لخّصلي

The Practice of Industrial/ Organisational Psychology in New Zealand Donald A.J. Cable, The University of Waikato Michael P. O'Driscoll, The University of Waikato A survey of 75 industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology practitioners in New Zealand was conducted to determine the actual work practices of those in the field.From the comparison of the three studies referred to above, participation rates in the traditional fields of work, deemed by industry as areas that I/O psychology practitioners can contribute (Hansson & O'Driscoll, 1993; Hines, 1972), remain major activities engaged in by practitioners. Some activities have emerged more strongly, for example leadership development, change management, and quality of work life, whilst others, for example interpersonal relations, labour/industrial relations, and work motivation, are areas of work that possibly remain underdeveloped, providing opportunities for practitioners to widen their scope of practice. Contributions and Limitations The results of this survey provide information not only to current practitioners but also to students considering I/O psychology as an occupational choice and how they may maximize their career opportunities through that choice. Current practitioners may also consider realigning the services they provide to capture work opportunities within areas of I/O psychology that may be perceived as under-supplied or untapped. This survey may also have implications for the on-going training and development of I/O psychology practitioners. As well as providing direction to current practitioners seeking to pursue their own New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 39, No. 3, 2010 o 17 o Donald A.J. Cable & Michael P. O'Driscoll development, this information may also be useful to universities in New Zealand seeking to align their I/O psychology programs with current work practices. We must, however, record one limitation to the survey. Given that only 56% of participants were New Zealand registered psychologists, we cannot necessarily claim that the sample is fully representative of I/O psychologists in New Zealand. Nevertheless, as a diverse range of work settings was included our findings could be considered indicative of the work practices of I/O psychologists in New Zealand. Conclusion At a higher level of analysis, the more popular fields of work of I/O psychology practitioners may be seen as differing little from those engaged in by other practitioners. This may be a reflection of available work opportunities. However, at a more detailed level of analysis, the work activities of I/O psychology practitioners may be seen as more reflective of the application of the principles of the behavioural sciences, embracing the humanistic model of organizational functioning. It is at this level of analysis that I/O psychology practitioners may best differentiate themselves from other practitioners by extending their scope of practice into what may be perceived as opportunities for the further application of the behavioural sciences. Industrial and organisational training in Australia and New Zealand. Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: changes, choices, and trends. Industrial-Organizational psychology in New Zealand: Who are we and where we are going? The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 1, 12-21. Human Resource Selection (6th ed.).39, No. 3, 2010 The Practice of Industrial/ Organisational Psychology in New Zealand summary report for I/O psychologists (ONet code 19-3032.00), proffers another answer to that question: "Apply principles of psychology to personnel, administration, management, sales, and marketing problems. Activities may include policy planning, employee screening, training and development, and organizational development and analysis. May work with management to reorganize the work setting to improve worker productivity."Hansson and O'Driscoll (1993) surveyed 116 managers from 15 organizations, seeking their views on the potential engagement of I/O psychologists, and concluded that "there has been little diminution of the "gap" between the profession and its consumers" (p. 16).the COP considered the following to best answer that question: "Organizational Psychology is the science of people at work. Organizational psychologists specialise in analysing organizations and their people, and devising strategies to recruit, motivate, develop, change and inspire."Participants who responded affirmative were then asked "Which of the following activities do you engage in, in this field of work?" Space was provided for participants to add fields of work and/or activities not listed. Finally, participants were asked to indicate "Typically, and on average, what percentage of your working time would you spend in this field of work?"Finally, to assess the extent to which I/O psychology has made progress in establishing a place in industry, the findings of the present study were compared to the findings from three previous studies (Cooper-Thomas & Wright, 2008; Hansson & O'Driscoll, 1993; Hines, 1972) (Table 3).Extending the work of other researchers on the role of I/O psychology practitioners, the present study investigated the extent to which participants engaged in nine areas of work, and assessed the current role of the I/O psychology practitioner.The challenge, as explained by Drury, was for responses to the question to be within the scope of what was termed an 'elevator pitch', that is, a response that someone, confronted with the question while travelling in an elevator, would have sufficient time to deliver in a concise, consistent, and coherent manner.Cooper-Thomas and Wright (2008) highlighted the struggle that I/O psychology has, both nationally and internationally, in establishing an identity and noted that a lack of clarity of what I/O psychology can offer is one of the factors hindering its public image. Other fields of work, not