Organizational Science: The New Frontier

rogelberger.jpg

by Alexandra Ilie

In a constantly changing environment organizations face complex challenges and therefore an interdisciplinary level of analysis would be more appropriate in dealing with all these demands. Organizational Science is an emerging field which attempts to address the shortcomings of other disciplines that work in isolation by studying organizations and how they deal with theoretical and practical problems from a multiple perspective.
In this issue’s interview, we talked to Dr. Steven Rogelberg, Professor in the first Organizational Science doctoral program at UNCC.

Dr. Steven G. Rogelberg is a Professor of Organizational Science and Professor of Psychology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In addition, he serves as Director of Organizational Science, Director of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and is the Founder/Director of the Organizational Science Consulting and Research Unit. He has over 50 publications and 25 invited addresses/colloquiums addressing issues such as team effectiveness, health and employee well-being, meetings at work, organizational research methods, and organizational development. He served as Editor-in-Chief of the two-volume Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2006) and the Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2002, 2004). Presently serving as Editor of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Practice book series. Recent honors include being named incoming Program Chair for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP); serving as Chair of the SIOP Education and Training committee, serving as Chair of SIOP’s Katrina Relief and Assistance effort, serving as a Special Feature Guest Editor for Organizational Research Methods; receiving the 2001 Bowling Green State University (BGSU) Psi Chi Professor of the Year Award; serving as the 2000 BGSU graduation commencement speaker; and receiving the BGSU Master Teacher Award. Dr. Rogelberg has received over $300,000 of external grant funding. He has held three international Guest Professor appointments: The University of Sheffield, England, The University of Tel Aviv, Israel, and the University of Mannheim, Germany. Dr. Rogelberg currently provides ad hoc reviews for a number of journals, as well as the National Science Foundation, and serves(ed) on the editorial board for Journal of Management, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, the SIOP Professional Practice Book Series and The Industrial Psychologist. His research has been profiled on Public Television, Radio (e.g., NPR, CBC, CBS), Newspapers (e.g., Chicago Tribune; LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post London Guardian) and Magazines (e.g., National Geographic, Scientific American Mind). Companies for whom he has provided consulting services include: IBM, Grace Cocoa, Vulcan Materials, National Society for Black Engineers, Proctor & Gamble, Brush Wellman, Marathon Ashland Petroleum, Center for Self-Directed Work Teams, Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority, Mid-American Information Services, and Marshall-Qualtec. Before completing his Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of Connecticut in 1994, he received his undergraduate B.Sc. degree from Tufts University in 1989.


