives and needs in I/O Psychology has concentrated on two areas: Job attributes and Need for Achievement.[22]

Job attributes

It is impossible to discuss motivation and job attributes in I/O Psychology without crediting Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory (also referred to as Herzberg’s 2-Factor Model). As the first job-based theory, Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory argued the content of a person’s job was the primary source of motivation. In other words, he argued money was not the most effective form of motivation to an employee. Essentially, Herzberg argued high levels of hygiene factors (pay, job security, status, working conditions, fringe benefits, job policies, and relations with co-workers) could only reduce employee dissatisfaction (not create satisfaction). Motivation factors (level of challenge, the work itself, responsibility, recognition, advancement, intrinsic interest, and opportunities for creativity) however, could stimulate satisfaction within the employee.[23]


Shortly after Herzberg’s 2-Factor Model, Hackman and Oldham contributed their own, more refined, job-based theory; Job Characteristics Theory. JCT attempts to define the association between core job dimensions, the critical psychological states that occur as a result of these dimensions, the affective outcomes, and growth need strength. Core job dimensions are the characteristics of a person’s job. The core job dimensions are linked directly to the critical psychological states. According to JCT, an organization that provides sufficient levels of skill variety, task identity, and task significance to its employees will in turn deliver experienced meaningfulness. Sufficient levels of autonomy will inspire felt responsibility for the employee, and proper feedback will provide the employee with knowledge of results. The combined effect of these psychological states results in a desired affected outcome: Internal motivation, job satisfaction, performance quality, low absenteeism, and low turnover rate.[23] Lastly, the glue of this theory is the “growth need strength” factor which ultimately determines the effectiveness of the core job dimensions on the psychological states, and likewise the effectiveness of the critical psychological states on the affective outcomes.[24] Further analysis of Job Characteristics Theory can be found in the Work Design section below.

Need for Achievement

Atkinson & McClelland’s Need for Achievement Theory is the most relevant and applicable need based theory in the I/O Psychologist’s arsenal. Unlike other need-based theories which try to interpret every need, Need for Achievement allows the I/O psychologist to concentrate research into a tighter focus. Studies show those who have a high need for achievement prefer moderate levels of risk, seek feedback, and are likely to immerse themselves in their work.

Achievement motivation can be broken down into three types: Achievement; seeks position advancement, feedback, and sense of accomplishment, Authority; need to lead, make an impact and be heard by others, and Affiliation; need for friendly social interactions and to be liked. Because most individuals have a combination of these three types (in various proportions), an understanding of these achievement motivation characteristics can be useful to management in job placement, recruitment, etc.[25]

Work Design

Job based theories of motivation in Organizational Psychology rely on the proposition that the content of one’s job is the most significant source of motivation. Based on that assumption, several approaches to work design have been researched and applied, including Hertzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory and Job Characteristics theory. Each theory has informed the evolution of work design approaches. The following work design approaches to motivation illustrate this evolution: the Humanistic Approach which then led to the Job Characteristics Approach to job design.

Humanistic Approach

The Humanistic Approach to job design was a reaction to the “worker dissatisfaction over Scientific Management” and focused on providing employees with more input and an opportunity to maximize their personal achievement as referenced by Jex and Britt.[23] The two approaches used in the Humanistic Approach to job design are job rotation and job enrichment. Job rotation allows employees to learn new skills and provides them with greater variety. According to Jex and Britt[23] this would be most effective for simple jobs that can become mundane and boring over time. Job enrichment is based on leveraging those aspects of jobs that are labeled motivators, such as control, intellectual challenge, and creativity. The most common form of job enrichment is vertical loading where additional tasks or discretion enhances the initial job design.

