Humanitarianism and the UN sustainable developmental goals are insufficient: The case for a humanistic industrial-organizational psychology

Full text

COMMENTARY
Humanitarianism and the UN sustainable
developmental goals are insufficient: The case for a
humanistic industrial-organizational psychology
Joel Lefkowitz
Baruch College and The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY, USA
Email: Joel.Lefkowitz@Baruch.cuny.edu
(Received 22 May 2023; revised 9 July 2023; accepted 16 July 2023)
These comments are meant to enhance the prosocial aims advanced by Mullins and Olson-
Buchanan (2023)“for I-O psychologists to effect meaningful societal change”(ms. p. 1). Those
aims can be enhanced by expanding the perspective of humanitarian work psychology (HWP) and
organizations targeted and by emphasizing individual and organizational perspectives—along
with the global SDGs.1
Their proposal consists of two synergistic components: HWP as an emergent “new area of
research and practice”(ms. p. 13) in I-O psychology and the UN SDGs as the “breadth of vision
that encompasses so much of what global society needs”(ms. p. 15, emphasis added), and that may
provide the guiding framework for implementing the HWP enterprise. Each component is
discussed separately, with an emphasis on why each is inadequate for achieving a morally
grounded I-O psychology that can maximize its contribution to human flourishing wherever we
work. I conclude with the case for a normative values model of humanistic I-O psychology.
Conceptual limitations of HWP
The nidus of the good is outside I-O psychology
There seem to be two versions of HWP (Lefkowitz, 2012,2013,2015): (a) using our
competencies (e.g., employee selection, performance management, and leadership develop-
ment) to benefit humanitarian organizations, underserved populations, or other entities
(e.g., NGOs) in which we have not heretofore had much presence, including individual work
pro bono; this has been referred to as “practicing I-O psychology in new venues”; (b) assisting
the prosocial or philanthropic contributions of nonhumanitarian organizations, such as
facilitating the effective implementation and administration of CSR programs conducted by
the for-profit corporations with which we generally work.
That is wonderful work (cf. Carr et al., 2012; Olson-Buchanan et al., 2013; Tippins et al., 2023).
However, in all cases, our contribution is indirect. We facilitate the good works of others. The title
of the SIOP-sponsored book in this area is “Using I-O Psychology for the Greater Good: Helping
Those Who Help Others.”The essential goodness of the contribution resides primarily with the
targeted enterprise, not I-O. What about the organizations in which we work ordinarily? It is most
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
1My criticisms of HWP and the SDGs are not meant to denigrate their aims in any way. But their limitations require
supplementation by a broader perspective for developing a normative (i.e., morally based) model of I-O psychology.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2023), 16, 514–519
doi:10.1017/iop.2023.54
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.54 Published online by Cambridge University Press

unlikely that any Amazon warehouse, Silicon Valley tech company, or Twitter will become an
essentially humanitarian enterprise.
Moreover, because HWP is conceived of as merely “a new area of research and practice,”
it does not require much change in the education and training of I-O psychologists. “No
substantive changes would be needed from current educational practice in traditional work
psychology; we need merely advocate that students should apply their knowledge and skills to a
wider domain of clients and employers than has traditionally been the case”(Lefkowitz, 2012,
p. 108).
The focus tends to exigencies and those in precarious circumstances, not the everyday
A Google search on humanitarianism yields examples such as: “the act of providing material
assistance to people in need”and “addressing the needs of people affected by conflict, natural
disaster, epidemic and famine.”This is, of course, laudable. But I suggest that a focus on disaster
and precarity does not provide the best moral foundation for representing all of I-O psychology,
qua profession.
Operational limitations of the sustainable development goals
The SDGs focus our attention on (only) macrolevel outcomes
The Sustainable Development Report 2022 (United Nations, 2022) presents a horrifying picture of
current global threats to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development from inadequate food
supply and nutrition, health, education, the environment, as well as peace and security. They are
global problems needing global solutions by national and international organizations. And they
are, accordingly, expressed at macro levels, for example, SDG #1: “End poverty in all its forms,
everywhere”and SDG #8: “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full
and productive employment, and decent work for all.”
