Hello?
Kathy Grimes
Cam Ellison
Your message got to me, so I presume it's still working.
I've got too much work to do to contribute.
--
Cam Ellison, Ph.D. R.Psych.
Senior Associate
John Fleury & Associates Ltd.
Management Psychologists
(P) 604.602.2564
(F) 604.684.7988
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Any attachments to this message have been scanned for viruses by The
Electric Mail Company Inc.'s E-mmunity (tm) service employing Trend
Micro technology. Prior to opening any attachments see liability
disclaimer at: http://www.electricmail.com/e-mmunity_disclaimer.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Grimes
X Summit X
field? I believe I/O to be dying.....slowly.....with the rise of "OD" types
and the closing of so many I/O programs.....kinda makes ya wonder.....no?
Joe Furando
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Cam Ellison
> field? I believe I/O to be dying.....slowly.....with the rise of "OD" types
> and the closing of so many I/O programs.....kinda makes ya wonder.....no?
I do not keep track of what is happening in academia, so cannot comment
on that. Up here, the formal designation is I/O, and CSIOP is a
reasonably active division of the CPA. You cannot get registered in
Canada (as far as I can tell) as an Organisational Development
Psychologist. We're still winning whatever that means <;-)
Cam
SLN...@aol.com
Scott
RJ Harvey
At 10:00 PM 6/13/00 -0700, X Summit X wrote:
Has anyone considered that this might be reflective of the state of the
field? I believe I/O to be dying.....slowly.....with the rise of "OD" types
and the closing of so many I/O programs.....kinda makes ya wonder.....no?
Joe Furando
I think quite the opposite is the case, at least from
what I see.
What 'quality' I/O programs have folded? I don't
know of any, other than the disasters that follow Naylor
wherever he goes...
"OD" types have been around forever, and don't seem to
be any more numerous -- or high-powered -- than they
ever were. The market they serve seems to have little
overlap with what most I/O folks do if they're practicing
consultants (at least not the "I" ones).
The main 'problem' with I/O (which may be a good thing),
and lists that are general-purpose such as this one, is that
it's become specialized to the point that you need to focus on
the sub-specialties to get an active list. And even then, if my
jobanalysis list is any example (see the URL below if you're
interested in joining), you'll still have long periods
go by with little activity (a sign that everybody is out
there WORKING, and too busy to just chat, which is probably
good too ;-)
Speaking of working, we've got an opening we're advertising
for at Virginia Tech, see below. You can email me, or contact
Roseanne Foti at the address below.
VIRGINIA TECH DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH (COR). The Department of Psychology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is inviting applications for a doctoral-level position as director of the research and outreach center affiliated with the department’s Ph.D. program in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. The director will assist the I/O faculty in the center’s development and growth by securing business for the center, writing proposals and associated budgets for potential projects, and developing new marketable products. Responsibilities will also include supervising the center’s day-to day research and consulting operations through managing projects, ensuring that deadlines are met, preparing reports and presentations, and communicating with clients. In addition, the director will also supervise graduate students working for the center.
The position requires a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology in addition to strong skills in research methodology, statistics, data analysis, project management, and business development. Experience in one or more of the following topical areas is also required: selection and assessment, performance management, or job analysis. Given the supervisory duties and extensive amount of client contact associated with the job, excellent oral and written communication skills are a must. The successful applicant will also be able to negotiate and bid for projects with people at multiple organizational levels and from diverse business functions. Experience managing large projects and project teams is highly desirable.
Please send a cover letter, a vita, and include a list of references who may be contacted to Dr. Roseanne Foti, Department of Psychology (0436), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061. The College of Arts and Sciences is deeply committed to recruiting, selecting, promoting, and retaining women, persons of color, and persons with disabilities. We strongly value diversity in the college community, and seek to assure equality in education and employment. Individuals with disabilities desiring accommodations in the application process should notify Susan Anderson, Department of Psychology, at (540) 231-6581.
rj
Cam Ellison
We provide services that could be delivered in-house, but (IMHO) should
never be: succession management (including developmental assessment,
etc.), design of evaluation systems, facilitation of strategic planning,
etc. In an era when organizations are outsourcing more functions, there
may be more room for various flavours of I/O practitioner. Sticking to
OD or OB is fine, but it is limiting, especially in a small firm like
ours.
