Commentary on neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology

I welcome the paper on Neoliberal ideology in WOP as a valuable critique of Work and Organizational Psychology (WOP) encouraging practitioners and researchers to think carefully about what they are trying to achieve and how they make sense of the world of work.     

Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology

This paper explores the role of neoliberal ideology in workplace practices and in work and organizational psychology (WOP) research. It analyses how neoliberal ideology manifests in these two domains by using a prominent framework from the field of political theory to understand ideology through three different logics: political, social and fantasmatic logics. We explore the main neoliberal assumptions underlying existing practices in the workplace as well as in WOP research, how individuals are gripped by such practices, and how the status quo is maintained. The paper analyses how individuals in the contemporary workplace are henceforth influenced by neoliberalism, and how this is reflected in the practices and dominant paradigms within WOP. In particular, we focus on three ways neoliberalism affects workplaces and individual experiences of the workplace: through instrumentality, individualism and competition. The paper finishes with practical recommendations for researchers and practitioners alike on how to devote more attention to the, often implicit, role of neoliberal ideology in their work and research. The discussion elaborates on how alternative paradigms in the workplace can be developed which address the downsides of neoliberalism.     

Neglected perspectives in work and organizational psychology

In this editorial we suggest that work and organizational psychology has tended to overlook the insights to be gained from ‘alternative’ perspectives such as interpretivism, critical theory and postmodernism, in favour of a focus on more normative and positivist studies of organizational life. While paradigmatic conformity is argued by some to have the benefit of providing a coherent knowledge base, we argue that it may also lead to an overly restrictive viewpoint and constrained practices. In any case, such a focus may be partly a default option rather than a conscious choice, fostered by assumptions of what constitutes ‘good’ research which may not be appropriate to (and even discriminate against) other perspectives. As a consequence, this special section aims to illustrate the insights to be gained from adopting such ‘alternative’ perspectives on topics of contemporary interest to work and organizational psychologists, such as retention of women in the workforce, collaborative (cross‐agency) work, advanced technological change and stress at work.     

Academic perceptions of the research evidence base in work and organizational psychology: A European perspective

There has been a growing interest in evidence‐based management. A core component is a body of high‐quality research evidence to inform practice. Initial research with human resource managers in the United States and the Netherlands reveals only modest knowledge about a number of ‘widely documented’ research findings. However, it is unclear whether research experts would display any greater agreement about the research evidence. The present study addresses this issue by exploring levels of agreement about the quality of the research evidence base in work and organizational (W/O) psychology using a pan‐European sample of 75 senior academic W/O psychologists who completed two rounds of a study, first identifying core findings in the field of W/O psychology and then reporting levels of agreement about them. The results show that there were only seven of 24 core findings on which over 75% agreed that there was good‐quality evidence. The challenges of developing and utilizing an evidence‐based approach are discussed and it is concluded, in agreement with Briner and Rousseau (2011a), that there is some way to go before W/O psychologists can begin to feel confident about the quality of much of their research evidence.     

The interface of cognitive and industrial,work and organizational psychology

This special issue brings together a collection of papers that variously integrate, extend and/or test new theory and research lying at the boundaries of the cognitive sciences and the field of industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology. Over the last two decades, the IWO psychology field in general has witnessed a dramatic upsurge in the development and testing of theories of work‐related behaviour and the design of interventions with a cognitive emphasis. In the related areas of engineering psychology and ergonomics, for example, researchers have devoted considerable attention to an analysis of the nature and significance of employees' mental models of complex operating systems in terms of their impact on system performance while in the area of selection and assessment, attribution theory and other work from the field of social cognition have increasingly informed the analysis of personnel selection interviews. Cognitive theory and research have also been applied in an attempt to better understand the underlying bases of appraisers' judgments in the appraisal of performance. In the area of training and development, conventional approaches to the analysis, design, and evaluation of interventions are being augmented, and in some cases openly challenged, by the application of cognitive constructs, theories, and principles. Much recent theory and research relating to the topics of employee relations and motivation, organizational development and change, teamwork, leadership, organizational culture and climate, negotiation, group decision‐making, stress, and personality and individual differences has also been decidedly cognitive in emphasis. This essay provides a selective overview of these developments, both in order to place in context the other contributions to this volume and in order to reflect more generally on the state of theory and research lying at the IWO‐cognitive psychology interface.     

