The role of work and organizational psychology for workplace innovation

practice: From short-sightedness to eagle view

Maria Karanika-Murray, Nottingham Trent University UK

maria.karanika-murray@ntu.ac.uk
Peter R. A. Oeij, TNO the Netherlands
peter.oeij@tno.nl

Information about the authors

Maria Karanika-Murray is associate professor in occupational health psychology.

Her research seeks to understand the determinants and conditions that can
support work-related well-being and performance, with a focus on workplace
design, intervention evaluation, presenteeism (attending work while sick),
employability, and older workers.

Peter Oeij is a sociologist and psychologist. Currently he is working on the

challenges of innovation management, social innovation, and workplace
innovation. He is driven by the question why innovations fail too often, specifically
in relation to risk avoidance and defensive behaviour in teams.

Maria Karanika-Murray’s contribution is based on a project supported by the

European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS
(2007-2013) which is implemented by the European Commission. For more
information see: http://ec.europa.eu/progress.
 Abstract

This paper is premised on the observation that the potential of work and
organizational (WO) psychologists to successfully implement workplace innovation
(WPI) practices and, in turn, improve the quality of work and organizational
performance is greatly underused. One reason for this is that WPI practice often
adopts a more specialised approach and single discipline focus rather than an
integrated perspective. An integrated approach would imply understanding WPI
from the strategy, structure, and culture perspectives. We outline ways in which
WPI practice can appreciate and use the potential of WO psychology as well as
how WO psychologists can broaden their focus and strengthen their contribution
to WPI practice.
 Introduction

The increasing adoption and implementation of workplace innovation (WPI)

practices in business organizations poses a number of challenges for the role of
work and organizational (WO) psychologists in WPI. Here, by work and
organizational psychologists we refer to researchers and practitioners in the fields
of occupational psychology, occupational health psychology, industrial and
organizational psychology, and cognate areas, whereas we use the term WPI to
refer to innovations in deploying human talent and organising work processes that
should result in good work and better performance. WPI, as explained in more
detail later, is renewal through deploying human talents and organisational design,
aiming at both better performance and better jobs. The implications of WPI
practice for WO psychologists are the need to find synergy in people and
organizational issues on the one hand, and the need to communicate the value
and potential of WPI to stakeholders with different backgrounds, on the other.
Challenges that emerge from the meeting of WO psychology and WPI practice
include, for example, WO psychologists being called to provide rigorous evidence
for relevant practice, often having to move between increasingly varied roles as
both reflective practitioners and action researchers, and being required to
communicate with diverse groups of stakeholders with different agendas and
understandings. Unless such challenges are successfully addressed, they can
become barriers for the successful utilisation of WO psychological knowledge in
the implementation of WPI practice.

These challenges are not unique to the field. Rather, they reflect a long-standing
concern about a practitioner-researcher divide in WO psychology and in business
and management (e.g., Anderson, 2005; Anderson, Herriott, & Hodgkinson,
2001). The practitioner-researcher divide denotes the phenomenon of
practitioners and researchers operating in isolation from each other: research
advancements are often ignored by practitioners and practical problems are often
ignored in research. More broadly, a practitioner-researcher divide is also afflicting
a range of fields including personnel selection (Anderson, 2005), nursing practice
(Arber, 2006), education practice (Fraser, 1997), design (Wampler, 2010),
occupational health and safety (Zanko & Dawson, 2012), and even foreign policy
(Nye, 2008). Others too have called for management scholars to place practice
and the pragmatic concerns of practitioners on their agenda (Zanko & Dawson,
2012). Nevertheless, a recent upsurge in the solutions proposed to bridge this
divide encourages optimism about the chances of success for using WO
psychology to support WPI practice.

In this paper, we discuss how the practitioner-researcher challenges for WO

psychologists are framed within WPI practice. We then identify a range of ways in
which WO psychologists can demonstrate the value of the field to WPI and
examine ways in which the role of WO psychologists can be strengthened for
successful WPI practice. By examining the transaction between WO psychology
and WPI practice, with this position paper we address the question “what is the
role of work and organizational psychologists for workplace innovation practice?”.
To achieve this, we draw from a range of literatures, such as WO psychology,
WPI, HRM, and industrial relations, taking a necessarily integrative and critical
rather than a systematic approach.
 What challenges is WO psychology called to deal with in WPI practice?