X Summit X
I have to differ with your opinion. Some of the NY area's best I/O programs
have changes markedly or have closed. Look at Hostra University and their
PhD program, Stevens Institute of Technology (founded by Fredrick Taylor)
and most notably, the NYU I/O program that was torn apart and what is left
is now in the Stern School of Business.
The major problem with I/O is that it can not keep up with the pace of
change in most corporations. While we obsess about selection and assessment
tools, corporate America is desperate to hire quickly with little regard for
the conventional "trappings" of careful assessment. I find firms are still a
bit "gun shy" about using tests to hire and now there is just an interest to
hire "warm bodies"
Reward and recognition systems, training and development, culture change,
job/work redesign, is all being done without the expertise of an I/O
psychologist. You would think corporations would want to learn about the
latest research on how to motivate, and retain employees, but I find that
the movement to improve corporate cultures and work environment is
regressing. Our clients work more hours, have more stress and feel less
rewarded. Why aren't more firms turning to I/O Psychology for answers?
The answer is simple, as has happened to our colleagues in traditional
fields of Psychology (Counselling, Clinical, Human Factors) they have become
obsolete. Talk therapy is out....prescriptions are in. The focus is on the
quick fix. No time to do the "due diligence". I am finding more and more
IT Web types involved in psychometrics. The internet is redefining the way
we do our work, not I/O psychologists. My IT friends can do a survey
faster, and more efficiently (and cheaper) than I could ever do. Now I/O
types serve the IT master. We provide the content and disengage. The IT
folks are the real heroes.
I have been in this field 15 years and ANYONE interested in I/O as a
profession foolish. Instead, enroll in a few psychometric courses and major
in IT. You'll be a lot more successful and VALUABLE to an organization.
My 3 cents
Joe Furando
>From: RJ Harvey <harv...@VT.EDU>
>Reply-To: Industrial Psychology Forum <IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
________________________________________________________________________
RJ Harvey
At 08:07 AM 6/14/00 -0700, X Summit X wrote:
>Harvey,
>
>I have to differ with your opinion. Some of the NY area's best I/O programs
>have changes markedly or have closed. Look at Hostra University and their
>PhD program, Stevens Institute of Technology (founded by Fredrick Taylor)
>and most notably, the NYU I/O program that was torn apart and what is left
>is now in the Stern School of Business.
I'm sure others may disagree, it's obviously a matter
of opinion, and I'm not trying to sow disrespect, BUT...
nobody whose opinions I know on this topic would put
those schools into a list of 'top-tier' I/O programs.
>The major problem with I/O is that it can not keep up with the pace of
>change in most corporations. While we obsess about selection and assessment
>tools, corporate America is desperate to hire quickly with little regard for
>the conventional "trappings" of careful assessment. I find firms are still a
>bit "gun shy" about using tests to hire and now there is just an interest to
>hire "warm bodies"
Those of us who do work in the area of job analysis have
been hearing that line of nonsense for decades: i.e., "jobs
don't exist anymore, things change too fast, you can't ever
analyze MY JOB..."
It's just an excuse not to do the right thing. Companies
have since the dawn of time been offering them as rationalizations
for just doing whatever seems like a good idea at the time, and
not being concerned with things like assessment quality, valdity,
utility, etc.
Such organizations tend not to ever see the light until they lose
a big EEO suit. Many never do.
But that fact has nothing to do with the question of whether
I/O offers a useful, valuable service. Obviously it does, and
the fact that some misguided companies choose to think they're
immune from laws and professional testing standards doesn't
in any way change that fact.
