"Four Persistent Themes Throughout the History of I-O Psychology in the United States, Chapter 3"--A Reflection

In this third chapter within Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Zickar and Gibby focus on four trends throughout several different stages of Industrial-Organizational psychology.  These trends include: (1) concentration on productivity and efficiency, (2) reliance on quantitative methods, (3) a focus on employee selection, and (4) the interplay between science and practice (61).  Within these four trends, I find the "concentration on productivity and efficiency" as well as "a focus on employee selection" to be the most relevant for me.  These sections really show me what it is about the early years of I-O Psychology that troubles me (which I discussed briefly in my last post).

Here are some things that stood out:

• "The industrailization of the American workforce brought about issues of job satisfaction, alienation, and supervision that had been less salient in the previous agricultural, craft-based economy" (61)--This really helps to explain why there was suddenly a need for I-O Psychology in early 1900.  It also explains the use of the word industrial in the name. Huh!
• Industrial-Organizational psychology is different in the US because the labor unions are weak and the government doesn't control jobs (63)--This is an interesting way to situate this version of I-O as a very "American" endeavor.  While I appreciate this context, I wonder about the places where Americans get a lot of their clothes: are those people supported by I-O in their home country?  My guess is no.  Hmm, this seems to beg for transnational critque.
• "Personality inventories were developed [after WWI] to identify recruits who might be prone to experience paralyzing anxiety under the threat of enemy fire (shell shock)" (64)--would this have been legal after the ADA passed?  Is this discrimination?
• "Baritz (1960) characterized I-O psychologists as 'servants of power' becuase they tended to work in opposition to organized labor" (65)--Hmmm, so maybe this isn't as liberating as I had hoped. Are they oppressing workers?
• "'The experience of workingmen has made them distrusting of "investigations," and intolerant of patronage.  However, if you can convince them of your earnestness and sincerity of purpose you may be able to get sufficient material to serve as a basis for analysis'" (qtd. 65)--this is spoken by Samuel Gompers, who was the founder and president of the American Federation of Labor.  I love this quote.  It shows a lot of the problems with qualitative and ethnography research.  What if the subject doesn't trust you?  What if your intentions aren't for the benefit of the subject?
• "Early labor leaders were clearly intrigued with (and wary of) the possibilities inherent in industrial psychology" (65)--Yes, this basically describes me.  I'm interested but worried too.  I don't want to be part of this if it's further exploiting workers and solidifying the divide between management and laborers.
• "Management turned to applied psychologists because traditional methods of dealing with employees who agitated for labor unions were made illegal" (65)--Oh my god.  Well, although this is sad, it's interesting.  It further shows how outside political forces really aided in the development of this field.
• "Worker well being topics were often studied only in relation to other constructs of interest to management" (66)--Yes, this is one of my fears. You can study worker satisfaction for the aim of improving worker experiences, but you can also do it to increase production and brainwashing.  Again, like I realized with the last article: I'm so glad I wasn't born in the 1920s!
•  "Recent research activity has suggested that I-O psychologists are more willing to embrace topics that are of direct importance to worker well-being and less related to efficiency and productivity" (67)--Yay!  This is what I was hoping.  So good. In current times, the study is more on worker well being and experience, with issues like work-family conflict and occupational health being emphasized.  This seems to be a turn in the right direction :)
• "In Europe, topics such as occupational health and stress are relatively more important compared with the United States" (72)--This is interesting!  I wonder if in Europe they're more likely to do research on mindfulness and meditation as a way of reducing stress for workers.  If so, I should look at their research!
• "Psychologists in the 21st century must cope with globalization and technology changes" (76)--Yes, I agree, but I'm not sure what the authors mean by this.  Do they mean that we must examine inequalities, for example in working conditions for American workers as compared to workers in Bangladesh?  If American citizens are consuming goods from factories like the one in Bangladesh that collapsed, is it also within the purview of I-O to deal with human rights violations and poor working conditions in this location? This is a question for Rebecca Dingo :)

I really enjoyed this article.  The authors were willing to get critical of early I-O and pointed out many of the ways that workers were marginalized and dehumanized.  Again, I also liked the historical perspective.  I learned a lot!  I think that what I might want to pursue from this article is the connection between I-O psychology and labor leaders, organized labor, and unions.  Do they work together better now?  Are they still kind of opposed?  Does I-O psychology still largely represent those in power, rather than those without?  Again, I'll probably come back to this after reading more from this book!