specifically included in the survey but mentioned by participants, included program evaluation (although this could be seen as a work activity within a specific field), employee engagement, issues related to cultural and ethnic diversity, and competency development and measurement.Under both human factors and ergonomics, and consumer psychology, the rate that activities were engaged in reflected the low participation in these fields.Over the years various studies have explored the practice of industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology in New Zealand.Hines (1972) surveyed 167 personnel managers asking them in what areas they believed I/O psychologists could contribute to their organizations.ONet (USA Department of Labour online network of job information), in the occupational o 12 o New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol.The work activities of policy d e v e l o p m e n t / i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and system/program development/ implementation were listed under all fields of work, with participants indicating that they engaged in these activities at similar levels to other activities in those fields.Program evaluation, not listed as an activity in the survey questionnaire, emerged as a recurring work activity across many of the nine fields of work.Roles for industrial/organizational psychologists: A survey of New Zealand managerial personnel.Corresponding Author: Donald A J Cable School of Psychology The University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton New Zealand.This is basically the question we sought to answer by taking these definitions of the practice of I/O psychology, and the fields of work they cover, to a more detailed task and/ or activity level.Results and Discussion The analysis of the responses (Table 1) confirmed that practitioners work primarily in the fields of training and development, change management and organization development, and recruitment and selection.The two least frequently cited fields were human factors and consumer psychology.Consumer behaviour, which could be seen as an activity open to the input of I/O psychology practitioners, was only engaged in by 31% of the participants who practiced consumer psychology.What did become apparent in the analysis of work activities were differences in terminology and the ways in which work activities were described.Many of the 'other' work activities listed by participants could be covered by those included in the survey, or were covered by activities listed under other fields of work.Training and development emerged as the most frequently specified area of work, followed by change management and organizational development, and recruitment and selection.Hopefully by clarifying what practitioners of I/O psychology actually do, what they can offer becomes clearer and the public image of I/O psychology will be enhanced. Within training and development the most common work activities included leadership development (also included in change management and organization development), coaching and mentoring, and team development. Given that the outputs of job analysis (position description, person specification) strongly support personnel selection, as well as other fields of work, this result may not be particularly surprising.Human factors and consumer psychology were reported the least often.Implications of the findings for the development of the practice of I/O psychology in New Zealand are discussed.As would be expected, the more common work activities (Table 2) of I/O psychology practitioners fell within the more common fields of work.Organization culture and climate emerged as the most common activity within change management and organization development, and job analysis emerged as the most common work activity in recruitment and selection.Some less obvious activities included budgeting, within the field of change management and organization development, advice to management, within the field of career development and management, and critical incident response, within the field of quality of work life and occupational safety and health.Note that Cooper-Thomas and Wright ordered their responses based on frequency of citation.In their study, work areas scored 1 were those cited most frequently, while work areas scored 3 were those cited least frequently.Management attitudes toward industrial psychologists: A cross- cultural study.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.Organisational Psychology in Australia and New Zealand.Organisation Development & Change (3rd Asia Pacific ed.)[email protected] majority of participants were employees (72%), and worked in consultancy (49%).These fields were closely followed by performance management and appraisal, and career development and management.Gatewood, R. D., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2008).New York; NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.O'Driscoll, M. P., Carr, S., & Forsyth, S. (2007).The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(2), 59-64.Australian Psychologist, 41(2), 120-129.(2003).

The Practice of Industrial/ Organisational
Psychology in New Zealand
Donald A.J. Cable, The University of Waikato
Michael P. O'Driscoll, The University of Waikato
A survey of 75 industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology practitioners
in New Zealand was conducted to determine the actual work practices of
those in the field. The majority of participants were employees (72%), and
worked in consultancy (49%). Extending the work of other researchers on
the role of I/O psychology practitioners, the present study investigated the
extent to which participants engaged in nine areas of work, and assessed
the current role of the I/O psychology practitioner. Training and development
emerged as the most frequently specified area of work, followed by change
management and organizational development, and recruitment and selection.
