Industrial and organizational psychology

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Industrial and organizational psychology (also known as I–O psychology, occupational psychology, work psychology, WO psychology, IWO psychology and business psychology) is the scientific study of human behavior in the workplace and applies psychological theories and principles to organizations and individuals in their workplace.

I-O psychologists are trained in the scientist–practitioner model. I-O psychologists contribute to an organization's success by improving the performance, motivation, job satisfaction, occupational safety and health as well as the overall health and well-being of its employees. 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.[1] I–O psychologists also help organizations and their employees transition during periods of change and organization development.

I-O psychology is one of the 14 recognized specialties and proficiencies in professional psychology in the United States[2] and is represented by Division 14 of the American Psychological Association (APA), known formally as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).

In the UK, industrial and organizational psychologists are referred to as occupational psychologists and one of 7 'protected titles' and specializations in psychology regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council.[3]

In Australia, the title organizational psychologist is also protected by law and is regulated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). Organizational psychology is one of nine areas of specialist endorsement for psychology practice in Australia.[4] Graduate programs at both the Masters and Doctorate level are offered worldwide.

In the UK graduate degrees are accredited by the British Psychological Society and required as part of the process to become an occupational psychologist.[5]

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 with further advanced education and training.[6] 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.


Historical overview

The historical development of I–O psychology had parallel developments in the United States and other countries, such as the UK,[7] Australia, Germany, the Netherlands,[8] and eastern European countries such as Romania.[9] However, many foreign countries do not have a published English language account of their development of I–O psychology. 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 who had a major influence on the eventual emergence of I–O Psychology: Hugo Münsterberg and James McKeen Cattell.[10] Instead of viewing differences as “errors”, Cattell was one of the first to recognize the importance of these differences among individuals as a way of predicting and better understanding their 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[11]

The "industrial" side of I–O psychology has its historical origins in research on individual differences, assessment, and the prediction of work performance. This branch crystallized during World War I, in response to the need to rapidly assign new troops to duty stations. Scott and Bingham volunteered to help with the testing and placement of more than a million army recruits. In 1917, together, along with other prominent psychologists, adapted a well-known intelligence test, (the Stanford-Binet test, designed for testing one individual at a time) to make it suitable for mass group testing. This new test form was called the Army Alpha. After the War, the growing industrial base in the US added impetus to I–O psychology. The private industry set out to emulate the successful testing of army personnel, and mental ability testing soon became a commonplace in the work setting. Industrial psychology began to gain prominence when Elton Mayo arrived in the United States in 1924.[12] Mayo was fascinated by not the efficiency of workers, but their emotions and how work may cause workers to act in particular pathological ways. These observations of workers’ thoughts and emotions were studied to see how prone employees would be to resist management attempts to increase productivity and how sympathetic to labor unions they would become. These studies are known as Hawthorne studies. The results of these studies ushered in a radically new movement known as the Human Relations Movement. This movement was interested in the more complicated theories of motivation, the emotional world of the worker, job satisfaction, and interviews with workers.

World War II brought in new problems that led to I–O Psychology's continued development. The war brought renewed interest in ability testing (to accurately place recruits in these new technologically advanced military jobs), the introduction of the assessment center, concern with morale and fatigue of war industry workers, and military intelligence. Post-Second World War years were a boom time for industry with many jobs to be filled and applicants to be tested. Interestingly, however, when the war ended and the soldiers came back to work, there was an increasing trend towards labor unrest with rising numbers of authorized and unauthorized work stoppages staged by unions and workers. This caused management to grow concern about work productivity and worker attitude surveys became of much interest in the field. Following Industrial Organizational Psychology's admission into Division 14 of the American Psychological Association, there continued to be an influx of new tests for selection, productivity, and workforce stability. This influx continued unabated until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section, Title VII dealt with employment discrimination and required employers to justify and show relevance for the use of tests for selection.

The mid-1960s seemed to mark a line of demarcation between "classic" and "modern" thinking. During this period, the name changed from just industrial psychology to industrial and organizational psychology. The earlier periods addressed work behavior from the individual perspective, examining performance and attitudes of individual workers. Although this was a valuable approach, it became clear that there were other, broader influences not only on individual, but also on group behavior in the work place. Thus, in 1973, "organizational" was added to the name to emphasize 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 United Kingdom, references to occupational psychology became more common than I-O psychology. Rigor and methods of psychology are applied to issues of critical relevance to business, including talent management, coaching, assessment, selection, training, organizational development, performance, well-being and work-life balance. During the 1990s references to "business psychology" became increasingly common. Business psychology is defined as the study and practice of improving working life. It combines an understanding of the science of human behavior with experience of the world of work to attain effective and sustainable performance for both individuals and organizations.

