industrial-organizational (i/o) psychology to organizational behavior management (obm)

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 18 December 2014, At: 05:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of OrganizationalBehavior ManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

Industrial-Organizational (I/O)Psychology to OrganizationalBehavior Management (OBM)Deniz S. Ones a & Chockalingam Viswesvaran ba Department of Psychology , University ofMinnesota , USAb Department of Psychology , Florida InternationalUniversity , USAPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Deniz S. Ones & Chockalingam Viswesvaran (2003) Industrial-Organizational (I/O) Psychology to Organizational Behavior Management (OBM),Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22:2, 41-57, DOI: 10.1300/J075v22n02_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v22n02_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J075v22n02_05

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J075v22n02_05

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v22n02_05

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Industrial-Organizational (I/O) Psychologyto Organizational Behavior Management (OBM):Join the Family–Individual Differences Matter

Deniz S. OnesChockalingam Viswesvaran

ABSTRACT. In this comment on Geller (2002) and S. Roberts (2002),we first outline the content domain of the field of I/O Psychology, hope-fully dispelling some myths that OBM researchers and practitioners haveabout our field. Second, we turn our attention to the dependent variablein organizational research (i.e., the criterion; the target of interventions).We distinguish among several dependent variables such as individualbehaviors, individual job performance, and organizational performance.We discuss and describe empirical research on the explanatory value ofperson- and organization-based variables. A large body of research inI/O Psychology has documented the relevance and importance of per-son-based constructs such as cognitive ability, integrity, and conscien-tiousness for work performance and outcomes. The field of OBM canenhance research and practice by incorporating person-based variablesto its models, joining the larger family of I/O psychologists studying be-havior in the workplace. [Article copies available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2002 by TheHaworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Deniz S. Ones is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of Min-nesota.

Chockalingam Viswesvaran is affiliated with the Department of Psychology,Florida International University.

Address correspondence to: Deniz S. Ones, Department of Psychology, Universityof Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 22(2) 2002http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J075 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

10.1300/J075v22n02_05 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

KEYWORDS. Organizational behavior management, industrial/orga-nizational psychology, personality, integrity, cognitive, ability, consci-entiousness

Geller (2002) and S. Roberts (2002) take stock of the field of Organiza-tional Behavior Management (OBM) and present a case for expanding thecontent domain of OBM. Specifically, they argue for the inclusion of per-son-based variables in explaining employee behavior in the workplace. Theirmain thesis is that the inclusion of personality variables and the use of adispositional framework will enhance understanding of work behaviors. In ad-dition, arguments are presented for (a) expanding the target of organizationalinterventions to include performance (vs. behavior), and (b) considering per-son by treatment interactions. According to Geller (2002) and S. Roberts(2002), the motivation for OBM self-study and appraisal is the flourishingpopularity that the field of Industrial-Organizational (I/O) Psychology enjoysvis a vis the relative stability of OBM. In this latter context, Geller makes somestatements about Industrial-Organizational (I/O) Psychology that do not re-flect reality.

In our comment, we first sketch the content domain of the field of I/O Psy-chology, hopefully dispelling some myths that OBM researchers and practitio-ners have about our field. Second, we turn our attention to the issue of whatshould be the dependent variable in organizational research (i.e., the criterionproblem). Here, we confront the issue of expanding the criterion domain andpresent work by I/O psychologists on this important question (cf., Borman &Motowidlo, 1993; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Finally, we discuss the ex-planatory value of person- and organization-based variables. We briefly sum-marize how I/O psychologists have used person-based variables in designingtraining programs and organizational interventions (e.g., LePine, Hollenbeck,Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997). We hope to convince the readers through this shortsummary, that if OBM is to be relevant to contemporary work settings, itshould incorporate person-based variables to its models, joining the largerfamily of I/O psychologists studying behavior in the workplace.

THE CONTENT DOMAINOF INDUSTRIAL/ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY:

DISPELLING SOME MYTHS AND DEFINING THE FIELD

Over 5,000 I/O psychologists are members of the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology (SIOP), which is a division of American Psycho-logical Association (Division 14 of APA) as well as an organizational affiliateof the American Psychological Society. SIOP holds an annual conference at-

42 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

tended by over 3,000 members, publishes a quarterly newsletter as well assponsoring frontier series books on current research topics as well as practiceissues. The Website for SIOP provides detailed information about the field andabout various activities and initiatives currently underway. The Website canbe accessed at <www.siop.org>. Our description of the content domain of I/OPsychology draws heavily from materials posted at that Website.

