Introduction

‘Psychology is a science and a profession’ (O’Gorman, 2007, p. 1). And thus begins John O’Gorman’s book titled Psychology as a Profession in Australia. In presenting subsequently as a panellist at QUT in Brisbane during Psychology Week 2011, O’Gorman expanded on this by observing that ‘Psychology is about people’. He also reminded the audience – which included school students – that mental health is only one small, albeit important, part of psychology’s relationship with human existence. On the other hand, work is an integral part of life for nearly all people, extending over many decades. Industrial, work, and organisational psychology (IWOP) plays an important role in understanding the interplay between people and organisations, and even society, through the lens of work. It helps us understand the impact of work – beyond the economic component – and with designing appropriate systems and interventions. IWOP strives to enhance organisational effectiveness while keeping the wellbeing of the individual clearly in focus. The following sections will describe some of the different areas where industrial, work, and organisational psychology can be applied, and outline the role of professional organisations. We also highlight the wide range of work contexts where people can apply their expertise in IWOP, and suggest some suitable career pathways into this profession.

The discipline and profession of industrial, work, and organisational psychology

While the term ‘organisational psychology’ is used mainly in Australia, as well as in New Zealand/Aotearoa, there are several alternative designations in use elsewhere. North America, Singapore, Japan, and South Africa use ‘industrial and organizational psychology’, whereas Europe and Brazil use the label ‘work and organizational psychology’. In the UK, ‘occupational psychology’ is the term most frequently used, while in Germany, there is a section of the German Psychological Society (DGPs) called ‘Work, Organizational, and Business Psychology’. Finally, Chile has a ‘Society of Psychology and Organizational Behavior’. It might seem confusing to students, employers, profession regulators, and to elected members of the government that there are so many different terms used to describe this profession. We recognise that this confusion may have contributed to an ongoing struggle to demonstrate its impact.

It seems timely for a new, overarching term to emerge: industrial, work, and organisational psychology (IWOP). ^[1] In early 2021, a draft of the IWOP Declaration of Identity (Kożusznik & Glazer, 2021) was released following consultation with various participants and bodies over several years. The introduction to this Declaration states that ‘The IWOP profession is concerned with both individual work-related wellbeing and effective performance’.  It also claims that IWOP is now considered a profession, and that professions affect societies. The introduction to the Declaration continues with ‘IWOP has a responsibility as a profession to support difficult decisions at the societal, organizational and group level, so as to always ensure that workers and worker-eligible people are reaping benefits rather than harm, by their work engagements’.

The IWOP Declaration of Identity is expanded through the inclusion of ten draft statements organised around four major themes: communication, contextualisation, dissemination, and integration. There are various elements within each of these statements, but the key components include the following:

• We value wellbeing and human welfare.
• We bridge organisational science and practice.
• We ideate and innovate in all working situations and environments.
• We balance individual needs with organisational goals.
• We strive to employ ethical, evidence-based influence on decision-makers.
• We ask rigorous and relevant questions to address critical issues.
• We communicate broadly and are active partners in social dialogues.

The declaration makes a strong case for the IWOP profession to be recognised as contributing to all areas of work, whether from an employee, organisational, or governance perspective.

The development of the IWOP Declaration of Identity involves many organisations, and reflects the desire for global cooperation that is a very positive feature of IWOP. The Alliance for Organizational Psychology is a ‘federation of Work, Industrial, & Organizational psychologies from around the world’. The main members are four organisations: the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), the International Association for Applied Psychology (IAAP) Division 1 – Work and Organizational Psychology, and the Canadian Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (CSIOP).  In early 2020, the Alliance created a new global partnership called the ‘Big Tent’, and many IWOP societies around the globe have now joined the Big Tent, including the New Zealand Institute of Organisational Psychology, part of the New Zealand Psychological Society (NZPsS).

As of April 2022, there are sixteen network partners in the Alliance. Currently, Australia is represented only by the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology Australia (SIOPA). Formed in 2016, it’s an autonomous Western Australia-based body which is not part of the Australian Psychological Society (APS) and is not affiliated formally with SIOP in the USA. However, at the time of preparing this chapter, the College of Organisational Psychology (COP) – one of the colleges within the peak professional body, the APS – was not part of the Alliance Big Tent. Given the challenges and opportunities facing IWOP in Australia, as well as globally, we (the authors) believe it’s important for mainstream organisational psychology in Australia to make every effort to join the Alliance as a matter of priority,  initially via the Alliance ‘Big Tent’.

The final organisation we want to highlight in this section is a relatively new organisation: the Asian-Australian Organisational Psychology Inc (AAOP). This organisation aims to enhance the Asian-Australian organisational psychology identity and to promote cultural equality for Asian-Australians. This reflects a more specific focus than the other industrial, work, and organisational psychology bodies we have reviewed.

What does an IWO psychologist do and where do they work?

You can learn more about becoming an IWO psychologist by:

• talking with IWO psychologists – perhaps by attending a local meeting
• searching for information online
• talking with a psychology academic or careers advisor
• perusing texts (particularly handbooks – we particularly like the three-volume The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology 2nd ed.) which provide material reflecting the breadth, depth, and growth of IWOP globally. The astute student will strive to secure insights from local as well as North American, UK and European publications, and even beyond.
• joining or following a LinkedIn group such as Organisational Psychology in Australia or SIOP
• reading the eight career profiles towards the end of this chapter.

Another useful source is O*NET OnLine. Not only is this a very useful online tool for career exploration, but it’s also considered an essential starting point for any work or job analysis. See the text box on Using O*NET OnLine below for some suggestions about how to use this site. While you’re researching this field, it’s important to note that IWOPs work under many different job titles. You’ll see some examples of reported job titles in the report.

