|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 42: |
Line 42: |
| | Some time Hunting with arrow is little bit dluficfit, use Riffle for Buck Hunting. I dont know who hunt this buck but the photo is awsome!! Posted by: James | | Some time Hunting with arrow is little bit dluficfit, use Riffle for Buck Hunting. I dont know who hunt this buck but the photo is awsome!! Posted by: James |
| | | | |
| − | ==Topics in industrial-organizational psychology==
| + | 2011 isn't living up to its music extcipateons, that's for sure. Instead of discovering natural talent, they spouted out Rebecca Black and Cody Simpson, and other kids who are in it for the fame, not the music. Right now, to me, the best band is Paramore and best singer Bruno Mars. |
| − | ===Job analysis===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Job analysis}}
| + | |
| − | Job analysis is often described as the cornerstone of successful employee selection efforts and performance management initiatives. A job analysis involves the systematic collection of information about a job. Job-analytic methods are often described as belonging to one of two approaches. One approach, the task-oriented job analysis, involves an examination of the duties, tasks, and/or competencies required by a job. The second approach, a worker-oriented job analysis, involves an examination of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required to successfully perform the work. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Various adaptations of job-analytic methods include competency modeling, which examines large groups of duties and tasks related to a common goal or process, and practice analysis, which examines the way work is performed in an occupation across jobs.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Job-analytic data are often collected using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods. The information obtained from a job analysis is then used to create job-relevant selection procedures, performance appraisals and criteria, or training programs. Additional uses of job-analytic information include job evaluations for the purpose of determining compensation levels and job redesign.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Check out O*NET (Occupational Network) at [online.onetcenter.org/]It contains exitsneve information on nearly every single occupation there is. Definitely a good resource for this question.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Performance appraisal/management===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Performance appraisal}}
| + | |
| − | [[Performance appraisal]] or [[performance evaluation]] is the process of measuring an individual's work behaviors and outcomes against the expectations of the job. Performance appraisal is frequently used in promotion and compensation decisions, to help design and validate personnel selection procedures, and for [[performance management]]. Performance management is the process of providing performance feedback relative to expectations and improvement information (e.g., coaching, mentoring). Performance management may also include documenting and tracking performance information for organization-level evaluation purposes.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | An I-O psychologist would typically use information from the job analysis to determine a job's performance dimensions, and then construct a rating scale to describe each level of performance for the job. Often, the I-O psychologist would be responsible for training organizational personnel how to use the performance appraisal instrument, including ways to minimize bias when using the rating scale, and how to provide effective performance feedback. Additionally, the I-O psychologist may consult with the organization on ways to use the performance appraisal information for broader performance management initiatives.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Individual assessment and psychometrics===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Psychometrics}}
| + | |
| − | Individual assessment involves the measurement of [[individual differences]]. I-O psychologists perform individual assessments in order to evaluate differences among candidates for employment as well as differences among employees. The constructs measured pertain to job performance. With candidates for employment, individual assessment is often part of the personnel selection process. These assessments can include written tests, physical tests, psychomotor tests, personality tests, work samples, and assessment centers.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Psychometrics]] is the science of measuring psychological variables, such as knowledge, skills, and abilities. I-O psychologists are generally well-trained in psychometric psychology.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Remuneration and compensation===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Remuneration}}
| + | |
| − | Compensation includes wages or salary, bonuses, pension/retirement contributions, and [[perquisites]] that can be converted to cash or replace living expenses. I-O psychologists may be asked to conduct a [[job evaluation]] for the purpose of determining compensation levels and ranges. I-O psychologists may also serve as expert witnesses in pay discrimination cases when disparities in pay for similar work are alleged.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Dear Sam,I believe you sohlud just jump into a job and get some real interactive marketing training!Are you working in the field now?I can give you a little coaching, if you are interested just reply here I will get back with you.Diane
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Motivation in the workplace===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Motivation}}
| + | |
| − | Understanding what motivates an organization’s employees is central to the study of I/O Psychology. A number of various theories and topics define employee motivation within the discipline of I/O Psychology: Motives and Needs, Work Design, Expectancy Theory, Equity Theory, Goal-Setting, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Reinforcement Theory, Creativity, Groups, and Culture.<ref name="Ambrose">Ambrose, M., & Kulik, C. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Motives & Needs====
| + | |
| − | Most recently, research in motives and needs in I/O Psychology has concentrated on two areas: Job attributes and Need for Achievement.<ref name="Ambrose"/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | =====Job attributes=====
