Getting in the game: I-O psychologists as debunkers and testers of business practice

Abstract

We thank the focal article authors for bringing the topic of Lean management to the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Much like a number of other major areas of business practice, Lean has yet to be studied by I-O psychologists despite its prevalent use in the business world. The lack of research into Lean management practices and its impact on employees exemplifies the challenges that face the science and practice of I-O psychology. Recent calls to expand the focus (Ones, Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Svensson, 2017) and methodological tools (Cucina & McDaniel, 2016; Spector, 2017) of I-O psychology highlight the increasing narrowness of our research and practice. These calls echo the concerns of earlier researchers (Gasser, Butler, Waddilove, & Tan, 2004; Ryan, 2003) about I-O psychology's trajectory. In this response, the authors would like to offer a new framework to expand the research focus of I-O psychology that would include a greater role of I-O in analyzing business practices such as Lean management. We see a potentially important role of I-O psychologists as "debunkers" and testers of business practice, echoing Gasser et al. (2004), using our methodological and statistical competence to help businesses toward research supported practices. In such a role we build from major elements of our current field identity rather than lose that identity attempting to mirror other fields (Ryan & Ford, 2010). We cannot be these "debunkers" however, if we only test theories from our own field and not the practices actually being used in organizations. The claims of a purveyor of a "fad" practice are easier to swallow when there is no existing research against that claim. This commentary will begin by outlining the concerns with I-O psychology's increasingly narrow focus and then suggest how the field could increase its real-world impact by examining vigorously and empirically business practice "fads" like Lean. A common theme emerges across the criticisms of I-O psychology's narrowing focus of research and limited applicability to practice has been one of identity (Lefkowitz, 2010; Ryan, 2003) and the lack of innovation and discovery of new concepts (Ones et al., 2017; Spector, 2017). However, we would argue that this narrowness of focus has highlighted the significant need to examine the identity of I-O psychology. In order to expand the identity of I-O psychology and to address the calls for innovation to reinvigorate the field, I-O psychologists must look to how we define ourselves. If we do not make such an examination, we may cling to outdated meanings, drift away from our mission, or even lose our bearing entirely engaging in hyperadaptation and becoming just a mirror image of external stakeholder values (Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Ryan & Ford, 2010). It is better to reflect and choose an appropriate role rather than have a different role forced upon the field or drift into irrelevancy to the larger business community. A common definition of I-O psychology is the application of psychological p...

Where no one has gone before

“…Although we agree with the basic ideas of Islam and Schmidt (2019), we argue for the need to expand beyond assessing traditional organizational practice. For-profit organizations should not be the only ones to benefit from I-O psychology; we should apply our work to nonprofits, community groups, governmental groups, and others outside of the space of paid work.…”

“…I-O psychology views itself as a values-free science (Lefkowitz, 2008(Lefkowitz, , 2013, but no science is free of values (Riger, 2002). Minor improvements to efficiency, validity, and theory are deemed adequate accomplishments (Ones et al, 2017), and past criticisms (Gordon et al, 1978) have highlighted our narrow focus (Islam & Schmidt, 2019). Without a clear vision of what our discipline hopes to accomplish, our scope and effectiveness is limited.The present paper proposes a lens through which I-O psychology can rechart its future course while respecting its position as the premier field of organizational science by driving meaningful change.…”

“…We argue that I-O psychology needs to embrace a more active role in organizations and the broader community. Islam and Schmidt (2019) argue that I-O psychologists need to be the testers and debunkers of current management practices, testing with our rigorous methods what works and communicating that to the business community. I-O psychology often ignores management fads and trends, with this inaction in testing these practices allowing bad trends to fester and flourish, causing problems for organizations.…”