Zickar, Michael J. and Robert E Gibby.  "Four persistent Themes Throughout the History of I-O Psychology in the United States."  Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.  Eds. Laura L. Koppes, et al.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. 61-80. Print

"Industrial and Organizational Psychology: An Evolving Science and Practice"--Response

 In this first chapter to Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Koppes and Pickren provide an overview of the book and then present an overview of the development of I-O Psychology.  They set out different time periods: (1) the early years, 1885-1930, (2) 1930-1960, (3) 1960-1970, (4) 1980s and beyond. Section one is the most developed, with discussions of "who was studying work?", "what questions or problems were investigated?",  and "how did psychologists study work and apply psychology to business problems?"  The authors present many tables which offer the table of contents of several books from 1910-1940, as a way of illustrating how the field has changed.

Several key ideas stand out:

• Adam Smith and Karl Marz are seen as philosophers who set up the framework for I-O Psychology (6)--this seems interesting to me, considering that they represent such different ideologies.  Perhaps this makes sense, though, with Smith representing the managers and companies and Marx representing the workers?
• I-O Psych in the 1920s focused on "employer-employee relations (selection and maintenance), and psychology of the consumer" (18)--this seems to really be about maximizing profit for the benefit of the owner or manager.  What about the well being of the worker?
• "During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the appearance of capitalism and an emphasis on efficiency forced companies to determine how to hire the most qualified employees" (19)--Yep, again, it's focused on the production and producer, not on the worker.  Stupid capitalism.
• One of the tables lists the chapter titles for a book called Increasing Human Efficiency in Business (1911): imitation, competition, loyalty, concentration, wages, pleasure, relaxation (21)--I'm interested the relaxation part. Is that like mindfulness?  Was this suggested in 1911?  I'm less interested in competition.  Blarg, capitalism.
• "In sum, when industrial psychology was established, the objective of the discipline was to improve the achievement of organizational goals (i.e. productivity and efficiency) with an emphasis on individual differences" (26)--I'm so glad I don't live in the 1910s or 1920s.  This sounds really terrible.  I hope things change!

 

• "An emphasis on employee welfare during the Depression led to the development of personal counseling as a popular organizational intervention for helping employees solve problems" (26)--Yay!  Here's a move in the right direction: caring for employee welfare.  Maybe they're not just a cog in the machine any more?
• More focus on motivation, emotions, and attitudes (28)--Interesting!  This is quite the shift!

 

• Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964) is passed, and employees cannot discriminate "in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (29)--Oooh, I like this perspective.  It's neat to see how these wider political changes altered the field.
• "An emphasis was placed on how the organization could best serve the individual.  Organizations evolved from highly bureaucratic authoritarian structures to open systems, using such methods as total quality management, teamwork, and employee participation" (29)--I wonder if this is how the Marx comes in.  I can really see the Smith in the 1920s, the early years, but this all seems to be a bit more collaborative.  It's not communist, but it's also not just straight capitalism.  Hmmm.

 

• "In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) emphasized the importance of identifying essential job functions and physical requirements and redesigning jobs to accommodate employees. The ADA is considered to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation to influence the work of I-O psychologists since the CRA of 1964" (29)--This is really interesting too.  I'd like to know more about how the ADA changed the way that I-O functioned.  I imagine that it pushed further this idea from the 1960s and 1970s that the focus should be on "how the organization could best serve the individual."

I found this chapter extremely interesting.  I learned a lot about the development of I-O Psychology, and I was able to see, through history, some of the issues that I've had with the field.  (Like that it's too capitalistic and managerial, without caring much for the worker).  Perhaps my previous knowledge of the field was a bit outdated.  I wonder what the more current stuff is doing. I know from my other readings that researchers are looking at marginalized workers and how to better understand and accommodate them--I can definitely see how the CRA and ADA created a space for that kind of study.

