HANDBOOKof

PSYCHOLOGY

HANDBOOKof

PSYCHOLOGY

VOLUME 12

INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Walter C. Borman

Daniel R. Ilgen

Richard J. Klimoski

Volume Editors

Irving B. Weiner

Editor-in-Chief

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright © 2003 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. All rights reserved.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 UnitedStates Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of theappropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to thePermissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, e-mail: permcoordinator@wiley.com.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, theymake no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specificallydisclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended bysales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation.You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit orany other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is soldwith the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical,psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley &Sons, Inc. is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers, however, should contact theappropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.

For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available inelectronic books.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Handbook of psychology / Irving B. Weiner, editor-in-chief.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.Contents: v. 1. History of psychology / edited by Donald K. Freedheim — v. 2. Research

methods in psychology / edited by John A. Schinka, Wayne F. Velicer — v. 3. Biologicalpsychology / edited by Michela Gallagher, Randy J. Nelson — v. 4. Experimentalpsychology / edited by Alice F. Healy, Robert W. Proctor — v. 5. Personality and socialpsychology / edited by Theodore Millon, Melvin J. Lerner — v. 6. Developmentalpsychology / edited by Richard M. Lerner, M. Ann Easterbrooks, Jayanthi Mistry — v. 7.Educational psychology / edited by William M. Reynolds, Gloria E. Miller — v. 8.Clinical psychology / edited by George Stricker, Thomas A. Widiger — v. 9. Health psychology /edited by Arthur M. Nezu, Christine Maguth Nezu, Pamela A. Geller — v. 10. Assessmentpsychology / edited by John R. Graham, Jack A. Naglieri — v. 11. Forensic psychology /edited by Alan M. Goldstein — v. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology / editedby Walter C. Borman, Daniel R. Ilgen, Richard J. Klimoski.

ISBN 0-471-17669-9 (set) — ISBN 0-471-38320-1 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 1) — ISBN 0-471-38513-1 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 2) — ISBN 0-471-38403-8 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 3) — ISBN 0-471-39262-6 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 4) — ISBN 0-471-38404-6 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 5) — ISBN 0-471-38405-4 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 6) — ISBN 0-471-38406-2 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 7) — ISBN 0-471-39263-4 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 8) — ISBN 0-471-38514-X (cloth : alk. paper : v. 9) — ISBN 0-471-38407-0 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 10) — ISBN 0-471-38321-X (cloth : alk. paper : v. 11) — ISBN 0-471-38408-9 (cloth : alk. paper : v. 12)

1. Psychology. I. Weiner, Irving B.

BF121.H1955 2003150—dc21

2002066380Printed in the United States of America.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

➇

Volume 1History of Psychology

Donald K. Freedheim, PhDCase Western Reserve UniversityCleveland, Ohio

Volume 2Research Methods in Psychology

John A. Schinka, PhDUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida

Wayne F. Velicer, PhDUniversity of Rhode IslandKingston, Rhode Island

Volume 3Biological Psychology

Michela Gallagher, PhDJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, Maryland

Randy J. Nelson, PhDOhio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio

Volume 4Experimental Psychology

Alice F. Healy, PhDUniversity of ColoradoBoulder, Colorado

Robert W. Proctor, PhD Purdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana

Volume 5Personality and Social Psychology

Theodore Millon, PhDInstitute for Advanced Studies in

Personology and PsychopathologyCoral Gables, Florida

Melvin J. Lerner, PhDFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca Raton, Florida

Volume 6Developmental Psychology

Richard M. Lerner, PhDM. Ann Easterbrooks, PhDJayanthi Mistry, PhD

Tufts UniversityMedford, Massachusetts

Volume 7Educational Psychology

William M. Reynolds, PhDHumboldt State UniversityArcata, California

Gloria E. Miller, PhDUniversity of DenverDenver, Colorado

Volume 8Clinical Psychology

George Stricker, PhDAdelphi UniversityGarden City, New York

Thomas A. Widiger, PhDUniversity of KentuckyLexington, Kentucky

Volume 9Health Psychology

Arthur M. Nezu, PhDChristine Maguth Nezu, PhDPamela A. Geller, PhD

Drexel UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Volume 10Assessment Psychology

John R. Graham, PhDKent State UniversityKent, Ohio

Jack A. Naglieri, PhDGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Volume 11Forensic Psychology

Alan M. Goldstein, PhDJohn Jay College of Criminal

Justice–CUNYNew York, New York

Volume 12Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology

Walter C. Borman, PhDUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida

Daniel R. Ilgen, PhDMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

Richard J. Klimoski, PhDGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Editorial Board

v

To the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Handbook of Psychology Preface

Psychology at the beginning of the twenty-first century hasbecome a highly diverse field of scientific study and appliedtechnology. Psychologists commonly regard their disciplineas the science of behavior, and the American PsychologicalAssociation has formally designated 2000 to 2010 as the“Decade of Behavior.” The pursuits of behavioral scientistsrange from the natural sciences to the social sciences and em-brace a wide variety of objects of investigation. Some psy-chologists have more in common with biologists than withmost other psychologists, and some have more in commonwith sociologists than with most of their psychological col-leagues. Some psychologists are interested primarily in the be-havior of animals, some in the behavior of people, and othersin the behavior of organizations. These and other dimensionsof difference among psychological scientists are matched byequal if not greater heterogeneity among psychological practi-tioners, who currently apply a vast array of methods in manydifferent settings to achieve highly varied purposes.

Psychology has been rich in comprehensive encyclope-dias and in handbooks devoted to specific topics in the field.However, there has not previously been any single handbookdesigned to cover the broad scope of psychological scienceand practice. The present 12-volume Handbook of Psychol-ogy was conceived to occupy this place in the literature.Leading national and international scholars and practitionershave collaborated to produce 297 authoritative and detailedchapters covering all fundamental facets of the discipline,and the Handbook has been organized to capture the breadthand diversity of psychology and to encompass interests andconcerns shared by psychologists in all branches of the field.

Two unifying threads run through the science of behavior.The first is a common history rooted in conceptual and em-pirical approaches to understanding the nature of behavior.The specific histories of all specialty areas in psychologytrace their origins to the formulations of the classical philoso-phers and the methodology of the early experimentalists, andappreciation for the historical evolution of psychology in allof its variations transcends individual identities as being onekind of psychologist or another. Accordingly, Volume 1 inthe Handbook is devoted to the history of psychology asit emerged in many areas of scientific study and appliedtechnology.

A second unifying thread in psychology is a commitmentto the development and utilization of research methodssuitable for collecting and analyzing behavioral data. Withattention both to specific procedures and their applicationin particular settings, Volume 2 addresses research methodsin psychology.

Volumes 3 through 7 of the Handbook present the sub-stantive content of psychological knowledge in five broadareas of study: biological psychology (Volume 3), experi-mental psychology (Volume 4), personality and social psy-chology (Volume 5), developmental psychology (Volume 6),and educational psychology (Volume 7). Volumes 8 through12 address the application of psychological knowledge infive broad areas of professional practice: clinical psychology(Volume 8), health psychology (Volume 9), assessment psy-chology (Volume 10), forensic psychology (Volume 11), andindustrial and organizational psychology (Volume 12). Eachof these volumes reviews what is currently known in theseareas of study and application and identifies pertinent sourcesof information in the literature. Each discusses unresolved is-sues and unanswered questions and proposes future direc-tions in conceptualization, research, and practice. Each of thevolumes also reflects the investment of scientific psycholo-gists in practical applications of their findings and the atten-tion of applied psychologists to the scientific basis of theirmethods.

The Handbook of Psychology was prepared for the pur-pose of educating and informing readers about the presentstate of psychological knowledge and about anticipated ad-vances in behavioral science research and practice. With thispurpose in mind, the individual Handbook volumes addressthe needs and interests of three groups. First, for graduate stu-dents in behavioral science, the volumes provide advancedinstruction in the basic concepts and methods that define thefields they cover, together with a review of current knowl-edge, core literature, and likely future developments. Second,in addition to serving as graduate textbooks, the volumesoffer professional psychologists an opportunity to read andcontemplate the views of distinguished colleagues concern-ing the central thrusts of research and leading edges of prac-tice in their respective fields. Third, for psychologists seekingto become conversant with fields outside their own specialty

ix

x Handbook of Psychology Preface

and for persons outside of psychology seeking informa-tion about psychological matters, the Handbook volumesserve as a reference source for expanding their knowledgeand directing them to additional sources in the literature.