| + | |
| − | It is impossible to discuss motivation and job attributes in I/O Psychology without crediting Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory (also referred to as Herzberg’s 2-Factor Model). As the first job-based theory, Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory argued the content of a person’s job was the primary source of motivation. In other words, he argued money was not the most effective form of motivation to an employee. Essentially, Herzberg argued high levels of hygiene factors (pay, job security, status, working conditions, fringe benefits, job policies, and relations with co-workers) could only reduce employee dissatisfaction (not create satisfaction). Motivation factors (level of challenge, the work itself, responsibility, recognition, advancement, intrinsic interest, and opportunities for creativity) however, could stimulate satisfaction within the employee.<ref name="jex"/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Shortly after Herzberg’s 2-Factor Model, Hackman and Oldham contributed their own, more refined, job-based theory; Job Characteristics Theory. JCT attempts to define the association between core job dimensions, the critical psychological states that occur as a result of these dimensions, the affective outcomes, and growth need strength. Core job dimensions are the characteristics of a person’s job. The core job dimensions are linked directly to the critical psychological states. According to JCT, an organization that provides sufficient levels of skill variety, task identity, and task significance to its employees will in turn deliver experienced meaningfulness. Sufficient levels of autonomy will inspire felt responsibility for the employee, and proper feedback will provide the employee with knowledge of results. The combined effect of these psychological states results in a desired affected outcome: Internal motivation, job satisfaction, performance quality, low absenteeism, and low turnover rate.<ref name="jex"/> Lastly, the glue of this theory is the “growth need strength” factor which ultimately determines the effectiveness of the core job dimensions on the psychological states, and likewise the effectiveness of the critical psychological states on the affective outcomes.<ref name="Wright">Wright, P. M. (1992). An examination of the relationships among monetary incentives, goal level, goal commitment, and performance. Journal of Management, 18, 677-693.</ref> Further analysis of Job Characteristics Theory can be found in the Work Design section below.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | =====Need for Achievement=====
| + | |
| − | Atkinson & McClelland’s Need for Achievement Theory is the most relevant and applicable need based theory in the I/O Psychologist’s arsenal. Unlike other need-based theories which try to interpret every need, Need for Achievement allows the I/O psychologist to concentrate research into a tighter focus. Studies show those who have a high need for achievement prefer moderate levels of risk, seek feedback, and are likely to immerse themselves in their work.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Achievement motivation can be broken down into three types: Achievement; seeks position advancement, feedback, and sense of accomplishment, Authority; need to lead, make an impact and be heard by others, and Affiliation; need for friendly social interactions and to be liked. Because most individuals have a combination of these three types (in various proportions), an understanding of these achievement motivation characteristics can be useful to management in job placement, recruitment, etc.<ref>McClelland, D. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Work Design ====
| + | |
| − | Job based theories of motivation in Organizational Psychology rely on the proposition that the content of one’s job is the most significant source of motivation. Based on that assumption, several approaches to work design have been researched and applied, including Hertzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory and Job Characteristics theory. Each theory has informed the evolution of work design approaches. The following work design approaches to motivation illustrate this evolution: the Humanistic Approach which then led to the Job Characteristics Approach to job design.
| + | |
| − | ===== Humanistic Approach =====
| + | |
| − | The Humanistic Approach to job design was a reaction to the “worker dissatisfaction over Scientific Management” and focused on providing employees with more input and an opportunity to maximize their personal achievement as referenced by Jex and Britt.<ref name=jex />
| + | |
| − | The two approaches used in the Humanistic Approach to job design are job rotation and job enrichment. Job rotation allows employees to learn new skills and provides them with greater variety. According to Jex and Britt<ref name=jex /> this would be most effective for simple jobs that can become mundane and boring over time. Job enrichment is based on leveraging those aspects of jobs that are labeled motivators, such as control, intellectual challenge, and creativity. The most common form of job enrichment is vertical loading where additional tasks or discretion enhances the initial job design.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===== Job Characteristics Approach =====
| + | |
| − | The Job Characteristics Approach to job design relies on how core dimensions affect motivation. These dimensions include autonomy, variety, significance, feedback, and identity. Jex and Britt<ref name=jex /> highlight several interventions related to enhancing these core dimensions:
| + | |
| − | # Vertical Loading – similar to the intervention used in the Humanistic Job Enrichment approach. This intervention is designed to enhance autonomy, task identity, task significance, and skill variety.
| + | |
| − | # Task Combination – by combining tasks into larger units of work and responsibility, task identity may be enhanced.
| + | |
| − | # Natural Work Units – is a form of task combination that represents a logical body of work and responsibility that may enhance both task significance and task identity.
| + | |
| − | # Establishing Client Relationships – designs interactions between employees and customers, both internal and external to enhance task identify, feedback, and task significance by improving the visibility of beneficial effects on customers.
| + | |
| − | # Feedback – by designing open feedback channels this intervention attempts to increase the amount of feedback received.
