Talk:Industrial and organizational psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Moved

I moved the following section here because it does not really belong in an encyclopedic entry on I/O psychology. Although it may be of interest to some parties, it neither contributes nor describes here in any useful way. If this were included, we might as well copy the US News and World Report or Princeton Review entries for every program in every field of study and paste them into their respective Wikipedia articles. If you believe that this belongs in the I/O article, please post your opinion here for discussion instead moving it back. richdiesal 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "top three programs" section because it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. While it is true that the three programs are influential, SIOP itself has taken no official position in ranking schools. Though rankings have been published by SIOP publications, they are always tied to a particular study, and not considered official. Furthermore, the studies have not considered international programs in the Europe and beyond. Many of which have extremely strong programs that not considered in these studies.66.27.119.28 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Article Cleanup

I think this was a really bad article filled with too much information and details. I've just deleted about 1/3 of it, if anyone thinks that the any of the deletions should stay in then we could argue about it here. I dont think its anywhere near finished though, a lot of clean-up work is left.

-- 26/3/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.157.103 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Graduate Programs

In July 2004, the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (a leading U.S. organization of I/O professionals) conducted a survey on I/O graduate programs.[1] According to students in the programs, the following programs were rated favorably (NOTE: Some programs had NO student responses to this particular survey and therefore do NOT appear on this list despite the fact that many of the students are VERY SATISFIED and think very highly of their particular programs. However, the programs listed are VERY GOOD):

The following programs were rated favorably based on program resources:

For more information about graduate programs:

I don't feel any information on graduate programs that involves 1) program ratings, 2) dated materials, and 3) subjective assessments has any place in an encyclopedic article. Providing a link to SIOP's graduate school resources is fine, but including summary results from any of the studies included there (this one or the others) is inappropriate. -- Yakaji 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)(NOTE: As with any field (e.g., Law or Medical School) there is a respected ranking of programs within the field. Despite subjectivity concerns, some programs do simply prepare students for work in I/O psychology better than others.)

I have moved these comments about F.W.Taylor as they are factually inaccurate (he was certainly NOT the founding father of I/O psychology).

For a thorough, well researched, analyzed, comparative, documented history review of American Industrial and Organizational Psychology (also known as Scientific Management) and a Biography of its great American Founding Father, an Engineer in Scientific Management, you may refer to the seven books compiled into two volumes titled Frederick W. Taylor: Father of Scientific Management authored by Frank Barkley Copley, reprint of Economic Classics, New York 1969; first edition 1923 by Harper and Brothers Publishers. It can also be found at The Library of Congress Card Catalogue Number 68-55515. And at the San Francisco Public Library, SF, CA, USA, Card Catalogue B, T2132c, copyright 1969. With this books one can abhor the idea of having to write the history already written, and as Frederick Taylor's strategic thinking would perhaps say if he was alive today, progress can be made by first researching the existing work, analyzing it, comparing it and if need be adding to it. A caveat would definitely be that the adding ought to be upward not downward as to strip it down. As it is pointed out on the first volume progress has always been made by adding to the already existing intellect. Our profession may greatly benefit by taking many of the overarching business acumen array of principles Frederick Taylor based on his hands-on work in which he would take a concept or scheme or proven paradigm and extrapolate its application to another situation, company, project or field and follow the general parameters of the original as much as plausible, making the necessary adjustments to fit it to the new project, company or career. Furthermore, this advent of Scientific Management set itself as a science apart from other forms of science by first without any abashment, even on the face of resistence to his new methods, applying the methods and then taking them to the stage of proving them as a proven principle or practice that works.

Contrary to other sciences, the author of his biography elued to the fact that the scientific method used to establish a theory or prove a thesis was not used by Frederick Taylor. Frederick Taylor felt that he would rather set a maaagement practice in motion, analyze its results, and if it produced higher wages, lower labor cost and a higher profit, then and only then would he present it a scientific principle which more often than not was widely adopted with enormous longivity within the organizational core practices. Therefore, he did not enjoy the luxury of the safety alloted by the scientific method in a lab to contain side-effects of his practice. It was all hands-on work. Thus, the enormous resistence his new methods usually encountered which I naturally would say ought to be the the reaction of any savvy, critical, cautious business owner or corporate governing body in lieu of the potentially costly effect a practice whose statistical validity and reliability has not been proven that it's positive or negative correlation or cause-effect relationship are probably due to chance only 0.05 or less on the index of statistical significance. Said differently that the presence of any correlation or cause-effect relationships are probably not due merely to chance 95% or better yet 99% of the time; thus making it statistically significant. In spite of not having the advantage of access and the resources to, during his days (1856-1915), use these statistical research, design and analysis tests, which are part of the rational scientific method since the last several decaded, Frederick Taylor's efforts and results towards advancing effectiveness and efficiency are admirable.

The guiding method(s) he used and fine-tuned over time is objectively, clearly and comprehensively described by the author of his biography in volume one.

The above history reference three parragraphs contribution is made by Romullous A. Diaz, B.A. 1994. Listed on 2001-2002 International WHO'S WHO Historical Society: Professional Management Division; Inducted Life Member, The National Honor Society in Psychology (PSI CHI), CSU' SFSU Chapter Since 1992. Certified Life Member, Society of San Francisco State University Golden Key National Honor Society. Industrial and Organizational Psychology with Consulting Services Marketing and Personnel Management, CSU' SFSU, SF, CA, U.S.A. He can be contacted at diaz.romullous_rva@quixnet.net

[edit] Could the corporate institutionalization of these principles,theories, and studies, of this largely unproven psychological field in the hiring process a potential violation...

