Talk:Industrial and organizational psychology/Archive 3

Sportstir
User:Sportstire, you reversed my edits without justifying why you reversed them. Iss246 (talk) 04:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I reversed them as they hold no relevance vat all to this article specifically about IWO psychology. This is not an article about social psych or sociology or occupational health psych. It is only about IWO psych and what IWO psychologists do and what IWO psychs research. Sportstir (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Sportstir, I think we can compromise. Everly wrote that OHP can be traced to i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational medicine. The health psychology entry indicates that the field traces its origins to clinical psychology and OHP can be partly traced to health psychology. I think I should mention somewhere in the i/o psychology entry that OHP has roots in i/o, health psychology, and occupational medicine for the sake of historical accuracy. Iss246 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again I cannot see how this is possibly justified in this article on IWO psychology. Sportstir (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Sportstir, entries in WK such a health psychology and clinical psychology are relevant. Health psychology explains that it was partly derived from clinical psychology. It also mentions that it is helped foster occupational health psychology. The clinical psychology entry explains that it is linked to health psychology. The i/o entry mentions its link to psychometric psychology. It is reasonable to link i/o psychology to OHP. I am writing to you here about a compromise. I want to avoid an edit war. Iss246 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you threatening an edit war! I think there are other ways to resolve this than you threatening to start an edit war. You say Health psychology explains that it was partly derived from clinical psychology. How is that relevant here? Sportstir (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Sportstir, I am not threatening an edit war. I want to avoid one. I want to work things out. It seems to me that you are engaged in an edit war by going using my examples, and proceeding to delete text from the health psychology section. Iss246 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not answered my question about how the Health psychology edit you also made is relevant here? Please discuss this edit of yours. Sportstir (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You continue to take a combative approach and refuse to focus on the question I asked. I do not see how on earth you can justify this edit. The article is only about IWO psych. No other field. However I'm happy to talk about it and try and resolve it with you through civil dialogue. Sportstir (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * user:Sportstir, you keep reversing my edits without discussing. You keep saying I am threatening edit warring but I am not. You use that accusation as a cudgel. I showed that other WK entries devoted to psychology disciplines explain a little about the genealogy of the discipline. Parent disciplines. Offspring disciplines. That's what I am doing. Iss246 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This article is only about IWO psych. The occupational stress section explains how IWO has been involved in occupational stress since the 1960s. It has always been a major area of IWO psychology. This is not the article or the section for you to be putting some other discipline into the article. You have done it with the health psychology article too. It looks like you have been blocked for edit warring a number of times so I suggest you stop edit warring. I'm wondering if there is an area of Wikipedia which deals with psychology articles and others can have a look at why you are trying to do here. Sportstir (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also don't know what you mean regarding genealogy. Can you please explain this more fully so we can resolve this for you? Sportstir (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I explain what I mean. Health psychology is in part an offshoot of clinical psychology. For a slightly more comprehensive entry, I show that one branch of psychology had roots in another branch. That is what I mean by genealogy. I want to work out a compromise with you recognizing that i/o psychology along with some other disciplines contributed to the emergence of occupational health psychology. Iss246 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we get some help here as we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I really disagree that this edit should be in the IWO article. Sportstir (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You still have not explained why you believe this edit is warranted User:Iss246 but continue to refuse discussing it here and instead continue to edit war. Can you explain the edit please rather than edit war again? Sportstir (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I will re-explain. In terms of historical accuracy, one discipline can be the descendant of another. For example, psychology descends from philosophy. The WP psychology entry makes that clear. The WP entry for philosophy indicates that psychology descends from philosophy. I want to make plain the connection of i/o psychology to OHP. I would like you to let me edit stand on the ground of historical accuracy. Iss246 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Iss246, I don't understand how you can justify adding the edit. Wouldn't it be better explaining that in the other article. This article is only about IWO psych. I'm okay with us getting some help here as this is not getting us anywhere. Which noticeboard should we use? Sportstir (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, so you agree that OHP has a degree of parentage in i/o psychology as well as occupational med and health psychology. Then it should be okay to mention that in the i/o article. In the same vein, the psychology entry mentions that psychology owes existence, in part, to philosophy. And the philosophy entry links philosophy to psychology. The parent offspring idea works both ways. I will bring it back to the i/o article. Iss246 (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with that logic at all. This article is about IWO psych only. I asked which noticeboard we should use to sort this out but you did not answer me and instead just want to keep edit warring again. Sportstir (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Sportstir, I think we should have a WK editor help us through this. You can't keep reversing my edits. I think we should be on a psychology-related noticeboard. Iss246 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop adding this unrelated edit until we can have someone help us with it. Sportstir (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion
We have a tradition of a Third opinion, and Iss246 asked me to share mine.

