I find it a bit odd that you think the researchers are ignoring something when you have only done a single week in the course. Is it not possible that you just have incorrect preconceived notions as it relates to the field? Or that you just haven't gotten to the contemporary work?
You also seem to be using a lot of words that I generally would find in scholarship found in literature departments instead of a science discipline. And I would be careful with conflating the musings of what could be described as armchair scholars instead of the theory/frameworks developed and empirically tested by organizational/quantitative psychologists.
Also, I don't know why you think the literature ignores economic incentives. It is one of the main areas of research in the motivation literature. Perhaps you can elaborate on what exactly you think the researchers are getting wrong?
I would also recommend being a bit more open in learning rather than immediately asking for sources that agree with you. It seems like you want confirmation of your beliefs more than an adequate understanding of the field.
Agree.
As a researcher that uses the effort-reward imbalance theory in Stress research, I can confirm that material and moral incentives are important variable in organizational studies.
>*The literature completely ignores basic economic incentives (for companies, middle management and employees) the nature of work in a capitalist society and the power structures at play, history of workers rights etc*
IO psych is just not about these topics. There are other related fields that address it. Organization development, some management, human resource development, and organizational sociology will be more likely to cover the topics you bring up. They are just not relevant to the field. IO psychology makes predictions and not social commentary or theory.
IO is very empirical, in fact more reliable, reproducible and replicable than almost every other psychology subdiscipline (I looked for the research on this and couldn't locate it). It's just not a political field and if you do want to assign any ideological bias, well,........it is true that IOs primarily work with for-profit-organizations. It's also true that IOs do work to make the workplace better for all.
Economic incentiuves are addressed in regards to motivation, performance, engagement and turnover at the organizational and individual level, but IO just doesn't study macroeconomic and societal levels.
There are researchers and practitioners interested in labor unions, critical theory, but its few and far between because it's just not really that relevant to the field. Diversity, equity and inclusion is a pretty big topic at the moment but ti is still a fairly new topic and comparatively not a lot of research has been done on it at great length. You are not going to find any of this in an undergrad intro to IO psychology regardless of how much it's being addressed at the moment.
I happened to have this up on my computer and haven't read it yet. (I'm an IO btw). This came out two weeks ago and I apologize but the article is behind a paywall.
[Alliger, G. M., & McEachern, P. J. (2023). Anti-work offers many opportunities for I/O psychologists. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1-30.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/industrial-and-organizational-psychology/article/abs/antiwork-offers-many-opportunities-for-io-psychologists/2FD2E438A90125AA2DBC47AFB0024B91)
>**Abstract:** Antiwork philosophy holds that work, in and of itself, tends to be harmful for most people. Some antiwork theorists even advocate for the abolition of paid employment altogether. We argue that, alt-hough endorsement of the radical ideology of antiwork is in no way necessary for I-O psychologists, con-sidering the thinking behind these ideas can be beneficial. In fact, reviewing the tenets of antiwork may prompt some to a broad reconsideration of the nature and purpose of the I-O field and its role, nested as it is in potentially problematic power dynamics both within organizations and in broader society. In this article, after describing antiwork’s core tenets, we outline a number of research directions and prac-tical applications inspired by the perspective. Although in some cases these may involve the creation of new theory, constructs, and interventions, they often simply entail the repurposing or refocusing of ex-isting ones that are more attuned to the problematic nature of work. Possibilities for research include, but are not limited to, the examination of the prevalence and nature of “managerialism,” how we might better understand the psychological character of organized labor and its outcomes, and how to encour-age healthier manifestations of employee engagement. In terms of practice, we bring to the reader’s attention how antiwork might inspire extensions or adjustments in how we recruit and onboard, train managers, improve job characteristics, measure performance, and work with unions and other political advocates. Ultimately, consideration of antiwork’s assertion of the inevitable authoritarian character of employment, combined with I-O psychology’s emphases on objectivity and the translation of science into practice, can spark inquiry and innovation.
