Confluence of Dynamic Forces 379efficiency to one of quality or customer service. During the
late 1950s, more than 50% of the workforce consisted of ser-
vice employees (Katzell & Austin, 1992). This shift created
changes in the organization’s structure and the nature of work,
increasing attention to organizational characteristics and their
impact on employee attitudes and behaviors. The socioeco-
nomic forces described in the previous section combined
with business changes inspired researchers to investigate job
satisfaction, motivation, leadership, intergroup and intra-
group relations, communication, and influence and power.
The Research Center for Group Dynamics created the journal
Administrative Science Quarterlyin 1955 so researchers
could share their work on various social topics.
Although numerous long-range research programs were
conducted in several organizations, an important one worth
noting here was begun at the American Telephone and Tele-
graph Company (AT&T) in 1956. The basic purpose of the
study was to discover qualities related to managerial success
and advancement in the company. Results revealed that
test and inventory scores as well as staff judgments on
several dimensions predicted salaries and advancement to
middle management over several years (Howard & Bray,
1988). This research effort by Bray and his colleagues
“stands out as one of the most carefully designed and com-
prehensive longitudinal studies ever conducted” (Dunnette,
1998, p. 140).
Flagging productivity in the 1960s and 1970s forced com-
panies to look at new ways of managing. They examined their
foreign competitors’ successes and consequently changed
from individualistic, authoritarian systems to structures em-
phasizing groups, teamwork, employee participation, and
total quality management (1986–1987 SIOP past president
Sheldon Zedeck, personal communication, July 6, 2000).
With the advent of organization development (OD) as an at-
tempt to better understand the process of group dynamics, the
assumption that developing people would create healthier and
more effective organizations changed to the assumption that
developing organizations would create healthier and more
effective people (Mirvis, 1988).
In the 1980s, stagnant productivity, threats to economic
well-being, and American companies’ failure to adapt to eco-
nomic circumstances raised concerns about productivity, util-
ity, and quality. Although the foundations for utility analyses
had been offered earlier (e.g., Brogden, 1946), it was not until
the 1980s that serious attention to utility analysis surfaced
(Cascio, 1991). In addition, a renewed interest in OD reestab-
lished the relationship between employees and organizations
(Muchinsky, 2000). Some I-O psychologists view OD as a
symbiosis of scientists and practitioners (e.g., Lowenberg &
Conrad, 1998).
For the past two decades and for the next century, the
external environment for organizations has been and will be
turbulent because of globalization, increased competition,
and rapid change. To survive, flexible organizations’ re-
sponses include restructuring, mergers and acquisitions,
downsizing (e.g., elimination of management positions in
order to reduce size and costs), and new product lines. To be
competitive, strategies for managing change and for creating
a committed and satisfied workforce will need to be devel-
oped and implemented. Cascio (1995) suggested that training
and development will emerge as the essential activity for
companies in the twenty-first century. As they did at the be-
ginning of I-O psychology, I-O psychologists will continue to
respond to business needs. Some senior SIOP members re-
cently expressed concerns that top management issues and
business demands (e.g., strategic planning, financial incen-
tives) rather than the pursuit of science will drive the work of
I-O psychologists (Locke, 2000).Legal ForcesThere is no question that the legal and political climate in the
United States influenced the evolution of I-O psychology.
According to SIOP president (2001–2002) William H. Macey,
“there were some clear watershed events in the last 35–40
years in the form of particular legislation...that clearly are
singular in their impact on our discipline/profession” (William
H. Macey, personal communication, August 19, 2000).
During the depression, the U.S. government strengthened
its influence by creating New Deal legislation and programs
to help the downtrodden employee. Both business leaders
and psychologists became cognizant of worker issues; thus,
attention to the social aspects of industrial psychology in-
creased. Psychologist Mary Holmes Stevens Hayes was di-
rectly involved with the New Deal. In 1935, she conducted a
research study (requested by the U.S. Congress) on problems
of the unemployed, which served as the basis for the National
Youth Administration (NYA), one of several New Deal pro-
grams created within the Works Progress Administration
(Cashman, 1989). Hayes first led the Division of Guidance
and Placement, one division of the NYA, and then in 1940,
when the NYA was placed under the auspices of the Federal
Security Agency, she was promoted to director of the
Division of Youth (Koppes, 1997).
The civil-rights movement began in the early 1950s when
the separate-but-equal doctrine in education was struck
down in the case ofBrown v. Board of Education(1954).
Congressional hearings led to publications dealing with stan-
dards of testing, such as theTechnical Recommendations of
Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques(American