The disputed content is this: {{tqb|With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's P-E fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, relevant to research on job stress emerged; i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational medicine contributed to the emergence of the new discipline.


 * would be one of it. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, but a useful source for references. So, if someone comes across that on Wikipedia, there needs to a cited reference to which the reader can refer to that source to verify and cite as needed for what they're doing.  here's another. Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree on these two @Graywalls. I put a cite for the first one. The second I would delete because as written it doesn't make a lot of sense. What would be helpful is if you would put a 'citation needed' superscript on statements as you find them. Thanks.Psyc12 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an issue I raised with regard to the psychological testing entry. Rather than delete a sentence or an entire section (e.g., the entire interest inventory section of that entry was deleted) in which the writing is cogent but a citation is missing, it is important that an editor insert the "citation needed" alert. In that way other, knowledgeable editors can note what is needed and supply missing citations. My concern is that if cogent text is deleted and a certain amount of time has passed, the problem of the missing citation won't be addressed and users of the encyclopedia will miss out. Iss246 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One way to avoid it from becoming an issue is to remove freshly inserted uncited contents that are not self-explanatory to any reasonable reader (for example, "sky is blue"). It is not ok write out what you want to write and expect others to fetch sources. It's rather common on Wikipedia for people to contribute their first hand knowledge from what they have seen, what they have heard, self-proclaimed expertise from academics and other appeal to trust contents. In this edit, you left this summary in response to removal of contents you introduced without citation. {{tq|Graywalls, you could have looked it up on page 44 of Anastasi and Urbina; Your destructive self looks to follow me around and make trouble.|tq}}. It's not on others to disprove sources do not exist. If it's questioned, it's on those seeking to include it to find sources and even then, sourced is not a guarantee of inclusion. What would be helpful is if you do not continue to introduce uncited contents into the article space.  Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Graywalls, as much as I want to cooperate with you, this is my problem with some (not all) of your activities on WP. In order to make me look bad, you omitted what else I wrote on the talk page. I also wrote that if you can't find the appropriate source, you could put the citation needed tag on a sentence or paragraph that you think needs a citation as opposed to deleting a reasonably well written sentence or paragraph. In that way, another editor won't miss the opportunity to add what presumably is missing. Don't give the sad sack "It's not on others to disprove sources" BS. I reacted to your deleting the entire reasonably well written section on interest inventories from the psychological testing entry.Iss246 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking to others here like you're superior to them, as shown by the language you use towards others, or comments directed at editors in edit summary. You not liking the processes doesn't make it BS. Don't put it on others to find sources. Wikipedia is not academia and the academician types accustomed to doing their own research and own thought processes to draw conclusion might find it hard to swallow, but everything included has to be directed supported by source. "I know it's right" doesn't cut it. If something is removed and you don't like the removal, it's pretty simple. As the person restoring the contents, go find the sources yourself. As long as the contents being inserted/removed isn't contentious, this works out fine. Is a source reliable? That's not decided by editor's proclaiming knowledge of the field, their own academic credentials and such as WP:USEBYOTHERS in relevant discipline. For example, Paul Spector can be considered as such, because his work has been cited by numerous other journals, so his cited work can be considered reliable. On the other hand, assertion Steven Eric Spector is a "computer expert" as having been elsewhere is not supportable, because there is nothing published by him, or credible sources naming him of expertise in that field, or anything at all. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the article, and it is very uneven. Most of it is well sourced, but there are sections that are not, e.g., the leadership section. I agree that there are paragraphs where the first sentence is cited, but the rest of it seems to be editorializing by the editor with material that is unsourced and in some cases appears to be wrong.Psyc12 (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would of benefit if any original research or synthesis is clearly identified and it can then be addressed rather than saying original research or synthesis exists but with no specificity. Orangesnlemons (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In our guidelines WP:V, WP:BURDEN, those wanting to include contents need to cite them. The template says "possibly contains original research". I am not going to spoon feed every example, but "Remuneration and compensation", the entire thing is unsourced. It's not up to me to determine whether it's just forgotten sourcing or something written off the personal knowledge of a self professed subject area expert. It could be either, so "possibly contains" OR is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, it appears that prohibited original research or reflective writing by self asserting experts have been happening too often in psychology articles. Anything that comes from the knowledge of editors should be fully dismissed unless it's directly supported with reliable sources. The