COMPORTAMENTO ORGANIZACIONAL E GESTO, 1995, VOL.

1, N 2,145-156

Work & Organizational Psychology as a basic discipline.

An alternative view and its implications. *
I

!
I

Robert A. Roe **
Work & Organization Research Centre. Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Introduction

I
I

Dear colleagues,
Let me express my gratitude for the invitation to give a presentation at this important
symposium. In my capacity of president of EAWOP I am happy that we have established links
with the Portuguese Association of Psychology. This symposium clearly acknowledges that we
have found the roads that connect Portugal and the other European countries at least in the field of
work and organizational psychology. I hope that many of you ~ill use these roads, and will call
upon EAWOP for cooperation and support. I think that the contacts with Portugal are important
since much of the work that is being done in this country is still unknown in the other countries,
.and maybe vice versa as well. This symposium marks a change. I am sure that we will see more
Portuguese work presented at the European platform in the near future.
I have chosen a theme for my presentation that most of you might not have expected: a view
of W&0 psychology as a basic science. Vou may wonder what sense it makes to speak about this
seemingly academic subject at the start of a symposium that deals with practical problems of
organizations and activities of professional psychologists. Am I going to speak about pure science
and a return ofW&O psychology into the ivory tower? The answer is no. But I will try to draw your
t
I.

I
~
i

attention away from the fiel~ and the issues there, in order to speak about what W&0 psychology
really represents, and to learn ,somelessons about our research and applied work in the future.
Let me explain why I have proposed this theme. In fact, after having worked 25 years in the
area I am dissatisfied with the way in which our field of study has been defined and perceived, and
I am concemed about the future. There are two views that I find difficult to accept, but that do
persevere and seem to receive increasing support from certain sides.

~
*

Invited paper presented at the 3rd Symposium on Organizational Behavior, Lisbon, June 15-17, 1994.

** President

[
T
1

ofthe

European

Association

ofWork

& Organizational

Psychology

145

Roe

1) Most practitioners who have lefi the university as psychologists, consider W&0 psychology
as a mere collection of facts, data, techniques, labels and trics that can be used to solve problems of
people in organizations. In other words: a body of practical knowledge and methods without a
structure and without an underlying theoretical base. Many of them doubt whether there is any real
theory behind the facts, and they consider the theories that they had to learn as students as largely
irrelevant to their work. This view sees W&0 psychology as a field of applied psychology in the
sense of Anastasi (1964): what psychologists do in their daily professional work.
2) Psychologists working at universities and research institutes usually see W&0 psychology
as a field of 'applied psychology' as well, but they look at it from a different angle. They define
psychologyas the search for general knowledge on human behaviour and experience, and point out
that it has produced a body of knowledge that is valid for a great variety of people under a wide
range of conditions. Their a,ssumption is that this knowledge, as laid down in scientific joumals
and books (as far as not contested), can be used in applied settings if anyone desires soo In this
view W&0 psychology is nothing but the application to the problems of work of what of general
psychology has produced.
Both views refer to W&0 psychology as applied psychology, but they differ in their focus.
The first view concentrates on the products of psychological research and their practical value, but
it ignores the scientific character ofW&O psychology and its connections with general psychology.
Jt implicit1yaccepts an isolation of the professional field, as if there were no need for a scientific
base, nor a real opportunity to profit from science.
The second view, with its focus on general psychology, ignores the peculiarities of work and
organization, and puts the professional in a marginal position. It separates the science of psychology
from the world of work, and leaves application and so-called applied research to people with
practical interests who cannot be supposed to contribute to psychology as a science.
Although both views are correct in some respect, I perceive the situation with regard to
W&0 psychology to be different, and to become increasingly sooStating that W&0 psychology is
identical to doing applied research or applied work is, in my opinion, incorrect, unfruitful, and
risky with regard to the future. It denies a very important development, taking place since the last
decades, that opens new perspectives for the development of psychology as a whole, and for the
profession of W&O-psychologist. This development is the emergence of W&0 psychology as a
basic science, in between general psychology and applied work. I would like to draw your attention
to this development, to discuss what it brings to both sides, and to explore its implications for our
future work.

The developrnent of W &0 psychology

In my view one can discem three major phases in the development of W&0 psychology:
1. Applied psychology (J890-1940)
The first period started almost a century ago with occupational studies and research on
vocational fitness, work methods and fatigue. The work done in that period had an applied character
146
-- ~.