>Reward and recognition systems, training and development, culture change,
>job/work redesign, is all being done without the expertise of an I/O
>psychologist. You would think corporations would want to learn about the
>latest research on how to motivate, and retain employees, but I find that
>the movement to improve corporate cultures and work environment is
>regressing. Our clients work more hours, have more stress and feel less
>rewarded. Why aren't more firms turning to I/O Psychology for answers?
>
>The answer is simple, as has happened to our colleagues in traditional
>fields of Psychology (Counselling, Clinical, Human Factors) they have become
>obsolete. Talk therapy is out....prescriptions are in. The focus is on the
That's a fascinating analysis; the tens of thousands of clinicians
out there will be thrilled, no doubt, to hear this insight.
>quick fix. No time to do the "due diligence". I am finding more and more
>IT Web types involved in psychometrics. The internet is redefining the way
>we do our work, not I/O psychologists. My IT friends can do a survey
>faster, and more efficiently (and cheaper) than I could ever do. Now I/O
>types serve the IT master. We provide the content and disengage. The IT
>folks are the real heroes.
This speaks to the issue of the quality of training people
receive, not to the usefulness of the field.
Many of us have long argued that I/O students should be required
to learn and use current programming languages, much as quantitative
psych students do.
Those of us who can program are NOT in the back-seat, as you
describe. Those who think this is not a valuable skill to acquire,
however, are indeed at a disadvantage.
But again, it's the fault of the people who TRAINED you, not
the fault of the field.
People who didn't see the need to learn IRT or structural
equation modeling are in a similar spot. But that's not the
FIELD's problem, it's theirs.
>I have been in this field 15 years and ANYONE interested in I/O as a
>profession foolish. Instead, enroll in a few psychometric courses and major
>in IT. You'll be a lot more successful and VALUABLE to an organization.
>
>My 3 cents
>
>Joe Furando
Sounds like you're burned-out -- too bad. Plenty of
us see plenty of value in what we do.
Cam Ellison
> profession foolish. Instead, enroll in a few psychometric courses and major
> in IT. You'll be a lot more successful and VALUABLE to an organization.
>
> My 3 cents
>
> Joe Furando
The "successful" part may well be true. VALUABLE? I doubt it. The
"quick fix" approach to hiring has been around since the time of the
Pharaohs, and it doesn't work any better now than it did then. To me
the issue is twofold: 1) select your clients 2) educate them. IT people
(in general) have very little vision or understanding of the greater
issues in HR they are poor clients for what we do, because they are
incapable of seeing the world in any way other than multiple choice.
I would suggest that programs are folding at least in part because of
poor management. I/O Ph.D.s tend to be consultant types, good at
preaching but often incapable of the practice. This does not reduce our
value we are consultants, not managers. We tend not to be good
marketers, either, and I suggest that is where much of the problem lies.
Just for the record, I have 18 reports hanging over me at the moment,
and I should not be indulging in this debate. I don't think I'm alone.
I also think, Joe, that maybe you need to redefine yourself and what you
provide. There are times when we badly need to take our own advice.
Good luck
Kathy Grimes
enough to select a highly qualified person to fulfil a role in an
organization. That person must be able to integrate with the milieu of
that organization's culture. The recognition of the workplace as a
functional or dysfunctional society requires the expertise of both
professions. It is not a matter of who is the authority that is
important--it must be an integrated effort based on appreciation of the two
disciplines.
Right now, healthcare is being eaten alive with loss of revenue, increased
costs due to regulation, unemployment at a 30 year low, an overall turnover
rate of 22% and a paraprofessional turnover rate of 54% in New York State
alone--up to 103% turnover in the Certified Nurse Assistant population
nationwide. This makes the cost of I/O consultant services cost
prohibitive for an industry in dire need of the services.
University/health care organization partnerships are the way to go if you
can pilot a meaningful program aimed at the Long Term Care industry. The
aging baby boomers will level an already exhausted workforce. As Einstein
said, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level
of thinking that created them."
Help!