The APS COP website (2021) lists the following areas of practice where IWO psychologists can demonstrate their expert skills and knowledge:

• workforce planning and role definition
• recruitment and selection (including psychological testing and assessment)
• learning and development
• coaching, mentoring, and career development
• workplace advice and advocacy
• change management
• organisational development
• measuring employee opinions and other workplace research
• performance management
• wellbeing, stress, and work-life balance
• occupational health and safety
• human resources program evaluation
• consumer behaviour and marketing.

IWO psychologists work in a variety of settings. While some are employed in government departments, the Australian Defence Force (see Chapter 15), or large commercial enterprises, many also work in academia and as consultants. Such consultancies can be small (such as sole traders) or much larger and comprised of fellow consultants from human resources, industrial relations, and business in general. Recent technological advances in fields such as personnel assessment and selection mean IWO psychologists may now be working with software engineers or data scientists. Research and consulting centres incorporated as part of a university are increasing in number. One of the examples later in this chapter  is from Sharon Parker, Director of The Centre for Transformative Work Design at Curtin University in Western Australia. The field of work design can be added to the COP list above and represents an additional area of opportunity for IWOPs.

This raises an important issue: the publicised impact of some of our IWO psychology scholars. On November 10 2021, The Australian released its Research Magazine 2021 containing a list of  40 ‘superstars of research’. Two of the five lifetime achievers in research nominated for the Business, Economics & Management category, Neal Ashkanasy and Sharon Parker – both IWO psychology scholars – share their stories later in this chapter.

Another key area missing from the COP list is human factors. The University of Adelaide offers a Master of Psychology (Organisational and Human Factors), and several Australian IWO psychologists work as human factors specialists within the aviation industry and road traffic and safety authorities. One such a psychologist, Allison McDonald, the Managing Director of SystemiQ, shares her story later in this chapter. Human factors are also referred to as ‘engineering psychology’ (Rogelberg, 2007) or ‘human engineering’ (Landy & Conte, 2004). In essence, the field of human factors endeavours to align the demands of the work environment with the characteristics and requirements of individuals. This can be accomplished via knowledge of human capabilities in designing effective processes, system linkages, and training initiatives. The addition of tools and techniques to enhance performance also forms part of the overall approach to human factors or ergonomics. Furthermore, we (the authors) are confident that IWOPs will make an important contribution to the growing field of cyberpsychology. Dalal et al. (2021) outline how organisational researchers could contribute to the important area of cybersecurity, as well as how this could represent a new and challenging area of professional practice.

The discipline of human factors highlights key issues such as human decision-making and error management, and stresses that these are a critical part of system design. When we consider human factors, it’s important to examine how the person and the environment (or system) can interact to influence human behaviour. Kurt Lewin’s famous field theory (1951) summarised this approach in an equation B=f (PxE), where behaviour is described as a function of the person and their environment. The P-E perspective is also discussed in Chapter 2 of this book. The notion of ‘fit’ between person and environment underpins one of the traditional mainstays of IWO psychologists: personnel selection – a topic addressed later in this chapter. Further, several large global organisations adapt this approach through the mantra of ‘systems shape behaviour’, and some of these organisations are focused on the design and implementation of comprehensive behaviourally-oriented leadership and management systems (e.g., Macdonald, Burke & Stewart, 2006).

The history of IWO Psychology: with an Australian focus

Kelloway (2019) claims the first two books in IWO psychology were Increasing Human Efficiency in Business (Scott, 1911) and Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (Münsterberg, 1913). In the early 1900s, economic and social trends resulted in a glorification of industrialisation and progress (Viteles, 1932). Any field that claimed to advance the interests and tenets of capitalism was widely accepted. We suggest that anyone wanting to understand the history of IWO psychology consult:

Koppes Bryan, L. L. (Ed.). (2021). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429052644

Vinchur, A. J. (2018). The early years of industrial and organizational psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107588608

Koppes, L. L. (Ed.). (2007). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Routledge.

Vinchur (2018) provides a good deal of information beyond the USA, while Koppes (2007) and Koppes Bryan (2021) are very US–centric. The contributors to the 2021 edition are solely North American, as are the five testimonials in the book. Students can also consider the European perspective provided by Chmiel, Fraccaroli and Sverke (2017) in An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: An International Perspective (3rd ed.). Similarly, a useful book with many well-known UK authors is Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Psychology (Robertson, Callinan & Bartram, 2002).

Zickar and Gibby (2021) have developed four themes which they claim differentiated IWO psychology in the USA from other countries and cultures, while also distinguishing it from other disciplines such as industrial sociology, labour economics, and industrial engineering. These four themes are:

• an emphasis on productivity and efficiency
• an emphasis on quantification (and quantitative versus qualitative methodologies)
• a focus on selection and differential psychology
• the interplay between science and practice (this issue is addressed later in this chapter).

When reflecting on his highly productive career, Sackett (2021) noted the increasing tendency to focus on ‘organizational’ psychology rather than ‘industrial’ psychology. Industrial psychology often examines individual performance or agency and is more likely to use sophisticated measurement and quantitative methodologies. Personnel selection is a good example of ‘industrial’ psychology. Further, Luthans (2017), albeit an organisational behaviour scholar (i.e., an ‘O’ person), called for ‘dropping the outdated term “industrial” from I-O’ (p. 579). Thus, Zickar and Gibby (2021) needs to be evaluated against this background.

Feitosa and Sim (2021) provide a perspective on IWOP beyond the USA, but include very limited information on Australian history, and are incorrect in citing a 2006 publication stating psychologists have to register with the Psychology Board of Australia. This Board was only established in 2009. A more substantial discussion of Australian IWOP is provided by Hesketh, Neal and Griffin (2018). Bordow (1971), using a survey completed by 94 respondents, contributed an interesting snapshot of the state of the ‘industrial psychologist’ in Australia fifty years ago in terms of education, employment, and job functions. However, for a relatively recently published history of psychology in Australia, Buchanan (2012) provides a good starting point.