~~

pTork& Organizatmal

Psydwlogy

indeed: psychological methods of assessment and analysis were applied to practical problems of
industry and transportation. There was no or little distinct theory on these issues. In fact, the methods
and instruments of psychology were simply used to solve practical problems of recruitment,
productivity ~d safety posed by firms.
The notion of 'applied psychology' became widespread, especially in the United States,
since the start ofthe 'Joumal of Applied Psychology' in 1917. In Europe the predominantnotion
was tlat of 'Industrielle Psychotechnik' (Moede, 1924), which practically meant the same, but at
the same time implied a relationship between the applied work and basic science as existed
between technology and science in the physical sciences.
2. Industrial psychology (1940-1960)
The start of the second period can be located around the beginning of the Second World
War. This period is marked by the relatively autonomous development of applied research on
problems of industry, leading to several new and spedalized methods, as well as empirical data
and theories. Industrial psychology became a distinct field of applied psychology, focusing on such
issues as selection,job evaluation,human factors at the work place, safety, etc. Its gradual development
is well illustrated by the successive editions of the handbook of Industrial Psychology by Tiffin and
McCormick (first edition 1942). It is important to note that although some notions from general
psychology were adopted in the field, the largest part of the developments was initiated and directed
by demands from industry on the one hand, and notions from other branches of applied science
(including engineering, educational science, clinical psychology etc.) on the other hand. The overall
thrust of the field was still the resolution of practical problems, particularly in industry, with the
help of psychological tools.
3. Work & Organizational Psychology (1960-..)
The 1960's mark the beginning of a new period characterized by an expansion ofresearch
and an effort to develop theories and models. Compared to the past, there are some significant
changes. First, psychologists with an interest in work and organization no longer take the problems
of industry for granted; but prefer to find out where these problems come from and what is behind.
Secondly, they no longer accept the theoretical fruits of general psychology and the accumulated
methodology of industrial psychology as the sole basis for their work, but start to build their own
theoretical base. In doing so they refuse to cut down their reality into pieces that match the knowledge
of general psychology, but prefer to ~tdy work related phenomena in their full complexity. This
shift in focus and way working is well illustrated in the major joumals (e.g. Joumal of Applied
Psychology, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Persollilel Psychology, Academy ofManagement Joumal) and handbooks (e.g. Drenth et
aI, 1984; Dunnette & Hough, 1990-1993).
In order to illustrate the development I use the case of absenteeism and turnover. These
long-known problems have first been studied as empirical variables as such. Correlational studies
have been performed in order to find individual predictors that might De used for selecting
employees with lower chance of absenteeism and tumover. In more recent studies these variables
~

147

Ir

Rohert A. Roe

have been related to other variables and interpreted as reflecting patterns of organizational
behaviour, characterized by high or low organizational commitment among employees (Griffin &
Bateman, 1986). And efforts have been made to establish links between such patterns of behaviour
and features of organizational structure and climate. A growing number of theoretical studies is
now building an explanatory framework around the notion of adaptation which helps to understand
how and when commitment grows or declines, and when absenteeism and turnover are expected to
be high (Hulin, 1991). Theoretical work of this kind then provides a renewed basis for intervention,
which is much broader than that provided by the predictive studies of the past. Similar examples
could be given with regard to problems of fatigue, errors, conflict, or productivity.
In retrospect one can note that during the last 30 years W&O psychology has displayed a
marked change in character. While the initial focus was on the problems of industry and elements
from general psychology were indeed used to solve them, the problems are now called into question
and considered as symptoms of organizational phenomena. Even the concepts that were used to
phrase the problems are increasingly subject to critical analysis, as is exemplified by the concepts
of 'job', 'leadership', 'culture', and 'organization'.
The relationship of W&0 psychology with the field has changed as well. While at the time
of 'applied psychology', managers, workers and unionists were seen as clients or members of a
client system, they are now also seen as subjects of study. And even the psychologist himself,
when interacting with members ofthe organization, has become a subject rather than a mere actor,
as is shown by research on the role of the selection interviewer, or the organizational consultant.
All this can be interpreted as showing that W&0 psychology is becoming a mature branch of
scientific psychology that studies behavioral phenomena in the field ofwork and organization.

W&O psychology, a basic discipline?

