The focal article advances a consequential claim: that industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology has largely ignored organized labor and, at times, aligned itself against it. Sharing the authors’ concern that this schism constrains the field’s science, practice, and ethical self-understanding, we agree that it was neither inevitable nor benign. We argue that the historical and empirical record is more complex than the focal article suggests, and that this complexity has important implications for how the field conceptualizes its past and charts its future.
Specifically, we advance three clarifying contributions. First, we argue that narratives of neglect overstate absence by relying primarily on publication visibility as the indicator of engagement, thereby underestimating the extent of applied I-O work conducted with and for organized labor. Second, we contend that the field’s historical relationship with labor is better understood as shaped by an asymmetrical ideal of scientific neutrality that has systematically favored managerial power, rather than by simple antipathy or indifference. Third, we suggest that contemporary labor developments—particularly involving graduate student employees and student athletes—represent not peripheral cases but important opportunities for I-O psychology to reengage labor in ways that are both scientifically rigorous and professionally visible.
Absence in the literature does not equal absence in practice
The focal article’s conclusion that I-O psychology has largely ignored labor is supported by evidence drawn from handbooks, textbooks, and journal publications. By these indicators, the critique is largely accurate. However, an exclusive reliance on published scholarship risks conflating invisibility with nonexistence. Substantial labor-facing I-O work has occurred in applied contexts that discourage or preclude publication, including litigation support, grievance arbitration, contract negotiations, occupational health collaborations, and internal union research functions. In these settings, considerations of confidentiality, legal privilege, and strategic vulnerability often limit dissemination, even when the work itself is theoretically grounded and methodologically rigorous.
This invisibility persists even when applied I-O work does occur with unions. That is, the issue is not simply that labor-facing work is rare, but that when such work is conducted, it is structurally marginalized within the field’s reward systems. Applied I-O psychology, even when collaborative and impactful, is evaluated differently depending on whether its primary client is management or labor. As a result, union-engaged work remains underrepresented in the literature relative to its relevance and prevalence, reinforcing the mistaken impression that such work does not meaningfully exist.
A more nuanced reading of the field’s history
The focal article states that Katzell and Austin’s (1992) historical summary fails to mention labor unions. This claim is accurate with respect to the explicit topical lists presented in their article, but it obscures relevant discussion within the text itself. In their treatment of the post–World War II period, Katzell and Austin describe a renewed interest among a subset of I-O psychologists in labor relations, including work by Kerr, Kornhauser, Purcell, Rosen, and Stagner addressing cooperation and conflict between unions and management, worker attitudes, and, later, problems of dual allegiance.
Shostak’s (1964) characterization of the relationship between industrial psychology and unions as one of “mutual indifference,” cited by Katzell and Austin (p. 812), reflects a particular relational pattern rather than the absence of engagement altogether. Katzell and Austin noted that early work on industrial conflict (Hartmann & Newcomb, Reference Hartmann and Newcomb1939) emerged from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues rather than the Industrial Section of the AAAP, illustrating institutional boundary drawing rather than neglect per se.
In addition, applied labor-oriented research conducted in collaboration with unions—particularly in areas such as shiftwork, fatigue, safety, and occupational health (e.g., Davies, Reference Davies1995, Reference Davies1996, Reference Davies2000; Gordon et al., Reference Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson and Spiller1986)—has remained largely absent from dominant historical narratives.
These omissions illustrate how the field’s collective memory privileges publishable, management-facing scholarship while rendering labor-centered contributions effectively invisible.
Scientific neutrality as an asymmetrical value
The focal article highlights the role of values in shaping I-O psychology’s relationship with labor. We extend this analysis by emphasizing that the discipline’s longstanding commitment to scientific neutrality has operated asymmetrically in contexts characterized by unequal power.
Drawing on Münsterberg’s applied vision of psychology as technical problem solving rather than social reform (Landy, Reference Landy, Fagan and VandenBos1993), neutrality has often meant alignment with those who control access, data, and resources—typically management.
Over time, this orientation has shaped the field’s research priorities toward prediction, control, and legal defensibility while marginalizing constructs such as voice, participation, and shared governance. Importantly, this pattern does not require explicit antilabor sentiment to produce systematically promanagerial outcomes.
Contemporary labor contexts as structurally central, not peripheral
We clarify here that our intent is not merely to identify new populations of interest but to highlight how contemporary labor developments reveal the continued centrality of organized labor to I-O psychology’s core domains. Graduate student employees and student athletes are not edge cases; they occupy hybrid organizational roles that place issues of performance, evaluation, motivation, governance, and power—precisely the phenomena I-O psychology claims as its domain—at the forefront.
As of mid-2023, at least 156 graduate employee bargaining units had publicly announced unionization in the United States, with conservative estimates approaching 185 by early 2026.
For many I-O psychologists, unions are encountered first not as abstract institutions but as lived organizational realities during training and early career employment. Treating labor as marginal therefore risks disconnecting the field from a formative site of professional socialization and applied relevance.
Conclusion
The relationship between I-O psychology and organized labor has been shaped less by ignorance than by power, incentives, and an historically underexamined commitment to neutrality.
Recognizing this complexity does not diminish the focal article’s core concern; rather, it sharpens it. If I-O psychology is to meaningfully advance worker well-being and organizational effectiveness, organized labor must be treated not as a peripheral topic, but as a central institutional actor deserving sustained, visible, and rigorous scholarly engagement.
