Psychology in Organizations

integrating Science and Practice

Kevin R. Murphy, Frank E. Saal, Kevin R. Murphy, Frank E. Saal

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134750610
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Geschichte & Theorie in der Psychologie

This book deals with two key questions. First, is there a firm scientific basis for the major applications of psychology in organizations? Second, does the practice of psychology in organizations contribute in any meaningful way to psychological research? This text attempts to answer these questions by describing some of the unique ways in which Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychologists integrate science and practice in applying psychology in organizations. The editors of this volume believe that there is great potential for the effective interplay of science and practice in I/O psychology. Aware, however, that much work must still be done before a truly effective integration can be achieved and maintained, they have created a text that offers specific suggestions for improvement as well as many examples of successful integration. Psychology in Organizations explores the unique relationship between science and practice within industrial/organizational psychology. The contributors seek to answer two main questions: * Is there a firm scientific basis for the major applications of psychology in organizations? * Does the practice of psychology in organizations contribute in any meaningful way to psychological research? After an initial examination of the industrial/organizational psychologist as a scientist and practitioner, Psychology in Organizations looks at specific roles played in such issues as job performance and productivity, sexual harassment, drug abuse, and drug testing. A final chapter looks at both the past and future of the field and suggests future applications.

I	THE SCIENTIST-PRACTITIONER MODEL: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

In this section, we describe some of the challenges of integrating science and practice when applying psychology in organizations. Jean Lapointe’s chapter examines this problem from the perspective of a psychologist in an organization, while Robert Mclntyre examines it from the perspective of an academician. These two chapters highlight a wide variety of problems in integrating science and practice, from the lack of relevant skills to the operation of reward systems that discourage integration. The chapter by Kevin Murphy and Frank Saal is somewhat less pessimistic in tone, and suggests that some of our frustration over the difficulties of integrating science and practice in I/O psychology result from unrealistic expectations. This third chapter suggests that the scientist-practitioner model is alive and well in I/O psychology. The chapters in Sections Two, Three, and Four of this book examine this possibility in some detail.

1	Industrial/Organizational Psychology: A View From the Field

Jean B. Lapointe
United Brands Company

This chapter is a product of my belief that Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychology can be and should be directly applicable to improving organizational performance. This belief shaped my decision to study I/O psychology in graduate school and pursue its application as an internal and external consultant. After 17 years of experience in large, complex organizations (i.e., military, graduate school, and three Fortune 500 corporations), I believe more firmly than ever in the potential for I/O psychology to contribute to practical organizational improvement. I am, however, more skeptical than ever that its contribution will be realized without some fundamental changes in I/O psychology.

This skepticism is born of personal experience. The more I have tried to be an I/O psychologist, the less I have been able to be of practical value to the organizations with and for whom I have worked. As a “practitioner,” I have focused on day-to-day organizational problems and opportunities: starting-up new plants, reorganizations, increasing teamwork, selecting and developing managers, improving morale, etc. The more I have focused on solving these practical organizational problems, the more I have found myself drawn away from the I/O psychology community.

My identification with I/O psychology has waned during my tenure as a practical problem solver. My interests have shifted from knowledge for its own sake to knowledge for action, from correct methodology to activity that is results-oriented, from what isn’t being done perfectly to what can be done better. I am much more likely to read Harvard Business Review than Journal of Applied Psychology. My ongoing professional development has included improving my influence skills and learning the basics of finance rather than attending the American Psychological Association (APA) or the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conventions.

I have observed an analogous contrast in entire internal consulting departments. One department I observed was led by an I/O psychologist and staffed with three other I/O psychologists and an industrial sociologist. These individuals were well trained and genuinely concerned that their work be rigorous and up to I/O psychology’s standards. Three of the staff were oriented primarily to the more traditional I/O areas: measurement, selection, and performance appraisal. Although never articulated, the department saw its primary mission as developing and installing human resource systems to be used by others. The department’s reputation rested on the development and wide-spread use of a single, very successful assessment center.

A second department was staffed with a mix of I/O psychologists, business school graduates, sociologists, and experienced managers. I/O psychologists were always in the minority and the department was led by an MBA. This staff also viewed themselves as professionals and had a strong concern for the quality of their work. However, quality was measured primarily by results: Did they succeed in helping the organization perform better? The staff members prided themselves not on adhering to the standards of I/O psychology, but on being “close to the business” and contributing to its success. The department’s mission was explicitly stated as contributing to the profitability of the business. Its reputation rested on having done that time and time again.

The second department was decidedly more successful. It averaged six to eight projects per staff member compared with two to four in the first department. The second department’s projects were usually conducted for senior-level executives and routinely had major impact on employee relations and profitability. The first department worked most often at middle levels and, except for the assessment center, rarely affected the firm’s operations. The second department grew while the first did not. The second department was very successful in attracting highly qualified staff, including experienced I/O psychologists. Openings in the first department were difficult to fill, except with entry level professionals. Staff from the second department were often promoted to other departments, a rare event in the first department.

This contrast, like my own experience, is limited yet clear. I/O psychology did not provide me or either of these departments with the skills and knowledge necessary to effectively and consistently contribute to improved organizational functioning. The first department limited itself to I/O psychology, did without these tools, and minimized its impact. The second department went beyond I/O psychology to find the tools it needed to have an impact.

Others have made similar observations. Boehm (1982) contrasted two models for I/O research. One is a model of “what should be” according to the norms and standards for rigorous scientific research. The other is a model of “what is”—research as it actually takes place in “real world” organizations. In comparing these models, Boehm observed:

In short, the ‘what is’ model is scientifically, distinctly messy in terms of methodology, complexity, statistical analysis, and the conclusions that can be drawn. Yet, at the same time, it seems to present a more accurate picture of organizational reality than a model based on ‘what should be.’ (p. 30)

She concluded that:

By and large, the reaction of behavioral scientists, when faced by the realities of the organizational research environment, has been either to attempt modification of the environment to fit the traditional model of inquiry or else to opt out of the scientific establishment. (pp. 30–31)

The incompatibility between our methods and our subject matter frequently limits I/O research to areas where it is at least possible to more-or-less conform to the model of “what should be.” These areas exclude many, if not most, opportunities to achieve maximal impact on the bottom-line performance of organizations. This is exactly what happened to the first department described earlier.

But why should we, as a field of inquiry, concern ourselves with contributing to improved effectiveness? Isn’t this whole issue simply a matter of values? If I/O psychology chooses to value scientific rigor over practical applicability, then so be it. We know from the physical sciences that scientific rigor will eventually produce results that can be productively applied in the “real world.” So, if some individuals want to sacrifice rigor in return for short-term solutions, maybe they should opt out of the scientific establishment.

The difference between practical and scientific orientations is a value difference. But it is more than that. We depend on organizations for access to the phenomena we seek to study. Organizations have their own interests, their own goals, their own problems. Unless we contribute to their interests, we will not have access. Especially in today’s competitive environment, organizations do not have the luxury of devoting resources—time, money, people, attention—to academic research that does not benefit them in some demonstrable manner.

The importance to I/O psychology of access to organizations cannot be overstated. Kuhn (1977) described “normal science” as puzzle solving. The key to a thriving, vital science is interesting puzzles. These puzzles are to be found in real organizations. Gaining access requires that we provide a product of value.

Insisting on rigor and the pursuit of our own interests frequently deprives our field of its most important asset—interesting, meaningful work. Argyris (1980) and others (e.g., Kelman, 1969) have criticized rigorous research as being inconsistent with the objective of obtaining accurate data and developing valid theory. Boehm (1982) reminded us that “organizations do not exist primarily as research laboratories for behavioral scientists (p. 36).” Failure to recognize and act on this basic fact will, in her words, lead to “stagnation of the field … and widening of the communication gap between academic and organizational I/O psychologists (pp. 36–37).”

In his editorial review of this chapter, Murphy (Personal communication, September 29, 1988) suggested that I/O psychology is turning away from organizations as a source of puzzles. As an example, he noted that most of the recent performance appraisal research has drawn its inspiration from cognitive psychology, not from observations of appraisal in organizations. Murphy’s observation highlights the extremes to which I/O psychologists will go to study phenomena that lend themselves to “scientific” methods, rather than using or developing methods which suit the phenomena. “Performance appraisal” is not a natural phenomenon. It is an artifact of organizational life, which occurs only after considerable structuring of time, attention, and effort. Balzer and Zulsky’s chapter later in this volume shows how divorcing performance appraisal research from its organizational context has led to a sterile, disorganized body of research which ill serves I/O scientists and organizational practitioners alike. These authors call for reconnecting the research to its organizational context by incorporating the interests of the scientist and the organization in every stage of the research process.

