Industrial--Organizational Psychologists in Business …I–O psychologists in business schools 285...

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7 (2014), 284–303.Copyright © 2014 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/14

FOCAL ARTICLE

Industrial–Organizational Psychologistsin Business Schools: Brain Drain or EyeOpener?

HERMAN AGUINIS AND KYLE J. BRADLEYIndiana University

APRYL BRODERSENMetropolitan State University of Denver

AbstractWe 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 balanceddiscussion of positive and negative consequences of this phenomenon. In quantitative Study 1, we provideevidence that I–O psychologists affiliated with business schools currently constitute a majority of editorial boardmembers and authors of articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology but thatI–O psychology, as a field, is growing. These results suggest that it is not the field of I–O psychology but someof the most active and influential I–O psychology researchers who are moving to business schools. In qualitativeStudy 2, we gathered perspectives from 144 SIOP Fellows and 27 SIOP presidents suggesting different views onStudy 1’s results ranging from very negative (i.e., “brain drain”) to very positive (i.e., “eye opener”) depending onthe affiliation of the respondent. On the basis of these results, we offer 10 admittedly provocative predictions tostimulate follow-up research and serve as a catalyst for an important conversation, as well as the development ofaction plans, regarding the future of I–O psychology as a field.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Herman Aguinis.E-mail: [email protected]: Department of Management andEntrepreneurship, Kelley School of Business, Indi-ana University, 1309 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN47405-1701

We thank Kevin R. Murphy for highly constructivecomments on previous drafts. We also thank the 144SIOP Fellows and 27 SIOP presidents who so gener-ously shared their perspectives on the issues describedin our article. However, the opinions and views inthis manuscript are ours and do not necessarily reflecttheirs. SIOP Fellows: Natalie J. Allen, Neil R. Ander-son, Winfred Arthur Jr., Richard D. Arvey, Neal M.Ashkanasy, Leanne E. Atwater, David P. Baker, Peter A.Bamberger, Gerald V. Barrett, Alan R. Bass, Talya N.Bauer, Arthur G. Bedeian, Terry A. Beehr, Rabi S. Bha-gat, Philip Bobko, John W. Boudreau, Jeanne M. Brett,Robert D. Bretz Jr., Arthur P. Brief, Steven H. Brown,William C. Byham, Georgia T. Chao, Gilad Chen,Allan H. Church, José M. Cortina, Fred E. DansereauJr., David V. Day, Kenneth P. De Meuse, Edward L.Deci, Alice H. Eagly, Lillian T. Eby, Jeffrey R. Edwards,

Robert Eisenberger, Gerald R. Ferris, Cynthia D. Fisher,Robert G. Folger, J. Kevin Ford, Michael Frese, StephenW. Gilliland, George B. Graen, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus,Rodger W. Griffeth, Arthur Gutman, Richard A. Guzzo,Paul J. Hanges, Michelle Hebl, Madeline E. Heilman,Herbert G. Heneman III, Beryl L. Hesketh, Scott High-house, Calvin C. Hoffman, David A. Hofmann, RobertHogan, John R. Hollenbeck, Susan E. Jackson, RickR. Jacobs, P. Richard Jeanneret, Timothy A. Judge,K. Michele Kacmar, Ruth Kanfer, E. Kevin Kelloway,Avraham N. Kluger, Elizabeth B. Kolmstetter, LauraL. Koppes Bryan, Meni Koslowsky, Ellen E. Kossek,Carol T. Kulik, Charles E. Lance, Ronald S. Landis,Edward E. Lawler III, Robert J. Lee, Thomas W. Lee, JoelM. Lefkowitz, Edward L. Levine, Paul E. Levy, RobertC. Liden, Edwin A. Locke, Manuel London, RobertG. Lord, Rodney L. Lowman, Fred A. Mael, CindyMcCauley, Michael A. McDaniel, S. Morton McPhail,Bruce M. Meglino, John B. Miner, Terence R. Mitchell,Robert F. Morrison, Kevin W. Mossholder, Stephan J.Motowidlo, Michael K. Mount, Michael D. Mumford,David A. Nadler, Dennis W. Organ, Cheri Ostroff,Fred Oswald, James L. Outtz, Jone L. Pearce, José M.Peiró, Pamela L. Perrewe, Robert E. Ployhart, Robert D.

284

I–O psychologists in business schools 285

In an article published more than 4 decadesago, Ed Lawler (1971) made the bold pre-diction that “Industrial organizational[I–O] psychology is moving to the businessschools” (p. 21). The possible move of I–Opsychology to business schools and its con-sequences are viewed by many as criticalfor the future sustainability and even sur-vival of our field (e.g., Aguinis et al., 2003;Schleicher et al., 2006). In fact, several pastpresidents of the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology (SIOP) havereferred to this issue in their addresses(e.g., DeNisi, 1999) and written aboutit in journal articles (e.g., Ryan & Ford,2010a, 2010b). In the most recent of suchpronouncements, SIOP’s current presidentelect, José M. Cortina, asked the followingquestion: “How can we continue to havetop quality I–O programs and training forfuture I–O psychologists if so many of ourmost productive people are not in the I–Oprograms?” (Sheng, 2013, p. 12).

Our manuscript offers an assessment ofthe extent to which I–O psychology hasmoved to business schools and offers a bal-anced discussion of positive and negativeconsequences of this phenomenon as wellas predictions for the future of the field. Wedo so through two studies. First, we assess

Pritchard, James Campbell Quick, Belle Rose Ragins,Steven G. Rogelberg, Benson Rosen, Ned A. Rosen,Philip L. Roth, Craig J. Russell, Jack Sawyer, FrankL. Schmidt, Mark J. Schmit, John C. Scott, ChristinaE. Shalley, Lynn M. Shore, James W. Smither, SabineSonnentag, Melvin Sorcher, Paul E. Spector, GregL. Stewart, Dianna L. Stone, Scott I. Tannenbaum, M.Susan Taylor, Paul E. Tesluk, Phyllis Tharenou, KeciaM. Thomas, George C. Thornton III, Dean W. Tjosvold,Donald M. Truxillo, Aharon Tziner, Chad H. VanIddekinge, Daan Van Knippenberg, Vicki V. Vandav-eer, Robert J. Vandenberg, Chockalingam Viswesvaran,David A. Waldman, Connie R. Wanberg, Peter B. Warr,Sandy J. Wayne, Michael A. West, Jack W. Wiley,Thomas A. Wright, Francis J. Yammarino, and JingZhou. SIOP Presidents: Walter C. Borman, Michael J.Burke, Michael A. Campion, Wayne F. Cascio, AngeloS. DeNisi, Fritz Drasgow, James L. Farr, Milton D.Hakel, Leaetta Hough, Daniel R. Ilgen, Richard J.Klimoski, Kurt Kraiger, Gary P. Latham, William H.Macey, Jeffrey McHenry, Kevin R. Murphy, Lyman W.Porter, Elaine D. Pulakos, Doug Reynolds, Ann MarieRyan, Paul R. Sackett, Neal W. Schmitt, BenjaminSchneider, Paul W. Thayer, Nancy Tippins, Victor H.Vroom, and Sheldon Zedeck.