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 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,[13] and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; also known as multilevel modeling).[14] 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 (CTT),[15] generalizability theory, and item response theory (IRT).[16] 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 & Schmidt,[17][18][19] Rosenthal,[20][21] and Hedges & Olkin.[22] With the help of meta-analysis, Hunter & Schmidt[23][24] advanced the idea of validity generalization, which suggests that some performance predictors, specifically cognitive ability tests (see especially Hunter [1986][25] and Hunter & Schmidt [1996][26]) 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 Critical Incident Technique,[27] 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 & Cooper.[28] The resistance to qualitative research resulted from viewing it too excessively subjective. This concern, however, is misplaced due to all methods of research, either qualitative or quantitative, ultimately requiring some sort of interpretation. When a researcher is developing and researching a phenomenon, all information available should be used, regardless of its form. The key is triangulation, which is an approach looking for converging information from different sources to develop that theory.[29]

I–O psychologists sometimes use quantitative and qualitative methods in concert. The two are not mutually exclusive.[29] 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. As a simpler example, consider an extended observation of a worker, which might include videotaped episodes of performance – a qualitative measure. The qualitative video could easily be used to develop a frequency count of a particular behavior – a quantitative measure.


Job analysis

Job analysis has a few different methods but it primarily involves the systematic collection of information about a job. The task-oriented job analysis, involves an examination of the duties, tasks, and/or competencies required by a job, whereas a worker-oriented job analysis, involves an examination of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required to successfully perform the work. Job analysis information is used for many purposes, including the creation of job-relevant selection procedures, performance appraisals and criteria, or training programs. Position analysis questionnaire is a particular analysis that is used to determine an individual's job characteristics and relates them to human characteristics.

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 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, 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[30] and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.[31] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines[32] 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, but 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.

A meta-analysis of selection methods in personnel psychology found that general mental ability was the best overall predictor of job performance and training performance.[33]

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 the expectations of the job.[34] 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.[35] 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, simulation and assessment centres.[35]

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

Occupational health and wellbeing

I/O psychologists and researchers are also concerned with occupational health and wellbeing. Researchers have examined the effect of physical exercise, and staying vigorous at work. Sonnentag and Niessen (2008) found that staying vigorous during working hours is important for work-related behaviour, subjective well-being, and for effective functioning in the family domain. Individuals high on their general level of vigour at work, benefited most from recovery experienced over the course of several days.[36] A 2010 study found positive relationships between job satisfaction and life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and the absence of negative affect and feelings of positive wellbeing.[37] Other researchers have looked at the negative health impacts of mature-aged unemployment.[38] Another recent study conducted by Potocnik & Sonnentag (2013) examined the impact of engaging in seven types of activities on depression and quality of life in older workers over a period of 2 years, using a sample from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Results indicated that I/O psychologists should make attempts to reduce physical demands over older employees at work, to help improve their health and well-being. Practitioners should also design intervention programmes and preventive measures that focus on how to stimulate older employees' engagement in community activities.[39] I/O research has also examined effects of job mobility and negative health effects, including burnout in workers.[40]

Workplace bullying, aggression and violence

I/O psychology and I/O psychologists are also concerned with the related topics of workplace bullying, aggression and violence.[41] This 2010 study investigated the impact of the larger organizational context on bullying as well as the group-level processes that impact on the incidence, and maintenance of bullying behaviour.[42] The impact of engaging in certain thought patterns after exposure to workplace violence has also been examined.[43] This 2011 research examines the detrimental effect that interpersonal aggressive behaviours may have on dimensions of team effectiveness particularly team performance and team viability.[44]

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 is the systematic acquisition of skills, concepts, or attitudes that results in improved performance in another environment.[45] Most people hired for a job are not already versed in all the tasks required to perform the job effectively. Evidence indicates that training is effective and that these training expenditures are paying off in terms of higher net sales and gross profitability per employee.[46] Training can be beneficial for the organization and for employees in terms of increasing their value to their organization as well as their employability in the broader marketplace. Many organizations are using training and development as a way to attract and retain their most successful employees.

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 impact 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 the training is ongoing.

