Introduction
One of this commentary’s authors attended a recent SIOP conference session where a panelist wisely counseled that organizations should contain multiple internal power centers, arguing that this can prevent a cult-like environment from developing (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Mikhailov, Fedele and Voss2025). However, in the same breath, this panelist claimed that unions should not be one of these power centers, as they are (supposedly) bad for an organization. Given unions’ demonstrable benefits for the majority of an organization’s members and the disasters wrought by their decline (e.g., Lefkowitz et al., Reference Lefkowitz, Zickar, Cascio and Kochan2026; Vesper et al., Reference Vesper, Zickar, O’Brien, O’Neill, Dollard, Flynn, Fletcher, Stephenson, Ahr, Jost, Somerville and Barling2025), we do not see how such a claim could reasonably be made. Moreover, if the status quo’s maintenance truly precludes human beings from advocating for themselves using the best available tools, then perhaps it should not be maintained.
In any case, building meaningful partnerships between I-O psychology and organized labor stand to benefit both our communities greatly. Unions and their sensibilities offer a sorely needed counterbalance to I-O’s insufficient—and at times harmful—management-centric perspective on work and workers (e.g., Alliger, Reference Alliger2021; Bal & Dóci, Reference Bal and Dóci2018; Baritz, Reference Baritz1960; Bergman & Jean, Reference Bergman and Jean2016; Gerard, Reference Gerard2017; Scott, Reference Scott1998; Zickar, Reference Zickar2001, Reference Zickar2004). More ambitiously, they could even provide an effective alternative base of power to free I-Os from having to make “the business case” for unprofitable but otherwise beneficial organizational and policy changes (Alliger & McEachern, Reference Alliger and McEachern2024). Meanwhile, workers (including I-Os, surely!) face new forms of employer control via algorithmic management systems and employment deregulation, which increasingly threaten their dignity and well-being (Bailey et al., Reference Bailey, Faraj, Hinds, von Krogh and Leonardi2019). These and other worrisome developments can be abated only through the major social-systemic changes toward which unions and their allies are oriented (Bargaining for the Common Good, 2019; Kelley, Reference Kelley2023). However, the changes sought require coordinated human activity to enact (i.e., organizing; Kelley, Reference Kelley2023; Velazquez, Reference Velazquez2025). I-O psychology’s capacity for linking individual capabilities, motivations, and actions to the accomplishment of collective goals has much to offer in support of such endeavors.
I-Os’ hesitancy to openly endorse many of the conclusions we have drawn here could indicate the underdeveloped normative reasoning alleged in the focal article by Lefkowitz and colleagues (Reference Lefkowitz, Zickar, Cascio and Kochan2026). In some cases, it probably does. However, we suspect that what is underdeveloped is not the field’s moral reasoning per se but rather the infrastructure to act on that reasoning. Building on our experiences as I-O and industrial relations (IR) graduate students who have each been personally and/or professionally involved with the labor movement, our commentary addresses the focal article’s call for ideas on how this infrastructure might be built (i.e., prompts 6 and 7, p. xx). We first identify desirable KSAOs for I-Os looking to work with unions and related organizations to cultivate. Second, we highlight a few avenues by which graduate programs and professional associations might promote their development, especially in students. Finally, we note potential obstacles to address as these partnerships are pursued and developed.
We wish to emphasize that our suggestions are far from exhaustive. As will be apparent by this commentary’s conclusion, there is no replacement for direct dialog with unions and their members when it comes to identifying their needs. We can only begin the conversation here.
KSAOs for union work
Successful partnerships between I-O psychologists and organized labor will require new or reshaped emphasis on several KSAOs.
New paradigms and perspectives
Working in unionized organizational contexts will require consideration of the interests of multiple stakeholders and thus familiarity with a wider range of perspectives on work and its purpose than that which I-Os are typically exposed. One of a union’s most prominent functions is to negotiate collective bargaining agreements with employers (U.S. Congress, 1934). Negotiation and conflict mediation skills should thus be useful to develop. Of course, no negotiation is neutral (Fang, Reference Fang2022), so normative reasoning skills should be developed to equip I-Os to “pick a side” when that is warranted. Exposure to disciplinary perspectives beyond I-O psychology may facilitate this—for example, IRs, labor history and economics, public health, sociology, anthropology, moral philosophy, and any others that might offer challenges to fundamental assumptions about work and workers that have created distance from unions to this point. This can also sharpen “bread and butter” I-O knowledge and skills such as measurement and job analysis by inducing critical thinking about their use and their expansion to new contexts.