Let me now try to present my view on the domain and contents of present-day W&0
psychology, and on its position vis-a-vis general psychology and professional practice. I should
note beforehand that W&0 psychology cannot be delineated in a very strict sense. Its boundaries
are as difficult to draw as it the case with psychology as a whole, and any other field of science.
And its contents can be described in many different ways, stressing certain aspects and ignoring
certain others. In this connection we should remind ourselves that our field is differently defined in
the US, Japan, and Europe, and aiso that significant differences exist inside Europe. Yet, it seems
feasible to give a description of our discipline that catches its typical charactyristics.
W&0 psychology can be defined as the scientific study of the behav(our of people engaged
in work. As work is typically done in collaboration with other people on the basis of some division
of tasks - in other words in an organization - the object of W&0 psychology comprises three types
ofbehaviour, that are the subject ofthree specialities (Roe, 1990):
a) work behaviour in sensu strictu, i.e. the executionofwork tasks - studied by work psychology;
b) organizational behaviour, i.e. behaviour related to the fulfilment of roles in an
organization - studied by organizational psychology;
148
1,-

Work & Organizatirmal

P::.ydwlogy

c) relational behaviour, i.e. behaviour aiming at the establishment, maintenance, development

and termination of a labour relationship between an individual and an organization - studied by
personne1psychology.
These types of behaviour cannot be distinguished very sharply. E.g. task performance is part
of executing an organizational role, and changing an organizational role can be seen as redefining a
labour relationship. Therefore these three specialties show some overlap. Yet, this differentiation
makes sense, since each type of behaviour is looked at from another perspective, characterized by
another way of defining situations and interpersonal relationships. E.g. work behaviour is typically
seen as activity of a single individual, while organizational behaviour concems the social aspects
people in their mutual relationships, and re1ational behaviour typically concems the individual in
his relationship with several other people (i.e. the organization).
Table I gives some examples of behavioral phenomena that are studied in the three areas of
W&0 psychology. Work psychology deals with situations defined in terms of jobs and tasks,
equipment and physical environment, time structure, etc. and studies their relationships with
behavioral phenomena known as work activity, performance, work load, effort, fatigue, boredom,
stress and bumout, errors and accidents. Organizational psychology studies organizational structure
(division of labour), organizational change, innovation and automation, etc. in connection with
such behavioral phenomena as communication, decision making, conflict, leadership, delegation,
participation, boundary spanning, organizationalleaming etc. Personnel psychology deals with
jobs and occupations, employment, career stages, in connection with career behaviour (orientation,
planning, choice), occupational socialization, organizational entry, etc.
Table I
Some examples of situations and behaviors studied by WOP
Sitution

Behavior

Job
Task
Equipment
Physical environment
Information
Production process
Time structure

Activity
Performance
Sensorimotor learning
Work load
Fatigue
Boredom
Stress
Burnout
Errors
Accidents

Occupations
Job characteristics
Life career stages
Retirement
Job loss
Unemployment

Career orientation
Career choice
Application
Occupational socialization
Entrepreneurial activity
Leisure activity

,.

Conto
149

''''
li
~.

Robert A. Roe

Table I
Some examples of situations and behaviors studied by WOP (Cont.)
Situation
Division of labour
Organizational structure
Organizational change
lnnovation
Computerization

I
li

Behavior
Satisfaction
Communication
Decision making
Conflict
Participation
Management
Leadership
Delegation
Boundary spanning activity
Absenteeism
Turnover
Climate
Culture
Organizational performance

r'

It is noteworthy that many of the phenomena listed here, and many of the issues that are to
be discussed at this symposium falI outside the range of events studied by general psychology. Of
course, W&0 psychology can and does rely on general psychology, but many issues in the field of
work and organization are simply not addressed by its concepts and theories. Its publications contain
no reference to notions like consideration and initiating structure, rotating shift, compressed work
week, hygiene factors, motivating potential, environmental uncertainty, double loop learning, job
family, career ladder, linking pin, job satisfaction and organizational _commitmentthat are of key
importance in W&0 psychology.
In comparison with gen~ral psychology (in which I,include developmental, personality and
social psychology), there are some important differences in the.object ofstudy ofW&O psychology.
A first difference is that W&0 psychology concentrates on reiatively. complex phenomena. The
behaviours that W&0 psychology investigates constitute molar unities studied as a whole in order
to understand their internal structure and the processes by which they are organized. Such unities
cannot be broken down into smalIer elements, as general psychology tends~to do, without loosing
the view of the interrelations of such element. E.g. the regulation of a complex activity, like operating
a automated system, cannot be understood from knowledge of isolated acts such as detecting signals
and moving levers. Nor can strategic management be understood from fragmented knowledge on
individual decision making, communication, and conflict resolution. Studying more complex
unities of behaviour means that several facets of human activity that are isolated in the study of
more basic processes become interconnected. Task fulfilment, applying for ajob, and organizational
learning thus comprise aspects of information processing, attitude formation, emotional expression
and management of self-esteem, alI at the same time. As the higher leveI of complexity brings the
object of study closer to the roles fulfilIed by people in daily life, it opens the possibility of studying
the facet of meaning and sense-giving, which is absent in most of general psychology.
150

