The nidus of the good is outside I-O psychology

There seem to be two versions of HWP (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz, Carr, MacLachlan and Furnham2012, Reference Lefkowitz, Olson-Buchanan, Koppes Bryan and Thompson2013, Reference Lefkowitz, McWha, Maynard and ONeill Berry2015): (a) using our competencies (e.g., employee selection, performance management, and leadership development) to benefit humanitarian organizations, underserved populations, or other entities (e.g., NGOs) in which we have not heretofore had much presence, including individual work pro bono; this has been referred to as “practicing I-O psychology in new venues”; (b) assisting the prosocial or philanthropic contributions of nonhumanitarian organizations, such as facilitating the effective implementation and administration of CSR programs conducted by the for-profit corporations with which we generally work.

That is wonderful work (cf. Carr et al., Reference Carr, MacLachlan and Furnham2012; Olson-Buchanan et al., Reference Olson-Buchanan, Bryan and Thompson2013; Tippins et al., Reference Tippins, Hakel, Grabow, Kolmstetter, Moses, Oliver and Scontrino2023). However, in all cases, our contribution is indirect. We facilitate the good works of others. The title of the SIOP-sponsored book in this area is “Using I-O Psychology for the Greater Good: Helping Those Who Help Others.” The essential goodness of the contribution resides primarily with the targeted enterprise, not I-O. What about the organizations in which we work ordinarily? It is most unlikely that any Amazon warehouse, Silicon Valley tech company, or Twitter will become an essentially humanitarian enterprise.

Moreover, because HWP is conceived of as merely “a new area of research and practice,” it does not require much change in the education and training of I-O psychologists. “No substantive changes would be needed from current educational practice in traditional work psychology; we need merely advocate that students should apply their knowledge and skills to a wider domain of clients and employers than has traditionally been the case” (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz, Carr, MacLachlan and Furnham2012, p. 108).

The focus tends to exigencies and those in precarious circumstances, not the everyday

A Google search on humanitarianism yields examples such as: “the act of providing material assistance to people in need” and “addressing the needs of people affected by conflict, natural disaster, epidemic and famine.” This is, of course, laudable. But I suggest that a focus on disaster and precarity does not provide the best moral foundation for representing all of I-O psychology, qua profession.

The SDGs focus our attention on (only) macrolevel outcomes

The Sustainable Development Report 2022 (United Nations, 2022) presents a horrifying picture of current global threats to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development from inadequate food supply and nutrition, health, education, the environment, as well as peace and security. They are global problems needing global solutions by national and international organizations. And they are, accordingly, expressed at macro levels, for example, SDG #1: “End poverty in all its forms, everywhere” and SDG #8: “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.”

There is no question that these are crises worthy of our attention and that of any organizations that might contribute to their amelioration. But they don’t fit as guides for “what I-O can be.” Mullins and Olson-Buchanan point out examples of what “has not been working” (ms. p. 19): “The great resignation, the increased shift to remote work, the continued rise of the gig economy…work–life balance and self-care.” Although some of these issues (and others) are manifested at the macro (national and transnational) level, that is not where I-O psychology and I-O psychologists ordinarily encounter them and are likely to make a contribution. Our research and practice overwhelmingly occur at intraorganizational levels so that is where guiding moral values need to be articulated.

The SDGs are time-bound (hence context-specific) and complicated

The UN’s Millennium project (initiated 2002) culminated in development of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with a 10-year time frame to ameliorate worldwide poverty, hunger, and disease. In 2015, they were judged to have resulted in “remarkable gains, [yet] … inequalities persist, and…progress has been uneven” (UN, 2015, p.3). They were supplanted by the much more ambitious 2030 agenda of the 17 SDGs, with approximately 400 more operational objectives.

Such a global scheme has much value (e.g., focusing resource allocation, enabling cross-national comparisons, and tracking progress). But serving as the normative guide for I-O psychology is not among them. Are we to change our moral model every 10 or 15 years when a new international committee (having nothing to do with I-O psychology) prioritizes a new set of global goals based on current world circumstances?

What is needed is a coherent and realistic moral perspective or values model for our profession that is not time-sensitive or context-dependent (cf. Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz2006).