Kathy
-----Original Message-----
From: X Summit X [SMTP:summ...@HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 11:08 AM
To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Hello?, AND a JOB OPENING announcement
Harvey,
I have to differ with your opinion. Some of the NY area's best I/O
programs
have changes markedly or have closed. Look at Hostra University and their
PhD program, Stevens Institute of Technology (founded by Fredrick Taylor)
and most notably, the NYU I/O program that was torn apart and what is left
is now in the Stern School of Business.
The major problem with I/O is that it can not keep up with the pace of
change in most corporations. While we obsess about selection and
assessment
tools, corporate America is desperate to hire quickly with little regard
for
the conventional "trappings" of careful assessment. I find firms are still
a
bit "gun shy" about using tests to hire and now there is just an interest
to
hire "warm bodies"
Reward and recognition systems, training and development, culture change,
job/work redesign, is all being done without the expertise of an I/O
psychologist. You would think corporations would want to learn about the
latest research on how to motivate, and retain employees, but I find that
the movement to improve corporate cultures and work environment is
regressing. Our clients work more hours, have more stress and feel less
rewarded. Why aren't more firms turning to I/O Psychology for answers?
The answer is simple, as has happened to our colleagues in traditional
fields of Psychology (Counselling, Clinical, Human Factors) they have
become
obsolete. Talk therapy is out....prescriptions are in. The focus is on
the
quick fix. No time to do the "due diligence". I am finding more and more
IT Web types involved in psychometrics. The internet is redefining the way
we do our work, not I/O psychologists. My IT friends can do a survey
faster, and more efficiently (and cheaper) than I could ever do. Now I/O
types serve the IT master. We provide the content and disengage. The IT
folks are the real heroes.
I have been in this field 15 years and ANYONE interested in I/O as a
profession foolish. Instead, enroll in a few psychometric courses and
major
in IT. You'll be a lot more successful and VALUABLE to an organization.
My 3 cents
Joe Furando
>rj
>------------------------------------------
>Robert J. Harvey
>Department of Psychology
>Virginia Tech
> http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/
________________________________________________________________________
Cam Ellison
> prohibitive for an industry in dire need of the services.
It shouldn't have to be that way. If you develop a partnership with the
consultant, and get that partnership to focus on cost-effective ways of
managing the process (i.e. get trained to do some things yourself, farm
out the less complex issues to non-profesisonals, etc.), you can still
get strong support at a reasonable dollar.
That is a problem all over. In Canada, we have a system that arguably
delivers care more equitably and at a lower over-all cost, but it, too,
is bursting at the seams. It is not uncommon to see large ads in the
major newspapers, placed by hospitals and healthcare organisations in
the US, looking for nurses and other professionals. Some make the trip,
which squeezes the remaining ones even more.
All this was predictable (and predicted by some) years ago, but the same
short-sighted thinking that Joe Furando talks about with respect to
hiring has been applied to healthcare as well.
SLN...@aol.com
For example, as organizations move from the "paradigm of control" to the "paradigm of enpowerment" the implications for I/O psychologists and their work are far-reaching. Yet, many continue to be stuck in a "mechanistic" model of understanding and controlling employee behavior through detailed job descriptions,and performance appraisal systems that "lock" people into doing "what's on paper", instead of creatively working through issues and responding to customer requirements as they come up. Hurray for Dr. Demming, who espoused eliminating performance appraisals all together.
Anyway, the reality of much of the work world is that it is built on a business model, not a research model, and those who can cross that bridge and provide answers (built on today's paradigm) sometimes requiring quanitative analysis and sometimes not, will survive in the long haul. Everyone else, will be left behind in their pile of numbers!!
Scott
Kathy Grimes
-----Original Message-----
From: Cam Ellison [SMTP:c...@FLEURYASSOCIATES.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:43 PM
To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Hello?, AND a JOB OPENING announcement
X Summit X
psychology is changing.....and sections of the field are falling behind as
the world moves forward. Talk to a counselling or a clinical psychologist.
Most wish they had never gone into the field. The managed care system has
destroyed the field and there is little improvement you can make in "10"
sessions of therapy.