iVork & Organizatlonal Psyclwlogy

A second difference is that the phenomena studied by W&0 psychology are more specific
than those of general psychology. Looking at the reality at a lower leveI of abstraction not only
means greater complexity, but also less generality. In this sense sales performance is more specific
than performance in general, and organizational conflict is more specific than conflict in general.
W&0 psychology has indeed this tendency to differentiate. It studies e.g. informal groups,
autonomous work groups, quality circ1es, works councils, rather than groups in the way social
psychology does. Similar1y it distinguishes between types of organizations, and categories of
workers, thereby generating knowledge of a more focused nature.
The third difference is that, compared to general psychology, W&0 psychology has a much
stronger tendency to account for contextual factors. The more complex and specific the phenomena
of study are, the greater the likelihood is that they are dependent on contextual factors. E.g.
cognitive processes and social comparison may appear to be the same regardless the type industry
were the subjects are taken from, the society in which they are observed, and the year in which the
study is done. But job performance, and responses to different wage systems may not be the same.
In fact, many of the phenomena that W&0 psychology studies seem to some degree dependent on
the type of industry, the economy, culture, demographic factors, etc. (I).Several studies in W&0
psychology have shown the influence of so-called 'contingency factors' that determine the
relationships between the variables under study. Well known examples are studes on leadership
styles and on organizational performance. The influence of the societal context is demonstrated by
many cross-cultural studies (Bhagat et aI., 1990).
These differences in the delineation of the object of study constitute a matter of dispute
about the scientific character of W&0 psychology. It is sometimes contended by general
psychologists that by concentrating on more complex and context dependent phenomena, W&0
psychology does not observe the principIe that science must strive to produce knowledge of a
generic nature. Its findings are held to be too specific and too much conditioned by other factors to
be of real worth. In my opinion this view is incorrect. W&0 psychology does strive for general
knowledge on work-related behaviour, but it also respects and acknowledges the boundaries of
generalization. Even though its theories may show only
r, local or temporal validity, they represent
efforts to be as general as reality allows(2).One might also reverse the argument and say that general
psychology tends to neglect relevant factors, and that a lesser validity if the price for its generality.
I see the aim of W&0 psychology as fundamentally the same as of the other behavioral sciences,
i.e. to provide a valid description and explanation of reality.
Although theoretical research in the WO field has started only recently, considerable
progress has been made in developing theories and models. In addition to such theories as
'Attribution theory', 'Behavioral decision theory', 'Sociallearning theory', 'Role theory' and
'Achievement motivation theory' coming from general psychology, it has developed several theories
(1) This explains why W&0 psychology theory has muItiple links with other disciplines in which such factors are central
rather contextual, and can also be considered as part of a wider interdisciplinary science of work and organization.
(2) I will not go any deeper into this matter, but I would like to stress that efforts are undertaken to structre theoretical
knowledge in such a way that it allows both specific and generic interpretations (e.g. Ten Horn & Roe, 1992).

151

Robert A. Roe

on work related behaviour, inc1uding 'Activity theory', 'Value expectancy theory', a variety of
leadership theories, e.g. 'Path-goal theory', 'Situationalleadership theory', 'Vertical-dyad-linkage
theory', 'Substitutes for leadership theory', and 'Socio-technical theory'.
In addition a large number of theoretical models has been developed which depict the
factors that determine work motivation, work-related stress, organizational performance etc. (e.g.
Dunnette & Hough, 1990/1993).
Thus there is indeed sufficient evidence that W&0 psychology has left the stage of being
just an applied science and has become a basic discipline, complementary to the other basic
disciplines in psychology, that has its own body of knowledge, inc1uding concepts, models and
theories (cf. Von Rosenstiel, 1993), as well as methods and empirical data. This conc1usion is
supported by the observation that a considerable part of the research in W&0 psychology is no
longer driven by problems directly coming from organizational life, but rather by the interests of
researchers, which according to Drenth (1993) is a feature of'basic' science.