Job Characteristics Approach

The Job Characteristics Approach to job design relies on how core dimensions affect motivation. These dimensions include autonomy, variety, significance, feedback, and identity. Jex and Britt[23] highlight several interventions related to enhancing these core dimensions:

  1. Vertical Loading – similar to the intervention used in the Humanistic Job Enrichment approach. This intervention is designed to enhance autonomy, task identity, task significance, and skill variety.
  2. Task Combination – by combining tasks into larger units of work and responsibility, task identity may be enhanced.
  3. Natural Work Units – is a form of task combination that represents a logical body of work and responsibility that may enhance both task significance and task identity.
  4. Establishing Client Relationships – designs interactions between employees and customers, both internal and external to enhance task identify, feedback, and task significance by improving the visibility of beneficial effects on customers.
  5. Feedback – by designing open feedback channels this intervention attempts to increase the amount of feedback received.

In the same way that job based theories of motivation have evolved over time, the approach to designing work for motivating employees has evolved. The Humanistic Approach attempts to improve the effectiveness of motivation by focusing on design from the workers perspective, with an eye towards input and personal achievement. The Job Characteristics Approach attempts to enhance motivation by focusing on improving the core dimensions of autonomy, variety, significance, feedback, and identity.

Expectancy Theory

According to Vroom’s expectancy theory, an employee will expend additional effort if he believes "going above and beyond" will lead to valued rewards. Expectancy theory explains this increased output of effort by means of the equation F = E (Σ I x V), whereas:


F (Effort or Motivational Force) = Effort the employee will expend to achieve the desired performance;


E (Expectancy) = Belief that effort will result in desired level of performance;


I (Instrumentality) = Belief that desired level of performance will result in desired outcome;


V (Valence) = Value of the outcome to the employee.[23]


There are three key considerations in applying expectancy theory to the workplace:


Performance-Outcome Expectancy:

Employees believe that if they perform as desired by their employer, they will be rewarded with certain outcomes.


Outcome Attractiveness:

Each individual employee is motivated by different kinds of rewards. A precursor to motivation is that the employee finds the reward(s) attractive.


Effort-Performance Expectancy:

The employee internally considers how likely it is that he will achieve the performance desired by the employer. In order for the employee to be motivated by the reward, the employee must believe that he is capable of achieving the desired performance.


Expectancy theory posits employee satisfaction to be an outcome of performance rather than the cause of performance. However, if a pattern is established whereas an employee understands his performance will lead to certain desired rewards, an employee’s motivation can be strengthened based on anticipation.[26]

Equity Theory

Equity theory provides a framework for understanding the dynamic give-and-take scenarios that play out between employee and employer. The theory examines the value proposition the employee forms when he considers the value that he provides to his employer relative to the value that his employer provides to him.[27] In particular, equity theory research has tested employee sentiments regarding equitable compensation.

Employee inputs take the form of work volume and quality, performance, knowledge, skills, attributes and behaviors. The company-generated outcomes include rewards such as compensation, praise and advancement opportunities. The employee compares his inputs relative to outcomes, in effect forming a ratio of inputs to outcomes. Equity theory proposes that the employee will next compare his own inputs/outcomes ratio with what he believes to be the inputs/outcomes ratios of his peers so as to determine if he is being under-compensated, over-compensated or equitably compensated.[27]

While it has been established that equity theory provides insight into scenarios of under-compensation, the theory has generally failed to demonstrate its usefulness in understanding scenarios of overcompensation.[22] In the late 1990s and early 2000s, equity theory research was superseded by research using an organizational justice framework.[28][22]

Goal Setting

An I/O psychologist can assist an employer in designing task related goals for their employees that are 1) attainable, 2) specific, 3) appropriately difficult, and 4) feedback providing, in hopes of inspiring tunnel vision focus in the employees.[29] Studies have shown both feedback from the employer and self-efficacy (belief in one's capabilities to achieve a goal) within the employee must be present for goal setting to be effective.[24] However, because of the tunnel vision focus created by goal setting theory, several studies have shown this motivational theory may not be applicable in all situations. In fact, in tasks that require creative on the spot improvising, goal setting can even be counterproductive.[30] Furthermore, because clear goal specificity is essential to a properly designed goal setting task, multiple goals can create confusion for the employee and the end result is a muted overall drive.[31] Despite its flaws, Goal Setting theory is arguably the most dominant theory in the field of I/O Psychology, with more than one thousand articles and reviews pertaining to the Theory being published in just over thirty years.[32][28]

Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) is a subset of self-determination theory (SDT) as proposed by Deci and Ryan. CET attempts to determine whether the employee is motivated by sources that are internal, external or a combination of internal and external. CET was proposed for examining conditions in which both internal and external factors contribute to motivation, in particular the impact of external factors on intrinsic motivation. CET theorizes that external factors including rewards and managerial oversight can make an employee feel that he is being manipulated by others, which can result in decreased intrinsic motivation.[33]

Reinforcement Theory

Among the various theories of motivation, the reinforcement theory has received great attention within the past few decades. In short, this theory highlights the relationship between behavior and its consequences. At the most pedestrian level, reinforcement was first brought to the forefront by Skinner when he shared findings on pigeons pressing buttons (behavior) to receive food (consequence). When translated into motivation in the workplace, the reinforcement theory certainly has its applications. At a systematic level, employee behaviors are identified, measured, and analyzed in terms of their functional consequences,[22] and then an intervention is implemented to encourage an increase in motivation. The studies which used this framework showed an improvement in performance after the intervention.[22] Further, Sama, Kopelman, and Manning[34] found that use of a reinforcement strategy called Premack’s principles improved employees’ productivity twofold. Punishment is also part of the reinforcement theory in that it attempts to decrease undesired behaviors. While studies have shown that punishment may produce an overall behavior change, it decreases employee morale and intrinsic motivation and should thus be avoided.[35]

Creativity

On the cutting edge of research pertaining to motivation in the workplace is the integration of motivation and creativity. Essentially, according to Ambrose and Kulik,[22] the same variables that predict intrinsic motivation are associated with creativity. This is a helpful conclusion in that organizations can measure and influence both creativity and motivation simultaneously. Further, allowing employees to choose creative and challenging jobs/tasks has been shown to improve motivation.[28] In order to increase creativity, setting “creativity goals” can positively influence the process, along with allowing more autonomy (i.e. giving employees freedom to feel/be creative). Other studies have found that team support may enable more creativity in a group setting,[36] also increasing motivation.

Groups and Teams

As the workplace is changing to include more group-based systems, researching motivation within these groups is of growing importance. To date, a great amount of research has focused on the Job Characteristics theory and the goal-setting theory. While more research is needed that draws on a broader range of motivation theories, research thus far has concluded several things; a)semi-autonomous groups report higher levels of job scope (related to intrinsic job satisfaction), extrinsic satisfaction, and organizational commitment; and b) developmentally mature teams have higher job motivation and innovation. Further, voluntarily formed work teams report high work motivation.[22] Though research shows that appropriate goal-setting influences group motivation and performance, more research is needed in this area (group goals, individual goals, cohesiveness, etc.). There are inseparable mediating variables consisting of group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. As the workplace environment calls for more and more teams to be formed, research into motivation of teams is ever-pressing. Thus far, overarching research merely suggests that individual-level and team-level sources of motivation are congruent with each other.[37] Consequently, research should be expanded to apply more theories of motivation; look at group dynamics; and essentially conclude how groups can be most impacted to increase motivation and, consequently, performance.

Culture

Kotter and Heskett[38] categorize organization cultures into three groups: Strong, Strategically Appropriate, and Adaptive. Each has been identified with high performing organizations and has particular implications on motivation in the workplace.

