Global Forum:
I-O Psychology and the Offshoring of Work: A Debate Between Dr. Quo and Dr. Nu
|
 |
Michael M. Harris
This hypothetical debate regarding research in the international context between two hypothetical scholars, Dr. Nu and Dr. Quo, highlights what I believe are somewhat inherent tensions in our field between more basic and more applied research. Enjoy the debate and let me know what you think
(mharris@umsl.edu)!
Dr. Nu: You just cannot escape the presence of globalization in the workplace. Take the very first sentence in
Fortunes 2006 article about the 100 best companies to work forIt had to happen: Globalizations pressure is turning the screws on even the best U.S. companies (Colvin, 2006, p. 71).
Dr. Quo: At the same time, this article goes on to observe that many of the 100 best companies to work for are less vulnerable to the pressures of globalization because the nature of their business requires that they be place-based. These industries include health care and child care, as well as financial services companies, which Colvin argues require a physical presence in order to succeed. In all, just over half of the 100 best companies to work for are deemed to be somewhat immune to globalization. So, globalization is not nearly as universal as you state!
Dr. Nu: That leads, however, to the conclusion that almost 50% of the companies in this list are
quite vulnerable to global pressure! But, lets stop quibbling about some of the details. I hardly think that you, Dr. Quo, can deny that globalization is a major force in the work today, particularly as it relates to business, industry, and organizations. And, as I recall, unless SIOP has tried another silly attempt to change the name of our field, we are called industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists, correct?
Dr. Quo: Yes, yes, we are still I-O psychologists. But let us return to the fundamental issue that really brought us together today. And that question is whether we should be pursuing research to answer questions of interest to us as scholars and researchers or whether we should be letting business set our research agenda. As you know, I strongly believe that we should keep the business executives out of our circles. What do they know about the research process? Do they understand what makes for good research versus bad research? If they had their way, we would probably just be doing highly simplistic case studies, chatting with CEOs, and tossing out words such as strategizing like 16-inch softballs. Most importantly, do business executives have any concept as to what it takes to get published in our top journals? Do they have any inkling as to what it takes to get respect from our colleagues, let alone tenure, in the university world?
Dr. Nu: Let me respond this way, Dr. Quo. I think we might frame the issue this way: Are we as I-O psychologists pursuing the right research agenda? That is, are we spending time on valuable questions? Now, I realize that one of the joys of research is studying what it is we wish to study and that practical considerations should by no means dictate what it is that we are studying. A research investigation is important if we (and our peers) find it interesting. Although I agree with that opinion in many ways, I think that as I-O psychologists, we should at least pay some attention to issues and topics of concern to our practitioner brethren. Perhaps some of the topics of interest to them will be found to be of interest to us as well.
Dr. Quo: (snorting with distaste): I dont care if my research interests demonstrate researcherpractitioner fit (RPF). We have enough discussion of different kinds of fit (e.g., PO fit) to worry about RPF. You know, I think we need to get a little more specific here. So, lets talk about specific research topics. I have been working on a project for several years that examines work competencies in various parts of the world. The focus is on whether these competencies vary from region to region and why there may be differences.
Dr. Nu: Well, that project certainly has some major practical implications. I bet that there might be some executives who would be interested in knowing what regions of the world are strong in which competencies and which regions might be lacking in certain competencies. That way, in choosing where to locate operations, they might make better choices.
Dr. Quo: Well, sure one could take some of the research Im conducting and apply it to some practical problems, but that is certainly not the driving force of my research endeavors. Lets turn to what you think might have valuable practical implications. What are some research areas where you believe I-O psychologists might make a meaningful difference?
Dr. Nu: I think that global business represents a growing area where we, as I-O psychologists, could make a valuable contribution. Lets take one example; in the most recent issue of
BusinessWeek (January 30, 2006), an entire article was devoted to outsourcing.
Dr. Quo: There you go again. Rather than focusing on I-O psychology journals, you are always referring to business publications. You know, I think you would be far better off ignoring those other journals and focusing on our I-O journals, such as
Personnel Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Dr. Nu: I dont see the exclusive need to focus on our journals. Because the world is our laboratory, I think we can come up with ideas for research in many different places, not the least of which are business publications. But stop interrupting me, and let me share with you some of the ideas from this article. Briefly, outsourcing has made great changes in the U.S. (and elsewhere, of course) work world. Although most of us think of outsourcing as eliminating high-paying U.S. jobs and hiring cheaper replacements overseas, a new model called transformational outsourcing (TO) is evolving. Not to be confused with transformational leadership, the purpose is to completely transform an operation (e.g., manufacturing plant) by reconfiguring all of the business processes (e.g., manufacturing, engineering, etc.) and, where appropriate, outsourcing and offshoring those processes that are better performed elsewhere. Although cost savings is an aspect of TO, there are other important factors that are driving the TO model.
Dr. Quo: I remember reading something about that trend about 15 years ago. It was referred to as a mod organization, wasnt it? I imagined that executives would wear wide-lapelled jackets and platform shoes. No wonder mod organizations didnt catch on.
Dr. Nu: No, no. You mean modular organizations, not mod organizations. Yes, the idea of a modular organization has come into its own now. As this same article states, more and more organizations can start up, without having many of the functions that a traditional organization needs. As an example, an organization with a fleet of airplanes can contract out for reservations managements, crews, and route planning. Other names given to such organizations include virtual and hollow organizations.
One company named in this article, Crimson Consulting Group, conducts global marketing research on a variety of software and hardware products. The company has only 14 full-time employees, but with the use of thousands of independent contractors, it is able to compete with major consulting firms on a global basis and at a very low cost.
Dr. Quo: OK, interesting ideas. I understand how these things may become important. But, do they relate to I-O research in any way at all?
Dr. Nu: At the end of this article, a professor of management at a large university is quoted as saying that one of the tasks of the business school is to train managers to manage virtual, global organizations consisting of employees that one wont even see. If that isnt an interesting statement, I dont know what is. But my main point, of course, is that these trends lead to some interesting research questions as follows.
First, what kind of managerial skills are needed for managing a virtual organization? Do these skills vary by the culture of the workplace? In other words, is a manager who is effective in one part of the world (say, China) going to be equally effective in a culturally different environment, such as Switzerland? Similarly, how can we measure those skills? Will assessment centers, personality tests, or structured interviews be valid tools?
Second, how is change best introduced and managed to enable these virtual organizations to be successful? As the article notes, [c]orporations cant simply be snapped apart and reconfigured like LEGO sets, after all. They are complex, living organisms that can be thrown into convulsions if a transplant operation is botched (pp. 5657). What kinds of management approaches are most effective here? What are the kinds of communication processes and procedures that will enable these virtual organizations to operate effectively?
Third, how will these kinds of organizations affect our understanding of the workplace. In terms of hiring, for example, the notion that an organization has a job opening is becoming more obsolete. Rather than replacing a departing employee, the organization may choose to outsource the position, hire a contract worker, or perhaps offshore the functional area. What factors will determine this decision? And how will such decisions affect employee careers?
Dr. Quo: This has been enlightening, but I think Ill stick to my favorite research journals. By the way, where did you say that article on outsourcing appeared? It might be a good article to assign for my PhD seminar to read on international HRM research.
Dr. Nu: No problem, Ill be happy to get you the citation. And by the way, do you have any good citations for leadership in a global context? It might be helpful for me in developing a theory of leadership in modular organizations for an invited article I am writing.
References
Colvin, G. (January 23, 2006). The 100 best companies to work for 2006.
Fortune, 153, 7174.
Engardio, P. (January 30, 2006). The future of outsourcing.
BusinessWeek, 5058.
April 2006 Table
of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home