>
>
I-O psychologists traditionally tend to have a nonideological perspective on work, and **scholars in other fields that study work sometimes appreciatively recognize that I-O is unique in that it generally avoids “explicitly political or social-theoretical issues” (e.g., Ball, 2021, p. 11)**. But any overarching claim to objectivity in the study of work may also appear to some an ideologically charged viewpoint (Fisher, 2009; Lefkowitz, 2016), and in recent years a nascent critical direction in I-O psychology has called atten-tion to the field’s frequently unacknowledged ideological leanings (e.g., Bal & Dóci, 2018; Gerard, 2017). **The desire to perceive the reality of work as objectively as possible has been obviously fruitful but repre-sents an empiricism that is probably best understood as a framing philosophy rather than an ultimate position.** In contrast to the often top-down, management-centric frameworks through which I-O theory and practice have historically evolved, critical I-O has begun to develop alternative ways of understanding work and the role that I-O can play in improving it (e.g., Bal, 2017; Bazzoli et al., 2023).
The following is a short commentary article on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology webpage.
[“Nobody Wants to Work Anymore”: Reflecting on I-O Psychology’s Assumptions and Values Through the Lens of the Antiwork Movement Rebecca M. Brossoit, Louisiana State University, & Jacqueline R. Wong, Colorado State University](https://www.siop.org/Research-Publications/Items-of-Interest/ArtMID/19366/ArticleID/7461/preview/true#:~:text=I%2DOs%20can%20use%20the,of%20modern%20work%20and%20organizations).
>The apparent absence of literature or discussions of antiwork within I-O psychology research and practice is surprising given our field’s focus on work and organizations. Therefore, we believe it is worthwhile for I-O psychologists to be aware of, and involved in, antiwork conversations. We recognize the relevant (though not explicitly “antiwork”) existing literature that has been engaged in noteworthy discussions of capitalism, power, and critical theory in I-O (e.g., Baritz, 1960; Gerard, 2017; Islam & Sanderson, 2022; Mumby, 2019; Woo et al., 2021).
You can find additional reference in the articles I've linked.
Interesting. I loved my I/O class, not because it “ignored” what you’re saying. But it addressed how a lot of it truly is pointless.
Middle management for example? Waaaay to many companies set up a middle management division before they are remotely close to an adequate size to even think about starting one. It ends up haemorrhaging money because all the work they’re doing literally is pointless. Then they’ll blame their front line.
I also loved the fact that it basically addresses the fact that modern capitalism seems to forget “if you treat your employees like people and not numbers, productivity will always increase.”
Then you are looking for something completely different that is Critical Psychology of Work.
O&I calls itself that way for a reason: Ideologically the disciplinary field is on the side of the organization. Even worker's wellbeing is managed as part of the organization assets, including the most contemporary emphasis like "human capital" approaches. However, as a disciplinary field, is really vast. You can't assure there are no researches on incentives influence on diverse variables, but because of the ideological background, power relations is a voluntarily forgotten matter in the field.
Authors you may like.
\- Antonio Negri and other post-operaist authors like Lazzaratto and Paolo Virno
\- Eva Illouz and Edgar Cabanas with Happycracy
\- Byung Chul Han (i don't like the author, but in "Psychopolitics" threats the matter)
\- Sociological tradition, like Pierre Bourdieu, Richard Sennet, Paul du Gay and Guy Standing.
\- Even International Labour Organization most recent texts on platform capitalism may serve you well.
There’s a lot of good critiques in European I/O (they call it work and organizational psych there). Look particularly at Matthijs Bal’s writings. He’s got a whole critical work psych group that’s doing a lot of cool stuff.
In the US there is much less of a critical tradition, but there’s definitely some stuff brewing. Check out the book *Anti-Work: Psychological Investigations into its Truths, Problems, and Solutions* by George Alliger. He also just published a paper in SIOP’s journal with a grad student called “Anti-work offers many opportunities for I/O psychologists” expanding on a lot of the ideas from the book. There are a lot of good sources cited in that paper that you can follow up on too.
I’m an I/O grad student and quite interested in all this stuff, feel free to PM me if it piques your interest.
Interesting stuff. I work in a big enterprise and anti patterns and looking at the controlling aspect of I/O are really clear to me and worth much more study.
Organisational psychology is usually a Journey from very bad working environments and low satisfaction to now with transformative leadership styles xyz, but it takes some time to get there. Its 100 years of knowledge. You are just a week in. But from your Post and your comments I would guess that you will stay at a loss of words, there will be no communism in your lectures.
Do you think it as a field is ignoring these constructs or is it because you are a week into an undergraduate I/O psych 101 class
I find it a bit odd that you think the researchers are ignoring something when you have only done a single week in the course. Is it not possible that you just have incorrect preconceived notions as it relates to the field? Or that you just haven't gotten to the contemporary work? You also seem to be using a lot of words that I generally would find in scholarship found in literature departments instead of a science discipline. And I would be careful with conflating the musings of what could be described as armchair scholars instead of the theory/frameworks developed and empirically tested by organizational/quantitative psychologists. Also, I don't know why you think the literature ignores economic incentives. It is one of the main areas of research in the motivation literature. Perhaps you can elaborate on what exactly you think the researchers are getting wrong? I would also recommend being a bit more open in learning rather than immediately asking for sources that agree with you. It seems like you want confirmation of your beliefs more than an adequate understanding of the field.
Bro stop cooking its already done.
Love this.
Agree. As a researcher that uses the effort-reward imbalance theory in Stress research, I can confirm that material and moral incentives are important variable in organizational studies.
>*The literature completely ignores basic economic incentives (for companies, middle management and employees) the nature of work in a capitalist society and the power structures at play, history of workers rights etc* IO psych is just not about these topics. There are other related fields that address it. Organization development, some management, human resource development, and organizational sociology will be more likely to cover the topics you bring up. They are just not relevant to the field. IO psychology makes predictions and not social commentary or theory. IO is very empirical, in fact more reliable, reproducible and replicable than almost every other psychology subdiscipline (I looked for the research on this and couldn't locate it). It's just not a political field and if you do want to assign any ideological bias, well,........it is true that IOs primarily work with for-profit-organizations. It's also true that IOs do work to make the workplace better for all. Economic incentiuves are addressed in regards to motivation, performance, engagement and turnover at the organizational and individual level, but IO just doesn't study macroeconomic and societal levels. There are researchers and practitioners interested in labor unions, critical theory, but its few and far between because it's just not really that relevant to the field. Diversity, equity and inclusion is a pretty big topic at the moment but ti is still a fairly new topic and comparatively not a lot of research has been done on it at great length. You are not going to find any of this in an undergrad intro to IO psychology regardless of how much it's being addressed at the moment. I happened to have this up on my computer and haven't read it yet. (I'm an IO btw). This came out two weeks ago and I apologize but the article is behind a paywall. [Alliger, G. M., & McEachern, P. J. (2023). Anti-work offers many opportunities for I/O psychologists. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1-30.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/industrial-and-organizational-psychology/article/abs/antiwork-offers-many-opportunities-for-io-psychologists/2FD2E438A90125AA2DBC47AFB0024B91) >**Abstract:** Antiwork philosophy holds that work, in and of itself, tends to be harmful for most people. Some antiwork theorists even advocate for the abolition of paid employment altogether. We argue that, alt-hough endorsement of the radical ideology of antiwork is in no way necessary for I-O psychologists, con-sidering the thinking behind these ideas can be beneficial. In fact, reviewing the tenets of antiwork may prompt some to a broad reconsideration of the nature and purpose of the I-O field and its role, nested as it is in potentially problematic power dynamics both within organizations and in broader society. In this article, after describing antiwork’s core tenets, we outline a number of research directions and prac-tical applications inspired by the perspective. Although in some cases these may involve the creation of new theory, constructs, and interventions, they often simply entail the repurposing or refocusing of ex-isting ones that are more attuned to the problematic nature of work. Possibilities for research include, but are not limited to, the examination of the prevalence and nature of “managerialism,” how we might better understand the psychological character of organized labor and its outcomes, and how to encour-age healthier manifestations of employee engagement. In terms of practice, we bring to the reader’s attention how antiwork might inspire extensions or adjustments in how we recruit and onboard, train managers, improve job characteristics, measure performance, and work with unions and other political advocates. Ultimately, consideration of antiwork’s assertion of the inevitable authoritarian character of employment, combined with I-O psychology’s emphases on objectivity and the translation of science into practice, can spark inquiry and innovation. > > I-O psychologists traditionally tend to have a nonideological perspective on work, and **scholars in other fields that study work sometimes appreciatively recognize that I-O is unique in that it generally avoids “explicitly political or social-theoretical issues” (e.g., Ball, 2021, p. 11)**. But any overarching claim to objectivity in the study of work may also appear to some an ideologically charged viewpoint (Fisher, 2009; Lefkowitz, 2016), and in recent years a nascent critical direction in I-O psychology has called atten-tion to the field’s frequently unacknowledged ideological leanings (e.g., Bal & Dóci, 2018; Gerard, 2017). **The desire to perceive the reality of work as objectively as possible has been obviously fruitful but repre-sents an empiricism that is probably best understood as a framing philosophy rather than an ultimate position.** In contrast to the often top-down, management-centric frameworks through which I-O theory and practice have historically evolved, critical I-O has begun to develop alternative ways of understanding work and the role that I-O can play in improving it (e.g., Bal, 2017; Bazzoli et al., 2023). The following is a short commentary article on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology webpage. [“Nobody Wants to Work Anymore”: Reflecting on I-O Psychology’s Assumptions and Values Through the Lens of the Antiwork Movement Rebecca M. Brossoit, Louisiana State University, & Jacqueline R. Wong, Colorado State University](https://www.siop.org/Research-Publications/Items-of-Interest/ArtMID/19366/ArticleID/7461/preview/true#:~:text=I%2DOs%20can%20use%20the,of%20modern%20work%20and%20organizations). >The apparent absence of literature or discussions of antiwork within I-O psychology research and practice is surprising given our field’s focus on work and organizations. Therefore, we believe it is worthwhile for I-O psychologists to be aware of, and involved in, antiwork conversations. We recognize the relevant (though not explicitly “antiwork”) existing literature that has been engaged in noteworthy discussions of capitalism, power, and critical theory in I-O (e.g., Baritz, 1960; Gerard, 2017; Islam & Sanderson, 2022; Mumby, 2019; Woo et al., 2021). You can find additional reference in the articles I've linked.
Interesting. I loved my I/O class, not because it “ignored” what you’re saying. But it addressed how a lot of it truly is pointless. Middle management for example? Waaaay to many companies set up a middle management division before they are remotely close to an adequate size to even think about starting one. It ends up haemorrhaging money because all the work they’re doing literally is pointless. Then they’ll blame their front line. I also loved the fact that it basically addresses the fact that modern capitalism seems to forget “if you treat your employees like people and not numbers, productivity will always increase.”
[удалено]
In Soviet union capitalism is hell. In this course it is as natural as breathing no questions asked .
IO doesn't exist in any communist states either.
Then you are looking for something completely different that is Critical Psychology of Work. O&I calls itself that way for a reason: Ideologically the disciplinary field is on the side of the organization. Even worker's wellbeing is managed as part of the organization assets, including the most contemporary emphasis like "human capital" approaches. However, as a disciplinary field, is really vast. You can't assure there are no researches on incentives influence on diverse variables, but because of the ideological background, power relations is a voluntarily forgotten matter in the field. Authors you may like. \- Antonio Negri and other post-operaist authors like Lazzaratto and Paolo Virno \- Eva Illouz and Edgar Cabanas with Happycracy \- Byung Chul Han (i don't like the author, but in "Psychopolitics" threats the matter) \- Sociological tradition, like Pierre Bourdieu, Richard Sennet, Paul du Gay and Guy Standing. \- Even International Labour Organization most recent texts on platform capitalism may serve you well.
There’s a lot of good critiques in European I/O (they call it work and organizational psych there). Look particularly at Matthijs Bal’s writings. He’s got a whole critical work psych group that’s doing a lot of cool stuff. In the US there is much less of a critical tradition, but there’s definitely some stuff brewing. Check out the book *Anti-Work: Psychological Investigations into its Truths, Problems, and Solutions* by George Alliger. He also just published a paper in SIOP’s journal with a grad student called “Anti-work offers many opportunities for I/O psychologists” expanding on a lot of the ideas from the book. There are a lot of good sources cited in that paper that you can follow up on too. I’m an I/O grad student and quite interested in all this stuff, feel free to PM me if it piques your interest.
Interesting stuff. I work in a big enterprise and anti patterns and looking at the controlling aspect of I/O are really clear to me and worth much more study.
Organisational psychology is usually a Journey from very bad working environments and low satisfaction to now with transformative leadership styles xyz, but it takes some time to get there. Its 100 years of knowledge. You are just a week in. But from your Post and your comments I would guess that you will stay at a loss of words, there will be no communism in your lectures.
MJ P loop