Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T03:50:11.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Envisioning a Person-Centric Work Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Howard M. Weiss  and
Deborah E. Rupp
Howard M. Weiss*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Deborah E. Rupp
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We have structured our response around 3 rough categories of commentary themes: those that provided illustrations of existing person-centric research, those that provided novel ideas about extending the viewpoint to traditional research areas, and those that criticized our neglect of issues of morality and power differences. In our response, we clarify and reiterate our position as advocating a science of first-person work experience. In doing so, we differentiate our agenda from others labeled person-centric but not first-person experiential in the way we describe it. We also differentiate our position from a primary interest in worker treatment and well-being, except as part of work experience, and defend that difference.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 138 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2011 

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.)

References

Adler, S. (2011). The human experience of working: Richer science, richer practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 98–101.Google Scholar
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (2011). Enhancing our knowledge of mentoring with a person-centric approach. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 126–130.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). Meeting the challenges of a person-centric work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 116–121.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. E. (2011). Agreement, disagreement, and a person-centric psychology of working. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 131–135.Google Scholar
Foti, R. J., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2011). The pattern oriented approach: A framework for the experience of work. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 122–125.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Dane, E. (2011). Workers as whole people with their own objectives. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 4, 109–111.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2011). The science, practice, and morality of work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 112–115.Google Scholar
Liu, S., Zhan, Y., & Wang, M. (2011). Person-centric work psychology: Additional insights on its tradition, nature, and research methods. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 105–108.Google Scholar
Sonnentag, S., Dorman, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement. In Bakker, A. B. & Leiter, M. P. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 25–38). Hove, England: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
Truxillo, D M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2011). A person-centered work psychology: Changing paradigms by broadening horizons. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 102–104.Google Scholar
Weathington, B. L. (2011). Whence applied psychology in a person-centric work psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 136–137.Google Scholar