The preparation of this Handbook was made possible bythe diligence and scholarly sophistication of the 25 volumeeditors and co-editors who constituted the Editorial Board.As Editor-in-Chief, I want to thank each of them for the plea-sure of their collaboration in this project. I compliment themfor having recruited an outstanding cast of contributors totheir volumes and then working closely with these authors toachieve chapters that will stand each in their own right as

valuable contributions to the literature. I would like finally toexpress my appreciation to the editorial staff of John Wileyand Sons for the opportunity to share in the development ofthis project and its pursuit to fruition, most particularly toJennifer Simon, Senior Editor, and her two assistants, MaryPorterfield and Isabel Pratt. Without Jennifer’s vision of theHandbook and her keen judgment and unflagging support inproducing it, the occasion to write this preface would nothave arrived.

IRVING B. WEINERTampa, Florida

Contents

xi

Handbook of Psychology Preface ixIrving B. Weiner

Contributors xiii

1 STABILITY AND CHANGE IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1Walter C. Borman, Daniel R. Ilgen, and Richard J. Klimoski

PA RT O N EPERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

2 JOB AND WORK ANALYSIS 21Paul R. Sackett and Roxanne M. Laczo

3 JOB PERFORMANCE 39Stephan J. Motowidlo

4 RECRUITMENT RESEARCH IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 55Sara L. Rynes and Daniel M. Cable

5 PERSONNEL SELECTION AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 77Neal Schmitt, Jose M. Cortina, Michael J. Ingerick, and Darin Wiechmann

6 INTELLIGENCE AND THE WORKPLACE 107Fritz Drasgow

7 USE OF PERSONALITY VARIABLES IN WORK SETTINGS 131Leaetta M. Hough and Adrian Furnham

8 PERSPECTIVES ON TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT 171Kurt Kraiger

9 STRATEGIC INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF UTILITYANALYSIS MODELS 193John W. Boudreau and Peter M. Ramstad

PA RT T W OORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

10 MOTIVATION 225Terence R. Mitchell and Denise Daniels

11 JOB ATTITUDES 255Charles L. Hulin and Timothy A. Judge

12 LEADERSHIP MODELS, METHODS, AND APPLICATIONS 277Bruce J. Avolio, John J. Sosik, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berson

13 THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 309John R. Austin and Jean M. Bartunek

14 WORK GROUPS AND TEAMS IN ORGANIZATIONS 333Steve W. J. Kozlowski and Bradford S. Bell

15 CUSTOMER SERVICE BEHAVIOR 377Ann Marie Ryan and Robert E. Ployhart

PA RT T H R E ETHE WORK ENVIRONMENT

16 CHANGES IN WORKERS, WORK, AND ORGANIZATIONS 401Wayne F. Cascio

17 WORK DESIGN 423Frederick P. Morgeson and Michael A. Campion

18 STRESS IN ORGANIZATIONS 453Sabine Sonnentag and Michael Frese

19 JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING 493Terry Connolly and Lisa Ordóñez

20 CAREER DYNAMICS 519Jeffrey H. Greenhaus

21 HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS 541William C. Howell

22 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CLIMATE 565Cheri Ostroff, Angelo J. Kinicki, and Melinda M. Tamkins

23 DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 595Clayton P. Alderfer and Adrienne D. Sims

Author Index 615

Subject Index 639

xii Contents

Clayton P. Alderfer, PhDGraduate School of Professional PsychologyRutgers UniversityPiscataway, New Jersey

John R. Austin, PhDPennsylvania State UniversityPittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Bruce J. Avolio, PhDSchool of ManagementCenter for Leadership StudiesBinghamton UniversityBinghamton, New York

Jean M. Bartunek, PhDDepartment of Organization StudiesBoston CollegeChestnut Hill, Massachusetts

Bradford S. BellSchool of Industrial and Labor RelationsCornell University

Yair Berson, PhDPolytechnic UniversityNew York, New York

Walter C. BormanUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida

John W. Boudreau, PhDILR Human Resource StudiesCornell UniversityIthaca, New York

Daniel M. Cable, PhDKenan-Flagler Business SchoolUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, North Carolina

Michael A. Campion, PhDKrannert Graduate School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana

Wayne F. Cascio, PhDDepartment of ManagementUniversity of ColoradoDenver, Colorado

Terry Connolly, PhDDepartment of Management and PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucson, Arizona

Jose M. Cortina, PhDDepartment of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Denise Daniels, PhDBusiness and Economics DepartmentSeattle Pacific UniversitySeattle, Washington

Fritz Drasgow, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at

Urbana-ChampaignChampaign, Illinois

Michael Frese, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of GiessenGiessen, Germany

Adrian Furnham, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity College LondonLondon, England

Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, PhDDepartment of ManagementDrexel UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Leaetta M. Hough, PhDThe Dunnette Group, Ltd.St. Paul, Minnesota

Contributors

xiii

xiv Contributors

William C. Howell, PhDDepartment of PsychologyArizona State and Rice UniversitiesGold Canyon, Arizona

Charles L. Hulin, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaign, Illinois

Daniel R. IlgenMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

Michael J. IngerickDepartment of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Timothy A. Judge, PhDDepartment of BusinessUniversity of IowaIowa City, Iowa

Dong I. Jung, PhDDepartment of ManagementSan Diego State UniversitySan Diego, California

Angelo J. Kinicki, PhDArizona State UniversityPhoenix, Arizona

Richard J. KlimoskiGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Steve W. J. Kozlowski, PhDDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

Kurt Kraiger, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of ColoradoDenver, Colorado

Roxanne M. LaczoDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota

Terence R. Mitchell, PhDSchool of BusinessUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington

Frederick P. Morgeson, PhDDepartment of ManagementTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas

Stephan J. Motowidlo, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota

Lisa Ordóñez, PhDDepartment of Management and PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucson, Arizona

Cheri Ostroff, PhDTeachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew York, New York

Robert E. Ployhart, PhDDepartment of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia

Peter M. RamstadPersonnel Decisions InternationalMinneapolis, Minnesota

Ann Marie Ryan, PhDDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

Sara L. Rynes, PhDDepartment of Management

and OrganizationsTippie College of BusinessUniversity of IowaIowa City, Iowa

Paul R. Sackett, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota

Contributors xv

Neal Schmitt, PhDDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

Adrienne D. SimsGraduate School of Professional PsychologyRutgers UniversityPiscataway, New Jersey

Sabine Sonnentag, PhDDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of KonstanzKonstanz, Germany

John J. Sosik, PhDDepartment of ManagementPenn State Great ValleyMalvern, Pennsylvania

Melinda M. TamkinsTeachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew York, New York

Darin WiechmannDepartment of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

CHAPTER 1

Stability and Change in Industrialand Organizational Psychology

WALTER C. BORMAN, RICHARD J. KLIMOSKI, AND DANIEL R. ILGEN

1

Handbooks Past and Present 1Industrial-Organizational Psychology:

Overarching Models 1INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN

THE 1990S 3

Advances by Elaboration 3Advances Through Extension 6Chapters Comprising This Handbook 10

REFERENCES 14

Handbooks Past and Present

In the mid-1970s Marvin D. Dunnette edited the first hand-book of industrial and organizational psychology (Dunnette,1976). This prodigious work brought together the writings ofthe leading scholars in the field under one cover and acted as afoundation and guide for the field for the next 15 years. In theearly 1990s Dunnette did it again. The second edition, editedby Dunnette and Leaetta M. Hough, maintained the same highquality of the first but expanded significantly from one to fourvolumes, each approximately 800 pages (Dunnette & Hough,1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, vols. 1–4, respectively). The defini-tive reviews and even visionary statements targeted virtuallyall areas of industrial and organizational psychology andagain set the standards for the field.

Knowing the standard to which we would be inevitablycompared, we undertook the task of editing the present volumewith great trepidation. Ours was a more modest and somewhatdifferent objective. As a single volume nested within a hand-book for all of psychology, our purpose was to provide thedepth and breadth that would capture the domain of industrialand organizational psychology in a way valuable for scholarsand students in that field domain; however, we also strove tocreate a volume to which those outside the field could turn inorder to gain an appreciation of the latest thinking in this areaof interest. To accomplish these purposes, we have again as-sembled a collection of leading scholars in the field. We askedthem to describe the work in their area, but to do so in a waythat would speak to both those inside and outside the field; we

believe they did this very well—and did it in such a way thatthis volume can serve as a sequel to the handbook of the 1990s,informing and guiding industrial and organizational psychol-ogy in the early part of the twenty-first century.