I'm also seeing a shift from purely capitalistic ideology and company efficiency in the 1920s to a focus on motivation, emotions, and how to serve individual workers in the 1960s onward.  Title VII and the ADA made a big impact on the field as well.  I wonder what other larger structures impacted the field.  What about WWI and WWII?

Also, now I'm wondering more about this idea of "identifying essential job functions and physical requirements and redesigning jobs to accommodate employees"--have we done this for teaching English 1000?  What are the job functions?  What physical (and mental) requirements are there?  How can this job be more accommodating?  How might we be harming (or deterring) grad students with disabilities by not conducting this analysis and making the job more accommodating?

I want to come back to some of these questions, but I also want to keep going in this edited collection to get more of an overview.  So, I'm going to keep digging into this book with intentions of pursuing some of these threads later.  Or, maybe I'll get lucky and the next selection will address them!


Koppes, Laura L. and Wade Pickren.  "Industrial and Organizational Psychology: An Evolving Science and Practice." Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.  Eds. Laura L. Koppes, et al.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. 3-36. Print

Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

I just picked up a few books from the library on I-O Psychology, and I'm going to get started reading them soon.  One of the books is the following:

Laura L. Koppes, et al.  Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.

The book is an edited collection which goes over a few themes: the beginning; historical overviews; educational, organizational, and military influence; early topics; later topics; reflections and future.

There are 18 articles, but a few look more relevant to me than others, such as:

• Koppes, LAura L. and Wade Pickren.  "Industrial and Organizational Psychology: An Evolving Science and Practice" 3-37.
• Zickar, Michael J. and Robert E Gibby.  "Four persistent Themes Throughout the History of I-O Psychology in the United States."  61-80.
• Lowman, Rodney L., John Kantor, and Robert Perloff.  "A History of I-O Psychology Educational Programs in the United States." 111-138.
• Kraiger, Kurt, and J. Kevin Ford.  "The Expanding Role of Workplace Training: Themes and Trends Influencing Training Research and Practice." 218-310.
• Latham, Gary P. and Marie-Helene Budworth.  "The Study of Work Motivation in the 10th Century." 353-382.
• Day, David V. and Stephen J. Zaccaro,  "Leadership: A Critical Historical Analysis of the Influence of Leader Traits." 383-406.

I'm starting to realize through these titles that I can probably learn more from I-O about Writing Program Administration, training new teachers, motivating teachers and grad students, leading a program, etc. than I can about contingent labor.  However, I think that learning more about how to be an effective leader and motivator can lead into fair labor practices.  I'm going to keep look at applications as I read.

"The Complexity of Marginalized Identities: The Social Construction of Identities, Multiple Identities, and the Experiuence of Exclusion"--Reflection

Winny Shen and Soner Dumani agree with Ruggs et al and build on their article to address three issues that should be considered when conducting research on marginalized people: the social construction of identities, the intersection of multiple identities, and the experience of exclusion.

By the social construction of identities, the authors mean that identity is malleable, socially constructed, and changes over time.  For example, someone might have a diagnosis of autism but choose not to identify as disabled.  Or, definitions of disability may change over time, like how homosexuality used to be in the DSM but is not any more.  Researchers need to take this into consideration when studying identities: these identities aren't stable, and people choose them for themselves (85).

By intersections of multiple identities, the authors mean that people experience their lives with many identity categories, and these can create really varying experiences.  The authors point out that people who exist in multiple categories can experience these intersections differently, and we need to be sensitive to this (86).  Does one category dominate?  Does the individual compartmentalize these different identities?  Do the identity categories merge?  We need to ask this.

Finally, by the experiences of exclusion, the authors mean that certain marginalized groups are more likely to be excluded, and this exclusion can look like social undermining, bullying, keeping others out of the loop, harassment, ostracism, formal discrimination, and interpersonal mistreatment (86). The authors argue that researchers need to examine how exclusion is constructed and what this does to relationships over time.