Strength

According to Kotter and Heskett,[38] the most widely reported effect of culture on performance is that strong cultures result in high performance. The three reasons for this are goal alignment, motivation, and the resulting structure provided. Goal alignment is driven by the proposed unified voice that drives employees in the same direction. Motivation comes from the strength of values and principles in such a culture. And structure is provided by these same attributes which obviate the need for formal controls that could stifle employees. There are questions that concern researchers about causality and the veracity of the driving voice of a strong culture.

Strategically Appropriateness

A strategically appropriate culture motivates due to the direct support for performance in the market and industry: “The better the fit, the better the performance; the poorer the fit, the poorer the performance,” state Kotter and Heskett.[38] There is an appeal to the idea that cultures are designed around the operations conditions a firm encounters although an outstanding issue is the question of adapting culture to changes in the environment.

Adaptability

Another perspective in culture literature asserts that in order for an organization to perform at a high level over a long period of time, it must be able to adapt to changes in the environment. According to Ralph Kilmann, in such a culture “there is a shared feeling of confidence: the members believe, without a doubt, that they can effectively manage whatever new problems and opportunities will come their way.” In effect, the culture is infused with a high degree of self-efficacy and confidence. As with the strong culture, critics point to the fact that the theory provides nothing in the way of appropriate direction of adaptation that leads to high performance.

Competing Values Framework

Another perspective on culture and motivation comes from the work of Cameron and Quinn[39] and the Competing Values Framework. They divide cultures into four quadrants: Clan, Adhocracy, Market, Hierarchy, with particular characteristics that directly affect employee motivation.

  • ‘’Clan’’ cultures are collaborative and driven by values such as commitment, communication, and individual development. Motivation results from human development, employee engagement, and a high degree of open communication.
  • ‘’Adhocracy’’ cultures are creative and innovative. Motivation in such cultures arises from finding creative solutions to problems, continually improving, and empowering agility.
  • ‘’Market’’ cultures focus on value to the customer and are typically competitive and aggressive. Motivation in the market culture results from winning in the marketplace and creating external partnerships.
  • And finally, ‘’Hierarchy’’ cultures value control, efficiency, and predictability. Motivation in such a culture relies on effectiveness, capability, and consistency. Effective hierarchy cultures have developed mature and capable processes which support smooth operations.

Culture has been shown to directly affect organizational performance. When viewed through the lens of accepted behaviors and ingrained values, culture also profoundly affects motivation. Whether one looks at the type of culture – strong, strategically appropriate, or adaptive – as Kotter and Heskett[38] do, or at the style of culture – Clan, Adhocracy, Market, or Hierarchy – as Cameron and Quinn[39] do, the connection between culture and motivation becomes clear and provides insights into how to hire, task, and motivate employees.

Motivation Summary

The effects of motivation are fundamental to organizational and employee performance and thus I/O Psychology. As Jex and Britt[23] point out “organizations that are armed with a clear understanding of motivation are in a better position to influence employee behavior than are organizations that lack this knowledge.” As described, some of the important theories in this discipline cover the areas of Motives and Needs, Work Design, Expectancy Theory, Equity Theory, Goal-Setting, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Reinforcement Theory, Creativity, Groups & Teams, and Culture.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture can be described as a set of assumptions shared by the individuals in an organization that directs interpretation and action by defining 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 have an impact on 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 unadaptive 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.[40] 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.[23]

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.

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. 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.[23] 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. There are three common forms of productive behavior in organizations: job performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and innovation.

Job performance

Job performance represents behaviors employees engage in while at work which contribute to organizational goals.[41] 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. While there is disagreement about the exact dimensions of job performance, there is agreement on two major categories of job performance: in-role (technical aspects of a job) and extra-role (non-technical abilities such as communication skills and being a good team member).

To assess job performance, reliable and valid measures must be established. The most commonly used measures are ratings of employee performance on specific tasks and on overall job performance. While there are many sources of error with performance ratings, error can be reduced through rater training and through the use of behaviorally anchored ratings 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 and the restriction of variation in individual performance by organizational forces.