WPI practice poses unique challenges for WO psychology and, at the same time,
WO psychology can offer opportunities for bolstering WPI practice. In practice,
there is a risk for the practitioner-researcher divide to be exacerbated unless we
can identify ways for the two fields to converge. Here, we discuss the meaning
and practice of WPI and what challenges this context poses for WO psychology
research and practice.

The applied definition of workplace innovation (WPI) that we employ here is

that of: “developed and implemented practice or combination of practices
that structurally (structure orientation or a focus on division of labour) and/or
culturally (culture orientation or a focus on empowerment) enable
employees to participate in organizational change and renewal to improve
quality of working life and organizational performance” (Oeij et al. , 2015, p.
8, 14).

Importantly, the structure- and culture-oriented WPI practices are part of a broader
comprehensive organizational strategy that provides the framework for
implementing WPI in the specific organizational context and with the available
resources. The structure orientation contains practices that structure work
organization and job design (De Sitter, Den Hertog & Dankbaar, 1997; Oeij et al.,
2015; de). Structure-oriented practices can stimulate employee control and
autonomy (De Sitter et al., 1997). These practices concern the division of labour,
the division of controlling (or managing) and executing tasks, and providing
employees with decision latitude or capacity for control. For instance, do
employers allow employees a genuine say in organisational change initiatives by
providing them with task autonomy and voice in decisions; or do they only offer a
token to employee empowerment and employability by inviting ideas but not acting
on them (Herriot, 2001)? Such an approach goes beyond HR-dominated streams
of practice (such as high performance work practices and high involvement work
practices), because it is rooted in the choices made on how to design the
production system. Hence, it goes beyond HR practices by supporting and
improving the underlying causes of engagement and not merely softening the
possible negative effects of non-engagement.

The culture orientation, on the other hand, includes practices that provide
opportunities for employees to participate in various ways such as, for example, in
organizational decision-making (Oeij et al., 2015). Participation is more than being
listened to; rather, employees co-decide on the issues that concern them and
affect their day-to-day work and well-being (Oeij et al., 2015). Participation is not
limited to employees but also applies to employee representatives engaging in
dialogue and collective bargaining. Culture-oriented practices can stimulate
commitment and provide employees and employee representatives with voice
(Totterdill & Exton, 2014). As such, not only do they allow for voice in contract
negotiations and pay for performance decisions, but also consist of psychological
rewards, such as appreciation, recognition and professional acknowledgement.
Genuine commitment and voice find expression in ‘formal’ rewards and in the
psychological contract and employee relations.
The practice of WPI poses four challenges that the field of WO psychology is in a
very good position to address. First, in order to practice WPI successfully and reap
the benefits associated with it, one needs to look at the organization as a whole
and consider the reciprocal effects of strategy, structure, and culture (Howaldt,
Oeij, Dhondt, & Fruytier, 2016). Although not uncontested, it was Chandler (1962)
who coined the adage that structure follows strategy, to which we add that culture
follows structure (see Figure 1). Strategy determines the design of the production
of products or services, based on the central purpose of the organization. The
evolving production system reflects a design built on a certain division of labour,
which can be characterised in terms of high or low job autonomy, i.e.,
decentralised versus centralised. From here follows the nature of operational
employment relationships (in particular, dealing with the degree of the division of
managing and executing tasks and the splitting up of responsibilities and decision
latitude in the working process), which is mirrored in the design of departments,
teams, jobs, and tasks. Meanwhile, the management philosophy (i.e., centralised
vs. decentralised) determines not only the production system, but also the type of
HR system applied to support the production system. As such, the HR system can
focus on either control or commitment. Third, strategy and structure set the
boundaries for the organizational behaviour exhibited by leaders/managers and
employees. A preference for centralised or decentralised production systems
breeds a type of leadership that is either task-oriented or people-oriented (i.e.,
transactional and more top-down, and transformational and more bottom-up
leadership, respectively), and lays foundations for employee engagement. Such
behaviour is further stimulated or facilitated by the HR system. Ultimately, the HR
system defines the social and contractual elements of the employment
relationships and the features of the economic and psychological contract,
described as employee involvement. Finally, strategy, structure, and culture
together lead to a number of outcomes including quality of working life (autonomy,
stress, motivation etc.), organizational performance (efficiency, effectiveness,
customer satisfaction, market share, etc.), and innovative capability (resilience,
creativity, resourcefulness, right to play, future proofing, etc.).

