Industrial Psychology: Goodness of fit? Fit for goodness?

Abstract

<strong>Orientation:</strong> This theoretical opinion-based paper represents a critical reflection on the relevance of industrial psychology.<p><strong>Research purpose:</strong> Against a historical-developmental background of the discipline, the inquiry questions its goodness of fit, that is its contribution to organisation and society.</p><p><strong>Motivation for the study:</strong> Regular introspection in the discipline ensures that it remains relevant in both science and practice. As such, such introspection calls for a meta-theoretical imperative, to ensure that industrial psychology is fully aware of how the theoretical models applied in the discipline influence people and the society that they form part of.</p><p><strong>Research design, approach and method:</strong> The question of industrial psychology’s potential fit for goodness that is broader than what is merely good for the organisation and its employees is explored with a view to enhancing its relevance. The exploration is conducted through the utilisation of theoretical argumentation in which industrial psychology is analysed in terms of contextual considerations that require the discipline to evaluate its real versus its potential contribution to society.</p><p><strong>Main findings:</strong> It is found that the fit is limited to its relevance for inwardly focused organisational behaviour due to its endorsement of the instrumental (strategic) motives of organisations that subscribe to an owner and/or shareholder agenda.</p><p><strong>Practical/managerial implications:</strong> In light of the main finding, industrial psychology’s potential fit for goodness is explored with a view to enhancing its relevance in an era of goodness. The creation of a scientific and practical interface between industrial psychology and business ethics is suggested to facilitate movement away from a descriptive approach.</p><p><strong>Contribution/value-add:</strong> The heuristics of reflection, reform, research and resources are suggested to facilitate movement towards a normative (multiple stakeholder) paradigm aimed at broad based goodness and sustainability.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article:</strong><br /> Van Vuuren, L.J. (2010). Industrial Psychology: Goodness of fit? Fit for goodness? <em>SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 36</em>(2), Art. #939, 16 pages, DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.939</p&gt

Measurement of Organisation-Professional Conflict in the industrial psychology profession

“…The professional objectives and standards of industrial psychologists may not necessarily be congruent with the organisational culture (Lefkowitz, 2003;Van Vuuren, 2006). Industrial psychologists focus primarily on ensuring that the interests of employees are accounted for in the organisational design and structures, whilst organisations primarily demand that new developments and initiatives ensure productivity and financial success (Lefkowitz, 2003).…”

“…As a second point, industrial psychologists are employed within organisations where they may fall prey to authoritarian managers (Lefkowitz, 2003;Van Vuuren, 2006). In stripping professionals of their autonomy and independence, industrial psychologists may be excluded from key decisions where they could have made significant and valuable contributions (Lefkowitz, 2003).…”

“…Employers establish how and where professionals make contributions and exercise influence, thus denying them exposure to information crucial for future decision making. A concern here is that industrial psychologists may be immersed in the organisational culture ('the way of doing things around here') in a subtle way (Van Vuuren, 2006). As such, they may not even be consciously aware of their conformance.…”

“…Kornhauser and Hughes (as cited in Lefkowitz, 2003) along with Van Vuuren (2006), note that similar to other professions, industrial psychologists serve and are required to balance the needs of multiple stakeholders. OPC becomes inevitable as the industrial psychologist is sometimes obliged to yield to the needs of one dominant stakeholder, which consequently negates or disregards the legitimate requirements of another stakeholder.…”

“…The phenomenon of OPC has been reported to exist within a wide range of professional fields, including the engineering, legal and accountancy fraternities as referred to previously. However, whether or not this phenomenon exists within the professional field of IP remains unexplored, and additionally the means of measuring the extent to which it is experienced also remains unexplored and conflicting views prevail (Kornhauser & Hughes in Lefkowitz, 2003;Van Vuuren, 2006).…”