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.,[41][42] 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). 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.

Organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to productive behaviors that are not part of an employees’ formal job description. There are five categories of organizational citizenship behaviors: (1) altruism, (2) courtesy, (3) sportsmanship, (4) conscientiousness, and (5) civic virtue.[43][44]

There are three different explanations for why employees engage in organizational citizenship behavior. The first has to do with positive affect, an overall positive mood increases the frequency of helping behavior. The second explanation, which stems from the equity theory, is that employees reciprocate fair treatment that they have received from the organization. The third explanation is that some employees have personality traits that predispose them to participate in organizational citizenship behavior. There are also employees who will perform organizational citizenship behavior to influence how they are viewed within the organization. While these behaviors are not formally part of the job description, performing them can certainly influence performance appraisals.[23]

Innovation

Innovation is a form of productive behavior that employees exhibit when they come up with novel ideas that further the goals of the organization.[23] Innovation at an individual level is dependent on task-relevant skills (general mental ability and job specific knowledge), 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), and task motivation (internal desire to perform task and level of enjoyment).[45]

There are things that organizations can do in order to 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).[23]

Counterproductive work behavior

Counterproductive work behavior 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. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction can be utilized to explain a variety of counter-productive behaviors (Fox and Spector, 1999). For instance, an employee who steals from the company may do so because of lax supervision (environment) and underlying psychopathology (person) that work in concert to result in the counterproductive behavior.

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 theft, violence, substance use, and sexual harassment.

Leadership

Leadership is a process of influencing and supporting and motivating others to work enthusiastically or effectively towards achieving the objectives or goal. A leader acts as a catalyst, who identifies the potential of a worker and tries to put that into reality. A leader can be a positive leader or a negative leader.

A leader’s influence within an organization or group has been said to stem from two primary sources, that person’s personal characteristics and their position within the organization. Personal power, also made up of two factors called expert power and referent power, is derived from elements like an individual’s personality, their knowledge base, their ability to effectively interact with others, and their demonstrated level of effort. Positional power, also often referred to as legitimate power, is derived from the leader’s position within the organization, and the authority imbued in them either directly or indirectly by the organization’s controlling parties to provide either rewards or sanctions for performance.[46]

The leader’s role is to use this influence to encourage those within the organization to focus their actions toward the accomplishment of the organization’s goals.[47] Distinction should be noted between management v. leadership. Managers process administrative tasks that organize work environments. Leaders conduct those same tasks while also inspiring and motivating the workforce for which they oversee. Managers cope with complexity, leaders cope with change. Managers participate in stepwise tasks of planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and controlling and problem solving. In contrast, leaders approach these stages of business development through equivalent tasks of setting a direction or vision, aligning people or communication, and motivating and inspiring, respectively.[48]

Organizational change/development

Template:Empty section

Relationship to occupational health psychology

A separate but related discipline, occupational health psychology (OHP) is a relatively new field that combines elements of industrial-organizational psychology, health psychology, and occupational health.[49] Unlike I-O psychology, the primary emphasis in OHP is on the physical and mental health and psychological well-being of the person. For more detail on OHP, see the section on occupational health psychology.

Training and outlook

Graduate programs

A comprehensive list of US and Canadian master's and doctoral programs can be found at the web site of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).[50] Some helpful ways to learn about graduate programs include visiting the web sites on the SIOP list and speaking to I-O faculty at the institutions listed. Admission into I-O psychology Ph.D. programs is highly competitive given that many programs accept a small number of applicants every year.

There are graduate degree programs in I-O psychology outside of the US and Canada. The SIOP web site[50] also provides a comprehensive list of I-O programs in many other countries.

Job outlook

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), the job outlook for industrial-organizational psychologists is promising. Businesses enlist the services of these psychologists in order to retain employees and maintain a good work ethic. I-O psychologists specializing in research often conduct studies within companies to aid in marketing research.