Figure 1 below displays this reasoning. The absence of a direct arrow from
strategy to culture does not imply absence of a relationship between the two.
Rather, it highlights the fact that managers design structures that stimulate certain
behaviours. In other words, managers design organizations and, in turn,
organizational design largely determines people’s behaviour. In turn, behaviour
and structures define the culture of the workplace itself. For example, people tend
to behave differently within a top-down/centralised structure, which reflects a
control strategy, as opposed to a bottom-up/decentralised structure, which reflects
a commitment strategy.

[Insert Figure 1 about here]

WO psychologists are in a good position to help understand the causal links

among strategy, structure, and culture, which are too often overlooked (De Sitter
et al., 1997; MacDuffie, 1997). For example, few managers may consider how
strategy impacts structure and consequently employee behaviour, as described in
the example above. Few are also able to understand the multi-causal nature of
several of these elements. For example, organizations that are run top-down can
turn more democratic when stakeholders become more powerful to initiate bottom-
up renewal, or when external powers force an organization to be redesigned.
Unfortunately, in practice, WO psychologists tend to be marginalised, and viewed
as peripheral, even juxtaposed to the primary purpose of the organization, and this
tends to limit their opportunities for access to board level decision-making
(Karanika-Murray & Weyman, 2013). In many organizations, WO psychologists,
especially those who are more practice-focused, are often too much of an island
and for various reasons also unable to link their role to broader human resource
management issues. In the next section, we explore how WO psychologists can
position themselves differently and add value.

Second, WPI is by nature multidisciplinary: it brings together a range of

stakeholders and draws from a range of knowledge and practice domains. WPI is
not solely about worker engagement, workplace health, job design, or human
resource management. Rather, it is about integrating a range of perspectives such
as business and operations management. Too often, however, WPI seems to be
approached as a solely human resource management topic. As a consequence,
many underestimate the potential of WO psychology to contribute to WPI, which
may result in underusing the potential of WPI (Howaldt et al., 2016). Well-known
examples come from the work-related stress literature. For instance, many
practitioners and researchers tend to limit themselves to the application of stress
management programmes that deal with the effects of stress, but overlook the
causes of stress that are deeper within the organization’s structure (Cox, Griffiths,
& Rial-González, 2000; Cox, Karanika, Griffiths, & Houdmont, 2007; Karasek &
Theorell, 1992; Kompier & Kristensen, 2001; Oeij et al., 2006).

Third, because WPI practice necessarily involves the organization in its entirety, it
also poses communication challenges for those involved in its implementation,
including managers, researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders. In
practice, human resource, line, and operational managers seem to function within
separate silos within organizations. Indeed, this communication issue is known
(Petronio, Ellemers, Giles, & Gallois, 1998; Roehling et al., 2005; Stone, 2004;
Sutcliffe, Lewton, & Rosenthal, 2004). By appreciating the stakeholders’ different
perspectives, WO psychologists can help to identify and address their different
needs and facilitate dialogue among them. For example, by understanding both
research and the needs of the business and its commitments to customers, they
are able to better translate research findings into practice and align these to
business priorities. By understanding leadership theory and employee motivation,
they are able to appreciate the challenges that managers have, identify the
motivational needs of employees, and smooth communication between the two.
And by getting acquainted with the basics of operations management, they are
able to become better partners for engineers and shop floor managers.