| + | |
| − | In the same way that job based theories of motivation have evolved over time, the approach to designing work for motivating employees has evolved. The Humanistic Approach attempts to improve the effectiveness of motivation by focusing on design from the workers perspective, with an eye towards input and personal achievement. The Job Characteristics Approach attempts to enhance motivation by focusing on improving the core dimensions of autonomy, variety, significance, feedback, and identity.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Expectancy Theory ====
| + | |
| − | According to Vroom’s expectancy theory, an employee will expend additional effort if he believes "going above and beyond" will lead to valued rewards. Expectancy theory explains this increased output of effort by means of the equation F = E (Σ I x V), whereas:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | F (Effort or Motivational Force) = Effort the employee will expend to achieve the desired performance;
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | E (Expectancy) = Belief that effort will result in desired level of performance;
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I (Instrumentality) = Belief that desired level of performance will result in desired outcome;
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | V (Valence) = Value of the outcome to the employee.<ref name=jex />
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There are three key considerations in applying expectancy theory to the workplace:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Performance-Outcome Expectancy:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Employees believe that if they perform as desired by their employer, they will be rewarded with certain outcomes.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Outcome Attractiveness:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Each individual employee is motivated by different kinds of rewards. A precursor to motivation is that the employee finds the reward(s) attractive.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − |
| + | |
| − | Effort-Performance Expectancy:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The employee internally considers how likely it is that he will achieve the performance desired by the employer. In order for the employee to be motivated by the reward, the employee must believe that he is capable of achieving the desired performance.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Expectancy theory posits employee satisfaction to be an outcome of performance rather than the cause of performance. However, if a pattern is established whereas an employee understands his performance will lead to certain desired rewards, an employee’s motivation can be strengthened based on anticipation.<ref>Lawler, E. E. and Jenkins, G. D. (1992). Strategic reward systems. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., 1009-1055). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Pres</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Equity Theory ====
| + | |
| − | Equity theory provides a framework for understanding the dynamic give-and-take scenarios that play out between employee and employer. The theory examines the value proposition the employee forms when he considers the value that he provides to his employer relative to the value that his employer provides to him.<ref name="Pritchard">Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory. A review and critique. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 4(2), 176-211.</ref> In particular, equity theory research has tested employee sentiments regarding equitable compensation.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Employee inputs take the form of work volume and quality, performance, knowledge, skills, attributes and behaviors. The company-generated outcomes include rewards such as compensation, praise and advancement opportunities. The employee compares his inputs relative to outcomes, in effect forming a ratio of inputs to outcomes. Equity theory proposes that the employee will next compare his own inputs/outcomes ratio with what he believes to be the inputs/outcomes ratios of his peers so as to determine if he is being under-compensated, over-compensated or equitably compensated.<ref name="Pritchard"/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | While it has been established that equity theory provides insight into scenarios of under-compensation, the theory has generally failed to demonstrate its usefulness in understanding scenarios of overcompensation.<ref name="Ambrose"/> In the late 1990s and early 2000s, equity theory research was superseded by research using an organizational justice framework.<ref name="Pinder">Latham, G., & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.</ref><ref name="Ambrose"/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Goal Setting====
| + | |
| − | An I/O psychologist can assist an employer in designing task related goals for their employees that are 1) attainable, 2) specific, 3) appropriately difficult, and 4) feedback providing, in hopes of inspiring tunnel vision focus in the employees.<ref>Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.</ref> Studies have shown both feedback from the employer and self-efficacy (belief in one's capabilities to achieve a goal) within the employee must be present for goal setting to be effective.<ref name="Wright"/>
| + | |
| − | However, because of the tunnel vision focus created by goal setting theory, several studies have shown this motivational theory may not be applicable in all situations. In fact, in tasks that require creative on the spot improvising, goal setting can even be counterproductive.<ref>Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534-559.</ref> Furthermore, because clear goal specificity is essential to a properly designed goal setting task, multiple goals can create confusion for the employee and the end result is a muted overall drive.<ref>Gilliland, S. W., & Landis, R. S. (1992). Quality and quantity goals in a complex decision task: Strategies and outcomes. Journal of applied Psychology, 77, 672-681.</ref>
| + | |
| − | Despite its flaws, Goal Setting theory is arguably the most dominant theory in the field of I/O Psychology, with more than one thousand articles and reviews pertaining to the Theory being published in just over thirty years.<ref>Mitchell, T. R., Daniels, D. 2003. Motivation. Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 12.Industrial Organizational Psychology, ed. W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, pp. 225–254. New York: Wiley.</ref><ref name="Pinder"/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Cognitive Evaluation Theory ====
| + | |
| − | Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) is a subset of self-determination theory (SDT) as proposed by Deci and Ryan. CET attempts to determine whether the employee is motivated by sources that are internal, external or a combination of internal and external. CET was proposed for examining conditions in which both internal and external factors contribute to motivation, in particular the impact of external factors on intrinsic motivation. CET theorizes that external factors including rewards and managerial oversight can make an employee feel that he is being manipulated by others, which can result in decreased intrinsic motivation.<ref>Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Reinforcement Theory ====
| + | |
| − | Among the various theories of motivation, the reinforcement theory has received great attention within the past few decades. In short, this theory highlights the relationship between behavior and its consequences. At the most pedestrian level, reinforcement was first brought to the forefront by Skinner when he shared findings on pigeons pressing buttons (behavior) to receive food (consequence). When translated into motivation in the workplace, the reinforcement theory certainly has its applications. At a systematic level, employee behaviors are identified, measured, and analyzed in terms of their functional consequences,<ref name="Ambrose"/> and then an intervention is implemented to encourage an increase in motivation. The studies which used this framework showed an improvement in performance after the intervention.<ref name="Ambrose"/> Further, Sama, Kopelman, and Manning<ref>Sama, L., Kopelman, R., Manning, R. (1994). In search of a ceiling effect on work motivation: Can Kaizen keep performance “rising”?. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(2), 231-238.</ref> found that use of a reinforcement strategy called [[Premack's_principle|Premack’s principles]] improved employees’ productivity twofold.