What follows begins by addressing the field of industrialand organizational psychology as a whole and describingsome of the major accomplishments and new directions thathave occurred since the publishing of the Dunnette andHough handbook. After some discussion of our disciplineand advancements in this field, we turn to a preview of indi-vidual chapters.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology:Overarching Models

Industrial and organizational psychology is the study ofhuman behavior in organizations; the behaviors of interestcontribute to either the effectiveness of organizational func-tioning, the satisfaction and well-being of those who populatethe organizations, or both. These behaviors and the peoplewho exhibit them exist in a dynamic open system (Katz &Kahn, 1978). Behaviors observed in the present are influ-enced by past behaviors and conditions, as well as by the an-ticipation of future ones. Individuals are systems nestedwithin other systems—such as teams and work groups—thatare nested under larger organizational systems. All of thesesystems are open to the outside through connections to fam-ily members, customers, and multiple other potential sourcesof influence on organizational members’ behavior.

2 Stability and Change in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Open Systems

Although open systems models capture the complexities of apsychology bound by the context in which the behaviorsoccur, the field of industrial and organizational psychologyhas—for the most part—constrained its domain to that of theinterface between individuals and their environments, wherethat environment is physical (tasks, jobs, working conditions,organizational structures) or social (superiors, subordinates,peers). Furthermore, the beliefs, feelings, and behaviors ofinterest within that domain are limited to those for whichthere is some reason to believe that understanding them willenhance our ability to influence organizational effectivenessor individual well-being.

Fit

Underlying the psychological focus on individuals in organi-zational settings is the implicit assumption that both the orga-nization and the individual are best served when there is agood fit between the goals, expectations, and conditions of or-ganizations (e.g., jobs) with the characteristics of the peoplein them. From a prescriptive viewpoint, there are many waysto obtain a good fit. One is to consider organizations and peo-ple as relatively fixed entities. From this position, characteris-tics of each entity are assessed and the match is accomplishedthrough selection—selection of people by organizations ororganizations by people. The second option to obtain fit isto modify either or both of the two domains. In the caseof changing people, training and development are primarymechanisms. Job design, organizational development, organi-zational design, or policies and practices related to goals,work rules, and other factors are relevant for changing organi-zations. For any particular case, multiple factors influence thefit, and the fit is a dynamic interaction between people and theorganization, with each influencing the other over time. In ad-dition, of course, while efforts at producing good fit are un-derway, both the individual and the organization are subject toevolutionary forces outside of the control of either the leadersof an organization or those whom they trust as advisors.

For much of industrial and organizational psychologicalresearch, the person-organization (P-O) fit has been implicit.In the last decade, considerably more effort has been devotedto developing it explicitly. The P-O model posits that a fit be-tween applicants’personal characteristics and attributes of theorganization contributes in important ways to individual per-formance and retention, as well as to organizational effective-ness. One way to demonstrate support for the P-O model is tofind interactions between applicants’ personal characteristicsand organizational attributes. For example, Cable and Judge

(1994) showed that a fit between applicants’ personality andpay system characteristics enhanced the prediction of paypreferences and job attractiveness over and above the main ef-fects of pay system characteristics themselves. Gustafson andMumford (1995) found that individuals’personality predictedjob satisfaction and performance better when the type ofjob situation was taken into account, supporting a P-O fitinterpretation.

An important issue with P-O fit is how to conceptualize andmeasure it. Kristof (1996) pointed out that there has been con-siderable confusion on this issue. For example, P-O fit may beconceived of as person-environment congruence that con-founds P-O fit with person-vocation and person-job fit. Also,fit has been measured directly by obtaining a single judgmentof congruence between applicant and organizational charac-teristics and indirectly by getting independent judgments ofperson and organization characteristics and then assessing thesimilarities and differences. Finally, for the indirect approach,various indexes of fit are of course possible. Edwards (1994)provided a useful discussion of fit indexes and recommendeda polynomial regression approach to overcome certain mea-surement problems. However, subsequent analysis (Kristof,1996; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) has shown thatthis method poses some limitations as well.

The most compelling theoretical approach to modelingP-O fit is the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model(Schneider, 1987). Those who advocate this approach arguethat individuals are attracted to organizations whose membersare similar to them in relation to personality, values, and otherattributes. Organizations in turn find attractive and are morelikely to select those who possess knowledge, skills, and abil-ities similar to the ones that their organizational memberspossess. After they have been offered a job, those more simi-lar are more likely to accept the job and are also more likely tobe successfully socialized into the organization. Over time,those who do not fit well are more likely to leave—either ontheir own accord or because of problems on the job. Thus, thecontinuous process of attraction, assimilation, and attritionover time creates a force toward a fit between the peopleemployed in the organization at any one time and the needsand expectations of that organization. The process is a less-than-perfect one in the sense that it does not create a perfect fitbetween all employees, their work, and those with whom theywork, but it does create a force toward fit.

An important component of ASA theory is the gravita-tional hypothesis; this hypothesis posits that over time, peo-ple will gravitate to organizations that have values, attitudes,and so on that are similar to theirs. Empirical tests of thishypothesis have shown some support. For example, Wilk,Desmarais, and Sackett (1995) found that general cognitive

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 1990s 3

ability is a good predictor of movement to jobs of higher orlower complexity 5 years later.

Schneider et al. (1995) provided an update on ASA re-search and thinking. Regarding personnel selection in theASA context, these authors point out that if P-O fit is to beconsidered important, organizational diagnosis should be in-cluded in the job analysis strategy and that personality islikely to be a useful predictor of turnover and job perfor-mance because of the positive individual and organizationaloutcomes associated with homogeneity. Schneider et al.(1995) also argued that organizational homogeneity in per-sonality, attitudes, and values is usually good early in the lifeof an organization because of its positive effect on coopera-tion and communication; however, such homogeneity overtime may lead to an inability for the organization to adapt tochanging external environments.

On balance, as organizational flexibility in effectivelyusing employees is increasingly required (e.g., more move-ment of organization members from job to job or task force totask force), the P-O fit model may be more relevant comparedto the person-job match strategy (e.g., Kristof, 1996) of thepast. We think that both models will continue to have merit.

Aptitude-Treatment Interaction

Using Gough’s (1957) terminology, in which aptitude repre-sents individual difference characteristics of people andtreatment is broadly defined as situations encountered bypeople (job characteristics, working conditions, supervisors,performance goals, etc.), John Campbell (1999) cogently ar-gued that all industrial and organizational psychology is cap-tured by aptitudes, treatment, and their interaction. In almostall cases, the dependent variables important to the field can becaptured by individual, work group, or team performance;withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism, turnover, or lackof attention to work; self-evaluation of the job or facets of thework setting (e.g., job satisfaction); or self-evaluation of fairtreatment at work. Constructs that fall into either the aptitudedomain, the treatment domain, or both are always invoked,and the task becomes that of measuring these constructsvalidly and explaining observed relationships by attempt-ing to account for or control variability in constructs otherthan the ones of interest that would provide alternative expla-nations for observed covariation.

Almost all past and present work in industrial and organiza-tional psychology falls squarely within the aptitude-treatmentinteraction model. It has served industrial and organizationalpsychology well in the past and will (in our opinion) continueto do so—with one caveat. How it does so is relatively clearwhen conditions and personal characteristics are relatively sta-

ble; however, the more we attempt to incorporate dynamicopen systems properties into our work, the less clear is the guid-ance of the model. In many cases, we have remained within themodel and simply treated our research and practice using itsprinciples and acting as if people and situations were stable. Inother cases, we treat continuous dynamic conditions as discreteevents and use these events as means of dealing with time in adynamic sense—sometimes without a very clear idea aboutscaling properties of the links between the discrete events overtime.

INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONALPSYCHOLOGY IN THE 1990S

The chapters contained in this book represent the central con-tent areas of industrial and organizational psychology. Acomparison of the domain of issues addressed with earlierhandbooks in the field shows a great deal of overlap; workcontinues in most of the same areas as before. Yet such acomparison underestimates change and progress. It does sobecause the events of change are more specific and idiosyn-cratic than the broad domains that come to represent mostsubdisciplines of the field. Furthermore, some of the more in-novative work often does not fit neatly into one content do-main; rather, it spans several. Therefore, before describingthe content of this volume, we introduce some of the works ofthe 1990s that we believe have been particularly importantfor advancing the field of industrial and organizational psy-chology, but was not an explicit topic for any single chapter.In doing this, we have clustered this work into research thatfalls squarely within the aptitude-treatment model (advancesby elaboration) and research that has wrestled with the opensystems characteristics of human behavior in organizations,in turn placing some strains on working within the aptitude-treatment framework (advances through extension).

Advances by Elaboration

Models of Job Performance

A central behavior of concern in industrial and organizationalpsychology is that of individuals’ performance on their jobs.Job performance is often the criterion that industrial and or-ganizational psychologists attempt to predict from knowl-edge of characteristics of the performer and of the conditionsunder which the job is performed. Although it is appealing tothink of performance as a unidimensional construct thatvaries along a single dimension from good to bad, the con-struct is rarely (if ever) that simple. Rather, job performance

4 Stability and Change in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

is a complex, multidimensional criterion, and addressing thecriterion problem is a highly important endeavor.

In the 1990s Campbell observed that although job perfor-mance plays a central role in much of industrial and organi-zational psychology, little had been done to develop acomprehensive theory of what is meant by job performance.He and his colleagues addressed this issue by explicating thelatent variables that best characterize the performance re-quirements of (ideally) all jobs associated with work. They(Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996; Campbell, McCloy,Oppler, & Sager, 1993) identified eight dimensions (e.g.,Core Technical Proficiency; Oral and Written Communica-tion; Supervision and Leadership) that they felt captured allimportant performance factors across the domain of jobs.Five of the eight latent performance constructs emerged con-sistently in the Project A research (a large-scale selection andclassification study conducted in the U.S. Army to be de-scribed in the next section; Campbell & Knapp, 2001) acrossa large number of jobs studied in this research program.

This type of criterion model is important because it makespossible the scientific study of predictor-construct/job-performance-construct links. For personnel selection espe-cially, but more broadly for other areas of industrial andorganizational psychology (e.g., training, job design inter-ventions, etc.), a taxonomy of performance helps organizeaccumulating research findings according to the effects of in-dependent variables on individual criterion performance con-structs. Findings from Pulakos, Borman, and Hough (1988)and McCloy, Campbell, and Cudeck (1994) confirm the use-fulness of this research direction. Pulakos et al. found verydifferent patterns of personality predictor-criterion relationsacross three different performance constructs, and McCloyet al. found that cognitive ability predicted a declarativeknowledge criterion construct, whereas certain personalitypredictors were linked to a motivation-related criterion.

During the 1990s, other work continued by extending thetypical model of searching for predictors of standard perfor-mance criteria—typically ratings of job performance. Workbegun by Hunter (1983) using meta-analyses of relationshipsbetween cognitive ability, job knowledge, task proficiency,and overall performance ratings continued to show that cog-nitive ability had a direct effect on the acquisition of jobknowledge. In his path model, performance ratings were afunction of both knowledge and proficiency. Schmidt,Hunter, and Outerbridge (1986) added job experience to thismodel, and Borman and his colleagues (Borman, White, &Dorsey, 1995; Borman, White, Pulakos, & Oppler, 1991)added personality factors, behavioral indicators (e.g., numberof disciplinary actions), and rater-ratee relationship factors tothe mix. Each of these factors significantly increased the

variance accounted for in performance ratings. These studies,along with others, have helped identify the factors and cuesthat supervisors use when making summary overall perfor-mance judgments, and such research helps us to understandbetter the job performance construct and certain critical an-tecedents of performance.

Project A: The U.S. Army Selectionand Classification Research

From 1982 through 1994, the U.S. Army Research Instituteand a consortium of private research firms conducted perhapsthe largest-scale personnel research project ever attempted(Campbell & Knapp, 2001). The acknowledgment sectionof the final technical report listed 366 persons who workedon the project at one stage or another. The majority were in-dustrial and organizational psychologists.

Project A (1982–1989) and the follow-up, the CareerForces Project (1990–1994), involved two major validationsamples—one concurrent and one predictive. The Project Aconcurrent sample allowed for the evaluation of the validitiesof a wide range of predictor measures against the job perfor-mance of military personnel during their first tour of duty. Asecond longitudinal sample provided validation results forthese same predictors against performance in training pro-grams, first-tour job performance, and second-tour perfor-mance as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) supervisor. Toprovide an idea of the magnitude of these validation efforts,approximately 9,500 soldiers participated in the first-tourconcurrent validation study; roughly 45,000 recruits weretested at the beginning of the longitudinal validation re-search. Criterion data were collected on about 30,000 at theend of training, 10,000 during this cohort’s first tour, and1,500 during their second tour.

The experimental predictor test battery included measuresof an incredibly wide variety of individual differences. De-velopment of the tests was driven by job analyses of a repre-sentative sample of 21 enlisted jobs (most of which hadcivilian counterparts). The predictor battery included mea-sures of general and specific cognitive abilities, perceptualand psychomotor abilities, personality, vocational interest,and biographical information.

Criterion measures were extensive as well. For first-tourperformance, researchers administered end-of-training mea-sures, work sample and job knowledge tests, peer and super-visor ratings on Army-wide and job-specific dimensions, andadministrative measures such as disciplinary actions andawards or commendations. For second tour, all of thesemeasures were administered along with peer and supervi-sor ratings on special leadership dimensions, a situational

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 1990s 5

judgment test, and supervisory role-play exercises. A moreextended description of these contributions can be found inthe recently released book on Project A and the Career ForcesProject (Campbell & Knapp, 2001).

The preceding provides a feel for the magnitude of thedata collections and the effort put forth on the predictor andcriterion development as well as validation of the measures;all of this was critical for the project to meet its objectives.More important for the science of personnel selection andclassification were the substantive contributions derivedfrom the project’s analyses and results.

First, for both the individual differences predictor and thejob performance criterion domains, the emphasis on latentvariables and latent structure rather than methods (e.g., rat-ings) or particular measures (e.g., a biodata survey) was highlyimportant for generalizing results. The strategy was extremelysuccessful in specifying job performance as reflecting a con-sistent five-factor structure (core technical proficiency, gen-eral soldiering proficiency, effort and leadership, personaldiscipline, and physical fitness/military bearing). Each of thefactors was represented by multiple methods. For example, ef-fort and leadership had as components number of administra-tive awards and certificates, the Army-wide rating factor,technical skill and effort, and the job-specific rating overallcomposite. This performance model was confirmed for multi-ple jobs in the first-tour sample, and a similar model was de-rived and confirmed for the second-tour NCO sample.Also, onthe predictor side exploratory and subsequent confirmatoryfactor analyses identified latent variables in each of the do-mains represented (e.g., perceptual abilities, personality).

Especially important for the science of personnel selec-tion, the different performance latent variables were relatedto different combinations of and individual predictor latentvariables in theoretically meaningful ways. General cognitiveability was the primary predictor of the two technical profi-ciency performance factors, whereas some of the personalityconstructs were more predictive of the personal disciplineand physical fitness/military bearing constructs. These em-pirical results support Campbell’s taxonomy of performance,with constructs widely relevant to the population of jobs. Asmentioned in a previous section, this specification of perfor-mance constructs should encourage accumulation of researchfindings according to the effects of individual differences andother organizationally relevant variables on individual per-formance constructs (e.g., Campbell et al., 1993).

Second, if anyone still believed that job performancecould be captured by a single dimension, sometimes termedthe ultimate criterion, that notion was laid to rest in Project A.Different criteria and different criterion measures were nec-essary to adequately capture the performance space. For

example, work sample and job knowledge tests measuredmaximum performance on elements of job performance thatwere primarily a function of human abilities, whereas ratingstapped components that were more motivationally driven.None of these measures was more ultimate than any other;each was important and appropriate for measuring a particu-lar aspect of job performance.

Third, Project A research confirmed the results that gen-eral cognitive ability is a robust predictor of job performanceacross jobs (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). However, the resultsalso showed that—with a wide range of predictor and crite-rion variables selected to capture the heterogeneity in bothdomains across jobs—differential prediction across jobs wasrelatively strong. This finding provides another example ofhow research can increase our understanding of individual-differences/job-performance linkages by identifying specificcriterion constructs rather than working with the overall jobperformance construct.

