C

e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
1

S
u
s
a
n

R
u
k
l
i
n
/
P
h
o
t
o

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
You have applied for a job, submitted your resume, and
taken a series of tests. You have been interviewed by your
potential supervisor and given a tour of the company. You
now find yourself sitting across from the co-owners, who
have just offered you a position. They tell you that their
organization is a great place to work. As evidence, they
tell you that no one has quit their job in the last five years
and employees are rarely absent. They also tell you that
they have flexible policies. You can work whatever hours
you like and take vacation whenever you want. And if you
decide to work for them, youll have access to spending
cash as well as keys to the company.
You try to maintain your composure. Youd heard
interesting things about this company but didnt really
believe them. Finally, the co-owners ask you what you are
worth, indicating they will pay you whatever you wish. Now
youre really dumbfounded and wonder what the catch is,
but sit quietly while they talk about other issues. Does this
sound too good to be true? Wouldnt this be ideal?
Almost this exact scenario played out in an organization
owned and managed by an Oakland appliance dealer in the
1970s. His name was Arthur Friedman, and he had decided
to change how he ran his business. Friedman, as reported
in the Washington Post (Koughan, 1975), announced at one
of his staff meetings that employees could work the hours
they wanted, be paid what they thought they were worth,
take vacation time when they wanted, and help themselves
to petty cash if they were in need of spending money. New
employees would be allowed to set their own wages too.
As you might imagine, the employees werent sure how to
take this news. It was reported that no one said anything
during the meeting when Friedman first described his plan
(Koughan, 1975).
When asked why he was changing his business prac-
tices, Friedman replied, I always said that if you give peo-
ple what they want, you get what you want. You have to be
willing to lose, to stick your neck out. I finally decided that
the time had come to practice what I preached (Koughan,
1975). In the final analysis, Friedmans experiment worked.
The organization was profitable. Friedman signed union
contracts without reading them (the employees didnt need
a union with him in charge). Employees didnt quit, they
didnt steal from the company, and they were rarely absent.
1
WAD S WOR T H P S Y C H OL OGY
MOD U L E
WAD S WOR T H P S Y C H OL OGY
MOD U L E

Industrial and Organizational Psychology
K A T H Y A . H A N I S C H , I o w a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. Google provides many
employee perks, including free meals and haircuts, exercise classes,
game rooms, child care, and on-site doctors. Would you want to
work for Google?
A
P

P
h
o
t
o
/
J
o
h
n

C
o
g
i
l
l
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 1 2/19/08 11:48:13 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
Net profits increased, and the company was a success. The
employees realized that to make the organization work
and remain in business, they had to be reasonable in their
requests and behavior (Koughan, 1975).
A present-day company with some enticing work perks
is Google. In 2007, Fortune magazine rated it the num-
ber one company to work for. Included among its many
perks are free gourmet meals, snack rooms, free haircuts,
gyms, massages, subsidized exercise classes, classes to
learn another language, child care, on-site doctors for free
employee checkups, a pet-friendly facility, and a travel-
ing library for book checkout. In addition, they offer free
shuttle bus transportation to work or, if you drive, free on-
site car washes and oil changes. If you have a baby, they
provide up to a $500 reimbursement for takeout food to
ease your transition home. If you refer a friend to work at
Google and they hire him or her, they give you extra cash.
They even provide washers and dryers so you can do your
laundry at work for free (they provide the detergent too!).
In addition to all these benefits, they reward innovation,
both high-tech and otherwise, and allow employees such as
engineers to spend some of their time at work on indepen-
dent projects.
Organizations like Google and Friedmans company are
interesting in the way they deal with their employees and in
the ways such treatment affects their employees behaviors.
Psychologists who study peoples behavior at work using
psychological principles are called industrial and organi-
zational psychologists, and their field of study is industrial
and organizational (I/O) psychology. I/O psychologists
study employee selection, performance appraisal, training,
job design, communication, work stress, motivation, lead-
ership, groups and teams, organizational culture, human
factors, job attitudes, well-being, and work behavior. This
module will introduce you to the field of I/O psychology.
You will experience many of the topics discussed here first
hand when you seek, obtain, and keep a job.
Work in Our Lives
You have learned about work since you were a small child.
You may have asked where your mother was going when
she took you to day care or why your father left the house
before 8 A.M. and did not return until after 5 P.M. You likely
played at different jobs by dressing up as an astronaut,
doctor, firefighter, teacher, chef, or construction worker.
As you got older, other sources of information about work
may have come from your friends, other family members,
school, and the media. In high school, more education and
a part-time job may have given you additional details about
the meaning of work. As you pursue a college degree, you
may receive information about jobs available in your chosen
field through classes, internships, or other job experiences.
Work is an important part of life for many people. We
often ask people we meet what they do, which translates
into What is your job and whom do you work for? Many
people identify with their work because they spend so much
of their waking lives at work. Work is important because it
provides many of the things people need and value. Work
for pay provides us with the money necessary to satisfy
our basic needs for food, shelter, and security (e.g., health
care, retirement income), while the leftover money pro-
vides us with discretionary funds to use as we see fit. These
funds may be used to buy a round of golf, an iPod, or a
fancy place to live; to support charities or attend athletic or
fine art performances; or to save money for college. Essen-
tially, money, typically from work, provides us with a stan-
dard of living that varies from person to person depending
on our income and how we choose to spend it. In addi-
tion, work provides much more. It provides a source of
I n d u s t r i a l a n d Or g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 2
The doctor is in!
C
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

K
.

