From Handmaidens to POSH Humanitarians: The Case for Making Human Capabilities the Business of I-O Psychology

Abstract

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology has begun to shed its reputation as a handmaiden to corporate and managerial interests, in part, through its engagement with humanitarian concerns. However, as highlighted by recent commentary, I-O psychology still has a decidedly POSH perspective on the world; that is, it has focused on Professionals who hold Official jobs in a formal economy and who enjoy relative Safety from discrimination while also living in High-income countries. This POSH perspective reflects an underlying bias away from people living in multidimensional poverty. We empirically illustrate some of the connections between a POSH perspective and poverty by reviewing 100 years of research in I-O psychology, and then we make a case for why a neglect of people living in poverty undermines the discipline's science, its practice, and its humanist charge. As moral justification for greater engagement with humanitarian concerns and as a guide to navigate the difficult ethical quandaries involved in doing so, we suggest that I-O psychologists should consider the capability approach. We discuss the concept of human capabilities, relate it to I-O psychology, and demonstrate its utility in the form of three hypothetical scenarios. Perhaps our most controversial claim is that there is a moral imperative for I-O psychology to overrepresent people living in the deepest forms of poverty in both its science and practice.

Still Too POSH to Push for Structural Change? The Need for a Macropsychology Perspective

“…Although one could argue with particulars of the POSH analogy, the empirical operationalization of global data, or the interpretation of their case studies, their general point of a narrow focus of I-O psychology, and the value of it reorientation, is well made and heartening. This commentary, however, argues that Sen's capabilities approach-which Gloss et al (2017) advocate to be embraced by I-O psychology-is overly individualistic and does not address more fundamental structural and power inequalities, which need to be addressed through the development of a macro perspective, if Gloss et al's ambitions are to be realized.…”

“…us in their description of the primary focus of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology on "Professional, Official, Secure, and High income" work. Gloss et al (2017) call for the charting of new compass points for I-O psychology; theirs is a search for the heart and soul of the discipline-an appeal to turn its bounty of skills and knowledge to address inequity, to serve the impoverish, the marginalized, the exploited-and in so doing, to promote organizational and social justice. Their focal article deserves to be a focus for much reflection and debate within I-O psychology as well as cognate disciplines.…”

“…Without doing so, I-O psychology may successfully focus on the proximate symptoms of injustice while eschewing their ultimate causes. Such a response could make I-O psychology unwittingly complicit in their perpetuation, treating symptoms not causes, or even worse, and contrary to Gloss et al's (2017) intentions, further marginalizing vulnerable groups.…”

“…Surely this is the stuff of I-O psychology too! The ethos advocated by Gloss et al (2017), although necessary and very welcome, is not in itself sufficient to achieve their aims. I-O psychology has much to offer in terms of challenging and changing the social structures and power relations that promote poverty and injustice.…”

Workers in Poverty: An Insight Into Informal Workers Around the World

“…Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business,16(1) Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) present compelling arguments on a moral/humanistic need for I-O psychologists to consider workers that are living and working in deep poverty. Their case nicely shifts focus to large percentages of global workers who heretofore have only been represented minimally in the scholarly discourse in our field.…”