Industrial And Organizational Research Articles

Within-person personality variability in the work context: A blessing or a curse for job performance?

Only recently, the question whether within-person personality variability is a blessing or a curse for job performance has reached the agendas of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology researchers. Yet, this limited stream of research resulted in inconsistent findings, and only little understanding exists about the role of rater source and mean-level personality in this relationship. Broadly following socioanalytic theory, the present study examined the extent to which self- and other-rated within-person personality variability predicts self- and other-rated job performance, and whether this is moderated by mean-level personality. Within-person personality variability indices and job performance evaluations were obtained from an experience sampling study including N = 166 teachers, N = 95 supervisors, and N = 69 classes (including 1,354 students). Results showed that-above and beyond the effects of mean-level personality-self-rated within-person variability was positively associated with self-rated job performance, while other-rated within-person variability was negatively associated with other-ratings of performance. Many interactions with mean-level personality were found, mainly demonstrating negative effects of variability for those with a less adaptive personality profile (cf. variability as a "curse"), while showing positive effects of variability for those with a more adaptive trait profile (cf. variability as a "blessing"). Importantly, however, additional analyses provided little evidence for associations across type of rater source. These findings contribute to the field of I-O psychology by highlighting that perceptions of within-person personality variability may impact performance evaluations beyond personality traits, although its desirability seems to depend on individuals' personality trait level. Implications and limitations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Side effects associated with organizational interventions: A perspective

AbstractDrawing on examples from published research, the authors offer a perspective on the side effects that are associated with organizational interventions. This perspective is framed in the context of the many hard-won positive influences that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists have had on individuals, groups, organizations, and social institutions over the last century. With a few exceptions, we argue that side effects tend to receive less attention from I-O psychology researchers and practitioners than they deserve. A systematic approach to studying, monitoring, and advertising side effects is needed to better understand their causes, consequences, and the contexts in which they are most likely to emerge. The purpose of this piece is to stimulate conversations within the field about the phenomenon of side effects as well as what might be done to improve our science and practice in this domain.

Book Review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice. 8th Edition. By Paul E. Spector. John Wiley &Sons, 2021. 416 pp. Price: $75.95 (Paperback) and $67.00 (eBook).

Psychology refers to thestudy of human behaviourand mental processes. Psychologists employ a range ofevidence-based practices and methodsto understand and respond to complex socialproblems. They may workwithin family and community contexts,at schools,inclinical settings,as well as in the workforce(Riggio, 2018; Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2017;Spector, 2017; Norcross, VandenBos, Freedheim, & Krishnamurthy, 2016).Currently, there are 54 divisions of the American Psychological Association, representing differentsub-disciplines (APA, 2021). The 14thdivision is known as theSociety for Industrial and Organizational (I-O) Psychology, which covers practice in all types oforganizational and workplace settings. The division focuses on skillsassessment, leadership development, staffmanagement, teamwork, occupational health and safety, diversityin the workplace, and work-life balance.

Chief Executive Officer Succession and Board Decision Making: Review and Suggestions for Advancing Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Human Resources Management, and Organizational Behavior Research

We conduct a comprehensive review of the chief executive officer (CEO) succession literature and update a CEO succession typology that incorporated manuscripts published through 2014. Our review illustrates that most of our understanding of succession and related processes stems from research based primarily in macro research traditions. We highlight ways that scholars can develop deeper understandings of CEO successionprocesses by capitalizing on knowledge and practices that are visible from more micro lenses such as industrial and organizational (IO) psychology, human resources (HR), and organizational behavior (OB). Specifically, we advocate applying lessons about recruitment, training, fit, culture, selection, turnover, human capital resources, and decision making from IO psychology, HR, and OB research to extend our understanding about CEO succession and board decision making.

