Remembering Donald G. Paterson: Before the separation between industrial–organizational and vocational psychology

Erdheim, Jesse; Zickar, Michael J.; Yankelevich, Maya

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.001

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 1960s, there were systematic and extended efforts to apply the idea of fit to workers and work values (Lofquist & Dawis, 1969). The use of fit has been accelerating since the mid-1980s, as more researchers and employers focus on the impact of fit for worker satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the social/interpersonal aspects of job performance (Erdheim, Zickar, & Yankelevich, 2007). Given the theory and research underlying P-E fit, some have questioned why the use of fit assessments for workforce needs is not more widespread (Ployhart, Schneider, & Schmitt, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interests, Work Values, and Occupations

Swaney

Allen

Casillas

et al. 2012

Journal of Career Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether a measure of person–environment (P-E) fit predicted worker ratings of work attitudes and supervisor ratings of performance. After combining extant data elements and expert ratings of interest and work value characteristics for each occupation in the O*NET system, the authors generated a “Fit Index”—involving profile correlations between individual interest and work value score profiles and corresponding occupational profiles—for each occupation. The authors then conducted an extensive field study of 503 adult workers and 219 supervisors. The construct validity of the fit scores was supported by the patterns of over 477,000 scores across same, similar, and dissimilar occupations. Results also supported the association of person–occupation fit with desirable work attitudes and outcomes, and the incremental validity of fit when including a measure of integrity. These results add support to the idea that P-E fit can be useful in personnel staffing.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interests, Work Values, and Occupations

Swaney

Allen

Casillas

et al. 2012

Journal of Career Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One difference compared to today's selection researchers, however, is that Paterson believed that just as it was important for industrial psychologists to help companies select the best employees, he also believed that industrial psychologists should work with individuals to help select the best occupations for their career and life satisfaction. The latter field is one that current day I-O psychologists label occupational or vocational interests, a domain of study has been largely ceded to counseling psychologists (see Erdheim, Zickar, & Yankelevich, 2007). This migration of vocational interest research from industrial psychology to counseling psychology is one that is consistent with Mumby's (2019) argument that I-O psychology is largely concerned with managerial interests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 62%

Servants of power redux

Zickar

2019

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mumby's (2019) focal article provides an alternative perspective to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, claiming that we often unconsciously adopt many of the assumptions shared by elites in our current socio-political-economic system. He is correct in that as a discipline we tend to be beholden to management interests, we are generally resistant to critical approaches, and many of us rely wholeheartedly on the neoliberal assumptions of market capitalism. In this commentary, I describe in brief detail a previous similar effort to label I-O psychologists as servants of power, as well as detail some counterexamples of progressive I-O psychologists who addressed issues in common (at least in spirit) with Mumby's critique, and then finally I lay out some suggestions for I-O psychologists who wish to build a more progressive I-O psychology-one that addresses several of his critiques. Loren Baritz and servants of power In 1960, historian Loren Baritz published a scathing popular history text, Servants of Power: A History of the Use of Social Science in America, that detailed abuses that social scientists used to thwart labor unions during the heyday of the labor-management wars of the 1930s and 1940s. Baritz argued that industrial psychologists used personality tests to help managers screen out applicants likely to join labor unions, directly flaunting the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which was designed to protect employees' right to unionize (see Zickar, 2001). Baritz also claimed psychologists worked with management to promote conformity and used attitudinal measures and projective testing to help sway employee opinions to fit managerial ideals. Essentially, Baritz documented Mumby's (2019) evidence-less assertion of I-O psychologists' collaboration with managers, nearly 60 years earlier. Although this book has been cited more than 1,000 times, most of the citations are from critical management studies; the book should be required reading for all aspiring doctoral students in I-O psychology.

show abstract

“…The classic and group membership approaches are complementary, but their relative usefulness for I/O and counseling psychologists differs. Long before the divergence of I/O and vocational psychology (Erdheim, Zickar, & Yankelevich, 2007), Freyd (1923) noted that vocational guidance focuses on the individual while vocational selection focuses on the job. I/O psychologists mostly are concerned with maximizing organizational effectiveness by selecting the best personnel for a specific job.…”

Section: Appendix 171: Integrating Ability Level and Pattern With Gro...mentioning

confidence: 99%