the extent to which I–O psychology hasmoved to business schools and the nature ofthis phenomenon, by adopting a quantita-tive approach (i.e., Study 1). A quantitativeassessment, and one that spans severaldecades, is needed to address this questionbecause we currently do not really knowthe extent to which this migration has takenplace and, if it has taken place, what is itsnature. Second, we offer a balanced andinclusive discussion of positive and nega-tive consequences of this phenomenon byadopting a qualitative approach (i.e., Study2). A qualitative assessment is needed toaddress this issue because the topic seemsto be highly divisive given that past treat-ments have generally taken a position thatthe phenomenon is mostly negative (e.g.,Highhouse & Zickar, 1997; Knapp, 2010),positive (e.g., Costanza & Jensen, 2010), orinconsequential (e.g., Muchinsky, 2010).Accordingly, we describe results of aqualitative study in which we gathereda wide range of perspectives from SIOPFellows and presidents, which allowedus to consider the opinions of some themost influential leaders in I–O psychol-ogy research and practice. Finally, we useresults from our two studies to offer 10admittedly provocative predictions aboutthe future of I–O psychology as a field.

Study 1

In this study we investigated the question ofthe migration of I–O psychology to businessschools and the nature of this move by gath-ering three types of data. First, we examinedthe affiliation of members of the editorialboards of JAP and PPsych from the inceptionof these journals to the present. Specifically,we manually examined the masthead ofthe first issue published at the beginning ofeach editorial term, recorded the name ofeach board member, and identified his orher affiliation at that time (i.e., business,psychology, practice, or other) as indicatedin the byline or author’s note. We focusedon these two journals because their edi-torial board members are the gatekeepersof the most visible and influential I–Opsychology research.

286 H. Aguinis, K.J. Bradley, and A. Brodersen

The second type of data involved gather-ing information on the affiliation of authorsof articles published in JAP and PPsychfrom the inception of these journals to thepresent. Specifically, we examined the firstvolume (i.e., all issues in a particular year)for each new editorial term for JAP andPPsych and tallied all authors and theiraffiliations at that time—again, using thebusiness, psychology, practice, and othercategories. We counted all authors ofall articles and, when the same individualauthored more than one article, we countedeach instance separately.

Finally, a third type of data collectioneffort addressed the general question of thenature of the possible move of I–O psy-chology to business schools. Differences incompensation are often cited as a key fac-tor prompting I–O psychologists to moveto business schools (Aguinis et al., 2003;Naylor, 1971; Ryan & Ford, 2010a; Vroom,1971); thus, we collected and comparedinformation on compensation for individu-als employed in business schools and psy-chology departments. In addition, it is possi-ble that I–O psychology is not moving, perse, but expanding into business schools asa consequence of the growth of the field.To examine this issue, we collected dataon SIOP membership, attendees at the SIOPconference, and number of programs offer-ing PhD and PsyD degrees in I–O psychol-ogy over time.

Results and Discussion

Results displayed in Figure 1 show trendsof editorial board member affiliations span-ning almost 100 years for JAP and 70 yearsfor PPsych. Individuals with a businessschool affiliation were completely absentfrom the editorial boards of JAP and PPsychwhen the journals were created (i.e., zeroboard members with a business schoolaffiliation for JAP in 1917 and PPsych in1948). In contrast, at the beginning of themost recent editorial terms, 64% of JAPboard members were affiliated with busi-ness schools (vs. 32% with psychology)and 77% of PPsych board members were

affiliated with business schools (vs. 15%with psychology).

Figure 2 shows trends regarding the affil-iation of authors of JAP and PPsych arti-cles over time. This figure shows that 2% ofJAP authors were affiliated with business (vs.64% with psychology) in 1917, and zeroPPsych authors were affiliated with business(vs. 33% with psychology) in 1948. In con-trast, during the first year of the most recenteditorial terms, 61% of JAP authors wereaffiliated with business (vs. 31% with psy-chology) and 59% of PPsych authors wereaffiliated with business (vs. 23% with psy-chology).

An examination of trends in Figure 1shows that a business school affiliationfor board members became dominant inthe early 1990s for both JAP and PPsych.Regarding authors, Figure 2 shows that thedominance of a business school affiliationbegan about a decade later (i.e., early2000s) also for both journals. Also, the datain Figures 1 and 2 reveal a disappearanceof practitioners from the editorial boardsas well as authorship teams. About 40%of JAP board members were practitionersin the early 1960s, but only 4% of boardmembers are practitioners on the mostrecent editorial board. There is an evenmore pronounced trend regarding PPsych,for which about 70% of board memberswere practitioners when the journal firstappeared in 1948 and until the late 1980s,when a sharp decline began until the mostrecent editorial term, which includes only3% of individuals who are practitioners.Results also show a similar trend regardingthe gradual disappearance of practitionersas authors. JAP had a considerable presenceof practitioner authors from the creation ofthe journal in 1917 until the early 1960s,when the percentage of practitioner authorsreached a peak of 43%. However, the 2009volume included only 3% of practitionerauthors. For PPsych, there has been anongoing and gradual decrease in the num-ber of practitioner authors from 61% in1948 to 10% for the 2011 volume.

It has been argued that one of the rea-sons for the move of I–O psychologists


Figure 1. Percentage of editorial board members of Journal of Applied Psychology (toppanel) and Personnel Psychology (bottom panel) affiliated with business schools, psychol-ogy departments, practice, and other affiliations from the first volume of each journal topresent.

from psychology to business seems to be adifference in terms of compensation (Agui-nis et al., 2003; Naylor, 1971; Ryan & Ford,2010a; Vroom, 1971). After all, compensa-tion is one of the most important reasonswhy individuals choose to change jobs(Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2013; Jenk-ins, Mitra, Gupta, & Shaw, 1998; Rynes,Gerhart, & Minette, 2004). To examine thisissue in more detail, we compiled data onmean salaries for assistant, associate, andprofessor ranks in business schools and psy-chology departments over the past decade.Results displayed in Figure 3 show that,on average, assistant professors employedby business schools receive between 59%

and 70% more compensation comparedto those employed in psychology depart-ments. Associate professors in businessschools receive between 51% and 66%more compensation than their counterpartsin psychology departments. Finally, full pro-fessors receive between 28% and 36% morecompensation in business schools than inpsychology departments. A fact that isparticularly noticeable in Figure 3 is thatthe mean salary for assistant professorsemployed by business schools is com-parable to the mean salary received byfull professors in psychology departments.Moreover, the data displayed in Figure 3do not include additional compensation


Figure 2. Percentage of authors of articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology(top panel) and Personnel Psychology (bottom panel) affiliated with business schools,psychology departments, practice, and other affiliations from the first volume of eachjournal to present.

received by business school faculty suchas summer support (i.e., additional com-pensation of up to 30% of base salary),compensation related to executive educa-tion, and other sources usually availablein business schools but not in psychologydepartments (i.e., research funds for traveland other research-related purposes). So,the difference in compensation receivedby I–O psychologists in business schoolsversus those in psychology departments islikely underestimated in the data displayedin Figure 3.