Practice what we preach, think how we teach

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) has identified metacognition as one of the many approaches to improving our higher education standards that may be unfamiliar to us as industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists [ ]once the content has been sufficiently covered, you will plan the forms of assessment, whether it be a multiple-choice exam, a reflection paper, a term paper, or discussion posts At face value, it may seem like engaging in planning can take away precious resources that already feel nearly depleted from other important tasks such as meeting publication pressure, mentoring your graduate students, or being a good steward of your program Because we are not all-knowing, however, it is time for monitoring to take center stage

Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members

AbstractPrestigious journals are widely admired for publishing quality scholarship, yet the primary indicators of journal prestige (i.e., impact factors) do not directly assess audience admiration. Moreover, the publication landscape has changed substantially in the last 20 years, with electronic publishing changing the way we consume scientific research. Given that it has been 18 years since the publication of the last journal prestige survey of SIOP members, the authors conducted a new survey and used these results to reflect on changing practices within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. SIOP members (n = 557) rated the prestige and relevance of I-O and management journals. Responses were analyzed according to job setting, and were compared to a survey conducted by Zickar and Highhouse (2001) in 2000. There was considerable consistency in prestige ratings across settings (i.e., management department vs. psychology department; academic vs. applied), especially among the top journals. There was considerable variance, however, in the perceived usefulness of different journals. Results also suggested considerable consistency across the two time periods, but with some increases in prestige among OB-oriented journals. Changes in the journal landscape are discussed, including the rise of OHP as a topic of concentration in I-O. We suggest that I-O programs will continue to attract the top researchers in talent management and OHP, which should result in the use of a broader set of journals for judging I-O program impact.

Leadership concepts in manufacturing environments: A brief historical review and conclusion with recommendations for education and training of I-O psychologists

Viewing production-line workers from a historical standpoint, the attention on manufacturing in the 19th and into the 20th centuries was on production (Fifelski, 2014) and production-oriented leadership style, in contrast to employee-oriented leadership style (Likert, 1961; see also Kosicek, Soni, Sandbothe, & Slack, 2012).Around the turn of the 20th century, changes took place, and it appears as if two different approaches were taken in manufacturing environments: research–practitioner-based leadership approaches and management-based leadership approaches; the latter approach is less a leadership style and more a social management philosophy em+phasizing business operation (Vitolla, Rubino, & Garzoni, 2017). This review should bring awareness that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists once took on the lead to major successes that arose from work in manufacturing companies; however, today there is hardly any contribution by I-O psychologists to the manufacturing sector.

Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review

AbstractPeer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

The challenges of Lean management research and practice in the field of entrepreneurship: The roles of I-O psychology theories and I-O psychologists

Balzer, Brodke, Kluse, and Zickar (2019) present a focal article to discuss why Lean management, in spite of its popularity in some other areas, receives little attention in the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Moreover, they argue that I-O psychologists can play a role in improving Lean management and in amplifying its impact. Specifically, Balzer et al. identify a set of topics that may stimulate I-O psychologists’ interest in Lean management. Based on our review of the cited literature in Balzer et al., we found that major entrepreneurship journals were not cited. Entrepreneurship was depicted as “an exciting field of inquiry for I/O psychology” (Frese & Gielnik, 2014, p. 430), and it is known to enhance and enrich our knowledge in I-O psychology (Frese & Gielnik, 2014). Given the recent rise of the “psychology of entrepreneurship” (Frese & Gielnik, 2014), we argue that this omission in Balzer et al. may have to be addressed because Lean management is an important topic in the field of entrepreneurship. Although the field of entrepreneurship has begun paying attention to I-O psychology, more needs to be done. Research on Lean management may help to reduce the gap between I-O psychology and entrepreneurship. We will discuss the status quo of Lean management in entrepreneurship studies, the challenges of Lean management research and practice in the field of entrepreneurship, and how I-O psychology theories address these challenges and enrich the current understanding of Lean management in entrepreneurship.