It is unfortunate that Geller has made several erroneous statements aboutthe field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology. For example, his statementthat I/O psychologists restrict themselves to laboratory simulations with stu-dent samples is far from the truth. Who are I/O psychologists? SIOP Websitedefines I/O psychologists as “versatile behavioral scientists specializing in hu-man behavior in the work place.” Note that this directly contradicts Geller’s(2002) contention that I/O psychologists study behavior in the laboratory withno real world application.

The majority of the research in I/O Psychology is carried on outside the lab-oratory, in real world settings. Some I/O psychologists may study controlledbehavior in the laboratory, but many I/O psychologists are directly employedin organizations and conduct field research. [Please note that the precedingstatements are descriptive. It is not our intention to suggest that laboratory re-search is inappropriate for all I/O questions. Indeed there are research andpractice questions that can only be addressed under the experimental controlsoffered in the lab.] A perusal of our leading journals such as the Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, Human Performance, Journal of Vocational Behavior, andJournal of Organizational Behavior should make it very clear that only a smallproportion of I/O psychology research takes place in labs. There are quantita-tive summaries examining the proportion of lab vs. field studies in some ofthese journals. What are the trends across I/O journals? Surveys by Sackett andLarson (1991) and Austin, Sherbaum, and Mahlman (2001) have shown thatthe proportion of I/O research conducted in lab settings fluctuates around20-30%, depending on the journal and year. For example, in 1990, 22% ofstudies published in the Journal of Applied Psychology were lab studies, while64% were field studies (the rest were simulations, meta-analyses, etc., Austinet al., 2001). In 2000, the respective proportions were 22% and 66%.

Further elaboration of what I/O psychologists do is also provided at theSIOP Website. I/O psychologists are “(a) scientists who derive principles ofindividual, group, and organizational behavior through research, (b) consul-tants and staff psychologists who develop scientific knowledge and apply it tothe solution of problems at work, and (c) teachers who train in the research andapplication of I/O psychology” <www.SIOP.org>.

Deniz S. Ones and Chockalingam Viswesvaran 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

The applied aspects of I/O Psychology are oriented around scientific solu-tions to human problems at work. The job titles of I/O psychologists includemanager, director, vice president, staff member of personnel, human resources,organizational development, management development, personnel research,employee relations, training affirmative action, assistant/associate/full professorof psychology/management/organizational behavior/industrial relations, man-agement consultant, behavioral scientist, etc. While some of the job titles in-volve job descriptions that include the use of laboratory research, it is also clearthat many I/O psychologists are engaged in real world situations. Also whilesome of the job titles emphasize selection and placement and employees in orga-nizations, others clearly suggest a more eclectic brew of job activities.

The job activities of I/O psychologists include personnel selection but alsoinvolve several other activities. I/O psychologists design training programs touse in organizational settings (e.g., Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Ford,Kozlowski, Kraiger, Salas & Teachout, 1997), plan careers (Hall, 1996), studynewcomer socialization in organizations (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Ashforth &Saks, 1996; Bauer & Green, 1998), examine the role of mentoring in organiza-tional and individual outcomes (Kram, 1983), and study organizational stress(e.g., Hart & Cooper, 2001; Spector & Connell, 1994), among others.

Thus, another misstatement is presented when Geller writes “It seems manyI/O psychologists believe the key to improving work performance and qualityof work-life is selecting the right people for the job assignment rather than in-tervening to improve the ongoing behaviors of people already on the job,” astatement that is at odds with the voluminous literature in I/O Psychology ontraining, development, socialization, mentoring, multisource feedback, orga-nizational change, etc. In delineating the content domain of the field of I/OPsychology, it may be useful to consider the topics covered in a recently pub-lished, two-volume, Handbook of the Field (Anderson, Ones, Sinangil &Viswesvaran, 2001a). Table 1 describes the content of each volume and liststhe chapter titles and authors. Topics such as work design, productivity, jobperformance, feedback, individual and team training, employee development,human-machine interactions, prevention of human errors, job satisfaction,motivation, organizational development and change, and management inter-ventions are long-studied areas by I/O psychologists.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH:THE TARGET CRITERIA FOR WORKPLACE INTERVENTIONS

Geller also raised the question of what the focus of OBM interventionsshould be. There are a multitude of behaviors and outcomes that organizational


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014


TABLE 1. Content Domain of the Field of I/O Psychology Based on Anderson,Ones, Sinangil and Viswesvaran’s (2001) Edited Handbook

Volume 1: Personnel Psychology

The globalized nature of work in the new millennium implies that human resourcemanagement, psychological theories of personnel and individual behavior in theworkplace have to change and evolve. This volume mainly focuses on theories,techniques and methods used by industrial and work psychologists. A set of inter-nationally renowned authors summarize advances in core topics such as analysisof work, work design, job performance, performance appraisal and feedback, work-place counterproductivity, recruitment and personnel selection, work relevant indi-vidual difference variables (cognitive ability, personality), human-machineinteractions, human errors, training, learning, individual development, socialization,methods, and measurement.