Fourth, although WPI is necessarily an affair among multiple stakeholders, the

hierarchical nature of organizations often means that power rather than relevance
or expertise determine the influence of specific stakeholders and this is especially
the case in WPI practice. Power in most organizations is asymmetrically
distributed (Buchanan & Badham, 2008), which means that owners and managers
have higher decision-making power than those carrying out the work. Often,
management fads, opinions, and desires feed change, rather than rigorous
evidence and evidence-based good practice. How managers think largely
influences how the organization is or should be run. A management philosophy,
for instance, to centralise or decentralise, may strongly affect whether an
organization is led more top-down or bottom-up, respectively. Convincing
examples stem from the literature on lean management. Originally, lean
management saw high quality of working life and genuine team autonomy as key
drivers for enhancing the quality of performance (Suzaki, 1987; Womack & Jones,
1996; Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990). However, the practical application of lean
thinking has been dominated by a drive to improve cost-efficiency at the detriment
of the quality of jobs, essentially increasing workload (Oeij, Kraan, & Dhondt,
2013). In this case, the potential of WO psychology to take a whole-systems
approach can be beneficial. The context of WPI makes collaboration between
practitioners and researchers and between WO psychologists and other
professionals extremely important. In the next section, we make the potential
value of WO psychology more tangible.

How can WPI practice recognize the untapped potential of WO psychology?

Achieving a more substantive use of WO psychology in WPI practice relies on two

conditions: that WPI recognises the potential that WO psychology can offer and, at
the same time, that WO psychologists broaden their role in WPI practice. For WPI
to recognise the potential of WO psychology, two recommendations can be made.

First, it is necessary that all WPI stakeholders develop a recognition that WPI
practice is multidisciplinary and involves a strategic focus on the whole
organization. Power and influence is important only to the extent that it is
functional and can help to achieve an agreed common goal. In this case, the
common goal is to successfully implement WPI, which can only be achieved if all
the elements of WPI are met and if all stakeholders and WPI practitioners
(psychologists, HR specialists, and social science practitioners) collaborate.

In addition, because of their training, WO psychologists are in a good position to

deliver the evidence in evidence-based management practice. Chartered WO
psychologists are trained intensively in all EU countries, but this training rarely
includes a focus on organizational strategy and structure. Integrating this focus in
WO psychologists’ training would help to contextualise their knowledge, make it
more easily applicable in practice, and strengthen its transferability in a range of
settings. This is all the more relevant in the context of WPI, given that WPI
research falls into the realm of applied science and involves offering solutions to
problems ((mode 2 of research) rather than developing ‘scientific inquiry’ (mode 1
of research) (cf. Anderson et al., 2001; Gibbons et al., 1994). This is in line with
Argyris’s (1996) notion of a need for actionable knowledge, that is, knowledge that
can be used practically to improve the functioning of organizations. For instance,
he points out that, whereas there is much work in the empirical literature on the
relevance of trust in managing, little attention has been paid to how managers can
create trust. Mobilising, translating, adapting, and applying research findings in
order to develop relevant practice that is based on solid evidence is a strength that
WO psychologists bring.
All WPI practitioners could consider the fact that in practicing WPI, culture is
dependent on both structure and strategy, and that these are determined by
management, marketing, business and sales, and (technical/operational)
engineers. This requires adopting a more pluralistic approach to collaboration.
Indeed, team innovativeness is dependent on both team climate and team
structure (Anderson, Potočnik & Zhou, 2014). Adopting a pluralistic approach is a
matter of self-reflection for all those involved in WPI practice in order to make the
most of everyone’s skills, knowledge, and expertise.

How can WO psychologists strengthen their contribution to WPI practice?

WO psychologists too can implement some changes in order to claim a place or

develop a stronger foothold in WPI practice. Here we present our
recommendations on how this can be achieved.

