Printer Friendly

Industrial Psychology At Work.

The science has produced volumes of valuable information about workers, productivity, behavior, motivation and other issues. Here's a look at the effect it has had and continues to have on industrial human relations.

In 1945 there were a grand total of 130 participants in a newly formed division of the Washington, D.C.-based American Psychological Association (APA), designated Division 14. It was one of the original 19 divisions of the APA and was created to focus on Industrial and Business Psychology. In September 2000, Division 14 (later incorporated as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists or SIOP), boasted 6,000 participating, retired and student members. That number was a 28% increase from 1995 member levels.

According to Lee Hekel, administrative director of SIOP, attendance at association-sponsored conferences has increased regularly since the group held its first one in 1985. This year, more than 3,200 people are expected to attend. "The field is growing," says Hekel. "There are more graduate programs in Industrial Psychology, more articles being published, and more consulting companies being formed. The Web is creating opportunities, and consulting companies have increased in size and become multi-national," she says.

SIOP president Nancy Tippins says the steady increase in membership is the result of the higher demand from business and industry for the service industrial psychologists offer. She speculates that greater educational levels of plant managers and industrial executives may have much to do with the demand. Through undergraduate and MBA programs, managers have become more aware of the options they have to solve personnel problems.

If Sigmund Freud were alive today, he would likely applaud the transfer of some of his theories from the therapist's couch to the factory floor. Who can forget Freud's concepts of the conscious and unconscious, the id and the ego? The psychodynamic approach to plant organization, like Freud's psychoanalytic approach to his patients, considers both the conscious and the unconscious realms, how they interact, and how they influence personality and behavior. The conscious level of plant operations, that is the professional, overt and observable machinations of a plant organization, are often apparent and quantifiable. But, "After exposure to the work environment, some students of industrial psychology complain about not understanding the deeper meaning of behavior in the organization," write industrial psychologists Frans Cilliers and Pieter Koortzen in "The Psychodynamic View of Organizational Behavior," published last year in SIOP's journal, The Industrial/Organizational Psychologist. "They are aware of somet hing happening, but they can't put their finger on it."

That "something" they can't touch, but know exists, say experts, is the unconscious mental and emotional forces that comprise the psychodynamics of any organization. "When an industrial psychologist goes into an organization, there are things that are spoken and unspoken," says Tippins. "As psychologists, our job is to observe all of those kinds of cues to use them and help define the problem and formulate a reasonable solution."

In his 1930 book Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud discusses the concepts of the pleasure principle and the reality principle. The pleasure principle governs the pleasure-seeking aspect of our unconscious. The reality principle, the practical aspect of our unconscious, seeks to subjugate the pleasure principle for the sake of what has to be done, such as work. Manfred Kets De Vries, a Harvard-educated MBA and authority on management, analyzes organizations with the logic of the academic and the insight of a practicing psychoanalyst.

"I do not like the word 'Freudian,'" says Kets De Vries, "as if nothing happened in the development of psychoanalytic theory after Freud. After all, most of his theories were developed in the 19th century. I use the term 'clinical paradigm' in making sense of organizations."

In 1991, Kets De Vries, a professor at the France-based European Institute of Business Administration, postulated that employees view work as both a painful burden that has to be performed and a pleasurable activity that generates rewards, such as financial gains and company recognition. Why? From a psychoanalytic point of view, the employee must give up the pleasures and freedom of childhood to work in a world governed by the reality principle. Sublimating and repressing the pleasure principle causes many problems unless the employee willingly delays gratification. If the worker can't do this, say experts, work will be avoided.

Face to face with Freud

"When an industrial psychologist goes into a plant to try to show people how to change and why it is important to change, there is a lot of underlying emotion and aggression," says Michael Serena, educational psychologist and consultant with TBM Consulting, Durham, NC. "They don't want to change, usually because of fear."

