Introduction
Vinchur (2008) stated that origins, while interesting, tend to slipperiness; you can always find a precursor to the person or event labeled âthe beginningâ of a field. In industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology, one could argue, as some have, that Hugo MĂźnsterberg was the first important person in industrial psychology and deserves credit for developing the field (Landy, 1992); if established, it could be easily justified that Wilhem Wundt deserves credit because he was MĂźnsterberg's German mentor, whereas others could credit William James as being influential and prescient because he brought MĂźnsterberg over to the US, where one could argue that applied psychology was bound to thrive. Others could argue that individuals were not important, but that the general development of psychology along with the needs of expanding businesses would eventually have led to IWO regardless of whether MĂźnsterberg had ever been born or migrated to the US. When the topic is a history of IWO across North America (defined geographically as Canada and the United States), slipperiness and mythology increase because of long-term interrelationships among the two nations. There was no coverage of history of IWO in the first edition of this Handbook, yet a set of capable authors address the topic in this edition. In this chapter, we focus on important individuals, events, and forces in North American IWO and aim to describe these events as best as we can, as well as to evaluate their importance critically.
Our motivations in writing this chapter are diverse. Our review is energized by standard admonitions to use history as a lesson for avoiding the repetition of errors, exhortations by prominent figures both then and now (Baritz, 1960; Campbell, 2007; Landy, 1997), and appreciation of the long and winding road (Katzell & Austin, 1992; Koppes, 2007). Ryan and Ployhart (2014) noted that we now have a âcentury of selectionâ in our collective rearview. We further try to consider interventions inspired by this history that could shape the future of IWO across North America (Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001; Bonaccio, Chiocchio, Forget, Forget, Foucher, Kelloway, O'Neill, 2013; Highhouse & Schmitt, 2012). Wolfle's (1963) preface to the seven-volume series edited by Koch shows that these issues exist outside of IWO psychology as well.
One example of an intervention is to consider responses to what some consider a slow erosion of IWO psychology toward colleges of business and nonacademic work (dryly referenced in Highhouse and Schmitt's informal survey as the âengineer being âasleep at the wheelâ'). This example is instructive given that data are nearly indisputable. More members of IWO psychology are housed in business schools and are obtaining their doctorates in business schools. Highhouse and Schmitt (2012) examine these data and see disastrous consequences for the future of the field. A diametric perspective on the issue was presented by Aguinis, Bradley, and Brodersen (2014) in a pair of studies on the topic, one quantitative and another qualitative. Appreciating this tension requires a return to earlier days, for example, the formation in 1937 of the American Association for Applied Psychology or Lawler's symposium in Professional Psychology with a survey by John Campbell and reactions from multiple quarters. Reactions included Naylor's (1971) metaphor of âHickory-Dickory-Dockâ with a rebuttal from Schneider, Lawler, and Carlson (1971) and a subsequent reaction by Braunstein (1973). Examining the history behind the trend toward business schools (Bottom, 2009; Uselding, 1981) might not change individual perspectives on the challenge (i.e. whether it is positive, neutral, or disastrous), but it can inform open-minded individuals about whether the battles we are currently fighting have been fought before, and the efficacy of particular interventions and concerns (cf. Highhouse & Zickar, 1997).
Other interventions we expect to increase in influence include the perennial scientist-practitioner dipole (Bonaccio et al., 2013), education and socialization that targets those entering and maintaining membership in the profession (licensing and certification), technology applied within the profession and by the profession, diversity (Koppes, 1997), and globalization, which underlies some of the approaches taken in this chapter and its companions. Globalization, for example, is instanced in trade, the rise of multinational corporations, the North American Free Trade Act agreement, and its many siblings (currently the Trans-Pacific Partnership). These, in turn, generate practical and theoretical issues for organizations in selection (Ryan & Tippins, 2009). Issues manifest as problems requiring solutions, with an evidence basis preferred. Such issues and their solutions represent the crux of IWO in theory or in practice. Throughout our history, and especially in the Lessons Learned section, we revisit these themes and provide critical evaluation of them.
Previous Efforts to Document History of IWO in North America
There have been numerous efforts to describe and evaluate the history of IWO, although most concentrate on the United States or on Europe. There is relatively little at the level of North America, our focus. Within North America, there have been many histories of IWO in the US (e.g. Katzell & Austin, 1992; Vinchur & Koppes, 2011; Zickar & Gibby, 2006). In addition, some writing has rightfully emphasized Canada (Bois, 1949; Kline, 1996; Lamerson, 2002; Latham, 1988; McMillan, Stevens, & Kelloway, 2009). A large body pertains to Europe as noted by Warr (2007) and by Shimin and van Strien (1998). Note that many of these treatments are history written by members of the discipline (i.e. practicing IWO psychologists), as opposed to historiographic approaches, which are written by those trained in professional historical methods (Benjamin, 2009; Burnham, 1968; Hilgard, Leary, & McGuire, 1991; Wertheimer, 1980). The former individuals are trained within psyc...