The data we presented thus far seem tosuggest that Ed Lawler’s (1971) predictionthat I–O psychology is moving to businessschools was correct. However, his predic-tion is only partially correct because thefield of I–O psychology has continued togrow. Specifically, data displayed in Figure 4show that the number of SIOP members hasincreased over time (Panel a) and so has thenumber of attendees at the SIOP conference(although these trends have now plateaued)(Panel b). Moreover, Figure 4c shows thatthe number of programs offering PhD and


Figure 3. Mean salaries for faculty holding a PhD degree in I–O psychology employedby business schools and psychology departments and holding assistant, associate, and fullprofessor ranks. Data sources: 2005: Medsker, Katkowski, and Furr (2005); 2007: Khannaand Medsker (2007); 2010: Khanna and Medsker (2010); and 2013: Khanna, Medsker, andGinter (2013).

PsyD degrees in I–O psychology has alsogrown over time.

To summarize results based on Study1, it is not the case that I–O psychologyis moving to business schools. In fact, thefield is expanding: SIOP has continued togrow based on the number of members andattendees at conferences, and the numberof I–O psychology PhD and PsyD programshas also grown over time. Rather, I–O psy-chologists are moving to business schools.More precisely, I–O psychologists who pro-duce research accepted for publication intwo of the oldest, most prestigious, visible,and impactful I–O psychology journals andwho are also considered to be of sufficientscholarly stature to be invited to serveon the editorial boards of these journalsseem to be those targeted, and successfullyrecruited, by business schools.

Study 2

Study 2 was a follow-up to Study 1, and weadopted a qualitative approach. The goalsof Study 2 were to understand the perspec-tives of some of the most influential leadersin the field of I–O psychology regarding thereasons for the move of many of the most

prolific researchers to business schools asdocumented by Study 1 as well as conse-quences of this phenomenon.

Our initial targeted population includedall SIOP Fellows and SIOP presidents. First,we obtained their names from the SIOPwebsite in May 2013 (i.e., http://www.siop.org/presidents/PastPres.aspx and http://www.siop.org/fellows/fellows.aspx, respec-tively). Second, we attempted to gather theemail address for each individual from theSIOP membership directory, Academy ofManagement membership directory, andorganizational or personal websites. Manyof the individuals in our initial populationhad passed away and others had retiredand their email addresses were no longerpublicly available, and consequently, ourfinal targeted population included 257Fellows and 33 presidents.

Herman Aguinis (who is a SIOP Fellowbut was not included in the sample) sent apersonalized email addressed to each of themembers of our targeted population. Theemail included the following text:

I am emailing because I would like to askyou a quick question about your views


Figure 4. (a) SIOP membership trends (Silzer & Parson, 2013), (b) number of atten-dees at SIOP annual conference (as reported in nine different articles published in TheIndustrial–Organizational Psychologist from 1986 to 2013), and (c) number of graduateprograms offering I–O psychology PhD and PsyD degrees (Silzer & Parson, 2013).

on the migration of I–O psychologists tobusiness schools. For example, currentlythe majority of board members of Jour-nal of Applied Psychology and Person-nel Psychology are affiliated with busi-ness schools and not psychology depart-ments (as used to be the case). Fromyour perspective, is this good, bad, or

inconsequential for the future of I–Opsychology research and practice? Whatis your prediction about the future ofI–O psychology if this trend continues toaccelerate?

We sent a follow-up message to each ofthe nonrespondents 10 days after the initial


message. When data collection was com-pleted, we received a total of 171 responses,including 144 from SIOP Fellows (56%response rate) and 27 from SIOP presi-dents (i.e., 81.2% response rate). Respon-dents included diverse affiliations, researchand practice areas of interest and expertise(i.e., “I” and “O”), and country of residence(i.e., United States and non-United States).Overall, our sample did not seem to dif-fer from the overall makeup of the targetedpopulation (Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007).

The process of analyzing responsesincluded three steps. The first step was toclassify each of the comments based onthe affiliation of the respondent: (a) busi-ness school, (b) psychology department, or(c) practice. We were able to classify allrespondents in one of these three groupswith five exceptions. Specifically, these fiveparticipants hold a joint business school andpsychology affiliation but, in every case,their comments overlapped with commentsoffered by individuals with a single affili-ation so we do not report these responsesseparately. The second and third steps usedeach comment as the unit of analysis andnot the respondent because many partici-pants offered more than one comment oneach of the issues. Specifically, the secondstep involved classifying each commentbased on whether they were about (a) rea-sons for the move or (b) consequences. Thethird step involved further classifying eachof the comments within each category.For reasons for the move, we adopted thepush–pull theoretical framework from thevoluntary turnover literature (e.g., Becker& Cropanzano, 2011) and classified com-ments based on whether they were about“a draw towards business schools” or “apush away from psychology departments.”For consequences of the move, we adopteda valuation perspective based on previousdiscussions of this topic (e.g., Campbell,1971; Jamieson, 1974; Lawler, 1971; Ryan& Ford, 2010a, 2010b; Schneider, 1971)and classified comments based on whetherthey were “negative” or “positive.”