The basic foundation for training programs is learning. Learning outcomes can be organized into three broad categories: cognitive, skill-based, and affective outcomes.[47] Cognitive is a type of learning outcome that includes declarative knowledge or the knowledge of rules, facts, and principles. An example is police officers acquire declarative knowledge about laws and court procedures. Skill-based is a learning outcome that concerns procedural knowledge and the development of motor and technical skills. An example is motor skills that involve the coordination of physical movements such as using a special tool or flying a certain aircraft, whereas technical skills might include understanding a certain software program, or exhibiting effective customer relations behaviors. Affective is a type of learning outcome that includes attitudes or beliefs that predispose a person to behave in a certain way. Attitudes can be developed or changed through training programs. Examples of these attitudes are organizational commitment and appreciation of diversity.[48]

Before training design issues are considered, a careful needs analysis is required to develop a systematic understanding of where training is needed, what needs to be taught or trained, and who will be trained.[45] Training needs analysis typically involves a three-step process that includes organizational analysis, task analysis and person analysis.[49] Organizational analysis examines organizational goals, available resources, and the organizational environment to determine where training should be directed. This analysis identifies the training needs of different departments or subunits and systematically assessing manager, peer, and technological support for transfer of training. 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 particular parts of the organization (e.g., production), then training needs will likely reflect this emphasis.[50] Task analysis uses the results from job analysis on determining what is needed for successful job performance and then determines what the content of training should be. Task analysis can consist of developing task statements, determining homogeneous task clusters, and identifying KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics) required for the job. With organizations increasingly trying to identify "core competencies" that are required for all jobs, task analysis can also include an assessment of competencies.[51] 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 and development can address. The needs analysis makes it possible to identify the training program's objectives, which in turn, represents the information for both the trainer and trainee about what is to be learned for the benefit of the organization.

Therefore, with any training program it is key to establish specify training objectives. Schultz & Schultz (2010) states that need assessment is an analysis of corporate and individual goals undertaken before designing a training program. Examples of need assessment are based on organizational, task, and work analysis is conducted using job analysis critical incidents, performance appraisal, and self-assessment techniques.[52](p164)

But with any training there are always challenges that one faces. Challenges which I–O psychologists face:[52](p185)

  • To identify the abilities required to perform increasingly complex jobs.
  • To provide job opportunities for unskilled workers.
  • To assist supervisors in the management of an ethnically diverse workforce.
  • To retain workers displaced by changing economic, technological, and political forces.
  • To help organizations remain competitive in the international marketplace.
  • To conduct the necessary research to determine the effectiveness of training programs.

Motivation in the workplace

Work motivation "is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual's being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration"[53] Understanding what motivates an organization's employees is central to the study of I–O psychology. Motivation is a person's internal disposition to be concerned with and approach positive incentives and avoid negative incentives. To further this, an incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event available in the environment.[54] While motivation can often be used as a tool to help predict behavior, it varies greatly among individuals and must often be combined with ability and environmental factors to actually influence behavior and performance. Because of motivation's role in influencing workplace behavior and performance, it is key for organizations to understand and to structure the work environment to encourage productive behaviors and discourage those that are unproductive.[55] [56]

There is general consensus that motivation involves three psychological processes: arousal, direction, and intensity. Arousal is what initiates action. It is fueled by a person's need or desire for something that is missing from their lives at a given moment, either totally or partially. Direction refers to the path employees take in accomplishing the goals they set for themselves. Finally, intensity is the vigor and amount of energy employees put into this goal-directed work performance. The level of intensity is based on the importance and difficulty of the goal. These psychological processes result in four outcomes. First, motivation serves to direct attention, focusing on particular issues, people, tasks, etc. It also serves to stimulate an employee to put forth effort. Next, motivation results in persistence, preventing one from deviating from the goal-seeking behavior. Finally, motivation results in task strategies, which as defined by Mitchell & Daniels, are "patterns of behavior produced to reach a particular goal."[56]

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.[57][58][59] Occupational stress is concerned with physical and psychosocial working conditions (termed stressors) that can elicit negative responses (termed strains) from employees.[60][61] 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.[62] Job-related hindrance stressors are directly (and challenge stressors inversely) related to turnover and turnover intentions.[63] I/O research has examined the relations among work stressors and workplace aggression, withdrawal, theft, and substance abuse,[64] strategies that individuals use to cope with work stress and prevent occupational burnout,[65] and the relation of work stress to depressive symptoms.[66]

A number of models have been developed to explain the job stress process. Examples of models that have influenced research include the person-environment fit model[67] and the demand-control model.[68] Research has also examined the interaction among personality variables and stressors and their effects on employee strains.[69] I/O psychology is also concerned with the physical health outcomes caused by occupational stress. For instance, researchers at the institute of work psychology (IWP) examined the mediating role of psychological strain in relation to musculoskeletal disorders.[70]

