Unless you’re living in a bunker, you’ve probably noticed that another wave of World War II commemoration is sweeping across the country, thanks to a major new PBS documentary. Everybody knows that the war reshaped political and social realities worldwide, and many know that it also produced innovations like Nylon, margarine, the electronic computer, and the atomic bomb. But did you know that it drove huge advances in industrial-organizational psychology as well?

If you answered “no,” I’d understand. The early history of I-O psychology is not quite as obscure as that of the wartime espionage services (to which it contributed), but it’s not exactly Ken Burns material, either. As a step toward correcting this unfortunate neglect, what follows is a brief look at the history of the field.

A short history of industrial psychology
The earliest recorded applications of industrial psychology occurred four thousand years ago. In 2200 B.C., the Chinese began using a multi-part testing system for selecting government workers. By the Chan dynasty (1115 BC), before one could become a government official, demonstrated proficiency was required in music, archery, horsemanship, writing, and arithmetic. In the western world, Plato described a program of managerial selection and development. He believed that people should work at a job that was consistent with their abilities and endowments.

The earliest recorded application of industrial psychology in the U.S. was in 1814, when the federal government began to experiment in a systematic way with tests for surgeons and military academy cadets. In 1853, Congress required examinations for clerical positions in the District of Columbia. Just before the Civil War, the Treasury Department required applicants for some accounting positions to write a business letter, demonstrate ability with arithmetic, and show some knowledge of accounting principles.

Government leads the way (really!)
Following the social upheavals of the Civil War, government scandals became so prevalent that President Grant set up civil service examinations for customs officials, post office workers, and several federal agencies. President Garfield continued the evolution away from a political “spoils system” of civil service appointments toward a broader system of open, competitive examinations. By the time of President T. Roosevelt’s administration, about 60% of all federal positions were filled by examination.

Around the turn of the century, assessment pioneer Hugo Munsterberg developed a laboratory simulation of a motorcar, defined the requirements (we would call them competencies) that contributed to successful motorcar operation, devised tests for identifying incompetent ship captains, and analyzed the aptitudes and interests of young men and women. About that same time, Walter Dill Scott developed a multiple-component sales selection system for Scott Paper Company that included a scored personal history form, a standard interview, a reference form, and a mental alertness test.

Assessment goes to war
During WWI, ten psychologists and two businessmen developed the Army Alpha and Beta mental alertness tests for selecting enlisted recruits. They also studied soldier motivation, morale, discipline, and psychological problems related to physical incapacity. Some of this work represented the first attempt by a large organization, public or private, to determine individual abilities and assign people to positions based on their ability.

Other developments in the latter part of WWI included a personality and pathology checklist to screen recruits; the forerunner to the military personnel file; catalogs of occupational needs; a graphic-scale rating system for rating officer performance; trade tests for evaluating specific occupational skills; and the establishment of key concepts of person and job analysis.

After the war, personnel managers continued to use personality inventories in employment, as they searched for ways to stabilize employment by reducing turnover and building a more cooperative workforce. Because they were not job-related, however, personality tests based on pathological behaviors showed mixed results.

The modern era begins
WWII brought a renewed interest in selecting qualified officers and enlisted men. Although the Army and Navy had dropped their general testing programs in 1919, they rehired hundreds of psychologists to develop tests to select officer candidates, determine mechanical and clerical aptitude, measure aptitudes for specialized training such as radiotelegraphy, and assess knowledge of specific trades.

The next major step forward in individual measurement was the assessment center method, developed to select officers for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS),  the wartime precursor of the CIA. The assessment center departed from individual testing, borrowing heavily from different theories of group interaction by emphasizing dynamic observations of a candidate’s “effectiveness.”

Each OSS candidate completed specially constructed, non-traditional exercises that were intended to measure such things as emotional and interpersonal reactions to stress, ability to solve problems, memory, and physical ability (imagine a G.I.-era Jason Bourne). While they completed exercises, candidates were under continual observation by psychologists who evaluated each candidate’s ability to perform effectively as a military intelligence officer.

The Army Air Forces also used an assessment process to record and measure the problems and reactions of student pilots. Before the war, this service branch had begun using medical examinations, psychological interviews, and educational records to select candidates for pilot training. Batteries of newly developed tests and simulations not only saved many lives, they saved more than $1000 for every dollar spent on pilot training. (Then as now, military aircraft were very expensive.) The effectiveness of validated tests and assessment centers was noted outside the military as well, and business interest in testing and assessment was rekindled.

Postwar challenges
After WWII, organizations were again left with a wartime workforce containing many people who might not otherwise have been hired. The resulting effects of turnover, absenteeism, and low productivity were overwhelming. In one RCA plant in Camden, NJ, for example, 22% of newly hired workers quit after 30 days and 50% left within 6 months. This situation fostered widespread growth in all types of testing and selection. Many companies and consultants set up research departments to continue the work advanced in the military, such as job analysis, selection, assessment, performance appraisal, and training.

Two major factors influenced the use of I/O tools during this period. The first was a shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy. In the late 1950’s it was estimated that 50% of the nation’s workforce had shifted from pure manufacturing to a service-related field. The rise of a service-oriented economy meant that hiring organizations had to be concerned with more than job-related skills – they had to consider the customer as well.

The second major factor was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination in the areas of housing, education, and employment. This led organizations to examine both internal and external selection practices. By mandating equal opportunities for people of all races, gender, and ages, the Civil Rights Act stimulated interest in validation procedures, job analysis, content validation issues, and race-norming.

Assessment of management potential grew as well, as business realized the impact managers had on worker performance. Some said that American industry and the American economy were held together primarily by the ability of talented managers. A shortage of professional and managerial talent was then, and is now, perceived as a potential crisis to a healthy economy.

I-O psychology today
Several factors now drive the practice of I-O psychology. A long-term stagnation of US productivity, combined with the continuing shift toward service-oriented industries, create increasing demands for tools to hire a more qualified workforce. For example, some organizations must interview 30 applicants to find one qualified person. This problem is made worse by a general failure of education to prepare students for employment. Finally, pressure from international competitors is increasing as globalization becomes a major factor in more industries.

These changes are driving a greater acceptance of the profession and a larger role for industrial psychology practitioners. At the same time, they are able to draw from a growing, sanctioned body of knowledge that does not require experimental verification. More than 90 universities now offer degrees in I-O psychology, and it is estimated that there are currently about 3000 practitioners in the field.

As business demands for their service increase, I-O psychologists are able to move away from research and do more applied work. The result, we believe, is better selection, closer job fit, improved training and development, a decrease in unfair selection practices – and overall, a significant contribution to the general well-being of American society