Most of this is familiar to me, from my time in feminist theory courses.  And, it's a nice reminder. It's also encouraging for me to see people discussing this in I-O.  There seems to be a very subtle-feminist lens in these articles.  I like it :)

Shen, Winny, and Soner Dumani.  "The Complexity of Marginalized Identities: The Social Construction of Identities, Multiple Identities, and the Experiuence of Exclusion."  Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 84-87.

"Maybe Too Little But Not Too Late: Four Challenges for Employment Discrimination Research in I-O"--Reflection

Derous, Ryan, and Buijsroggee critique Ruggs' article in four ways.  A lot of this critique is over my head because it's really theoretical and focused on I-O research methods. I'm certainly not the intended audience.  Here's what I was able to get from the article, though:

--Rather than studying marginalization, researchers should try to theorize discrimination and how it happens.

--Rather than looking at separate identity categories in research (like an article on Latina women and another on overweight homosexual men, etc), these authors suggest that research should look at intersectionality and double jeopardy.  The authors write:

Everyone, including members from the marginalized groups highlighted by Ruggs et al., belongs to multiple social categories (e.g., being a female and ethnic minority group member), and certainly some subgroups of minorities might be more vulnerable to prejudice than others. (76)

 I'm glad to see that the authors brought up intersectionality, because I've been thinking of that the whole time: what's the point of discussing the experiences of those in one identity category when all of us embody and live within many of these categories?  We need to examine the overlaps too.

And, like the authors said, since the overlaps are expansive, it might be more useful to look at the structures of discrimination and marginalization.  More change might happen there.

Derous, Eva, Ann Marie Ryan, and Alexander Buijsrogge. "Maybe Too Little But Not Too Late: Four Challenges for Employment Discrimination Research in I-O."  Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 75-80.

"It's Not Us, It's You: Why Isn't Research on Minority Workers Appearing in Our 'Top-Tier' Journals?"--A Reflection

This next response to Ruggs' article, by Diaz and Bergman, addresses a few issues in the main article. 

First, they argue that research is being conducted about minority populations, but it's not being published in the 7 journals the articles looked at.  They provide a list of other, second-tier journals where this research is being published.  And the authors issue a call to editors of journals to accept this research, even though it doesn't always have top-tier quality samples or theories.

Second, they argue that there's a problem with conflating minority status and marginalization.  They argue that there are some situations where minorities are not marginalized.  However, they don't make the point that there are some situations where marginalization happens not because of these identity categories.  I would have liked to see this.

From this article, I was reminded of many of the things I've discussed in my WGST courses about feminist research being pushed to the margins and not published in top-tier journals.  It's all so political.

I do think these authors are right that we can't just assume that research on minority workers isn't being done because it's not in journals.  Perhaps there is a lot of this research but the journals aren't accepting it.  If that's the case, then this is all really an argument for journal editors.  Hmmm.  I wonder if this journal will publish more on minority workers, rather than just publishing a meta-critique of the lack of publications :)

Diaz, Ismael and Mindy E Bergman. "It's Not Us, It's You: Why Isn't Research on Minority Workers Appearing in Our 'Top-Tier' Journals?"  Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 70-75.

New Schedule for ENGL 8040

Set:

April 11:  Psychology Guest Speaker: Jesse Wrench Auditorium, 3:30-5:00pm. Tim Trull, Interpersonal Sensitivity in Borderline Personality Disorder.

Begin reading Richard Davidson, The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live--and How You Can Change Them (2012).  On Amazon here.  Request through Mobius here.

April 18: Finish reading Richard Davidson.

April 25: Kirk Warren Brown talk--more information and location coming.


Still in the works:

May 2:  Read Margaret Price, Mad At School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life (2012).  On Amazon here.  Request on Mobius here.

Francisco J. Varela, Evan T Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch, The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience (1992).  On Amazon here.  Request on Mobius here. Or here is a better link actually.

