384 Industrial-Organizational Psychology
trends in the field are...increased use of personality measures,
360° feedback instruments, and expanding the work performance
domain to include aspects of contextual performance such as cit-
izenship behaviours. (Dunnette, 1998, pp. 129–130)Along with the discipline’s successes, several criticisms
have been made (e.g., Dunnette, 1966). Some I-O psycholo-
gists believe that practice has outstripped research. Others
state that too much attention has been given to precision and
objectivity. Researchers disagree with respect to how to ana-
lyze, define, measure, design, and evaluate research. Excess
research has been conducted on predictors and validation
techniques; a paucity of research exists on criteria. Theories,
research methodologies, and data analyses are less applicable
for dynamic issues and thus do not account for change. Few
longitudinal studies have been conducted because they are
cumbersome and expensive. A gap is increasing between I-O
psychology and psychology (Highhouse & Zickar, 1997). In
addition, progress has been slow because of reporting to peo-
ple who are not in positions of authority (Locke, 2000) and
being too close to the client (Baritz, 1960).
One specific criticism plaguing the discipline throughout
its history is that I-O psychologists practice “dustbowl em-
piricism,” which is the process of researching relationships
between variables with scant or no attention to the logic or
theory underlying those relationships. Landy (1997) noted,
“As a sub-discipline, I/O psychologists have long had prob-
lems with theory development” (p. 472). One explanation is
that the field’s primary focus during the early years was to de-
velop solutions to practical problems to legitimize applied
psychology (Dunnette, 1976). Dustbowl empiricism may
have characterized the discipline in the early years, and some
psychologists may continue to believe that theory and re-
search have not progressed; however, since the 1960s, a
stronger orientation toward theory development and theory-
related research can be observed. One explanation is that I-O
psychologists demonstrated their usefulness, so their time
and energy could be directed toward theory (Katzell &
Austin, 1992). Other explanations for strides in theory and re-
search include (a) a growing distinction between science and
practice, (b) an increased use of laboratory experiments
because of academic pressures to publish, (c) the growth of
organizational psychology that has a theoretical slant, and
(d) unsupported theories that led to revised theories.
SUMMARY
This analysis of I-O psychology’s history demonstrates that
the rise of the discipline during the past 100 years was the
result of confluences of dynamic external (socioeconomic,
business, legal, military, technology, psychology) and inter-
nal forces (individuals, theories, and applications) at various
times. These forces, along with other influences (e.g., inter-
disciplinary fields), interacted in shaping both science and
practice. Several trends from then to now can be summarized:
(a) I-O psychologists are more proactive and less reactive,
(b) both employee goals and organizational goals are now
considered rather than only organizational goals, (c) the dis-
cipline is a blending of science and practice, (d) intricate
and integrated approaches are used to understand humans in
the workplace (i.e., broad theories and models take into
consideration the complexity of cognition and behavior in or-
ganizations) instead of a simple view, (e) specialties within
the discipline now exist, (f ) an increasing objectivity and
greater accuracy of measurement (statistics) are emphasized,
(g) more and better trained I-O psychologists and teachers are
available, (h) more research is conducted on employee be-
haviors (personality traits, organizational citizenship behav-
iors) and contexts (work teams, international contexts) rather
than on theoretical constructs (e.g., motivation), and (i) the
underlying theme, improving the workplace and work lives,
remains steadfast in the discipline.CONCLUSION: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?A better understanding of what I-O psychologists did and
why they did what they did was obtained from examining the
sociohistorical context of the discipline. Have I-O psycholo-
gists made a difference in the workplace? According to
Katzell and Austin (1992),I-O psychology has become a viable scientific discipline that has
added much to society’s knowledge about work behavior....
I/O psychology has become an important contributor to manage-
ment.... I/O psychology has been contributing to the general
well-being of American society. It has done so by helping to
select people for work for which they are suited, training and
developing them to be more effective in their work and careers,
reducing bias in the employment of the disadvantaged, improv-
ing safety and comfort at work, and enhancing the quality of
work life. (pp. 822–823)What can the past teach about the future of I-O psychol-
ogy? External and internal forces will continue to affect the
work of I-O psychologists. Cascio (1995) identified several
rapid changes relative to the world of work (e.g., global com-
petition, explosion of information technology, reengineering
of business processes) that have important implications for
the science and practice in I-O psychology (i.e., job analysis,