Herman Aguinis and Kyle J. Bradleycreated the categories based on a deductive

and also inductive process (Aguinis & Van-denberg, 2014; Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011).Specifically, we had initial categorizationswhen we began the coding process but real-ized that those had to be revised based onthe nature of the comments. For example,although initially we only had “negative”and “positive” consequences associatedwith the move, we saw the need to add asecond dimension—stakeholder affected(e.g., SIOP, students, business schools,psychology departments)—because thenature of the consequences was often notthe same across various stakeholders. Afteran initial calibration process involvingHerman Aguinis and Kyle J. Bradley pro-cessing approximately 10% of responses,Kyle J. Bradley completed the coding of theremaining comments. Our goal was not tounderstand which are the most commonviews; rather, our goal was to obtain a widerange of perspectives.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 includes responses regarding thereasons for the move sorted by the affil-iation of study participants. Informationin this table indicates that individu-als with a business school, psychologydepartment, and practice affiliation holddifferent views regarding why the migra-tion of I–O psychologists is occurring.For example, although everyone holdsa similar view that difference in salaryattract I–O psychologists to businessschools, those with a business schoolaffiliation noted that business schoolsare also attractive due to the additionalopportunities they offer. For example,respondents with a business school affil-iation noted that business schools offerthe opportunity to engage in executiveeducation, which is not only financiallylucrative but also leads to other benefitssuch as data collection sites and learningabout the pulse of business. Similarly,individuals with a psychology departmentaffiliation noted issues not mentioned bythose affiliated with business schools, suchas the push away from psychology because


Table 1. Summary of Responses From SIOP Fellows and Presidents Regarding Reasons forthe Move of I–O Psychologists to Business Schools

Respondent’saffiliation Draw towards business Push away from psychology

Business school • Greater opportunity to pursue teaching atdifferent levels (e.g., executive education)

• Lower costs for business schools to hiregraduates of I–O psychology programs

• More support for research at research-intensive business schools

• Higher salaries than psychology depart-ments

• Opportunities to engage the businesscommunity

• Opportunities to be exposed to theo-ries and research in macro-level domains(e.g., strategy, marketing)

• Psychology departments tend tobe “left wing” and look at workingin the business field as “dirty”

• Grant funding is a major focus inpsychology departments

• Senior researchers are not beingreplaced by I–O psychologists inpsychology departments

• I–O is not respected in psychologydepartments

Psychologydepartment


• Expanded job market for I–O psycholo-gists

• Better research support at good businessschools

• Dissertation loads are heavier inpsychology departments due tothe higher number of PhD students

• Psychology departments do notpost job openings until after busi-ness schools have finished hiring

Practice • Lighter teaching loads in research-intensive business schools compared topsychology departments


• Business schools have lower researchstandards than psychology departments

• Grant funding is a major focus inpsychology departments

I–O psychology is not always respected byindividuals in other psychology domainsand grant funding has become a majorfocus in psychology departments.

Table 2 includes a summary of responsesregarding the consequences of the move.As shown in Table 2, respondents sawthe migration as affecting multiple stake-holders. Although there is some overlapin the affected stakeholders across thoseaffiliated with business schools, psychol-ogy departments, and practice, eachgroup offered opinions on the conse-quences of the migration for differingsets of stakeholders. The two stakeholdergroups addressed by all three respondent

affiliations were psychology departmentsand research. Those with a business schooland psychology affiliation mainly com-mented on negative consequences forpsychology departments, often referringto the move as a “brain drain.” In con-trast, practitioners saw the migration aspositive for psychology departments not-ing the possibility for interdisciplinarycollaboration for those remaining in psy-chology departments. There was also asimilar split based on affiliation regardingthe consequences of the migration forresearch. Those in business schools andpsychology departments often referred tomainly negative consequences that occur


Table 2. Summary of Responses From SIOP Fellows and Presidents With (a) BusinessSchool, (b) Psychology Department, and (c) Practice Affiliations Regarding Consequencesof the Move of I–O Psychologists to Business Schools

Consequences for Negative consequences Positive consequences

(a) Respondents with a Business School AffiliationBusiness schools • Worse-informed administrative

decisions in business schools byprofessors who did not receivetraining in business schools

• Bad fit of professors trained inpsychology with the needs ofbusiness schools

• An increase in methodologicalrigor in research and consultingskills in business schools

Psychology departments • A further marginalization ofI–O in psychology departments

• A brain drain from psychologydepartments

• A shift from an applied focusin psychology departments tomore of a theory-driven focus

Research • A weakening of “I” researchin I–O psychology given thehigher status of organizationalbehavior compared to humanresource management in busi-ness schools

• A drop in the rigor of research• Greater risk of “buy-in” to orga-

nizations that researchers arecalled to critically examine

• A loss in the psychologicalgrounding of research

• Less emphasis on other researchsamples (i.e. nonprofits)

• An unhealthy “obsession” withtheory

• Less communication with otherfields of psychology that couldintroduce new theories andmethods

• Less focus on micro, employee-centered issues

• Greater opportunity for researchersto influence at a strategic level

• Greater access to business samples• Broadening of the field to include

more relevant topics• Greater opportunity for research to

find its way into business practices• More opportunity for I–O psychol-

ogists to be exposed to other busi-ness fields

I–O psychologists • Fewer jobs for more quantita-tively focused I–O psycholo-gists

• Greater likelihood to get caughtup in fads

• More job opportunities when busi-ness schools are an option

• A greater understanding of busi-nesses that leads to better educa-tors and researchers

• A rise in salary for I–O psycholo-gists

• More psychologists are staying inacademia


Table 2. Continued


SIOP • A decrease in involvement and partici-pation in SIOP

• A decrease in the scholarly focus of theSIOP conference

Students • More difficult to get students involvedand excited about research in businessschools

• Students receive less training in statisticsand methods in business schools

• Students are exposed to abroader field

Journals • A greater demand to publish in man-agement journals instead of psychologyjournals

• Journals focus less on practical, appliedresearch

(b) Respondents with a Psychology Department AffiliationJournals • Journal of Applied Psychology and Per-

sonnel Psychology are becoming lessreceptive to “psychology” research

• Journal topics tend more towardsbottom-line macro research and lessmicro, person-oriented research

• A shift in the focus of journals to theoryand not practical, applied research

Psychology departments • Future psychologists are not receivingthe best possible training from the bestI–O psychology researchers

• A brain drain from psychology depart-ments

• The possibility thatsalaries in psychologydepartments will rise

• I–O gets more visibility inmanagement circles

Research • A decrease in the quality of methodsand statistical analysis

• Less focus on doing good science andmore focus on organizational outcomes

• The “I” side of psychology does notreceive much respect or recognition inbusiness schools

• The field is starting to lose its roots inpsychology

• Business schools are pub-lishing better and higherquality articles than in thepast

• Greater access to busi-ness samples

Students • Students see themselves not as psy-chologists but as business scholars (i.e.,identity change)

• A loss in top-notch PhD training withthe move of top researchers to businessschools


Table 2. Continued


(c) Respondents with a Practice AffiliationPsychology Departments • More interdisciplinary work that

includes rigorous theory andmethods

• More discussion and coopera-tion between business schoolsand psychology departments

Research • Top research is being published inmanagement journals not psychol-ogy journals

• Research is suffering because busi-ness schools are not as focused on“good” research

• Less freedom to pursue researchfocused on individuals

• Journals focus more on researchrelevant to the business world

• There are more journals whereI–O psychologists can publish

• Journals are becoming moreapplied in nature

• Greater access to resources inbusiness schools

• Students are more focused onpractical, applied issues

• I–O psychologists are betterequipped with the language ofbusiness

SIOP • Fewer I–O psychologists are par-ticipating in organizations like theAssociation for Psychological Sci-ence and American PsychologicalAssociation

• Less participation in SIOP

due to the migration, especially in thetypes of topics covered. For example,there is a fear that the “I” side of I–Opsychology will be neglected and that theshift will lead to a focus on more macro(e.g., firm-level) rather than micro (i.e.,individual-level) issues. However, in addi-tion to referring to negative consequencesfor research, those with a business schoolaffiliation also offered several positive con-sequences that were echoed in responsesby practitioners. These include greateraccess to sites for data collection and abroader business focus that will encouragemore practically oriented and relevantresearch.