Now, you might say, "hey I'm an I/O Psychologist, what does this have to do
with me?" Plenty! For the same reasons our colleagues in the more
"traditional" practices are failing, so has I/O. We as practioners are seen
as too academic, research-focused and SUCK on implementation or crafting
concrete deliverances. We are TOO caught up in utilizing the most
sophisticated methodologies and statistical techniques. I really don't
think that SEM or Lisrel is really all that important NOR is it easily
understandable to our clients. Same goes for IRT (although plenty of us
should learn more about this). Your not going to sell business based on the
merit of your ability to SEM or that your surveys hold to the strictest
guidelines of IRT. Frankly...no one cares. Honestly. I think anyone that
does not see what is happening to our field must be held up in an "Ivory
Tower" Perhaps like the one Dr. Harvey is occupies at Virginia Tech.
I would like to hear from successful consultants like myself, who can
honestly say that they have told a client about SEM and got them SO excited
that they hired them. Ever try to copy a client on JAP articles? Forget
it. Besides, wasn't it I/O psychologists that eventually tore apart Dr.
Boudreau's causality research done at SEARS? You know the highly touted
study published in HBR. We eat our own and spend too much time in critique
of minutia. Let's get on with the business of problem solving and change
management.
Our field is WORK PSYCHOLOGY. We need to partner more closely with our
clients and deliver solutions that work. Frankly I find the study of work
boring...but to solve a problem, improve a process, and enhance a work
environment is HUGELY satisfying. We need to focus and ride the crest of
the change wave or we will (and are beginning to be) left in it's wake.
I really do LOVE this field.
And just for the record, I think Dr. Harvey is engaging in a bit of
"academia envy". For I really think that someone from Virginia Tech. is
mistaken in saying the NYU program was NOT top tier. Sorry, but I would
suggest that when looking for institutions lacking in academic merit perhaps
you should look in your own backyard.
JSF
>From: SLN...@AOL.COM
>Reply-To: Industrial Psychology Forum <IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>Subject: Re: Hello?, AND a JOB OPENING announcement
________________________________________________________________________
SLN...@aol.com
Scott
Cam Ellison
> business model, not a research model, and those who can cross that bridge
> and provide answers (built on today's paradigm) sometimes requiring
> quanitative analysis and sometimes not, will survive in the long haul.
> Everyone else, will be left behind in their pile of numbers!!
>
> Scott
Amen to that! As an example, a client told me not long ago that he
liked one of my competitors, thought he did good analysis, but "he would
never have sat down and talked to those guys about what it would be
like" to accept particular apprenticeship candidates. The "guys" in
question were a couple of IR people, two supervisors, and an engineer.
In other words, "When in Rome, speak Italian" (I know, that's not the
original quote).
SLN...@aol.com
RJ Harvey
I would like to expand on Joe's point about some I/O psychologists being
obsolete. Good point!! I have been in the I/O field about 2 years and am
amazed at the number of I/O psychologists I have met who can not
handle/have no ability to deal with change. The answer always seems to be
that "if I can't quantify it then don't approach me about changing it"!!
Well, if you can't quantify it, it's hard to get too excited
about it! This is one reason why OD and "process" types seem
destined to stay in the relatively minor and limited niche they've
long occupied -- organizations just can't see a bottom-line reason
to spend money on a bunch of hand-waving and no numbers to show
its effectiveness. And I can't blame them.
For example, as organizations move from the "paradigm of control" to the
"paradigm of enpowerment" the implications
Another reason many organizations don't take I/O types seriously is that
so many of them (both real "ivory tower" folks, and non-academics) seem to
have such a tremendous fondness for spouting academic-speak!
Precisely when did "The Paradigm of Empowerment" take over, pray tell?
Org-theory folks have been making the same arguments since I was in grad
school (Reagan was president then...), and at least in the dozens of
organizations
I've worked with, I have yet to find one in which employees just sit around
in little "empowered" work-teams with nobody to answer to, deciding what
their "roles" are going to be that day, and having no worries about having
to "quantify" their effectiveness to the boss. Get real!