Listening to labor: Participatory orientation
Indeed, many models and intervention frameworks commonly used by I-Os should already be highly applicable to work with unions. After all, much of what we do is helpful to workers and their needs. However, top-down (i.e., manager- or academic-led) interventions and research, as well as safety models based on individual behavior that decenter worker involvement, have been treated with skepticism from workers, unions, and advocates (e.g., Frederick et al., Reference Frederick, Hudspith and LeBlanc2018; United Steelworkers, 2022). Relative to the organizations with which I-Os may be used to working, unions draw more power from their rank-and-file members due to their democratic structure (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Thus, no partnership with a union will succeed unless researchers or practitioners can build deep trust with members.
The antidote to these issues is for union-curious I-Os to receive training in participatory and worker-engaged investigatory paradigms (e.g., Anner, Reference Anner2023; Wallerstein, Reference Wallerstein2005; Wallerstein & Duran, Reference Wallerstein and Duran2010). These methods prompt engagement in research and practice with rather than simply on workers by involving them at each stage. Workers shape the project or intervention’s purpose, whereas the scientists or practitioners provide supportive expertise and resources. This approach facilitates an understanding of organizations based more directly on workers’ lived experiences, allowing I-O psychologists who use these methods to identify whether, when, and why inconsistencies between policy and practice emerge in a given organization (Bromley & Powell, Reference Bromley and Powell2012; see also du Plessis & Vandeskog, Reference du Plessis and Vandeskog2020). The added complexity of these methods may give I-Os pause—and to be fair, the work is not easy, which is perhaps why the use of participatory methods has declined even in more worker-centered disciplines such as IR over the past few decades (Whitfield & Strauss, Reference Whitfield and Strauss2008), though IR extensively uses qualitative methods aiming to increase participant voice (O’Kane et al., Reference O’Kane, Saunders, Blumenfeld and Parker2024). However, the authors’ experiences suggest that all involved should find the explicit centering of workers’ needs and interests both efficacious and rewarding (see also Hackman & Oldham, Reference Hackman and Oldham1976).
Relatedly, other relevant methodological skills might be the use of secondary data such as OSHA and worker’s compensation records, and reviewing contract and organizational policy language. Although these may seem at first to be less relevant to work that I-Os do, they can be understood as adjacent to the legal and regulatory knowledge I-Os are expected to develop around employment discrimination (e.g., SIOP, 2016).
How can SIOP and graduate programs help? Fostering developmental experiences in I-O education
I-O graduate programs, professional organizations, and students themselves can begin to bridge the gap between I-Os and unions beginning in graduate education. In this section, we also consider potential obstacles to monitor from the outset.
Building work with workers and unions into the curriculum
Many I-O graduate programs can accommodate courses outside of core I-O areas. Thus, there may be opportunities for I-O programs to build paths to electives and specializations within their curricula by collaborating with IR and other departments offering labor-related courses, if not developing their own. I-O programs could also provide scholarship opportunities or other support for I-O students to pursue certificate or training programs in labor studies or research such as those at Rutgers and Cornell Universities. Many of these are part time, open to students and workers, and provide a strong introduction to organized labor. SIOP’s Education and Training Committee could support infrastructure for these and other opportunities by recommending curricular coverage of union-related topics. The current Guidelines for Education and Training in Industrial-Organizational Psychology (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Inc., 2016) view certain relevant competencies (i.e., economics and labor relations) as desirable but not central to an I-O education. Thus, explicitly preparing students for work in unionized contexts, and integrating content congruent with labor relations, could be elevated alongside or within other core competencies.
Graduate programs often allow students to complete internships for course credit.
Internships with unions and related organizations could thus be supported. For example, in the Occupational Health Internship Program (OHIP), the first two authors worked directly with workers and union leaders to identify hazards, provide recommendations to address them, and develop resources to distribute directly to union members and representatives. The program’s strong emphasis on participatory methods meant that union members themselves directed the use of our knowledge and skills. This program is just one example of how internships, applied research projects, and the like could strengthen I-O’s connections to labor.