W &0 psychology, a field of technology

It would, of course, be incorrect to suggest that W&0 psychology has now become a basic
science without an interest in solving problems of the field. As a result of decades of applied
research W&0 psychology also comprises a vast range of methods, techniques and instruments,
for both diagnosis and intervention. As is illustrated by table 2 they inc1ude techniques for job
analysis, organizational assessment, as well as several methods for job design, career development,
organizational structuring, productivity enhancement, etc.
Table 2
Some examples oftechnologies

in WOP
Technologies

Task analysis
Task design
Work scheduling
Ergonomic equipment design
Software ergonomics
Job analysis
Job evaluation
Performance appraisal
Recruitment
Selection
Employment testing
Training & development
Training needs analysis
Career planning
Career counseling
Vocational guidance
152

(Cont.)

Work & Orgal1izatiol1al P!>J'clw/ogy

Table 2
Some examples oi technologies in WOP (Con.t.)
Technologies

Job design
Job enrichment
Organizational assessment
Organizational development
Productivity management
MBO
Self-management
Team building
Organizational behavior modification
Organizational design
Organizational development
Survey-feedback-method
Socio-technical systems design

While in the past many of these methods stood on their own, constituting a tool-kit for the
professional, they now have become embedded in 'theories of application'. One may say that over
the years a technology has developed, containing several models and theories that indicate how to
proceed in order to achieve certain objectives. The case of personnel selection offers an excellent
example. The work in this area has started with little more than tests and principIes of validation.
Now there is a vast body ofprinciples for prediction and decision making, as well as for designing
and evaluating selection procedures, along with a wide array of tests and other instruments, and
sets ofvalidity data (Herriot, 1989).The design and evaluation ofwork time schedules, remuneration
schemes, training programmes, organizational change projects etc. are other examples.
More than on the explanatory side, in its technology W&0 psychology relies on contributions
from other fields of science. Many valuable methods and techniques have come from such fields as
psychometrics, educational technology, management sciences, etc. But again specialists in W&0
psychology have delivered the greatest share in the development of the technology, tuning it to the
real needs ofthe work and organizational field.

W &0 psychology and the professional

What does this view of W&0 psychology, emancipating from applied psychology into a
field basic science and technology imply for the professional practice? Will it increase the distance
between the researcher and the professional, and widen the gap between theory and practice? Quite
the opposite, I think. In my view, the theoretical knowledge of modem W&0 psychology is more
adequate to the problems encountered by management consultants, human resources specialists,
and trainers. First, it matches the complexities of real-life problems better than the knowledge from
general psychology used to. Findings on the performance of work tasks are easier to apply than
those on elementary tasks, such as pushing a button in response to a signal. Secondly, it's specificity
153

~fJ'
i

Robert A. Roe
,.

makes W&0 psychology knowledge more relevant for the problems under study. E.g. when
dealing with problems of 'Quality circles' research evidence on such groups is more relevant than
findings on 'groups' in general. In the third place, the theoretical knowledge of W&0 psychology
is more complete as it fills at least some ofthe gaps left open by that general psychology, e.g. when
it comes to problems of task design, comparing reward systems, or when inducing cultural change.
As for the technological side of W&0 psychology, I perceive a tendency to pay more
attention to the development of techniques and instruments that are geared to the needs of the
profession. Good examples can be found in the domains of personnel selection (Smith &
Robertson, 1989) and productivity management (Pritchard et aI., 1989). I think that the further
development of the technology and of applied methods confronts the professional with an
opportunity and a need to bring his performance to a higher leveI. With the shortage of under1ying
theory that existed in the past, the professional had more freedom in choosing the approaches and
methods to deal with the problem of the client, but also less certainty about the appropriateness of
his choice and the ultimate effectiveness ofhis intervention. Now that more technological theory is
becoming available, and more evidence is accumulating about the effectiveness of certain
approaches and methods, the professional is challenged to exercise a higher leveI of expertise.
There is a call to upgrade one's expertise, and to invest more in finding the optimal approach to the
solution of his clients problems. Professional ethics has an important role to play here. Given the
obligation to carry out one's work at the best possible leveI that science allows, the development of
W&0 psychology will force professionals to set higher standards and to give up some of the
autonomy that they have enjoyed in the past, in exchange for higher status and greater satisfaction.
A great advantage that I see for the professional W&0 psychologist is that the theoretical
work on behaviour in organizations is becoming more congruent with the developmental work at
the technical side. There are already signs that basic research on organizational phenomena, e.g. on
culture and commitment, becomes integrated with the development of instruments and methods to
diagnose and change these phenomena. I expect that in the future such connections will only
become stronger, thereby providing much more support to the professional than he has ever
received from psychology in the past.

