Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology > Research & Publications > TIP > TIP Back Issues > 2017 > January


Volume 54     Number 3    January 2017      Editor: Tara Behrend

The IOpener: Workaholism—It’s Good! It’s Bad! It’s Inconsistently Defined

Qin Cai and Steven Toaddy

Meredith Turner 0 2051 Article rating: 5.0

In recent years, there is increasing research interest in workaholism (Clark, Michel, Zhdanova, Pui, & Baltes, 2014). However, if one has read research articles on this topic (e.g., Aziz & Zickar, 2006; Fassel, 1990; Machlowitz, 1980; Mudrack & Naughton, 2001; Ng, Sorensen, Feldman, 2007; Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1998; Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008; Scottl, Moore, & Miceli, 1997; Snir & Harpaz, 2012; Spence & Robbins, 1992; Sussman, 2012), it is not difficult to notice that there is lack of consensus in definition of workaholism (Clark et al., 2014). Because of the situation of multiple definitions for workaholism, conclusions can not be clearly drawn from different research, because there is no guarantee as to whether the differences among these research originate from differences between research per se, or just from different definitions that researchers adopted, where the latter means that basically researchers are measuring different things. For example, according to Ng et al. (2007), workaholics should have career satisfaction and success; however, this would not be the case according to Spence and Robbins (1992). If someone looks at the definitions of workaholism these researchers used in their research, it will be clear why they would not agree with each other. In the definition given by Ng et al. (2007), workaholics enjoy working, whereas, in the definition provided by Spence and Robbins (1992), they do not. This is, suffice it to say, troublesome.

The History Corner: Digital Humanities and the Psychology of Work

Nathan T. Carter, Megan R. Lowery, and Lane E. Siedor

Meredith Turner 0 1757 Article rating: No rating

It is with great excitement that I write to you in my first installment of the History Corner. I am proud to join a great group of people who have served as Historian in the past. Over the coming years, we plan to continue build upon the fantastic work by my predecessor, Jeff Cucina, who has initiated such projects as the SIOP Time Capsule and the Living History Series, in which the field’s luminaries are interviewed at the annual conference. I am also excited that my first History Corner article features two stellar graduate students from the University of Georgia, whose independent study in the area of “big data” inspired this article.

Getting to Know SIOP's Award Winners: Showcasing Small Grant Winners

Liberty Munson and Garett Howardson

Meredith Turner 0 1555 Article rating: No rating

I recently had the opportunity to talk to Ann Marie Ryan and Abdifatah Ali about the small grant award that they won from SIOP in the Spring of 2016. Although Jessica Keeney was unable to join the conversation, she did provide additional insights via email. Let’s take a closer look at the research that they are doing and how it will help not only organizations make better hiring decisions but also help a increase the fairness of hiring decisions for a group that is commonly overlooked because of their past.

Lost in Translation: Overcoming Critics and Barriers in Applied Organizational Research

Michael Litano and Andrew Collmus

Meredith Turner 0 8493 Article rating: 3.6

The scientific study of people is complicated. Although human behavior is astoundingly predictable, scientific disciplines are often classified into a “hard” and “soft” dichotomy based on perceptions of the field’s methodological rigor and exactitude. Unfortunately, this artificial categorization rarely takes the complexity of what we study into account. Individuals vary greatly on a number of factors, and those differences influence their behaviors. However, there are also countless environmental factors that influence human behavior, and any number of these factors can interact and modify the behaviors we might otherwise expect. These individual differences and their interactions with the social environment are what makes the study of people so interesting but also extremely difficult. This complexity affects our ability to accurately and reliably measure unobservable constructs and influences the extent to which we are able to unobtrusively conduct research in naturalistic (work) settings.

Learning About Learning: Who Are L&D Employees?

Amy DuVernet and Tom Whelan

Meredith Turner 0 1947 Article rating: No rating

So far in this column, we’ve talked about the definition of training as understood by most companies’ L&D departments and what the structure of training functions typically looks like in organizations. In this column, we’re going to describe the wide variety of job roles that commonly fall underneath the category of L&D and what educational backgrounds the kind of individuals in such roles tend to possess—in other words, who are these people?