Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:57:30.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Are These Workers, Anyway?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Tracy L. Griggs ,
Lillian T. Eby ,
Cynthia K. Maupin ,
Kate M. Conley ,
Rachel L. Williamson ,
Olivia H. Vande Griek  and
Muriel G. Clauson
Tracy L. Griggs*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Winthrop University
Lillian T. Eby
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia
Cynthia K. Maupin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia
Kate M. Conley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia
Rachel L. Williamson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia
Olivia H. Vande Griek
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia
Muriel G. Clauson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tracy L. Griggs, Department of Management, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC 29733. E-mail: griggst@winthrop.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The focal article by Bergman and Jean (2016) raises an important issue by documenting the underrepresentation of nonprofessional and nonmanagerial workers in industrial and organizational (I-O) research. They defined workers as, “people who were not executive, professional or managerial employees; who were low- to medium-skill; and/or who were wage earners rather than salaried” (p. 89). This definition encompasses a wide range of employee samples: from individuals working in blue-collar skilled trades like electricians and plumbers to police officers, soldiers, and call center representatives to low-skill jobs such as fast food, tollbooth operators, and migrant day workers. Because there is considerable variability in the pay, benefits, skill level, autonomy, job security, schedule flexibility, and working conditions that define these workers’ experiences, a more fine-grained examination of who these workers are is necessary to understand the scope of the problem and the specific subpopulations of workers represented (or not) in existing I-O research.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 114 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

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

References for the studies included in the review are available at http://10.1017/iop.2015.123 Google Scholar
Bergman, M. E., & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial–organizational psychology literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9, 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J. (2004). The low-wage labor market: Trends and policy implications. In Crouter, A. C. & Booth, A. (Eds.), Work-family challenges for low-income parents and their children (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Exec. Order No. 13,707, 3 C.F.R. 56,365 (2015). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american Google Scholar
HHS Poverty Guidelines, 77 Fed. Reg. 4034 (2012).Google Scholar
HHS Poverty Guidelines, 78 Fed. Reg. 5182 (2013).Google Scholar
HHS Poverty Guidelines, 79 Fed. Reg. 3593 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Griggs Supplementary Material

Griggs Supplementary Material

Download Griggs Supplementary Material(File)
File 24.4 KB