Graduate training in industrial-organizational psychology: some oft-ignored contextual issues

Canadian Psychology, Feb-May 1998 by Kline, Theresa, Rowe, Patricia

So, how can we best equip our graduate students with the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to be successful in such a world? We don't have the answer to this question. However, as we take the time to think through these contextual variables, we hope to raise some issues for discussion in graduate programs and provide a few ideas about program design.

The Shedding of the Human Resource Function

One of the common staffing themes in organizations today is that of relying on a core group of workers, while outsourcing (also known as contracting out) as much of the work as possible (e.g., Kanter, 1989). This fulfills the organization's need for maintaining flexibility in a fast-changing workplace, hiring in expertise as needed, while not incurring the costs associated with full-time employees (pension plans, unemployment insurance payments, etc.). Campbell (1994) has predicted that by the year 2000, 50-75% of the work force will be working in contract, temporary and/or part-time positions. From the worker perspective, there are advantages and disadvantages to this type of arrangement.

The down side is clear. There is no job security, no ability to plan for the long term, and no idea how much and when work will arrive. In addition, having to upgrade one's skills constantly on one's own time and at one's own expense is a tremendous burden for many. Finally, constantly "selling oneself" in the marketplace is a daunting task for many of us. As a side note, the hiring of contract workers has been virtually ignored by I-O psychology, as the research and theoretical frameworks are modelled on the "typical" long-term employee. As a result, there is little that we have to offer to help organizations or individuals cope with this phenomenon.

One oft-cited "pro" in this type of arrangement is that the worker has control of his or her own work and career. Completely -- like it or not. Taking on projects that are interesting and exciting, that have clear objectives and a timeline to completion can be an invigorating way to work. For those who have good marketing skills, selling oneself can be an easy task and one that is enjoyable. The idea of more control and more independence seem to be the up-side of this "outsourcing" phenomenon. It can and should be argued, however, that the "control" here is illusory. People are often very vulnerable when they find themselves in this situation. They are dependent on contract work which is very controlling. In addition, individuals may find themselves willing to take on projects for which they are poorly trained just to make ends meet.

These are issues for all contract workers. What about I-O Psychologists more specifically? Many I-O Psychologists work as internal consultants in organizations (e.g., Borman & Cox, 1996). As firms downsized, these units were often the first ones targeted. Our own impression is that these traits over the years had consistently failed to show how their work added value to the organization. This is not to imply that they did not contribute, nor that a "bottom line" measure is the only meaningful measure (there are other aspects of organizational life that are not readily apparent in any bottom line, such as worker satisfaction, worker safety, a sense of worker commitment to the organization, and other such intangibles that make some organizations simply better places to work). Still, most of the time HR initiatives have been greeted with skepticism by most other units in the organization, and HR managers did not do their jobs in terms of their own program evaluation. Whether this is the fault of the managers being poorly trained in this area, the organization being unwilling and/or uninterested in the results, or some combination of both is irrelevant. What is at issue is that many practitioner I-O psychologists are now employed as external rather than internal consultants.