Vinchur (2018) claims Bernard Muscio was Australia’s leading early proponent of improving efficiency through use of industrial psychology. In 1916, Muscio ‘delivered a series of talks on industrial psychology in Sydney, which later appeared in print as Lectures in Industrial Psychology (1917)’ (Vinchur, 2018, p.163). O’Neil (1977; 1987) previously had elevated Muscio to pioneer status in Australian psychology. A Sydney graduate, Muscio undertook further studies in mental philosophy at Cambridge and then commenced pioneering work in industrial psychology in the UK with the First World War Industrial Fatigue Research Board (later the Industrial Health Research Board). Returning to Australia in the early 1920s, he delivered a series of lectures to the Worker’s Educational Association in Sydney, with the publication of these lectures being viewed as groundbreaking, globally (O’Neil, 1977). Vinchur (2018) noted that Muscio had once been an advocate of scientific management (Taylor, 1911), but had come to reject the analogy of the worker as a machine. Blackburn (1998), a lecturer in history, has provided a detailed account of the rise of industrial psychology in Australia in the period immediately following World War I, until the Depression era.  He noted that Muscio focused on the then drive for ‘industrial efficiency’ in Australia, and founded the Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy. This journal promoted ‘using industrial psychology to promote efficiency’(p. 122).

The earliest formal structure for IWOP in Australia was probably the Australian Institute of Industrial Psychology, established in 1927 in Sydney by A.H. Martin (Clark, 1958; Hesketh et al., 2018). It appeared to be modelled on the UK’s National Institute of Industrial Psychology (which suspended its operations in August 1973 and finally closed in 1977). This genesis reflects the strong influence the UK (and subsequently the USA) has had on the development of psychology in Australia. Until 1965, the APS was a Branch of the British Psychological Society (BPS).

World War II acted as a catalyst for progress in applied psychology in fields such as selection and assessment, training, human factors (or ergonomics), and career planning (Hesketh et al., 2018). However, it wasn’t until more recent decades that there was substantial growth in the field of IWO psychology. Commencing in Melbourne and Sydney, management consultancies started providing IWOP services from the postwar years (Young, 1977) – particularly from the late 1950s onwards.  However, Hesketh et al. (2018) attributes much of the growth in IWOP to the reciprocity between Australian and overseas research units, and the cross-fertilisation of the knowledge and skills which subsequently flowed through to students studying IWOP in universities. Historically, psychology has differentiated itself from other professions such as law through its strong university and scholar base (O’Gorman, 2007), although this distinction is not as clear in more recent times.

While psychology has not always been at the forefront of changes in society, during COVID -19 there has been much greater emphasis on psychological matters. However, this attention has typically been focused on mental health issues, rather than broader behavioural and social science implications. A major activity  near the end of this chapter invites students to explore how pandemics may be better managed by decision-makers making more informed use of IWO psychology and related fields.

Through this brief review of the developments associated with IWOP in Australia, it’s possible to see that multiple factors influenced the growth of IWOP. The early trend for IWOP to develop in tandem with international trends seems to continue and may even be accelerating. Nevertheless, there’s one historical element we believe requires closer attention.

The Role of Fred Emery in Shaping IWOP in Australia

We now turn to the issue of how we generate new knowledge in IWOP. First of all, consider this question: Is your work experience a good predictor of your future job performance? Most people would say ‘yes’, and the more years the better. However, this isn’t supported by the meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Van Iddekinge, Arnold, Frieder & Roth, 2019). These authors found that typical measures of pre-hire experience are, statistically, poor predictors of future job performance and turnover. Accordingly, hiring managers are strongly encouraged to use alternative or additional measures when making personnel selection decisions. This is a practical example of the importance of research. Please refer to Chapter 3 of this book for more about the research process.

Earlier material in this chapter described how psychology emerged from natural philosophy, and with it, an emphasis on observation and measurement. Taking this further, Austin, Scherbaum, and Mahlman (2002) outline the history of research methods in IWOP. Although their entry could be critiqued for being too focused on the USA, and the publication of articles appearing in the Journal of Applied Psychology, it nevertheless provides an insight into the changes and increasing sophistication of the methods used across three key domains – namely, measurement, design, and analysis. In discussing a century of progress in the field of IWOP, Salas et al. (2017) reinforced the centrality of these three components to the field.

These developments have been enhanced greatly by advances in technology and computing power, and more recently through artificial intelligence and machine learning. New fields or terms have emerged, such as ‘computational psychometrics’ (von Davier, Deononic, Yudelson, Polyak & Woo, 2019). Advances in statistical techniques include the alignment method (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014), which can assist in streamlining the process of revealing differences between large groups – including countries – on constructs of interest such as personal values.

Stone-Romero (2011, p. 39) identified three general purposes for conducting research. The following list represents a slight adaptation of his material:

• to assess relationships between (and among) unobservable constructs using manipulations or measures of variables that serve to operationally define the constructs – for example, establishing the relationship between general cognitive ability and job performance
• to determine the effects of various types of manipulations of unobservable constructs on criterion constructs – for example, the impact of RJPs on subsequent employee turnover (recall, Latham (2009) discussed the RJP in his evidence-based manager book)
• to determine whether causal or non-causal relationships between (and among) variables that are found in a study with a given set of units, treatments and observations generalise across other types of units, treatments and observations – for example, is a stress reduction intervention as effective for police officers in a child protection police unit as it is for surgeons in a trauma centre?

