Running head TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY1TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY.docx

Running head: TOPICS IN I/O PSYCHOLOGY 1
TOPICS IN I/O PSYCHOLOGY 2
Topics in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
John Q. Student
Columbia Southern University
Abstract
The paper presents an overview of seven topics in
industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology. These topics include
(a) authenticity and the future of I/O psychology, (b) reliability
and validity of assessment measures within scientific research,
(c) personality assessments, (d) organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCB) and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB),
(e) 360 degree feedback systems, (f) the multi-hurdle staffing
model, and (g) the role of needs analysis in the training process.
For each topic, the paper presents an overview, as well as the
reason for selecting the topic. In addition, the paper presents
information about the importance of each topic to the I/O
psychology profession, plus any relevant social, ethical, or legal
concerns.
Keywords: I/O psychology, authenticity, reliability, validity,
personality assessments, OCB, CWB, 360 degree feedback,
multi-source feedback (MSF), multi-hurdle staffing model,
needs analysis in training development
Topics in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
The paper presents an overview of selected topics from each of
seven chapters in the text by Landy and Conte (2009) addressed
in the course. The key topics include authenticity, reliability
and validity of research measures, personality assessments,

organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and
counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). In addition, the
paper presents an overview of 360 degree systems, the multi-
hurdle staffing model, and the role of needs analysis in
developing a training program.
The topics follow the same order as the textbook chapters, and
the paper presents a brief overview of each one, along with
reasons for choosing the various topics and a brief description
of how those topics are important to the I/O psychology
profession. In addition, the paper presents any social, ethical, or
legal concerns related to each topic. The paper does not present
a central theme, but rather serves to demonstrate a grasp on key
concepts within each chapter of the Landy and Conte (2009)
text.
History and Future of I/O Psychology: Authenticity
Landy and Conte (2009) refer to the concept of authenticity as
something or someone that is “real, genuine, not artificial” (p.
7). Authenticity is a new trend in I/O psychology—not found in
the literature prior to 1999—reflecting society’s desire to grasp
onto things and people that seem “real” in a world of ever-
increasing virtual connectivity. I/O psychologists are noting
that authenticity is “reflected in the search for ‘good work’ and
inspirational leadership” (Landy & Conte, 2009, p. 8).
Authenticity and the perception of how authentic a thing or
person is will be important in future studies in the I/O
psychology profession.
The primary reason for choosing authenticity is that I have long
been interested in transformational leadership, integrity, and
character development. Authenticity is a big factor in the
success of each of those areas, and I am excited to see it
becoming a factor in I/O psychology research and application.
Importance to Profession and Career
Authenticity is important to I/O psychologists because it helps
them understand the quest for balance between work and
personal life. In addition, this concept is important to the
discipline of leadership (Landy & Conte, 2009). Leadership

trainees and those already leading realize that credible and
respected leadership today consists of “integrity and
genuineness, not projecting an artificial persona” (p. 564).
Authentic leadership is becoming even more important as the
compensation gap between highly-paid executives and the rest
of an organization’s workforce grows, especially in the United
States (Joseph, 1999). In addition, the societal dislike for “big
business” and the characterizations of many companies by the
mainstream media organizations propel that dislike until it
becomes distrust (Indiviglio, 2011). Authenticity can help
overcome these issues. It can also help individuals and
organizations stand out in the crowded business world (Joseph,
1999).
In my consultancy, authenticity helps builds trust with clients.
It helps me stand out in a competitive marketplace because even
if I am an expert in digital marketing or (eventually) I/O
psychology, but I cannot relate to clients, they will choose
another consultant with perhaps less expertise but a greater
authenticity.
Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues
Eagly (2005) expressed a social issue related to authenticity.
She was concerned that female leaders demonstrating
authenticity would experience adverse results as compared to
male leaders. If women reveal their true selves—egalitarian,
nurturing, and process-oriented—their colleagues and
subordinates may perceive them in a negative way (Eagly,
2005).
Authenticity can carry with it ethical and legal issues,
particularly if it leads to inappropriate relationships at work,
politically incorrect language or hate speech, or if it takes one
beyond the bounds of the laws of society. Like one’s reputation,
authenticity is hard to gain, easy to lose in an instant, and
difficult to regain (Landy & Conte, 2009).
Science and Research in I/O Psychology: Reliability and
Validity
Landy and Conte (2009) note that in order to ensure an accurate