H
a
n
i
s
c
h
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 2 2/19/08 11:48:17 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
S e l e c t i n g E mp l o y e e s 3
social interaction and friendship, independence, a sense of
accomplishment, satisfaction, a reason to get up in the
morning, happiness, a sense of identity, recognition, and
prestige.
Although most researchers and practitioners agree that
money and recognition are nearly universal motivators
(Clark, 2003), many of the things we value or seek from
work vary from person to person. For example, the prestige
of a job may not be important to you, but might be impor-
tant to your best friend. Perhaps you want your work to
provide you with a sense of accomplishment or a source of
social interaction, while your friend may not. It is impor-
tant to understand what you want from your work as well
as what a job can provide.
From an employers perspective, it is useful to deter-
mine what employees want because satisfied employees will
be more likely than dissatisfied employees to work to meet
organizational goals. Part of a supervisors job is to ascer-
tain what employees value because those values can be used
to motivate employees to perform well in their jobs.
Types of Jobs
There are many types of work, in many types of jobs, in
many different organizational settings. These settings
include multinational conglomerates, public and private
companies, nonprofits, federal, state, and local government
organizations, and home businesses.
People in the United States work a variety of schedules,
from extended workweeks (4599 hours) to standard work-
weeks (between 3544 hours) to part-time workweeks (less
than 35 hours). Because of the nature of some jobs, peo-
ple such as police officers, medical personnel, and factory
workers work shifts other than the typical 8 A.M. to 5 P.M.
shift. Others are offered flexible work schedules that best
fit their lives as long as they work the required number of
hours and accomplish the work. Telecommuting is becom-
ing more and more popular with an increase in appropri-
ate technology. Some people work for virtual organizations
that use communication technologies to outsource the
majority of their functions.
Regardless of the type of job or your work schedule,
you will spend most of your waking hours in some type
of employment for many years. Many people spend their
weekends working, too. Because work is critical to who we
are and what we do, studying some of the psychological
principles and topics examined by I/O psychologists will
provide you with information that should aid you in your
future careers.
Selecting Employees
We just want to have great people working for us.
Sergey Brin, Google co-founder
The Hiring Process
Industrial and organizational psychologists first became
involved in the process of selecting employees when the
United States government needed help selecting and plac-
ing officers and soldiers in World War I (Aamodt, 2007).
They used mental ability tests to determine who would
become officers and who would be in the infantry. The
process many employers use now to hire employees is
very detailed, typically consisting of five components: job
analysis, testing, legal issues, recruitment, and the selection
decision.
Job Analysis
Job analysis is the identification of the critical elements of a
job. I/O psychologists have helped devise effective strategies
for determining three basic aspects of any job:
(1) What tasks and behaviors are essential to the job?
(2) What knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed to per-
form the job?
(3) What are the conditions (such as stress, safety, and tem-
perature) under which the job is performed?
A job analysis can be conducted in many ways. An analyst
may interview current employees or have them complete
questionnaires, observe people on the job, or talk to people
knowledgeable about the job (Gael, 1988)
The information from a job analysis is used in many
types of personnel functions. These include employee selec-
tion, performance appraisal, training, and human resources
planning. Within the hiring process, a job analysis is used
to write job descriptions; to determine what tests might be
used to assess the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities of
job applicants; and to assist in meeting legal requirements
that affect the selection process.
Testing
You are familiar with tests and taking tests. Tests are
defined here as the measurement of carefully chosen sam-
ples of behavior. These include the standard paper-and-
pencil tests used to measure specific skills or abilities in a
class, or more general abilities, as in the SAT or ACT. They
also include vocational interest inventories and personal-
ity assessments, such as conscientiousness and honesty
tests. In addition, work samples, in which applicants do a
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 3 2/19/08 11:48:20 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
replica of the work they will be asked to do on the job, are
useful tests. Properly developed tests are vital to the suc-
cess of organizations. They are used to ascertain differ-
ences between people. The goal of these tests is to help
employers choose the person best suited for the job and the
organization.
Another type of test is the employee interview. Nearly
all organizations use some type of interview in their selec-
tion of employees (Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2003),
even though interviews are often viewed as subjective and
worthless. More than 85 years of research has provided evi-
dence regarding when interviews are useful and when they
are not.
Selection interviews can be broadly classified as
either unstructured or structured. Unstructured inter-
views are informal and unplanned. They are conducted
by an untrained interviewer, with random questions, and
no scoring key. Structured interviews are conducted by a
trained interviewer. They have standardized questions, a
specific question order, and a predetermined scoring or
answer key. Structured interviews based on a job analysis
have greater validity and are more useful than unstructured
interviews (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994). Some typical ques-
tions asked during both unstructured and structured inter-
views are listed in Table 1.
Legal Issues
One of the most important pieces of legislation regarding
employment, and specifically the hiring of employees, is
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 2002). Title VII prohibits dis-
crimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin, which are known as the Big 5. Providing protec-
tion based on the Big 5 helps to ensure that all applicants
have an equal opportunity for employment. Exceptions to
this provision include matters of national security, employ-
ers with seniority systems in place, and bona fide occupa-
tional qualifications (BFOQs). BFOQs permit organizations
to discriminate in hiring persons in a protected class if the
qualification is determined to be reasonably necessary to
the operation of the business. For example, women can be
discriminated against when hiring someone to model mens
swimwear, and vice versa. It is reasonably necessary to the
marketing and selling of swimwear that organizations hire
men to model male swimwear and women to model female
swimwear; sex is thus a BFOQ in this case. It is not reason-
ably necessary, however, that a secretary in a church who
does secretarial work and not church or religious work be
the same religion as the church that employs him or her;
religion could not be used as a BFOQ in this case.
It is important for employers to abide by laws that pro-
tect people against discrimination, as the costs of litigation
Table 1
Types of Interview Questions
Unstructured Interview Questions:
1. What are your weaknesses?
2. Why should we hire you?
3. Why do you want to work here?
4. What are your goals?
5. If you were an animal, which one would you want to be?
Structured Interview Questions
6. Tell me in specific details about a time when you had to deal with a difficult customer.
7. Give me an example of a time when you had to make a decision without a supervisor present.
8. Give me a specific example of when you demonstrated your initiative in an employment setting.
9. Give me an example of a time when you had to work with a team.
10. Describe a time when you had to be creative at solving a problem
Sources: C. Martin, 2006, http://www.monster.com; The Job Centre, Niagara College Canada, 2005, http://
jobs.niagarac.on.ca/
I n d u s t r i a l a n d Or g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 4
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 4 2/19/08 11:48:21 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
can be very high, both monetarily and in terms of an orga-
nizations reputation. This applies to discrimination based
not only on the Big 5 (covered under the Civil Rights Act),
but also on age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act)
and disability (Americans with Disabilities Act). Employ-
ment law in the United States is meant to protect and pro-
vide equal opportunities for individuals.
Nondiscriminatiory hiring practices offer fair treatment
for any person looking for a job. In general, in the United
States, organizations with more than 15 employees are
required to abide by the federal employment laws. These
laws have changed the employment process over the last
50 years, affording equal opportunities for those seeking a
position. Equal opportunity laws in the United States today
make the job market a fairer place than in many countries.
Recruitment
Recruitment is the process organizations use to iden-
tify potential employees for a job. Depending on the job,
an organization may recruit from inside the company or
seek someone outside the organization. They may adver-
tise on their company website or on a site for specific
types of jobs. In addition, websites like monster.com and
careerbuilder.com link potential employees and employers
in a variety of jobs and locations. Other recruitment sources
include newspapers, radio and television advertisements,
trade magazines, professional publications, and employee
referrals.
Research indicates that employees recruited through
inside sources such as employee referrals or rehires worked
for the organization longer and had better job performance
than those recruited through outside sources, including
advertisements, employment agencies, or recruiters (Zot-
toli & Wanous, 2000). Studies have supported the idea that
those recruited using inside sources receive more accurate
information about the job than those recruited through
external sources (Conrad & Ashworth, 1986; McManus &
Baratta, 1992).
A survey of the 50 best small and medium organiza-
tions to work for in the United States found that 92 per-
cent use employee referrals. The survey also found that
more than 30 percent of all hires were referred by a current
employee (Pomeroy, 2005). Because of the effectiveness
of employee referrals, some companies provide rewards
to employees who recommend an applicant who is hired.
These rewards include cash, vacations, and raffles for prizes
such as televisions and free maid service for a year (Stew-
art, Ellenburg, Hicks, Kremen, & Daniel, 1990). Typically,
the new employee must work for the organization for a
set period of time in order for the referring employee to
receive the award (Stewart et al., 1990). Google rewards an
employee with a $2,000 bonus if his or her referral accepts
Googles offer and remains employed for at least 60 days.
After applicants have submitted either a resume or an
application, someone from the organization such as the
human resource manager or supervisor will determine
which applicants should be considered further. In that pro-
cess, he or she may make telephone inquiries of previous
employers or other references and conduct criminal back-
ground checks.
A growing phenomenon is employers use of social
networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Xanga, and
Friendster to learn about job candidates (Finder, 2006). On
these sites, recruiters and company presidents have found
promising candidates reporting on their own drug use,
sexual exploits, and drinking, along with suggestive photo-
graphs (Finder, 2006). These are considered red flags by
employers. They assume that these applicants are lacking
in good judgment and therefore remove them from their
selection process (Finder, 2006). Information that students
thought would only be viewed by their peers is making its
way into the public arena at all levels, with future employ-
ers and relatives viewing the information without the stu-
dents knowledge.
Making the Decision
When selecting employees, employers are looking for a
good match between the employee and the organization.
They would like to match their requirement for excel-
lent job performance with the persons own knowledge,
skills, abilities, personality, and motivation. They attempt
S e l e c t i n g E mp l o y e e s 5
If you found this photo on a job applicants MySpace page, would
you hire him?