I–O psychologists affiliated with busi-ness schools and psychology departments

described consequences for journals andI–O psychology students, which werestakeholders to which those affiliated withpractice did not mention often. The viewof those in business schools and psychol-ogy departments is that the migration ismostly negative. However, those in busi-ness schools saw the impact as negativelyaffecting the training and research of PhDstudents in I–O psychology, whereas thosein psychology departments saw the move asnegatively affecting the identity of the stu-dents. Both groups agreed on the negativeimpact on journals in that they are morelikely to focus less on applied researchand put too much emphasis on further-ing new theory, a concern that has beenmentioned regarding research originating


in business schools in general (Hambrick,2007).

In terms of consequences for SIOP, thosein business schools and practice saw themigration as negative due to less participa-tion on the part of those who move to busi-ness schools. Moreover, those affiliated withbusiness schools also worried that SIOPwould lose its scholarly focus for a moreapplied focus.

Those in business schools shared theirperspectives on the impact of the move forbusiness schools and I–O psychologistsin general. Their responses noted that themove was mostly negative because manyof the skills of I–O psychologists trained inpsychology departments do not match whatis needed in business schools or for makingmanagerial and/or administrative deci-sions in business schools. However, theymentioned positive outcomes as well. Themigration seems to be positive for businessschools by bringing in some of the method-ological rigor and experience in conductingresearch that are normally present in psy-chology departments. They also noted thatthe move was overall positive for I–Opsychologists in general because it offersmore job opportunities with higher salariesand also retains more I–O psychologists inacademia.

In general, and in contrast with the pre-vailing views of those in business schoolsand psychology departments, individualsaffiliated with practice tended to viewthe move mainly as an “eye opener.”Their responses suggested that the movehas mainly positive consequences thatwill help the field be more relevant toorganizations—and also more influentialin society in general. Those with a prac-tice affiliation also stated that the movewould allow for more interdisciplinarycollaboration and a combination of thestrengths of both psychology departmentsand business schools. In summary, as isshown by the responses of the variousparticipants, whether the move is con-sidered a brain drain or an eye openerdepends very much on the affiliation of therespondent.

Some Predictions for the Future

Given the trends uncovered in Study 1,our results indicate that the presence ofI–O psychologists in business schools islikely to remain at current levels or con-tinue to increase. Building upon Lawler’s(1971) prediction, and results from our stud-ies, we offer 10 predictions of our own. Wehope these admittedly provocative predic-tions will stimulate follow-up research andserve as a catalyst for an important conver-sation, as well as the development of actionplans, regarding the future of I–O psychol-ogy as a field.

Prediction #1: There will be anincreased presence of I–Opsychologists in business schools,but I–O programs will continue toexist in psychology departments

Our results show that the past few decadeshave seen an increased presence of I–Opsychologists in business schools, andthis trend is likely to be just as strong, ifnot stronger, in the future. Because manybusiness schools offer resources that facil-itate research efforts, including financialresources and data access, we predict thatbusiness schools will continue to be veryattractive, particularly for many research-oriented I–O psychologists. An over-whelming majority of respondents citedthe resource differential as the primarycause for the migration. As an example,one respondent noted that due to thesedifferences in resources, “there is no incen-tive to be in an I–O program versus abusiness school.” Thus, we predict that thevast majority of the most influential I–Opsychology researchers will continue to beaffiliated with business schools, and thiswill be reflected by the affiliation of edito-rial board members, authors, and recipientsof research awards (e.g., SIOP’s S. RainsWallace Dissertation Award and WilliamA. Owens Scholarly Achievement Award).

On the other hand, our results lead tothe apparent paradoxical prediction that inspite of this migration of I–O psychologists


to business schools, I–O programs willcontinue to exist in psychology depart-ments. That is, contrary to what has beenpredicted in the past, I–O psychology, asa field, will not move to business schools.Rather, I–O psychology will continue toexpand, and the migration of influentialresearch-oriented I–O psychologists tobusiness schools will not lead to the disap-pearance of I–O programs in psychologydepartments. The reason for this predictionis that in spite of the relative competitiveadvantage of business schools in terms ofresources, many I–O psychologists preferto interact with other psychologists (e.g.,social psychologists, experimental psychol-ogists) rather than colleagues from otherbusiness fields (e.g., finance, marketing,operations management, accounting). Inaddition, many I–O psychologists preferto teach psychology students than thoseenrolled in an MBA program and, over-all, enjoy the atmosphere of psychologydepartments better compared to businessschools. This is illustrated by the responseof one participant who wrote that “life ina business school isn’t for everyone, andpeople aren’t motivated by solely financialconsiderations.” But, because we predictthat the majority of the most influentialresearch-oriented I–O psychologists willbe affiliated with business schools, we offerPrediction #2 next.

Prediction #2: Reputation,influence, and resources will beconcentrated in only a handful ofI–O programs housed inpsychology departments

Only a handful of I–O psychology depart-ments seem to be able to compete withbusiness schools in terms of resourcesthat make job offers attractive to highlyproductive and influential I–O psychologyresearchers. Thus, there will be only ahandful of programs housed in psychologydepartments that can afford to competewith business schools in terms of teach-ing loads, compensation, data access,and other research-related resources. One

psychology department respondent notedthat the resources offered in the depart-ment to create endowed professorships are“essential to compete with business schoolsfor top faculty.” It is apparent that onlypsychology departments with resourcessuch as endowed chairs are able to attractand retain the most productive researchers.Consequently, there will be only a fewI–O programs housed in psychologydepartments employing highly influentialresearchers. One respondent noted thatthis may already be occurring because “thegravitation has been associated with thedeath of some I–O psychology areas inpsychology departments.”

We predict that only well-establisheduniversities or those that are able to gar-ner substantial resources will be able toattract and retain the most influential I–Oresearchers. Accordingly, this small minor-ity of programs will dominate I–O psychol-ogy rankings and will be able to attract thebest doctoral student applicants each year.In short, there will be a concentration ofreputation, influence, and resources in justa few I–O programs housed in psychol-ogy departments. This differentiation leadsto our third prediction.