Contents (Authors & Chapter Titles)

Paul Spector Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology:Data Collection and Data Analysis with Special Consideration to International Is-sues–Herman Aguinis, Christine Henle and Cheri Ostroff Measurement inWork and Organizational Psychology–Frank Schmidt and John HunterMeta-Analysis–Juan Sanchez and Edward Levine The Analysis of Work in the20th and 21st Centuries–Sharon Parker and Toby Wall Work Design: Learningfrom the Past and Mapping a New Terrain–Chockalingam Viswesvaran Assess-ment of Individual Job Performance: A Review of the Past Century and a LookAhead –Clive Fletcher and Elissa Perry Performance Appraisal and Feedback: AConsideration of National Culture and a Review of Contemporary Research andFuture Trends–Paul Sackett and Cynthia DeVore Counterproductive Behaviorsat Work–Jesus Salgado, Chockalingam Viswesvaran and Deniz Ones Predic-tors Used for Personnel Selection: An Overview of Constructs, Methods and Tech-niques–Neil Anderson, Marise Born and Nicole Cunningham-SnellRecruitment and Selection: Applicant Perspectives and Outcomes–Malcolm Ree,Thomas Carretta and James Steindl Cognitive Ability–Leaetta Hough andDeniz Ones The Structure, Measurement, Validity, and Use of Personality Vari-ables in Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology–John Campbell and Na-than Kuncel Individual and Team Training–Cynthia McCauley and SarahHezlett Individual Development in the Workplace–David Oborne and Karen Ar-nold Human-Machine Interaction: Usability and User Needs of the System–Anne-Sophie Nyssen and Veronique DeKeyser Prevention of Human Errors inthe Frame of the Activity Theory–Philip Roth, Philip Bobko and Hunter MabonUtility Analysis: A Review and Analysis at the Turn of the Century–Zeynep Aycanand Rabindra Kanungo Cross-Cultural Industrial and Organizational Psychology:A Critical Appraisal of the Field and Future Directions–Talya Bauer and SullyTaylor Toward a Globalized Conceptualization of OrganizationalSocializations–Handan Kepir Sinangil and Deniz Ones Expatriate Management

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

interventions can target. In other words, there are several dependent variablesthat need to be distinguished: behavior, individual job performance, individualoutcomes and organizational performance. The space limitations of this com-ment prevent us from detailing research on each of these concepts (the inter-ested reader may consult Campbell, 1990; Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996;Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000).


TABLE 1 (continued)

Volume 2: Organizational Psychology

Work in the 21st century requires new understanding in organizational behavior;how individuals interact together to get work done. This volume brings together re-search on essential topics such as motivation, job satisfaction, leadership, com-pensation, organizational justice, communication, intra- and inter-team functioning,judgment and decision-making, organizational development and change. Psycho-logical insights are offered on management interventions, organizational theory, or-ganizational productivity, organizational culture and climate, strategicmanagement, stress, and job loss and unemployment.

Contents (Authors & Chapter Titles)