There is no question that these are crises worthy of our attention and that of any
organizations that might contribute to their amelioration. But they don’t fit as guides for
“what I-O can be.”Mullins and Olson-Buchanan point out examples of what “has not been
working”(ms. p. 19): “The great resignation, the increased shift to remote work, the continued
rise of the gig economy :::work–life balance and self-care.”Although some of these issues
(and others) are manifested at the macro (national and transnational) level, that is not where
I-O psychology and I-O psychologists ordinarily encounter them and are likely to make a
contribution. Our research and practice overwhelmingly occur at intraorganizational levels so
that is where guiding moral values need to be articulated.
The SDGs are time-bound (hence context-specific) and complicated
The UN’s Millennium project (initiated 2002) culminated in development of the eight Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) with a 10-year time frame to ameliorate worldwide poverty, hunger,
and disease. In 2015, they were judged to have resulted in “remarkable gains, [yet] ::: inequalities
persist, and :::progress has been uneven”(UN, 2015, p.3). They were supplanted by the much
more ambitious 2030 agenda of the 17 SDGs, with approximately 400 more operational objectives.
Such a global scheme has much value (e.g., focusing resource allocation, enabling cross-
national comparisons, and tracking progress). But serving as the normative guide for I-O
psychology is not among them. Are we to change our moral model every 10 or 15 years when a
new international committee (having nothing to do with I-O psychology) prioritizes a new set of
global goals based on current world circumstances?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 515
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.54 Published online by Cambridge University Press

What is needed is a coherent and realistic moral perspective or values model for our profession
that is not time-sensitive or context-dependent (cf. Lefkowitz, 2006).
Humanistic I-O psychology
One advantage of the perspective proposed here is that it has a venerable history in moral
thought, encompassing philosophical humanism (cf. Edwords, 2008), humanistic psychology
(cf. Kimble, 1984; Maslow, 1962,1987), what it means to be a profession(al) (Kimball, 1992),
how that should extend to a consideration of societal issues by I-O psychology (Kornhauser,
1947;Roback,1917), as well as even shaping the nature of business management (McGregor,
1960; Pirson, 2017). Being part of such a tradition provides a long-term consistent moral vision
for a more humanistic I-O.
Following is a brief summary of a “vision of I-O psychology that attempts to go beyond the
limited letter of our de facto values to include a better representation of its spirit”(Lefkowitz,
2023, p. 360). In contrast to HWP, which is thought to be [merely] a “new area of research and
practice”(Mullins & Olson-Buchanan, ms. p. 13), humanistic I-O psychology represents an
explicit values orientation for the profession as a whole. It has the following four interrelated
components.
An expanded scientist–practitioner–humanist (SPH) values model for I-O psychology
Why are there no emergent subfields of humanitarian clinical psychology,humanitarian
medicine,humanitarian social work, or humanitarian educator? Because psychotherapy,
medicine, social welfare, and teaching are intrinsically caring professions; the characterization
would be redundant. That is not the case for I-O psychology because the values model that
guides the field, the scientist–practitioner (S–P) model, is incomplete and biased (Lefkowitz,
1990,2005,2008).
Professions have three aspects: their substantive and theoretical knowledge base (sometimes
scientific), the technological applications of such (their professional practice), and the moral or
values perspective that guides it—for example, caring and beneficent, or profit driven. I-O has
always emphasized the scientific (“Is the assessment valid?”) and professional practice (“Is it cost
effective?”). Rarely have we asked normative questions such as “Is it the right thing to do?”That is
why the S–P model is incomplete. Moreover, the model is biased insofar as—rather than being
caring in nature, or even “value free”as many of us proudly proclaim—the practitioner portion is
suffused by an economic/managerialist value system that largely determines what we do, how we
do it, and how we evaluate what we’ve done.
An avowedly normative (moral and ethical) perspective
Prior generations of I-O psychologists were indoctrinated with the view that we must be rigorous
scientists in order to refute the image of I-O as a mere “servant of power”(e.g., Baritz, 1960).