statistical interpretation of any research project, the measures
used to collect the data must be reliable. Reliability means there
was “consistent information on which to base decisions” (Landy
& Conte, 2009, p. 82). I/O psychology researchers should be
aware of several types of errors that can interfere with a
measure’s reliability, including: (a) test-retest reliability, (b)
equivalent forms reliability, (c) internal consistency, and (d)
inter-rater reliability (Landy & Conte, 2009).
Landy and Conte (2009) also note that another “characteristic of
good measurement is validity” (Landy & Conte, 2009, p. 82).
Validity means that the measurements were “taken accurately
and completely represent what we had hoped to measure”
(Landy & Conte, 2009, p. 82). Three ways to test for validity
include: (a) criterion-related validity, (b) content-related
validity, and (c) construct-related validity (Landy & Conte,
2009).
The primary reason for choosing reliability and validity is an
innate skepticism for statistics. As someone anonymously once
said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.”
The researcher can easily manipulate the statistical results of
any research study to fit a bias or to match the proposed
hypothesis.
Reliability and validity have been important throughout the
history of psychology as a science (Landy & Conte, 2009).
Without these two concepts, the findings of any study are not
scientific (Putka & Sackett, 2010). Personal ethics enter the
picture as well and high moral character on the part of the
researcher is necessary to ensure the accurate use of statistics
(Landy & Conte, 2009).
Reliability and validity will remain important to the I/O
psychology profession because psychology is, in some ways,
still fighting for its rightful place in the realm of science, and
these two concepts are foundational in any scientific endeavor.
Any research measure utilized in any I/O psychological study

must take into consideration both concepts (Putka & Sackett,
2010).
In my consultancy, I work with small and medium-sized
business owners. In the future, I intend to work in I/O
psychology primarily as a management consultant and possibly
as a certified personality assessment administrator. In both
cases, the reliability and validity of the measures I recommend
for use will be important. When giving recommendations to the
C-suite managers, I will want to ensure that I am not setting
them up for legal concerns due to either reliability or validity of
specific measures. When choosing assessments to administer, I
will absolutely want to know that the assessments are as reliable
and valid as possible to ensure correct results.
Social issues are possible because many assessment measures
involve self-reporting. Some people may attempt to “fake out”
the assessment or may not answer honestly, especially
concerning private or potentially embarrassing topics. The main
ethical concern around reliability and validity in assessment
measures involves the appropriate use of statistics resulting
from the measurements—not bending them to fit the hypothesis
Landy and Conte (2009) note that the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
and the resulting Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
made validity in assessment for hiring and promotion a legal
concern. The courts are primarily concerned with criterion-
related validity, though they also consider the other two types
mentioned above. Unfortunately, as Landy and Conte (2009)
also note, with passing time the ways to measure validity have
changed but the courts and legal precedents have not, and thus
the federal guidelines in discrimination cases are often out of
date.
Assessment of Individual Differences: Personality Assessments
Steel, Schmidt, and Schultz (2008) note that within I/O
psychology there is agreement that personality predicts general
behavior and happiness (Steel et al., 2008). Landy and Conte

(2009) also note that personality predicts behavior at work,
including “performance, absenteeism, counterproductive work
behavior, and team effectiveness” (Landy & Conte, 2009, p.
109). In other words, taking time to identify a worker’s
personality can assist the organization in job placements where
candidates will likely be the best fit, and thus perform to the
highest level.
The primary reason for choosing personality assessment is that I
have long been fascinated with personality and the benefits to
understanding people more easily. My MBA program spent a
significant amount of time on psychology and communication at
work, particularly via the Myers-Briggs Temperament
Instrument (MBTI). I took a shortened version of the MBTI and
began to read at length about my personality type, resulting in a
much deeper understanding of why I behave the way I do. It
also has been useful in gaining insight into why my husband,
family, colleagues, former business partners, and clients think,
feel, and behave in specific ways. That sparked an interest in
Kroeger, Thuesen, and Rutledge’s book Type Talk at Work,
which I use to this day to help me identify personality traits and
deal with the inevitable “people challenges” in my business.
The Big 5 or Five Factor Model (FFM) is the historic
foundation of personality assessment (Landy & Conte, 2009, p.
110). Personality assessment has been important to
understanding work behavior for some time, and will continue
to be important for the near future. It has become equally
important to organizations as cognitive ability (Landy & Conte,
2009), and numerous assessments exist to fit any organizational
assessment budget. Goldstein and Goldstein (2002) note that a
“great deal of effort and work is required to begin to understand
the complex question of predicting job performance” (p. 139).
In my consultancy, I attempt to identify clients’ personalities
and deal with them according to what I know about those
specific personalities. In the future, I intend to administer
personality assessments and look forward to a greater