Anyway, the reality of much of the work world is that it is built on a
business model, not a research model, and
Obviously. But buzzword-bingo phrases such as "paradigm of empowerment,"
"creatively working through issues," and the rest don't seem to do much
to move businesses any closer to their objective of making more profits...
rj
Kathy Grimes
intelligence, a leader cannot survive in today's workplace because the
behavior of individuals is so various and the definition of acceptable
social/workplace behavior is more diversified than ever in such a transient
society. Metrics are marvelous but they don't speak to milieu.
Kathy
-----Original Message-----
From: SLN...@AOL.COM [SMTP:SLN...@AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:52 PM
To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Hello?, AND a JOB OPENING announcement
I would like to expand on Joe's point about some I/O psychologists being
obsolete. Good point!! I have been in the I/O field about 2 years and am
amazed at the number of I/O psychologists I have met who can not
handle/have no ability to deal with change. The answer always seems to be
that "if I can't quantify it then don't approach me about changing it"!!
For example, as organizations move from the "paradigm of control" to the
"paradigm of enpowerment" the implications for I/O psychologists and their
work are far-reaching. Yet, many continue to be stuck in a "mechanistic"
model of understanding and controlling employee behavior through detailed
job descriptions,and performance appraisal systems that "lock" people into
doing "what's on paper", instead of creatively working through issues and
responding to customer requirements as they come up. Hurray for Dr.
Demming, who espoused eliminating performance appraisals all together.
Anyway, the reality of much of the work world is that it is built on a
Kathy Grimes
in little "empowered" work-teams with nobody to answer to, deciding what
their "roles" are going to be that day, and having no worries about having
to "quantify" their effectiveness to the boss. Get real!
RJ ~
This is a wee bit simplified. Being empowered hardly means getting your
own way. Personal initiative, measurable accountability and self
determination of roles are very real aspects of today's competitive
organization. A regular part of my annual and ongoing evaluation is the
question, "How do you see your role evolving in the organization and what
can we do to help you get there?" I don't think we're that unusual. Am I
accountable for pulling together temporary teams to make improvements I see
are needed? -- you betcha. Is my progress measured? -- absolutely. Do I
feel empowered? -- most of the time. Is this a prevailing practice in the
organization? -- yes.
Buzzwords are a pain :-) however there is a place for standardized
language in the workplace when people are coming into it with such diverse
social and educational backgrounds. If you work within the language of the
organization, even if it isn't your favourite, you just might be able to
communicate your recommendations more effectively.
Although I get sick to death of hearing it, there is a measure of truth in
our CEO's/and whoever originally may have said it, "If you have people help
you plan the battle, they'll be less likely to battle the plan."
This is especially true in healthcare--we prescribe for a living and are
riddled with experts of our own who get paid to "make people better."
Even given that, we have engaged a consulting firm to assess our
leadership team with resulting reorganization.
I wish I had the knowledge of the people on this list-serv but I don't.
What I've learned I'd learned on my own initiative and from being given
outrageous opportunities. I'm one of those practitioners in the organiz
ation where you might come in to provide recommendations that I would then
be asked to help implement. I am fascinated by workplace behavior and its
impact on teams and results and that's primarily why I'm here in addition
to wanting to learn more from the conversation.
I've a shoe full of children and so don't pale easily--and may just jump in
from time to time. How open minded is this group?
Kathy
Cam Ellison
> from time to time. How open minded is this group?
I have said repeatedly that I have not seen anything in an organisation
that I haven't observed in my wife's daycare, except that the kids
settle it more amicably and in less time. <;-)
Alla...@aol.com
<< Has anyone considered that this might be reflective of the state of the
field? I believe I/O to be dying.....slowly.....with the rise of "OD" types
and the closing of so many I/O programs.....kinda makes ya wonder.....no? >>
Interesting observation... wait until you read my next column in TIP (said
the OD type, well at least the OrgPsych type).