This meant the disavowal of all (subjective and putatively unscientific) values. Consequently,
topics like fairness, ethics, and morality were barely mentioned in our texts, classrooms, internship
placements, or informal discussions with professors and mentors. This position was maintained
ironically (or disingenuously) while we were simultaneously immersed and socialized in an
economic, capitalist, free-market value system emphasizing productivity, efficiency, and short-
term profitability for shareholders.
Arguably, the neoliberal world of work has become even more onerous than Mullins and Olson-
Buchanan’s indication of what’s“not been working”(cf. Mumby, 2019). Yet, our disavowal of (social)
values has precluded us from taking any normative stances at all, such as advancing
“a notion of what organizations should be like with respect to their employees”(Lefkowitz, 2012,
516 Joel Lefkowitz
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.54 Published online by Cambridge University Press

p. 110, emphasis in the original), promoting the importance of “meaningful work,”a“living wage,”
or even an unconditional “basic income”(Hüffmeier & Zacher, 2021). A portion of “the conundrum of
I-O psychology”is that too often “we help even those organizations who do not deserve it”(Lefkowitz,
2019, p. 476).
A renewed concern for the individual employee
There were major scientific advances in I-O psychology beginning in the 1960s, emphasizing
organizational theory, organizational behavior, and the organizational level of analysis—
culminating in a formal name change from industrial psychology to industrial and organizational
psychology. Accentuating I-O’s managerialist bias, an unanticipated and adverse consequence of
such over the past few decades has been our neglect of individual workers in the face of massive
and repetitive layoffs, their objectification as just another resource to be exploited, ubiquitous
surveillance, wage stagnation despite rising productivity and profits, etc..
Weiss and Rupp (2011) decry the absence of a “person-centric”approach in I-O and call for a
“full and focused appreciation for the individual at work”(p. 83). Although their concern is
methodological—for the field’s research orientation—that “is not really separable from a
normative- or morally-driven empathic and humanistic approach to individual workers”
(Lefkowitz, 2011, p. 113). It would be inconsistent and difficult to adopt such a person-centric
research perspective in organizations without also advocating for employees, which our profession
views as unscientific, so we don’t do it.
Concern for both scientific-technical competence as well as societal consequences of our work
This is where the UN SDGs may make a substantial contribution to the humanistic orientation
advocated here, expanding the criteria of effectiveness by which we judge our own work. It is not
an unreasonable “stretch”insofar as “any aspect of the professional practice of I-O psychology can
be viewed from a perspective beyond that of the organization in which it is taking place”
(Lefkowitz, 2023, p. 405). And that orientation is aligned with the current zeitgeist in psychology
overall: “Public psychology: cultivating engaged science”(Eaton et al., 2021).
Summary and conclusion: it’s a values issue
“The difference between contemporary work psychology and a putatively humanistic work
psychology is one of values orientation”(Lefkowitz, 2012, p. 108). And we rarely acknowledge that
our personal and professional values influence the propriety of what we do and don’t do as I-O
psychologists. That is unfortunate because:
At the individual level, it is one’s personal values that shape one’s moral sensitivities and
ethical behavior. It is a profession’svalues that determine its goals and self-construed duties,
responsibilities, and ethical standards, its response to sociopolitical events that affect it
(e.g., civil rights legislation and rampant downsizing), and the choices made by its members
concerning where they work, what they study, and the criteria by which they evaluate that
work. (Lefkowitz, 2008, p. 440)
Some years ago, a question was posed, “The values of I-O psychology: Who are we?”(Lefkowitz,
2005). What was meant, of course, was the normative query who should we be? The brief
aspirational values statement below is a proposed answer in keeping with the humanistic
perspective championed here.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 517
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.54 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Along with improving the effective functioning of organizations, a fundamental objective of
research and practice in industrial-organizational psychology should be to assure that
organizations are safe, just, healthy, challenging, and fulfilling places in which to work. There is
no inherent conflict between those objectives and improving organizational effectiveness. In
fact, the two are often related and interdependent. However, when it is anticipated that actions
undertaken to improve organizational effectiveness will adversely impact the well-being of
employees or other organizational stakeholders, the appropriate role of the I-O psychologist is
to challenge the morality, wisdom, and necessity of those actions and, if necessary, to attenuate
their adverse consequences to the extent feasible (Lefkowitz, 2023,p.418).
