"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