Could the corporate institutionalization of these principles,theories, and studies, of this largely unproven and extremely unstable and controversial field of psychology in the hiring process be a potential violation of equal employment oppurtunity laws in the U.S.? I raise this question because in my understanding that a job oppurtunity is not fair and equal if it is not likely that a candidite can reasonably know the standards that he or she is being assessed for and work to raise their qualifications to meet those standards. In this case the standards are defined by a methodology designed for profit and based upon study results interpreted by the unstable and controversial science of psychology. I wonder what would happen if people were asked to submit to the classic IQ testing during job application. IQ tests have been thought to be culturally biased for a long time, and under such scrutiny it is reasonable to imagine that implementing them in employment application strategies could result in civil rights lawsuits. Rhetorically, I wonder if these psychological tests in employment hiring practice could be used to identify potentially religious people due to their emphisis on integrity.

                                                      -Mr.Carr(aikid67@yahoo.com)


There are literally years of work that go into any practicing I/O Psychologist in learning how to identify and mitigate adverse impact towards any protected class for selection processes. Your understanding of the law is inaccurate. Candidates don't have to know how they are evaluated, they just have to know that the selection method used is fair and equitable across all protected classes. 70.160.123.158 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy me up

I've just read this article and it seems in need of a really good tidy up. It's almost like an introduction of a psychology book copied and pasted. Not to say the content isn't good i just think it needs making more encyclopedic.

The overview also comes across as a book review rather than an overview of occupational psychology.

Personality test despite lacking sources seems a good example of an article in this area which isn't overly complicated for the non-expert reader (whom Wikipedia is aimed at) as well as succint and covering major points.

Also this doesn't seem like the right place for a load of lists such as 'Key works in industrial and organizational psychology', 'Key journals in industrial and organizational psychology', 'Organizations' and the 'see also' is manic!

Maybe some sections on basic theory, history, assessing, development, training. I'll have a look at the article myself but i'm not really sure where to start not being an expert so if anyone fancies hacking it up into something more readible then it might encourage more people to then start making the article better. Your thoughts?! extraordinary 13:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I/O psychology page

There is no mention of Lillian Gilbreth, who, although known better as an engineer, earned the first doctorate in Industrial Psychology (Brown, 1915) and published the first book (The psychology of management, 1914) in Industrial Psychology. Her book was the publication of her first dissertation, which she wrote for the University of California at Berkeley and which they rejected because she had not met the residency requirement.KPost 13:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reality check

I am not very familiar with industrial and organizational psychology, so I came to this article to learn more. I stopped reading when I noticed how terrible this article is (or has become). I will highlight a few of the most glaring problems for editors more acquainted with the subject matter to fix:

  • Hideously long lists instead of concise explication
  • Compulsively written out words and poor grammar: e.g., "Frederick W. Taylor’ Contributions to Personnel Management and The United States of America (U.S.A) Government"
  • Overreliance on the theories of one expert: Frederick W. Taylor

I cannot describe to my fellow Wikipedians here how revolting just looking at this article is as it currently stands.

Fix it! --NeantHumain 22:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


"Fix it!" Who invited you to start giving orders? You don't like this article? Then try reading a BOOK on the subject or visiting SIOP's web site.

As for this article being "revolting," I do have a Masters in I/O and am a professional copywriter. Maybe some of this is just over your head. You've highlighted some of the more "glaring" examples which--if these are the worst examples--are not so bad.

The author uses lists to itemize how diverse this field and its specialties are.

My problem with this article? Frederick W. Taylor. The author uses Taylor's "horses metaphor" and says that he "took humans out of the equation" so that we could better understand his point. This is patronizing to us and typical of Taylor. His policies did not place a high regard on workers' comfort. Taylor had a very mechanistic and pessimistic attitude toward workers. He believed that workers needed to be watched, that they could not be trusted unless they were scrupulously supervised. Taylor believed that workers should be compartmented from each other so that they could not fraternize on the job. Are you getting the drift? His theories were a boon to such industrial despots as Henry Ford. To read this article, you'd think he was one of the great minds of the 20th Century. He was not. His theories allowed industrialists to better exploit and manipulate workers. A humanist, he was not.(24.193.159.162 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

I too have a problem with the lists. It does not read like an encyclopedia. Possibly the information contained in these long lists could be summarized in paragraph form. (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

This article on I/O Psych, a profession about which I know very little, but would like to learn, is entirely unacceptable. It reads like a poorly written state college freshman's Psych 101 paper about Frederick Taylor. I've never seen such a poor listing in Wikipedia in my life. Almost every sentence is written in poor English. Non sequitors are rampant. Whole sections are out of context. Check out this random sample:

"In fact beginnings of the science of management introduced by Taylor were so well advanced for the time that Frederick W. Taylor Scientific Management enlightened a high caliber management team named “Vickers” brought from England which was going to be used in the NAVY in lieu of Taylor’s by one skeptic major division."

WHAT?

Can be that no I/O Psych experts (Masters? PhDs? Even graduate students themselves?) have made it their personal mission to give their profession the respect it deserves? Someone who is an expert in this field, please write a decent listing for I/O Pysch in Wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodermalm (talk • contribs) 07:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ketchup Drop

What is going on with this ketchup drop section? (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC))


I absolutely agree with some of the previous comments. This article is akin to a bad first year undergraduate essay: full of organizational problems. But more incredibly, the writing goes from ungrammatical to terrible. DT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.16.101 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article begins well but then becomes one of the most poorly-written articles I've seen in Wikipedia. Morality without intellect leads to Puritanism? Where did this come from, and why is it in this article? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, free of opinion and based on facts. On top of this, there are countless instances of poor sentence structure. Having a Masters doesn't mean you can write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.28.86 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)