The top three areas in terms of time commitment were change management
and organization development, recruitment and selection, and education and
research. Human factors and consumer psychology were reported the least
often. Implications of the findings for the development of the practice of I/O
psychology in New Zealand are discussed.
Over the years various studies have
explored the practice of industrial
and organizational (I/O) psychology in
New Zealand. Hines (1972) surveyed
167 personnel managers asking
them in what areas they believed I/O
psychologists could contribute to their
organizations. Hines concluded that I/O
psychology experienced a “remarkably
low acceptance of New Zealanders”
(p. 127) and that less than 10% of
New Zealand companies hired I/O
psychologists. Hansson and O’Driscoll
(1993) surveyed 116 managers from
15 organizations, seeking their views
on the potential engagement of I/O
psychologists, and concluded that
“there has been little diminution of the
“gap” between the profession and its
consumers” (p. 16). They suggested that
their findings confirmed a perception
amongst company managers that I/O
psychologists could help more with
individual issues rather than with
broader organizational issues.
More recently Cooper-Thomas and
Wright (2008) surveyed 46 members of
IONet (New Zealand I/O psychology
email network). Amongst other questions,
they asked the participants what the
major duties/responsibilities were for
their current role, providing some insight
into the practice of I/O psychology
in New Zealand. They divided the
responses into three categories based
on frequency of citation. The first
category, assessment and selection,
included the most frequently cited
activities of selection, interviewing,
psychometrics, and job analysis. The
second category, development, included
amongst its activities training and
development, team building, stress
management, performance management,
and organization development. The third
category focussed on strategic and
external relations and management,
and included the least frequently
cited activities of research/evaluation,
business development, and strategic
human resources and human resource
policy development. Although their
study did not seek information on time
commitment to the various activities,
Cooper-Thomas and Wright did note
that personnel issues appeared to
predominate over organizational
issues.
The current survey was designed
to build upon these earlier studies by
analysing the daily work activities of I/O
psychology practitioners in New Zealand
to define what it is that practitioners
actually do. As a profession we are not
alone in attempting to define this. The
Australian College of Organizational
Psychologists (COP) recently posed a
similar question to its membership (B.
Drury, personnel communication, 8th
April 2009). Of the responses to the
question ‘What do I/O psychologists
do?’ the COP considered the following
to best answer that question:
“Organizational Psychology is
the science of people at work.
Organizational psychologists
specialise in analysing
organizations and their people,
and devising strategies to recruit,
motivate, develop, change and
inspire.”
The challenge, as explained by
Drury, was for responses to the question
to be within the scope of what was
termed an ‘elevator pitch’, that is, a
response that someone, confronted
with the question while travelling in
an elevator, would have sufficient
time to deliver in a concise, consistent,
and coherent manner. ONet (USA
Department of Labour online network
of job information), in the occupational
• 12 •
New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 39, No. 3, 2010
The Practice of Industrial/ Organisational Psychology in New Zealand
summary report for I/O psychologists
(ONet code 19-3032.00), proffers
another answer to that question:
“Apply principles of psychology
to personnel, administration,
management, sales, and
marketing problems. Activities
may include policy planning,
employee screening, training and
development, and organizational
development and analysis.
May work with management to
reorganize the work setting to
improve worker productivity.”
Like ourselves, the Australian COP
is now reflecting on how it may respond
to the likely follow-up question ‘Yes, but
how do you do that?’ This is basically
the question we sought to answer by
taking these definitions of the practice
of I/O psychology, and the fields of work
they cover, to a more detailed task and/
or activity level. Cooper-Thomas and
Wright (2008) highlighted the struggle
that I/O psychology has, both nationally
and internationally, in establishing an
identity and noted that a lack of clarity
of what I/O psychology can offer is
one of the factors hindering its public
image. Hopefully by clarifying what
practitioners of I/O psychology actually
do, what they can offer becomes clearer
and the public image of I/O psychology
will be enhanced.
