This chapter is a nascent effort to describe the zeitgeist or social‐historical context of industrial‐organizational psychology by identifying various dynamic influences that shaped the rise of the discipline during the past 100 years in the United States. Significant developments and persons were examined within the overall social, cultural and political contexts of the times to answer the question, “ Why were psychologists studying behavior in work settings and applying psychology to improve the workplace?” The first section encapsulates I‐O psychology's growth: industrial‐organizational psychology shifted from a simple, narrowly defined technical field focused on individual issues for accomplishing organizational objectives to a complex, broad scientific and applied discipline emphasizing individual and organizational issues for achieving both individual and organizational goals. The second section describes the dynamic forces that shaped I‐O psychology and reveals that the discipline's evolution was the result of confluences of several external (socioeconomic, business, legal, military, technology, psychology) and internal forces (individuals, theories, and applications). These forces, along with other influences (e.g., interdisciplinary fields), interacted in shaping both the science and practice of industrial‐organizational psychology. The history presented in this chapter is not intended to be a comprehensive description of industrial‐organizational psychology content or a duplication of historical accounts previously written.

As noted in the articles throughout this special issue, researchers consistently demonstrate the value and benefit of addressing work-life issues in the workplace. What can psychologist-managers do to create a work environment where employees believe they are valued as whole individuals who contribute to work and also have lives outside of work? How do organizations foster a culture and climate supportive of work-life effectiveness? The purpose of this paper is to provide a practical approach for developing strategies and solutions that will help organizations embrace a work-life culture. The phases of the approach evolved from synthesizing best practices with actual experiences in assisting organizations transform their cultures to be great places to work. One particular case example is used to illustrate the phases, which can stimulate discussions about implementing a process for building a work-life culture in other organizations.One day while I was working as director of work-life, a manager called me to share her success in helping an employee achieve work-life effectiveness. The manager, Sarah, had attended a workshop titled "Why Work-Life Matters to Managers/Supervisors." This workshop is designed to help managers/supervisors understand organizational, departmental, and individual strategies and solutions for effectively managing work and life responsibilities. Sarah's story was about her top-performing employee Tom. She noticed a recent change in Tom's behaviors including increased tardiness and frequent use of sick leave. Sarah also noticed occasional mistakes and lack of focus, highly unusual for Tom. She admitted that prior to attending the workshop, she would have assumed Tom developed a bad attitude, did not care about his job, and became lazy. Before Correspondence should be sent to Laura L. Koppes, Chair,

The understanding of psychology is one of the most important roads to success for the modem business man. Industrial and commercial work are in thousandfold contact with mental life. Salesmanship and advertising, learning and training for technical labor , choosing the right position and selecting the right employe, greatest efficiency of work and avoidance of fatigue, treatment of customers and of partners, securing the most favorable conditions for work and adapting the work to one's liking, and ever so many other problems stand b efore the business world and cannot be answered bu t by psychology (Miinsterberg, 1918, p. v).The above quotation by Hugo Miinsterberg is typical of the ambition and confidence (some migh t say overconfidence) of at least some of the founders of industrial-organizational (110) psychology. Although the results of more than 100 years of applying psychology to organizations have caused us to be a bit more humble and circumspect in our pronouncements, it is true that the science and practice of I/0 psychology have made a fair am ount of progress in dealing with Miinsterberg's concerns. The field has had an in teresting and eventful history. As I/0 psychology has expanded and matured, we have seen an increased interest in this history. This is most welcome, as it is our belief that knowledge and appreciation of history is essential fo r deep understanding. Tracing the evolution of ideas in substantive areas of 1/0 psychology and examining the litany of insights, incremental progress, and missteps that resulted in the current state of the field can lead to a richer appreciation and understanding for researchers and practition ers alike.Previous historical overviews of I/0 psychology vary in emphasis, orientation, and detail. Examples include Ferguson (1962)(1963)(1964)(1965),1 who built his history around the Carnegie Institute of Technology's (CIT's) Division of Applied Psychology. Baritz (1960), although critical of industrial psychology's close ties with management, provided a great deal of information about early industrial psychology, as did Napoli (1981) in his history of the psychological profession. A chapter by Hilgard (1987) concentrated on the history of I/0 psychology in the United States; Warr (2007) provided an overview of the development of I/0 ou tside of the United States; and McCollom (1968) and Viteles (1932) gave summaries of the early years of the field both inside and outside of America. Katzell and Austin (1992) offered a contextual approach to American 1/0 psychology history, as did Koppes (2003). A recent book edited by Koppes (2007) took a topical approach to I/0 history. Many other excellent histories of 1/0 psychology have focused on specific conten t areas, individuals, or time We thank Bianca Falbo, Shelly Zedeck, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. All errors are our own. 1 Leonard W. Ferguson completed a series of pamphlets ~overi n g 14 chapters (one volume and part of another) of a planned 12-volume history of industrial psychology centere...

American female psychologists who contributed to the development of industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology during the early years are presented. An overview of the education, scholarship, practice, and professional service activities is provided for 4 pioneers (Marion Almira Bills, Elsie Oschrin Bregman, Lillian Moller Gilbreth, and Mary Holmes Stevens Hayes). These early female I/O psychologists blended research, applications of psychology, and service in ways that prefigure current science and practice within the field. Incorporating women into the history of I/O psychology is imperative to the attainment of a more complete understanding of the past and a fuller comprehension of the present. In addition, lessons for current and future I/O psychologists are ascertained from the accomplishments of these pioneers.However carefully the present is studied and however refined the techniques of analysis, the present is not fully comprehended if the past is ignored or distorted. (Gutman, 1977, p. 259) This article presents female psychologists who contributed through scholarship, practice, and service to the discipline of industrial psychology (now known as industrial and organizational [I/O] psychology) during its developmental years . Changes in society, generally, and in psychology, particularly, combined with opportunistic approaches and individual characteristics (e.g., intelligence, assertiveness, perserverance) empowered these individuals to research and practice I/O psychology. Their accomplishments illustrate the modern idea of the scientist-practitioner model; they used scientifically rigorous methods to conduct research in applied settings and upheld scientific integrity when implementing the results of

No abstract