The claims of scientific enquiry can only be established when there is confirming evidence using new data. That is, the findings of the original study can be replicated. Nosek and Errington (2019), in examining the social and behavioural sciences, stated that across six replication efforts, only 47 per cent of the 190 claims replicated successfully. In 2020, SIOP established a Replication Task Force, with the brief to consider the establishment of an online publication devoted to publishing replications. Putting aside whether the replication is a direct or conceptual replication, it’s evident that this is an issue, particularly within social psychology:

The replication of findings is one of the defining hallmarks of science.  Scientists must be able to replicate the results of studies or their findings do not become part of scientific knowledge.  Replication protects against false positives (seeing a result that is not really there) and also increases confidence that the result actually exists (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2020).

Where replication is in question it should not be assumed that an original study is faulty and that the latest replication attempt is better because of its modernity. Perhaps findings from the original study are not as generalisable as thought initially, but the original study was still sound. Has the data from the studies been analysed accurately, and within the bounds of the assumptions or limits underpinning the measurement model that is being used?  For example, when scaling data using what is known as item response theory (IRT), with its ‘strong assumptions’ about the nature of the data being analysed, it’s important that the variable under consideration is relatively homogenous – or internally consistent. This can be problematic when using powerful IRT-based techniques – for example, to evaluate between country differences on Openness (to experience), one of the dimensions in the widely accepted Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality.

On a related theme, Ioannidis, Salholz-Hillel, Boyack and Baas (2021) published an article which included over 200,000 publications in their analysis of COVID-19-related papers. Of the top fifteen sub-fields with the highest rates of authors, there are zero entries from the behavioural or social sciences. Although Ionnadis et al. (2021) generally welcomed the proliferation of published articles, they did offer clear warnings in terms of:

• ‘…the consistent finding of the high prevalence of low-quality studies across very different types of study designs suggests that a large portion (perhaps even the large majority) of the immense and rapidly growing COVID-19 literature may be of low quality’ (p. 11)
• ‘Such fundamentally flawed research may then even pass peer-review, since the same people populate also the ranks of peer-reviewers. Flaws go beyond retractions, which account for less than 0.1% of published COVID-19 work’ (pp. 11–12).

It appears concerns over false claims in social media about COVID-19 are not necessarily dispelled when consulting ‘scientific’ papers produced during a period of rampant publishing.

Putting this massive – and at times hurried – influx of studies to the side, scholars and practitioners can usually gain increased surety by making effective use of meta-analytic findings. Oh (2020), in citing Schmidt and Hunter (2015), describes the primary purpose of meta-analysis, a technique which is fundamental in much of modern research in psychology. With this analytical technique, existing research findings from primary studies can be quantitatively evaluated by reviewing correlation coefficients or other bivariate effect sizes. The opening paragraph of this 2020 publication took this further with the secondary use of meta-analytic data (SUMAD), citing Schmidt and Hunter’s (1998) classic review paper which curated, summarised, and tabulated eighty-five years of meta-analytic research findings on the validity (both operational and incremental) of many selection procedures. All researchers, students, and practitioners with an interest in personnel selection should be aware of this 1998 study and an important update by Schmidt et al. (2016)^[2]. The study cited above (van Iddekinge et al., 2019) was based on a meta-analysis involving 44 independent samples with combined case numbers (N) of nearly 12,000.

Validity and reliability are essential concepts in quantitative research – and subsequent practice – in IWO psychology. For a useful summary of the concept of validity, and the process of validation, see Sackett, Putka and McCloy (2012) in The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection, edited by the prolific Neal Schmitt, an early mentor of many current top tier scholars.

The above discussion is focussed on quantitative methods. However qualitative methods also are used in IWO research, particularly within business and management schools. Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) provided data indicating that 18 per cent of articles in the highly-regarded Academy of Management Journal contained studies that involved qualitative methods, at least in part. On the other hand, APA’s Journal of Applied Psychology published less than 1 per cent of such articles, reflecting its strong focus on research with a deductive approach encapsulating theory and empiricism (see Spector et al., 2014, discussed later in this section). Administrative Science Quarterly and Organization Science both had solid representation (over 20 per cent) of studies with a qualitative element.

Qualitative methods are an important part of psychology. Locke and Golden-Biddell (2002) presented a useful matrix comparing the modernist, interpretivist, and postmodernist paradigms. It’s not practical to discuss the history and philosophy of qualitative research here, but the following three qualitative methods, drawn in main part from Locke and Golden-Biddle (2002), are relevant:

• Action Research – This grew out of Kurt Lewin’s (1951) field theory and the conceptualisation of planned organisational change. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR) is a good source of examples of Action Research.
• Ethnography – Informed by cultural theory, ethnographists can take a very personalised approach, using participant observation and unstructured interviewing as the prime data gathering techniques. Archival documents and various records can also be used, with technology and computer-aided interpretive textual analysis greatly assisting in recent years. One of the criticisms of the personalised approach is how the presence of an observer may change the fundamental dynamics of a situation. A ‘hidden’ observer raises clear ethical concerns, however. Margaret Mead’s (1928) Coming of Age in Samoa is a prime example of the ethnographic approach. Despite being strong supporters of applied measurement theory and empirical approaches, Zickar and Carter (2010) advocated a ‘reconnection with the spirit of ethnography’ in organisational research.
• Grounded Theory – With its association with sociology, grounded theory is very much involved with the study of life at work. Instead of developing theories prior to data gathering, known as ‘a priori’ theorising, models or theories are generated using an inductive process. From the ‘ground up’, in effect. Locke and Golden-Biddell (2002) cited a well-known grounded theory study aimed at exploring perceptions and interactions involving medical staff, dying patients, and families within a hospital setting.