First, for WO psychologists to influence WPI, they must surpass HR management

and become acquainted with production systems design. This means that they
should understand the relationship between operational systems and job tasks
and how these job tasks relate to human resource issues. Adopting such a role
would enable them to partake in in improving both performance and the quality of
working life. It is thus possible to broaden the immediate focus of WO psychology
(from human resource management issues, individual health, and job design, for
example) and become acquainted with organizational strategy, structure,
production systems design, marketing, and IT systems. As Figure 2 below
indicates, the role of WO psychologists can be expanded beyond human resource
staff or ‘general’ managers (such as engineers, marketers, and technical
managers) to that of consultancy partners or interlocutors of functionaries.
Engineers, IT designers, and operational managers design the (technological)
production system, which defines whether job autonomy will be centralised or
decentralised. Marketers develop products in conjunction with manufacturing that
determines how production orders flow through the organization, namely with or
without a say of internal production experts. Human resource staff design human
resource systems as ‘supporting’ or ‘advising the business’, which has
consequences for workers in becoming docile or proactive task executors. Finally,
managers and team leaders may wish their employees to follow what markets
demand or to absorb market knowledge themselves from customers.
Consequentially, employees may become trivial task executors or co-innovators of
the firm’s products or services. Whether WO psychologists embrace their role as
active consultants or accept a secondary dependent role largely determines how
their expertise is used and developed. If WO psychologists choose the first
avenue, WO psychology can become more ‘organizational’ in relation to WPI
practice. This is a matter of self-learning and expanding the WO psychology
knowledge base.

[insert Figure 2 about here]

In addition, it is important for an organization’s management to understand that

WO psychologists’ expertise can contribute to both better jobs and better
performance (De Sitter et al., 1997; Pot, 2011; Ramstadt, 2014). The two are
inseparable. WO psychologists are also able to help achieve a balance between a
focus of WPI at the organizational level with a focus of WPI at the individual level.
This implies balancing business values and corporate economic objectives with
humanistic and societal values (Lefkowitz, 2008). This is a matter of WO
psychologists adopting a new role and becoming allies with top management,
decision-makers, and business owners, rather than simply acting as researchers
or consultants in the process of WPI implementation. Those who make the
decisions need expert input on matters on which they are not as knowledgeable. A
combination of knowledge and decision-making authority can lead to more
responsive practice and this can only be achieved by delegating a more strategic
role to WO psychologists in organizations practicing WPI.

WO psychologists also have a catalytic role for evidence-based management

practice (Cascio, 2007; Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007). By sharing their expertise,
they can demonstrate how research can provide solutions to broader strategic
challenges. By communicating and translating research findings they can help
practitioners solve problems (Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtney, 2007). For example,
Aguinis et al. (2010) described how psychologists can demonstrate rigour and
relevance of research for specific groups in specific contexts by collecting
additional quantitative data or more localised qualitative data to supplement
existing knowledge. This can be achieved by striving for a balance between the
particular (relevance) and the general (rigour) and for strong research that is
relevant for the aims and practices of business organizations. Neither
overemphasising relevance at the expense of rigour (Aram & Salipante, 2003) nor
pushing for rigorous research whose findings are not readily applicable to
organizational practice (Anderson et al., 2001) is useful.

Furthermore, where the evidence is scarce, WO psychologists can apply their

research skills to investigate specific practitioner-oriented research issues
(Shapiro et al., 2007). The generation of such evidence has to be problem-initiated
rather than a purely intellectual activity, transcend epistemological doctrinaire
views, and geared at testing the validity of research as “utilization of the
knowledge in the world of practice” (Aram & Salipante, 2003, p. 203). The
essential question is: can this research evidence or new knowledge be
immediately applied into practice? In line with this, Hirschkorn and Geelan (2008)
suggested that creating research translation roles is one of the four essential
solutions for closing the research-practice gap (the others being: fixing the
researcher, fixing the practitioner, and fixing the research). Creating a role for the
‘research translator’ who “would be adept at speaking the language of both
practitioners and researchers and would be able to translate research findings into
a form that is comprehensible, plausible, and appears potentially fruitful to
practitioners, as well as to convey the interests and concerns of practitioners to
researchers” (Hirschkorn & Geelan, 2008, p. 11) would also be useful.