Serena says worker fear of change is often rooted in their unconscious reactions to the psychodynamics of their organization. These reactions can be divided into three basic categories, say some psychologists. They are:

Dependency. The worker unconsciously experiences dependency on an organization like a child depends on a parent. When the worker's needs are not met, he or she experiences frustration, helplessness and powerlessness. The worker, responding like a child, will seek attention and structure, and will view the supervisor as a parent from whom the worker seeks security.

"Another hypothesis is that people get upset when they lose their locus of control," says Serena. "They don't have control of their lives when they go to the assembly line. Somebody else is controlling them. When you don't have a locus of control, there is frustration, and aggression builds up." The worker may fight this feeling of dependency and the feeling that he is "just being told what to do, just a number."

Fight, Flight. A reaction to an organization that is filled with anxiety. The worker uses fight or flight as a defense mechanism. Fight reactions include aggression against oneself, peers, and against authority, competition and positioning. Emotions like envy and jealousy are also fight reactions. Flight reactions include avoidance of others, illness and sometimes resignation.

Pairing. To cope with anxiety, alienation and loneliness, the individual or group attempts to pair with more powerful individuals or groups. The unconscious need is to feel secure. Such groups can be formed rapidly when faced with the prospect of changes in the system. Conflict among groups, and "ganging up" on perceived enemies often results from pairing.

"Industrial psychology takes principles like these and applies them to the issues and problems that employees and managers encounter in carrying out their tasks within an organization," says Nance Lucas, director of the James McGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland, a non-profit group that offers leadership training to those who have traditionally not been in a leadership role. She says a key challenge the group addresses is the need for

modern managers to both recognize that workers can be child-like in their demand for attention, but that they can develop far beyond this stage. "Today we talk more about talent and matching people's talent with the needs of the organization," says Lucas. "A leader's ability to size up individual talent can make or break a leader's effectiveness."

Psychology 101

If you took an introductory college-level psychology course, you may remember a basic formula:

Personality + Environment = Behavior

This is based on the concept that if you know a person's personality and environment, you may be able to predict their behavior. Conversely, if you can observe a person's behavior you may be able infer personality characteristics and the environment from which they come.

One of the more common ways modern employees have contact with industrial psychological principles is through pre-employment personality tests. The use of such tests has grown considerably in the past decade, says SIOP president Tippins, who also works as an industrial psychologist in the employee-selection practice group of Personnel Research Associates, Arlington Heights, IL. The reason for the tests' popularity, she says is that "we have maxed out on cognitive-ability testing," meaning that pre-employment testers have become adept at helping employers determine skills like reading, logical reasoning, mathematical aptitude and others. Now, she says, "We want to predict other variables related to job performance," stressing that it is the combination of cognitive predictors and non-cognitive personality predictors that can help an employer most accurately determine which candidate will be successful in a job.

The most accurate form of personality test will not be off the shelf, but custom-made, based on an industrial psychologist's understanding of a company's needs. For example, the psychologist will perform a job analysis to determine specific requirements in terms of knowledge, skills and abilities. Then, tests are selected to measure the knowledge, skills and abilities of potential applicants.

The final step is to demonstrate that the test actually can predict job performance. A "local" validation study is used to prove test validity by giving the test to people on the job. Performance data is then collected from supervisors and is statistically related to the test. Another method is called validity generalization. The industrial psychologist studies data from other studies and determines that the situation for which the test has been developed is enough like other situations to generalize its validity.

Psychological testing is also used to probe deeper into employee personalities. For example, "situational judgement" questions ask employees to choose a response to a given situation that relates to their job. Answers can tell an employer a lot about personality and whether a person will be dependable in certain situations.

The Hawthorne Effect

Early efforts to determine worker behavior have played an important role in the productivity studies on which modern-day concepts of communication, leadership, teamwork, motivation and human behavior are based. For example, from 1927 to 1932 Elton Mayo, a psychologist and professor of industrial research at the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, conducted psychological studies at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago, IL. Mayo was looking for the effect of fatigue and monotony on job productivity. Mayo sought to control fatigue and productivity through variables such as rest breaks, work hours, temperature and humidity. The results of these experiments became known as the Hawthorne Effect, and popularized as the "Somebody Upstairs Cares" syndrome.