It shouldn’t be assumed that inductive research precludes the use of quantitative or empirical methods – in fact, it can be quite data–driven. Spector et al. (2014) highlighted the shift from exploratory and empirical approaches to one which can be called ‘deductive theory-based hypothesis confirmation’.  In this special inductive research issue of the Journal of Business Psychology, Spector et al. (2014, p. 499) noted that ‘the field needs more inductive research to serve as the basis for theory’. These five highly regarded authors expressed a desire to see the pendulum swing back from the undue focus on deductive approaches – with a priori theorising – to a position where exploratory approaches are once again employed. In doing so, the development of new theories or models is likely to be advanced, and with it an enhanced understanding of behavioural phenomena. However, the focal article by Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) painted a picture of little change, with still limited qualitative research appearing in the top IWO psychology journals.

Other qualitative methods are discussed in Gephart (2013) and Wilhelmy and Kohler (2021). In a special issue of the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (December 2000), the repertory grid technique is featured – a moderately popular methodology used in the UK. Based on the personal construct theory of Kelly (1955), one of this chapter’s authors (Peter Macqueen) has used this technique to supplement psychometric and standard interview approaches in vocational and career assessment. This 2000 publication also contained an article describing a semi-structured co-research model, with the two authors affiliated with either a local government centre or a business school (Hartley & Benington, 2000).

Educational Requirements for IWO Psychologists: necessary? and sufficient?

Hesketh et al. (2018) concluded their chapter with a discussion of matters pertinent to the education and registration of psychologists who have pursued postgraduate training in their niche field, known as an Area of Practice Endorsement (AoPE) for registration purposes via the PsyBA. In Australia, there are currently nine such AoPEs, including organisational psychology, whereas there are only four vocational Scopes of Practice in New Zealand/Aotearoa: clinical, counselling, educational, and more recently, neuropsychology.

Hesketh et al. (2018) make a strong case for students to look beyond the core subjects as stipulated by the body which controls educational standards for psychology in Australia, the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council (APAC). It’s appointed as an external accreditation entity for the psychology profession in Australia under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009. On the APAC website, you can click on the ‘Students’ tab, then go down to ‘Pathways to registration’ to view a schematic illustrating the different pathway options. A great deal of other information is available on this website, including a listing of the current accreditation status of educational providers of psychology programs in Australia. Hesketh et al. (2018), and the chapter you’re currently reading, bring to light the changing scene in Australia. The profession is becoming much more health-oriented in this country, but this may also be a global phenomenon according to senior IWO psychologists overseas. However, it’s our understanding that other jurisdictions such as New Zealand/Aotearoa and the UK have less onerous or restrictive systems, while still providing adequate protection for the public. We agree with Hesketh et al. (2018) that this argument needs to be advanced.

It’s beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the European educational system for psychologists. However, Lunt, Peiró, Poortinga and Roe (2015, Appendix 5, p. 213) outline the development and requirements of the European Certificate in Psychology – commonly referred to as the ‘EuroPsy’ – which is aimed at least at a bachelor level. Apart from the usual array of course content in the domain of ‘knowledge’, the EuroPsy framework for first phase, as it is known, includes (knowledge of) non-psychology theories from epistemology, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology.

Our conclusion provides a recommendation for Australian psychology undergraduates to study at least some of these subjects.

The standard of psychological science training in Australia is well-regarded.  Nevertheless, we recommend you consider the following:

• Where do you want to channel your talents? What are your interests, and even values?
• Is it important for you to call yourself a ‘psychologist’, or become an endorsed ‘organisational psychologist’?
• Plan to enrich your educational experience by pursuing non-psychology subjects.
• Secure some relevant work experience to assist your decision-making.
• Discuss your thoughts with a range of people, including those in quality business schools. But keep in mind that that some (endorsed) psychologists, after much effort and some early sacrifices, may be vulnerable to a cognitive bias related to the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ (Thaler, 1980; Kahneman, 2011).

For most professionals, postgraduate qualifications will be increasingly expected, and this trend is likely to continue. This is something to keep in mind, although it doesn’t mean you need to pursue the six years of fulltime equivalent study as a psychology student, followed by a period being supervised as a provisional registrant, unless you want to be eligible to be registered and have the endorsed area of practice of ‘organisational psychologist’. Alternative postgraduate pathways may be available, as outlined by Hesketh et al. (2018), although this is likely to compromise your ability to use the title of ‘psychologist’ or ‘organisational psychologist’.

But some employers can place more weight on the qualities of the psychology trained applicant rather than their qualifications or registration status.

For example: A leading psychology student at a top-tier Australian university moved to Sydney after completing his fourth year of studies just a few years ago. Now in his late twenties, he is a senior analyst in London, working with an information technology and services company with over 2,000 employees. During his undergraduate studies he had demonstrated outstanding academic ability as well as initiative, entrepreneurship, and good interpersonal skills. The Sydney consultancy recognised his talents and potential, even though he had completed only four years of university education.

The Richness of IWOP including Australian examples

Given that IWO psychology addresses issues at the individual, group and organisational levels – and even at a societal level – it’s no surprise that this is reflected in the vast array of publications available to those interested in IWO psychology. SIOP has been prolific in its publication efforts, particularly with respect to a range of books published via Jossey-Bass and Routledge. In Figure 10.1 below, 56 SIOP books are displayed on bookshelf, from Organizational Climate and Culture (1990) in the top right, through to Social Networks at Work (2020) in the bottom left. We recommend that all students start a similar library and build their collection of resources across their career.