Research has also examined occupational stress in specific occupations. For example, there has been research on job stress in police,[71] teachers,[72] general practitioners,[73] and dentists.[74] Another concern has been the relation of occupational stress to family life.[75][76] Other research has examined gender differences in leadership style and job stress and strain in the context of male- and female-dominated industries,[77] burnout in the human services and other occupations,[78] and unemployment-related distress.[79][80][81] I/O psychology is also concerned with the relation of occupational stress to career advancement.[82]

Occupational health and safety

Occupational health and safety is concerned with how the work environment contributes to illness and injury of workers. Of particular importance are psychosocial hazards or risk factors that include fatigue, workplace violence, workplace bullying. Other factors important to employee health and well-being include work schedules (e.g., night shifts), work/family conflict, and burnout.[83][84] Tools have been developed by I/O researchers and psychologists to measure these psychosocial risk factors in the workplace and "stress audits" can be used to help organizations remain compliant with various occupational health and safety regulations around the world.[85]

Another area of concern is the high rate of occupational fatalities and injuries due to accidents.[86] There is also research interest in how psychosocial hazards affect physical ailments like musculoskeletal disorder.[70] A contributing psychosocial factor to accidents is safety climate, that concerns organizational policies and practices concerning safe behavior at work.[87] A related concept that has to do with psychological well-being as opposed to accidents is psychosocial safety climate (PSC). PSC refers to policies, practices, and procedures for the protection of worker psychological health and safety.[88] Safety leadership is another area of occupational health and safety I/O psychology is concerned with, where specific leadership styles affect safety compliance and safety participation.[89][90]

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 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.[91] 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.[55]

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 support the use of teams, because teams can accomplish a much greater amount of work in a short period of time than can be accomplished by an individual contributor, and because the collective results of a group of contributors can produce higher quality deliverables.[55] Five elements that are contributors to team effectiveness include:[55]

  1. team composition
  2. task design
  3. organizational resources
  4. team rewards
  5. team goals.

I/O research has looked at the negative impacts of workplace aggression on team performance and particularly team effectiveness as was evidenced in a recent study by Aube and Rousseau.[92]

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.[55]

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.[55] When a given task is appropriate for a team, task design can play a key role in team effectiveness (Sundstrom, et al., 2000).

The Job Characteristics Theory of motivation identifies core job dimensions that provide motivation for individuals and include: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). These 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.[55]

Interrelated to the design of various tasks is the implementation method for the tasks themselves. For example, certain team members may find it challenging to cross train with other team members that have subject matter expertise in areas in which they are not familiar. In utilizing this approach, greater motivation is likely to result for both parties as the expert becomes the mentor and trainer and the cross-training team member finds learning new tasks to be an interesting change of pace. Such expansions of team task assignments can make teams more effective and require teams to spend greater amounts of time discussing and planning strategies and approaches for completing assigned tasks (Hackman, et al., 1976).

Organizational resources

Organizational support systems impact 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.[55] 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.[93] 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.[55] 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.[55] 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.[55]

Job performance

Job performance represents behaviors employees engage in while at work which contribute to organizational goals.[94] These behaviors are formally evaluated by an organization as part of an employee's responsibilities.[94] 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).[55]

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[95] it is commonly made by both employees and management.[96] A model of performance by Campbell breaks performance into in-role and extra-role categories.[94][97] 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.[55] Murphy's model of job performance also broke job performance into in-role and extra-role categories.[98] 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.[55] 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.[99] These various tools are often used to evaluate performance on specific tasks and overall job performance.[55] Van Dyne and LePine developed a measurement model in which overall job performance was evaluated using Campbell's in-role and extra-role categories.[96] 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."[100] 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[101] 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.[94] 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[98] 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,[94][97] 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).[55] 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).[55] 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.[102][103]

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."[104] Behaviors that qualify as OCBs can fall into one of the following five categories: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue.[104][105][106]

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:

  • Altruism
    Sometimes referred to as "prosocial behavior" altruistic OCBs include helping behaviors in the workplace such as volunteering to assist a coworker on a project.
  • Courtesy
    These 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.
  • Sportsmanship
    Unlike other forms of OCBs, sportsmanship involves not engaging in certain behaviors, such as whining and complaining about minor issues or tough work assignments.
  • Conscientiousness
    Conscientiousness 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 virtue
    Civic 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.[104]

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").[107] 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.[108] 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.[55] 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.[109]

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.[55] 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."[110] 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.[111] 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.[55]

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.[104] 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."[108] 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.[108]


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.[55] 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.[55]

  • 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.[55] 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.[112]
  • Focus Three: The process by which an organization adopts an innovation.[55]
  • Focus Four: A shared perspective of the role of the individual and the organization's culture which contribute to innovation.[55]

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.[55] 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.[55]
  • 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.[55] 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).[55]

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.[113] 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.[55]

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).[55]

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


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."[114]

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).[62] 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.[62]

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.


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.[115] 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.[116]

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.[117] 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.[118]

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.[118] 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.[119] Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model focuses on decision making with respect to a feasibility set[118] 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

Industrial-organizational psychologists have displayed a great deal of consideration for the problems of total organizational change and systematic ways to bring about planned change. This effort, called organizational development (OD), involves techniques such as:

  • sensitivity training
  • role playing
  • group discussion
  • job enrichment
  • survey feedback
  • team building[52]

Within the survey feedback technique, surveys after being answered by employees periodically, are assessed for their emotions and attitudes which are then communicated to various members within the organization. The team building technique was created due to realization that most tasks within the organization are completed by small groups and/or teams. In order to further enhance a team's or group's morale and problem-solving skills, OD consultants (called change agents) help the groups to build their self-confidence, group cohesiveness, and working effectiveness. A change agent's impartiality, gives the managers within the organization a new outlook of the organization's structure, functions, and culture. A change agent's first task is diagnosis, where questionnaires and interviews are used to assess the problems and needs of the organization. Once analyzed, the strengths and weaknesses of the organization are presented and used to create strategies for solving problems and coping with future changes.[52](pp216–217)

Flexibility and adaptability are some strengths of the OD process, as it possesses the ability to conform to the needs of the situation. Regardless of the specific techniques applied, the OD process helps to free the typical bureaucratic organization from its rigidity and formality, hereby allowing more responsiveness and open participation. Public and private organizations both have employed OD techniques, despite their varied results in research conducted. However, the use of the techniques are justified by the significant increases in productivity that was proven by various studies.[52](p217)

Relation to organizational behavior

The i/o psychology and organizational behavior have manifested some overlap.[120] The overlap has led to some confusion regarding how the two disciplines differ.[121]

Training and outlook

Graduate programs

Schultz and Schultz (2010) states that modern I–O Psychology is a complex and intricate position. It requires intense university training, and hands on experience. Individuals who choose I–O psychology as a profession should also be aware that they will be constantly studying to learn about new developments that may emerge. The minimum requirement for working as an I–O psychologist is a master's degree. Normally, this degree requires 42 semester hours and takes about 2–3 years to complete. Most master's degree students work, either full-time or part-time, while studying to become an I–O psychologist. Of all the degrees granted in I–O psychology, each year approximately two thirds are at the master's level.[52](p18)

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).[122] 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 PhD 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[122] also provides a comprehensive list of I–O programs in many other countries.

Job outlook

According to the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, I-O psychology is the fastest growing occupation in the United States, based on projections between 2012 and 2022.[123][124]

According to recent salary and employment surveys conducted by SIOP,[125] the median salary for a PhD in I–O psychology was $98,000; for a master's level I–O psychologist was $72,000. The highest paid PhD I–O psychologists in private industry worked in pharmaceuticals and averaged approximately $151,000 per year; the median salary for self-employed consultants was $150,000; those employed in retail, energy, and manufacturing followed closely behind, averaging approximately $133,000. The lowest earners were found in state and local government positions, averaging approximately $77,000. I–O psychologists whose primary responsibility is teaching at private and public colleges and universities often earn additional income from consulting with government and industry.[126]

Pros and cons of an industrial and organizational psychology career

Pros of a Career in I–O Psychology:

  • Many career opportunities with a Master’s-level degree.
  • Diverse career paths (i.e. private sector, consulting, government, education.)
  • Opportunities for self-employment.

Cons of a Career in I–O Psychology:

  • Clients and projects change often.
  • Research can often be tedious and burnout can occur.
  • Many positions require doctoral degrees.[127]


In the consulting field, it is important for the consultant to maintain high ethical standards in all aspects of relationships: consultant to client, consultant to consultant, and client to consultant.[128] After all, all decisions made and actions taken by the consultant will reflect what kind of consultant he or she is. Although ethical situations can be more intricate in the business world, American Psychology Association (APA)’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct can be applied to I–O consultants as well. For example, the consultant should only accept projects for which he or she is qualified; the consultant should also avoid all conflicts of interest and being in multiple relationships with those he or she is working with. On the other hand, some might disagree that it is the consultant’s responsibility to actively promote the application of moral and ethical standards in the consultation and examine ethical issues in organizational decisions and policies. It is an ongoing controversial issue in the consulting field.[129] In addition, as more and more organizations are becoming global, it is imperative for consultants working abroad to quickly become aware of rules, regulations, and cultures of the organizations and countries they are in as well as not to ignore ethical standards and codes just because they are abroad.[130]

Industrial/organizational consultancy


An industrial/organizational (I–O) consultant helps clients and organizations improve productivity and create an optimal working environment through human capital consulting and strategies. Areas of consulting include but are not limited to selection and recruiting, training, leadership, and development, compensation and benefits, employee relations, performance management, succession planning, and executive coaching.[131]


Consultants can be categorized as internal or external to an organization. An internal consultant is someone who is working specifically for an organization that he or she is a part of whereas 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. There are different types of I–O consultants:[132]

  1. internal corporate consultant
  2. independent external consultant
  3. external consultant in a small firm
  4. external consultant in a large firm
  5. external consultant in a research group
  6. internal consultant in a research unit within a large firm
  7. internal consultant in a large government organization.