An expanded scientist–practitioner–humanist (SPH) values model for I-O psychology

Why are there no emergent subfields of humanitarian clinical psychology, humanitarian medicine, humanitarian social work, or humanitarian educator? Because psychotherapy, medicine, social welfare, and teaching are intrinsically caring professions; the characterization would be redundant. That is not the case for I-O psychology because the values model that guides the field, the scientist–practitioner (S–P) model, is incomplete and biased (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz1990, Reference Lefkowitz2005, Reference Lefkowitz2008).

Professions have three aspects: their substantive and theoretical knowledge base (sometimes scientific), the technological applications of such (their professional practice), and the moral or values perspective that guides it—for example, caring and beneficent, or profit driven. I-O has always emphasized the scientific (“Is the assessment valid?”) and professional practice (“Is it cost effective?”). Rarely have we asked normative questions such as “Is it the right thing to do?” That is why the S–P model is incomplete. Moreover, the model is biased insofar as—rather than being caring in nature, or even “value free” as many of us proudly proclaim—the practitioner portion is suffused by an economic/managerialist value system that largely determines what we do, how we do it, and how we evaluate what we’ve done.

An avowedly normative (moral and ethical) perspective

Prior generations of I-O psychologists were indoctrinated with the view that we must be rigorous scientists in order to refute the image of I-O as a mere “servant of power” (e.g., Baritz, Reference Baritz1960). This meant the disavowal of all (subjective and putatively unscientific) values. Consequently, topics like fairness, ethics, and morality were barely mentioned in our texts, classrooms, internship placements, or informal discussions with professors and mentors. This position was maintained ironically (or disingenuously) while we were simultaneously immersed and socialized in an economic, capitalist, free-market value system emphasizing productivity, efficiency, and short-term profitability for shareholders.

Arguably, the neoliberal world of work has become even more onerous than Mullins and Olson-Buchanan’s indication of what’s “not been working” (cf. Mumby, Reference Mumby2019). Yet, our disavowal of (social) values has precluded us from taking any normative stances at all, such as advancing “a notion of what organizations should be like with respect to their employees” (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz, Carr, MacLachlan and Furnham2012, p. 110, emphasis in the original), promoting the importance of “meaningful work,” a “living wage,” or even an unconditional “basic income” (Hüffmeier & Zacher, Reference Hüffmeier and Zacher2021). A portion of “the conundrum of I-O psychology” is that too often “we help even those organizations who do not deserve it” (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz2019, p. 476).

A renewed concern for the individual employee

There were major scientific advances in I-O psychology beginning in the 1960s, emphasizing organizational theory, organizational behavior, and the organizational level of analysis—culminating in a formal name change from industrial psychology to industrial and organizational psychology. Accentuating I-O’s managerialist bias, an unanticipated and adverse consequence of such over the past few decades has been our neglect of individual workers in the face of massive and repetitive layoffs, their objectification as just another resource to be exploited, ubiquitous surveillance, wage stagnation despite rising productivity and profits, etc..

Weiss and Rupp (Reference Weiss and Rupp2011) decry the absence of a “person-centric” approach in I-O and call for a “full and focused appreciation for the individual at work” (p. 83). Although their concern is methodological—for the field’s research orientation—that “is not really separable from a normative- or morally-driven empathic and humanistic approach to individual workers” (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz2011, p. 113). It would be inconsistent and difficult to adopt such a person-centric research perspective in organizations without also advocating for employees, which our profession views as unscientific, so we don’t do it.

Concern for both scientific-technical competence as well as societal consequences of our work

This is where the UN SDGs may make a substantial contribution to the humanistic orientation advocated here, expanding the criteria of effectiveness by which we judge our own work. It is not an unreasonable “stretch” insofar as “any aspect of the professional practice of I-O psychology can be viewed from a perspective beyond that of the organization in which it is taking place” (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz2023, p. 405). And that orientation is aligned with the current zeitgeist in psychology overall: “Public psychology: cultivating engaged science” (Eaton et al., Reference Eaton, Grzanka, Schlehofer and Silka2021).