The tests worked like this: Six women from the Hawthorne assembly line were isolated from the rest of the factory. They were put under the watchful eye of a supervisor whose role was that of a friend rather than a disciplinarian. Mayo changed the above-mentioned variables, and explained and discussed those changes with the women in advance.

Each of the women sat on a bench and assembled telephone relays. Assembled relays were dropped down a chute, and completed relays were counted. Production was noted at the start, and, as the above-mentioned changes were introduced, the number of relays were counted to indicate the effect of the change. Throughout the experiments, an observer was present who spoke with the women, and kept them informed on the progress of the experiment. The observer asked advice and listened to the women's comments and complaints.

The experiment revealed that the changes did, indeed, make a difference. For example, output increased when the women were put on piece work for eight weeks, and when they were given two five-minute breaks in the morning and afternoon.

When the two breaks were increased to 10 minutes each, output went up sharply. When six five-minute pauses were introduced, however, the women complained that their work rhythm was broken by the frequent breaks and output decreased slightly.

Output went back up when the two breaks were reimplemented and the company supplied a free hot meal during the first break. It went up again when the workday was shortened to 4:30 p.m. instead of 5:00 p.m. When the women were dismissed at 4:00 p.m., however, output remained the same.

The most interesting aspect of the experiment is what happened when the women were returned to their original work conditions. This included a 48-hour work week, work on Saturday, no rest pauses, no piece work and no free meal. Result: Output reached the highest level ever recorded.

What happened? Despite the variety of changes, says SIOP's Tippins, "It was the attention that the people were given that caused their productivity to increase." The Hawthorne experiments revealed that:

* attention increases worker productivity

* satisfied workers are productive workers

* behavior can be altered if an individual or group knows it is being observed.

The Hawthorne researchers showed that the workplace is a social system, that a group life develops among workers, and that relations with supervisors influence how a worker does a job. In addition, the team concept was formed. In the experiments, the six women worked as a team, were cooperative, and displayed satisfaction with their jobs. The women were not bossed around and did not feel coercion or pressure from a supervisor. Regular medical checks showed no signs of fatigue. Mayo's findings also indicate that the women developed an increased sense of responsibility. Discipline came from within the group, not from a higher authority.

These results have been used to form some of the basic assumptions of modern-day industrial psychologists and the springboard for current behavioral concepts of teams, leadership, motivation and communication. Asked to review production and output issues, for example, modem psychological approaches will study the system rather than individuals.

"When we work with an existing workforce, we don't do personality profiles to find out why there is variation in production," says Tom Oyan, a psychologist with Behavior Science Technologies, Inc. (BST), an Ojai, CA-based employment testing and training company. "We know it's the system." BST has based much of its technology on Hawthorne's finding that behavior can be changed if an individual or group is observed. This means that unproductive or unsafe behavior can be changed if it is altered by some type of observation-based action, whether it's feedback, consequence or reinforcement.

Equally important was Hawthorne's concept of the team, which has become an integral part in virtually all production-improvement programs. "We have adopted the perspective that a team is a group of people who are more than a collection of individuals on an assembly line," says Lucas of the Burns Academy. "It is a group of people who need to be knitted together to work from a common vision and a common agenda."

While significant progress has been made since Hawthorne, much of the work of industrial psychologists continues in "areas that are new twists on old problems," says Tippins, such as violence in the workplace. As workplace aggression escalates, this could prove the next important challenge for those who study the mind of the modern industrial worker.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Advantage Business Media
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Syverson, Nancy
Publication:Industrial Maintenance & Plant Operation
Date:Apr 1, 2001
Previous Article:PRESSURE ISLAND.
Next Article:CMMS Solutions.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |