We wholeheartedly agree with Miner et al. (2018) that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists should take a lead in addressing gender inequity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The focal article is particularly timely in light of the recent controversial “Google memo” (Damore, 2017), in which a senior software engineer endorsed the same individual-level myths regarding the gender gap in STEM that were critiqued by Miner et al. (2018). However, we caution against painting all STEM fields with the same broad brush. We argue that it is critical for I-O psychologists to be aware of important differences between STEM subfields, as these distinctions suggest that a “one-size-fits-all” approach may be inadequate for addressing existing gender disparities in STEM. In order to be maximally effective, interventions may need to emphasize distinct issues and target different points in the career pipeline depending on the specific STEM subfield in question.
Most of the work examining the relationship between intelligence and job performance has conceptualized intelligence as g. Recent findings, however, have supported the claim that more specific factors of intelligence contribute to the prediction of job performance. The present study builds upon prior work on specific cognitive abilities by investigating the relationship between ability tilt, a measure representing differential strength between two specific abilities, and job performance. It was hypothesized that ability tilt would differentially relate to job performance based on whether or not the tilt matched the ability requirements of the job, and that ability tilt would provide incremental validity over g and specific abilities for predicting performance when the tilt matched job requirements. Hypotheses were tested using a large sample from the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) database. Ability tilt related with job performance in the expected direction for 27 of the 36 tilt-job combinations examined, with a mean effect size of .04 when the tilt matched job requirements. The mean incremental validities for ability tilt were .007 over g and .003 over g and specific abilities, and, on average, tilt explained 7.1% of the total variance in job performance. The results provide limited evidence that ability tilt may be a useful predictor in addition to ability level, and contribute to our understanding of the role of specific abilities in the workplace.
Kath et al. (2021) invite industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to refresh their teaching practices in accordance with the science of the discipline, and I believe they offer creative and practical suggestions for doing so. As these authors note, a compelling reason for such change is that the students we engage in the classroom (or, these days, on Zoom) represent the future of our field and/or the business leaders to come. Undoubtedly our teaching would be improved by implementing Kath et al.'s evidence-based suggestions. However, I argue that the authors do not go quite far enough in their recommendations for change. The events of 2020 have exposed major issues within our systems of work. A global pandemic has widened existing social and economic divisions throughout our societies. The killing of numerous Black Americans has shown that racism continues to threaten the well-being of many in the United States and around the world. If we want to push I-O psychology forward, help our field tackle the most pressing problems faced by organizations and society, and equip our students to be "more effective workers and more healthy/happy at work" (Kath et al., p. X), we need to champion a larger and more normative vision of I-O psychology. We need to expand the way that we teach I-O psychology to encompass humanistic values. One of Kath et al.'s (2021) useful themes is the need for us to reflect on "what is your course all about?" Even more important would be reflection on "what is I-O psychology all about?" (or, what it should be about). Let me suggest this as a starting point for innovation in the teaching of I-O psychology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.