INDUSTRIAL Psychology Report
INDUSTRIAL Psychology Report
INDUSTRIAL Psychology Report
IMPORTANT: The following description of Industrial and Organizational (I-O) psychology is
perhaps one of the best I’ve seen. I’ve slightly edited the wording (shortened and combined
some parts, and expanded on others) but the entire piece was taken from APA Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2011).
The two fundamental goals of I-O psychology are (1) to understand the behavior
(performance of tasks) of people in a work setting; how people can become effective,
satisfied, fulfilled, and rewarded; and how these outcomes can be maintained, and (2) to
study how the organization can be sustained and developed and applying psychological
principles, theory, research, and interventions in order to design and implement practical
solutions to solve organizational challenges.
Reference
Zedeck, S. (Ed.). (2011). APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 1.
Building and developing the organization. American Psychological Association.
1. The Consultant and the Staff Psychologist: As was pointed out earlier,
the industrial psychologist is likely to obtain his livelihood through one of three
major sources of employment. He is either a consultant, an employee of a
company or the government, or a university teacher. Very often he combines two
of the three roles, but whether he does or not depends upon his interests,
opportunities, degree of identification, and tempo.
Although a schism between the staff psychologist and the consultant is unde-
sirable if the profession is to be advanced in industry, the answers given m
Canters study (1948) to the question “What do you think of consulting firms as
the best solution to industrial psychological problems?” pose a serious future
problem. One- half of the staff psychologist group was unfavourable toward such
firms; the consulting group was generally favourable. This situation demands
attention and should be cleared up.
A note of optimism is reflected toward the field in general since 80 percent of the
respondents reported that executives were becoming more “psychological
minded” A further indication of the increased acceptance of the psychologist by
leaders in industry comes from a 1962 survey conducted by Feinberg and
Lefkowitz (1962). They administered a questionnaire to 89 executives who were
attending a seminar sponsored by the American Management Association. When
asked whether they would be interested in hiring an industrial psychologist, over
two thirds replied favourably.
2. Communication:
One of the difficulties of any profession is that its language and technique some-
times become so involved that the outsider is really left out. If industrial
psychology is to gain an important place in industry, psychologists must learn to
talk and write in a fashion that is clearly understandable to others who are
equally interested in the mutual problems and who sometimes have an even
greater stake in a solution. Not only must the industrial psychologist learn to
communicate adequately with the non-psychologist, but even the problem of
communication within the field itself is becoming a problem. The ever-increasing
complexity of industrial psychology and the specialization of interest of the
psychologists working on different problems in different settings has created
many barriers to the flow and dissemination of knowledge among researchers
and practitioners. While such problems may be the inevitable corollary of a
dynamic discipline, the authors feel that the communication problem is one of
the most critical in industrial psychology today.
3. Resistance to Change:
Research findings as well as research itself can ordinarily be expected to meet
with resistance on the part of employees and, in many instances, employers. The
successful practitioner of industrial psychology must be immediately and forever
aware of this phenomenon. It would be purely academic if one anticipated that
industry is waiting with open arms to apply the knowledge of industrial
psychology.
The unreality of the imagination only makes the resistance stronger. When
changes are associated with speedups or layoffs, the resistance to any
contemplated change is even more intense. It is not enough to state that no
detrimental action to the employee’s welfare is contemplated.
The claim must be proved. Anything that is not clearly understood can be an
insecurity-producing factor. Change often upsets established pattern. People are
not easily corrected, nor are they able to give up habits freely. Research often
intends to change behaviour that has become routine and thus can be expected to
be resisted.
Resistance comes not only from the employee but from all levels of management
and the employer. The naive employer often wants research to prove his point or
position. Such a guarantee is not possible. The conclusions of research depend
upon the data and cannot be established by manipulation of data to conform to a
pre-established outcome.
All, however, is not hopeless provided at least four fundamentals are recognized.
First, the reasons for the contemplated change should be clearly explained.
Second, those who will be involved in the change should have ample opportunity
for participation in the implementation of that change. Third, change should be a
two-way affair rather than an attempt to force all to agree to a one-sided decision.
Fourth, the administrator of the change should recognize at all times that change
is a real, imagined, or potential threat, and that he must do all he can to eliminate
or reduce the possible threat regardless of the form it assumes.