| + | |
| − | Punishment is also part of the reinforcement theory in that it attempts to decrease undesired behaviors. While studies have shown that punishment may produce an overall behavior change, it decreases employee morale and intrinsic motivation and should thus be avoided.<ref>Butterfield, K., Trevino, L., & Ball, G. (1996). Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1479–1512.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== Creativity ====
| + | |
| − | On the cutting edge of research pertaining to motivation in the workplace is the integration of motivation and creativity. Essentially, according to Ambrose and Kulik,<ref name="Ambrose"/> the same variables that predict intrinsic motivation are associated with creativity. This is a helpful conclusion in that organizations can measure and influence both creativity and motivation simultaneously. Further, allowing employees to choose creative and challenging jobs/tasks has been shown to improve motivation.<ref name="Pinder"/>
| + | |
| − | In order to increase creativity, setting “creativity goals” can positively influence the process, along with allowing more autonomy (i.e. giving employees freedom to feel/be creative). Other studies have found that team support may enable more creativity in a group setting,<ref>West, M., Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680-693.</ref> also increasing motivation.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Groups and Teams====
| + | |
| − | As the workplace is changing to include more group-based systems, researching motivation within these groups is of growing importance. To date, a great amount of research has focused on the Job Characteristics theory and the goal-setting theory. While more research is needed that draws on a broader range of motivation theories, research thus far has concluded several things; a)semi-autonomous groups report higher levels of job scope (related to intrinsic job satisfaction), extrinsic satisfaction, and organizational commitment; and b) developmentally mature teams have higher job motivation and innovation. Further, voluntarily formed work teams report high work motivation.<ref name="Ambrose"/>
| + | |
| − | Though research shows that appropriate goal-setting influences group motivation and performance, more research is needed in this area (group goals, individual goals, cohesiveness, etc.). There are inseparable mediating variables consisting of group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance.
| + | |
| − | As the workplace environment calls for more and more teams to be formed, research into motivation of teams is ever-pressing. Thus far, overarching research merely suggests that individual-level and team-level sources of motivation are congruent with each other.<ref>Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology (12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 333-375.</ref> Consequently, research should be expanded to apply more theories of motivation; look at group dynamics; and essentially conclude how groups can be most impacted to increase motivation and, consequently, performance.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Adaptability is absolutely ciiarctl today. As change tsunamis relentlessly sweep the globe, adaptive organizations are getting stronger and unadaptive ones are being washed out to sea. Harvard Business School professor, James Heskett's new book, The Culture Cycle: How to Shape the Unseen Force That Transforms Performance, follows up his and John Kotter's earlier work with updated research, current examples, and pertinent observations. Southwest Airlines, Wal-Mart, IBM, ING, 3M, and Proctor and Gamble are some of the adaptive cultures providing insights to the enduring success growing from their highly effective cultures.Steps in The Culture CycleThe book's main framework is a circular diagram following these steps:1. Mission, Shared Assumptions, and Values Alignment with Strategies and Methods of Execution 2. Setting Expectations 3. Behaviors Consistent with Shared Assumptions and Values 4. Expectations (e.g. leadership, recognition, job opportunity, personal development) 5. Core Phenomena (Trust, Engagement, and Ownership) 6. Policies, Practices, and Behaviors (e.g. self-direction, accountability, transparency, collaboration) 7. Organization Learning (e.g. continuous improvement, adaptability, agility, and speed) 8. Results (Four Rs, innovation, growth, and profitability)Steps 2 4 are labeled Causes (less visible) and steps 6 8 Effects (More Visible). Step 1 is at the top of the cycle and both the beginning and the end or beginning of the next turn of the cycle. Step 5 is at a halfway point and bridges causes to effects. The Four Rs of Step 8 are the results of an effective culture can be (but rarely are) documented and tracked: Referrals: A higher proportion of potential employees recommended by current or former employees. Retention: Lower recruiting, hiring, training, and lost productivity costs because of greater employee loyalty. Returns to labor: Greater productivity per dollar of compensation. Relationships: Better customer relationships, resulting in greater loyalty, lower customer acquisition costs, and more sales. The Culture Cycle's organization and bent leans towards the academic. Although it provides a framework, it's not really a how-to book. The Four Rs for measuring culture are the books' strongest contribution. The steps of the Culture Cycle are very helpful and align extremely well with our decades of experience using similar approaches with dozens of Clients. Heskett does a great job of showing how culture is ciiarctl to organizational success and providing powerful and highly illuminating examples. But his application of the Culture Cycle steps are vague, confusing, and often veer into generalizations. Having written two books on leading high performance cultures ( and ) and produced detailed how-to workbooks, I am clearly biased. The chapter on Leading Culture Change has some very useful nuggets especially on measuring and monitoring. Heskett uses his Culture Cycle model to prescribe the role of leadership. It's a good start and outline of many of the key issues. But this chapter needs lots more detailed how-to steps for executives and support professionals to follow.Here are a few of his conclusions that are especially ciiarctl to predicting the effectiveness of efforts to lead culture change: - Effective leadership often involves delegating responsibilities and authority. But one responsibility that can't be delegated completely is reshaping and maintaining an effective culture e2a6 leaders personally act out the values and behaviors e2a6 they do it consistently. - Necessary changes in behaviors have to be modeled from the top. They can, however, be reinforced through such things as performance evaluations placing as much emphasis on managing by the values' as making the numbers.' - Broad involvement in shaping shared values and behaviors helps ensure the effective implementation of the change. - Culture change that reflects or accommodates changes in strategy and methods of execution has the best chance of success. - (Leaders) assign believers' as change agents and replace nonbelievers' early in the process. - (Leaders) form a contract' with employees that specify expectations of all parties. - They preserve the culture through everyday behaviors, measurement, and timely corrective actions, beginning with managers exhibiting behaviors that run counter to the values. I very much enjoyed The