understanding of how insight into personality can improve
customer relations, spousal and familial relationships, and
worker/employer relationships. I already study this topic
regularly on my own, and look forward to continually improving
my knowledge base and achieving certification and credentials
to work more specifically in this area.
Two social issues involve faking and response bias (Heggestad,
Morrison, Reeve, & McCloy, 2006). Ethical issues in the use of
personality assessment include informed consent from the
candidate or worker and confidentiality of the results (Knauss,
2001).
As with any assessment used in hiring or promotion decisions,
the use of personality assessments may make an organization
vulnerable in the courts if invalid or unreliable assessments are
used, or if those assessments are unfair to a specific gender,
race, or minority group (Landy & Conte, 2009).
Job Analysis: OCB and CWB
Landy & Conte (2009) define organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) as “behavior that goes beyond what is
expected” (p. 182). In other words, OCB encompasses the
attitudes, intentions, and actions at work that make the
employee want to help others and exceed the employer’s
expectations. The actions can be both good and bad, as the text
notes in its hypothetical scenario of a steel worker going
beyond his or her job to help out, but instead causing an
accident (Landy & Conte, 2009).
In contrast, Landy & Conte (2009) define counterproductive
work behaviors (CWB) as “voluntary behavior that
violates…organizational norms and threatens the well-being of
the organization, its members, or both” (p. 186). In other words,
CWB harms co-workers or the company, whether because of job
dissatisfaction or intentional sabotage. The actions are usually
unethical and negative and often create a ripple effect in the
organization unless leaders deal with the behaviors quickly.
The primary reason for choosing OCB and CWB is that they are

age-old concepts that are simultaneously emerging trends and
new buzzwords in I/O psychological research. This intrigues me
because, as King Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 1:9, “there is
nothing new under the sun” (Bible Gateway, n.d.), and it is
humorous that the science of psychology has caught up to the
common sense of the ages while thinking it has discovered
something new.
Studying OCB and CWB is important to the profession because
it builds upon the idea of personality assessment’s usefulness in
predicting work behavior. Landy and Conte (2009) note that
personality measures “do a better job of predicting OCB
performance,” whereas cognitive ability is more likely to
predict task performance (Landy & Conte, 2009, p. 198). In
addition, as work teams continue to dominate modern
workplaces, understanding what drives OCB and CWB will be
even more useful.
In my consultancy, I would like to explore the relationship
between OCB and enabling less-than-satisfactory employees. I
intend to be able to give management recommendations for how
to predict which candidates will be capable of OCB or CWB,
and how to build a culture that supports a working balance
between the willingness to help versus enabling a lazy
colleague.
Bergeron (2007) states that OCB may have unintended social
consequences in the workplace. She considers extra variables
such as zero-sum limits on time at work and the relationship
between task performance, OCB, and career advancement. She
notes the “potential paradox of OCB,” which is that within a
fixed amount of time, workers who spend more time on task
performance than on OCB will have “higher career outcomes”
than workers who do the opposite (p. 1086). In other words, too
much time spent going above and beyond to help others or the
organization is not always the best thing to do if career

advancement is something the worker hopes to achieve.
An ethical concern involves whether to consider OCB in
performance assessments, as compared to workers who merely
perform only the job assigned (Landy & Conte, 2009). Another
ethical concern centers on the ostracizing of workers who do
not want to go above and beyond but do perform well in their
own jobs. Legal issues may arise from some CWBs, such as
theft or sabotage, as could rare cases of OCB gone bad that
resulted in accidents and injury or death (Landy & Conte,
2009).
Performance Measurement: 360 Degree Systems
Landy & Conte (2009) state that performance management is the
“link between individual behavior and organizational strategies
and goals” (p. 233). In other words, it is the measurement of
how well a worker’s behavior matches the company’s big-
picture goals with input from both the worker and his or her
manager.
A high-level view of performance management shows that it is
different from a performance appraisal alone. Performance
management has three components. The first is the definition of
performance, including company strategies and goals (Landy &
Conte, 2009, p. 234). The second component is the performance
measurement process. The third component of performance
management is the follow-up communication between worker
and manager that lets the worker know how well he or she
aligns with the company’s goals and ways in which to improve
performance (Landy & Conte, 2009, p. 234).
The primary reason for this choice is that I want to understand
the best way to gather and deliver feedback that helps both
others and I become more self-aware. Fletcher & Baldry (2000)
state that the multi-source feedback system (MSF), or 360
degree system, compares “individuals’ self-assessments with
others’ ratings of them on various performance dimensions” (p.
303). The outcome of this type of review is often a measure of
self-awareness achieved by the candidate or worker, and that
self-awareness often relates to performance outcomes (Fletcher