Thus, the Project A research program provided industrialand organizational psychologists with an unprecedented op-portunity to study relationships between a broad array of in-dividual differences and job performance constructs. Perhapsmost noteworthy was the specification of job performance,resulting in a replicable multidimensional model of perfor-mance. This depiction of performance coupled with a combi-nation concurrent and predictive validity design allowedresearchers to learn a considerable amount about specificlinkages between the individual differences and each one ofthese performance constructs.

Development of the Occupational InformationNetwork (O*NET)

A major contribution of industrial organizational psychologyto human behavior at work has been in the form of tax-onomies and structures for describing the world of work.However, as the world’s economy has matured and shiftsin the kind of work being performed have occurred (in devel-oped countries in particular), it became increasingly clearthat there was a need for new systems for characterizingwork and the demands it places on people and organizations.The system that best described jobs in place was that of theDictionary of Occupational Titles. In it, jobs were located ina three-dimensional space defined by the human characteris-tics needed to perform the job, the way in which data werehandled in the job, and the physical characteristics of thejob (i.e., People x Data x Things). A coding system basedon the descriptive taxonomy located thousands of jobswithin the space and was extremely useful for estimatingwhat was needed to perform particular jobs (skills, abilities,

6 Stability and Change in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

educational requirements, etc.), and how those jobs fit intofamilies of similar jobs.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Labor con-vened a panel of industrial and organizational psychologiststo plan the development of a database that would eventuallyreplace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as the primaryinformation source for jobs in the U.S. economy. This paneldesigned a plan for a content model that could describe jobsaccording to both person and job requirements (AdvisoryPanel for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 1993;Campion, Gowing, Lancaster, & Pearlman, 1994).

The content model is depicted in Figure 2.1. The idea wasto build taxonomies of descriptors in each of these areasand then to score each target occupation on each of the de-scriptors. As an example, in the abilities domain, the plan wasto develop a comprehensive model of all abilities relevant towork and then to get ratings for an occupation on each of theabilities regarding how much each ability was required to ac-complish work in that occupation. After the ratings wereobtained for every descriptor in the content model—the oc-cupation’s ability, skill, generalized work activity, and soforth—requirements would be numerically defined, makingpossible a variety of practical applications. In fact, the ulti-mate goal was to obtain content model ratings on all occupa-tions in the U.S. economy to make the O*NET maximallyuseful. Anticipated applications included (a) supporting edu-cational policy and skill standards, (b) informing school-to-work transitions, (c) helping dislocated workers find jobs,(d) helping employers select employees, (e) identifying jobfamilies, (f ) linking job requirements to disability or medicalstandards, (g) identifying training needs for target occupa-tions, (h) developing wage and salary systems, and (i) servingas input dimensions for performance appraisal systems.

The content model descriptors have been developed(Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999;Peterson et al., 2001). The taxonomies in most of the domainsbuild upon earlier model development efforts. For example,the abilities model is based on Fleishman’s research onthe Functional Job Analysis System (F-JAS; Fleishman &Mumford, 1988). The skills taxonomy borrows from the workdone on the Secretary of Labor’s Commission on AchievingNecessary Skills (SCANS; Peterson, 1992) project and fromthe National Skill Standards Board. The generalized work ac-tivities model took as a starting point job components emerg-ing from work on the Position Analysis Questionnaire(McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1969), and supervisorydimensions represented in several models of supervisory be-havior, including those of Hemphill (1960), Mitchell (1978),and Borman and Brush (1993). Finally, the work stylesdimensions were derived from a view of personality that

collapse the dimensions of personality into five primary ones,referred to as the “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1990), and from workGuion and colleagues (e.g., Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997)did to develop a personality-related job analysis survey.

Two additional features of the O*NET content model anddatabase reinforce its flexibility and overall usefulness. Thefirst is that with so many different types of descriptors (i.e.,skills, abilities, work activities, etc.), multiple windows to theworld of work are available to the user. Different applicationsare likely to require different sets of descriptors, and thiscondition can be met with O*NET. Second, the contentmodel is organized hierarchically so that users can enter thedatabase at the level appropriate for their applications. At themost specific levels the user can obtain fine-grained occupa-tional information. If more general information about occu-pations is required, users can enter the database at a moregeneric, aggregated level. Additionally, O*NET provides acommon nomenclature for describing different jobs. Thecross-job descriptors essentially place all jobs on the samemetric, thus avoiding the necessity to develop a new descrip-tive system for each job.

Work is continuing to refine the descriptors and obtain jobincumbent ratings on as large a population of occupations aspossible. The hope is that the O*NET database will becomesufficiently populated such that all of the applications de-scribed previously can be realized.

Advances Through Extension

Project A and O*NET both represent large-scale develop-ments in industrial and organizational psychology that wereincremental advances in thinking or practice. In some sensethey were new solutions to traditional problems historicallyaddressed by the field. In this section we highlight break-throughs that might be characterized as extending into newdirections for the field. We shall begin with what is often re-ferred to as the levels issue.

Levels of Analysis

The historical focus of theory and practice in our field hasbeen the individual. Indeed, many early industrial psycholo-gists thought of themselves as differential psychologists whoseattention was focused primarily on individual differences inknowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes that were thenrelated to critical behavior in organizational settings.

As industrial and organizational psychology attempted todeal with the broader organizational environment in which in-dividuals are imbedded to include work teams and larger units,it became necessary to recognize that important behavioral

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 1990s 7

constructs occur at different levels in the organization. Themultilevel nature of the relevant behavioral phenomena raisedmany conceptual and measurement issues. Some constructsare meaningful at multiple levels, and the nature of the mean-ing must be carefully specified.

Consider the case of cognitive ability. At the individuallevel, cognitive ability is a construct that represents a person’sability to accomplish some specified domain of behaviors.However, if cognitive ability is considered at the team orgroup level, it also may be meaningful, such as the case inwhich there might be interest in the level of cognitive ability ofmembers of a classroom or a team in a team-based organiza-tion. Yet at the team level, each individual possesses somelevel of cognitive ability and the members are likely to differin it. Assuming they do differ, what best represents team abil-ity? Is it the average of all members, the ability level of thehighest member, the lowest? The answer to this question is notclear. What is clear, however, is that variance among teammembers which had no analogue at the individual level existsat the team level and cannot be ignored. The best representa-tion of team cognitive ability will depend on the theory inwhich its use is imbedded. Thus, if team ability is somethingthat is to be related to performance on a task in which allmembers can put forth their own ideas, work relatively au-tonomously, and pool their work, then the average of all mem-bers may be appropriate. If, however, the task is one in whicha good idea from one team member can carry the team, thenthe cognitive ability of the brightest member may be moreappropriate.

The previous example was one in which the construct couldhave meaning at both the team and the aggregate level. In othercases, constructs are only meaningful at one level even thoughmultiple levels are involved. Returning to teams, individualscomprise teams and have individual-level characteristics, butsome constructs only occur at the team level. Cooperation isone of these constructs. Individuals can create conditions ofcooperation that vary from low to high, but cooperation is a be-tween-person phenomenon. Thus, as levels are introduced,how behavior is observed, measured, and studied when con-sidered as activity embedded in multiple levels requires aperspective different from that taken by industrial and organi-zational psychology in its early development.

Increasingly—by chance or by design—people work ingroups or teams. This level of analysis enjoys great status inthe field today. Although the literature on social collectives—like that on groups—is well developed and has been evidentfor some time (e.g., Forsythe, 1999; McGrath, 1984), the re-search on work groups and teams represents a distinct break-through because it has integrated group dynamics with taskwork, work flow, and work procedures. This literature is well

represented in this volume and details the distinction betweenwhat might be called individual-in-team behavior (i.e., as a re-sult of the social forces operating on an individual in a socialcontext) from truly team-level phenomena (Klimoski &Zukin, 1999; see chapter by Kozlowski & Bell in this volume).

Although they are less common in today’s scholarship, stillother levels of description have found favor. At a macrolevel,a number of investigators have found it important and use-ful to acknowledge and measure societal-level phenomena.Arguably, these phenomena represent both the context that theworker (or applicant) experiences and the environment inwhich the organization must operate. Similarly, macroforcesstemming from developments in popular culture (including theentertainment media) and the educational system are known toaffect parameters of interest to those doing research on person-nel selection, recruiting, training, or work motivation. Indeed,even specific trends in industry sectors (e.g., consumer prod-ucts, transportation) can represent a contextual (boundary con-dition) or might be transformed into a variable of interest.

