Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-08T14:15:44.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Handmaidens to Capitalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2017

Nathan Gerard
Nathan Gerard*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Care Administration, California State University, Long Beach
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathan Gerard, Department of Health Care Administration, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840-4903. E-mail: nathan.gerard@csulb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although I wholeheartedly agree with Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) that a focus on those living in the deepest forms of poverty is sorely needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, the real issue is not so much who we serve but how we serve, and specifically how we continue to neglect the systemic failures of capitalism at the root of poverty. Ultimately, it is this global market system that determines not only the distribution of wealth but also how wealth is often achieved at the expense of another's poverty. Moreover, it is this system that constrains and undermines capabilities. For these reasons, I am skeptical of the authors’ proposal for mitigating the pervasive POSH bias in our field, especially because this bias seems premised on a pervasive neglect of capitalism the authors fail to fully address.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 410 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Althusser, L. (1968). Reading capital. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Anthony, P. (1977). Ideology of work. London: Tavistock Press.Google Scholar
Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power: A history of the use of social science in American industry. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Barley, S., Meyerson, D., & Grodal, S. (2011). E-mail as a source of and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22, 887–906.Google Scholar
Dean, H. (2009). Critiquing capabilities: The distractions of a beguiling concept. Critical Social Policy, 29 (2), 261–278.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1966). The order of things. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Gerard, N. (2014). Searching for capitalism. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51 (3), 85–86.Google Scholar
Gerard, N. (2016). Toward a critical I-O psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 54 (2). Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/tip/oct16/gerard.aspx Google Scholar
Gerard, N. (2017). “Marx was right”: Lessons from Lewin. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 54 (4). Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/tip/april17/gerard.aspx Google Scholar
Gloss, A., Carr, S. C., Reichman, W., Abdul-Nasiru, I., & Oestereich, W. T. (2017). From handmaidens to POSH humanitarians: The case for making human capabilities the business of I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (3), 329–369.Google Scholar
Howard, G. (1985). The role of values in the science of psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 225–265.Google Scholar
Hyman, R. (1987). Strategy or structure? Capital, labour, and control. Work, Employment, and Society, 1 (1), 25–55.Google Scholar
Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. (2006). Critical industrial psychology: What is it and where is it? Psychology in Society, 34, 17–30.Google Scholar
Jacoby, S. (2004). Employing bureaucracy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2013). Values of I-O psychology, another example: What and whom we don't study and what it all suggests about the profession. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51 (2), 46–56.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2017). Ethics and values in industrial-organizational psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1844). Economic and philosophical manuscripts. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Munsterberg, H. (1915). Business psychology. Chicago: La Salle University.Google Scholar
Nord, W. (1974). The failure of current applied behavioral science—a Marxian perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10 (4), 557–578.Google Scholar
Rodgers, D. (1974). The work ethic in industrial America, 1850–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sennett, R. (1976). The fall of public man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Steffy, B., & Grimes, A. (1992). Personnel/organizational psychology: A critique of the discipline. In Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (Eds.), Critical management studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing cultures in modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30 (4), 515–552.Google Scholar