<A HREF="http://www.siop.org/tip/TipJuly00/02Church.htm">From the Editor TIP
July 2000</A>
Allan
SLN...@aol.com
work here. "Empowerment" is more than a buzzword, but rather represents a
view of and a paradigm describing the new workplace. Basically, with the
breakdown in the psychological contract between employees and their "parent"
organizations, new rules are being established governing workplace behavior.
This is the difference between "old design" and "new design" organizations of
today.
Those operating under "old design" principles, describe in great detail for
their employees via job descriptions, lengthy performance appraisal forms,
SOP's, and power structures and culture, how they should behave (the
operative word here is control!!). This is where traditional I/O
psychologists have worked for years under management's wing to detail out how
best to control -- box in - employees. In this system, trust and empowerment
are not an issue because as long as employees follow the "fine print" nobody
gets hurt.
Those operating under "new design" principles, however, empower and trust
their employees and give them the training and resources to do their jobs and
provide them sound leadership and then get the hell out of the way.
Generally, those folks so use to the guidance and direction provided by the
"old design" organizations leave because they are lost under the new design's
absence of control. The onus is now on the employees to keep up, stay sharp
and produce and, in the end, get well rewarded!!
Scott
In a message dated 6/14/00 6:53:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kgr...@SERVTECH.COM writes:
RJ ~
I've a shoe full of children and so don't pale easily--and may just jump in
from time to time. How open minded is this group?
Kathy
>>
Cam Ellison
> the OD type, well at least the OrgPsych type).
We are all waiting with bated breath... <;-)
Alla...@aol.com
I must say this discussion has been very interesting! As a
practitioner/consultant trained in Organizational Psychology (at Teachers
College in NY) who has worked for an OD type for the last 9 years, I have
always found the lines between fields that are constantly being drawn in the
sand somewhat odd. I belong to many different types of professional groups
(Academy of Human Resource Development, Academy of Management, American
Society for Quality, American Society for Training & Development, APA, APS,
ODNet, OD Institute, SIOP, IAAP, International Society for Performance
Improvement) and I can't begin to tell you all how vehemently people will
defend their "professional" turf when even asked about the differences. The
fact is though that much of it does overlap. To argue one way or the other
only causes problems.
Regarding the rising popularity of OD that was mentioned, I agree--I have
sensed a renewed interest in the last few years among I/O types for OD
"stuff." Case in point: Janine Waclawski and I are currently working on an
edited book for SIOP's professional practice series on the subject of OD, and
we recently held a session in New Orleans on "What is OD" which was well
attended. Also, organization change was one of the highest rated interest
areas in this year's (and last year's) member survey (see the July TIP), so
the topic is not going away.
Having said all this, I can also say that many die hard OD people do not fit
the I/O model very well. In my opinion, the collective "we" (i.e., a group
of trained professionals working, researching, and consulting with people in
organizations) need to look beyond labels and names and define ourselves more
by specific skill sets. There are certainly I/O types who are excellent at
doing OD, and there are OD types who are well trained in many I/O techniques
(and can even do publishable research!). It is absurd to draw either/or
dichotomies. But, we use labels to define ourselves and drawn these lines in
the sand as if they mean something. They really don't.
As you can see I have some passion about all this and have been writing about
it for years. Although I won't bore anyone further here, I would encourage
one or more of you to summarize the thrust (and perhaps some choice comments
from various postings) of the discussion that has served to awaken this group
and send it to me for publication in TIP and perhaps the OD Journal as well.
I think it could make for a very timely piece in both outlets! Any
volunteers?
Allan
Allan H. Church, Ph.D.
Editor, The Industiral-Organizational Psychologist
Editor, The Organization Development Journal
Principal Consultant
Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
201 Wolfs Lane
Pelham, NY 10803 USA
(914) 738-0080 tel. / (914) 738-1059 fax
all...@aol.com
RJ Harvey
>As you can see I have some passion about all this and have been writing about
>it for years. Although I won't bore anyone further here, I would encourage
>one or more of you to summarize the thrust (and perhaps some choice comments
>from various postings) of the discussion that has served to awaken this group
>and send it to me for publication in TIP and perhaps the OD Journal as well.