L
o
u
i
s

Q
u
a
i
l
/
C
o
r
b
i
s
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 5 2/19/08 11:48:21 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
I n d u s t r i a l a n d Or g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 6
to accomplish this by using the different types of tests dis-
cussed earlier.
Researchers have posited two factors that determine
an employees performance in a job: the can-do and the
will-do factors (Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, & Wiechmann,
2003). Can-do factors suggest what an employee is capa-
ble of doing on the job if he or she is working to the best
of his or her ability. Will-do factors suggest the time and
effort an employee is willing to exert for the organization.
Personality factors such as conscientiousness, a need for
achievement, and integrity have been classified as impor-
tant will-do factors in performance (Schmitt et al., 2003).
A persons can-do and will-do factors may change as
he or she moves from organization to organization. Once a
person is selected, the important process of being accepted
and socialized into the organization at all levels, including a
work group or team, begins.
Socializing Employees: Culture, Groups,
and Leadership
When you report for your first day of work in an organiza-
tion, there will be many things you will need to learn in
order to be successful in your job. The process of learning
these things is called organizational socialization, which has
been defined as the process by which organizational mem-
bers become a part of, or are absorbed into, the culture
of the organization (Jablin, 1982, p. 255). Organizational
socialization consists of people learning how the organiza-
tion operates by using information provided by manage-
ment, coworkers, observation, and company handbooks or
memos.
Nowadays, electronic communication is an important
part of how you and your coworkers are socialized (Flana-
gin & Waldeck, 2004). Employees communicate through
e-mail, company websites, chat groups, and blogs. Job
applicants also use these resources to learn about the orga-
nization before submitting their applications.
Supervisors and coworkers are also important sources
of socialization information. Mentoring is a form of train-
ing in which a current and often long-term employee (the
mentor) is paired with a new employee. The mentors role
is to help the new employee adapt to the job by assisting
with advice or resources. The mentor may provide informa-
tion about how the organization works and career advance-
ment opportunities. Good mentoring helps new employ-
ees become successful on the job and learn the formal and
informal rules of the organization (Aamodt, 2007).
Research indicates that both mentors and those they
mentor often benefit from the relationship. For example, in
one study of health care employees, it was found that those
who were mentored reported higher salaries, greater pro-
motion rates, and more positive career success than those
who did not receive mentoring (Allen, Lentz, & Day, 2006).
Employees who have been mentored experience more effec-
tive socialization and better compensation, advancement,
career satisfaction, job satisfaction, job involvement, and
organizational commitment than those with no mentoring
(Greenhaus, 2003).
Organizational Culture and Climate
Organizational culture includes the shared assumptions and
beliefs of the organization. These cognitions then influence
the organizational climate, or the actions and behaviors
of the people in the group or organization (Schein, 1985).
These behaviors are considered the norm for the organiza-
tion; they represent the normal behaviors expected by its
members. Because culture and climate generally operate in
concert, our discussion will refer to these elements collec-
tively as culture (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). Orga-
nizational culture is important because it lets employees
know what is expected of them and affects how they think
and behave. Culture is often determined by the founders
of the organization, and may be modified over time by the
successes and failures of an organization.
There have been several case studies of organizations
that have successfully changed their culture. Remem-
ber Arthur Friedman from the beginning of this module?
Friedman allowed his employees to set their own wages and
decide the hours they worked; he also required employees
to belong to the union. After Friedman made these changes,
employee grumbling stopped. The organizational culture
changed, resulting in better morale, increased productivity,
M
i
c
k