Conclusion

Dear colleagues,
What I have pointed out is, in my view, of importance for all W&0 psychologists, especially
in Europe. History has always been a history of conflict, and conflicts are likely to remain in the
future. There are forces in Europe that tend to promote general psychology at the expense of W&0
psychology and other 'applied' disciplines in both education and research. Unless we act, there is a
risk that W&0 psychology will be marginalized in both education and research, and it will be
manoeuvred into the position of 'just a psychological profession'. In order to counteract this
tendency and promote the interests of the W&0 psychology community, I feel we should begin to
154

iVork & Orgufli.zuOflU! Psyclwlogy

acknowledgewhere W&0 psychology presently is and what it is able to do. This is why I have
emphasizedthat W&0 psychology is both theory and practice, and tha! much of its theory is of a
basic nature.

If we succeed in making our position clear, and educate policy makers and fellow
psychologistsin other fields, we may expect a continuation of what I have described above. More
focus~dresearch on behavioral phenomena in the field of work and organization, supported by a
furthertechnologicaldevelopment, will bring theory closer to practice, and help the practitioner to
do more with the theory. I don't want to be unduly optimistic about what will happen to the cleft
between theory and practice, as I know well enough that it exists and that it is wide. But I do
believethat the development of W&0 psychology and the upgrading of the profession help a lot in
bridgingthe gap, thereby making our work more interesting, valuable and rewarding.

References

Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Crawford, S. E., & Kaplan, M. R. (1990). Cross-cultural issues in organizational
psychology: Emergent trends and directions for research in the 1990s. In C. L. Cooper & L T.
Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (VoI. 5, pp.
59-99). Chichester: Wiley.
Campbell,1. P. (1990). The role oftheory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology (VoI. I, pp. 39-74). PaIo
Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Drenth, P. J. D. (1993). Scientific and social responsibility: A dilemma for the psychologist as a scientist?
European Work & Organizational Psychologist, 3 (1),45-57.
Drenth, P. J. D., Willems, P. J., Wolff, Ch. J. de, & Thierry Hk. (Eds.) (1984). Handbook of Work &
Organizational Psychology (2 Vols.). Chichester: Wiley.
Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (Eds.) (1990/1993). Handbook ofIndustrial & Organizational Psychology
(4 Vols.). PaIo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Dunnette, M. D. (1990). Blending the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology:
Where are we and where are we going? In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
Industrial & Organizational Psychology (V01.I, pp.I-28). PaIo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Griffin, R. W., & Bateman, T. S. (1986). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In C. L. Cooper,
& L T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (VoI. I,
pp.157-188). Chichester: Wiley.
Herriot, P. (Ed.) (1989). Selection and assessment in organizations. Chichester: Wiley.
Horn, L. A. Ten, & Roe, R. A. (1992). Modelling in organizational diagnosis. In C. Lemoine (Ed.),
Evaluation et innovation dans les organisations. Issy-Ies-Moulineaux: Editions EAP.
Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence and commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology (V01.2, pp. 445-506). PaIo Alto:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Moede, W. (1924). Zum Geleit. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 1, 1-12.
155

11'4'"

r
Robert A. Roe

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1989). The evaluation of an
integrated approach to measuring organizational productivity. Personnel Psychology, 42 (1),69-116.
Roe, R. A.(1990). Arbeids-en organisatiepsychologie. In P. J. van Strien, & J. F. H. van Rappard (Eds.),
Grondvragen van de psychologie. Een handboek theorie en grondslagen (pp. 180-195). Assen: Van
Gorcum.
Rosentiel, Lutz von (1993). Nichtanwendungsorientierte Theorien in de Arbeits-, Organisations- und
Marktpsycho10gie. In W. Bungard, & T. Herrman (Hrsg.), Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie im
Spanningsfeld zwischen Grundlagenorientierung und Anwendung (pp. 65-73). Bem: Huber.
Smith~M., & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.) (1989). Advances in selection and assessment. Chichester: Wiley.
Tiffin, J., & McCormick, E. 1. (1965). Industrial Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

156