In 2006, the median annual salary for industrial-organizational psychologists was $86,420(US).[51]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 'Building Better Organizations' Brochure published by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/visibilitybrochure/memberbrochure.aspx
  2. ↑ Farr, J.L. Organized I/O Psychology: Past, Present, Future
  3. ↑ Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equations modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  4. ↑ Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  5. ↑ Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  6. ↑ Du Toit, M. (2003) IRT from SSI. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
  7. ↑ Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA.
  8. ↑ 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, 171-177.
  9. ↑ Law, K. S., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1994). A test of two refinements in procedures for meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 978-986.
  10. ↑ Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183-192.
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 573-580.
  13. ↑ Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F. L., & Pearlman, K. (1981). Task differences as moderators of aptitude test validity in selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 166-185.
  14. ↑ Schmidt, F. L., Law, K., Hunter, J. E., Rothstein, H. R., Pearlman, K., McDaniel, M. (1993). Refinements in validity generalization methods: Implications for the situational specificity hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 3-12.
  15. ↑ Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340-362.
  16. ↑ Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 447-472.
  17. ↑ Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.
  18. ↑ O'Driscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). Coping with work-related stress: A critique of existing measures and proposal for an alternative methodology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 343-354.
  19. ↑ The SIOP Principles
  20. ↑ The Standards, jointly published by the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
  21. ↑ Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 Ambrose, M., & Kulik, C. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292.
  23. ↑ 23.00 23.01 23.02 23.03 23.04 23.05 23.06 23.07 23.08 23.09 23.10 23.11 Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2008). Organizational Psychology. Hoboke, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "jex" defined multiple times with different content
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Wright, P. M. (1992). An examination of the relationships among monetary incentives, goal level, goal commitment, and performance. Journal of Management, 18, 677-693.
  25. ↑ McClelland, D. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333.
  26. ↑ Lawler, E. E. and Jenkins, G. D. (1992). Strategic reward systems. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., 1009-1055). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Pres
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory. A review and critique. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 4(2), 176-211.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Latham, G., & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
  29. ↑ Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  30. ↑ Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534-559.
  31. ↑ Gilliland, S. W., & Landis, R. S. (1992). Quality and quantity goals in a complex decision task: Strategies and outcomes. Journal of applied Psychology, 77, 672-681.
  32. ↑ 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. 225–254. New York: Wiley.
  33. ↑ Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
  34. ↑ Sama, L., Kopelman, R., Manning, R. (1994). In search of a ceiling effect on work motivation: Can Kaizen keep performance “rising”?. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(2), 231-238.
  35. ↑ Butterfield, K., Trevino, L., & Ball, G. (1996). Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1479–1512.
  36. ↑ West, M., Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680-693.
  37. ↑ Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology (12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 333-375.
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 Kotter, J., & Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York, NY: The Free Press.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Cameron, Kim, & Quinn, Robert, (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  40. ↑ Goldstone, R., Roberts, M., & Gureckis, T.(2008). Emergent processes of group behavior Group Behavior,17, 1-15.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 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.
  42. ↑ 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.
  43. ↑ Organ, D.W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53.
  44. ↑ Organ, D.W. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and the good soldier. In M.G. Rumsey, C.B. Walker, & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 53-67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  45. ↑ Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.
  46. ↑ Michelson, B. J. (2001). Leadership and power base development: using power effectively to manage diversity and job-related interdependence in complex organizations. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/michelson.pdf
  47. ↑ Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-423.
  48. ↑ Kotter, John P. (1990). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 103-111.
  49. ↑ Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P. A. Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 Graduate Training Programs (visited web site on March 22, 2009)
  51. ↑ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition, Psychologists, [1]

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. 258–299). 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, 929-954.
  • 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, 262-274.
</dl>

Key journals in industrial and organizational psychology

External links

Retrieved from "http://www.unifiedpsychotherapyproject.org/psychotherapedia/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&oldid=54942"