S
t
e
v
e
n
s
/
c
a
r
t
o
o
n
b
a
n
k
.
c
o
m
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 6 2/19/08 11:48:26 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
and employee longevity. No one wanted to quit working in
a culture where the employees got to make their own deci-
sions that affected the organizations bottom line. Finding
an organizational culture that fits your working style will
have consequences for your morale, performance, and ten-
ure in an organization.
Groups and Teams
Work teams and the leadership of an organization have
a large influence on the culture of an organization. Work
teams and groups can be defined as two or more employees
who have common goals, have tasks that are interdepen-
dent, interact socially, and work on relevant organizational
tasks within specific requirements and rules (Kozlowski &
Bell, 2003). Just as there can be a culture in an organiza-
tion, groups or teams also exhibit cultures that may encour-
age or discourage certain types of work-related behaviors
and attitudes. These cultures then form the basis for the
socialization of new group or team members. Although
most organizations provide formal means of socializing
new employees, group or team dynamics have immediate
and direct effects on employees socialization (Anderson
& Thomas, 1996). The outcomes of informal and formal
socialization may be different.
Teams may have leaders or may be self-managing.
When teams fail, the failure is often linked to the team
leader. Team leaders may be too autocratic, wielding too
much power or influence. As a result, the team does not
realize the autonomy and control level it needs to be suc-
cessful (Stewart & Manz, 1995). Self-managing teams tend
to show better productivity, an increase in work quality,
improved quality of life for employees, decreased absentee-
ism, and decreased turnover (Cohen & Ledford, 1994).
Leadership
Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something
you want done because he wants to do it.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Leadership has many definitions, including one person
influencing another person or a team toward a goal (Bry-
man, 1996). Leadership has received a lot of research atten-
tion in industrial and organizational psychology. Yet it is
still difficult to describe how to make or select the ideal
leader. Many theories exist, and most have been useful in
helping us understand what makes a good leader and how
to improve leadership style.
Personality plays a role in many leadership theories.
Certainly, it is important in determining whether or not
a leader will be successful. Kirkpatrick and Lockes (1991)
review suggests that drive, honesty and integrity, self-
confidence, cognitive abilities, and knowledge are associ-
ated with successful leaders. Leaders with poor cognitive
abilities and social skills and those who are indecisive, low
in self-confidence and self-esteem, dishonest, and lacking
in ambition tend to be less successful (Kaplan, Drath, &,
Kofodimos, 1991).
Arthur Friedmans integrity likely made him a success-
ful leader. He decided to give employees what he would
want, providing them with the capability to make major
decisions that could either make or break the organization.
In his case, he created a self-managing group that had no
need for external assistance from unions or other entities.
As a result, Friedman demonstrated the transformational
leadership approach (Bass, 1990). Transformational leader-
ship is characterized by high ethical standards, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consid-
erationall evident in Arthur Friedmans leadership style.
Leaders today must contend with information-based
team environments requiring the capacity for sifting large
amounts of information coming from computer networks
(Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2000). The widely varying work-
ing environments that result from global competition also
require leaders to be adaptable (Mann, 1959), capable of
handling stress (Goleman, 1998), knowledgeable about
competitors and products (Kirpatrick & Locke, 1991), and
able to solve complex problems quickly (Zaccaro, Mum-
ford, Connelly, Marks, & Gilbert, 2000)
Attitudes and Behaviors at Work
One of the most important factors influencing whether you
will be motivated to do a good job hinges on your attitudes
at work. The causes and consequences of work attitudes
have been extensively researched. Some of the outcomes
of attitudes include volunteering for a project, helping out
a coworker, quitting, absenteeism, tardiness, early retire-
ment, and performance.
Attitudes at Work
Attitudes at work include organizational commitment
and satisfaction with job conditions including the work
itself, pay and benefits, supervision, coworkers, promotion
opportunities, working conditions, and job security. In gen-
eral, you can be satisfied or dissatisfied with the tasks and
conditions at work, the people in your work environment,
and the rewards you get from work. Employee satisfaction
is important because it has been shown to be related to
employee behaviors at work (Hanisch, 1995). Job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment are two of the most
commonly studied work attitudes.
At t i t u d e s a n d Be h a v i o r s a t Wo r k 7
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 7 2/19/08 11:48:27 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
I n d u s t r i a l a n d Or g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 8
Job Satisfaction. The positive or negative affect associated
with a job defines job satisfaction (Thurstone, 1931). Some
of the ways organizations can create satisfied employ-
ees include offering flexible working hours, professional
growth opportunities, interesting work (Hackman & Old-
ham, 1976), autonomy, job security, a good supervisor,
good benefits, competitive pay, and opportunities for pro-
motion (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). It is important to
note that what makes one worker satisfied may not make
another worker satisfied. For some people, interesting
work is paramount. Others place higher emphasis on hav-
ing coworkers they like. Still others feel that the pay and
benefits they receive are most important. Just as in the hir-
ing process, a match between what you want and what the
organization can provide will result in a successful outcome
for both parties.
A recent survey found that listening to music at
work leads to higher levels of reported employee satisfac-
tion. About one-third of those participating in a Spherion
Workplace Snapshot survey conducted by Harris Interac-
tive in 2006 reported they listened to an iPod, MP3 player,
or other personal music device while working (Spherion,
2006). Seventy-nine percent of the participants reported
that listening to music improved their job satisfaction
and/or productivity at work. Allowing workers to listen to
music may become more and more popular in jobs where
music does not interfere with coworkers, safety, or job per-
formance. Having happy workers contributes to an organi-
zations success.
Organizational Commitment. Employee commitment to
an organization is related to employee retention within the
organization. There are three types of organizational com-
mitment: affective, normative, and continuance (Meyer &
Allen, 1991). Meyer and Allen define affective commitment
as an employees emotional attachment to the organization
that makes the employee want to stay in the organization.
Normative commitment is based on feelings of obliga-
tion. Continuance commitment results when an employee
remains with a company because of the high cost of los-
ing organizational membership, including monetary (e.g.,
pension benefits) and social (e.g., friendships) costs. Meyer
and Herscovitch (2001) argue that employees have an orga-
nizational commitment profile at any given time in their
job, with high or low values on each of the three types of
commitment. In other words, an employee may have high
scores on normative and continuance commitment, but be
lower on affective commitment. Depending on the profile,
the employee may engage in different behaviors such as
quitting or helping out the organization.
Students may experience these different types of com-
mitment to their college. A student acting under affective
commitment would feel an emotional attachment to the
school because she really likes the school, including her
classes, the football team, and the town. The student wants
to stay in that school because of her attachment to it. Nor-
mative commitment might be evidenced by a student whose
parents attended that college and who feels obligated to do
the same thing, regardless of whether it is the best school
for him. Staying at a college because your friends are there
and you have already paid for two years of college would
typify someone acting under continuance commitment.
The three levels of commitment could be represented as a
commitment profile for a student.
One of the causes of organizational commitment is
job satisfaction. People who are satisfied with their job are
Employees report that their job satisfaction and productivity
increase if they are allowed privileges such as the ability to lis-
ten to music while they work.

