PSY 6450 Psychology of Work
1
PSY 6450 Unit 1
• Some facts and a little history of I/O
• Differences between I/O psychology
and OBM
– Bucklin et al. (2000)
– Written essential material into SOs
• History of OBM
– Dickinson (2000)
– 20th anniversary issue of JOBM
• Article by Quilitch
schizophrenic
2
Four basic areas of I/O psychology
(NFE)
• Personnel Selection and Placement
– Main area of emphasis for I/O
– Not emphasized in OBM
• Training and Instructional Design
– Largest area of employment for MAs
• Performance Management
– Focus of this course
• Systems Analysis - Organizational
Development
(not counseling or clinical. EAP programs - counseling/clinical/social work degrees)
3
Facts about I/O psychology
• SO1: Primary professional
organization for I/O psychology
Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Web site: www.siop.org
• SO2: Percentage of PhD
psychologists who are I/O
psychologists
4%
4
SO4: Where do I/O psychologists work?
• 4A: Ph.D.s (learn top two for exam)
– Universities
– Consulting firms
– Industry
– Government
39%
35%
20%
6%
• 4B: MAs (learn top two for exam)
– Industry
– Consulting firms
– Government
– Universities
67%
14%
11%
8%
note difference PhD industry vs. universities and consulting/note difference MAs: CLG
5
SO5: $$ Salaries - SIOP Survey 2004 (NFE)
Median
Starting
Median
Overall
PhD
$73,000
$98,500
MA
$55,000
$72,000
Male
Median
Female
Median
$100,000 $85,000
$ PhD median starting same for applied & profs
$ Profs significantly lower than applied
$ PhD female median income is 15% lower than
males - no change in % since 1982!
(about 50% of students are now female, 14% when I got my I/O degree 1977)l
6
SO7: Licensing (NFE)
• Very different than clinical
• Varies from state to state
– Some require it, most don’t (contrary to
what Muchinsky said)
• Some states preclude it - i.e., MI
– Educational and experiential
requirements focus on
clinical/counseling courses and
internships
7
SO8: SIOP opposes licensing - why?
• SIOP maintains that I/O psychologists
– Should be able to be licensed
– But should not be required to be licensed
• Main reason why (SO8)
– I/O psychologists do not deal with vulnerable
populations and are not health care providers,
licensing is not needed.
• Licensing differs from certification - Board
Certified Behavior Analyst or BCABA
(click no, licensing originally to protect public - vulnerable populations, health care areas)
8
First area of application in I/O
• SO10A: The oldest area of application and
the one that still dominates today is
Personnel Selection & Placement.
– Main difference between I/O programs and OBM
programs.
• SO10B: Personnel Selection got started by
selection and placement of military
personnel in WWI & WWII
– Clinical tests, typically intelligence and
personality tests, and used them to test recruits
(emphasis influences other aspects of training - statistical methods used to determine reliability
and validity of tests - job relatedness)
9
Personnel Selection, cont. (NFE)
• I/O expanded greatly
when Congress
passed Title VII Civil
Rights Act, 1964
– Banned unfair
discrimination
against minorities
and females
• I/O has a “lock” on
personnel selection
as a profession
Other EEO Laws:
•Age Discrimination
•Vietnam/Disabled
Veterans
•Americans with
Disabilities Act
(quite a bit of overlap between I/O and OBM and other areas: mgt, human resources, industrial
Engineer - selection remains I/O. don’t deal with laws and issues here, personnel selection)
10
SO11: Main journal for I/O psychology
• I/O main journal: Journal of Applied
Psychology
• Other top journals (NFE)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Personnel Journal
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Review
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Administrative Science Quarterly
Journal of Management
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Organizational Research Methods
Journal of Vocational Behavior
(very little cross-fertilization OBM/IO, JOBM missing from top ten journals - recognized; rankings in IO)
11
SO12: Greatest episode in formation I/O