The Effectiveness of Cybersecurity Compliance in a Corporate Organization in Nigeria

The complexity and growth also create asymmetries between attackers and their targets, and incentives that drive underinvestment in cybersecurity The Digital technologies have transformed how people socialize, shop, interact with government and do business. The World Wide Web is of made amounts of information instantly available. The smartphones have put our fingertips everywhere we go it an improvement on effectiveness cybersecurity training for end users of systems and offers suggestions about and how topManagement leaders can improve on trainingto effectively combat cybersecurity threats at the organizations. Is imperative to achieve higher end-user cybersecurity compliance; practice is accepted, as a means to increase compliance behavior in any organization. The Training can influence compliance by one or more of three causal pathways: by increasing cybersecurity awareness, by increasing cybersecurity proficiency (i.e., improve cybersecurity skills) and by raising cybersecurity self-efficacy. This includes an extensive review of the cybersecurity policies and competencies that are the basis for training needs analysis, setting learning goals, and practical training. This paper discusses opportunities for human resource (HR) practitioners and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, and informationtechnology (IT) specialists, and to integrate their skills and enhance the capabilities of organizations to counteract cybersecurity threats. AnyOrganizations cannot achieve their cybersecurity goalson workers alone, so all employees who use computer networks must be trained on the skill and policies related to cybersecurity.

On reproducibility and replicability: Arguing for open science practices and methodological improvements at the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology

Problematisation: In recent years, psychology has been going through a crisis of sorts. Research methods and practices have come under increased scrutiny, with many issues identified as negatively contributing to low replicability and reproducibility of psychological research.Implications: As a consequence, researchers are increasingly called upon to overhaul and improve their research process. Various stakeholders within the scientific community are arguing for more openness and rigor within industrial and organisational (I-O) psychological research. A lack of transparency and openness further fuels criticisms as to the credibility and trustworthiness of I-O psychology which negatively affects the evidence-based practices which it supports. Furthermore, traditional gate-keepers such as grant agencies, professional societies and journals, are adapting their policies, reflecting an effort to curtail these trends.Purpose: The purpose of this opinion paper is, therefore, to stimulate an open dialogue with the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP) contributing authors, its editorial board and readership about the challenges associated with the replication crisis in psychology. Furthermore, it attempts to discuss how the identified issues affect I-O psychology and how these could be managed through open science practices and other structural improvements within the SAJIP.Recommendations: We enumerate several easily implementable open science practices, methodological improvements and editorial policy enhancements to enhance credibility and transparency within the SAJIP. Relying on these, we recommend changes to the current practices that can be taken up by researchers and the SAJIP to improve reproducibility and replicability in I-O psychological science.

#Ustoo: How I-O psychologists can extend the conversation on sexual harassment and sexual assault through workplace training

AbstractRecent events in the workplace, government, and college campuses in the US have brought the issues of sexual harassment and assault to the forefront of media and public discussion. Industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists are uniquely suited to help address these issues by aiding in intervention development. Specifically, I-O psychologists can provide key insight regarding the context, design, development, and evaluation of sexual harassment and assault training efforts. Although some empirical evidence suggests that trainings are effective in the short term, there is little evidence to suggest long-term attitudinal or behavioral change outside of the training environment. Much of the research in this area, however, has focused solely on the training intervention, excluding the pre- and post-training environment. Thus, the present effort focuses on designing trainings that promote transfer, as well as improving measurement of desired outcomes, to provide a framework for improving sexual harassment and assault training. This framework addresses how individual differences, needs analysis, training design, evaluation, and post-training support contribute to lasting change while addressing the unique challenges associated with sexual harassment and assault. Last, this framework provides guidance for improving research in this area as well as practical suggestions for improving training programs.