Assessing good qualitative research in the work psychology field: A response to the commentaries

This article is a response to three commentaries (Halbesleben, 2011; Hickson, 2011 & Locke, 2011) on ‘Assessing “good” qualitative research in the work psychology field: A narrative analysis’ (Cassell & Symon, 2011).     

Ideology in work and organizational psychology: the responsibility of the researcher

This is a rejoinder to the commentaries on our paper on neoliberalism in work and organizational psychology. In this rejoinder, we provide a summarized response to the commentaries, thereby highlighting three main points: (1) when, where and how does neoliberalism manifest in society and our work as Work and Organizational Psychologists, (2) what is our duty as work and organizational psychologists towards society and our own work, and (3) what do we recommend on the basis of the exchange with the commentators on our paper?     

社会心理学中的启动研究:范式与挑战

启动效应被严格界定为先前刺激对后续无关情境中的行为反应产生的无意识影响,而且启动对象应是某种认知表征或思维过程。启动研究最早源于认知心理学领域,后被用于社会心理学研究中,并逐渐发展出概念启动、心理定势启动和序列启动三大启动范式及诸多新技术。已有研究存在启动术语混淆和实验者效应等内外部效度问题,其中最大的争议为启动研究结果的可重复性问题。未来研究应致力于解决这些问题,并探讨启动的作用机制。     

Manifesto for the future of work and organizational psychology

This manifesto presents 10 recommendations for a sustainable future for the field of Work and Organizational Psychology. The manifesto is the result of an emerging movement around the Future of WOP (see www.futureofwop.com), which aims to bring together WOP-scholars committed to actively contribute to building a better future for our field. Our recommendations are intended to support both individuals and collectives to become actively engaged in co-creating the future of WOP together with us. Therefore, this manifesto is open and never “finished.” It should continuously evolve, based on an ongoing debate around our professional values and behavior. This manifesto is meant, first of all, for ourselves as an academic community. Furthermore, it is also important for managers, decision makers, and other stakeholders and interested parties, such as students, governments and organizations, as we envision what the future of WOP could look like, and it is only through our collective efforts that we will be able to realize a sustainable future for all of us.     

Bridging the divide in work and organizational psychology: evidence from practice

This study explores the extent to which work and organizational (W&O) psychology practitioners use evidence, how they apply it to the everyday contexts in which they work, and the types of barriers they encounter in so doing. It adopts a mixed methods approach involving the administration of a survey to a UK sample (N = 163) of W&O psychologists and a series of semi-structured interviews (N = 25) exploring in greater depth how evidence is applied in practice. Findings reveal that practitioners consult a wide range of different types of evidence which they employ at various stages of engagement with client organizations and that this evidence is pressed into service in the pursuit of solutions which are both acceptable from the client perspective and consistent with the scientific standards underpinning professional knowledge and expertise in W&O psychology. Barriers to evidence-use were mainly practical in nature, concerning issues around managing the client–consultant relationship and the particularities of implementation context, both of which were shown to influence evidence utilization. The study contributes to current debate on the extent to which W&O psychologists adopt an evidence-based approach and provides a valuable and much called-for empirical insight into the enactment of the scientist–practitioner model in W&O psychology.     

The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Lessons from feminist psychology

The dominant methodological approach in psychological research has involved the use of quantitative methods within a positivist framework. In this article we argue that both qualitative and quantitative methods have their strengths and limitations, depending on the research question under investigation. We examine some of the advantages of qualitative methods, paying particular attention to the value of such methods for feminist researchers. We challenge the positivist assumption that all research should be apolitical and value-free, arguing that the political context in which all research studies take place plays an important role in decisions about the appropriate research methods to use. Despite the value attached to qualitative methods by feminist researchers, there may be projects for which quantitative methods, or a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, are more suitable. We draw on examples from our research on the transition from school to the job market for young people, and a study of 16- to 19-year-old first time mothers to illustrate these points, examining the practical implications of our arguments for applied social psychology research.     