To the best of our knowledge, this
survey is the first to heed the call of
Hansson and O’Driscoll (1993, p. 18)
to provide information on the actual
roles performed by I/O psychology
practitioners, to “incorporate the full
gamut of activities encompassed by
I/O psychology”, and to “enhance
our knowledge of what professional
I/O psychologists do.” In doing so it
extends the work of Cooper-Thomas
and Wright (2008) by analysing, at a
more detailed and task-oriented level,
the work activities of I/O psychology
practitioners.
Method
Procedure & Participants
Invitations to participate in the
survey were issued to members of IONet,
which at the time of survey (mid 2009)
had 348 members. Invitations were
also issued through the New Zealand
Psychological Society Connections
magazine, the Society’s electronic
newsletter, and the New Zealand Human
Resource Institute’s monthly newsletter.
Participants were directed to a website
where the survey could be completed
either on-line or a hard-copy printed.
Membership of IONet is open to those
expressing an interest in I/O psychology
and as such does not necessarily reflect
the number of people practicing in
the field. Fifty-seven members of the
New Zealand Psychological Society,
representing approximately 16% of
IONet members, were recorded as
I/O members (C. Garden-Webster,
personnel communication, 20th May,
2009). The New Zealand Ministry of
Health (in 2008) recorded 76 active
psychologists reporting their work type
as I/O psychology, a figure somewhat
lower than the 150-200 suggested by
O’Driscoll, Carr, and Forsyth (2007),
but closer to the figure of 91 proposed by
Cooper-Thomas and Wright (2008).
Of the 75 valid survey responses
received: 33% percent of participants
were in the 31-40 age group; 27% in the
21-30 age group; 64% were female; and
71% indicated New Zealand European
ethnicity. No participants indicated
Polynesian (Maori, Pacific Peoples)
ethnicity, which may be seen by some
in the profession as a cause for concern
(see O'Driscoll, Carr, & Forsyth, 2007).
Fifty-four percent reported income
levels between $40,000 and $100,000
per annum, with 38% reporting incomes
in excess of $100,000 per annum.
The majority of participants worked
primarily in the Auckland region (47%)
followed by the Wellington region
(23%).
Seventy-two percent of participants
described themselves as employees,
with self-employed the next highest
classification (19%). Forty-nine percent
of participants worked as consultants
while 17% worked in industry (16
different industries were reported).
Maximum experience in the field in
New Zealand was 35 years (mean = 8.6,
standard deviation (SD) = 8.18). Thirty-
one participants also reported overseas
work experience (max = 34 years, mean
= 5.6, SD = 7.44). Maximum years in
current role was 23 (mean = 4.9, SD
Table 1. Analysis of Engagement in Fields of Work and Hours Worked (n = 75)
Working in field Percentage citing this as
their...
Hours worked Working time
in field
Field of Work
Number Percentage* Primary Field
of Work
Secondary
Field of Work
Overall
Ranking
Average
Percentage
Training & Development 65 87 7 17 4th = 11 - 20%
Change Management/ OD 63 84 36 16 1st 31 - 40%
Recruitment/ Selection 63 84 32 13 2nd 31 - 40%
57 76 9 12 4th = 11 - 20%
Performance Mgmt/
Appraisal
Career Development/ Mgmt 56 75 9 11 6th 11 - 20%
Quality of Work Life/ OSH 55 73 1 1 7th 11 - 20%
Education / Research 41 55 12 4 3rd 31 - 40%
18 24 0 0 9th 01 - 10%
Human Factors/
Ergonomics
Consumer Psychology 13 17 0 0 8th 01 - 10%
Note: percentages rounded. Respondents could choose multiple fields.