How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks

Previous research has highlighted the importance of individual factors predicting human beings’ relatively poor performance in controlling dynamic operational systems. Taking an industrial and organizational (IO) psychology perspective within a behavioral operations research context, this study focuses on erroneous stock-flow thinking and general cognitive ability. It uses data from laboratory experiments to test a mediating structural equation model firmly grounded in IO psychology theory, proposing both a direct concave impact of general cognitive ability on control task performance and an indirect concave effect mediated by stock-flow thinking. With our results we are the first to demonstrate that stock-flow thinking serves as a mediator of general cognitive ability on performance, while at the same time, general cognitive ability non-linearly impacts performance. These findings contribute to theory building in behavioral operational research and demonstrate how adoption of perspectives other than the traditional paradigms used can help. It also has practical implications as it improves the relative assessment of different levers to increase operational control performance. We find that the total impact of general cognitive ability on control performance is higher than the direct effect of stock-flow thinking. Therefore, companies should add stock-flow thinking tests to their personnel selection toolbox, but put more weight on selecting operational managers with high cognitive abilities and somewhat less weight on training efforts that aim to reduce stock-flow failures.

Gaining Organizational Entry and Developing Partnerships for Applied Research and Experience: A Perspective From Industrial-Organizational Psychology Master's Programs

As faculty in master's industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology graduate programs, we read with great interest the focal article on initiating and maintaining partnerships with organizations (Lapierre et al., 2018). We applaud the efforts of the authors to present guidelines and recommendations for successful applied research in organizations. Although Lapierre et al. directed their recommendations primarily to doctoral faculty and their students, there currently are 159 I-O psychology master's programs listed on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) webpage (http://my.siop.org/GTP). Because of the applied nature of most master's programs, by necessity we work continuously to gain entry into and partner with organizations for internship placements, applied course projects, and applied service opportunities. We, along with other master's faculty colleagues, have published and presented on the topic of partnering with organizations (e.g., Shoenfelt, 2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, 2012; Shoenfelt et al., 2015; Shoenfelt, Stone, & Kottke, 2013; Shoenfelt, Walker, Long, Smith, & Whelan, 2012; Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson, & Frame, 2018; Stone, Shoenfelt, Morganson, Moffett, & Van Hein, 2017). In this response, we offer an analogous perspective from the master's level based on tacit knowledge garnered from more than a century of combined experience. We note that many of the recommendations in this focal article likewise surfaced in our work. Here we highlight the challenges unique to master's-level and teaching-intensive faculty in implementing these recommendations. In our response, we embrace Lewin's (1946) definition of action research that there is no action without research and no research without action. Thus, we broadly define applied research as asking an important applied question and systematically collecting data to answer that question in a manner in which the results inform organizational action (whether or not it results in a peer-reviewed publication).

Making and Managing the Pitch: Selling I-O Psychology Research to Organizations

In their focal article, Lapierre et al. (2018) draw attention to several key unanswered concerns academics face in establishing, developing, and maintaining research partnerships with organizations. Though mentioned briefly in the article's introduction, one potential concern that would benefit from further attention is selling a potential research topic to organizations. Many academics find themselves with research interests that organizations would prefer to avoid shedding light on (e.g., workplace mistreatment, sexual harassment, hiring practices, diversity and inclusion practices, etc.). In these instances, it may be particularly difficult to convince key stakeholders within organizations to partner on research projects, especially in situations that might raise organizational fears of negative publicity. In their introduction, Lapierre et al. (2018) state that “middle or frontline managers may be reluctant to facilitate a study out of fear of what the research could reveal in terms of problems in their units, particularly if such problems might be perceived as reflecting poorly upon them (e.g., poor leadership skills)” (p. 545). Further, “managers may fear raising employees’ expectations or highlighting particular problems by involving them in research projects” (Lapierre et al., 2018, p. 544). In the following several paragraphs, I address how academics may proactively address and minimize these potential concerns. Although not meant to be an exhaustive set of recommendations, the goal is to provide several potential avenues for “selling” industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research to potential organizational stakeholders.