Of course, meeting these challenges and redefining these roles can only be
achieved by no other than WO psychologists themselves who ought to be
equipped with specific tools. We use ‘tools’ rather than ‘skills’ to emphasize
practical immediacy and application in organisational practice. One of the most
important tools in this respect is political acumen. Indeed, “evidence-based
management is an inherently political project” which masks “underlying
fundamental differences of interpretation, purpose, and power among the various
stakeholders situated on both sides of the academic practitioner/policy divide”
(Hodgkinson, 2012; p. 404). WO psychologists need to “engage in political activity
in order to reduce or redirect the influence of the key stakeholders” (Anderson et
al., 2001). As Anderson et al. (2001) observe, the push and pull between two
groups of stakeholders, powerful academics and organizational clients, drives
practitioners towards either pedantic or populist science and away from the ideal
of pragmatic science. By exercising political acumen and taking a more strategic
approach to collaboration, WO psychologists can help to balance practical
relevance with methodological rigour (Anderson et al., 2001; Buchanan &
Badham, 2008; Cascio, 2007).

Furthermore, redistribution of power and influence necessarily involves the

development of communities of practice who can be crucial for translating and
adopting research into practice and for highlighting practical problems to guide
research. If participatory action research is essential for WPI, communities of
practice can offer the bridges by which WO psychologists can produce knowledge
for WPI practice. As Bartunek (2007) notes, “the most frequent means of creating
academic practitioner relationships is through engaged scholarship, or
collaborative research”, which implies “relationships between researchers and
practitioners that jointly produce knowledge that can both advance the scientific
enterprise and enlighten a community of practitioners” (p. 1328). Thus, ‘engaged
scholarship’ as a mode of linking research and practice can both boost the
relevance of research to practice and also contribute to enhanced domain
knowledge (Van de Ven, 2007; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006; also see McKelvey,
2006). Developing communities of practice may be difficult, but it is possible. It
may necessitate aligning researchers’ and practitioners’ disparate beliefs about
science and the relevance of the scientific method for the workplace (McIntyre,
1990). Because WO psychologists in academic and applied settings tend to differ
in their work values, (Brooks, Grauer, Thornbury, & Highhouse, 2003), developing
communities of practice may also necessitate acknowledging and being more
tolerant of these differences. For example, Brooks et al. (2003) showed that
autonomy and scientific research were more important for academics, whereas
affiliation, money, and a structured work environment were more important for
practitioners. By applying his or her specialised analytical background into real-
world practical settings, the experienced academic practitioner is in a position to
appreciate differences in values and priorities, and align the needs of practice with
the values of research.

Concluding thoughts

There has been increasing concern in WO psychology about the divide between
research and practice, which is clearly evident in the context of WPI. In this essay,
we have highlighted a range of ways to achieve a meaningful and productive
engagement between the two. Although a small minority believe that the
researcher practitioner divide is too challenging to bridge (e.g., Kieser & Leiner,
2009) or that the scientist-practitioner model too challenging to adopt (e.g., Brooks
et al., 2003; Murphy & Saal, 1990), we have highlighted many reasons to be
optimistic. As some scholars note, researchers and practitioners are more alike
than different (e.g., Bartunek & Rynes, 2014) and bridging the gap “is already
happening” (Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009). Appreciating the underused
potential of WO psychology is essential for enabling psychologists to make a
unique contribution to WPI practice. Bridging the gap requires WO psychologists
to further expand their knowledge by learning from other fields such as business
and operations management. Only by embracing an ‘integral perspective’ (De
Sitter et al., 1997; MacDuffie, 1997; Van Amelsvoort & Van Hootegem, in this
issue) can WO psychologists become good interlocutors for management, and
good service providers for both employees and managers. Both these key
organizational stakeholders can benefit from the WO psychologists’ input in order
to perform productively in their jobs and, at the same time, enable healthy and
challenging workplaces. Moreover, by offering such input, WO psychologists can
bring together their natural focus on people and behaviour (i.e., culture and
leadership) and their developing understanding of systems and institutions (i.e.,
strategy, structure, and power).
 References
Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Abbott, J. L., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D.
(2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor,
relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13,
(3), 515-539.
Anderson, N. (2005). Relationships between practice and research in personnel
selection: Does the left hand know what the right is doing. In: A. Evers, N.,
Anderson, & O. Smit-Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel
Selection (pp. 1-24). John Wiley & Sons. Commented [DR1]: Place of publication?

Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner‐researcher

divide in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we
now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74, (4), 391-411.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in
organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding
framework. Journal of Management, 40 (5), 1297-1333.
Aram, J. D., & Salipante, P. F. (2003). Bridging scholarship in management:
Epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management, 14, (3), 189-205.
Arber, A. (2006). Reflexivity: A challenge for the researcher as practitioner?
Journal of Research in Nursing, 11, (2), 147-157.
Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint
or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, (6), 1323-1333.
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and
unlike: The paradoxes of Academic–Practitioner Relationships. Journal of
Management, 40, (5), 1181-1201.
Brooks, M. E., Grauer, E., Thornbury, E. E., & Highhouse, S. (2003). Value
differences between scientists and practitioners: A survey of SIOP members. The
Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40, (4), 17-23.
Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2008). Power, politics, and organizational change:
Winning the turf game. London: Sage.
Cascio, W. F. (2007). Evidence-based management and the marketplace for
ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 50, (5), 1009-1012.
Chandler, A.D. Jr. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the
American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge. Boston, MA: MIT Press
Cox, T., Griffiths, A., & Rial-González, E. (2000). Research on work-related stress.
Bilbao: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.
Cox, T., Karanika, M., Griffiths, A., & Houdmont, J. (2007). Evaluating
organizational-level work stress interventions: Beyond traditional methods. Work &
Stress, 21, (4), 348-362.
De Sitter, L. U., Den Hertog, J. F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex
organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human
Relations, 50, (5), 497-534.
Fraser, D. M. (1997). Ethical dilemmas and practical problems for the practitioner
Commented [DR2]: Reference incomplete
researcher. ,
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M.
(1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research
in contemporary societies. Sage. Commented [DR3]: Place of publication?

Herriot, P. (2001). The Employment Relationship: A Psychological Perspective.

Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.
Hirschkorn, M. & Geelan, D. (2008). Bridging the research-practice gap: Research
translation and/or research transformation. The Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 54, (1), 1-13.
Hodgkinson, G. P. (2012). The politics of evidence-based decision making. The
Oxford Handbook of Evidence Based Management, 404-419. Commented [DR4]: Any editors for this handbook? Also
where was it published and by whom?
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap
in management research: It's already happening! Journal of Management Studies,
46, (3), 534-546.
Howaldt, J., Oeij, P.R.A., Dhondt, S. & Fruytier, B. (2016). Workplace innovation
and social innovation: an introduction. World Review of Entrepreneurship,
Management and Sustainable Development, 12, (1), 1-12.
Karanika-Murray, M., & Weyman, A. K. (2013). Optimising workplace interventions
for health and well-being: A commentary on the limitations of the public health
perspective within the workplace health arena. International Journal of Workplace
Health Management, 6, (2), 104-117.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1992). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the
reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic books.
Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management
research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, (3), 516-533.
Kompier, M. A. J., & Kristensen, T. S. (2001). Organizational work stress
interventions in a theoretical, methodological and practical context. In: J. Dunham
(Ed.), Stress in the workplace: Past, present and future (pp. 164-190).
Philadelphia, PA, US: Whurr Publishers.
Lefkowitz, J. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should… expand the
values of organizational psychology to match the quality of its ethics. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29, (4), 439-453.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1997). The road to “root cause”: Shop-floor problem-solving at
three auto assembly plants. Management Science, 43 (4), 479-502.
McKelvey, B. (2006). Van De Ven and Johnson's “engaged scholarship”: Nice try,
but… Academy of Management Review, 31, (4), 822-829.
McIntyre, R. M. (1990). Our science-practice: The ghost of industrial-
organizational psychology yet to come. In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.),
Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 25–48).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Murphy, K. R., & Saal, F. E. (1990). What should we expect from scientist-
practitioners? In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations:
Integrating science and practice (pp. 49–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nye, J. S. (2008). Bridging the gap between theory and policy. Political
Psychology, 29, (4), 593603.
Oeij, P. R. A., Kraan, K. & Dhondt, S. (2013). Work teams and psychosocial risks
and work stress. OSH Wiki. Retrieved 31 December 2015,
https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Work_teams_and_psychosocial_risks_and_work_stress
Oeij, P. R. A., Wiezer, N. M., Elo, A.-L., Nielsen, K., Vega, S., Wetzstein, A., &
Żołnierczyk, D. (2006). Combating psychosocial risks in work organizations: Some
European practices. In S. McIntyre & J. Houdmont (Eds.), Occupational health
psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice (Vol. 1,
pp. 233-263). Maia, Portugal: ISMAI Publishing.
Oeij, P., Žiauberytė-Jakštienė, R., Dhondt, S., Corral, A., Totterdill, P., & Preenen,
P. (2015). Workplace Innovation in European companies. Study commissioned by
Eurofound. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Petronio, S., Ellemers, N., Giles, H., & Gallois, C. (1998). (Mis) communicating
Across Boundaries Interpersonal and Intergroup Considerations. Communication
Research, 2, 5(6), 571-595. Commented [DR5]: Looks like you have 3 references for
the volume. Is this correct?
Pot, F. D. (2011) Workplace innovation for better jobs and performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60, (4), 404-
415.
Ramstad, E. (2014). Can High-involvement Innovation Practices improve
Productivity and Quality of Working-life simultaneously? Management and
Employee Views on Comparisons. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4, (4),
25-45.
Roehling, M. V., Boswell, W. R., Caligiuri, P., Feldman, D., Graham, M. E.,
Guthrie, J. P., ... & Tansky, J. W. (2005). The future of HR management:
Research needs and directions. Human Resource Management, 44, (2), 207-216.
Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating Managers from an Evidence-
Based Perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, (1), 84-
101.
Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and
solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 249-266.
Stone, F. (2004). Deconstructing silos and supporting collaboration. Employment
Relations Today, 31, (1), 11-18.
Sutcliffe, K. M., Lewton, E., & Rosenthal, M. M. (2004). Communication failures:
an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Academic Medicine, 79, (2), 186-194.
Suzaki, K. (1987). The new manufacturing challenge: Techniques for continuous
improvement. New York: The Free Press.
Totterdill, P., & Exton, R. (2014). Defining workplace innovation: The Fifth
Element. Strategic Direction, 30, (9), 12-16.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and
research knowledge. New York: Oxford UP.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 31, (4), 802-821.
Wampler, J. S. (2010). Methods and strategies for bridging the design practitioner-
researcher gap. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D., & Roos, D., (1990). The Machine That Changed the
World: The Story of Lean Production. New York: Rawson/Harper Perennial.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create
wealth in your organization. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Figure 1: Structure follows strategy, and culture follows structure
Figure 2: Flowchart to conversations about the design of strategy, structure, and
culture from the WO psychologist’s (or social scientist’s) perspective
Legend:

White boxes = the interlocutors of the WO psychologist/consultant

Grey= central domains for the implementation of WPI-practices

Blue= domains less central to the design of WPI-practices, but with consequences how
for WPI-practices or how WPI-practices play out

Orange and grey dotted lines=WO psychologists are not allowed to ignore that they
must talk to White Box interlocutors about Grey WPI issues if they want to steer on
causes, and not just on effects (‘symptoms’).

Step 1: At strategic level: talk to marketing and business people who are responsible for
products/services and the business model

Step 2: at structure level talk to engineers who are responsible for designing the
production system into smaller segments like departments and tasks; align the talking
to engineers with the talking to HR-people, who are responsible for staff, and the co-
design of departments, teams, jobs and tasks, and the HR –system.

Step 3: concerning culture, continue to talk to HR-people and leaders and managers
about involving and engaging organizational members. Leadership styles and mature
ways of communication with bottom-up inputs are options for choice.
The WO-psychologist is the spider in the web that is linking the conversation about
strategy, structure, and culture, who is – on purpose - not depicted as he or she is
actually giving advice to the change leader who is supposed to be really central and link
the White Box stakeholders to engage about the Grey issues when WPI-interventions
are being developed and implemented. Not depicted either in this scheme for reasons
of simplicity, are employees / employee reps. and top management, but they of course
do play either a direct role or indirect role (via representatives).