Andrew Neal and Beryl Hesketh Productivity in Organizations–Timothy Judge,Sharon Parker, Amy Colbert, Daniel Heller and Remus Ilies Job Satisfaction: ACross-Cultural Review–John Donovan Work Motivation–Robert Heneman,Charles Fay and Zhong-Ming Wang Compensation Systems in the Global Con-text–John Arnold Careers and Career Management–Rene Schalk and DeniseRousseau Psychological Contracts in Employment–Stephen Gilliland and DavidChan Justice in Organizations: Theory, Methods, and Applications–Deanne DenHartog and Paul Koopman Leadership in Organizations–Janice Langan-FoxCommunication in Organizations: Speed, Diversity, Networks, and Influence on Or-ganizational Effectiveness, Human Health, and Relationships–Susan Jacksonand Aparna Joshi Research on Domestic and International Diversity in Organiza-tions: A Merger that Works–Gary Johns The Psychology of Lateness, Absentee-ism, and Turnover–Connie Wanberg, John Kammeyer-Mueller and Kan Shi JobLoss and the Experience of Unemployment: International Research and Perspec-tives–Michael West The Human Team: Basic Motivations and Innovations–JohnMathieu, Michelle Marks and Steve Zaccaro Multiteam Systems Theory–ScottHighhouse Judgement and Decision-Making Research: Relevance to Industrialand Organizational Psychology–Handan Kepir Sinangil and FrancescoAvallone Organizational Development and Change–Robert Cardy and T.T.Selvarajan Management Interventions–Behlul Usdiken and Huseyin LeblebiciOrganizational Theory–Neal Ashkanasy and Camille Jackson OrganizationalCulture and Climate–Gerard Hodgkinson Cognitive Processes in Strategic Man-agement: Some Emerging Trends and Future Directions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

I/O psychologists have grappled with the criterion issue for over eight de-cades (Austin & Villanova, 1992; Viswesvaran, 1993). Very briefly, individ-ual job performance “refers to scalable actions, behaviors and outcomes thatemployees engage in or bring about that are linked with and contribute to orga-nizational goals” (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). This definition of job perfor-mance is not limited to observable behaviors (cf., Campbell, Gasser, &Oswald, 1996) and acknowledges that in many instances it is difficult, if notimpossible, to distinguish between behaviors and outcomes (Bernardin &Beatty, 1984). In our view, the key feature of good dependent variables is notobservability, but evaluatability (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000).

Further, it is inadvisable to use only single individual behaviors as the de-pendent variable. As predicted by classical theory of measurement (Nunnally,1978) and as borne out by decades of research, specific individual behaviorsare simply too unreliable to assess any construct (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996).Reliability refers to “the extent to which measurements are repeatable” (em-phasis in the original). In other words, measurements are intended to be stableover a variety of conditions in which essentially the same results should be ob-tained (Nunnally, 1978, p. 191). A focus on individual, specific behaviors low-ers reliability of measurement (Epstein, 1983). Single individual behaviorscan, at best, be viewed as unreliable, often deficient “indicators” of constructsof interest (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). Aggregation of behaviors across oc-casions, settings, and situations “can reduce error variance associated withthe unrepresentative nature of” single individual behaviors (Epstein, 1983,p. 360). The consequences of not recognizing that specific, single instances ofbehavior are unreliable can be grave. For example, “the person-situation de-bate remained unresolved for many decades because researchers did not real-ize behavior can be situationally specific at the item level and crosssituationally general at the aggregate level” (Epstein, 1985, p. 513). Constructscan be assessed with less measurement error when multiple behavioral obser-vations assessing the same construct are aggregated.

Previously, the field of I/O Psychology has also suffered in its misguidedtrust in single behavioral indices. The hypothesis of situational specificity thathampered the field during 1960s and 1970s, the idea that tests/assessments/in-terventions would be predictive/work in some settings but not others, waspartly due to the inadvisable emphasis on the use of single, specific instancesof behavior in research (Schmidt & Hunter, 2000). Aggregation across in-stances of work behaviors to focus on patterns and classes of behaviors (seePounds, 2002) results in more reliable measures. In other words, measuring


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

job performance entails aggregating the value of episodic, evaluable sets of be-haviors and outcomes at the individual level.

Finally, to state the obvious, individual performance is different from orga-nizational performance. As Geller (2002) correctly notes “Engineering fac-tors, environmental variables, as well as workers’ behaviors and attitudes”could be the independent variables in explaining variability in organizationalperformance.

The criterion in which a given organization may want to bring about changeor target with interventions depends on the problems faced by and goals of thatorganization. There are a multitude of legitimate criteria: performance, pro-ductivity, quality, affective reactions, counterproductivity, absenteeism, orga-nizational commitment, satisfaction, learning, accidents, employee theft, etc.Frequently, organizational interventions are designed not just to improve per-formance but also with a view to improving individual attitudes. Training pro-grams can increase feelings of mastery and self-worth. Job satisfaction definedas a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal ofone’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976), is often an important goal.