This trend to use alternative levels of analysis has severalimplications; two are noted here. The first is the need for speci-ficity. As never before, researchers are required to be clearabout the levels in which they are interested and the ones towhich they wish to generalize.Aversion of this point is the pos-sibility that we may get the best models or the best prediction ifwe presume that more than one level is operative to produce anoutcome of interest. Thus, Hofmann and Stetzer (1996), in at-tempting to understand workplace safety, found—as traditionwould have it—that individual differences were important inthe prediction of unsafe behaviors. But it was also true that thesafety behavior of the supervisor (e.g., wearing safety gear) andthe risk-taking norms of the work group were involved. Be-cause these different aspects of the problem are usually inter-twined, one must think not only of the effects of multiple butalso those of interpenetrating levels. Similarly, Zaccaro andKlimoski (2001) chose to focus on senior organizational lead-ership as a way of capturing the effects of individual and exec-utive team factors on the organizational level of functioning,but they also recognized that phenomena at that level wouldhave first- (e.g., structural design) and second-order (e.g.,communications-information flow) effects.

A second implication is the need for the clear articulationof explanatory mechanisms—that is, we must specify theprocesses that we believe are operating. Clearly, when char-acterizing individuals, we can and often do invoke subcogni-tive (e.g., habitual), cognitive, and affective processes. It isalso likely that these processes will be relevant at most higherlevels of analysis. For example, the behavior of organizationsis largely the result of sets of individuals for whom suchprocesses are controlling. The challenge, however, lies in

8 Stability and Change in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

deciding when to move up the level of analysis to attend toother processes. Alternative processes include interpersonal(dyad and team), social (group and team), informational(team and organization), and political (team, organization, orinterorganization) ones.

A Renewed Interest in Viewing Workers as Individuals

Earlier in this chapter, we characterized the field of industrialand organizational psychology as one that is concerned withthe satisfaction and well-being of those who populate workorganizations; yet some people might argue the point. This isbecause many in the field historically have adopted the per-spective of an organization’s management in their approachto the framing of research questions or to practice (see histor-ical treatments by Katzell & Austin 1992; Schmitt &Klimoski, 1991). However, during the 1990s there was agreat deal of interest in issues and questions that are or couldbe framed in terms of the needs and expectations of the indi-vidual as an applicant or as an employee.

To illustrate, several investigators have attempted to modelthe forces affecting the organizational entry process wherebyan individual becomes an applicant and then as an applicantdecides to accept an offer made by the organization (e.g.,Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991). Others have focused on thedynamics of the first few days, weeks, or months on the job asthey are experienced by the new employee. Guided by theseminal ideas of Louis (1980), researchers have concentratedon the way individuals make sense of the new environment byboth passive and active means (e.g., Ashforth, Saks, & Lee,1998; Morrison, 1993). At times the issue has been framedrelative to learning (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992) or alterna-tively, one of understanding how a new hire comes to adopt anorganizational identity (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000).These notions are evidenced in the chapters in this volume onrecruitment, culture and climate, and motivation.

We have seen that as part of this focus on the individual,scholars have placed a special emphasis on issues of fairnessand social justice in the workplace—often associated withwhat has come to be called the psychological contract(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson, 1996; Rousseau,1995). Indeed, perceived fairness is often linked to the devel-opment of trust in the workplace. It is not surprising that mod-eling trust, its antecedents, and its consequences has become amajor theme in the literature. Investigators have sought outparsimonious and powerful explanatory mechanisms for un-derstanding how individuals self-regulate in the workplace(Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Finally, those studying leadershipprocesses also have contributed to this literature on the devel-opment of trust—especially in the context of the socialization

of newcomers (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). Fairness andtrust are covered in some detail in this volume in chaptersaddressing such issues as motivation, stress, job attitudes, andorganizational development.

The theme of the individual’s point of view has also beenwoven into recent treatments of the effects of various person-nel practices. These include applicant testing (e.g., Gilliland,1993; Ployhart & Ryan, 1998), training (Colquitt, LePine, &Noe, 2000), performance standards (Bobko & Colella, 1994),affirmative action programs (Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000) andlayoff policies (Wanberg, Bunce, & Gavin, 1999). In theseand in other papers like them, it is the worker’s view that isbeing made salient and is the focus of attention. Such issuesdiscussed in this volume’s chapters on personnel selection,diversity, and job performance.

Finally, it would be appropriate to include in our character-ization of this trend to viewing the worker’s needs and inter-ests as important by pointing out what appears to be renewedattention to work associated with empirically derived modelsof career patterns and career management (e.g., Hall &Mirvis, 1995; London, 1995), research on the interface be-tween work and family (e.g., Zedeck, 1992), or research onworkers’daily lives (Hage, 1995). In this volume, these topicsare addressed in chapters on training, culture and climate,careers, and organizational development and change.

Methods, Models, and Theories

The 1990s began with continued frequent use of studies em-ploying meta-analytic techniques for summarizing multipledata sets in which covariation between the same variables wasemployed. In 1992, Schmidt went so far as to argue that meta-analysis was likely to provide all of the knowledge neededabout relationships between variables in industrial and orga-nizational psychology (Schmidt, 1992). The only reason forconducting original studies (according to this view) would beto supply meta-analysts with the data needed to establishthe scientific findings regarding the variables. Meta-analyticwork is certainly valuable for summarizing research findings,but the importance of individual studies in their own right isnot diminished and continues to be demonstrated.

To provide a brief summary of the role of meta-analysisin industrial and organizational research, we did a search ofthe literature in the leading journals of the field and found119 meta-analytic studies conducted since 1992. These studiesare summarized in Table 1.1.As can be seen, the largest numberof studies involved the job performance construct. Examples offindings include point estimates for links between job perfor-mance and role ambiguity and conflict, supervisory expecta-tions, job experience, feedback interventions, homogeneity of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 1990s 9

work teams, and the purpose of the job performance ratings. Acount of studies linking job performance and each of the otherseven categories in Table 1.1 shows three with leadership con-structs, one with turnover, seven with goal theory or othermotivation-related variables, three with ethnic group or gender,four with job satisfaction or organizational commitment, and27 with various selection predictors such as the interview, bio-data, and personality constructs. We counted 18 meta-analysessummarizing relations between personality predictors and jobperformance constructs.

The next largest number of studies involve relationsbetween selection predictors and—in the vast majorityof cases—job performance. As mentioned previously,personality-performance linkages received by far the most at-tention. The third largest number of studies summarize rela-tions between job satisfaction or organizational commitmentand constructs such as flexible work schedules, vocationalinterest congruence, and job level. Regarding other categories,two are with leadership constructs, three are with turnover,three are with goal theory and motivational constructs (e.g.,participation in decision making), two are with selection pre-dictors, and two link job satisfaction with gender.

Correlations between goal theory or other motivation-related constructs and several other constructs have also beensummarized using meta-analysis. The vast majority of theserelations have been between motivation constructs (e.g., par-ticipation in decision making, task involvement, or expectancyvariables) and job performance or job satisfaction.

Meta-analyses involving ethnic group and gender are thefifth most numerous. In this category, relationships have beenstudied with such variables as cognitive ability, job perfor-mance and satisfaction, leadership effectiveness, and negoti-ation outcomes.

As shown in Table 1.1, nine meta-analyses involvingturnover have appeared in the literature from 1992 to 2001.Four of these meta-analyses examined relations betweenturnover and job satisfaction or organizational commitment.Leadership constructs were included in eight additional

meta-analyses. Overall leadership effectiveness, as well asspecific constructs such as initiating structure, consideration,and leader-member exchange have been linked primarily tojob performance and job satisfaction. Finally, four studies in-volving training (e.g., managerial training and cross-culturaltraining) have related training to performance outcomes.

The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate thebreadth of meta-analytic activity in industrial and organiza-tional psychology. Clearly, the method has been useful forbetter informing us about covariation among primary vari-ables of interest in the field. As with any method, however,there is need for caution—particularly as it relates to the needto recognize that a number of subjective calls must be madewhen using the method. Of particular importance is the needto be aware of overcorrection for unreliability in circum-stances under which reliability may be underestimated(Murphy & DeShon, 2000).

