574 Occupational Health Psychology
negative impact of stressful working conditions. Outcome
and evaluation studies con“rming the value of worksite sup-
port programs have been riddled with methodological ”aws
and theoretical insuf“ciencies (Donaldson, 1995; Elkin &
Rosch, 1990; Murphy, 1988). Yet, results from increasingly
rigorous studies lend evidence to substantiate the positive
bene“t to organizations in such areas as reduced absenteeism
and turnover, increased productivity, reduced health care uti-
lization, and reduced workers• compensation costs (Cooper,
Sloan, & Williams, 1988; Landy et al., 1994; Moran, Wolff, &
Green, 1995; Pellitier, 1991).
Nevertheless, the health of the organization is more than
simply the collective health of the individual workers. Prac-
tices and policies targeted by individually focused worksite
health programs comprise only a part of the matrix of OHP
services. The need to promote organizational health through
intervention in the organizational domain, identifying and
removing psychosocial hazards, and reducing behavioral
risk has been advocated as critical to the advancement of
occupational health and safety goals on a national and orga-
nizational level (Sauter & Hurrell, 1999). In addition, the
organizational system takes on characteristics separate from
individual health, making assessment, intervention, research,
and surveillance at a systems level a valid point of entry into
the occupational health process. The transactional-ecological
perspective of organizational health (Adkins, 1998; Barone,
1995; Lazarus, 1995) as an interdependent system helps to
maintain a dual focus on both the individual and the organi-
zation that is fundamental to OHP.
Scientist-Practitioner Model
As an interdisciplinary “eld, OHP draws on the theory,
principles, and history of component disciplines. It is, by
nature and development, “rmly entrenched in the scientist-
practitioner model„a model that relies on the application of
scienti“c principles and methodology to professional prac-
tice. Practitioners have the potential to in”uence the affec-
tive, cognitive, behavioral, and physical well-being of
clients, whether those clients are individuals, families,
groups, or entire organizations. Because of the potential for
harm to arise from that in”uence, ethical standards require
that practice principles have a reasonable expectation of ef-
“cacy and a low probability of negative effects. Practices
founded in scienti“c theory and solid empirical evidence
provide at least a minimal level of assurance. Scientist-
practitioners rely on available empirical evidence to guide
established practices as well as to develop new practices and
to ensure those actions not only do no harm but also have a
high potential for successful outcomes. Further, they apply
the scienti“c method of problem solving to issues encoun-
tered when standard practices are not clearly available.
The implementation of scienti“cally derived practice stan-
dards is equally as important in working with organizations
as in working with individuals. OHP practitioners are in-
volved with large groups of people who may experience
stress and strain associated with their work. The realities of
organizational turbulence and chaotic change experienced
by organizations worldwide require that stress and its rela-
tionship with the organizational environment be taken into
consideration in both current operations and future planning
(Gowing, Kraft, & Quick, 1998). Large-scale practices and
policy development related to occupational stress prevention
and management magnify the potential for positive impact as
well as harmful effects. The responsibility to ensure that
practices and policies are ef“cacious is ever present and in-
creases with the level and breadth of potential in”uence.
Likewise, practices that are detrimental to the effective func-
tioning of the organization eventually affect individual well-
being (Quick, Murphy, & Hurrell, 1992). Low productivity
and high costs associated with organizational disease create
threats to job security and potential deleterious effects of job
loss (DeFrank & Ivancevich, 1986; Levi et al., 1984). It is
therefore incumbent on practitioners to ensure that their pro-
grams provide value for their cost and ultimately improve the
bottom line of the organization.
Apart from ethical standards, both public and private
organizations are increasingly focused on data-driven, results-
based programs and practices. A competitive, global environ-
ment demands attention to the costs and bene“ts of each
business unit. Private and government agencies are likewise
held to performance standards and cost controls. OHP practi-
tioners have both professional and business stakes in the
outcome of the programs and policies they recommend and
implement. To survive in this context, OHP practitioners and
programs must demonstrate quantitative or qualitative mea-
sures of value to the organization.Assessment, Surveillance, and EvaluationOccupational health psychologists engage in a range of roles
and functions encompassing research, teaching, and practice
(Adkins, 1999). Quantitative and qualitative information is the
foundation for policy and practice decisions as well as a means
for marketing principles and programs to organizational
clients. OHP is, in fact, a data-driven discipline. The need for
valid and reliable information on which to make policy and
program decisions cuts across OHP data-based functions, do-
mains of intervention, and factors associated with the organi-
zational health process, as indicated in Figure 24.1.