What is I-O?

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is the scientific study of the workplace. Rigor and methods of psychology are applied to issues of critical relevance to business, including talent management, coaching, assessment, selection, training, organizational development, performance, and work-life balance.

TIP-TOPics

Left to Right: Raymond C. Ottinot, Adam Bandelli, & Gabriel E. Lopez Rivas

Adam Bandelli, Gabriel E. Lopez Rivas, & Raymond Charles Ottinot
University of South Florida

Welcome to the pre-SIOP conference edition of TIP-TOPics for students! Speaking of the SIOP meeting, we hope you plan on attending the first ever TIP-TOPics roundtable. Our objective is to create an event that gives students a chance to discuss relevant issues, network with individuals from other I-O programs, and contribute to the development of this column. The title for this years session will be: TIP-TOPics Roundtable DiscussionFacilitating Collaboration Among Graduate Students. This will be a unique opportunity for you to network with other students and contribute to the development of the TIP-TOPics column, so make sure to attend the session.

Before revealing the subject of this issue, I would like you to imagine the following....On a cold January night, while driving down a road somewhere in the countryside of Iowa, you see a bright light hovering over one of the cornfields up ahead. You pull over and courageously exit your car to explore the source of this illumination. Suddenly out of the gently swaying cornstalks appears what could only be an extraterrestrial! This other worldly entity turns to you and boldly states: Take me to your leader! Being an I-O psychologist, you realize that this is an incredibly intriguing and complex question. After a moment of contemplation, you ask, Could you define leadership for me or at least be a little more specific? I mean do you want me to take you to a transactional leader or more of a transformational leader? Those guys live in opposite directions and I dont have time to introduce you to both of them. Looking what must be the alien equivalent of confused, the entity slowly backs into the cornfield, and you promptly see a bright streak rise into the star-filled night.

Well as you might have guessed the topic of this issue is leadership (although aliens was a good guess too). For this issue, we will provide you with the low down on leadership from our panel of experts; speak with W. Warner Burke, an expert in the areas of leadership and organizational development; and present findings from our Leadership in Graduate School survey.

I-O 101

How is leadership defined in organizational research? Our experts suggested that defining the concept is an important issue in leadership research. However, Cynthia McCauley pointed out that few articles provide a definition or description of the leadership construct that guided the authors research. Our experts agreed that a common theme in the operationalization of leadership is the influence of people to attain a goal(s). Some additional examples include a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 1997) and the process of influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goals (Rauch & Behling, 1984). 

What are some advantages and disadvantages of pursing a career studying leadership? According to Ronald Riggio, a disadvantage is that leadership is not yet recognized as a stand alone discipline. For example, in I-O psychology, it is considered a topic of specialization. In management, it is considered either a sub-area of organizational behavior or another core area. Furthermore, Cynthia McCauley stated that in recent years, there has been a sense that the leadership field has been in a rut (e.g., overly focused on a narrow range of theories, relying heavily on survey research, equating leadership with hierarchical authority or with heroism). 

A strength of the leadership domain is that practitioners and academics are working together to remedy these issues. Our experts provided examples of the steps being taken by leadership researchers and practitioners to address the disadvantages previously mentioned. For instance, in response to the issue of not being seen as a discipline, a relatively new organization called the International Leadership Association has been created, which is made up of leadership scholars, practitioners, consultants, and educators. In addition, the field is beginning to incorporate frameworks and methods from other areas. Some of the areas include complexity science, social networks, organizational learning, and socialconstructive development. 

Based on your experience, how do organizations view and value the study of leadership in organizations and what methods are most often used to conduct the research? Many organizations are interested in leadership research and applying it to the workplace. However, some of our experts feel it is important to realize that some organizations may not know what they are purchasing in terms of consulting and/or products because of their different levels of understanding. Many organizations also want to know what their return on investment will be and how long it will take to realize that return. So, if someone wants to study leadership in organizations, they need to be prepared to handle questions about the payoff. As for methods, it was unanimous that all methods apply to leadership research. David Day suggested that the focus should be on choosing the right tools to best answer the research question at hand. That requires a broad (and deep) understanding of methods that should be the hallmark of any well-trained I-O psychologist. 

What recommendations do you have for students who would like to pursue an applied career and use leadership in their work? What should students look for in an internship when pursuing an applied position with an emphasis in leadership? First and foremost our experts felt that a strong understanding of the research is critical when pursuing an applied career in leadership. Cynthia McCauley stated that one should think about how he or she may want to apply their leadership knowledge and expertise (i.e., through leader development initiatives, coaching leaders or leadership teams, designing leader assessment tools, crafting organizational processes that support an effective leadership system). An emphasis in leadership alone will likely not get you an applied position! Leadership expertise needs to be paired with expertise in other applied areas (e.g., training, coaching, management teams, assessment methodologies, and designing organizational systems). So look for opportunitiesthrough internships, consulting projects with faculty, applied research projects, classes in other departmentsto develop knowledge and skills in one or more of these applied areas. Bruce Avolio recommended taking on a variety of leadership roles and learning the language of business in order to interact with business leaders. 