Prediction #3: I–O psychologyresearch will be dominated byindividuals affiliated with businessschools, whereas I–O psychologypractice will be dominated bythose affiliated with psychologydepartments

As the vast majority of the most influen-tial I–O psychology researchers move tobusiness schools and only a handful of pro-grams housed in psychology departmentsremain strong regarding research produc-tivity and influence, we predict that theproduction of the most influential I–O psy-chology knowledge will originate mainly inbusiness schools. Moreover, there is a con-tinued emphasis in business schools regard-ing the publication of research in whatare considered “top-tier” journals (e.g., Tri-eschmann, Dennis, Northcraft, & Niemi,


2000). Accordingly, we predict that busi-ness schools will dominate the research sideof I–O psychology.

On the other hand, there is a continuedneed for I–O psychology practitionersholding a master’s or doctoral degree, asevidenced by the growth of SIOP’s place-ment center at the annual conferences.In addition, as of October 2013, SIOP’sJobNet included more practitioner (i.e.,60%) positions compared to academic(i.e., 40%) positions (http://www.siop.org/jobnet/default.aspx). Thus, although pro-grams housed in psychology departmentswill not employ the majority of the mostinfluential I–O researchers, we predictthat many will still survive and even thriveby emphasizing I–O psychology practice.Specifically, we predict that I–O programsin psychology departments will developpartnerships with practitioners and domi-nate the practice side of I–O psychology.This prediction is reflected in the statementof one respondent who wrote that “I–O psy-chology programs over time become placesto train I–O psychologists who want to workin practice settings (with scholars opting toattend PhD programs housed in businessschools).” In addition, as the majority of themost influential and visible I–O researchproduced moves from psychology depart-ments to business schools, there will be aconcomitant shift in the emphasis placedon training future I–O psychologists, whichwe address with our next prediction.

Prediction #4: I–O programs inpsychology departments willincreasingly focus on trainingPsyD and master’s-level studentswho pursue practice and notresearch careers

Given our predictions regarding the pro-duction of the majority of I–O research inbusiness schools, doctoral students who areinterested in I–O psychology research willbe attracted to business schools (except forthe handful of I–O programs in psychol-ogy departments mentioned in prediction#2). In addition, business schools will also

be attractive to prospective doctoral stu-dents interested in research because theywill want to work with productive men-tors in environments that offer resources thatfacilitate research-related activities. Overtime, attraction–selection–attrition theorypredicts an even greater dominance of busi-ness schools regarding the production ofI–O psychology research (Ployhart, Week-ley, & Baughman, 2006; Schneider, 1987).

On the other hand, as I–O psychol-ogy research becomes dominant in businessschools compared to psychology depart-ments, we predict that many psychologydepartments will shift their emphasis fromtraining research-oriented PhDs to PsyDand master’s-level students seeking jobs out-side of academia. This issue was highlightedby a respondent who predicted that “in75–100 years I suspect that we may notsee much I–O [in psychology departments]at the doctoral level (it will likely existat the MA level).” Related to prediction#3, I–O programs in psychology depart-ments are likely to become the providersof choice for organizations interested inhiring practice-oriented I–O psychologists.Also, offering practice-oriented degrees willbe a way for I–O programs housed inpsychology departments to garner financialresources. This differential in terms of train-ing orientation leads to our next prediction,which pertains to SIOP.

Prediction #5: There will be adecreased number of I–Opsychologists affiliated withbusiness schools who are activelyinvolved with SIOP

A concern voiced by many of the respon-dents in Study 2 is that SIOP is likely tolose support and the active involvement ofI–O psychologists affiliated with businessschools. This is likely to result mainly fromtime demands from competing professionalorganizations such as the Academy ofManagement. Thus, we predict that themajority of future members of SIOP willcontinue to be affiliated with psychologydepartments—particularly those SIOP


members who are active in SIOP’s gov-ernance structure. In addition, given ourpredicted emphasis of I–O programs inpsychology departments on training practi-tioners, we also predict that the majority ofnew SIOP members will be affiliated withpsychology departments, and there will bea concomitant emphasis on practice-relatedissues and initiatives (e.g., Leading EdgeConsortium, increased linkages with theSociety for Human Resource Management).This shift should also become evident inthe program of the SIOP annual confer-ences, which we predict will include anincreased number of activities focused onpractice compared to research. In fact, aparticipant in Study 2 highlighted this issuein describing the latest SIOP conference bynoting that it “seemed more like a group ofconsultants and practitioners more than anacademic conference.”

Because of the predicted shift of SIOPtoward practice-related issues, I–O psy-chologists in business schools who focusmore on research are likely to chooseother organizations as their main profes-sional affiliation. As Ryan and Ford (2010a)noted, the primary identity of individu-als is often reflected in the professionalorganizations in which they choose toparticipate. As I–O psychologists move tobusiness schools, their identity is also likelyto shift due to the emphasis placed onother organizations such as the Academy ofManagement. As was noted by one of ourrespondents, referring to I–O psychologistsin business schools, “these folks often moveto the Academy of Management rather thanto SIOP. Allegiances to both exist, but manybusiness folks leave SIOP in the dust.” Thisprediction leads to further consequences forI–O programs in psychology departments,as is noted in our prediction #6 next.

Prediction #6: I–O programs inpsychology departments willbecome increasingly marginalizedby other psychology areas

We predict that the move of research-oriented I–O psychologists to business

schools will lead to an increased marginal-ization of I–O programs in psychologydepartments. As was noted by several ofthe participants in Study 2, I–O psychologyis already becoming a marginalized area inmany psychology departments because ofdifficulties associated with securing exter-nal funding for research. One respondentsaid that “[I–O psychologists] are oftenlower on the totem pole than the otherareas of psychology because they are theleast likely to bring in grant money, whichis highly valued … and even required bysome psychology programs for tenure.” Inaddition, as the majority of the most pro-ductive and influential researchers continueto migrate to business schools, there willbe less respect for I–O psychology fromother subfields within psychology. This lossof respect should only be compounded bythe shift in focus that we predict will occurwithin SIOP, as was noted in prediction #5.The move of influential I–O researchers tobusiness schools is also likely to have animpact on the new knowledge that is pro-duced, as discussed in our next prediction.