New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 39, No. 3, 2010
• 13 •
Donald A.J. Cable & Michael P. O'Driscoll
Table 2. Analysis of Work Types in Fields of Work
Engaging in Activity
Number (n) Percentage
Field of Work (N) Work Activity
Training & Development
(65)
Change Management/OD
(63)
Recruitment/Selection
(63)
Performance Mgmt/
Appraisal (57)
Career Development/
Management (56)
Leadership Development 48 74
Coaching/Mentoring 39 60
Team Development 39 60
Training Delivery 37 57
Executive Development/ Coaching 36 55
Training Needs Analysis 33 51
Training Design 32 49
Training Evaluation 29 45
Organization Culture/ Climate 52 83
Leadership Development 49 78
Organization Performance 47 75
Job Analysis 44 70
Psychological Assessment - Application 41 65
Psychological Assessment - Development 35 56
Recruitment - Internal 33 52
Promotion Assessment/ Support 31 49
Psychological Assessment - Consultant/Agency 31 49
Recruitment - Consultancy/Agency 23 37
Performance Measurement 43 75
Performance Criteria (Development) 42 74
Performance Management Systems 40 70
Job Evaluation 32 56
Reward Systems 23 40
Counselling & Coaching 37 66
Outplacement/Transition 25 45
Contd over page
• 14 •
New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 39, No. 3, 2010
The Practice of Industrial/ Organisational Psychology in New Zealand
Table 2. Analysis of Work Types in Fields of Work contd.
Engaging in Activity
Number (n) Percentage*
Field of Work (N) Work Activity
Quality of Work Life/OSH
Employee Attitude/ Satisfaction Surveys 34 62
(55)
Work Attitudes/Values 33 60
Job Satisfaction 32 58
Job/Occupational Stress 31 56
Work Motivation 28 51
Work-life Balance 23 42
Commitment 21 38
Job Design/Redesign 20 36
Attendance/Absenteeism 16 29
Employee Assistance Programs 13 24
Health and Safety 12 22
Education/Research (41) Research 32 78
Teaching 21 51
Human Factors/
Ergonomics (18)
Work System Design 12 67
Workplace Environment Design 8 44
Human-Technology Interface 7 39
Consumer Psychology
Market Surveys 8 62
(13)
Marketing Strategies 7 54
Consumer Behaviour 4 31
Market Research 4 31
Note: * Percentage of number in field of work (rounded).
= 5.8). Most participants reported that
they were working between 31 and 50
hours per week (31-40 = 32%; 41-50
= 39%), with the greatest percentage
(53%) working no pro bono (unpaid)
hours per month, followed by 25%
working between one and five pro bono
hours per month. Sixty-five percent
of participants held a masters degree
and 15% confirmed a PhD. Fifty-six
percent of participants were registered
as psychologists in New Zealand with
83% of those registered under the
Psychologist scope of practice (mean
period of registration = 11 years, SD =
9.9). Professional memberships included
the New Zealand Psychological Society
(51%) and the Human Resources
Institute of New Zealand (47%).
Participants could indicate multiple
memberships.
Survey Content
The survey covered the fields of
work that I/O psychology practitioners
might be expected to engage in. A list
of fields of work, and work activities
covered by those fields, was developed
based on the topics covered in text
books utilized in university programs
in I/O psychology (Gatewood, Feild, &
Barrick, 2008; Muchinsky, 2006; Noe,
2008; O'Driscoll, Taylor, & Kalliath,
2003; Waddell, Cummings, & Worley,
2007), as well as recent journal articles
(Carless & Taylor, 2006; Cascio &
Aguinis, 2008; Cooper-Thomas &
Wright, 2008). The nine fields included
in the survey were career development
and management (4 activities);
change management and organization
development (OD; 15 activities);
consumer psychology (6 activities);
education and research (4 activities);
human factors and ergonomics (5
activities); performance management
New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 39, No. 3, 2010
• 15 •
Donald A.J. Cable & Michael P. O'Driscoll
Table 3. Comparative Analysis of Studies on the Practice of Organisational Psychology in New Zealand
Hines Hansen &
O’Driscoll
(%, N = 167) (%, N = 116) Work Area
Cooper-
Thomas
& Wright (N = 46)
Current study
(%, N = 75)
Training & Development (F) 36 2 87
Executive Development/Coaching 48 48
Leadership Development 15 65
Team Development 2 52
Interpersonal Relations 35 -
Communication Skills 23 -
Change Management/OD (F) 15 13 2 84
Change Facilitation/ Management 6 45
Conflict Resolution 2 35
HRM Interventions 3 43
Labour/Industrial Relations 43 3 17
Recruitment/Selection (F) 56 1 84
Staffing (Selection & Training) 18 -
Managerial Selection 48 -
Psychological Assessment 1 55
Job Analysis 1 59
Performance Mgmt/Appraisal (F) 33 2 76
Job Evaluation 37 43
Reward Systems 3 31
Career Development/Mgmt (F) 8 2 75
Quality of Work Life/OSH (F) 17 19 73
Attendance/Absenteeism 11 21
Job/Occupational Stress 2 41
Work Attitudes & Values 11 44
Work Motivation 60 9 37
Education/Research (F) 55
Research 3 43
Human Factors/Ergonomics (F) 29 8 24
Workplace Environment Design 5 11
Consumer Psychology (F) 17
Notes overpage
• 16 •
New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 39, No. 3, 2010
The Practice of Industrial/ Organisational Psychology in New Zealand
Notes:
(F) = closest match with Field of work (current study) all others are closest match with work activity (current study).