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Motivation Summary====
| + | |
| − | The effects of motivation are fundamental to organizational and employee performance and thus I/O Psychology. As Jex and Britt<ref name="jex"/> point out “organizations that are armed with a clear understanding of motivation are in a better position to influence employee behavior than are organizations that lack this knowledge.” As described, some of the important theories in this discipline cover the areas of Motives and Needs, Work Design, Expectancy Theory, Equity Theory, Goal-Setting, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Reinforcement Theory, Creativity, Groups & Teams, and Culture.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Organizational culture===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Organizational culture}}
| + | |
| − | Organizational culture can be described as a set of assumptions shared by the individuals in an organization that directs interpretation and action by defining appropriate behavior for various situations. There are three levels of organizational culture: artifacts, shared values, and basic beliefs and assumptions. Artifacts comprise the physical components of the organization that relay cultural meaning. Shared values are individuals' preferences regarding certain aspects of the organization's culture (e.g. loyalty, customer service). Basic beliefs and assumptions include individuals' impressions about the trustworthiness and supportiveness of an organization, and are often deeply ingrained within the organization's culture.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In addition to an overall culture, organizations also have subcultures. Examples of subcultures include corporate culture, departmental culture, local culture, and issue-related culture. While there is no single "type" of organizational culture, some researchers have developed models to describe different organizational cultures.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Organizational culture has been shown to have an impact on important organizational outcomes such as performance, attraction, recruitment, retention, employee satisfaction, and employee well-being. Also, organizations with an adaptive culture tend to perform better than organizations with an unadaptive culture.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Group behavior===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Group behavior}}
| + | |
| − | [[Group behavior]] is the interaction between individuals of a collective and the processes such as opinions, [[attitude]]s, growth, [[feedback]] loops, and adaptations that occur and change as a result of this interaction.<ref name="goldstone">Goldstone, R., Roberts, M., & Gureckis, T.(2008). Emergent processes of group behavior Group Behavior,17, 1-15.</ref> The interactions serve to fulfill some need satisfaction of an individual who is part of the collective and helps to provide a basis for his interaction with specific members of the group.<ref name="jex">Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2008). Organizational Psychology. Hoboke, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A specific area of research in group behavior is the dynamics of [[team]]s. Team effectiveness refers to the system of getting people in a company or institution to work together effectively. The idea behind team effectiveness is that a group of people working together can achieve much more than if the individuals of the team were working on their own.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Job satisfaction and commitment===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Job satisfaction}}
| + | |
| − | Job satisfaction reflects an employee's overall assessment of their job particularly their emotions, behaviors, and attitudes about their work experience. It is one of the most heavily researched topics in industrial/organizational psychology with several thousand published studies. Job satisfaction has theoretical and practical utility for the field of psychology and has been linked to important job outcomes including attitudinal variables, absenteeism, employee turnover, and job performance. For instance, job satisfaction is strongly correlated with attitudinal variables such as job involvement, organizational commitment, job tensions, frustration, and feelings of anxiety. Job satisfaction also has a weak correlation with employee's absentee behaviors and turnover from an organization with employees more likely to miss work or find other jobs if they are not satisfied. Finally, research has found that although a positive relationship exists between job satisfaction and performance, it is moderated by the use of rewards at an organization and the strength of employee's attitudes about their job.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Productive behavior===
| + | |
| − | ''Productive behavior'' is defined as employee behavior that contributes positively to the goals and objectives of an organization.<ref name="jex">Jex, S. & Britt, T. (2008). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</ref> When an employee begins a new job, there is a transition period during which he or she is not contributing positively to the organization. To successfully transition from being an outsider to a full-fledged member of an organization, an employee typically needs job-related training as well as more general information about the culture of the organization. In financial terms, productive behavior represents the point at which an organization begins to achieve some return on the investment it has made in a new employee. There are three common forms of productive behavior in organizations: job performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and innovation.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Job performance====
| + | |
| − | {{main|Job performance}}
| + | |