May 9:  Read (more) Margaret Price Mad At School

"Research on the Discrimination of Marginalized Employees: Fishing in Other Ponts"--Response

[I'm a bit tired of the fishing metaphor.  Argh.]

Nadler et al's article uses the same model of research presented by Ruggs et al., but the journals reviewed are from the field of social psychology.  The authors hypothesized that research on workplace discrimination might also be happening in this field, so they set out to find the top 7 journals and conducted a review of the last 20 years of research (66).

The authors found that some research was being published in these journals, but the numbers were lower than the I-O journals.  There were 14 articles on race, 7 on LGBT, 2 on age and weight, 1 on disability, and none on religion or marital status (67).

The authors concluded that "it is important to look beyond I-O journals when studying workplace discrimination against marginalized groups and to consider conducting more research on under researched marginalized groups" (69).  The authors also suggested using more specific search terms like "Catholic" or "Asian" or "Hispanic," thinking that this might bring forward more results (69).

For me, this response is helpful in providing me with another sphere of psychology that I could consider: social psychology.  Perhaps I can look more into this once I have a better grasp of I-O Psych!

Nadler, Joel T. et al. "Research on the Discrimination of Marginalized Employees: Fishing in Other Ponds." Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 66-70. Web.

"Yes, We're Fishing--In Rough Waters for Hard-to-Find Fish"--Response

Thompson et al.'s response to "Gone Fishing" provides many reasons for why those in I-O haven't been studying the marginalized groups that Ruggs et al. discussed. These reasons include difficulty finding these people to study them, difficulties meeting sample size requirements, issues of power and further marginalization, problems with getting qualitative studies published, etc.  Really, the authors seem to be providing excuses for the lack of research that Ruggs et al. discovered.

I find some problems with this response, though.  For example, the authors state "it is estimated that a mere 4% to 17% of the workforce is lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" (61).  Also, "only about one in five workers in the United States is disabled" (61).  Umm, hello: 1 in 5 is actually A LOT!  Many businesses have hundreds if not thousands of workers--there are plenty of people that can be interviewed if people take the time to look.

I do agree with some of Thompson et al's assertions, though, specifically their observation that issues of power come into play in this research (62).  They also observe that we have to be aware of burn out if many people start studying these marginalized populations (64).  This reminds me of how in the academy, in an effort to look more diverse, departments will ask the one faculty member of color or one woman to serve on a lot of committees--this is actually a problem because of burn out.  I appreciate that the authors bring this up.

Also, the authors suggest that it's best to study these populations through qualitative research.  However, there can then be an issue with masking participant identities (62-63).  And there can also be an issue with finding a publisher.  The authors write, "Qualitative studies are in a sense a 'marginalized group' and less likely to be published in top journals" (63).  While I think it's kind of disrespectful to use marginalized group in this way considering the theme of the issue, I do think it's useful to acknowledge that an effective research strategy will be less likely to be published.

So, does this suggest a call to the editors, like the Ruggs article?

Again, a very interesting piece--I'm glad to see a critique of the original article to help me think about the issue in a more complex way.

Thompson, Rebecca et al. "Yes, We're Fishing--In Rough Waters for Hard-To-Find Fish." Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 61-65. Web.

"Gone Fishing: I-O Psychologists' Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees' Experiences with Discrimination"--response

This literature-review style article is actually surprisingly interesting!  Ruggs et al focus on 7 different groupings of people (or identity categories) that have been largely ignored in Industrial-Organizational Psychology research.  These categories include:

• Racial minorities
• LGBT individuals
• older workers
• workers with disabilities
• those who are overweight
• religious minorities
• and those who face marital discrimination (39-40).

In discussing these populations, the authors separate the article into 7 body sections, each section focusing on one category.  Within that category the authors address "the importance of the problem," "Reviews of Relevant Research in Focal Journals," and "Recommendations."

In the literature review, the authors found 19 articles on racial minorities, 10 on LGBT and Disability, 9 on Age, 8 on Weight, 1 on Religion, and none on Marital Status.  And this was in 7 major journals over the last 20 years.

