1

PSY 6450 Psychology of Work

2

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 Quilitchschizophrenic

3

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)

4

Facts about I/O psychology

• SO1: Primary professional organization for I/O psychology

Society for Industrial/Organizational PsychologyWeb site: www.siop.org

• SO2: Percentage of PhD psychologists who are I/O psychologists

4%

5

SO4: Where do I/O psychologists work?

• 4A: Ph.D.s (learn top two for exam)– Universities 39%– Consulting firms 35%– Industry 20%– Government 6%

• 4B: MAs (learn top two for exam)– Industry 67%– Consulting firms 14%– Government 11%– Universities 8%

note difference PhD industry vs. universities and consulting/note difference MAs: CLG

6

SO5: $$ Salaries - SIOP Survey 2004 (NFE)

MedianStarting

MedianOverall

MaleMedian

FemaleMedian

PhD $73,000 $98,500 $100,000 $85,000

MA $55,000 $72,000

$ 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

7

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

8

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)

9

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 reliabilityand validity of tests - job relatedness)

10

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, industrialEngineer - selection remains I/O. don’t deal with laws and issues here, personnel selection)

11

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)

12

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”

13

Some Major Differences Between I/O and OBM

Bucklin et al., 2000

(only highlight some important differences - embedded those in sos)

14

Purpose of study

To identify similarities and differences with respect to topics and research methods used in OBM and traditional I/O psychology

15

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)

16

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

17

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)

18

SO16: Topics in JAP & JOBM

1. Selection & Placement

2. Statistical Analysis Procedures

3. Performance Appraisal

1. Productivity & Quality

2. Customer Satisfaction

3. Training and Development

16A: Rank order top 3 in JAPJAP JOBM

19

SO16B: Of top 12 topics, commonalities

Only three!!

1. Productivity & Quality2. Training & Development3. Health & Safety

20

Differences (NFE)

• Ranking :JAP

1. Selection/Placement2. Statistical Analysis3. Performance Appraisal4. Attitudes, Cognition5. Legal Issues 6. Turnover, Absenteeism,

Attendance7. T & D8. Productivity & Quality9. Gender & Minority10. Group Performance11. Leadership/Decision Making12. Safety, Health

JOBM1. Productivity & Quality2. Customer Satisfaction3. T & D4. Safety, Health5. Accuracy6. Rate of Performance7. Sales8. Labor Cost9. Timeliness10. Novelty11. Management/Systems

Analysis

(most OBM articles dealth with productivity & quality issues, 5-10 measures; more breadth I/O)

21

SO17: Primary research strategy

• Percentage of research articles that were experimental vs correlational (NFE)

JOBM JAPExperimental 95% 40%Correlational 5% 60%

• Primary research strategy (for exam)– JOBM: Experimental – JAP: Correlational

• What is the problem with correlational research?

22

SO18: Field vs. Laboratory Exp. (NFE)

Experimental Setting

JOBMN = 60

JAPN = 308

Field 80% 20%

Laboratory 20% 80%

(NFE, but using this to make a point later, % reversed)

23

SO19: Research studies: Applied vs. theoretical

• AppliedConducted to solve an organizational problem

• TheoreticalConducted to examine a theoretical, conceptual or “bridge” question (included some field studies)

What percentage of research studies in JOBM and JAP were designed to solve anorganizational problem vs to answer a theoretical question?

24

Results: Applied vs. Theoretical

Research Question

JOBMN = 60

JAPN = 308

Theoretical 57% 94%

Applied 45% 6%

25

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

26

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)

27

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

28

SO 22: Independent variables in studies

• 22ABucklin et al. identified the top 9 IVs that were examined. Of those how many were the same for JOBM & JAP?

• 22BDescribe the major differences between the IVs that were examined

29

Independent Variables

1. Antecedents/ 71% Information 2. Training 15%

3. Goals 10%4. Feedback 8%5. Monetary

consequences 5%6. Non-monetary

consequences 1%7. Praise .3%

1. Feedback 75%2. Training 63%3. Monetary 33%

consequences4. Antecedents/ 32%

Information 5. Non-monetary 28%

consequences 6. Goals 25%7. Praise 18%8. Punishment 5%9. System design 2%

JAP (N=308) JOBM (N=60)

(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)

30

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%

31

SO23: JOBM weakness, social validity

• Social validity (NFE)– JAP researchers assessed social validity to a

much greater degree than JOBM researchersJAP = 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.

32

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?

33

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

34

History of OBM in the Private Sector1950s - 1980s

Dickinson, 2000

35

SO24: When did OBM become visible?

OBM started in the mid to late 1960s

36

Table 1: Lifetime Achievement or Outstanding Contributions Awards (NFE)

1. Aubrey Daniels2. Thomas Gilbert3. Edward Feeney4. Beth Sulzer-Azaroff5. Thomas Mawhinney6. Dale Brethower7. William Redmon8. Alyce Dickinson9. Paul Brown10. Geary Rummler

11. Chevron Chemical Corp (CLG)

12. Terry McSween13. Jon Bailey14. Maria Malott15. D. Chris Anderson16. William Abernathy17. Scott Geller18. John Austin

(red: wmu connection, 7 of 18)

37

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)

38

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

39

Michael and Ayllon (2007)

40

Jack Michael and friends

The family tree: Wilder, Carr, Bailey, Michael

41

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)

42

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

43

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!

44

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?

45

PM vs BSA conflict (NFE)

• Sales vs manufacturing: classic problemImplement 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.

46

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)

47

Tom Gilbert

Tom GilbertRich O’BrienOg Lindsley

48

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)

49

Aubrey Daniels

50

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

51

SO35A: First graduate program to offer OBM and systems analysis?

• Western Michigan University!!!– Early 1970s, Applied Behavior Analysis

program

52

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

53

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

54

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

55

56

Quilitch (1975)

A comparison of three staffmanagement procedures

JABA, 8, 59-66

57

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

58

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

59

SO38: Purpose of Quilitch (1975)

• Setting: Residential institution for

developmentally disabled• Goal:

Increase the number of active residents on the four wards

60

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

61

SO39: Dependent Variable?

Daily average number of active residents on each ward

62

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)

63

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?

64

THAT’S ALL FOLKS!

• Questions?

65