Participating in labor education
One existing (if unutilized) piece of infrastructure to build trust between I-O and organized labor is labor education. Although its exact character has changed over time (Dwyer, Reference Dwyer1977), labor education at its heart is a bridge between academia and worker populations that are often alienated from it. The origin of this alienation is multifaceted and is often reflected in academic perspectives that devalue or misunderstand forms of non-white-collar work (Torlina, Reference Torlina2011). This is reinforced in the workplace by inequalities in access to organizational knowledge, decision-making, and resources based on organizational roles, often a result of unequal access to education and credentials (e.g., Torlina, Reference Torlina2011). Labor education repairs these rifts. Not only does it make such forms of knowledge about their organizations accessible to begin with, but it empowers workers and community members to use what they learn for both improving job performance and advocating for their needs and interests more effectively. Engaging I-O students in labor education would thus develop science communication skills, by giving students a forum where they can translate the relevance of I-O science to workers’ lives in ways that directly improve workers’ dignity and well-being.
From a programmatic perspective, many I-O psychology PhD programs have teaching requirements or opportunities that could potentially be fulfilled through labor education instruction. However, in the spirit of our prior assertion that I-Os stand to personally gain from working with organized labor, graduate programs could send students not only to teach these classes but attend them. Although perhaps humbling, the experience would foster fundamental understanding of workers’ needs, desires, and day-to-day experiences, thus shaping learning in a way that could orient I-O students more toward these populations. Supporting I-O students’ participation in labor education may indeed be one of the most effective ways to overcome our field’s well-acknowledged bias toward white-collar work (e.g., Bergman & Jean, Reference Bergman and Jean2016) and shows an interest in learning from workers that would form key planks of the bridge between our communities.
Potential obstacles to partnerships
For I-O students, the paths to working with labor are not yet well trod and may require time and creativity to develop. I-Os will potentially face skepticism from labor unions and their individual members. Those who attempt to forge these connections will thus need to meet a high bar of personal and professional identity consistency. That said, such advice applies to nearly any I-O student looking for professional work, due to the limited number of I-O-specific jobs. The novelty of this context may create unique difficulties at first, but these should subside as more forays are made.
Building a labor-friendly resume or CV
Unions and their members typically have mixed experiences with human resources, consultants, and management. I-Os who have worked mostly in these areas will need to work to frame how that experience is useful in organized labor contexts in order not to appear too “corporate.” Students might also seek experiences in unionized employment to build credibility and familiarity with this context. Notably, unionization among graduate students has seen recent gains (Flannery, Reference Flannery2024). Starting or joining a union would allow students to see the benefits unions can bring them as workers and expose them to the common organizational challenges and pitfalls unions face. In fact, this may be the single most currently attainable and beneficial way for I-O students to learn about the inner workings of unions and the values that undergird their important place in the working world.
The current political environment
As noted by the focal article, there is a specific current sociopolitical context requiring negotiation and awareness if I-O education is to prepare students for work with organized labor. Besides this, working with unions is not yet a normative route for I-O students. Thus, there is likely to be an awkward transition period, even if the field starts moving immediately. Considering this, I-O students need robust training in core I-O competencies and to be taught how to translate experiences in ways that make labor-related and other career paths viable. So, it is crucial for I-Os who work in more traditional areas of practice and research to recognize the legitimate role of labor unions in peoples’ working lives.
Furthermore, the sociopolitical context might produce individual or even institutional hesitation to engage with organized labor. However, if there is one thing that unions’ continued power despite this hostile environment can teach us, it is that relationships are perhaps humanity’s most important resource. Upon establishing robust connections, professional societies such as SIOP and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) could coordinate with partnered unions to protect against potential retaliation that I-Os may face for aligning with unions—and perhaps even develop and disseminate insights on effective protective strategies for all involved.
Conclusion
The benefits of partnerships between I-O psychology and organized labor are numerous for both communities, especially in today’s difficult political and work climate. However, taking full advantage of the opportunities will require developing new academic and professional infrastructure. Unions and their members possess a different set of needs and interests than management, and the difficult history between I-O and organized labor means that building mutual understanding and trust will take serious, deliberate effort. This commentary provided just a few ideas for how that can be done. Graduate programs and professional societies such as SIOP and SOHP can support students (and any other interested parties) in building the relevant knowledge and skills through research opportunities, coursework in and outside of their home departments, and perhaps even by supporting graduate students in organizing or joining unions of their own. Our hope is that working with organized labor in research and practice will become as normal as any other established I-O psychology career path.
Open access