Because much of their goal seems to have been to point out the lack of research, the authors issue a call to action:

It has been almost 50 years since the CRA passed, and we firmly believe that I-O Psychologists have missed a great opportunity.  Instead of being on the front line serving as scientists and allies for those who are marginalized and treated poorly, we have let these individuals take a backseat while we have gone fishing.  Where have SIOP members been in studying protected groups and groups that need protection?  It is really time to act. We must start looking at underresearched protected groups, but we must also look at groups that do not have legal protection to understand limitations they have in accessing the workplace and optimally thriving in it. We urge the I-O psychology community, editors included, and those who benefit from our research, to get on board, take action, and attend to these marginalized groups so that we can lead and not follow in the pursuit of guaranteeing workplace rights for all. (57)

 I really appreciated the political leanings of this article, and thorough discussion of challenges faced by those in these categories.  For example, the authors point out that people who are heavy and those who are LGBT are often discriminated against for similar reasons: others feel that these are choices that can be changed by the individual.  Recognizing this can help I-O Psychologists develop ways to address the needs of these people.  Also, the authors point out that there are laws that prohibit discrimination due to race and gender and disability and religion, but these kinds of laws do not exist for those who are LGBT, heavy, or married.  Thus, the author's call goes beyond just the field of I-O Psych and enters into a political discussion about discrimination and rights.

One thing I would have liked to see, though, is more intersectional discussion.  There were hints that these categories could be overlapping, but this was not discussed in depth.  Thus, this article could prompt people to think that individuals fit into one of these categories cleanly, rather than likely fitting into many categories at the same time.

Overall, reading this article helped me see that there is definitely something in I-O Psych that can be carried over into discussions of labor in the academy.  The authors start out the article with this statement:

One of the main goals of industrial-organizational (I-O) Psychology is to ensure an equitable and fair workplace for all.  (39)

This is what I want too.  So, I think it's time to keep hunting and find some concrete things that I can potentially carry over.  If our goals are the same, hopefully I-O Psych can provide me with some new frameworks, ideas, or methods.


Ruggs, Erica N. et al.  "Gone Fishing: I-O Psychologists' Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees' Experiences with Discrimination."  Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 39-60. Web.

"Introduction: From the Editor" by Kevin R. Murphy--response

I just read the 2 page "Introduction: From the Editor" that starts out Industrial and Organizational Psychology Vol 6, and I learned some interesting things:

• Kevin R. Murphy is a new editor (1)
• He wants the journal to challenge "the field to think about new issues or new approaches to familiar issues" (1)
• He thinks that science and practice goes hand and hand, and he encourages those who submit to consider this (1)
• The journal is organized each issue with 2 focal articles and then shorter responses to the articles (1)
• In this issue, the second focal article is about marginalized employees with 12 responses following (2)

Perhaps it's the historian wanna-be in me, but I find this front material to the journal very interesting.  It looks like Murphy is trying to be really political in his choice of articles and responses, and he wants to push the boundaries of the field rather than only reinforce them.  Maybe all journal editors say this, but t he presence of 13 articles about identity politics and marginalization can't be common in most journals--I'd say that Murphy appears to really be succeeding in his goal.

I think this issue could end up relating to my larger project on contingent labor because there's also a similar ignorance of identity politics in this discussion.  When I'm at conferences, I hear discussion of contingent laborers as marginalized.  However, this is a job, not an identity position.  What about those who are in this marginalized job and inhabit a marginalized identity category?  It seems to me like we don't talk about this enough.  Eileen Schell does in her book from the 1990s, but now there seems to be a whitewashing of discussions of contingent laborers.

Perhaps the perspectives on race, sexuality, age, disability, weight, religion, and marital status can help me think more complexly about issues of contingent labor?  I won't know until I keep reading!  Now, on to the focal article for this issue: "Gone Fishing: I-O Psychologists' Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees' Experiences with Discrimination."

Murphy, Kevin. "Introduction: From the Editor." Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (2013): 1-2. Web.