References
Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power: A history of social science in American industry. Greenwood.
Carr, S. C., MacLachlan, M., & Furnham, A. (Eds.) (2012). Humanitarian work psychology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Eaton, A. A., Grzanka, P. R., Schlehofer, M. M., & Silka, L. (Eds.) (2021). Special issue: Public psychology: Engaged science
for the 21st century. American Psychologist,76(8), 1209–1216.
Edwords, F. (2008). What is humanism? https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/edwords-what-is-humanism/
Hüffmeier, J., & Zacher, H. (2021). The basic income: Initiating the needed discussion in industrial, work, and organizational
psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,14(4), 531–619.
Kimball, B. A. (1992). The “true professional ideal”in America. Blackwell.
Kimble, G. A. (1984). Psychology’s two cultures. American Psychologist,39(8), 83–839.
Kornhauser, A. (1947). Industrial psychology as management technique and as social science. American Psychologist,2(7),
224–229.
Lefkowitz, J. (1990). The scientist-practitioner model is not enough. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist,28(1), 47–52.
Lefkowitz, J. (2005). The values of industrial-organizational psychology: Who are we? The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist,43(2), 13–20.
Lefkowitz, J. (2006). The constancy of ethics amidst the changing world of work. Human Resource Management Review,16,
245–268.
Lefkowitz, J. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should :::expand its values to match the quality of its ethics.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,29, 439–453.
Lefkowitz, J. (2011). The science, practice and morality of work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice,4(1), 112–115.
Lefkowitz, J. (2013). Values and ethics of a changing I-O psychology: A call to (further) action, Chap. 1. In J. B. Olson-
Buchanan, L. L. Koppes Bryan, & L. F. Thompson (Eds.), Using I-O psychology for the greater good: Helping those who help
others (pp. 13–42). Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Frontier Series.
Lefkowitz, J. (2019). The conundrum of industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice,12(4), 473–478.
Lefkowitz, J. (2023). Values and ethics of industrial-organizational psychology (3rd ed., 663 pp). Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
First published as Ethics and values in industrial-organizational psychology (2003). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lefkowitz, J. (2012). The morality of business: From humanitarian to humanistic work psychology, Chap. 5. In S. C. Carr,
M. MacLachlan, & A. Furnham (Eds.), Humanitarian work psychology: Alignment, harmonization and cultural competence
(pp. 103–125). MacMillan.
Lefkowitz, J. (2015). The maturation of a profession: A work psychology for the new millennium. In I. McWha,
D. C. Maynard, & M. ONeill Berry (Eds.), Humanitarian work psychology and the global development agenda: Case studies
and interventions. Routledge Psychology Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd Ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill/Penguin Library.
Mullins, M., & Olson-Buchanan, J. (2023). Moving boundaries in what I-O psychology has been, and what I-O psychology
can be: The United Nations sustainable development goals as an organizing framework. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology,16(4), 479–494.
Mumby, D. K. (2019). Work: What is it good for? (Absolutely nothing)—a critical theorist’s perspective. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,12(4), 429–443.
Olson-Buchanan, J., Bryan, L. K., & Thompson, L. F. (2013). Using industrial-organizational psychology for the greater good:
Helping those who help others. Routledge.
Pirson, M. (2017). Humanistic management: Protecting dignity and promoting well-being. Cambridge University Press.
Roback, A. A. (1917). The moral issues involved in applied psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology,1(3), 232–243.
518 Joel Lefkowitz
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.54 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Tippins, N., Hakel, M., Grabow, K., Kolmstetter, E., Moses, J., Oliver, D., & Scontrino, P. (2023). I-O psychology and
volunteer work. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,16(4), 479–494.
United Nations. (2015). The millennium development goals report, 2015. Author.
United Nations. (2022). The sustainable development goals report, 2022. Author.
Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,4(1), 83–97.
Cite this article: Lefkowitz, J. (2023). Humanitarianism and the UN sustainable developmental goals are insufficient: The case
for a humanistic industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 16, 514–519. https://doi.org/
10.1017/iop.2023.54
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 519
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.54 Published online by Cambridge University Press