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

R
o
b
b
i
n
s
/
P
h
o
t
o
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 8 2/19/08 11:48:27 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
more committed to their organization than those who are
less satisfied (Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994). Other
causes of organizational commitment include trust in ones
supervisor and human resources practices that are support-
ive of employees (Arthur, 1994). The organizational com-
mitment of Arthur Friedmans employees was very high, as
evidenced by a complete lack of turnover in five years.
Behaviors at Work
Employers want their employees to engage in behaviors
that will make them successful in the job because their
success helps the organization meet its goals, including
earning profits and fulfilling its mission. Employees have
control over two aspects of their work: their time and their
effort (Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980). Having employees
at work on time instead of late or absent is important to
performance and productivity. Positive behaviors generally
help an organization meet its goals while negative behav-
iors detract from goal attainment.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citi-
zenship behaviors (OCBs) or prosocial behaviors are often
described as extra-role behaviors because they are not spe-
cifically required by the job and are not usually evaluated
during performance reviews. These behaviors go beyond
what is expected by the organization (Smith, Organ, &
Near, 1983). Examples include staying late to finish a proj-
ect, mentoring a new employee, volunteering for work,
and helping a coworker. Some reasons why people engage
in organizational citizenship behaviors are job satisfac-
tion, high job autonomy, a positive organizational culture,
high agreeableness (as a personality dimension; Witt, Kac-
mar, Carlson, & Zivnuska, 2002), and high conscientious-
ness (Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001). Often,
however, males who engage in OCBs are viewed positively
while females are viewed as just doing their jobs (Heil-
man & Chen, 2005; Kidder & Parks, 2001)a difference
that may result in gender disparity in performance ratings.
OCBs have positive consequences for the organization and
for employees in their day-to-day interactions with others
in the organization.
Organizational Withdrawal and Counterproductive Behav-
iors. Unhappy employees cause problems for organizations
because they sometimes engage in behaviors that research-
ers refer to as organizational withdrawal (Hanisch, Hulin, &
Roznowski, 1998) and counterproductive behaviors (Sack-
ett & DeVore, 2003). Organizational withdrawal has been
defined as behaviors employees use to avoid their work
(work withdrawal) or their job (job withdrawal) (Hanisch,
1995; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990, 1991). Examples of work
withdrawal are being absent from work, leaving work early,
arriving to work late, missing meetings, and using work
equipment for personal use without permission. Examples
of job withdrawal are quitting ones job, transferring to
another department within an organization, and retiring.
College students are familiar with withdrawal behav-
iors when it comes to certain college courses. Some classes
may fail to keep your attention, and you may find yourself
taking a nap in class or reading the newspaper. You may
even look for legitimate reasons not to attend class, such as
offering to fill in for another employee at work or deciding
to attend an optional session for another class.
Counterproductive behaviors, although similar in
some ways to withdrawal behaviors, are defined as any
intentional behavior on the part of an organizational mem-
ber viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate
interests (Sackett & DeVore, 2003). An example of a coun-
terproductive behavior would be an intentional violation of
safety procedures that puts the employee and the organiza-
tion at risk. Other examples of counterproductive behavior
are theft, destruction of property, unsafe behavior, poor
attendance, drug use, and inappropriate physical actions,
such as attacking a coworker.
At t i t u d e s a n d Be h a v i o r s a t Wo r k 9
N
a
f
/
c
a
r
t
o
o
n
s
t
o
c
k
.
c
o
m
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 9 2/19/08 11:48:30 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
I n d u s t r i a l a n d Or g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 10
Relation Between Attitude and Behavior
Organizational citizenship behaviors are positively related
to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In other
words, employees with good attitudes and who feel com-
mitted to their organization are more likely to do positive
things to assist the organization (LePine, Erez, & Johnson,
2002). Research indicates that those employees who dem-
onstrate organizational citizenship behaviors are less likely
to engage in counterproductive behaviors (Dalal, 2006).
Researchers have found strong links between job satisfac-
tion and specific withdrawal or counterproductive behav-
iors such as absenteeism (Hackett, 1989), and even stronger
links with job withdrawal (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990).
Employers need to evaluate their work environment
and fringe benefit packages and make modifications where
necessary to ensure that they have employees who are satis-
fied and committed. Arthur Friedman made modifications
in the work environment of his organization that resulted
in high satisfaction and commitment among his employ-
ees. To help with the commute to and from work, Google
added a free shuttle service that many employees say is
the best fringe benefit, given the traffic in the Silicon Val-
ley (Helft, 2007). Employees need to learn how to seek out
satisfying work and perks that will result in their commit-
ment to the organization. Satisfaction and commitment
facilitate organizational citizenship behaviors and decrease
withdrawal and counterproductive behaviors. Together, the
right employee attitudes and behaviors will lead to success-
ful organizational functioning.
Conclusions
This module detailed the role of I/O psychologists in the
workplace, including job analysis, employee recruitment
and selection, organizational culture, and the effect of
employees work attitudes on their work behaviors.
Now that you have an understanding of the process