| − | [[Job performance]] represents behaviors employees engage in while at work which contribute to organizational goals.<ref name="campbell1990">Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol 1, pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.</ref> These behaviors are formally evaluated by an organization as part of an employee’s responsibilities. In order to understand and ultimately predict job performance, it is important to be precise when defining the term. Job performance is about behaviors that are within the control of the employee and not about results (effectiveness), the costs involved in achieving results (productivity), the results that can be achieved in a period of time (efficiency), or the value an organization places on a given level of performance, effectiveness, productivity, or efficiency (utility).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To model job performance, researchers have attempted to define a set of dimensions that are common to all jobs. Using a common set of dimensions provides a consistent basis for assessing performance and enables the comparison of performance across jobs. While there is disagreement about the exact dimensions of job performance, there is agreement on two major categories of job performance: in-role (technical aspects of a job) and extra-role (non-technical abilities such as communication skills and being a good team member).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To assess job performance, reliable and valid measures must be established. The most commonly used measures are ratings of employee performance on specific tasks and on overall job performance. While there are many sources of error with performance ratings, error can be reduced through rater training and through the use of behaviorally anchored ratings scales. Such scales can be used to clearly define the behaviors that constitute poor, average, and superior performance. Additional factors that complicate the measurement of job performance include the instability of job performance over time and the restriction of variation in individual performance by organizational forces.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The determinants of job performance consist of factors having to do with the individual worker as well as environmental factors in the workplace. According to Campbell’s Model of The Determinants of Job Performance.,<ref name="campbell1990" /><ref>Campbell, J.P. (1994). Alternative models of job performance and their implications for selection and classification. In M.G. Rumsey, C.B. Walker, & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 33-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</ref> job performance is a result of the interaction between declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts or things), procedural knowledge (knowledge of what needs to be done and how to do it), and motivation (reflective of an employee’s choices regarding whether to expend effort, the level of effort to expend, and whether to persist with the level of effort chosen). Regardless of the job, three determinants stand out as predictors of performance: (1) general mental ability (especially for jobs higher in complexity), (2) job experience (although there is a law of diminishing returns), and (3) the personality trait of conscientiousness (people who are dependable and achievement oriented, who plan well). These determinants appear to influence performance largely through the acquisition and usage of job knowledge and the motivation to do well.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Organizational citizenship behavior====
| + | |
| − | {{main|Organizational citizenship behavior}}
| + | |
| − | Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to productive behaviors that are not part of an employees’ formal job description. There are five categories of organizational citizenship behaviors: (1) altruism, (2) courtesy, (3) sportsmanship, (4) conscientiousness, and (5) civic virtue.<ref>Organ, D.W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53.</ref><ref>Organ, D.W. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and the good soldier. In M.G. Rumsey, C.B. Walker, & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 53-67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There are three different explanations for why employees engage in organizational citizenship behavior. The first has to do with positive affect, an overall positive mood increases the frequency of helping behavior. The second explanation, which stems from the equity theory, is that employees reciprocate fair treatment that they have received from the organization. The third explanation is that some employees have personality traits that predispose them to participate in organizational citizenship behavior. There are also employees who will perform organizational citizenship behavior to influence how they are viewed within the organization. While these behaviors are not formally part of the job description, performing them can certainly influence performance appraisals.<ref name="jex" />
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Innovation====
| + | |
| − | {{main|Innovation}}
| + | |
| − | [[Innovation]] is a form of productive behavior that employees exhibit when they come up with novel ideas that further the goals of the organization.<ref name="jex" /> Innovation at an individual level is dependent on task-relevant skills (general mental ability and job specific [[knowledge]]), [[creativity]]-relevant skills (ability to concentrate on a problem for long periods of time, to abandon unproductive searches, and to temporarily put aside stubborn problems), and task [[motivation]] (internal desire to perform task and level of enjoyment).<ref>Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There are things that organizations can do in order to breed innovation in the workplace. Some of these items include providing creativity training, having leaders encourage and model innovation, allowing employees to question current procedures and rules, seeing that the implementation of innovations had real consequences, documenting innovations in a professional manner, allowing employees to have autonomy and freedom in their job roles, reducing the number of obstacles that may be in the way of innovation, and giving employees access to resources (whether these are monetary, informational, or access to key people inside or outside of the organization).<ref name="jex" />
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Counterproductive work behavior===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Counterproductive work behavior}}
| + | |
| − | Counterproductive work behavior can be defined as employee behavior that goes against the goals of an organization. These behaviors can be intentional or unintentional and result from a wide range of underlying causes and motivations. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction can be utilized to explain a variety of counter-productive behaviors (Fox and Spector, 1999). For instance, an employee who steals from the company may do so because of lax supervision (environment) and underlying psychopathology (person) that work in concert to result in the counterproductive behavior.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The forms of counterproductive behavior with the most empirical examination are ineffective [[job performance]], [[absenteeism]], [[Turnover (employment)|job turnover]], and [[accident]]s. Less common but potentially more detrimental forms of counterproductive behavior have also been investigated including theft, violence, substance use, and sexual harassment.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Leadership===
| + | |
| − | {{main|Leadership}}
| + | |
| − | [[Leadership]] is a process of influencing and supporting and motivating others to work enthusiastically or effectively towards achieving the objectives or goal. A leader acts as a [[catalyst]], who identifies the potential of a worker and tries to put that into reality. A leader can be a positive leader or a negative leader.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A leader’s influence within an organization or group has been said to stem from two primary sources, that person’s personal characteristics and their position within the organization. Personal power, also made up of two factors called expert power and referent power, is derived from elements like an individual’s personality, their knowledge base, their ability to effectively interact with others, and their demonstrated level of effort. Positional power, also often referred to as legitimate power, is derived from the leader’s position within the organization, and the authority imbued in them either directly or indirectly by the organization’s controlling parties to provide either rewards or sanctions for performance.<ref>Michelson, B. J. (2001). Leadership and power base development: using power effectively to manage diversity and job-related interdependence in complex organizations. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/michelson.pdf</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The leader’s role is to use this influence to encourage those within the organization to focus their actions toward the accomplishment of the organization’s goals.<ref>Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. ''Journal of Applied Psychology, 76'', 416-423.</ref> Distinction should be noted between [[management]] v. leadership. Managers process administrative tasks that organize work environments. Leaders conduct those same tasks while also inspiring and motivating the workforce for which they oversee. Managers cope with complexity, leaders cope with change. Managers participate in stepwise tasks of planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and controlling and problem solving. In contrast, leaders approach these stages of business development through equivalent tasks of setting a direction or vision, aligning people or communication, and motivating and inspiring, respectively.<ref>Kotter, John P. (1990). What Leaders Really Do. ''Harvard Business Review, May–June, 103-111.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Organizational change/development===
| + | |
| − | {{Empty section|date=January 2011}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I found this post to be very Insightful. I think I have always toghhut that shyness went hand-in-hand with introversion. This article helped me understand that I am not actually, The most extroverted introvert. I am simply an introvert who, as long as I have had enough alone time, loves people and has very little social anxiety. I have often felt (and been) judged for this. Lots of folks can't reconcile my public social demeanor with my very real need to spend copious amounts of time totally alone.Maybe introversion and hilariousness is not a common pairing of traits. I think most people expect for us introverts to be shy and us wise guys to be extroverted. What are you? Extroverted and Hilarious? Introverted and Shy? Or are you, Extroverted and Shy? Or. Introverted and hilarious?
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==Training and outlook== | | ==Training and outlook== |
| Line 244: |
Line 55: |
| | In 2006, the median annual salary for industrial-organizational psychologists was $86,420(US).<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, ''Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition'', Psychologists, [http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos056.htm]</ref> | | In 2006, the median annual salary for industrial-organizational psychologists was $86,420(US).<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, ''Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition'', Psychologists, [http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos056.htm]</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | ==See also==
| + | Great post. Love the quote. I'm both extremely both. :) The hyrpisensetivity idea Tracie Louise suggested is very interesting I'd love to check out the book. I feel like an emotional sponge sometimes, and being around people in negative or tense moods can influence me more than I'd like. Have you ever done the Myers Briggs personality assessment? It assigns you one of 16 personality types based on introversion/extroversion and other things. I've been looking into personality type specific advice on socializing, career options, and what might help me to be most productive. It's been surprisingly illuminating! (It's pretty entertaining to read forum discussions by others in couples with the same personality types as my boyfriend and I, too. It normalizes so much of our weirdness.) |
| − | * [[Applied psychology]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Behavioral risk management]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Educational psychology]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Employment law]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Human resources development]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Human resource management]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Industrial sociology]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Occupational health psychology]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Quality of working life]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Systems psychology]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Association of Business Psychologists]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Outline of psychology]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Unfortunately for this group, even when they are successful and loved they can’t take crdiet for anything good because people love their fae7ade instead of who they really believe themselves to be.^^^What is even more sad to me, based on a first hand experience with a person who (I think) has NPD, was that I learned and accepted the real self of that person but that was not enough. In fact, I think that knowing that he was loved and accepted for who he truly was made him love me and hate me simultaneously. If he abhors (or is ashamed of) his true self so much that he has to create a false self, then how could he believe that anyone else could accept it? If he is so ashamed of himself, how could he believe that there is anything to be loved (even if love is given unconditionally, over and over)? In order to maintain the false self, living in the magical world of fantasy, he has to find someone else who does not have any insight beyond the facade and, moreover, who does not have the capacity to see beyond it (at least for a while). Finally, I believe that a true narcissist is not really seeking for of love (no matter how we define love, because that would be another book for you to write), but seeking admiration, adulation, and attention (even negative attention).Does that make sense?Thank you for writing the blog.Miss Red
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==Further reading== | | ==Further reading== |
| Line 299: |
Line 96: |
| | * [http://orm.sagepub.com/ ''Organizational Research Methods''] | | * [http://orm.sagepub.com/ ''Organizational Research Methods''] |
| | | | |
| − | ==External links==
| + | Felt so hopeless looking for asnewrs to my questions...until now. |
| − | * [http://psychology.uwo.ca/csiop/ Canadian Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.ea-ohp.org/ European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.piop.net Professional I-O Psychologist Network] (you can post messages and/or read and reply to others' postings; organized by topic; maintains anonymity via use of avatars)
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.iocareers.com I/O Careers] (search and discussion site for employment in the I-O field)
| + | |
| − | * [http://ot.cavarretta.com Research on Organizations: Bibliography Database and Maps]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.siop.org Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology]
| + | |
| − | * [http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/About.htm Society for Occupational Health Psychology]
| + | |
Guion (1965) defines I-O psychology as "the scientific study of the relationship between man and the world of work:... in the process of making a living" (p. 817). Blum and Naylor (1968) define it as "simply the application or extension of psychological facts and principles to the problems concerning human beings operating within the context of business and industry" (p. 4). I-O psychology has historically subsumed two broad areas of study, as evident by its name, although this distinction is largely artificial and many topics cut across both areas. It has roots in social psychology; organizational psychologists examine the role of the work environment in performance and other outcomes including job satisfaction and health. I-O psychology is also represented by Division 14 of the American Psychological Association. Sometimes, I-O psychology is considered a sister field or branch of organizational studies, organizational science, organizational behavior, human resources, and/or management, but there is no universally accepted classification system for these related fields.
I-O psychologists are trained in the "scientist-practitioner" model. The training enables I-O psychologists to employ scientific principles and research-based designs to generate knowledge. They use what they have learned in applied settings to help clients address workplace needs. I-O psychologists are employed as professors, researchers, and consultants. They also work within organizations, often as part of a human resources department where they coordinate hiring and organizational development initiatives from an evidence-based perspective.
The "industrial" side of I-O psychology has its historical origins in research on individual differences, assessment, and the prediction of performance. This branch of the field crystallized during World War I, in response to the need to rapidly assign new troops to duty stations. After the War the growing industrial base in the US added impetus to I-O psychology. Walter Dill Scott, who was elected President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1919, was arguably the most prominent I-O psychologist of his time, although James McKeen Cattell (elected APA President in 1895) and Hugo Münsterberg (1898) were influential in the early development of the field.[2] Organizational psychology gained prominence after World War II, influenced by the Hawthorne studies and the work of researchers such as Kurt Lewin and Muzafer Sherif.
Some time Hunting with arrow is little bit dluficfit, use Riffle for Buck Hunting. I dont know who hunt this buck but the photo is awsome!! Posted by: James
2011 isn't living up to its music extcipateons, that's for sure. Instead of discovering natural talent, they spouted out Rebecca Black and Cody Simpson, and other kids who are in it for the fame, not the music. Right now, to me, the best band is Paramore and best singer Bruno Mars.
A comprehensive list of US and Canadian master's and doctoral programs can be found at the web site of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).[3] Some helpful ways to learn about graduate programs include visiting the web sites on the SIOP list and speaking to I-O faculty at the institutions listed. Admission into I-O psychology Ph.D. programs is highly competitive given that many programs accept a small number of applicants every year.
There are graduate degree programs in I-O psychology outside of the US and Canada. The SIOP web site[3] also provides a comprehensive list of I-O programs in many other countries.
In 2006, the median annual salary for industrial-organizational psychologists was $86,420(US).[4]
Great post. Love the quote. I'm both extremely both. :) The hyrpisensetivity idea Tracie Louise suggested is very interesting I'd love to check out the book. I feel like an emotional sponge sometimes, and being around people in negative or tense moods can influence me more than I'd like. Have you ever done the Myers Briggs personality assessment? It assigns you one of 16 personality types based on introversion/extroversion and other things. I've been looking into personality type specific advice on socializing, career options, and what might help me to be most productive. It's been surprisingly illuminating! (It's pretty entertaining to read forum discussions by others in couples with the same personality types as my boyfriend and I, too. It normalizes so much of our weirdness.)
Felt so hopeless looking for asnewrs to my questions...until now.