Hines: Do you feel that the services of an I/O psychologist could be beneficial in your company in any of the following areas?
Hansen & O'Driscoll: Problems I/O psychologists can assist with.
Cooper-Thomas & Wright: Main responsibilities of respondents' current role (1 = Assessment & Selection, 2 = Development,
3 = Strategic/external relations/ management).
and appraisal (7 activities); quality of
work life and occupational safety and
health (OSH, 13 activities); recruitment
selection and placement (9 activities);
and training and development (10
activities).
Participants were asked whether
they engaged in any of the nine fields
of work (Table 1). Participants who
responded affirmative were then asked
“Which of the following activities do
you engage in, in this field of work?”
Space was provided for participants to
add fields of work and/or activities not
listed. Finally, participants were asked
to indicate “Typically, and on average,
what percentage of your working time
would you spend in this field of work?”
Response options were provided in 10%
increments up to 100%.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of the responses
(Table 1) confirmed that practitioners
work primarily in the fields of training
and development, change management
and organization development, and
recruitment and selection. These fields
were closely followed by performance
management and appraisal, and career
development and management. The two
least frequently cited fields were human
factors and consumer psychology.
Other fields of work, not specifically
included in the survey but mentioned
by participants, included program
evaluation (although this could be seen
as a work activity within a specific
field), employee engagement, issues
related to cultural and ethnic diversity,
and competency development and
measurement.
As would be expected, the more
common work activities (Table 2) of
I/O psychology practitioners fell within
the more common fields of work.
Within training and development the
most common work activities included
leadership development (also included
in change management and organization
development), coaching and mentoring,
and team development. Organization
culture and climate emerged as
the most common activity within
change management and organization
development, and job analysis emerged
as the most common work activity in
recruitment and selection. Given that
the outputs of job analysis (position
description, person specification)
strongly support personnel selection,
as well as other fields of work, this result
may not be particularly surprising.
The work activities of policy
d e v e l o p m e n t / i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
and system/program development/
implementation were listed under
all fields of work, with participants
indicating that they engaged in these
activities at similar levels to other
activities in those fields. Program
evaluation, not listed as an activity in
the survey questionnaire, emerged as
a recurring work activity across many
of the nine fields of work. Under both
human factors and ergonomics, and
consumer psychology, the rate that
activities were engaged in reflected
the low participation in these fields.
Consumer behaviour, which could
be seen as an activity open to the
input of I/O psychology practitioners,
was only engaged in by 31% of the
participants who practiced consumer
psychology. Some less obvious activities
included budgeting, within the field of
change management and organization
development, advice to management,
within the field of career development
and management, and critical incident
response, within the field of quality of
work life and occupational safety and
health. What did become apparent in
the analysis of work activities were
differences in terminology and the ways
in which work activities were described.
Many of the ‘other’ work activities
listed by participants could be covered
by those included in the survey, or were
covered by activities listed under other
fields of work.