The ABC paradigm in OBM as outlined by Geller (2002) emphasizes pri-marily the “behaviors” emitted by individuals as a result of the intervention.But as the dependent variable, I/O psychologists have studied the impact of in-terventions on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, prosocial behav-iors, and attitudes towards supervision (Campbell & Kuncel, 2001; McCauley &Hezlett, 2001). The inclusion of these criteria in our evaluation necessitatesgoing beyond observable behaviors or outcomes. These are important out-comes that cannot be neglected in evaluating interventions. To take one exam-ple, I/O psychologists have investigated the impact of several interventions onjob satisfaction (cf., Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001). In fact,Judge et al. (2001) state that job satisfaction may be the most widely re-searched topic in the history of industrial/organizational psychology and thatjob satisfaction occupies a central role in many theories and models of individ-ual behaviors and attitudes.

ARE PERSON-BASED VARIABLES RELEVANTTO THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES OF INTEREST?

Geller (2002) makes the case for including person-based variables in aug-menting the ABC paradigm in OBM. Specifically, he argues that variables likeself-efficacy and self-esteem influence behavior. We agree. However, the listof traits important for work is not limited to self-efficacy and self-esteem. In-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

deed, large cadres of person-based (traits or dispositional) variables have beenshown to predict and explain a multitude of important dependent variables(Ree, Caretta, & Steindl, 2001; Hough & Ones, 2001). For most variables thatorganizational scientists and practitioners are interested in (e.g., job perfor-mance, team performance, learning, avoiding counterproductivity), there aremain effects of person-based traits.

Consider the role of cognitive ability. Employees who are brighter tend toperform much better than those who are less bright (Viswesvaran & Ones,2002). They are more productive (Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001) andthey tend to learn better, faster and more (Ree, Carretta & Steindl, 2001;Gottfredson, 2002). They are better at problem solving (Reeve & Hakel,2002). These findings and others documenting the direct influence of (i.e.,main effect) cognitive ability have been supported in primary studies (Ree &Earles, 1991) as well as in large-scale meta-analyses (e.g., Schmidt, Ones &Hunter, 1992). The interested reader is referred Schmidt (2002) for a compre-hensive review.

In addition to cognitive ability, I/O psychologists have accumulated evi-dence that show the influences of several noncognitive variables on organiza-tional behavior. The resurgence of interest in personality variables inexplaining organizational behavior has been thoroughly documented else-where (cf., Hough & Ones, 2001). Here, we briefly note some personality traitsshown to have a main effect on work behaviors. In our work, we have docu-mented that the individual personality trait of integrity is related to job perfor-mance, training performance, avoiding counterproductive behaviors, avoidingaccidents, reduced absenteeism, etc. (Hakstian, Ferrell, & Tweed, 2002; Jones,Brasher, & Huff, 2002; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993, in press; Ones &Viswesvaran, 1998, in press). More recently, we have documented the impor-tance of integrity-related traits for avoiding workplace drug and alcohol useand enhancing customer service performance (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001a, b).

Conscientiousness is another personality trait that has been consistentlylinked to work performance (see Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001, for a reviewof multiple meta-analyses). Conscientiousness has a direct effect on both jobperformance (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001),but also on training performance (LePine et al., 1997; Colquitt, LePine, & Noe,2000). Colquitt et al. (2000) in a meta-analysis of several studies exploring thedeterminants of training success have also found that anxiety was negativelyrelated to training outcomes.

The dependent variables that personality traits have been shown to have ex-planatory power are not only limited to job performance and training perfor-mance (Hough & Ones, 2001). Personality variables have also been linked towork attitudes, including job satisfaction (Staw & Ross, 1985). Judge and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Bono (2001) showed that core self evaluations of individuals (a composite re-flecting self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotionalstability) are related to their job satisfaction levels. Incidentally, we believethat some of these constructs are similar to those discussed by Geller (2002).Affective dispositions of individuals have also been linked to their job satis-faction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986).

Perhaps of more direct relevance to traditional OBM, the significance ofperson-based variables for occupational safety has also been studied in I/OPsychology. These studies fully support the call of S. Roberts (2002) on theneed to integrating person factors into the OBM framework. Greenwaldand Woods (1919) found that accidents during World War I were notevenly distributed across workers and termed their finding as “an affair ofpersonality.” Newbold (1927) after studying accidents in 13 factories cameto the conclusion that accidents were partially the result of “personal ten-dency.” Sutherland and Cooper (1991) in a study of 360 offshore oil andgas platform workers found neuroticism and Type A personality correlatedwith accident involvement. Iverson and Irwin (1997) found a correlation be-tween affectivity and accident involvement in a large sample of blue-collarworkers. Lawton and Parker (1988) provide a good review of the personal-ity variables found related to workplace safety. As has already been noted,the personality trait of integrity is predictive of work accidents (Ones &Viswesvaran, 1998).