• The greatest single episode in the
formation of I/O according to many:
Hawthorne Studies
– Heretofore restricted to selection
– Expanded to:
• Satisfaction
• Group morale and group norms
• Importance of a “sympathetic,
understanding supervisor”
12
Some Major Differences Between
I/O and OBM
Bucklin et al., 2000
(only highlight some important differences - embedded those in sos)
13
Purpose of study
To identify similarities and differences
with respect to topics and research
methods used in OBM and traditional
I/O psychology
14
Method
• JAP
– Authors reviewed every article in JAP between
1987 & 1997 (N = 997)
– Classifications were primarily derived from
Nolan et al. (1999) who previously analyzed
articles in JOBM for the same years (N=119)
• JOBM
– JAP classification results were compared to
JOBM data collected by Nolan et al. (1999)
15
SO14: No unifying theory in I/O (NFE)
• I/O Psychology
– No unifying theory historically
– No unifying theory today
• 7 main motivational theories: Muchinsky
• 6 main leadership theories: Muchinsky
– Motivational theories  Leadership
theories (already 13 different theories)
– Leads to research and articles about who
is right
16
SO14: Unifying theory of OBM (NFE)
• OBM (emerged in the early 1960s)
– Unifying theory of behavior analysis
– Emerged from other areas within
behavior analysis
- programmed instruction (Brethower)
- clinical psychology (Daniels, Gilbert)
- experimental (Anderson, Brown)
- general applied (Hopkins)
- education (Sulzer-Azaroff)
• Behavior analysis is unique - apply the
same principles across all specializations
(not only for topics within OBM)
17
SO16: Topics in JAP & JOBM
16A: Rank order top 3 in JAP
JAP
JOBM
1. Selection &
Placement
2. Statistical
Analysis
Procedures
3. Performance
Appraisal
1. Productivity &
Quality
2. Customer
Satisfaction
3. Training and
Development
18
SO16B: Of top 12 topics, commonalities
Only three!!
1. Productivity & Quality
2. Training & Development
3. Health & Safety
19
Differences (NFE)
• Ranking :
JAP
JOBM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Selection/Placement
Statistical Analysis
Performance Appraisal
Attitudes, Cognition
Legal Issues
Turnover, Absenteeism,
Attendance
7.
T&D
8.
Productivity & Quality
9.
Gender & Minority
10. Group Performance
11. Leadership/Decision Making
12. Safety, Health
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Productivity & Quality
Customer Satisfaction
T&D
Safety, Health
Accuracy
Rate of Performance
Sales
Labor Cost
Timeliness
Novelty
Management/Systems
Analysis
(most OBM articles dealth with productivity & quality issues, 5-10 measures; more breadth I/O)
20
SO17: Primary research strategy
• Percentage of research articles that were
experimental vs correlational (NFE)
JOBM
JAP
Experimental
95%
40%
Correlational
5%
60%
• Primary research strategy (for exam)
– JOBM: Experimental
– JAP: Correlational
• What is the problem with correlational
research?
21
SO18: Field vs. Laboratory Exp. (NFE)
Experimental
Setting
JOBM
N = 60
JAP
N = 308
Field
80%
20%
Laboratory
20%
80%
(NFE, but using this to make a point later, % reversed)
22
SO19: Research studies:
Applied vs. theoretical
What percentage of research studies in JOBM
and JAP were designed to solve an
organizational problem vs to answer a
theoretical question?
• Applied
Conducted to solve an organizational
problem
• Theoretical
Conducted to examine a theoretical,
conceptual or “bridge” question
(included some field studies)
23
Results: Applied vs. Theoretical
Research
Question
JOBM
N = 60
JAP
N = 308
Theoretical
57%
94%
Applied
45%
6%
24
SO 20: OBM vs. I/O
(NFE)
• The percentage of experimental studies
conducted in the field was much higher
in JOBM
JOBM = 80% JAP = 20%
• The percentage of applied experimental
studies was much higher in JOBM
JOBM = 45% JAP = 6%
• OBM is more applied and the gap between
research and practice appears to be larger
in I/O than in OBM
25
SO20: Why is I/O less applied? (for exam)
1. Multiple theories
•
•
Testing hypotheses in the theory
Comparing one theory against another who is right?
