Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T15:43:09.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Questions About I-O Psychology's Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

Neil Morelli ,
A. James Illingworth  and
Charles Handler
Neil Morelli*
Affiliation:
The Cole Group, Atlanta, Georgia
A. James Illingworth
Affiliation:
Geode People, Inc., Decatur, Georgia
Charles Handler
Affiliation:
Rocket-Hire, New Orleans, Louisiana
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Neil Morelli, 300 Brannan Street, Suite 304, San Francisco, CA 94107. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We find Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, and Greiff's (2015) article to be worth discussing and embracing because it represents not only a pragmatic offering of two important constructs for 21st century work but also an important opportunity for industrial–organizational (I-O) scholars and practitioners to consider several questions related to the future of I-O psychology. Neubert et al. correctly identified the broad trends that are influencing the economic environment that we live in and made a compelling argument that I-O psychologists should join other researchers and policymakers from ancillary fields to identify and measure the unique competencies and skills that will determine success in the future of work. In our own research on new technologies and their use in talent assessment and selection (e.g., mobile device testing), we have often considered other future-related research questions, and we would like to offer them here as a supplement to this discussion in the hopes that it might spur further forward-thinking conversation, research, and practice. Below we offer five additional themes to organize the questions that we believe are important to consider as I-O psychologists evaluate the merits and uses of 21st century skills such as complex problem solving and collaborative problem solving (CPS and ColPS).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 269 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., & O'Boyle, E. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blickle, G., Momm, T. S., Kramer, J., Mierke, J., Liu, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Construct and criterion-related validation of a measure of emotional reasoning skills: A two-study investigation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17 (1), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64, 225–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion, M. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2013). Assessing personality with situational judgment measures: Interactionist psychology operationalized. In Christiansen, N. & Tett, R. (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 439–456). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3 (2), 110–126.Google Scholar
Cucina, J. M., Busciglio, H. H., Thomas, P. H., Callen, N. F., Walker, D. D., & Schoepfer, R. J. G. (2011). Video-based testing at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In Tippins, N. T. & Adler, S. (Eds.), Technology-enhanced assessment of talent (pp. 338–354). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills: 2020 (Institute for the Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute Publication No. SR-1382A). Retrieved from http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/front/docs/sponsored/phoenix/future_work_skills_2020.pdfGoogle Scholar
Erickson, A., Silzer, R., Robinson, G., & Cober, R. (2009). Promoting industrial–organizational psychology. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 46 (4), 45–54.Google Scholar
Hawkes, B. (2013). Simulation technologies. In Fetzer, M. & Tuzinski, K. (Eds.), Simulations for personnel selection (pp. 63–82). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Dinh, J. E. (2014). What have we learned that is critical in understanding leadership perceptions and leader-performance relations? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7 (2), 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, R. G., Dinh, J. E., & Hoffman, E. (2015). A quantum approach to time and organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 40 (2), 263–290.Google Scholar
Mussel, P. (2013). Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 453–472.Google Scholar
Neubert, J. C., Mainert, J., Kretzschmar, A., & Greiff, S. (2015). The assessment of 21st century skills in industrial and organizational psychology: Complex and collaborative problem solving. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice.Google Scholar
Olowookere, E. I. (2012). The relevance of industrial and organizational psychology to national development in Nigeria. Continental Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (2), 32–38.Google Scholar
Penenberg, A. L. (2013). Play at work: How games inspire breakthrough thinking. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Rose, M., Drogan, O., Spencer, E., Rupprecht, E., Singla, N., McCune, E., & Rotolo, C. (2014). I-O psychology and SIOP brand awareness among business professionals, HR professionals, faculty members, and college students. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 52 (1), 154–162.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M. (2003). Defining ourselves: I-O psychology's identity quest. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 41 (1), 21–33.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010). Organizational psychology and the tipping point of professional identity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3 (3), 241–258.Google Scholar
Shotter, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2013). In search of phronesis: Leadership and the art of judgment. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (2), 224–243.Google Scholar
Slaughter, J. E., Christian, M. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Sinar, E. F., & Lievens, F. (2014). On the limitations of using situational judgment tests to measure interpersonal skills: The moderating influence of employee anger. Personnel Psychology, 67 (4), 847–886.Google Scholar
Snow, S. (2014). Smartcuts: How hackers, innovators, and icons accelerate success. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2013). Humanitarian work psychology: Concepts to contributions [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/WhitePapersGoogle Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/mission.aspxGoogle Scholar