EJOP: UNCC has recently developed a Ph D program in Organizational Science that offers an interdisciplinary approach. What principles have guided the development of this new field and Ph D program?
Steven G. Rogelberg: Thank you for asking this question. I always look forward to telling people about our doctoral program. Organizational Science is an emerging interdisciplinary field of inquiry focusing on employee and organizational health, well-being, and effectiveness. Organizational Science has its origin in four core disciplines: Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Management, Organizational Sociology, and Organizational Communication (we have 16 faculty total). Despite the congruence of interests across these disciplines, for the most part, the disciplines act fairly independently. What differentiates Organizational Science from its core disciplines, then, are not the topics of study but, instead, the interdisciplinary perspective with which the topics are studied. Organizational Science views the world of work from multiple perspectives and paradigms. It is richly interdisciplinary in both philosophy and practice, examining workplace topics from the perspective of each of its core disciplines. Consider, for example, the study of group behavior and effectiveness. Researchers from Human Resource Management and Industrial Psychology might look at the selection and training of team members. Researchers with Organizational Behavior and Organizational Psychology backgrounds may focus on interpersonal processes in groups such as norms, roles, cohesiveness, and conformity. Organizational Sociologists may examine how the greater context (e.g., society, sector, and culture) in which the group is embedded impacts the group. Organizational communication researchers may focus on the communication processes (e.g., persuasion) that facilitate/inhibit group effectiveness. An interdisciplinary Organizational Science approach integrates the four perspectives to more fully understand the organizational phenomenon in question, thus positively impacting both science and application. It is important to recognize, however, that in its own right, each of the core disciplines comprising Organizational Science is thriving. Despite the success of the four respective disciplines, however, scholars in each discipline acknowledge that the potential impact of any one field on the world of work is mitigated to the extent that researchers and practitioners do not engage in systemic and integrative thinking and research. Our program is designed to address the concern that Klein and Koslowski (2000) write about, “despite the historical and contemporary relevance of organizational systems theory, its influence is merely metaphorical…the system is sliced into organization, group, and individual levels, each level the province of different disciplines, theories, and approaches…the organization may be an integrated system, but organizational science is not” (p. 3).
EJOP: What are the advantages and disadvantages of an Organizational Science Ph D program over the training offered by classic I/O Psychology and Business Ph D programs?
Steven G. Rogelberg: Every doctoral program has strengths and weaknesses. As opposed to contrasting our program with these other types of doctoral programs, let me just point out some of our unique training elements. Our students learn both qualitative and quantitative methods. Our students take content classes from experts across our 4 disciplines. Students can choose to have an “emphasis” in a particular discipline. We mandate an internship for our students. We have a class called “current topics in Organizational Science” that all students are enrolled in from the start of the program to the end of the program – - as a program we meet, discuss and learn together at this time. As for other benefits, we conducted a research study to examine the viability of our program. The first part of the research examined student viability on the job market. 91% of respondents indicated that a job candidate that had been trained in an interdisciplinary Organizational Science program was just as preferable as, if not more preferable than, a job candidate that had been trained exclusively in the discipline for which they were hiring. This percentage increased to 95% when the Organizational Science graduate was described as having an “emphasis” or “concentration” and the student’s dissertation chair is from the discipline for which they were hiring. Our respondents also provided a host of quotes discussing our paradigm. Here is a sampling:
“Great Concept. This is a very well conceived idea and much needed. I always think that the large number of small studies on incremental problems is a result of narrow disciplinary focus (in addition to tenure pressure). Your proposed program will produce scholars who are more broad minded and creative. I’m very excited about this idea, and congratulate you for taking on this project”
“I think the filed is inherently interdisciplinary, so it makes a lot of sense to have an interdisciplinary program”
“The work we do or study is by nature interdisciplinary, so I see this as a great idea. Europeans have been doing this for years and we’ve been sadly lagging behind. I think this approach is overdue”
“The concept represents a welcome and indeed essential move away from narrow single domain perspectives. The kind of interdisciplinary training being proposed is most likely to meet the future needs of both academia and business”
“Based on my experience, I believe that a graduate of an Organizational Science program would be better positioned to succeed in an internal industry position than a graduate of single discipline program”
“I think it is a wonderful concept – I believe what happens is that people get pigeon-holed into one discipline, and it is very difficult to move in other directions – it also provides one with a broader perspective and appreciation of other disciplines other than one’s own. In the business world of today and tomorrow, it will be required to possess a broader and deeper perspective and expertise.
EJOP: The field of I/O psychology has always been open to adopt ideas and theories from other areas of psychology (e.g., social, clinical). What other disciplines can be useful for I/O researchers?
Steven G. Rogelberg: The connection to Management is an obvious one. In addition, terrific research is coming out of Sociology (e.g., Org Sociology and Social Psychology) and Communication Studies (e.g., Organizational Communication). Economics is another place to look.
EJOP: Many graduate students find it hard to decide whether they want to become practitioners or academics. What do you suggest them to do in order to find out sooner what is their true calling?