In Using Industrial/Organizational Psychology for the Greater Good, there is a chapter co-authored by Stuart Carr, Professor of Psychology at Massey University, Aotearoa/New Zealand, globally renowned for his use of IWOP for humanitarian purposes. Another chapter is co-authored by Michael Gielnik and Michael Frese, addressing entrepreneurship and poverty reduction, and the application of IWO psychology in developing countries. Back in Australia, there is the work of Charmine Härtel. As part of her inclusive entrepreneurship program, Härtel recently released some fascinating and relevant findings in the fourth most influential journal in the field of management, the Journal of Business Venturing. This study (Mafico, Krzeminska, Härtel, & Keller, 2021) – conducted with one of her PhD students and his other supervisors – has shown how different intellectual experiences of migrants show up in the way they organise their enterprises. For example, immigrants who had early experiences of inclusion tended to balance social and commercial goals and staff enterprises with individuals from their host and heritage cultures. In contrast, immigrants who had early experiences of exclusion tended to focus on social goals directed at their heritage country and to staff their enterprises with individuals from their heritage culture. It also found that the cultural gender expectations immigrant women grew up with influenced the degree to which they pursued social and gender normative organisational goals. Härtel and her colleagues are now seeking to leverage their findings to help migrants successfully start up and run businesses.

Stories From Australian IWO Psychologists

The section above highlights some of Härtel’s recent work, with implications for migrants and business. The following reveals some of her background and professional journey, as well as that of seven other Australian IWO psychologists: four practitioners and four scholars in total (represented in Figure 10.2), although at times the lines are blurred.

Brisbane

Sydney

Melbourne

Adelaide

Perth

Challenges and Opportunities for IWO Psychologists

 The following provide a mix of clear challenges (such as the regulatory environment confronted by Australian IWOP), as well as topics providing a blend of challenge and opportunity (such as with artificial intelligence). The fourth and fifth topics introduce the tough questions: How can IWOP assist, locally and globally, in dealing with major environmental concerns, or pandemics?

The first two topics have been chosen deliberately to lead the way in this section, given:

(a) Registration of psychologists – its significant impact on course curricula, and the whole IWOP profession.

(b) Test adaptation – it provides an opportunity which can be grasped by psychology, and relatively quickly, thus securing early ‘runs on the board’. It ties in with the International Declaration on Core Competences in Professional Psychology, as discussed earlier, societal change, and even with the Closing the Gap initiative of the Australian Government.

The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for Health Practitioners (NRAS)

Over the years, the issue of the licensing (or registration) of IWO psychologists has arisen several times as a topic for discussion. In 2017, a special issue of Industrial Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (a publication of SIOP) included a focal article on this topic, with associated commentaries from various authors.  O’Gorman and Macqueen (2017) provided a summary of some of the issues from an Australian perspective and supported the view that a dual register system for psychologists in Australia would likely reduce some of the negative impacts resulting from a ‘one size fits all’ approach to registration. A dual register system would be consistent with that proposed by the APA in its 2010 model of licensing. The two registers or classifications under the broad banner of ‘applied psychologist’ are general applied psychologist (GAP) and health service provider (HSP). An IWO psychologist who sees themself also as a health service provider should be able to register with the HSP classification as well as GAP. These two registers could have different requirements and restrictions, with implications, for example, for the use of testimonials in advertising or social media, or for course accreditation and curricula requirements, and even aspects of professional supervision for registration purposes.

It’s worth noting the views of IWO psychologists in countries similar to Australia. In discussing the licensing views of IWO psychologists in Canada, Zugec and Michela (2017) reported that a survey of members of CSIOP resulted in over 89 per cent rejecting mandatory licensing. Further, 21 out of 22 past CSIOP Chairs were also against mandatory licensing.^[3]

Feitosa and Sim (2021) referred to the ‘identity crisis faced by many I-O psychologists in other parts of the world’ (p. 73), specifically identifying the rigorous standards for registration and psychology course accreditation in Australia. Some could well argue that these standards are not only ‘rigorous’, but also unduly ‘restrictive’ and inappropriate in part when applied to a discipline which is very much connected to the social sciences and other fields. The positioning of IWOP in the world of science and knowledge will be touched on further in the conclusion to this chapter.

In foreshadowing changes to IWOP programs, Hesketh et al. (2018) surmised that with ongoing adherence to the current NRAS system, introduced in 2009, future programs are likely to produce graduates with blended skills including clinical and counselling psychology. While not stated, such inclusion must lead to a dilution of IWOP content. The changes in the regulatory and course accreditation requirements for psychologists have acted as a catalyst for the development of university programs producing graduates having business-oriented IWO psychology skills. However, such a development, as Hesketh et al. (2018) observed, is likely to dilute the link between IWO psychology and the core disciplines of psychology. Certainly, as traditional postgraduate programs in organisational psychology decline in numbers in Australia, the number of business psychology programs is likely to expand. However, in Australia graduates from such programs are unlikely to be able to call themselves a psychologist, let alone an organisational psychologist. Unfortunately, this trend is probably too advanced now to be reversed.

Psychological Testing: Test Adaptation and Effective Use of Tests

A theme of increasing importance for psychologists in Australia in general (and not just IWO psychologists) is the need for a better approach to the use of psychological tests, particularly where the principles of test adaptation should be employed (International Test Commission [ITC], 2017; Iliescu, 2017; Oakland, 2016). Psychological testing is undertaken across many domains (work, education, health, forensic and so forth).  However, this testing has often included tests (and at times norms or comparative standards) which have been transported directly from the source country (for example the UK or USA), but without appropriate adaptation, and with inappropriate or unsubstantiated assumptions about what is really being measured – that is, the constructs. A rigorous approach to test adaptation entails more than just use of forward and backward translation techniques. It also requires an investigation into the construct equivalence and measurement or scalar equivalence between the source and target tests.