destination main article is a disaster too. Graywalls (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Valid point @Graywalls. The issue moving forward is how aggressive we (or others) should be in removing such content versus finding a cite. It gets difficult and in some cases as I've had to totally rewrite some text so it fits the cite I was able to find that comes close to what was written.Psyc12 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest we delete the "Remuneration/Compensation" section. There are no references and it is unclear how this is relevant to IO. It is more human resource management.Psyc12 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not think that finding references for any sentence or section will be hard. There is an immense amount of references published around the world available to use on any topic within the field big or small. I am not in support of any aggressive approach and prefer to see us work together to improve the article. We could suggest sections or sentences for each of us to consider and find references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangesnlemons (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you @Orangesnlemons for your insight. It would be helpful if you would supply references and rewrite (as needed) the remuneration section. That effort could potentially put Graywalls, Psyc12, you, and me on the same page. The references, of course, would have to come from the I-O literature and not from the human resource management literature. Iss246 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * {{tq|The references, of course, would have to come from the I-O literature and not from the human resource management literature.|tq}} this I am not sure, it may need to be asked at WP:MED if this article is expected to be held to WP:MEDRS standard. In any case, any WP:SYNTHESIS that may have been done by editors here, but not supported directly (referring to multiple sources and coming up with own interpretation is original research and this is not a directly supported idea) should be deleted. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of wiping out things that are not cited and/or appear to be original research. In fact, it really falls on those wanting to re-instate such material to properly and directly support the material per WP:BURDEN. Further, if there's disagreement over the decision to include/not include, those wanting to include must establish consensus. These guidelines aren't written by one editor wanting their own rules but a consensus formed over time that represents the larger Wikipedia community. There has been issues in some articles with some editors pushing back contents without citation on the ground of self proclaimed personal knowledge that it is correct and such, but that goes against guidelines as well as common sense that assuming something is correct and credible because some anonymous editor said so is not a good idea. It is the proper sourcing that validates anything said in Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am fine with keeping the compensation section if it is properly referenced. I think that would put us all in agreement.Psyc12 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal reflection/original research trim
Trimmed out items that do not meet WP:V and WP:RS. Parked as courtesy. Graywalls (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Remuneration and compensation
Origin (at least some of it) 2009 Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Compensation includes wages or salary, bonuses, pension/retirement contributions, and employee benefits that can be converted to cash or replace living expenses. I-O psychologists may be asked to conduct a job evaluation for the purpose of determining compensation levels and ranges. I-O psychologists may also serve as expert witnesses in pay discrimination cases, when disparities in pay for similar work are alleged by employees.

From leadership section
The below is attributed to this edit from 2011 and other edits by highly focused, WP:SPA that was used exactly for one day and never to be seen from again. The whole contribution by the single purpose account didn't in-line cite or add any source. Graywalls (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) In addition to the contingency-focused approaches mentioned, there has been a high degree of interest paid to three novel approaches that have recently emerged. The first is transformational leadership, which posits that there are certain leadership traits that inspire subordinates to perform beyond their capabilities. The second is transactional leadership, which is most concerned with keeping subordinates in-line with deadlines and organizational policy. This type of leader fills more of a managerial role and lacks qualities necessary to inspire subordinates and induce meaningful change. And the third is authentic leadership which is centered around empathy and a leader's values or character. If the leader understands their followers, they can inspire subordinates by cultivating a personal connection and leading them to share in the vision and goals of the team. Although there has been a limited amount of research conducted on these theories, they are sure to receive continued attention as the field of IO psychology matures. Follower-focused approaches Follower-focused approaches look at the processes by which leaders motivate followers, and lead teams to achieve shared goals. Understandably, the area of leadership motivation draws heavily from the abundant research literature in the domain of motivation in IO psychology. Because leaders are held responsible for their followers' ability to achieve the organization's goals, their ability to motivate their followers is a critical factor of leadership effectiveness. Similarly, the area of team leadership draws heavily from the research on teams and team effectiveness in IO psychology. Because organizational employees are frequently structured in the form of teams, leaders need to be aware of the potential benefits and pitfalls of working in teams, how teams develop, how to satisfy team members' needs, and ultimately how to bring about team effectiveness and performance.

