G reenO rga nizationsDriv ing Change Withl -O Psychology

Ed i ted by

Ann Hergatt HuffmanNorthern Arizona Univ€rsity

Stephan ie R. K le inSHL

( , 1I a

El liv"l:gn":""

O , )

1 BWh at Co rpo rate E nv i ro n m e ntalSustainability Can Do forI n d u stri al -O rgan izati on a IPsychology

Hcrman Aguinis and Ante Cltva<

The premise for rhis edited volume is rhar industrial organizational(l-O) psychologv has much to conrriburc to corporare en.r'rronmentat sus_tainability (CIS) research and practice (Kl"in * U,rff_un, ,t,i, toot1. tnfact, the book's titlc suSgests that I O psvchology can sene as a ariver forchaDge.regarding CES. We agree fullv. In fact, each ofthe exceJlent chapters iocluded in this book offers nunerous suggesrions in this regard.

,Our , h.rprtr of i<r, rn r l r<rnrr i r e rer conrplemcnrurv p.r ,p. , r i , . .n rh"

rer, Iron\hrp bef l \een I O f \vchulogl and Ct_S. To parafhra.e tormcr U.5.President lohn F. Kennedy's famous inaugural address starement, in our\ hdpl(r rve ask not shr l I -O prvcholsgy,;n,y61or r tS. but whJl CE\ ( in' ro ror l -U p\v(hoto8y. More rprci f i .a l lv. we argu( th, j l Cf5 (dn help I opsychologyconsider rhe role ofcontext and..go m".r"," b. rn".",p.;;rdexplicit aboutvalues, consider people at wo rk in rerms oflong_term investments and partnerships, and reach out to other fields ofinquiry as rvell asre_thinl rradirronal areas or rerear. h and prair i re. Oreral l . \c bct icfe rhd ILl , ) .an helF I-O pw.hologv in rmnorldnt rnd meaningfulrv:rys panicu.ha\ regarding the brdging ot t lvo rroubt ins and "freniamenied gap, inour f i ( ld: the ,r ienr( pra.r ice gap and rhe mi( ro rn, jLro 8dp.,

First, rcgardinS the science practice !iap, Cascio ana egu;;s lZOOS I conducted a .{5-year (1963 to 2007, inclusivc) content anal).sis and review ofPublished rcsearch in the r$,o leadi ng journals in t O psvchotog,v: Toarnat o/Aplli.d P:v,holog, ' lApt and personnd psvcholog.r ptslrhr. Re.ulrs br,ejon a ddl,rbd\e jncludrng 5.780 anLle\ puhl jsh._d over ajmorr halr . r .enrun\howed (hd I , for rhe nu,r f . rrr . I O p,v, hology rc\(drch hrs not rddrc,\ed

379

-

380 . HerfltuLt Aguinis and Ante Glalas

important societal issues (e.g., human capital trends). ln cases when

I-O psvchology has addresscd societal issues, it has done so modestly and

mostly indirectly. For example, consider the topic of talcnt management. As

noted by Cascio and Aguinis (2008), talent management encompasses the

domains of rccruitment, development, rctention, human resource effec

tiveness, and organizational demographics. The record is decidedly mixed

rcgardinS the extent to which I-O psvchology research has addressed lhesr

issues. Spcc;lically, consider publication trends for the most recent period

included in the rc'view:2003 to 2007. l)uring this time, 1.53olo ofarticles

published in /APaddressed recruitment; 1.28olo of/AParticles and 1.26%

of PPs1,cfi anicles addressed development; 1.75olo of articles in /AP and

nonc in PPsycfi addressed retention;no anicles in eitherjournal addressed

human rcsource effectiveness (although there were some published meth

odological critiqucs ofthe body ofliterature that relates human resource

activities to firm performance); finall),, 0.44Eo of /AP anicles and 00,6 of

PP,,r/l articles addressed demographic changes. In short, although talent

management seems to be one ofthe most imPortant recent human-caPital

trends (e.g., "The battle for brainpower," 2006), I-O ps)'cholog) research

does not seemtobepaying much attention toit.In fact,based on these and

other results, Cascio and Agu;nis (2008) €oncluded that it

weexlrapolatepastemphasesinpubl ishedresearchtothenexl l0)€an,s€

are.onftonted with one conpelling conclusion, namely. that I'O ps-vchol

ogy will Dot be out front in influencingthe debare on issues that ar€ (or{'ill

bc) of broad organizationai and societal appeal. ( p. 1074 )