Prediction #7: Influential I–Opsychology journals will focus ontheoretical advances rather thanapplied research

As the migration of I–O psychologists tobusiness schools continues, the majority ofjournal editorial board members in the topI–O journals will continue to be affiliatedwith business schools. Results from Study 1show that not only are most editorial boardmembers affiliated with business schools,but the majority of authors of the articlesappearing in JAP and PPsych are also affil-iated with business schools. Because edito-rial board members are the gatekeepers ofthe type of research that is published, thischange in affiliation is predicted to play amajor role in the shaping of the journalsas they move forward. In fact, results fromStudy 1 showed that a business school affil-iation of editorial board members becamedominant for JAP and PPsych in the 1990s,and about a decade after the majority of


gatekeepers became affiliated with businessschools, the majority of authors of articlespublished in these two journals also becameaffiliated with business schools.

The change in affiliation of authorsof articles published in JAP and PPsychis likely to lead to changes in the ori-entation of the new knowledge that isproduced. As one respondent noted, “[jour-nal editors] favor editorial policies that steertheir journal toward ‘A’ status.” What thisimplies is that there is a focus for thesejournals to replicate the “A” status jour-nals in the field of management that focusmainly on making theoretical contributions(Hambrick, 2007). This poses an importantchallenge for researchers who are focusedon conducting more applied researchbecause, as noted by another respondent,“the papers published in these journalsare becoming more and more esoteric.” Inaddition, reward systems for faculty that arefocused mostly on producing “A hits” onlyfurther this change. Because researchersare being rewarded for publishing in thetop journals, journal editors will changetheir editorial policies in order to attract toppublications. Accordingly, the top journalsin I–O psychology are likely to focus moreheavily on theory at the expense of appliedresearch. This leads to our next prediction,which is also related to the production ofnew I–O knowledge.

Prediction #8: I–O psychologyresearch will increasingly focus onorganizational psychology andorganizational behavior (i.e., “O”side of I–O psychology) at theexpense of industrial psychology(i.e., “I” side of I–O psychology)

As productive I–O psychology resear-chers continue to migrate to businessschools, research on traditional “I” topicssuch as selection, job analysis, recruitment,training, and performance appraisal areless likely to be published in major I–Opsychology journals. The reason for this, aswas pointed out by one respondent, is that“these topics are generally less theoretical.”

With the top journals focusing mainly oncontributing to theory (as discussed in pre-diction #7), some of the more traditionalindustrial psychology topics are likely toreceive less attention.

This prediction is also based on predic-tions #3 and #4. Given that psychologydepartments will focus increasingly ontraining practitioners, as one respondentnoted, “how many people get a doctoratein Management to practice selection?”Because these traditional “I” topics usuallyreceive more attention by I–O psychol-ogy practitioners, training and research onthese topics will emanate mainly from psy-chology departments. In short, research inbusiness schools will increasingly focus onthe “O” side of I–O psychology. However,we offer prediction #9 next as a qualifierfor this prediction.

Prediction #9: There will be asmall number of “I–O friendly”business schools that willcontinue to produce traditionalindustrial psychology research

Although we have thus far referred to“business schools” in general, such schoolsvary greatly. In fact, the Association toAdvance Collegiate Schools of Business(AACSB) currently includes more than 650business school members in the UnitedStates and Canada alone. Business schoolsdiffer in terms of strategic goals, organiza-tional structures, and reward systems, andconsequently, I–O psychologists are likelyto be more attracted to some comparedto others. Specifically, researchers withI–O psychology training are more likely tobe attracted to universities that value andreward their work, even if it addresses moretraditional industrial psychology topics.

To examine this issue, consider the busi-ness school faculty productivity rankingscompiled by the University of Texas-Dallas(UT-Dallas, 2013), which do not considerarticles in JAP, PPsych or OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes(OBHDP), which are journals more likelyto be targeted by individuals trained in


I–O psychology compared to other jour-nals that are also used as input for theserankings (e.g., Administrative Science Quar-terly, Management Science, and StrategicManagement Journal). On the other hand,research productivity rankings of man-agement departments compiled by TexasA&M University and University of Florida(2013) do include articles published in JAP,PPsych, and OBHDP. We compared thetop-10 ranked schools from 2008 through2012 in the UT-Dallas list with the top-10ranked schools in the Texas A&M/Floridalist. Although there is some overlap acrossthe two lists, schools included in thetop-10 Texas A&M/Florida rankings and notincluded in the UT-Dallas top-10 list areMichigan State University, Arizona StateUniversity, Pennsylvania State University,Texas A&M University, and University ofMinnesota. As a follow-up analysis, wecreated a ranking of schools using theA&M/Florida list but relying on the totalnumber of publications in JAP, PPsych,and OBHDP only. Our results showed thatfive of the top-10 schools based on articlesin these three journals only are not evenamong the top-20 schools based on theUT-Dallas rankings. In fact, the top schoolbased on articles published in JAP, PPsych,and OBHDP (i.e., Michigan State Univer-sity) is ranked #30 in the UT-Dallas list,and the #2 school based on publications inthese three journals (i.e., Arizona State Uni-versity) is ranked #24 in the UT-Dallas list.So, it seems that there are particular busi-ness schools that value the presence of I–Opsychologists more than others, as reflectedin the reward system in terms of whichjournals are considered to be the mostimpactful and prestigious. Stated differ-ently, it is doubtful that so many researchersat schools such as Michigan State Universityand Arizona State University would chooseto publish their work in JAP, PPsych, andOBHDP if such articles “do not count” inthese schools’ reward systems.

The aforementioned results based onresearch output leads to the conclusionthat I–O psychologists are likely to gravi-tate toward business schools with reward

systems that value publications in I–Opsychology journals. As predicted byperson–organization fit theory, peopleare attracted to and accept job offersfrom organizations that “fit” their values(Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson,2005). So, this conclusion serves as a qual-ifier for prediction #8 in that these “I–Ofriendly” business schools may constituteknowledge creation pockets that continueto produce more traditional industrial psy-chology research in such domains as jobanalysis, personnel selection, and training,as long as such research is published injournals considered to be “top tier.”

Prediction #10: The number of“I–O friendly” business schoolsthat continue to producetraditional industrial psychologyresearch will decrease over time

Established researchers contemplating amove from a psychology department toa business school are likely to considerschools that value their research agendasand to be particularly attracted to thosethat “count” articles published in moretraditional I–O psychology journals such asJAP and PPsych even if they address moretraditional industrial psychology topics.However, this process, which is based onpredictions by attraction-selection-attritiontheory (Ployhart et al., 2006; Schneider,1987), may not apply to junior researchers.In particular, those seeking a first yearassistant professor position may not beestablished as deeply into their field of studyand are more likely to be influenced by thedemands and reward system of the hiringuniversity compared to their I–O psychol-ogy training. If these researchers begin theircareer in schools that do not “count” articlespublished in more traditional I–O psychol-ogy outlets, they may change their researchagendas to match the demands, values,and reward systems of their organizations.Thus, these junior researchers are likely toquickly adapt to their environments, focuson more macro-level research, and also onthe “O” side of I–O psychology compared


to more traditional individual-level researchfocusing on industrial psychology topics.

