Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Industrial and Organizational Psychology
  4. Most cited
Journal Home
Refine listing
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Most cited

This page lists all time most cited articles for this title. Please use the publication date filters on the left if you would like to restrict this list to recently published content, for example to articles published in the last three years. The number of times each article was cited is displayed to the right of its title and can be clicked to access a list of all titles this article has been cited by.

Contents

Page 48 of 63

  • Cited by 2

  • Spotlight on Women of Color in STEM

  • Catalina Flores
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 June 2018, pp. 291-296
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • The focal article by Miner et al. (2018) convincingly argues that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology professionals share a responsibility to adopt a social-structural perspective in understanding why women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This approach offers the best path forward for explaining the disparity and improving the attraction and retention of women in these fields (Miner et al., 2018). In conjunction with the approach described, a deliberate effort to cast a spotlight on women of color is necessary, as they are the most marginalized, yet are often excluded from conversations about gender equality.

  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2

  • STRETCH Goals for I-O Psychology

  • Julie B. Olson-Buchanan, Tammy D. Allen
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 August 2017, pp. 370-376

  • Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) present a compelling argument (or rallying call) for there being a “moral imperative for I-O psychology to overrepresent people living in the deepest forms of poverty in both science and practice” (p. 330). We agree. Our research has been dominated by a POSH perspective, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that our science benefits those who are most affected by poverty. We believe the interest in engaging in humanitarian work psychology is growing among industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, yet many of us may not feel prepared to conduct such research and/or we may feel that we lack the skills to do so. Further, as Gloss et al. (2017) note, to the extent that we are unprepared to engage in research that benefits those living in poverty, in particular, we run the added risk of harming the very populations we are wanting to help. As such, the interest is there, but we may be daunted by the method. We argue that in order to heed that rallying call, without harm, we need to develop our own capabilities to engage in this important work.

  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2

  • With the Right Map, Survey Key Driver Analysis Can Help Get Organizations to the Right Destination

  • Charles A. Scherbaum, Justin Black, Sara P. Weiner
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    29 June 2017, pp. 290-298

  • Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) raise an important issue in evaluating whether our current approaches for key driver analysis on employee opinion survey data are indeed best practices. As has been argued elsewhere (Putka & Oswald, 2016; Scherbaum, Putka, Naidoo, & Youssefnia, 2010), there is and can be misalignment between current and best practices. We agree with Cucina et al. that our field should engage in larger discussion of these issues. That discussion is critical, as industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists are competing with those outside our field who have either little knowledge of best practices in data analysis (but who have been empowered by technology that automates the analysis) or little knowledge of psychology (but a great deal of knowledge in big data analytical techniques). I-O psychologists are in the vanguard of survey data analysis (Ducey et al., 2015), and we have a responsibility to maintain the standards of our field as well as to wield our influence to guide other practitioners outside our field on sound theoretical and analytical approaches.

  • Cited by 2

  • Moving boundaries on what I-O has been, and what I-O can be: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as an organizing framework

  • Morrie Mullins, Julie Olson-Buchanan
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 September 2023, pp. 479-494
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and especially since, I-O psychology has demonstrated its ability to adapt and to make meaningful contributions to how work is accomplished in tumultuous environments. Such contributions reflect the ongoing evolution of the field and an increased awareness of the potential for I-O psychologists to effect meaningful societal change. We believe that I-O psychology must embrace this evolution and, using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to help us target our efforts, become a resource and a voice for workers and organizations around the world, and a force for the greater good.

  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2

  • Beyond Victims and Perpetrators

  • Meghan A. Thornton-Lugo, Deeksha Munjal
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 March 2018, pp. 116-122

  • We acknowledge and agree with Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) that the tendency to focus on victims as precipitators of their own negative workplace experiences (e.g. abusive supervision) presents a problematic theoretical paradigm. Using organizational justice as an illustration, we note that even in fields with an orientation toward victims, similar trends with regard to victim precipitation have still emerged. However, we also argue that although the perpetrator predation approach may help to avoid this tendency and encourage a better understanding of the responsibility for and origins of certain organizational experiences, it may fall short when examining complex phenomena that involve more than the dyad of perpetrator and victim. We suggest that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology scholars might be better served by abandoning the language of victim and perpetrator altogether. Though we invoke these two terms when discussing organizational justice, we ultimately come to argue that researchers should utilize different language that better captures the experience and role of employees in these phenomena.

  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by 2

Page 48 of 63