Steven G. Rogelberg: Become fully invested in your graduate education. Take advantage of both practice and research activities. By fully engaging in a host of activities, the student can get a much greater sense of the plusses and minuses of each career track. I also recommend everyone doing an internship. Interestingly, for me, I always thought I wanted to go into practice. Then, I did my internship at IBM.in my third year. While I really enjoyed it and learned a lot, I realized after the internship that the independence, flexibility, and creativity afforded by an academic career fit me better. Plus, I can still engage in practice work as an academic.
EJOP: What skills do graduate students need to achieve in order to be successful in academia or in the applied field?
Steven G. Rogelberg: In general, I believe the skills needed to succeed in academics are generally the same as the skills needed to succeed in practice. They are thoughtfulness, conscientiousness, the need to manage multiple projects simultaneously, self-starting, perseverant, willingness to continually learn, ability to accept feedback, hard working, diligence and a strong sense of integrity.
EJOP: It is well-known that many students fear methodology and statistics. What can we do about this and how can students be motivated to show interest in these fields?
Steven G. Rogelberg: Methods and stats are our “life blood” as organizational scientists. They are our key tools. Our ability to successful use and understand these tools differentiates us from others. If a student is really not showing interest in these areas, I would say they have perhaps chosen the wrong degree to pursue.
EJOP: Your research was featured in the media (TV, radio, and newspapers). How important is it for a scholar to make his ideas accessible to a non-specialized public?
Steven G. Rogelberg: At first, when my research on meetings at work was getting a great deal of media attention it made me uncomfortable. In some regards, as an academic, there is almost a negative stigma associated with doing media work. However, I came to realize that media attention is actually a form of research impact.
We all want our research to make an impact. The media can be a key vehicle for getting the word out so that we can positively impact the world of work. As a result, I got to the point of embracing the media opportunities - I made myself available for interviews. I have come to believe that we actually need to do more as a profession to get the media to discuss our work. One difficulty worth noting, however, it that it can be incredibly frustrating to see the media distort your comments and misread your work. It is a real battle to get them to publish pieces that you feel capture your findings 100% accurately.
EJOP: You have done research on the impact of meetings at work. In recent years the number of meetings at work has increased. What impact do these meetings have on people’s well being and effectiveness at work?
Steven G. Rogelberg: Is there a cost to having so many meetings when it comes to employee job satisfaction? Scholars have yet to find a direct relationship between meeting demands (number of meetings and time spent in meetings) and job satisfaction. Instead, the relationship between meeting demands and job satisfaction was found to depend on an individual difference characteristic called accomplishment striving. Specifically, individuals with a strong desire to accomplish work goals tend to report poorer job satisfaction as the number of meetings they attend increases. Conversely, for those employees who are less goal-oriented, a weak positive relationship between number of meetings in a day and daily well-being was found such that more meetings may be desired, perhaps to permit social interaction or to provide structure to an unstructured day.
This research has also shown how nature of the one’s job matters. For employees whose jobs require more interdependent work, time spent in meetings was associated with more job satisfaction. Employees whose tasks allowed for greater autonomy reported worse job satisfaction as time spent in meetings increased. For these employees, meetings seemed to interrupt rather than enhance the flow of work.
Finally, time in meetings perceived as ineffective seems to have the most negative impact on JAWB. Across two studies, how one feels about the effectiveness of the meetings they attend is the single biggest determinant of job satisfaction, an effect that is only exacerbated as the amount of time spent in these meetings increases.
EJOP: How could meetings be improved for employees and organization’s benefits?
Steven G. Rogelberg: In my experience, it is quite common to find that most all employees believe that they possess “above average” meeting-oriented skills. Obviously, this is not possible. As a result of this misplaced self confidence, it is often the case that people don’t improve because they do not see themselves as needing to improve. Training and effective feedback are needed. Training in meeting effectiveness could include a variety of learning goals, such as whether to call a meeting, planning and disseminating meeting agendas, critical decision making, active listening, constructive conflict resolution, encouraging participation, and managing cultural differences in meetings. In addition to such training, meeting feedback systems are needed to promote ongoing transfer of this knowledge into improved performance at everyday meetings.
Organizations should include a meeting behavior dimension on performance appraisal instruments so that employees are held accountable through the performance management process for their performance in meetings. Organizations could also use a 360 degree feedback system to assess and provide feedback to the employee on their meeting effectiveness skills from the perspective of the employee’s regular contacts (e.g., their subordinates, their peers).
Periodic surveys assessing employee perceptions of meeting quality should be administered regularly with the results fed back to those calling and leading meetings. We have been surprised that so many organizations do so little to continuously monitor and improve such an important and time-consuming activity.
Given the potential costs of unnecessary meetings, employees should know when calling a meeting is more or less appropriate. Establish a set of guidelines for people to use. For example, one guideline might state that a meeting should be called when unresolved issues are inhibiting the progress of one or more interdependent projects. Help employees see that a variety of communication channels are available, and that a synchronous meeting is just one of many options. When a meeting is deemed appropriate, carefully plan meetings and determine who actually needs to be at the meeting and who should merely be kept in the loop. Give employees the ability to opt-out of a meeting if they do not really play a key role. Again, they should still be kept in the loop.
To run a good meeting, I recommend the following: