Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T19:55:53.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Industrial–Organizational Psychologists in Business Schools: Brain Drain or Eye Opener?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Herman Aguinis ,
Kyle J. Bradley  and
Apryl Brodersen
Herman Aguinis*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Kyle J. Bradley
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Apryl Brodersen
Affiliation:
Metropolitan State University of Denver
*
E-mail: haguinis@indiana.edu, Address: Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-1701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conducted a quantitative and a qualitative study to assess the extent to which industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology has moved to business schools, understand the nature of this move, and offer a balanced discussion of positive and negative consequences of this phenomenon. In quantitative Study 1, we provide evidence that I–O psychologists affiliated with business schools currently constitute a majority of editorial board members and authors of articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology but that I–O psychology, as a field, is growing. These results suggest that it is not the field of I–O psychology but some of the most active and influential I–O psychology researchers who are moving to business schools. In qualitative Study 2, we gathered perspectives from 144 SIOP Fellows and 27 SIOP presidents suggesting different views on Study 1's results ranging from very negative (i.e., “brain drain”) to very positive (i.e., “eye opener”) depending on the affiliation of the respondent. On the basis of these results, we offer 10 admittedly provocative predictions to stimulate follow-up research and serve as a catalyst for an important conversation, as well as the development of action plans, regarding the future of I–O psychology as a field.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 284 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014

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., Ambrose, M. L., Cascio, W. F., Cropanzano, R. S., Mathieu, J. E., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003, April). I–O psychologists in business schools. Panel discussion presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56, 241–249.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 569–595.Google Scholar
Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2011). Dynamic aspects of voluntary turnover: An integrated approach to curvilinearity in the performance-turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 233–246.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1971). Psychology in business schools. Professional Psychology, 2, 6–11.Google Scholar
Costanza, D. P., & Jensen, J. M. (2010). The fifth scenario: Identity expansion in organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 281–285.Google Scholar
DeNisi, A. (1999, April). Presidential address. Presentation delivered at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S., & Zickar, M. J. (1997). Where has all the psychology gone. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 35(2), 82–88.Google Scholar
Jamieson, B. D. (1974). Current trends in industrial and organizational psychology. New Zealand Psychologist, 3(1), 28–36.Google Scholar
Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 777–787.Google Scholar
Khanna, C., & Medsker, G. J. (2007). 2006 income and employment survey results for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(1), 17–32.Google Scholar
Khanna, C., & Medsker, G. J. (2010). 2009 income and employment survey results for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 48(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
Khanna, C., Medsker, G. J., & Ginter, R. (2013). 2012 income and employment survey results for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51(1), 18–30.Google Scholar
Knapp, D. J. (2010). Who are we without the I, or the O, or the P? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 259–261.Google Scholar
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, E. E. (1971). Thoughts about the future. Professional Psychology, 2, 21–22.Google Scholar
Medsker, G. J., Katkowski, D. A., & Furr, D. (2005). 2003 income and employment survey results for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 43(1), 36–50.Google Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M. (2010). A means not an end. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 269–271.Google Scholar
Naylor, J. C. (1971). Hickory, dickory, dock! Let's turn back the clock! Professional Psychology, 2, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Baughman, K. (2006). The struggle and function of human capital emergence: A multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 661–677.Google Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010a). Organizational psychology and the tipping point of professional identity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 241–258.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010b). A profession awry or poised for the future? Work psychology and professional identity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 300–304.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human Resource Management, 43, 381–394.Google Scholar
Schleicher, D. J., Greguras, G. J., Highhouse, S., Marks, M. A., Slaughter, J. E., & Tesluk, P. E. (2006, May). Making the move from psychology to b-schools: Issues to consider. Panel discussion presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. (1971). Differences between prospective students of industrial-organizational psychology in psychology and nonpsychology departments. Professional Psychology, 2, 11–18.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.Google Scholar
Sheng, Z. (2013). An interview with SIOP's newly elected president, Dr. José Cortina. The I/ON: The Official Newsletter of the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Program at George Mason University, 18(1), 1 & 11–12.Google Scholar
Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 361–380.Google Scholar
Silzer, R. F., & Parson, C. (2013). Trends in SIOP membership, graduate education, and member satisfaction. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50(4), 119–129.Google Scholar
Texas A&M, & University of Florida. (2013). 2008–2012 aggregated management department productivity rankings. Management Department Productivity Rankings. Retrieved from http://mays.tamu.edu/mgmt/productivity-rankingsGoogle Scholar
Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Niemi, A. W. (2000). Serving multiple constituencies in the business school: MBA program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UT-Dallas. (2013). 2008 to 2012 North American rankings. The UTD Top 100 Business School Research Rankings. Retrieved from http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/northRankings#20082012Google Scholar
Vroom, V. H. (1971). Comment. Professional Psychology, 2, 18–21.Google Scholar