& Baldry, 2000).
Performance measurement and MSF or 360 degree feedback
systems are important to the I/O psychology profession because
the current models for hiring, promotion, and rely on
performance at work. Continued research into finding the best
ways to collect and deliver feedback that supports decisions
made in the above three areas is likely to be an ongoing
priority, especially as the nature of work changes with the
advent of technology (Landy & Conte, 2009).
In my consultancy, I intend to both recommend and use the 360
degree system when appropriate. Even the scaled-back process
of an MSF can assist in reducing blind spots in my own
business and leadership style, as well as in the organizations
and leadership styles of the business owners with whom I
consult.
One social concern involves the adoption and overuse of MSF
systems in organizations. This type of performance assessment,
originally intended for use in management development, has
become so popular that it is replacing the traditional
performance appraisal (Toegel & Conger, 2003).
Landy and Conte (2009) note three types of justice issues: (a)
distributive, (b) procedural, and (c) interpersonal (p. 235).
Distributive justice involves fair rewards or punishments
matched to performance. Procedural justice involves the actual
system of evaluation and considers whether it is fair.
Interpersonal justice involves the fairness of the delivery
method chosen for evaluation feedback. Each of these issues can
serve as a basis for ethical or legal concerns, especially if there
is gender or ethnic bias inherent in the ratings, unfair rewards
or punishments given, or poorly-communicated evaluation
results.
Staffing Decisions: Multi-Hurdle Staffing Model
Landy & Conte (2009) state that the hurdle system is a

“noncompensatory system,” that does not allow applicants to
“compensate at a later assessment state for a low score in an
earlier stage of the assessment process” (p. 296). In other
words, each stage of the assessment serves similar to a hurdle
on a track, and applicants must successfully clear each hurdle
before gaining the opportunity to approach the next assessment
stage. If the number of candidates that pass all of the hurdles is
greater than the number of open positions, the hurdle system
usually becomes a compensatory system and combines scores to
“allow for relative strengths and weaknesses to offset each
other” (Landy & Conte, 2009, p. 297).
The primary reason for choosing this topic is that the
straightforward nature of the process is appealing. In addition,
as a consultant who works directly with business owners, I am
aware of the bottom-line motivations behind each business
activity, and this type of process is likely to be the most
effective for smaller companies and simultaneously be the most
cost-effective.
The multi-hurdle staffing model is important because, as Landy
and Conte (2009) note, its use continues within human resource
departments at organizations across the globe, especially when
finances are tight. One reason for its importance is that it shows
the most-qualified candidates quickly. Another reason is that it
reduces the number of expensive tests the organization or its
testing center must administer. A third reason is that it is
scalable and useful for any size organization (Landy & Conte,
2009).
In my consultancy, I intend to recommend it as a preferred
staffing model to my small and medium-sized business clients.
Understanding even more about this particular model, as well as
others in existence, will broaden the range of recommendation
options for hiring and promotion at my disposal.
Validity, utility, and fairness each play a role in evaluating
staffing decisions. Validity is the measure of accuracy in the

assessments used. Utility is a measure of staffing strategy and
has to do with the cost-to-benefit ratio of a strategy. Fairness in
staffing decisions is important, since any stakeholder who
experiences feelings of unfairness in the process and acts upon
them costs the organization time and money (Landy & Conte,
2009).
Landy and Conte (2009) discuss two main types of employment
litigation issues resulting from staffing decisions. The first is
intentional employment discrimination, and the second is
adverse impact or statistical discrimination. This unintentional
discrimination results when the staffing or promoting
procedures a company uses do not meet the “80 percent” or
“4/5ths” rule set by the 1978 Uniform Guidelines (Landy &
Conte, 2009).
Training and Development: Needs Analysis
Landy and Conte (2009) note that before any training format is
determined, I/O psychologists and organizations should take
time to conduct a needs analysis. This will pinpoint “where
training is needed, what needs to be taught or trained, and who
will be trained” (Landy & Conte, 2009, p. 318-319). In other
words, the needs analysis must answer the following questions
before creating any training program: (a) What are the big-
picture goals and challenges in the organization? (b) What
training methods will produce high performance and
competency? and (c) Who should receive training? Landy and
Conte (2009) note three areas of analysis: organizational, task,
and person (p. 319).
The primary reason for choosing this topic is that I realize the
need for planning in any endeavor. I know from my business
and marketing consulting work how much time and money a
good plan can save an organization. I also find it exciting to dig
into the who, what, and why of an organizational challenge and
then recommend a solution. In addition, taking time to plan in
this way helps to ensure the most efficient and effective
pathway to accomplishing the identified goals.

