376 Industrial-Organizational Psychology
employees’ personal problems (Highhouse, 1999). A re-
newed interest in worker adjustment, work–family conflicts,
and other personal issues (e.g., mental health) has emerged in
the past decade (e.g., Zedeck, 1992).
After World War II, the economy provided for prosperity,
leisure, pleasure, affluence, education, and a heightened
awareness of the good life. A new generation of American
workers increasingly valued noneconomic outcomes and per-
sonal rewards (satisfaction, personal growth, self-fulfillment,
actualization, self-expression) instead of traditional bread-
and-butter rewards (Katzell, 1958). An increased emphasis
on workers’ attitudes and motivations and ways of improving
life in organizations became salient, with particular attention
to social and organizational contexts. The focus shifted to
topics other than those directly tied to bottom-line perfor-
mance, including the effects of work on individuals, motiva-
tion, job attitudes, life and job satisfaction, challenges of the
job, and job characteristics (Katzell & Austin, 1992).
The postwar economy provided for an explosion of psy-
chological applications and research opportunities. The focus
was on both fitting people for the job and fitting the job for
people. Military research centers were formed, psychological
research organizations were created (e.g., American Insti-
tutes for Research), consulting firms were established (e.g.,
Richardson, Bellows, Henry, & Company), and research
groups were formed within private companies (e.g., General
Electric, Standard Oil of New Jersey) (Katzell & Austin,
1992). In addition, universities organized research centers to
investigate aspects of I-O psychology. For example, in 1944,
Lewin established the Research Center for Group Dynamics
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he
collaborated with a similar group in London, the Tavistock
Institute of Human Relations. Together the organizations cre-
ated the journal Human Relationsin 1947. Because of the
work of Lewin and his colleagues, emphasis shifted toward
human relations rather than the technical aspects of produc-
tion. Shortly after Lewin’s death in 1947, the Research Cen-
ter for Group Dynamics was relocated to the University of
Michigan. The center joined the Survey Research Center,
which had been in existence since 1946 under the direction of
Rensis Likert (Hilgard, 1987). Other university research cen-
ters that partially devoted their efforts to I-O psychology
were located at Ohio State University with its leadership
research program, Cornell University with its studies of satis-
faction in work and retirement, Western Reserve University
with its emphasis on personnel problems and occupational
guidance, and Purdue University with its occupational
research (Katzell & Austin, 1992).
Unrest surfaced in America’s society during the 1950s
and 1960s because of changes in values and attention to
discriminatory and unfair practices. Society demanded equi-
table practices in organizations. As it had during the depres-
sion, the government intervened, and civil-rights legislation
was created. The unrest and chaos continued throughout the
1960s and 1970s as the United States entered the Vietnam
War, baby boomers entered the workforce, and international
and foreign competition became a threat. According to
Dipboye, Smith, and Howell (1994), the fabric of the
American society was disintegrating. A new generation of
employees was questioning the authority of organizations,
and a general revulsion against fascism and authoritarianism
stimulated interest in democracy and autonomy in the work-
place (Dipboye et al., 1994). These changing societal views
influenced organizations to rethink their way of dealing with
employees. How the organization could best serve the indi-
vidual became important. Theories about organizations as
open, sociotechnical systems were developed, which stimu-
lated research in areas of communication, conflict manage-
ment, socialization, and organizational climate and culture.
The development of interventions for facilitating organiza-
tional change and development (OD) resulted in an interface
of I and O approaches. During the 1980s, known as the health
decade, research was initiated on worker stress, health, and
well-being (e.g., Ilgen, 1990).
Society’s unrest and questioning raised consciousness
about many social issues, which led to additional research
and applications concerning job involvement, organizational
commitment, antisocial behaviors, the psychological con-
tract, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Muchinsky
(2000) noted, “In the past 10–15 years, we have had to ad-
dress new aspects of organizational behavior about which we
had little knowledge. The depth and magnitude of these
issues in the psychology of work have had a profound impact
on the profession of I-O psychology” (p. 295).
A socioeconomic factor that affects the work of I-O psy-
chologists is the demographics of the workforce. Two recent
changes in the workforce are worth noting: diversity and
quantity. The increasing diversity of the U.S. population cre-
ates a diverse workforce in terms of gender, age, ethnicity,
race, and culture. There are now various subgroups of em-
ployees, with minority groups increasing as a proportion of
the workforce, the bulk of the workforce (baby boomers)
aging, and life expectancies increasing (Briggs, 1987; Cohen,
1995). Diversity in the workforce can also be attributed to a
global marketplace because multinational organizations are
hiring employees from an international labor market. A di-
verse workforce has implications for both practice and re-
search in I-O psychology (see Triandis, Kurowoski, &
Gelfand, 1994). For example, organizations need to identify
ways to individualize reward systems and recruit and retain