Services offered

Kurpius (1978; as cited in Hedge & Borman, 2009)[133] gave four general types of consultation:

  1. services and products (e.g., selection tools)
  2. collecting information and helping the organization identify and solve the problem
  3. collaborating with the client to design and plan changes in the organization
  4. helping the client implement the changes and incorporate them into the organizational culture.

Consultants offer these consulting services to all kinds of organizations, such as profit and nonprofit sectors, public and private sectors, and a government organization.

Pros and cons

Like any other careers, there are many benefits and downsides of consulting.[134] Some advantages are substantial material rewards, trust and respect from clients, and personal satisfaction. Some disadvantages are traveling (the number one complaint of all I/O consultants), uncertainty in business especially for external consultants, and marginality which is not belonging to any group or organization that the consultant works for.


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. However, Cummings and Worley (2009) claimed that there are basic skills and knowledge, which most consultants agree, needed to be effective consultants:[134]

  1. intrapersonal skills, which include knowing consultants’ own values and goals, integrity to work responsibly and ethically, and active as well as continuous learning.
  2. interpersonal skills, which include listening skills, facilitating skills, and building and maintaining relationships. These interpersonal skills are especially important because regardless of how innovative the consultant’s idea is, if the client does not understand it or does not trust the consultant, the client is not going to accept that idea.
  3. general consultation skills, those skills being able to execute different stages of consulting which will be discussed in the following section titled "Stages".


Block (2011)[135] identified the following five stages of consulting.

Entry and contracting

This stage is where the consultant makes the initial contact with the client about the project, and it includes setting up the first meeting, exploring more about the project and the client, roles, responsibilities, and expectations about the consultant, the client, and the project, and whether the consultant’s expertise and experience fit with what the client wants out of the project. This is the most important part of the consulting, and most consultants agree that most mistakes in the project can essentially be traced back to the faulty contracting stage.[135]

Discovery and diagnosis

This stage is where the consultant makes his or her own judgment about the problem identified by the client and about the project. Sometimes, the problem presented by the client is not the actual problem but a symptom of a true cause. Then, the consultant collects more information about the situation.[135]

Analysis and planning

This stage is where the consultant analyzes the data and presents the results to the client. The consultant needs to reduce a large amount of data into a manageable size and present them to the client in a clear and simple way. After presenting the results, the consultant helps the client make plans and goals for actions to be taken as a next step to solve the identified problem.[135]

Engagement and implementation

This stage sometimes falls entirely on the client or the organization, and the consultant’s job might be completed at the end of third stage. However, it is important for the consultant to be present at the fourth stage since without implementing the changes suggested by the consultant, the problem is not likely to be solved. Moreover, despite how good the consultant’s advice might be, employees are actually the ones who need to live the changes. So, in this fourth stage, the consultant needs to get everyone on board with the changes and help implement the changes.[135]

Extension or termination

This final stage is where the consultant and the client evaluate the project, and it is usually the most neglected yet important stage. Then, the project is completed or extended depending on the client’s needs.[135]

Future trends

Teachout and Vequist (2008) identified driving forces affecting future trends in the business consulting:[136]

  1. changes in the market conditions
  2. competition for market share and talent
  3. changes in customer demands
  4. changes in technology and innovation
  5. increase in costs, especially in energy and health sectors
  6. globalization.

They also discussed three trends in the field as a result of these forces – people, process, and technology.

Human capital or people

In terms of human capital or people consulting, there are major forces for future trends:

  1. lack of competencies in STEM and communication fields,
  2. aging of workforce, resulting in the loss of experience and expertise in organizations,
  3. increasing and aggressive competition for talent,
  4. increase in project- or contract-based workforce instead of hiring permanent employees, and
  5. globalization.