Needs analysis is important to the profession because training
development is a major pathway toward making a living for
many I/O psychologists. Training is a major expense for
organizations, and skipping the needs analysis may result in
training that does not deliver as requested. As a result, the
organization has wasted time and money, and the I/O
psychologist has lost important credibility and reputation. It is
like Ready! Fire! Aim! Such an approach is not a great way to
enter a systematic process such as training. Despite the urge to
jump quickly into training and other recommendations, this
stage is critical, as doing so will likely result in higher costs to
the organization in terms of poorly trained employees and
unmet performance goals.
In my consultancy, needs analysis is critical and is something
that I do with every client, regardless of the type of project. The
needs analysis lets me dig into my client’s business and
determine with them what the goals are, what needs to be
improved, and what training is necessary for improvement.
Whether I continue as a business/marketing consultant or add
I/O psychology consulting to my business mix, needs analysis
will be a critical first step for any assistance, recommendations,
or collaboration with any of my clients.
Social concerns are likely to arise if the needs of all types of
employees and bottom-line organizational goals are not
considered. The analysis must find answers to questions such
as: (a) Is the work force primarily male or female? (b) Is the
workforce comprised primarily of teams or individual workers?
(c) Where is the work performed?, and (d) What is the culture
of the environment? (Landy & Conte, 2009).
Two ethical concerns are: (a) fairness in identifying training
needs for all employees, and (b) understanding and
compensating for learning disabilities among workers. Legal
concerns can arise from a failure to account for gender, cultural,
or disability differences in the analysis and from skewing the

resulting training designs toward a particular race or gender
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper did not follow a central theme or
introduce a hypothesis. Instead, it presented an overview of
selected key topics from each of the Landy and Conte (2009)
textbook chapters covered during the course. The paper
presented the following topics: (a) authenticity, (b) reliability
and validity of research measures, (c) personality assessments,
(d) OCB and CWB, (e) 360 degree feedback systems, (f) the
multi-hurdle staffing model, and (g) the role of needs analysis
in training program development.
The paper presented an overview of each topic, along with the
reason for choosing each one. In addition, the paper presented a
brief description of the relevance and importance to both the
I/O psychology profession and the author’s career. The paper
also presented an overview of any social, ethical, or legal
concerns related to each topic.
The topics were interesting and I learned much from this
course. The concepts addressed in the course have sparked an
interest in further developing my consultancy. This information
was practical for my current profession and with more and more
companies utilizing I/O psychology I can see the importance of
achieving expertise in this field.
References
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational
citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of
Management Review, 32(4), 1078-1095. (EBSCOHost
Accession Number: AN 2007-15086-005).
Bible Gateway. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1&
version=NIV
Eagly, A.H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in
leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459-
474.

Fletcher, C., & Baldry, C. (2000). A study of individual
differences and self-awareness in the context of multi-source
feedback. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 73(3), 303-319. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Goldstein, H. W., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (2002). g: Is
this your final answer?. Human Performance, 15(1-2), 123-142.
doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1501&02_08
Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L., & McCloy, R. A.
(2006). Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection:
Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking
resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 9-24.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.9Indiviglio, D. (2011). Americans'
growing hatred for big business. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/americans
-growing-hatred-for-big-business/70665/
Joseph, V. (1999). CEO compensation hits the stratosphere.
(cover story). Business News New Jersey, 12(18), 4. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Knauss, L. K. (2001). Ethical Issues in Psychological
Assessment in School Settings. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 77(2), 231-241. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Kroeger, O., Thuesen, J., & Rutledge, H. (2002). Type talk at
work (revised): How the 16 personality types determine your
success on the job. New York: Delta.
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2009). Work in the 21st century:
An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology
(3rd ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Putka, D. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Reliability and validity. In
J. L. Farr, N. T. Tippins, J. L. Farr, N. T. Tippins (Eds.) ,
Handbook of employee selection (pp. 9-49). New York, NY US:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the
relationship between personality and subjective well-being.
Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138-161. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.134.1.138
Toegel, G., & Conger, J. A. (2003). 360-Degree Assessment:

Time for Reinvention. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 2(3), 297-311. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Running head TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY1TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY1TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY.docx

Similar to Running head TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY1TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY.docx (10)

More from agnesdcarey33086

More from agnesdcarey33086 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY1TOPICS IN IO PSYCHOLOGY.docx