The story of this special issue on critical perspectives in work and organizational psychology

In this editorial, we tell the story of how the Special Issue on Critical Perspectives in Work and Organizational Psychology (CWOP) came about, how it fits within the broader agenda of building a critical community within Work and Organizational Psychology, and how future research and thought may be inspired by the collection of critical papers related to work and organizational psychology. We introduce the term “criticalizing” as a key concept in how the Special Issue was developed by the editorial team and the authors. Criticalizing moves beyond fixed static notions of “critical” scholarship toward a process of engaging in more fluid, expansive, and creative perspectives on the scholarship within work and organizational psychology. We illustrate how the set of papers within the Special Issue engages in such criticalizing of the field and offer new ways of thinking about and researching relevant topics in work and organizational psychology.     

Methods of materiality: participant observation and qualitative research in psychology

This article challenges the hegemonic status of “language” as the primary substance of qualitative research in psychology, whether through interviews or recordings of naturally occurring talk. It thereby questions the overt focus on analyzing linguistic “meaning.” Instead, it is suggested that researchers should start paying attention to the material world (consisting of both human bodies and material objects) and what it means for how people live their lives. It is argued that this can be done by incorporating the concept of material presence to capture embodied and material layers of existence, and the method of participant observation is suggested as a viable approach to achieve this end. An empirical example of how authority is produced in a parent-teacher conference, not only through language but also through material objects and embodied being, is then presented. The article concludes by suggesting practical guidelines for incorporating attention to materiality in qualitative research.     

Necessity (not just novelty) is the mother of invention: using creativity research to improve research in work and organizational psychology

In this essay, we discuss reasons that work and organizational psychology does not live up to its self-declared mission of being an applied science in the service of improving both people’s quality of working life and organizational effectiveness. We use fundamentals of research on creativity and innovation as a lens through which we can view problems and possible solutions to these problems. In particular, we stress that innovation entails not only new, but also useful insights, that innovation requires “rewarding failure”, and that innovation feeds off of team diversity. We provide suggestions for how the definition of theoretical and empirical contributions of research, reward systems, and collaboration practices could be changed to foster innovative research that helps people thrive at work.     

Assessing ‘good’ qualitative research in the work psychology field: A narrative analysis

This paper considers how work psychologists define ‘good’ qualitative research in the work psychology domain. In addressing the assessment of quality in work psychology research, we draw on 22 in‐depth interviews with work psychologists about their current practices and expectations around qualitative research. Using narrative analysis, the various plots and narratives that constitute how interviewees understand good qualitative research are identified. The implications of the use of these narratives for both how quality is understood and the use of qualitative research in this area are addressed. Drawing on Weick's concept of sensemaking as a theoretical framework, it is argued that the narratives identified enable the construction of a hegemonic understanding of what is good methodological practice within the work psychology discipline. The implications of this for the work psychology field and the methodological practices of work psychologists are considered.     

Conducting industrial and organizational psychological research: institutional review of research in work organizations

Although informed consent is a primary mechanism for ensuring the ethical treatment of human participants in research, both federal guidelines and American Psychological Association ethical standards recognize that exceptions to it are reasonable under certain conditions. However, agreement about what constitutes a reasonable exception to informed consent is sometimes lacking. We presented the same protocols to samples of respondents drawn from 4 populations: Institutional review board (IRB) members, managers, employees, and university faculty who were not members of IRBs. Differences in perceptions of IRB members from the other samples with respect to the risks of the protocols without informed consent and on the feasibility of conducting the research in employment organizations are discussed in terms of implications for industrial and organizational psychology research.     

Making sense of ourselves: self-narratives and personal identity

Some philosophers take personal identity to be a matter of self-narrative. I argue, to the contrary, that self-narrative views cannot stand alone as views of personal (or numerical) identity. First, I consider Dennett’s self-narrative view, according to which selves are fictional characters—abstractions, like centers of gravity—generated by brains. Neural activity is to be interpreted from the intentional stance as producing a story. I argue that this is implausible. The inadequacy is masked by Dennett’s ambiguous use of ‘us’: sometimes ‘us’ refers to real human beings, and sometimes ‘us’ refers to selves or fictional characters. Second, I consider Schechtmann’s view that self-narratives create persons (in the sense that she calls ‘characterization’ or personality. I argue that the sense in which a self-narrative creates a person cannot stand on its own: a person must already exist (in the sense of numerical identity) in order for there to be a self-narrative. Finally, I offer my own account of persons.