organizations use to hire successful employees, you have
some of the tools necessary to help you in your own search
for a job. You also learned about the appropriate matches
you might strive for in seeking employment that will make
your work with an organization fulfilling for both you and
the organization.
If you enjoyed learning about I/O psychology and think
it might be a possible career for you, you may be interested
in education and employment opportunities in the field.
Most I/O psychologists earn a masters or doctoral degree
from a graduate school. This may take an additional two
to five years beyond a bachelors degree. Job opportunities
are varied and often lucrative. For example, people with
masters degrees in I/O psychology may work for an orga-
nization in their human resources office, conduct research
on the best ways to train employees, or implement a moti-
vation program. They may also work in consulting firms or
even start their own after obtaining some experience in the
workplace. Those who earn a doctoral degree may secure
the same type of jobs as those with masters degrees, but
will typically be paid more for their expertise. In addition,
they have the option of working at a university or college
teaching courses and/or conducting research on topics of
their choosing. I/O psychology is an excellent career choice
for many students interested in business who wish to inter-
act with and help people.
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 10 2/19/08 11:48:32 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
References
Aamodt, M. G. (2007). Industrial/Organizational psychology:
An applied approach. California: Thomson Wadsworth.
Allen, T. D., Lentz, E., & Day, R. (2006). Career success out-
comes associated with mentoring others: A comparison
of mentors and nonmentors. Journal of Career Develop-
ment, 32(3), 272-285.
Anderson, N., & Thomas, H. D. C. (1996). Work group social-
ization. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group
psychology, 423-450. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on
manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 670-687.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Dodge, G. (2000). E-leading in
organizations and its implications for theory, research
and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 615-670.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational
leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational
Dynamics, (Winter), 19-31.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo,
S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship per-
formance. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 9, 52-69.
Bryman, A. S. (1996). The importance of context: Quali-
tative research and the study of leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 353-370.
Clark, R. E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of indi-
viduals and teams. Performance Improvement, 42(3),
21-29.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effectiveness
of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human
Relations, 47, 13-43.
Conrad, M. A., & Ashworth, S. D. (1986). Recruiting source
effectiveness: A meta-analysis and re-examination of two
rival hypotheses. Paper presented at the First Annual
Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., and Stone, E. F. (1992). Job sat-
isfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it
affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books.
Dalal (2006). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
organizational citizenship behavior and counterpro-
ductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(6), 1241-1255.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2002). Fed-
eral laws prohibiting job discrimination questions and
answers. May 24.
Finder, A. (2006, June 11). For some, online persona under-
mines a resume. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com.
Flanagin, A, J., & Waldeck, J. H. (2004). Technology use and
organizational newcomer socialization. Journal of Busi-
ness Communication, 41(2), 137-165.
Gael, S. A. (1988). The job analysis handbook for business,
industry, and government (Vols. 1 and 2). New York:
Wiley.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence.
New York: Bantam Books.
Greenhaus, J. H. (2003). Career dynamics. In W. C. Bor-
man, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, 12,
519-540, New York: Wiley.
Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absen-
teeism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupa-
tional Psychology, 62(3), 235-248.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation
through the design of work: A test of a theory. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2),
250-279.
Hanisch, K. A. (1995). Behavioral families and multiple
causes: Matching the complexity of responses to the
complexity of antecedents. Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 4(5), 156-162.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and
organizational withdrawal: An examination of retire-
ment and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 60-78.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and
organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal
model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110-128
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. A. (1998).
The importance of individuals repertoires of behav-
iors: The scientific appropriateness of studying multiple
behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 19, 463-480.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, dif-
ferent consequences: Reactions to mens and womens
altruistic citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 90, 431-441.
Helft, M. (2007, March 10). Googles buses help its work-
ers beat the rush. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter
(1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.
Jablin, F. M. (1982). Organizational communication: An
assimilation approach. In M. E. Rolff & C. R. Berger
(Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 255-
286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Re f e r e n c e s 11
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 11 2/19/08 11:48:32 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
I n d u s t r i a l a n d Or g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 12
Kaplan, R. E., Drath, W. H., Kofodimos, J. R., (1991).