Aside from the typical journals (i.e., JAP, AOMJ, etc.) what are other journals that leadership researchers should look to publish their work, and where can students find information about leadership and leadership-related topics? Our experts suggested several leadership journals. Some of these include Leadership Quarterly (LQ), Organizational Dynamics, Leadership (a new journal published by Sage), Group and Organizational Management, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Group Dynamics, and Small Group Behavior. It is important to note that even the premier journals in social psychology are publishing work on leadership. More importantly, Ronald Riggio stated that both LQ and Leadership are trying to appeal more broadly to scholars in a variety of disciplinesnot just to the psychologists and management scholars who typically publish in JAP and AOM journals. 

There are also conferences that focus on leadership: The Kravis Leadership Institute (http://kli.claremontmckenna.edu/) sponsors an annual conference, the Gallup Leadership Institute (http://gli.unl.edu/) has begun a Leadership Summit series, and the International Leadership Institute (www.academy.umd.edu/ila) holds an annual conference. There are also a variety of Web sites that contain information about leadership research and practice, leadership education, leadership academic programs, and related topics. For example, The Gallup Leadership Institute at the University of Nebraska has a comprehensive listing of these Web sites (http://gli.unl.edu/searchcenters.asp). Furthermore, our experts recommended that students interested in connecting with other people interested in leadership research can visit the Network on Leadership Scholars (http://divisions.aomonline.org/LIG/).
 
Where do you see the field of leadership research going? Our experts suggested that the field is beginning to integrate macro, systemic, and organizational-level perspectives on leadership with the current micro, person-centered, individual-level perspectives. Bruce Avolio stated that with the impetus of the GLOBE project, there will be more attention to spanning cultures. In addition, researchers will be addressing the issue of how to facilitate leadership via technology.

One aspect of leadership that all of our experts agree upon is that the field of leadership research is growing. Our experts feel that there are many challenges that lie ahead for researchers, and the opportunities to make contributions to the field are abundant. With a community of sophisticated scholars and practitioners from diverse disciplines, there is no doubt that the area of leadership research will flourish in the future. 

BI-O

As our experts have indicated, leadership is a broad, multidisciplinary field with many players. We chose to interview an individual that has had extensive experience with leadership in both the applied and academic realms. W. Warner Burke is a professor of psychology and education and the director for the graduate programs in social-organizational psychology in the Department of Organization and Leadership at Teachers College, Columbia University. He has also had a considerable amount of consulting experiences with a variety of organizations in business and industry, education, government, religion, and medical systems. Dr. Burke is a Diplomate in I-O psychology and the American Board of Professional Psychology; he is also a Fellow of SIOP, AOM, and APS. He has authored over 130 articles and book chapters in organizational psychology, organization change, and leadership.

What were your greatest doubts in graduate school and how did you overcome them?
My greatest doubts had to do with my poor training as an undergraduate. In particular, statistics did not come easy for me. In fact, I never really learned statistics until after I received my PhD. In other words, I memorized my way through. However, the summer after I completed my program was when I really began to understand statistics. One of the professors who had taught me statistics asked if I would teach introductory statistics that summer before I left for Richmond. I looked at him and said, You got to be kidding! He looked me straight in the eye and said, You have a PhD now right? I said, Yes sir. He said, You can teach anything! But that didnt clinch the deal; the clincher was that he said, It pays a thousand dollars. I said, Ill do it. So, that summer when I taught statistics I really learned and internalized the material. The best way to learn anything is to teach it. 

Did your graduate school experiences prepare you for working within the field?
Yes, they prepared me very well. I was fortunate to go the University of Texas at Austin, in the early 60s, with a concentration in social psychology. My early career was a reflection of this training, as I spent a great deal of time in the social psychology area before gradually moving into organizational psychology. So, I am not traditionally trained in I-O psychology. However, my graduate school days were excellent in preparing me for what I do today. For example, I had the opportunity to study under Blake and Mouton, which exposed me to application early on. It was the combination of scholarship and science mixed in with practice and applied experiences that have been a part of my life ever since graduate school.

How did you go about developing your current research interests? 
I think it had to do with the practice world. What I mean by this is that when I was with the National Training Laboratories (NTL), we were constantly working with groups and sensitivity training. All of that training was about self-awareness and, as a result, I was introduced to its importance early in my career. So, my research interests came from practice and application rather than theory. Since that time I have been able to use practice to facilitate theory or research and vice versa. I feel very fortunate to have this perspective because it is helpful in both the applied and academic worlds. 

What obstacles in graduate school and in your career did you experience that you were not anticipating, and what advice would you give to students and young professionals to help overcome these challenges?
There were two things as a graduate student that surprised me. First, there was the high degree of competitiveness among the doctoral students. For example, I would go to the library shelves and pull out bound journals and find out that the article I was trying to read had been cut out with a razor blade. Today you dont have that problem because you can do all that stuff online, and thats wonderful, but that is an example of what really just stunned me. The second thing that stunned me was that the faculty did not give much of a damn about the graduate students. That shocked me and is something I have tried not to emulate in my career.