The need for good test adaptation is particularly true in assessing First Nations people, but language and cultural appropriateness can also be questioned when working within various ethnic communities, and where English is not the first language of the test taker. Furthermore, the test itself is only one part of the assessment process. Using a model (after Bartram, 2010) corresponding to that used in project management and human factors, an effective approach to psychological testing has three connected elements which need to be addressed, namely: Product (the quality of a fit for purpose test), People (the competence of the test user – often a psychologist), and Process (the systems and context associated with the test use). For testing with First Nations people all three are critical. The importance of ‘community’ and the cultural competence of the test user should not be underestimated. But as Byrne et al. (2009) observed, typically psychometricians are poor cross-cultural psychologists, and vice versa.

To raise standards in psychological testing globally, and to supplement university and subsequent training, the International Test Commission (ITC) has recently launched a four+ module online self-paced program.

For a summary of the history of psychological testing in Oceania, the keen reader is referred to O’Gorman, St George and Macqueen (2022). The need for much greater cultural awareness and accommodation by mainstream psychology is an important issue. The necessary development of cultural competence for IWOP practitioners and scholars started to be addressed a few years ago in New Zealand/Aotearoa (e.g., Bryson & Hosken, 2005), but there has been very limited movement in Australian IWOP.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Technology: An Increasingly Key Issue

Given recent strides in technology and computing power, it’s not surprising to witness the development of, for example, automated job interview systems, use of facial recognition algorithms to predict personality or other characteristics, game-based assessments (GBAs), automated essay scoring, and multimedia simulations to name just a few. Further, with the rapid growth in artificial intelligence, there is clear scope for digital footprints – such as a person’s ‘likes’ on Facebook – to be used to evaluate someone, particularly in employment settings. Rust, Kosinski and Stillwell (2021) devoted one chapter to this topic, namely ‘Employing digital footprints in psychometrics’ (pp. 129–151). The next and final chapter in this small publication is titled ‘Psychometrics in the era of the intelligent machine’ (pp. 152–171). The authors went on to call for legislation to be enacted to control the inappropriate use of AI. (Note: The authors are, or were, closely associated with the Cambridge Psychometrics Centre, and the early work of Stillwell and Kosinski was used in the 2016 Cambridge Analytica saga. However, they quickly dissociated themselves from any involvement in this nefarious affair.)

Technological advances raise key concerns around ethical practice, as well as ‘transparency’ and what is called ‘explainability’. With advanced AI – such as deep machine learning – it’s not clear how an AI system may produce certain results, given the ‘neural network’ at its core. The initial algorithm is transformed by the ‘intelligent machine’, but the initial training data may be biased through human error. You can read a short white paper on artificial intelligence on the Compass Consulting website (Macqueen, 2021).

This is a rapidly moving field, but the people and ethical issues highlighted in several comprehensive reports on artificial intelligence published in Australia and globally during 2019 are still very pertinent. We will come back to this topic in the conclusion to this chapter.

Environmental Sustainability

The issue of climate change is frequently discussed in the media and in popular scientific publications such as New Scientist,  leading to polarised positions. Some large superannuation funds are now critically evaluating their portfolio, with climate change viewed from the perspective of risk management, if not a potential ethical issue. This risk assessment includes the risk of litigation by individuals. The case of a 25-year-old Australian man successfully suing the then $57 billion Retail Employee Superannuation Trust (Rest) (which has over 1.8 million members) for not disclosing how it was managing the risks climate change poses to its investments is a good example.

Globally, psychology’s professional societies are supporting behaviourally-oriented programs to address climate change. A meeting in Lisbon, Portugal in November 2019 was attended by leaders from over 40 psychological societies, resulting in a signed proclamation in support of action.

Ones, Dilchert, Wiernik and Klein (2018) provide a taxonomy of employee green behaviour (ECB), referring to the ‘green five’. Further, the authors present a table (Table 16.2) summarising the meta-analytic relationships between individual differences and pro-environmental behaviours. Psychology’s connection with environmental matters is not new. The Essential Psychology series by Methuen included the publication Psychology and the Environment (Lee, 1976), although its focus was on the built environment. A more modern take on this is perhaps the emerging field of environmental neuroscience (e.g., Berman, Stier & Akeelik, 2019).

One of the practitioner stories above (A Consulting Journey – Dr Doug MacKie, CSA Consulting) describes a  psychologist’s transition from clinical and IWO psychology to environmental and climate change psychology.

Pandemics and IWO Psychology

COVID-19 has had significant effects on the world beyond that of a potentially dangerous virus invading human bodies. Various publications (since mid-2020) and the media continue to be awash with the behavioural impact on many aspects of life including, but not limited to, mental health and anxiety, increased substance abuse, working from home, and the effect of remote learning – particularly for school children and their parents or guardians and teachers. This is separate from the economic and political issues. Furthermore, various concerns have emerged in relation to the efficacy and fairness of lockdowns (state, regional, or local government area). Contrasting perspectives on ‘science’, the ‘collective good’, and ‘individual freedom’ have added to the occasionally heated discussion.

In a special issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, a focal article (Rudolph et al., 2021) was accompanied by sixty commentaries providing diverse perspectives. Some commentaries took the approach of examining the issue via a particular profession (such as nursing), while other commentaries viewed COVID-19 as an opportunity for introducing positive change during the pandemic, or to research the theme of leadership during a crisis, for example. An Australian contribution by Luksyte et al. (2021) approached the issue in terms of the potential to disrupt volunteering during the pandemic. (It’s not uncommon for ‘volunteers’ and smaller organisations to be overlooked in IWOP research.) The prestigious Journal of Applied Psychology has regularly published similar articles since edition 105 (8) in August 2020. Clustered in a sub section titled “Understanding Work and Employment in the COVID-19 Pandemic”, the articles typically reflect a deductive methodology and an a priori theorising approach. It also appears that collaborative research with other disciplines is missing in the above submissions.