Individuals bring differing levels of abilities, skills, knowledge, and dif-fering sets of personality traits to their work environments. To amend a tradi-tional economic assumption: All units of labor are not equal. S. Roberts(2002) writes, “The use of person factors for decisions such as hiring, firing,or job reassignments is problematic.” We maintain that given large individ-ual differences that exist on dependent variables of interest and given the vo-luminous literature demonstrating main effects of person-based variables onthese dependent variables, it is organizational economic suicide not to hire,fire or assign jobs based on traits such as cognitive ability and integrity.Training and other interventions have to work with quite strong dispositionaltendencies. You cannot always make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear! [Despitewhat S. Roberts states in his position paper, we wonder whether he is truly in-different to who operates a nuclear power plant (an impulsive risk taker?),who performs brain surgery (a slow learner and poor problem solver?), whoserves as president of the US (a vulnerable, anxious, unstable neurotic?),etc.]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

ARE ORGANIZATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLESRELEVANT TO THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES OF INTEREST?

To avoid giving the misperception that I/O psychologists investigate onlyperson-based variables in studying a wide-variety of organizational behavior,here we briefly note a very limited sampling of recent studies reported in theextant I/O literature considering the influences of organizational or environ-mental variables (i.e., main effects for organizational/environmental vari-ables). We know we would not be remiss if we stated that thousands of studieshave examined organizational and environmental variables in relation to de-pendent variables of interest.

Job satisfaction is influenced by job characteristics such as the amount ofautonomy provided on the job (e.g., Pearson & Chong, 1997). Xie (1996), in astudy of Chinese employees, found that autonomy was related to job satisfac-tion. Similar results have been obtained with samples from Israel, Malaysia,and South Africa (Orpen, 1983). Corbett, Martin, Wall, and Clegg (1989)found a relationship between technology used and job satisfaction in UnitedKingdom.

Environmental and organizational variables have also been extensivelystudied in the absenteeism literature (Viswesvaran, 2002). Carsten and Spector(1987) reported how absences and unemployment rates in the economy are re-lated. Blau (1998) discussed how the group and organizational features influ-ence absences. Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and Neuman (1999) presenteddata suggesting the link between absence levels and the use of flexible workschedules. Barker (1993) presented findings as to how self-managing teamscan reduce absence levels.

In the area of workplace safety, several researchers have investigated the ef-fects of organizational error reporting systems, reward systems, and leadershippractices on organizational safety. The role of standardization on reducingworkplace accidents has been explored (Oborne & Arnold, 2001). Occupa-tional stress interventions have considered situational factors such as workoverload, lack of clear instructions, and role conflicts on stress levels (cf.,Beehr, 1995; Burke, Brief, George, Roberson, & Webster, 1989). Given thepreceding examples, it should be clear that organizational and environmentalvariables play an important role in explaining behavior.

Beyond substantial main effects of both person-based and organiza-tional/environmental variables, S. Roberts raises the issue of interactions be-tween person-based variables and organizational interventions (e.g., aptitudeby treatment interactions; personality trait by intervention). Do the effects ofworkplace interventions vary depending on certain traits of employees? For


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

example, is there evidence that training effectiveness varies as a function oftrainee cognitive ability? We agree with S. Roberts that this is an underre-searched area. Campbell and Kuncel (2001) in their comprehensive, authorita-tive review of the training interventions literature offer a cogent case forexamining aptitude by treatment interactions. However, actual empirical evi-dence for such interactions has not been forthcoming. This might be due to thestatistical difficulties of detecting interactions (i.e., moderators) (Aiken &West, 1993). Specifically, if seeking person by intervention interactions, largesample sizes and replications are essential. Further, as with all good research,reliance on statistical significance at the expense of documenting effect sizes isinadvisable.

CONCLUSION

Putting aside their misconceptions about the field of I/O Psychology, thereis much in Geller’s position (2002) that we agree with: Organizational behav-iors are a multi-faceted, complex phenomena that cannot be understood with-out taking into account both person-based and organizational/environmentalvariables. I/O psychologists explore this entire gamut of antecedents and en-gage in a wide variety of activities (selection, training, performance appraisal,etc.). If a goal of OBM researchers and practitioners is to understand, changeand predict behaviors in organizations better, person-based main effects andpotential trait by intervention interactions cannot be ignored. The viability ofOBM as a field of inquiry demands the expansion the repertoire of variablesstudied to those documented to be important in I/O Psychology research.