Finally, to assess the extent to which
I/O psychology has made progress in
establishing a place in industry, the
findings of the present study were
compared to the findings from three
previous studies (Cooper-Thomas &
Wright, 2008; Hansson & O'Driscoll,
1993; Hines, 1972) (Table 3). Note that
Cooper-Thomas and Wright ordered
their responses based on frequency of
citation. In their study, work areas scored
1 were those cited most frequently, while
work areas scored 3 were those cited
least frequently. Hence it is difficult to
directly compare their findings with the
present study.
From the comparison of the three
studies referred to above, participation
rates in the traditional fields of work,
deemed by industry as areas that I/O
psychology practitioners can contribute
(Hansson & O'Driscoll, 1993; Hines,
1972), remain major activities engaged
in by practitioners. Some activities have
emerged more strongly, for example
leadership development, change
management, and quality of work life,
whilst others, for example interpersonal
relations, labour/industrial relations,
and work motivation, are areas of work
that possibly remain underdeveloped,
providing opportunities for practitioners
to widen their scope of practice.
Contributions and Limitations
The results of this survey provide
information not only to current
practitioners but also to students
considering I/O psychology as an
occupational choice and how they may
maximize their career opportunities
through that choice. Current practitioners
may also consider realigning the
services they provide to capture work
opportunities within areas of I/O
psychology that may be perceived
as under-supplied or untapped. This
survey may also have implications for
the on-going training and development
of I/O psychology practitioners. As
well as providing direction to current
practitioners seeking to pursue their own
New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 39, No. 3, 2010
• 17 •
Donald A.J. Cable & Michael P. O'Driscoll
development, this information may also
be useful to universities in New Zealand
seeking to align their I/O psychology
programs with current work practices.
We must, however, record one
limitation to the survey. Given that only
56% of participants were New Zealand
registered psychologists, we cannot
necessarily claim that the sample is fully
representative of I/O psychologists in
New Zealand. Nevertheless, as a diverse
range of work settings was included our
findings could be considered indicative
of the work practices of I/O psychologists
in New Zealand.
Conclusion
At a higher level of analysis,
the more popular fields of work of
I/O psychology practitioners may
be seen as differing little from those
engaged in by other practitioners. This
may be a reflection of available work
opportunities. However, at a more
detailed level of analysis, the work
activities of I/O psychology practitioners
may be seen as more reflective of the
application of the principles of the
behavioural sciences, embracing the
humanistic model of organizational
functioning. It is at this level of analysis
that I/O psychology practitioners may
best differentiate themselves from other
practitioners by extending their scope of
practice into what may be perceived as
opportunities for the further application
of the behavioural sciences.
References
Carless, S., & Taylor, P. J. (2006). Industrial
and organisational training in Australia and
New Zealand. Australian Psychologist,
41(2), 120-129.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008).
Research in industrial and organizational
psychology from 1963 to 2007: changes,
choices, and trends. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(5), 1062-1081.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Wright, S. (2008).
Industrial-Organizational psychology
in New Zealand: Who are we and
where we are going? The Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Organisational
Psychology, 1, 12-21.
Gatewood, R. D., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M.
(2008). Human Resource Selection (6th
ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson.
• 18 •
Hansson, G., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (1993).
Roles for industrial/organizational
psychologists: A survey of New Zealand
managerial personnel. New Zealand
Journal of Psychology, 22, 9-18.
Hines, G. B. (1972). Management attitudes
toward industrial psychologists: A cross-
cultural study. Australian Psychologist,
7(2), 123-130.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology
Applied to Work (8th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson.
Noe, R. A. (2008). Employee Training and
Development (4th ed.). New York; NY:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
O'Driscoll, M. P., Carr, S., & Forsyth, S.
(2007). I-O psychology in Aotearoa,
New Zealand: A world away? The
Industrial-Organizational Psychologist,
45(2), 59-64.
O'Driscoll, M. P., Taylor, P., & Kalliath, T.
(Eds.). (2003). Organisational Psychology
in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne,
Australia: Oxford University Press.
Waddell, D. M., Cummings, T. G., & Worley,
C. G. (2007). Organisation Development
& Change (3rd Asia Pacific ed.). South
Melbourne; Vic: Thomson.
Corresponding Author:
Donald A J Cable
School of Psychology
The University of Waikato
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton
New Zealand.
[email protected]