As important as meta-analysis may be for cumulating dataacross multiple samples, perhaps its major contribution in thelong run is the use of the method for model testing and alsoits role in a shift away from a singular reliance on statisticalsignificance testing (Schmidt, 1996). For example, Hom,Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, and Griffeth (1992) combinedmeta-analyses with structural equation modeling to validate amodel of turnover presented earlier by Mobley, Griffeth,Hand, and Meglino (1979) and to compare it to two othermodels. Similarly, Colquitt et al. (2000) employed meta-analytical techniques to test hypotheses about cognitive andmotivational predictors of training outcomes in ways thatcombined the power of meta-analysis for estimating popula-tion relationships from multiple studies along with the abilityto develop theoretically informed models that could then beevaluated. Thus, meta-analysis and other major methodolog-ical advances such as hierarchical linear modeling (HLM),structural equation modeling (SEM), and confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) are having a positive effect on the field at theinterface between theory and data. When used appropriately,the methods require that the investigators carefully specifythe theory underlying their empirical work and then constructmodels that fit the theory. The data are then compared to themodels and judgments are made about the degree of fit be-tween the data and the theoretical models.

All of the previously mentioned methods of model testinginvolve data gathered from observations of human behavior.Other modeling techniques exist that use computer models totest assumptions from theories that have been informed byobservations of behaviors at work. These models, calledcomputational models, are frequently used in the cognitivesciences and in the organizational sciences but rarely appearin the industrial and organizational psychology literature

TABLE 1.1 Summary of Meta-Analysis Content in Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, 1992–2001

Content Category Number of Meta-Analyses

Job performance 62Leadership 8Turnover 9Goal theory and motivation 13Ethnic group and gender 11Job satisfaction and organizational 22

commitmentSelection predictors 35Training 4Miscellaneous 17

10 Stability and Change in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

(Hulin & Ilgen, 2000). One model (WORKER) developed foraddressing withdrawal behaviors at work is grounded in theextensive literature on absenteeism, turnover, tardiness, andother withdrawal behaviors and is extremely valuable for in-forming us about interactions among key variables over timethat neither theory nor empirical observations are likely touncover on their own (Hanisch, Hulin, & Seitz, 1986). A re-cently published book, edited by Ilgen and Hulin (2000), of-fers a number of illustrations of ways in which computationalmodeling can and should be added to the growing trend to-ward model testing in our field. With this and other statisticalmodel testing methods that are now available, there is astrong trend toward better integrating theory with data in in-dustrial and organizational psychology.

Strategic Human Resource Management

Another major shift in thinking in the field of industrial andorganizational psychology relates to the recognition thatmuch of what we do as a field relative to scholarship andpractice must be framed in terms of the business case; al-though this has always been true to some extent (for practi-tioners at least), it is increasingly recognized that our theoriesand models need to add value in the view of society for us tohave the luxury of pursuing our scholarship. Moreover, be-cause numerous other fields of endeavor are competing forsuch respect (and for the resources that follow), our contribu-tions must do well in the marketplace for useful ideas.

As a term, strategic HRM (human resource management)has been around for a relatively short period of time (Devanna,Fombrum, & Tichy, 1981; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall,1988; Wright, 1998). However, several of the concepts under-lying it have a bit of a history. For example, notions of utility inpersonnel selection (Brogden, 1949) were created more than50 years ago to show how and when a selection device woulddemonstrate value in improving the quality of the workforceover what was currently the case. Similarly, the logic of utilityand cost/benefit analysis have become the basis for assessingthe value of any intervention affecting the organization’s so-called human capital (see chapter by Boudreau & Ramstad inthis volume). What is somewhat different, however, is that theunit of analysis is not just the pool of applicants or a personnelinitiative (e.g., a new training program), but rather that of theorganization. In short, the problematic of HRM is one of en-suring that the organization as a whole is well served as it at-tempts to succeed in the larger marketplace, including theglobal arena.

More specifically, Wright and McMahan (1992) definestrategic HRM as “the pattern of planned human resource

deployments and activities intended to enable the firm toachieve its goals” (p. 298). In this regard, several contempo-rary writers are interested in modeling how the managementof human resources can contribute to such things as matchingpersonnel activities to business strategies, forecasting man-power needs (given certain strategic objectives), or findingways to align personnel practices to strategy and structure(e.g., Boxall, 1998; Lepak & Snell, 1998, Taylor, Beechler, &Napier, 1996). Still others attempt to deal with the implica-tions of restructuring, downsizing, and mergers or acquisi-tions (e.g., Gratten, Hailey, Stiles, & Truss, 1999). Finally,writers in this area are attempting to address the issue of met-rics and measurement systems that will reveal the HR contri-butions to company performance (e.g., Rogers & Wright,1998). It is also worth noting that this trend has promoted theneed for and the use of the multilevel and dynamic modelingapproaches described briefly in an earlier section as the firm,its policies and practices, and employees’ reactions to thesepolicies and practices are involved (e.g., Shaw, Delery,Jenkins, & Gupta, 1999).

Taking a strategic perspective has allowed practitioners inour field to relate in meaningful ways what they do profes-sionally to the most senior organizational leaders. Not onlyare they able to better empathize with their clients, but theyare also capable of making a business case for what they do.When they accomplish this goal, there is a greater likelihoodthat the research and findings of industrial and organizationalpsychologists will be given the same credibility and weightas is given to the work of consultants with backgrounds inother fields such as engineering and economics.

In fact, the field of industrial and organizational psychol-ogy is often referred to as an applied science. Its members areoften described as scientist-practitioners. In this regard, wefeel that professional practice should be based on good theo-ries, models, and data. At the same time, however, all goodtheories must be grounded in organizational realities. Thus,unlike many other social sciences (e.g., economics), we holdourselves accountable for (and take some pride in) being ableto make valid predictions (rather than merely descriptions orpostdictions) relative to the impact of our interventions orrecommendations. Moreover, we seek to modify our modelsin light of prediction errors.

Chapters Comprising This Handbook

The remainder of this volume contains 22 chapters on spe-cific topics in industrial and organizational psychology. Thefirst eight chapters address the nature of work and behavior atwork that typically is described as personnel psychology.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 1990s 11

They are followed by six chapters that address organizationalpsychological issues of motivation, attitudes, teams, and cus-tomer relations. From these discussions, we turn to issues ofthe organizational, work, and social environment that influ-ence behavior in the present environment and over a career.

In the chapter on job analysis, Sackett and Laczo (this vol-ume) point out that many choices must be made before con-ducting this critical first step in the vast majority of ourindustrial and organizational interventions. Such choices aswhether the job analysis should be general or more fine-grained, focused on job activities or worker attributes, and soforth must of course align with the purpose of the job analy-sis. These authors also provide excellent sections on somecontemporary hot topics—most notably, competency model-ing, cognitive task analysis, and strategic job analysis.

Motowidlo (this volume) provides a carefully crafted def-inition of the job performance construct—“the total expectedvalue to the organization of the discrete behavioral episodesthat an individual carries out over a standard period of time.”This definition implies that performance is behavior, notresults—a distinction also made several years ago by Camp-bell (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970). The au-thor reviews in detail Campbell’s recent theory of jobperformance (briefly noted earlier in this chapter) and otherattempts to define elements of the performance space (e.g.,contextual performance and organizational citizenship be-havior). It is important to note that Motowidlo describes amodel in which knowledge, skill, motivation, and habits arethe direct determinants of job performance. These variablesare in turn determined primarily by individual differencesand by training and development opportunities. This modelprovides a rich theoretical framework for our field’s most im-portant independent variables and job performance.

To illustrate how much the area of recruitment has grownin the last 25 years, Rynes and Cable (this volume) point outthat in the first Handbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology (Dunnette, 1976), less than one page was de-voted to recruiting (Guion, 1976). Coverage in the 1991Handbook increased to a full chapter (Rynes, 1991), and thelast 10 years have seen still more research activity. In thishighly informative review, Rynes and Cable make a strongcase for the increasing importance of recruitment as a corpo-rate strategy; attracting and retaining people—especially forkey positions—is critical for gaining competitive advantagein our global economy. Also covered in this chapter is re-search on recruitment sources (e.g., Web sites), affirmativeaction, applicant reactions to selection procedures, vacancycharacteristics (e.g., pay and benefits), and social processesrelated to recruitment. Finally, these authors also look to the

future by calling for recruiting research to move beyond theindividual level of analysis and instead to aggregate results tothe organizational level and study cross-organizational dif-ferences in recruiting practices.

Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, and Wiechmann (this volume)present a comprehensive model of personnel selection that hasas components individual differences (e.g., ability, personal-ity), mediators (e.g., job knowledge, motivation), perfor-mance, and individual and organizational distal outcomes(e.g., customer satisfaction, withdrawal behavior, social res-ponsibility). It is becoming evident (and very well docu-mented in this chapter) that declarative knowledge, proceduralknowledge and skill, and motivation mediate relationshipsbetween individual differences and job performance. But theauthors go beyond this general observation to discuss specificlinks. For example, cognitive ability is the primary predictorof declarative knowledge; perceptual speed and psychomotorability are the primary predictors of procedural knowledge andskill; and personality is the primary predictor of elements ofmotivation. Schmitt et al. also differentiate between compo-nents of job performance, separating task and contextualperformance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997), but also intro-ducing the construct of adaptive performance (Pulakos,Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000) to the mix. Thesedistinctions are likely to be quite important for providing dif-ferential predictions for the individual-differences/mediator-variables/job-performance relations. Finally, the authorsprovide a concise, focused review of our predictor domains,including physical abilities, job experience, personality, bio-data, and the interview.

Fritz Drasgow (this volume) provides an illuminating re-view of research on human abilities—especially in relation tojob performance. He first discusses the major approaches tostudying intelligence: factor-analytic research, information-processing approaches, and neuropsychological research. Theauthor then draws on his own work with situational judgmenttests (SJTs, tests that present difficult real-world situationsand ask test takers to select the most effective response in amultiple-choice form) to suggest that constructs such as socialintelligence or tacit knowledge as measured by SJTs might beemployed to provide incremental validity beyond generalcognitive ability in predicting job performance. These con-structs and related personality variables appear to predict thecontextual performance (e.g., supporting and helping otherindividuals in the organization or the organization itself, vol-unteering for assignments and putting forth extra effort) com-ponent of job performance—a component shown to beimportant beyond task performance for contributing to over-all performance (e.g., Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).

12 Stability and Change in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Hough and Furnham (this volume) review the burgeoningliterature on personality and the prediction of job perfor-mance. These authors make a good case for increasing the sci-entific understanding of personality-performance links byevaluating relations between relatively specific performanceconstructs and individual components of job performance.They also discuss alternative methods for measuring personal-ity, including the use of biodata, others’ reports or descriptions,computerized assessment, and genetic testing. Their positionon the slanting of responses or faking in a personnel selectioncontext is that response distortion is not likely to affect valid-ity substantially, although there is considerable disagreementon this topic (e.g., Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998).

The approach to training offered by Kraiger (this volume)reflects the major ways in which this area has been treated inboth theory and practice. Thus, training does involve both in-struction and learning. However, it also is embedded in at-tempts to change the organization. In addition to detailingthese distinctions, the chapter goes on to highlight key issuesin measurement that must be resolved if we are going tomake great strides in this area.

In their excellent chapter on utility, Boudreau andRamstad (this volume) go well beyond a review of cost-ben-efit analysis and thinking. These authors argue that industrialand organizational psychology must become more strategicto influence human resource decisions before such decisionsare made rather than justify interventions after the fact. Theyobserve that there often exist in organizations key jobs thatcan create uniqueness and competitive advantage; and thatthese jobs are not necessarily the highest paid (e.g., trashsweepers at Disney World and repair technicians at Xerox).An implication of this chapter is that utility analysis shouldbroaden from a rather esoteric technical topic to include anexamination of all links between investments in industrialand organizational and in human resources (HR) programsand individual and organizational effectiveness.

Extensive literatures on work motivation and job satisfac-tion are reviewed and organized in models that provide ex-cellent frameworks for identifying major themes andpointing out gaps in our current knowledge. A chapter is de-voted to each topic. Terence R. Mitchell and Denise Daniels(this volume) identify eight theoretical motivational posi-tions (expectancy theory, self-efficacy, goal setting, moodsand affect, need theories, dispositions, reinforcement theory,and justice). For each position, they review the progress todate and suggest new directions. All these positions are intro-duced within an overarching model that provides an excellentmeans for seeing the relationships among them. Hulin andJudge (this volume), in their treatment of job satisfaction,also provide models that depict the nature of various posi-

tions on job satisfaction. They use these models to show whathas been found in the past, to discuss what we now know, andto discuss some of the controversies that have been raised re-garding the nature of job satisfaction and its covariation withimportant behaviors at work.

Avolio, Sosik, Jung, and Berson (this volume) do an ex-cellent job of summarizing the many crosscurrents in the fieldof organizational leadership. To their credit, they are also ableto provide a synthesis around what they term a full-range the-ory of leadership. Although it remains to be seen if their ap-proach will satisfy all of our needs, it does offer a very usefulway to consider leadership as simultaneously an input,process and output phenomenon—one that has been concep-tualized as operating at several levels of analysis (e.g., dyad,team, unit, firm, and even nation-state). It also is interest-ing to note that the piece reflects the efforts of four genera-tions of scholars who were able to find some common groundin producing this chapter in spite of the extensive and com-plex literature that exists.

Although the interplay between theory and practice can befound in several chapters, it is a major theme for Austin andBartunek (this volume) on organizational development. Theauthors effectively show how theories of organizations andtheories of change combine to affect practice and the likeli-hood of favorable outcomes. They also go on to show howimportant it is to integrate knowledge from the field if we aregoing to have truly grounded theories of organizational dy-namics and planned change.

A topic that has enjoyed rapid development in the lastdecade or so is that of work teams and groups. Perhaps thisphenomenon was due to a high level of funding for basic andapplied research in the United States by the military that hasa great need to know about creating and managing effectivecommand and control or action teams. It may have also beena result of a shift toward teams as a design solution for creat-ing effective and adaptable work organizations. In any event,we in the field of industrial and organizational psychologyare now able to understand more than ever before just howand why work teams and groups function and can be mademore effective. It is also fortunate that we have such a goodsummary of these developments in the chapter by Kozlowskiand Bell (this volume). This chapter offers a unique multi-level perspective on how individuals, dyads, and teams func-tion as nested systems. A signature feature of this chapter isthe authors’ treatment of applied problematics (like staffingand training of teams) within a conceptual framework thathas been extensively informed by research.

Ryan and Ployhart (this volume), in their chapter about cus-tomer service behavior (CSB), use an innovative contingencyapproach to understanding, predicting, and influencing CSB.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 1990s 13

Their argument is that the specific customer service situationwill often influence the effectiveness of different types ofCSB. The authors define the CSB situation along a number ofdimensions, including intangibility (e.g., giving a haircut islow, providing financial advice is high) and standard versuscustomized service required. In fact, Ryan and Ployhart pro-vide tables that present research questions for each of severalindustrial and organizational areas (e.g., job performance, se-lection, climate and attitudes, etc.) under different situationalCSB conditions. Thus, for selection, for example, a researchquestion is Will cognitive ability and job knowledge be betterpredictors of customer service performance in customized ser-vice situations than in standard service situations? The au-thors also review research on the selection of customer serviceemployees; service climate in organizations; mood, emotions,and CSB; the training and socialization of CSB; and the designof customer service jobs.

Wayne F. Cascio (this volume) turns attention to a numberof factors that a global economy and its effect on the rapidpace of change are likely to have on research topics in indus-trial and organizational psychology as well as on its practice.Relying heavily on case studies and best practices reported inthe organizational literature, Cascio provides a number of ex-amples of how corporations have adjusted staffing, training,and motivational practices to respond to rapid change, glob-alization, a multicultural workforce, and other factors thatplay a major role in work at the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury.

In the chapters about performance and job analysis, theauthors deal with the measurement and description of jobsand work. In these cases, the work setting is—for the mostpart—taken as a given. In the chapter on work design,Frederick P. Morgeson and Michael A. Campion (this vol-ume) return again to the nature of work but do so from thestandpoint of designing work—particularly as it influenceswork motivation. They present a number of different per-spectives on the design of work and examine the impact ofsocial and structural factors on work. They also pay particu-lar attention to the distinction between the physical nature ofwork and the perceptions of that work from the standpoint ofthe person who occupies the work role. Issues of measure-ment as well as those of the content of work are discussed.

The issue of work place stress has never been more salientthan it is currently. Because of the terrorist attacks onSeptember 11, 2001; the anthrax scares; and the widespreadeconomic recession, more individuals in the United States andelsewhere are under more work-related stress than they havebeen in recent memory. Thus, it is important that we are ableto offer