Ironically, a relevant publication appeared in late 2019, just prior to the onset of the pandemic. Steven Taylor, a UK clinical psychologist, considered the role of psychology in dealing with pandemics. Taylor delved into emotional and psychosocial elements, as well as conspiracy theories and vaccination hesitancy. However, the index to the publication doesn’t include terms such as culture, stereotyping (although ‘stigma’ is listed), work, behavioural economics, nudging, and decision-making.

A book edited by the renowned Cary Cooper (2021), Psychological Insights for Understanding COVID-19 and Work, has provided models relevant to the world of work (such as the Job Demands-Resources Model of Burnout). Several of the articles had been published previously. Nevertheless, with contributions from authors from several countries – including Australia – it appears to be a publication well worth reviewing in addressing some of the questions below. A parallel publication is titled Psychological Insights for Understanding COVID-19 and Society (Haslam, 2021). Alex Haslam, from the University of Queensland, is a global authority on social identity theory (SIT). This particular publication includes chapters related to leadership, politics, trust, exclusion, and a range of community or societal issues.

Employment Prospects for IWO Psychologists in Australia

The employment data and prospects for IWO psychologists are not clear in Australia, with any relevant data collected by the Department of Health (or collected by Health Workforce Australia prior to 2014) overshadowed by the dominance of, and focus on, health-oriented psychologists.Workforce planning by the department probably doesn’t include IWO psychologists. In the USA, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, just prior to COVID-19, had estimated good employment growth for IWO psychologists over the following decade, but the latest US projection is for only average growth. Health and school-oriented psychologists, however, are likely to be in great demand for a period.

Reliable data from the UK and Europe appear difficult to obtain without further research. And in the case of at least the UK, it’s difficult to determine the employment trends of IWO psychologists. As in Australia, there are numerous IWOP-trained individuals in the UK who may not be registered as occupational psychologists, but who perform a similar function.

The PsyBA publishes useful quarterly registration statistics, with tables in both MS Word and PDF formats. It’s difficult to draw firm conclusions from the data, particularly as COVID-19 appears to have produced a change in the mix of registrants. However, in reviewing the June 30 tables from June 2016 to June 2021 for those on the ‘general’ register (but excluding those provisionally registered or non-practising), the following statistics emerge:

• As of June 30 2021, there were 33,556 general registrants, 603 of whom were endorsed as organisational psychologists. This represented 4.1 per cent of the total number of endorsements.^[4]
• In 2016, organisational psychologists represented 4.4 per cent of total endorsements, and this has fluctuated as follows over subsequent years: 4.3 per cent (2017), 4.2 per cent (2018), 4.15 per cent (2019), 4.2 per cent (2020).
• In broad terms, endorsed organisational psychologists represent about 1.8 per cent of the total number of psychologists on the ‘general’ register.

A clearer picture of registration trends for psychologists should emerge over the next two years.

However, it shouldn’t be assumed that the current endorsement structure will be retained, nor the current college system within the APS, which was mirrored by the PsyBA when considering endorsed areas of practice.

Regardless, an important point made by Hesketh et al. (2018), and with which we agree, is the not insignificant number of non-endorsed ‘organisational psychologists’ who are well-qualified, successful professionals who operate as behavioural experts, management consultants, human factors specialists, organisation development specialists, talent management or human resource executives, and so forth. Some are registered as psychologists but missed an opportunity to take advantage of the endorsement grandparenting window in 2010, and/or see little need to undertake a relatively time-consuming and expensive supervisory process – particularly if they’re already highly regarded by their clients, employer, or colleagues. The limited number of accredited supervisors with solid or relevant experience also limits the appeal for individuals who already are highly functioning psychology professionals.

Others may have completed an advanced or accredited postgraduate psychology program in the field of organisational psychology, but have not registered even as a psychologist, seeing little need in terms of their prospective career progression. And others may have completed a non-APAC accredited Master of Business Psychology which doesn’t allow them to register as a psychologist, but which can provide skills very relevant to the business world. Discussion of comparisons with a Master of Business Administration (MBA) or similar is best left to another forum.

IWOP and its future direction: Innovation rather than ‘tension’

 In updating the discussion about professional identity (Ryan & Ford, 2010), Zickar and Highhouse (2017) expressed concern about the increasing disconnect between IWO psychology (in business schools) and mainstream psychology, particularly about the reduced influence of (a) the experimental tradition, and (b) psychology’s strong focus on individual differences and their measurement. Other submissions in this December 2017 issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice questioned the positioning of IWO psychology in the future, noting the increasingly strong link between IWO psychology offered in business schools with organisational behaviour, and systems theory approaches. Consistent with observations by Hesketh et al. (2018), such developments have the potential to loosen the solid association of IWOP with not only traditional psychology programs, but also with newer fields such as the cognitive sciences.

However, it’s important to highlight what a well-trained IWO psychologist has to offer. We have what might be called a ‘unique value proposition’ with our focus at three levels: individual, group, and organisation. In taking a broader perspective, we can also consider domains such as industry, community/society, and country/region. Thus, IWOP has a strong connection with cross-cultural psychology, with the GLOBE leadership project providing a good example of such.

Assessment (or diagnosis) and intervention initiatives can be mapped against these three levels, as shown in the example below (after Lowman, 2016).

Individual

• Career assessment (assessment focused)
• Coaching (intervention)

Group

• Role analysis (assessment focused)
• Tavistock groups^[5] (intervention)

Organisational

• Culture assessment (assessment focused)
• Scanlon Plan^[6] (intervention)