Welcome to the family!

REFERENCES

Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1993). Detecting interactions in multiple regression: Mea-surement error, power, and design considerations. The Score, APA Division 5Newsletter, 16, 7.

Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.) (2001a). Hand-book of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology: Volume 1 PersonnelPsychology, London: Sage.

Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.) (2001b). Hand-book of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology: Volume 2 Organiza-tional Psychology. London: Sage.

Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: A role ofdesire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199-214.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects onnewcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149-178.

Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 836-874.

Austin, J. T., Scherbaum, C. A., & Mahlman, R. A. (2001). History of researchmethods in industrial and organizational psychology: Measurement, design andanalysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Indus-trial-Organizational Psychology. London, UK: Blackwell.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexi-ble and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects onwork-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managingteams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance atthe beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9(1-2), 9-30.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer infor-mation seeking and managerial behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 83, 72-83.

Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge.Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human be-

havior at work. Boston: Kent-PWS.Blau, G. (1998). On the aggregation of individual withdrawal behaviors into larger

multi-item constructs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 437-451.Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include

elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Person-nel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Burke, M. J., Brief, A., George, J. M., Roberson, L., & Webster, J. (1989). Measuringaffect at work: Confirmatory factor analyses of competing mood structures withconceptual linkage to cortical regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57, 1091-1102.

Campbell, J. P. & Kuncel, N. R. (2001). Individual and team training. In N. Anderson,D. S. Ones, H. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work,and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 1 (pp. 313-335). London, UK: Sage.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial andorganizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd Edition-Vol. 1) (pp. 687-732). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of jobperformance variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behav-ior in Organizations (pp. 258-299). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employeeturnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 72, 374-381.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory oftraining motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journalof Applied Psychology, 85, 678-707.

Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: Ameta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265-281.

Corbett, J. M., Martin, R., Wall, T. D., & Clegg, C. W. (1989). Technological couplingas a predictor of intrinsic job satisfaction: A replication study. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 10, 91-95.

Deshpande, S. P., & Viswesvaran, C. (1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriatemanagers effective: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 16, 295-310.

Epstein, S. (1983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of be-havior. Journal of Personality, 51, 360-392.

Epstein, S. (1985). The person situation debate in historical and current perspective.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513-537.

Ford, J. K., Kozlowski, W. J., Kraiger, K., Salas, E., & Teachout, M. S. (Eds.) (1997).Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Geller, E. S. (2002). Should organizational behavior management expand its content?Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 13-30.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Perfor-mance, 25-46.

Greenwood, M., & Woods, H. M. (1919). A report on the incidence of industrial acci-dents with special reference to multiple accidents (Industrial Fatigue ResearchBoard Report No. 4). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Hakstian, A. R., Farrell, S., & Tweed, R. G. (2002). The assessment of counterproduc-tive tendencies by means of the California Psychological Inventory. InternationalJournal of Selection & Assessment, 10(1-2), 58-86.

Hall, D. T. (1996). The protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 10(4), 9-16.

Hart, P. M., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Occupational stress: Toward a more integratedframework. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran(Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2)(pp. 93-114). London: Sage.

Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use ofpersonality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In N. An-derson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Indus-trial, Work, and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 233-277). London: Sage.

Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysismodels: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal ofSelection & Assessment, 8(4), 275-292.

Iverson, R. D., & Irwin, P. J. (1997). Predicting occupational injury: The role ofaffectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 113-128.

Jones, J. W., Brasher, E. E., & Huff, J. W. (2002). Innovations in integrity-based per-sonnel selection: Building a technology-friendly assessment. International Journalof Selection & Assessment, 10(1-2), 87-97.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits–self-es-teem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability–with jobsatisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 80-92.

Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction:A cross-cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran(Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2)(pp. 25-52). London: Sage.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 26(4), 608-625.

Lawton, R., & Parker, D. (1988). Individual differences in accident liability: A reviewand integrative approach. Human Factors, 40, 594-601.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individ-ual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision making teams: Muchmore than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803-811.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Chicago:Rand McNally.

McCauley, C., & Hezlett, S. A. (2001) Individual development in the workplace. In N.Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Indus-trial, Work, and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 1 (pp. 336-347). London, UK:Sage.