2. Experimental design issues
•
Rigorous experimental methodologists
who adhere only to between group
designs, rejecting single-subject
designs as legitimate designs
(Hard for our students to get I/O faculty positions;Nicki’s feedback from CMU;
small N research would not permit publication in I/O journals, which would not help
them increase their status among I/O programs)
26
SO21: Why do BG designs restrict
applied research? (NFE)
• Between group designs
– Usually not feasible in applied settings because
they require random assignment of participants
to groups
– In organizations, in-tact groups
– Do lab studies where Ps can be randomly
assigned
• Within subject designs
– Do not require random assignment
• I/O psychologists have yet to view small N
within subject designs as “legitimate”
experimental designs
27
SO 22: Independent variables in studies
• 22A
Bucklin et al. identified the top 9 IVs
that were examined. Of those how
many were the same for JOBM & JAP?
• 22B
Describe the major differences
between the IVs that were examined
28
Independent Variables
JAP (N=308)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Antecedents/
Information
Training
Goals
Feedback
Monetary
consequences
Non-monetary
consequences
Praise
JOBM (N=60)
71%
1.
2.
3.
15%
10%
8%
4.
5%
5.
1%
6.
7.
8.
9.
.3%
Feedback
Training
Monetary
consequences
Antecedents/
Information
Non-monetary
consequences
Goals
Praise
Punishment
System design
75%
63%
33%
32%
28%
25%
18%
5%
2%
(top 7 were the same, but proportion very different. JAP antecedents/JOBM consq, pack;
Combined goals, feedback, consq.; not surprising I am covering the topics I am in this class)
29
Dependent Variables (NFE)
• JAP
– Self-report measures were used in 50% of
experimental studies and 76% of
correlational studies;
– Behaviors in only 5% of studies
• JOBM
– Products of behaviors
(accomplishments) were used in 78% of
experimental studies
– Behaviors in 43%
30
SO23: JOBM weakness, social validity
• Social validity (NFE)
– JAP researchers assessed social validity to a
much greater degree than JOBM researchers
JAP = 51%
JOBM = 27%
– Interesting given that a much larger proportion
of JOBM experimental studies were conducted
in applied settings (45% vs. 5%)
• JOBM researchers appear to be ignoring
social validity, probably due to our
discomfort with self-report measures.
31
SO23, cont: Social validity (NFE)
• Three aspects of social validity
– Goals: are the goals of the intervention
important and socially significant?
– Procedures/interventions: do managers
and employees consider the
interventions acceptable (i.e., are they
satisfied with the interventions)
– Effects/results of study: are managers
and employees satisfied with the results
of the study - all of the results, even
perhaps unintended ones?
32
SO23, cont. Why is social validity important?
(for exam)
1. It tells us whether our consumers are
satisfied with both the intervention
and results and if they are, they are
more likely to continue PM.
2. It could increase the acceptance of
PM in business and industry
3. It could mitigate complaints that our
technology is manipulative and
coercive
33
History of OBM in the Private Sector
1950s - 1980s
Dickinson, 2000
34
SO24: When did OBM become visible?
OBM started in the mid to late 1960s
35
Table 1: Lifetime Achievement or Outstanding
Contributions Awards (NFE)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Aubrey Daniels
Thomas Gilbert
Edward Feeney
Beth Sulzer-Azaroff
Thomas Mawhinney
Dale Brethower
William Redmon
Alyce Dickinson
Paul Brown
Geary Rummler
(red: wmu connection, 7 of 18)
36
11. Chevron Chemical
Corp (CLG)
12. Terry McSween
13. Jon Bailey
14. Maria Malott
15. D. Chris Anderson
16. William Abernathy
17. Scott Geller
18. John Austin
OBM Precursors: 1950s
• SO25: Who is responsible for programmed
instruction?