As a result, trends, such as major talent management, selection and recruiting, workplace education and training, and planning for next generation, have emerged. In addition, change management also becomes important in organizations in order to innovate and implement new technology, tools, and systems to cope with changes in the business.[136]


In terms of process consulting, because of an increase in competition, it becomes important to identify and improve key processes that meet customer values and demands as well as that are faster and cheaper.[136]


In terms of technology consulting, there is an increased need to automate processes or data so that employees can focus on actually doing work rather than doing the manual labor. The consultant can add value to these technologies by providing training, communication plans, and change management as well as to incorporate these technologies into organizational culture. So, regardless of how advanced technology is, consultants are still needed to make sure that these advanced technologies have positive effects on employees and organizations in both technical and social aspects.[136]

Aside from technology consulting, there is a future trend for the interaction that comes with technology. This includes human-technology interaction, technology-technology interaction, and human-human interaction through technology. Due to evolving technologies, communication and relationships in the workplace are dramatically changing. Technology consultants help organizations cope with the interjection of technology in the work place. However, their job descriptions will eventually expand to include proper technology communication styles and when technology does or does not have a place in an interaction. This delicate subject alters the meanings and interpretations behind social interactions and creating concise guidelines to technological interactions is essential.

See also


  1. 'Building Better Organizations' Brochure published by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Retrieved from
  3. HPC – Health Professions Council – Protected titles. Retrieved on 2013-09-01.
  4. "Psychology Board of Australia – Endorsement". 2010-07-01. Retrieved 2013-09-01.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Pitariu, H. D. (19912). I/O psychology in Romania: Past, present and intentions. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 29(4), 29–33.
  10. Landy, F. J. (1997). Early influences on the development of industrial and organizational psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 467–477.
  11. Feruson, L. (1965). The heritage of industrial psychology. Hartford, CT: Finlay Press.
  12. 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.
  13. Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equations modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  14. Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  15. Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  16. Du Toit, M. (2003) IRT from SSI. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
  17. Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA.
  18. 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.
  19. 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, 978–86.
  20. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–92.
  21. 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.
  22. Hedges, L.V. & Olkin, I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 573–80.
  23. 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, 166–85.
  24. 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.
  25. Hunter, J.E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340–62.
  26. Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 447–72.
  27. Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–58.
  28. 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, 343–54.
  29. 29.0 29.1 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.
  30. The SIOP Principles
  31. The Standards, jointly published by the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
  32. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
  33. Schmidt, Frank L.; Hunter, John E. (September 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.
  34. Miner, J.B. (1992). Industrial-organizational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  35. 35.0 35.1 Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  36. Sonnentag, S., & Niessen, C (2008). Staying vigorous until work is over: The role of trait vigour, day-specific work experiences and recoveryJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 435–458.
  37. 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.
  38. Price, D., Winefield, A & Carson, E. (2006). On the scrap-heap at 45: The human impact of mature-aged unemployment Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 467–479
  39. Potocnik, K & Sabine Sonnentag, S. (2013). A longitudinal study of well-being in older workers and retirees: The role of engaging in different types of activities Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 497–521.
  40. Liljegren, M., & Ekberg, K. (2009). Job mobility as predictor of health and burnout. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 317–329.
  41. Coyne, I., Garvin, F. (2013). Employee relations and motivation. In Lewis, R., & Zibarris, R. (Eds.), Work and Occupational Psychology: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage
  42. Ramsay, S., Troth, A & Branch, S . (2010). Work-place bullying: A group processes framework Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 799–816.
  43. 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.
  44. Aube, C, & Rousseau, V . (2011). Interpersonal aggression and team effectiveness: The mediating role of team goal commitmentJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(3), 565–580.
  45. 45.0 45.1 Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. Dierdorff, E. C., & Surface, E. A. (2008). Assessing training needs: Do work experience and capability matter? Human Performance, 21, 28–48.
  50. Zohar, D. (2002a). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 587–596.
  51. Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740.
  52. 52.0 52.1 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.5 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.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  53. Pinder, C. C.(2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd edition). New York: Psychology Press
  54. Deckers, L. (2010). Motivation; Biological, Psychological and Environmental. (3rd ed., pp. 2–3). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  55. 55.00 55.01 55.02 55.03 55.04 55.05 55.06 55.07 55.08 55.09 55.10 55.11 55.12 55.13 55.14 55.15 55.16 55.17 55.18 55.19 55.20 55.21 55.22 55.23 55.24 55.25 55.26 55.27 55.28 55.29 55.30 Jex, S.M. & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational Psychology. Hoboke, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  56. 56.0 56.1 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.
  57. 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.
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. Liu, C, Spector, P, Jex, S. (2005). The relation of job control with job strains: A comparison of multiple data sources Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 325–336
  61. Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, S. (2005). Organizational role stress. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  62. 62.0 62.1 62.2 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.
  63. Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–454. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
  64. 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.