As an initial test of this prediction, weexamined the November 2013 compo-sition of the editorial boards of JAP andPPsych with a focus on those I–O psy-chology graduates with a business schoolaffiliation. Results indicated that 54% (JAP)and 57% (PPsych) accepted a businessschool offer immediately upon receivingtheir PhD degree. These results suggestthat the pockets of knowledge creationregarding industrial psychology in businessschools mentioned in Prediction #9 arelikely to decrease in number over timeas the migration of I–O psychologists tobusiness schools involves freshly mintedPhDs compared to more senior researchers.

The aforementioned 10 predictions arelikely to take place as the migration con-tinues. They can be considered good, bad,or inconsequential depending on whetherthe move is seen as a brain drain or aneye opener. However, these predictions willhelp guide future research and we believeare likely to be confirmed if there are nopurposeful changes implemented aimed ataddressing the migration.

Conclusion

The move of I–O psychologists to businessschool has transformed the I–O psychol-ogy landscape and will continue to do so.Whether this is seen as an overall positivechange or a negative change depends onwho is offering the opinion. One conclu-sion that does seem to be apparent is thatthere are both positive and negative conse-quences associated with the move. For thefuture sustainability of the field of I–O psy-chology, we should focus on maximizingthe positives and minimizing the negatives.Former NASA astronaut James A. Lovell,famous for his quote “Houston, we’ve had aproblem here,” said that “There are peoplewho make things happen, there are peoplewho watch things happen, and there arepeople who wonder what happened.” Ourperspective is that we, the I–O psychologycommunity in business schools, psychology

departments, and practice should makethings happen. We believe it is the righttime for SIOP, and the field in general, tostop “watching” the migration of I–O psy-chologists to business schools and considerthis issue seriously. We hope our results andpredictions will serve as catalysts for animportant conversation, as well as thedevelopment of action plans, regarding thefuture of I–O psychology as a field.

References

Aguinis, H., Ambrose, M. L., Cascio, W. F., Cropan-zano, R. S., Mathieu, J. E., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003,April). I–O psychologists in business schools. Paneldiscussion presented at the 18th Annual Confer-ence of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). Whatmonetary rewards can and cannot do: How toshow employees the money. Business Horizons,56, 241–249.

Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounceof prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improv-ing research quality before data collection. AnnualReview of Organizational Psychology and Organi-zational Behavior, 1, 569–595.

Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2011). Dynamicaspects of voluntary turnover: An integratedapproach to curvilinearity in the performance-turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 96, 233–246.

Campbell, J. P. (1971). Psychology in business schools.Professional Psychology, 2, 6–11.

Costanza, D. P., & Jensen, J. M. (2010). The fifth sce-nario: Identity expansion in organizational psychol-ogy. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Per-spectives on Science and Practice, 3, 281–285.

DeNisi, A. (1999, April). Presidential address. Presen-tation delivered at the 14th Annual Conference ofthe Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology, Atlanta, GA.

Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’sdevotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.

Highhouse, S., & Zickar, M. J. (1997). Where has allthe psychology gone. The Industrial-OrganizationalPsychologist, 35(2), 82–88.

Jamieson, B. D. (1974). Current trends in industrial andorganizational psychology. New Zealand Psycholo-gist, 3(1), 28–36.

Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D.(1998). Are financial incentives related to per-formance? A meta-analytic review of empiricalresearch. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,777–787.

Khanna, C., & Medsker, G. J. (2007). 2006 incomeand employment survey results for the Societyfor Industrial and Organizational Psychology.The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(1),17–32.


Khanna, C., & Medsker, G. J. (2010). 2009 incomeand employment survey results for the Societyfor Industrial and Organizational Psychology.The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 48(1),23–38.

Khanna, C., Medsker, G. J., & Ginter, R. (2013). 2012income and employment survey results for the Soci-ety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51(1),18–30.

Knapp, D. J. (2010). Who are we without the I, or theO, or the P? Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3,259–261.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & John-son, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fitat work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, and person–supervisor fit. PersonnelPsychology, 58, 281–342.

Lawler, E. E. (1971). Thoughts about the future. Profes-sional Psychology, 2, 21–22.

Medsker, G. J., Katkowski, D. A., & Furr, D. (2005).2003 income and employment survey results forthe Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology. The Industrial-Organizational Psycholo-gist, 43(1), 36–50.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2010). A means not an end. Indus-trial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectiveson Science and Practice, 3, 269–271.

Naylor, J. C. (1971). Hickory, dickory, dock! Let’sturn back the clock! Professional Psychology, 2,217–224.

Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Baughman, K.(2006). The struggle and function of human cap-ital emergence: A multilevel examination of theattraction-selection-attrition model. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49, 661–677.

Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Under-standing and dealing with organizational surveynonresponse. Organizational Research Methods,10, 195–209.

Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010a). Organizationalpsychology and the tipping point of professionalidentity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 241–258.

Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010b). A profession awryor poised for the future? Work psychology andprofessional identity. Industrial and Organizational

Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,3, 300–304.

Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. (2004). Theimportance of pay in employee motivation: Dis-crepancies between what people say and what theydo. Human Resource Management, 43, 381–394.

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 the21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Schneider, B. (1971). Differences between prospectivestudents of industrial-organizational psychology inpsychology and nonpsychology departments. Pro-fessional Psychology, 2, 11–18.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place.Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.

Sheng, Z. (2013). An interview with SIOP’s newlyelected president, Dr. José Cortina. The I/ON: TheOfficial Newsletter of the Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology Program at George Mason University,18(1), 1 & 11–12.

Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Inductivetop-down theorizing: A source of new theories oforganization. Academy of Management Review,36, 361–380.

Silzer, R. F., & Parson, C. (2013). Trends in SIOP mem-bership, graduate education, and member satis-faction. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist,50(4), 119–129.

Texas A&M, & University of Florida. (2013).2008–2012 aggregated management departmentproductivity rankings. Management DepartmentProductivity Rankings. Retrieved from http://mays.tamu.edu/mgmt/productivity-rankings

Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., &Niemi, A. W. (2000). Serving multiple constituen-cies in the business school: MBA program versusresearch performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 43, 1130–1141.

UT-Dallas. (2013). 2008 to 2012 North American rank-ings. The UTD Top 100 Business School ResearchRankings. Retrieved from http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/northRankings#20082012

Vroom, V. H. (1971). Comment. Professional Psychol-ogy, 2, 18–21.

Date post:	20-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Industrial--Organizational Psychologists in Business …I–O psychologists in business schools 285...

Documents