>I think it could make for a very timely piece in both outlets! Any
>volunteers?
Well, writing-up something for TIP isn't high on my list
of priorities, or something that gets reinforced back at the
ivory tower come performance-appraisal time (yes, sorry,
we're not "empowered" enough not to have those ;-).
And it's certainly unlikely to change any minds, given
the value-laden and essentially data-free nature of the
discussion. There's a vanishingly small chance that I'll
start using phrases like "paradigm of empowerment" or
"strategic corporate visioning" (a personal buzzword-bingo
favorite of mine from an earlier exchange) as a result of the
recent exchange, or that the handful of folks who so enjoy
ivory-tower-bashing will start doing hard-core personnel
stuff or publishing empirical research articles in JAP or PPsych....
As for reprinting quotes from emails in a TIP article,
I'd advise against it without securing the authors' permission,
just as you would any other time you republish copyrighted
information.
rj
Kathy Grimes
that infrastructure of job descriptions etc. In spite of that, we like to
consider ourselves "uncommon as hell" because we've moved to the new model
to attract and retain talent. It's a delicate balance though. About a
year and a half ago I conducted a survey (for fun) during left handers day.
35% of our 45 managers overall and over 50% of our executive team of 12
were left handed compared with 10% of the general population. I thought
that was terribly interesting from a leadership standpoint. We have a
parent organization with six corporate affiliates and about 1100 employees.
Has anyone done work regarding handedness and leadership/ and or prevalence
in occupations?
Kathy
-----Original Message-----
From: SLN...@AOL.COM [SMTP:SLN...@AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 7:31 PM
To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Hello?, AND a JOB OPENING announcement
is a Thanks Kathy for helping the "tower" and others understand the
dynamic at
work here. "Empowerment" is more than a buzzword, but rather represents a
view of and a paradigm describing the new workplace. Basically, with the
breakdown in the psychological contract between employees and their
"parent"
organizations, new rules are being established governing workplace
behavior.
This is the difference between "old design" and "new design" organizations
of
today.
Those operating under "old design" principles, describe in great detail for
their employees via job descriptions, lengthy performance appraisal forms,
SOP's, and power structures and culture, how they should behave (the
operative word here is control!!). This is where traditional I/O
psychologists have worked for years under management's wing to detail out
how
best to control -- box in - employees. In this system, trust and
empowerment
are not an issue because as long as employees follow the "fine print"
nobody
gets hurt.
Those operating under "new design" principles, however, empower and trusta
Kathy Grimes
-----Original Message-----
From: SLN...@AOL.COM [SMTP:SLN...@AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 7:31 PM
To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Hello?, AND a JOB OPENING announcement
Thanks Kathy for helping the "tower" and others understand the dynamic at
work here. "Empowerment" is more than a buzzword, but rather represents a
view of and a paradigm describing the new workplace. Basically, with the
breakdown in the psychological contract between employees and their "parent"
organizations, new rules are being established governing workplace behavior.
This is the difference between "old design" and "new design" organizations of
today.
Those operating under "old design" principles, describe in great detail for
their employees via job descriptions, lengthy performance appraisal forms,
SOP's, and power structures and culture, how they should behave (the
operative word here is control!!). This is where traditional I/O
psychologists have worked for years under management's wing to detail out how
best to control -- box in - employees. In this system, trust and empowerment
are not an issue because as long as employees follow the "fine print" nobody
gets hurt.
Those operating under "new design" principles, however, empower and trust
Alla...@aol.com
against it without securing the authors' permission, just as you would any
other time you republish copyrighted information. >>
Most certainly, hence the need for someone to coordinate the effort.
>> Well, writing-up something for TIP isn't high on my list of priorities,
or something that gets reinforced back at the ivory tower come
performance-appraisal time (yes, sorry, we're not "empowered" enough not to
have those ;-).
I understand your concerns. I have heard them many times before :)
Allan