– Skinner
• The science of learning and the art of
teaching, 1954
• Teaching machines, 1958
• Holland & Skinner, Analysis of Behavior, 1961
• SO26: First organized application of
behavioral principles in business &
industry
– Programmed instruction (more on this later)
37
SO27: OBM precursors, cont. (NFE)
• Applications in other areas in behavior
analysis began before OBM
• Authors who published the first applied
article in the field
– Ayllon & Michael: The psychiatric nurse as a
behavioral engineer, JEAB, 1959
• Who is the father and thus grandfather of
OBM? (according to Hopkins)
– Jack Michael
– Family tree: Bailey (Wolf) -- Austin, Carr, Wilder
• and Iwata, for those of you who work in human
services
• Bailey retiring; graduating 100 Ph.D. students
38
Michael and Ayllon (2007)
39
Jack Michael and friends
The family tree: Wilder, Carr, Bailey, Michael
40
The 1960s: OBM gets started
• Articles & books - fewer than 10 during the
whole decade (NFE)
• SO28: First professional organization
– National Society for Programmed Instruction:
1962, 12 years before ABA
– Now, International Society for Performance
Improvement (applied vs academic)
• Dale Brethower, Geary Rummler, Don Tosti, Susan
Meyer Markle, Tom Gilbert
• www.ispi.org (great resource for jobs)
41
University of Michigan workshops (NFE)
• U of M workshops, 1961-1969
– Center of Programmed Instruction
– Brethower, Rummler, Gilbert, (& Malott) hooked
up (B&R actually published first applied OBM
article in Personnel in 1966)
• There, programmed instruction led to
performance-based instruction, which led
to behavioral systems analysis
– Brethower, Center for PI
– Rummler, College of Business
42
SO29: Brethower’s accomplishments
• Three main accomplishments
– Programmed instruction
– Performance-based instruction
– Behavioral systems analysis
• Other interesting things to know
– Published first behavioral systems book in 1972.
The book was published by a publishing firm
called “Behaviordelia” - run by Dr. Dick Malott.
– Was my advisor here at WMU!
43
SO30: How did PI lead to PBI then BSA?
• Programmed Instruction
– Very skilled at getting people to learn what they
taught, but often the training did not transfer to
the job
• Performance-based instruction
– Did training actually transfer to job?
– Led to performance management - it wasn’t the
training that was the problem, but the
management system
• Behavioral Systems Analysis (the BIG
picture)
– PBI and PM got transfer to the job, but…
– Was the performance contributing to the
mission/goals of the organization?
44
PM vs BSA conflict (NFE)
• Sales vs manufacturing: classic
problem
Implement a sales incentive program
so your sales representatives sell a lot
of cars, but manufacturing can’t keep
up. That creates a long delay for the
consumer who then buys a car from
someone else. Your PM program for
sales has worked, but to the detriment
of the entire organization.
45
SO32: Gilbert’s book and date
• Human Competence, 1978
– Introduced the concept of “worthy performance”
and focusing on accomplishments vs. behavior very controversial in the field.
– Behavior Engineering Model was one of the first
comprehensive performance diagnostic tools
for the field.
• Austin’s PDC and Binder’s six boxes based on this
model: Austin’s PDC, next unit
– PIP: potential for improving performance
• Exemplar performance minus average performance =
PIP.
• Many consultants use some variant of this today.