How did you go about getting your first job once you had attained your degree? How long were you at your first job? 
Getting my first job was interesting. When I was still in graduate school, I thought that the person who really had it made was a professor. So, I had to be one. The first 3 years of my career I was an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Richmond, in Virginia. Now, I got that job primarily because my major professor did his undergraduate work at Richmond and thought it was an excellent institution. So through his assistance and encouragement, I was able to take an opening with their psychology department. However, after 2 years, I came to the conclusion that a professor was not necessarily the person who really had it made. I was getting fairly bored because Richmond had a strong undergraduate and masters program but no doctoral program. So it only took me about 2 years to realize this wasnt the place I was going to stay. 

Is the work that you do now related to or the same as the work you did early in your career? 
Yes and no. Yes from the standpoint of the applicability of social psychological thinking to practice, and that took the form, in the early days, of small groups. So my early consulting work was team building, which is the cornerstone of organizational development. All of that work came from my graduate training in social psychology. But, there were also a number of things that I did in my early career that I no longer do. For example, when I was at Richmond, I did part-time consulting work. The focus of the consulting company was on assessment. So, the firm used test batteries and interviews to make recommendations to clients about whether to select or promote an individual. While working there I learned a tremendous amount of information about psychological testing. So, even though I rarely use psychological testing today, I have a firm understanding of the area and can apply that knowledge to my teaching.

What things would you have done differently if you knew then what you know now?
Not much to tell you the truth. A part of the reason why is because my graduate training was terrific in terms of giving me the grounding that I needed and wanted. As I have said, I thought that I would be a professor (and that ultimately is what has happened), but in the early stages of my career I got disenchanted with academia and went into the applied world. Having the ability to move into the applied world and then learning from it was a great experience. 

What is your typical day at work like? 
It depends on what day of course because I spend about a day a week doing consulting work. For example, I have two clients right now that require a good bit of my time. So it doesnt always work out to be a day per week, and the consulting often dictates how the week will be spent. The rest of my time is filled with three types of activities: teaching, research projects, and administration. Because our program is large (and I am the acting head of the program), there are a number of administrative tasks that need to be handled on a weekly basis.

What were the most appealing characteristics/qualities of the career you selected, and why did you choose this over the other side (i.e., applied or academic)?
I am fortunate that I did not have to make the choice between the applied or academic world. In fact, I got back into academia because the 10 years that I was in the field I wrote and published. If I had not done that, I would have had a difficult time getting back in. The most appealing part of doing both is that one always seems to spark my interest in the other. For example, when I do consulting work and I come across things that puzzle me, I become interested in studying and trying to understand the problem from a deeper level. So, then I go back to theory and the university to suggest a study that we can do to better understand the issue. 

What are the most satisfying and dissatisfying aspects of our field to you? 
I have always had a problem with traditional I-O because it is so focused on the I and so little focused on the O. For the most part, I-O psychology is about individual differences, which is fundamental. But the problem that I-O psychologists face most of the time is they lose sight of context. You cannot understand behavior unless you understand it from the point of view of the individual and the context within which the individual is behaving. Without the combination, you dont understand anything, even though you think you do. Im just amazed at how many studies have been published where the level of analysis is simply the individual. 

Assessment Center

For this issue we wanted to explore leadership in graduate schools. Naturally this brought faculty advisors to mind, but we also wanted to take a look at the leadership roles that students could play. Based on responses from a sample of 164 graduate students, it seems that students do engage in different activities that put them in a leadership role (see Table 1).

Table 1
Student Leadership Opportunities 
____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________
Note. *Percentage of sample whose response was a 4 = agree or 5 = strongly agree on a 5-point scale. 

In order to gauge perceptions of leadership in graduate programs, we adapted Epitropaki and Martins (2004) short-form of the Scale of Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs) developed by Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz (1994). Although a full review of ILT is well beyond the scope of this article, the gist is that over time individuals develop expectations about what characteristics a leader should or should not possess. The shortened scale developed by Epitropaki et al. (2004) taps six characteristics that are prototypical (i.e., sensitivity, intelligence, dedication, and dynamism) or antiprototypical (i.e., tyranny and masculinity) of a leader. Participants were asked to complete an ILT scale for both their faculty advisor and for students in their program. According to our sample, graduate student perceptions of the leadership characteristics for both faculty and student leaders do not greatly differ and the perceptions are favorable (i.e., high scores on the prototypical characteristics and low scores on the antiprototypical characteristics, see Table 2).

Conclusion

Thank you to each of our experts for providing us with exceptional information for this column. These respondents include Bruce J. Avolio (The Gallup Organization), W. Warner Burke (Teachers College, Columbia University), David V. Day (Pennsylvania State University), Cynthia D. McCauley (Center for Creative Leadership), and Ronald E. Riggio (Claremont McKenna College). If you would like additional information or extended commentary from our experts, feel free to contact us at tipsontopics@yahoo.com. Make sure to check out our next issue where we will be focusing on counterproductive work behaviors.

References

     Epitropaki, O., Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293310.
     Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 4358.
     Rauch, C. F., Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the study of leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart, Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

April 2006 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home