Research Partnerships Between Academics and Consulting Firms: A Stakeholder Analysis

The focal article (LaPierre et al., 2018) proposes several steps in developing a research partnership with organizations. We commend LaPierre and colleagues for bringing to light these recommendations. We agree that research partnerships may prove valuable for the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. For I-O psychology to grow as a science, more appropriate sampling and more relevant data sources are necessary (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Although I-O psychology master's and PhD programs continue to grow and produce more I-O psychology graduates that enter the applied marketplace, there remains a paucity of applied research partnerships between academics and organizations. Research partnerships are often established in other disciplines (i.e., computer science, public health, biochemistry) and have resulted in fruitful relationships for both parties (D'Este & Iammarino, 2010; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Santoro & Betts, 2002), but similar partnerships have not become the norm in I-O psychology. Despite a growing number of I-O psychology graduates and programs (Shellenbarger, 2010), I-O psychology academics have not leveraged those relationships to create research partnerships between universities and business. We would argue that this lack of research partnerships is due to the difficulty of navigating and negotiating with the multiple stakeholders involved in the process of developing a research partnership.

Art of the Sale: Recommendations for Sharing Research With Mainstream Media and Senior Leaders

Research collaborations are two-way streets. To obtain support from organizations, academics must communicate the value of their research projects to the stakeholders. In their focal article, Lapierre et al., (2018) described this process as the academic “sales pitch”, one that must be “short yet attention grabbing” (p.20). Academic research in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, however, is rooted in esoteric jargon (e.g., validity and reliability) and unconvincing evidence (e.g., r and r2) (Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol, & Sim, 2017; Rynes, 2009). These concepts are difficult for non-academics to understand and may even undermine the value of our work (Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, 2014; Kuncel & Rigdon, 2012; Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, & Camara, 2009). CEOs and other senior leaders often have limited time, attention, and expertise to process your pitch: A bad one could effectively derail the collaboration before it even began.

Let the Pigs Fly: What We Say and How We Say It When We Talk About Gender

“What if gender mattered less? Pigs might actually fly before that happens,” said Dr. Mikki Hebl at the Shaken & Stirred event at the 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference (I-O Shaken & Stirred, 2017). If gender mattered less, “SIOP itself would see differences. Women comprised only six out of the 21 SIOP fellows this year, and five of the 25 major award recipients yesterday . . . were women.” With that, she dropped the microphone and walked off the stage. This video has been viewed on YouTube more than twice as many times as most of the other Shaken & Stirred videos that are available, and it is this boldness that is needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology if we expect to see changes.

What We Do Not Know: Answers From the SIOP Income and for Peer Review Employment Survey

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) emphasize the need to assess human capital and market factors that may contribute to gender differences in income and suggest that such data are not readily available. As members of the Institutional Research Committee, we thought it important to provide some evidence addressing the focal article's main points using what data are available. Specifically, we conducted ad hoc analyses using data from the 2016 SIOP Income and Employment Survey, with the intent of providing additional context related to employment and compensation for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists. Our sample included only respondents who indicated that they worked full time and who provided their gender (n = 1,069). These analyses answer Gardner et al.’s call to examine factors that explain the income gap between men and women within the field.

How We Are Doing What We Are Doing: Network Mechanisms of Gender Representation in I-O Psychology

The field of psychology has a long history of tracing the lineage of modern day psychologists back to their academic roots (Benjamin, Durkin, Link, Vestal, & Accord, 1992), and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is no exception (Culbertson, 2016). Why do we do it? Well, it is intriguing to see how our initial training may be linked back to some of the pioneers of our field. Perhaps it also represents how we are connected with one another—through our extended family relationships. But of course an academic family tree only reflects a portion of how we might be interconnected with one another—certainly our networks go much further than our dissertation chairs. Indeed, they might include our collaborators, coworkers and former coworkers, fellow former graduate students, and a host of people with whom we have connected at conferences or through other professional and personal relationships, and the composition of these networks, arguably, matters.