Beyond ambition: How driven managers can lead better
and live better. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kidder, D. L., & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldier:
Who is s(he)? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
939-959
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do
traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5,
48-60.
Koughan, M. (1975, February 23). Arthur Friedmans out-
rage: Employees decide their pay. Washington Post.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and
teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen,
& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 333-375.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnston, D. E. (2002). The
nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship
behavior: A critical review and a meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between
personality and performance in small groups. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
McManus, M. A., & Baratta, J. E. (1992). The relationship
of recruiting source to performance and survival. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal,
Canada.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component con-
ceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the
workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource
Management Review, 11, 299-326.
Mueller, C. W., Boyer, E. M., Price, J. L., and Iverson, R. D.
(1994). Employee attachment and noncoercive condi-
tions of work: The case of dental hygienists. Work and
Occupations, 21, 179-212
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A the-
ory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic
Press.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Orga-
nizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R.
Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology:
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 565-593.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Pomeroy, A. (2005). 50 best small and medium places to
work: Money talks. HR Magazine, 50(7), 44-65.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproduc-
tive behaviors at work. In In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones,
H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran, Handbook of Indus-
trial, Work and Organizational Psychology, 1, 145-165.
California: Sage Publications.
Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. (2003). Predic-
tors used for personnel selection: An overview of con-
structs, methods and techniques. In N. Anderson, D. S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran, Handbook of
Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, 1, 166-
199. California: Sage Publications.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Leadership and Cul-
ture: A Dynamic View. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmitt, N., Cortina, J. M., Ingerick, M. J., & Wiechmann,
D. (2003). Personnel selection and employee perfor-
mance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, 12, 77-105. New Jersey: John Wiley
& Sons.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Spherion (2006, September 18). Spherion survey: Work-
ers say listening to music while working improves job
satisfaction, productivity. Retrieved from http://www
.spherion.com.
Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-
managing work teams: A typology and integrative
model. Human Relations, 48, 347-370.
Stewart, R., Ellenburg, G., Hicks, L., Kremen, M., & Dan-
iel, M. (1990). Employee references as a recruitment
source. Applied H.R.M. Research, 1(1), 1-3.
Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social atti-
tudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26,
249-269.
Witt, L. A., Kacmar, M., Carlson, D. S., & Zivnuska, S.
(2002). Interactive effects of personality and organi-
zational politics on contextual performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 911-926.
Zaccaro, S. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M., Marks, M.,
& Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Assessment of leader abilities.
Leadership Quarterly, 11, 37-64.
Zottoli, M. A., & Wanous, J. P. (2000). Recruitment source
research: Current status and future directions. Human
Resource Management Review, 10, 435-451.
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 12 2/19/08 11:48:32 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 13 2/19/08 11:48:33 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 14 2/19/08 11:48:33 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 15 2/19/08 11:48:33 AM
C
e
n
g
a
g
e

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
N
o
t

f
o
r

R
e
p
r
i
n
t
Library of Congress Control Number: 2008922443
ISBN-13: 978-0-495-59489-5
ISBN-10: 0-495-59489-X
Wadsworth
10 Davis Drive
Belmont, CA 94002-3098
USA
Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solu-
tions with o ce locations around the globe, including Singapore, the
United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your
local o ce at international.cengage.com/region.
Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson
Education, Ltd.
For your course and learning solutions, visit academic.cengage.com
Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our
preferred online store www.ichapters.com
Wadsworth Psychology Module: Industrial and Organizational
Psychology
Kathy A. Hanisch
2009 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copy-
right herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any
form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including
but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, tap-
ing, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage
and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108
of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
Printed in Canada
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 11 10 09 08
For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Cengage Learning Academic Resource Center, 1-800-423-0563
For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions
Further permissions questions can be emailed to
permissionrequest@cengage.com
For your course and learning solutions, visit academic.cengage.com
Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred
online store www.ichapters.com
9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 16 2/19/08 11:48:33 AM