An emerging area of IO research in the area of team leadership is in leading virtual teams, where people in the team are geographically distributed across various distances and sometimes even countries. While technological advances have enabled the leadership process to take place in such virtual contexts, they present new challenges for leaders as well, such as the need to use technology to build relationships with followers, and influencing followers when faced with limited (or no) face-to-face interaction.


 * Personally, I would delete this entire portion on leadership. Besides no cites, there exists a very long article on leadership, so a link can be given where the reader can go for details. For topics where a good article exists, the section in the IO article should be short with the link provided for more information.Psyc12 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think leadership should be a section of the I-O entry. I hope that @Orangesnlemons or another knowledgeable editor would edit the section and add sources. Iss246 (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is advisable to thoroughly read WP:AS. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. Extremely lengthy articles are discouraged. Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you Graywalls. I also think readability is of paramount importance. Clear, clear but accurate writing matters. And dividing an article into clearly demarcated sections is also helpful to readers as WP:AS notes. Iss246 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that just this section of the leadership topic could be deleted and the remainder should be well referenced which I will help with. In relation to the compensation topic it is only a very small part of the field and not often not even mentioned in IO references. Orangesnlemons (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I vote to omit ethical principle. Reference to trade groups make it too specific and ethical expectations like not falsifying records, not stealing aren't unique to I/O psych. Same goes for accountants, medical billers, service writers or stock traders. Graywalls (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will agree with Orangesnlemons about what needs to be deleted and what needs to remain but be better sourced.
 * On another note, I have a concern about I-O psychology's ethical principles. Even if other professions share some of the ethical principles, I think those principles should NOT be deleted. They are worth mentioning because they are important and reflect on the I-O psychology profession. @Orangesnlemons, what do you think? Iss246 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don't think the ethical principles section should be omitted and am not at all sure why Graywalls is suggesting this option. Can you elaborate further why you want to delete it as the section is important I think as well and lots of references exist. Orangesnlemons (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree to keep the ethics section. I added a cite to the discussion of APA ethical principles and deleted the random example that had no cite.Psyc12 (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Are we in agreement to delete just that one part of the leadership article?Psyc12 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not clear about what we want to do with compensation. I agree with @Orangesnlemons that it is a very small part of the IO field, so there isn't much written on it. Sometimes job evaluation (mentioned) is discussed under the topic of job analysis. Pay satisfaction is part of job satisfaction, but not often studied alone. Is it worth including this in a separate compensation section, or should compensation be mentioned in other places (e.g., job analysis, job satisfaction)?Psyc12 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Could compensation be limited to one or two sentences in connection to job evaluation? Job eval would be placed inside performance appraisal. Something like that. Iss246 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Performance appraisal/management
The below is unsourced since 2017: Graywalls (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Performance appraisal is frequently used in promotion and compensation decisions, to help design and validate personnel selection procedures, and for performance management. Performance management is the process of providing performance feedback relative to expectations and information relevant to helping a worker improve his or her performance (e.g., coaching, mentoring). Performance management may also include documenting and tracking performance information for organizational evaluation purposes. An I-O psychologist would typically use information from the job analysis to determine a job's performance dimensions and then construct a rating scale to describe each level of performance for the job. Often, the I-O psychologist would be responsible for training organizational personnel how to use the performance appraisal instrument, including ways to minimize bias when using the rating scale and how to provide effective performance feedback.