NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 personality to be assessed with interviews or with raters in the context of an

136 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 personality to be assessed with interviews or with raters in the context of an

assessment center. Nevertheless, our brief review of articles published in JAP suggested a field that is remarkably reliant on self-report.

Some of the reasons for our reliance on self-report are also the reasons for our reliance on traits. We return to this issue below. An additional reason, however, is that personality assessment was originally intended for use in psychopathological populations. Although social desirability has also been identified as a problem in self-report measures of pathology-oriented person- ality, it is reasonable to assume the following. First, the pressure to present oneself in a favorable light may be less in certain pathology assessment situa- tions than it is in employment situations. Second, the very pathology that is assessed with measures such as the MMPI may inhibit the distortion of responses. These are only speculations. More important are the reasons derived from the scientist–practitioner model on which we pride ourselves.

Unlike the more basicareas of psychology, I/O has always taken a highly contextualized approach to psychological phenomena. Specifically, we have always been skeptical of research removed from the work context. This is, perhaps, due to our behaviorist roots (i.e., behavior as determined by rewards and punishments). It is ironicin that we are reluctant to generalize lab-based relationships to the workplace because of the influence that features of the workplace might have. At the same time, we seem reluctant to embrace the notion of personality instability across situations. In any case, we often feel that we must make whichever concessions are necessary to gain access to organizations and their data. These concessions often involve using measures that take little time to complete and that are straightforward of purpose. The reason for the former is simple: Organizations unfortunately perceive our research to be of less value to them than we do. As a result, they are reluctant to devote resources such as the time of their employees to its conduct. The reason for the latter is the fear that measures whose purpose is not clear will

be perceived as either foolish or hostile. These are real constraints that we as an applied field must accept. If we want real data, we have to work around real world barriers. However, we must be careful to avoid allowing these barriers to place too great a limit on the questions that we ask and the ways that we ask them. The man looking for his keys in the wrong spot is not going to find them. Likewise, if personality is more than surface-oriented traits, and if the measurement of personality requires more in the way of time to develop, time to administer, and time to score, then we must not allow the particulars of organizational settings to keep us from finding that which we seek.

Another basis for our limited approach to personality is our behaviorist roots. Perhaps the two best known principles of behaviorism are that psy- chology should restrict itself to the study of the observable and that behavior is produced from without. I/O psychology places varying amounts of im- portance on the situation depending on the area of interest. When it comes to

P ERSONALITY IN I NDUSTRIAL /O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 137 focusing on the observable, however, we have been much more willing to tow

the line. This is not to say that previous calls by Guion, Dunnette, and others for deeper thinking about psychological constructs have been ignored. Never- theless, our field tends to the simpler, more obvious explanations. In the case of personality, we prefer to define it in terms of what we can see (e.g., behavior) instead of what might drive what we see (e.g., motives, physiology, etc.), and we prefer to measure it with things that look like personality (e.g., unadorned self-report items) instead of with things that are more indirect (e.g., implicit measures). Our preferred approach is not without its advan- tages, but our field has reached a point at which our reluctance to move beyond these preferences stunts the growth of our knowledge relative to other fields. In the final analysis, answering the wrong questions, or provid- ing anemic answers to the right questions will do little to advance our science and our practice.

Of course, why we are where we are is less important than deciding where to go from here. In the next section, we consider some possible futures for the study of personality in I/O.