Newbold, E. M. (1927). Practical applications of the statistics of repeated events. Jour-nal of the Royal Statistical Society, 92, 487-535.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Oborne, D. J., & Arnold, K. M. (2001). Human-machine interaction: Usability and user

needs of the system. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran(Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1)(pp. 233-277). London: Sage.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001a). Integrity tests and other Criterion-FocusedOccupational Personality Scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 31-39.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-Fidelity dilemma in personalitymeasurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17,209-226.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). Integrity testing in organizations. In R. W.Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional Behavior in Orga-nizations: Vol. 2. Nonviolent Behaviors in Organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001b). Personality at work: Criterion-Focused Occu-pational Personality Scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. In B. Roberts & R.T. Hogan (Eds.), Applied Personality Psychology. Washington DC: American Psy-chological Association.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (in press). Personality Correlates of OrganizationalMisbehavior. In Meni Koslowsky, Shmuel Stashevsky, and Abraham Sagie (Eds.),Misbehavior and Dysfunctional Attitudes in Organizations. Palgrave/Macmillan.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysisof integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection andtheories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology (Monograph), 78,679-703.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (in press). Personality and Absentee-ism: A Meta-Analysis of Integrity Tests. European Journal of Personality.

Orpen, C. (1983). Westernization as a moderator of the effect of job attributes on em-ployee satisfaction and performance. Humanities: Journal for Research in the Hu-man Sciences, 9, 275-279.

Pearson, C. A. L., & Chong, J. (1997). Contributions of job content and social informa-tion on organizational commitment and job satisfaction: An exploration in a Malay-sian nursing context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70,357-374.

Pounds, J. (2002). A discussion of Scott Geller’s commentary on expanding the con-tent of organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement., 22(2), 97-109.

Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g.Personnel Psychology, 44, 321-332.

Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Steindl, J. R. (2001). Cognitive Ability. In N. Anderson,D. S. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial, Work,and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 1 (pp. 219-232), London, UK: Sage.

Reeve, C. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2002). Asking the right questions about g. Human Per-formance, 47-74.

Roberts, D.S. (2002). Integrating person factors into the OBM framework: Perspec-tives from a behavioral safety practitioner. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 22(2), 31-39.

Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrialand organizational psychology. In Marvin D. Dunnette & Leaetta M. Hough(Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed.)(pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA, US: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Salgado, J., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Predictors used for personnel se-lection: An overview of constructs, methods and techniques. In N. Anderson, D. S.Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work, andOrganizational Psychology: Vol. 1. (pp. 165-199). London, UK: Sage.

Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Whythere cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 187-210.

Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite versus multiple criteria: A reviewand resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24, 419-434.

Schmidt, F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Personnel selection. In M. R.Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 627-670).Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, nega-tive affectivity, locus of control, and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stress-ors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,1-11.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional ap-proach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job at-titudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.

Sutherland, V. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1991). Personality, stress and accident involvementin the offshore oil and gas industry. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,195-204.

Viswesvaran, C. (1993). Is there a general factor in job performance? Unpublisheddissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. In-ternational Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216-226.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Agreements and Disagreements on the role ofGeneral Mental Ability (GMA) in Industrial, work and organizational psychology.Human Performance, 211-231.

Xie, J. L. (1996). Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: Effects of job de-mands, control, and individual differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39,1549-1618.


For FACULTY/PROFESSIONALS with journal subscriptionrecommendation authority for their institutional library . . .

Please send me a complimentary sample of this journal:

(please write complete journal title here–do not leave blank)

If you have read a reprint or photocopy of this article, would you like tomake sure that your library also subscribes to this journal? If you havethe authority to recommend subscriptions to your library, we will send youa free complete (print edition) sample copy for review with your librarian.

1. Fill out the form below and make sure that you type or write out clearly both the nameof the journal and your own name and address. Or send your request via e-mail [email protected] including in the subject line “Sample Copy Request”and the title of this journal.

2. Make sure to include your name and complete postal mailing address as well as yourinstitutional/agency library name in the text of your e-mail.

[Please note: we cannot mail specific journal samples, such as the issue in which a specific article appears.Sample issues are provided with the hope that you might review a possible subscription/e-subscription withyour institution's librarian. There is no charge for an institution/campus-wide electronic subscriptionconcurrent with the archival print edition subscription.]

I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription.Institution/Agency Library: ______________________________________________

Name: _____________________________________________________________

Institution: __________________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________

City: ____________________Return to: Sample Copy Department,The Haworth Press, Inc.,

10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580

State: __________ Zip: ____________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

19 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

industrial-organizational (i/o) psychology to organizational behavior management (obm)

Documents