  65. de Rijk, A. E., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & De Jonge, J. (1998). Active coping and need for control as moderators of the job demand-control model: Effects on burnout. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 1–18.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–307.
  69. Spector, P, O’connell, B. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1–12
  70. 70.0 70.1 Sprigg, C. A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., Holman, D. J., & Smith, P. R. (2007). Work characteristics, musculoskeletal disorders, and the mediating role of psychological strain: A study of call center employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1456–1466.
  71. 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
  72. Byrne, B. (1993). The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Testing for factorial validity and invariance across elementary, intermediate and secondary teachersJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 197–212
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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.
  77. 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.
  78. Fischer, D., & Evans, B. (1993). The nature of burnout: A study of the three-factor model of burnout in human service and non-human service samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 29–38.
  79. 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
  80. 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.
  81. VanYperen, M., & Schaufeli, K. (1992). Unemployment and psychological distress among graduates: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 291–305.
  82. 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.
  83. Spector, P.E (2011). ‘’Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (6th Edition)’’. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  85. Munir, F., & McDermott, H. (2013). Design of environments and work: Health, safety and wellbeing. In Lewis, R., & Zibarris, L. (Eds.), Work and occupational psychology: Integrating theory and practice(pp. 217–257). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  86. Barling, J., & Frone, M. R. (2010). Occupational injuries: Setting the stage. In J. Barling & M. R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 3–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  87. Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2010). Safety climate and safety at work. In J. Barling & M. R. Frone (Eds.). The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  88. Dollard, M., Bakker, A. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 579–599.
  89. Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behavioursJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 22–49.
  90. Mullen, J., & Kelloway, E. (2009). Safety leadership: A longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes 'Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 253–272.
  91. Goldstone, R.; Roberts, M. & Gureckis, T. (2008). Emergent processes of group behavior. Group Behavior, 17, 1–15.
  92. 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
  93. 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.
  94. 94.0 94.1 94.2 94.3 94.4 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.
  95. Morrison, E.W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–67.
  96. 96.0 96.1 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).
  97. 97.0 97.1 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.
  98. 98.0 98.1 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.
  99. 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
  100. Jex, S.M. & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational Psychology. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  101. Pulakos, E.D. (1984). A comparison of rater training programs: Error training and accuracy training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 581–88)
  102. 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
  103. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
  104. 104.0 104.1 104.2 104.3 Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA England: Lexington Books/D.C. Heath and Com.
  105. 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
  106. 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.
  107. 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
  108. 108.0 108.1 108.2 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.
  109. 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
  110. 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.
  111. 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
  112. 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.
  113. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–90.
  114. 114.0 114.1 Leavitt, Paige (2002). Rewarding Innovation. American Productivity & Quality Center. Copyright 1994–2002 APQC
  115. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
  116. Daft, R.L. (2011). Leadership (5th Ed.). Australia: Cengage.
  117. Hughes, R.L.; Ginnett, R.C. & Curphy, G.J. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (6th Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  118. 118.0 118.1 118.2 Jex, S.M. & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational Psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  119. Goleman, Daniel (2002). Primal Leadership. USA: Harvard Business School Press.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  120. Miner, J.(2006) Organizational behavior 3: Historical origins, theoretical foundations and the future. Wiley.
  121. Jex, S.M., & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  122. 122.0 122.1 Graduate Training Programs (visited web site on March 22, 2009)
  125. Khanna, C., & Medsker, G. J. (2007). 2006 Income and employment survey results for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
  126. Medsker, G. J., Katkowski, D. A., & Furr, D. (2005). 2003 employment survey results for the Society Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
  127. Cherry, Kendra. "Industrial-Organization Psychology Careers." N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2013<>.
  128. Biech, E. (Ed.) (2007). The ethics of the business. The business of consulting: The basics and beyond (pp. 231–244). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  129. Newman, J. L., Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., & Fuqua, D. R. (2002). Issues in the ethical practice of consulting psychology. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology (pp. 733–758). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  130. 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.
  131. 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.
  132. Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (Eds.). (2008). Overview of I/O consulting. The I/O consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 11–16). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  133. Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (Eds.). (2008). Services consultants provide. The I/O consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 29–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  134. 134.0 134.1 Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (Eds.). (2009). The organization development practitioner. Organization development and change (pp. 46–73). Mason, OH: South-Western.
  135. 135.0 135.1 135.2 135.3 135.4 135.5 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.
  136. 136.0 136.1 136.2 136.3 Teachout, M. S., & Vequist, D. G. IV. (2008). Trends in business consulting. In J. W. Hedge, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), The I/O consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 335–343). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • 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