Whether we wish to understand organizations or improve them, we must deal with the realities of organizational life rather than treating them as inconvenient obstacles to the techniques, programs, or research we wish to conduct. Doing so requires three elements. From a practical perspective, we simply must do better at working with real organizations on their business problems. Second, we need a science that directs and guides consultants, managers, and others involved in the creation and improvement of organizations. Finally, the dichotomy between science and practice, between academic and organizational I/O psychologists, cannot continue to exist. Thought and action, theory and practice, must be more closely integrated. The balance of this chapter briefly addresses each of these requirements.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICE

I/O psychologists who strive to improve organizational functioning do so primarily in the role of consultant. As consultants, we have the opportunity to get directly involved with significant organizational issues, to improve organizational functioning, and to observe and experience organizational life first hand. The consultant role provides a bridge between a body of knowledge and particular situations, problems, or opportunities. Effectively applying that body of knowledge within a particular setting requires an additional set of skills, attitudes, and knowledge. If we are serious about contributing to and learning from “real world” organizations, then our ability to consult effectively must be given the same attention as our ability to do research.

A practical attitude is perhaps the most important characteristic of effective consultants. This practical attitude is characterized by a genuine interest in a particular situation and a concern for and appreciation of the client organization’s interest in that situation. I find I am effective when I focus on the client’s legitimate interests and try to understand the situation in terms that are meaningful to the client. Theories, techniques, programs, and methods are all potentially useful, but only to the extent that they help in understanding and advancing the client’s interests. A practical attitude is nothing more and nothing less than putting the client’s interests first. Let me illustrate.

I often use employee surveys to diagnose an organization and to help prepare it to change. I have analyzed and reported survey results in many forms—means, percentages, two-by-two tables, with norms, without norms, gap scores, and so on. A few years ago I came across a survey that used a type of score that was new to me. The score is computed by asking employees to respond to each item three times: first, rating the item as it is now in the organization; second, rating it as it should be; and, finally, rating how important the item is to the employee. Each item is scored by taking the difference between the “is now” and “should be” scores. The difference is then multiplied by the “importance” score to produce a “need-for-change” score. Means on the need-for-change score are then computed and reported for different employee groups.

Statistically, this procedure is, at best, less than ideal. Many measurement experts would probably say it is less than acceptable. The need-for-change score not only relies on the ever-troublesome difference measure, it also multiplies that measure and averages the result. However, the need-for-change score has exceptional face validity with client groups—both management and employees. The survey, and more important, the results are readily understood and accepted by the organization. At a practical level, the quality of measurement is very good. The survey works superbly to identify strengths and weaknesses and provides a way for managers and employees to discuss, understand, and solve problems. Thus, when viewed from the ideal scientific perspective, this survey is far from the most technically sophisticated. But when viewed from the practical perspective of what helps improve an organization, it is very effective.

Because this practical attitude is so important to effective consulting, one human resource development group tried to capture it as part of their Mission Statement:

The Organization Development Department exists to improve the profitability and long-term success of (our Company), and its subsidiaries. We consult with managers to help them better understand the “people side” of their business and to design and implement changes which will make their organizations stronger, more flexible, and better able to meet their business objectives. Managers who work with us can expect:

• An objective perspective on their organization;

• A genuine respect for their concerns and for the realities of their business environment;

• A broad focus on their business as a whole system;

• Support and encouragement to make their organization better than it is;

• Expertise in management, general business, human resources, leadership, psychology, organizational behavior and development; and,

• Consulting and management expertise in (this Company) and other industrial and service organizations.

Beer (1987), in his keynote address at the Organization Development Network Conference in Seattle, referred to this practical attitude as “a concern for the critical path.” The critical path consists of the one or two things an organizational unit must do well in order to achieve its business objectives. The path might include manufacturing efficiency, quality, customer service, or similar items.

Based on his research, Beer concluded that programmatic efforts to transform organizations are doomed to failure. By definition, staff (or consultant) programs such as performance appraisal, selection systems, quality circles, mission definition, trai...