(define accomplishments)
46
Tom Gilbert
Og Lindsley
Rich O’Brien
47
Tom Gilbert
SO33: Aubrey Daniels
• Formed Behavior Systems, Inc., 1971
– With Larry Miller & Fran Tarkenton
• First editor of JOBM, 1977
– Practitioner journal, BSI
• Published one of the first books in OBM
(written for supervisors)
– Performance Management, now in its 4th
edition
(can’t be in the field, Minnesota Vikings, “got divorced,” ADI founded in 1978)
48
Aubrey Daniels
49
SO34: Where did the name of our field
come from?
• JOBM, 1977 (note date, SO36)
– Aubrey Daniels
– Problem with name
• Not distinctive within business - OB vs. OBM
• Business people don’t understand it
– Their kids behave (misbehave); their workers
perform
• Performance Management - still a problem
50
SO35A: First graduate program to offer OBM
and systems analysis?
• Western Michigan University!!!
– Early 1970s, Applied Behavior Analysis
program
51
SO35B: First faculty member at WMU?
• Dr. Richard Malott was responsible for
the systems analysis training here at
WMU
– Dr. Malott graduated the first students
trained specifically in systems
– 1978, Brethower joined faculty to
behavioralize MA program in I/O, due to
Dr. Malott
– 1984 Dickinson joined WMU faculty
• My generation, first students trained in OBM
52
SO 37
• How do early events in traditional I/O,
business and management fields
relate to the development of OBM?
– They were chronological precursors but
not causal precursors, unlike many have
maintained when writing about the
history of OBM
– Field of OBM emanated from the field of
behavior analysis
53
SO 38, cont.
• Why does Dickinson maintain OBM came
from behavior analysis and was not much
influenced by I/O, business, or management
fields?
– The individuals who most influenced and
pioneered the field came from other areas within
behavior analysis, not from these traditional
fields
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aubrey Daniels - clinical
Dale Brethower - school psychology
Beth Sulzer-Azaroff - education
Bill Hopkins - general behavior analysis
Tom Gilbert - clinical
Paul Brown - experimental
54
55
Quilitch (1975)
A comparison of three staff
management procedures
JABA, 8, 59-66
56
Why Quilitch? (NFE)
• Traditional I/O psychology focuses on
antecedents and instructional control
– This study nicely demonstrates that memos and
in-service workshops do not effectively alter
staff performance
• The dependent variable is the behavior of
the clients, not staff
– Represents Gilbert’s notion of measuring
accomplishments, not behaviors
• Will changes in staff behavior lead to
meaningful changes in client behavior?
• The behaviors of the clients are the
accomplishments of the staff
57
Why Quilitch? (NFE)
• Measuring worker accomplishments in
human service settings is usually more
labor intensive than measuring
accomplishments in a business setting
– Behaviors of the clients vs. a product that can
be counted (i.e., amount sold, widgets
assembled, etc.)
• Staff may be more accepting and find it less
aversive to have client behavior measured
– Parsons et al. (1989), Unit 7 article
58
SO38: Purpose of Quilitch (1975)
• Setting:
Residential institution for
developmentally disabled
• Goal:
Increase the number of active
residents on the four wards
59
SO38: Purpose of Quilitch (1975)
• Purpose:
Compare the effectiveness of
• Memos instructing staff to lead
recreational activities
• In-service workshop to teach staff how
to lead such activities
• Assignments to staff to lead
recreational activities and publicly
posted feedback
60
SO39: Dependent Variable?
Daily average number of active
residents on each ward
61
SO40: General results?
• Memos instructing staff to lead
recreational activities were ineffective
• Workshops teaching staff how to lead
such activities were ineffective
• Staff scheduling and feedback on the
number of active clients was effective
(moderately so)
– Daily average number of active clients
increased from 7 to 32 (N=95)
62
SO41: Workshops
• Staff evaluations of the workshops
were overwhelmingly positive
– Material presented was useful
– Material was easy to apply and
understand
• No relationship was found between
the staff’s evaluation of the
workshops and their performance
• What are the applied implications?
63
THAT’S ALL FOLKS!
• Questions?
64
65