@ARTICLE{33704756_206997521_2017, 
	author = {Deniz Ones and Robert Kaiser and Tomas Chamorra-Premuzik and Sisek Svensson}, 
	keywords = {, industrial-organizational psychology, psychology sienceorganizational practice},
	title = {Has Industrial-Organizational Psychology Lost Its Way? (translated to Russian)},
	journal = {Organizational Psychology},
	year = {2017},
	volume = {7},
	number = {2},
	pages = {126-136},
	url = {https://orgpsyjournal.hse.ru/en/2017-7-2/206997521.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {Work is important. It’s how society gets things done, largely through organizations — commercial enterprises, nonprofits, governmental agencies, and more (Hogan & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). It’s where people spend much of their lives and establish a big part of their sense of self. Work groups provide social identities, hierarchies provide status, and difficult work problems provide a chance to be creative and innovate. More than any other discipline, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is focused on better understanding and improving this important aspect of life. There is no need to catalogue the historical contributions of I-O psychology — a high-level reminder of a few things like enhancing organizational and individual effectiveness, improving working conditions and enriching jobs, and promoting justice in the workplace more than makes the point. I-O psychology is probably more relevant than ever to work lives, organizations, and society at large. But there is a problem: We see the field losing its way, in danger of becoming less relevant and giving up ground to other professions with less expertise about people at work — but perhaps better marketing savvy and business acumen. Without a fundamental reorientation, the field is in danger of getting stuck in a minority status in organizations: technocrats who apply their trade when called upon but not really shaping the agenda or a part of the big decisions. This article summarizes our concerns with the current state of play in I-O psychology, both academic and applied. Our point is to make a case for how a return to a seemingly forgotten ideal, the scientist-practitioner model, can help the profession get back on the path to relevance, respect, and impact in the world of work.},
	annote = {Work is important. It’s how society gets things done, largely through organizations — commercial enterprises, nonprofits, governmental agencies, and more (Hogan & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). It’s where people spend much of their lives and establish a big part of their sense of self. Work groups provide social identities, hierarchies provide status, and difficult work problems provide a chance to be creative and innovate. More than any other discipline, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is focused on better understanding and improving this important aspect of life. There is no need to catalogue the historical contributions of I-O psychology — a high-level reminder of a few things like enhancing organizational and individual effectiveness, improving working conditions and enriching jobs, and promoting justice in the workplace more than makes the point. I-O psychology is probably more relevant than ever to work lives, organizations, and society at large. But there is a problem: We see the field losing its way, in danger of becoming less relevant and giving up ground to other professions with less expertise about people at work — but perhaps better marketing savvy and business acumen. Without a fundamental reorientation, the field is in danger of getting stuck in a minority status in organizations: technocrats who apply their trade when called upon but not really shaping the agenda or a part of the big decisions. This article summarizes our concerns with the current state of play in I-O psychology, both academic and applied. Our point is to make a case for how a return to a seemingly forgotten ideal, the scientist-practitioner model, can help the profession get back on the path to relevance, respect, and impact in the world of work.}
}