In short, there is a gap between I O psychology research and broader

organizational and societal trcnds.A second troubling gap is the micro-macro divide. I-O psychology

research and practice focuses mostly on individual and, to some extent

team-level phenomena. An examination of I-O psychology textbooks (e.9.,

Cascio & Aguinis,20ll) and compendia (e.9., Rogelberg,2007; Zedeck,

2011) indicates that major topic headings include Personnel selection,

training, performance appraisal and management, individual differences,

and job analysis and design. The vast majority of these toPics address

individual tevel phenomena. For the most part, organization-, industry-,

and society-level phenomena are not discussed in detail and do not play a

Whot Corporate Envircnmental Sustainabitity Can Do . 3Bl

'lhe emphasis on micro- rather than macrolevel phenomena is notsurprising given I-O psychology's historical roots in differential psychol_ogy. However, in roday's globalized and hypercompetitive business milieudriven by technological advancements, spe€d of communicarions, andflow ofinformation, a sole emphasison micro,level phenomcna can meanthat I-O psychology risks becoming irrelevant. As noted byAguinis, Boyd,Pierce, and Short (201I ),

"pracririoners who faceday-to-day managemenrchallenges are interested in solvingproblems from alllevels ofanalysis. Forexamplc, thev are interested in performance issues at the organizationaland individual levels ofanalysis" (p. 197). Ifthe research produced by I Opsychology addresses onlythe individual level, then it is liket),thar the sci,ence-pmctice gap mentioned earlier will continue to rviden.

CES is ofgreat imponance ro organizations and society ar large. Thus,I O psychology research on CES is likely to be received wirh inrerest bvndleholders ourside ot rhe f ie ld, rhereby improving t-O p,ychotogy s sldiure in terms of perceived relevance. When was the last tirne rve have watchedan individual on television discuss the latest I-O psychology knowledgeor rnterventions and their impli€ations for society? In contrast, we canforesee how I-O psychology research addressing CES has potential to bewidely disseminated and, again, this can help bridge rhe much lamentedscience practice gap in the field. Moreover, CES can help I,O psychologymove beyond an almost exclusive emphasis on micro level phenomena toa combination ofmicro- and macrolevel phenomena. By its narure, CEShas mostly been studied at the macrolevel phenomenon (Aguinis & Gla,vas, 2012). However, individuals make decisions about CES, have vaiues,attitudes, and beliefs about CES, and reacr to CES initiarives in variousways. So, CES can serve as a conduit for I O psychology to consider bothmicro- and macro level issues and thereby help narrow the micro-macrogap.

ln the remainder of our chapter, we provide a more detailed descrip-t ion of i l lustrar ive domain\ and issues tor which CEs can make a contr ibution to I-O psychology. To do so, we rely on the many excellent ideasand data included in this volume's chapters. Before we proceed, we clarifithat we define corporate social responsibiliry (CSR) following Aguinis(2011, p. 855) and also adopted by orhers (e.g., Aguinis & clavas, 20t2iRupp, 2011) as "contexr-specific

organizarional actions and policies rhattale into account stakeholders' expectations and rhe triple boftom line ofeconomic, social, and environmental performance." Thus, based on this

382 . Heftna/l Aguinis and Ante Glavas

definition, and consistent with its conceptualization in most ofthe chaP-

ters in this book, CES ref€rs to the environmental performance aspect

of CSR. In oth€r words, CES consists of context-specific organizational

actions and policies that take into account stakeholders' exPectations sPe

cifically regarding environmental issues.

CES CAN HEtP I-O PSYCHOTOGY CONSIDER THEROIE OF CONTEXT AND "GO MACRO"

As noted earlier, I O psychology is essentially a microJevel discipline. Inother words, the majority of I-O psychology research and Pmctice top-

ics focus on phenomena at the individual and, less often, team lev€l of

analysis. On the other hand, CES is essentially a macroJevel 6eld of study

and practice. CES refers to policies and actions by organizations. How-

ever, such policies and actions are influenced and implemented by actors

at all levels of analysis (e.g., institutional, organizational, and individual).

Accordingly, CES also subsumesthe individualand team levels ofanallsis(Lindenberg & Steg, this book; Pandey, Rupp, & Thornton, thisbook).

cES can help I-o psychologJ consider the role ofcontext and go macro

because research and practice concem ing CES will need to adopt a systems

approach that involves individual, organizational, and societal-level vari-

abtes (Andrews, Klein, Forsman, & Sa.hau, this book; DuBois, Astakhova,

& DuBois, 2013i Ones & Dilchen, 2013). Much like Aguinis and Glavaj(2012) concluded regarding CSR in general, an understanding of CES

requires a consideration ofactors and variables at multiple levelsofanaly_

sis. For example, such systems and multi-level perspective include a con-

sideration of organizational-level characteristics as well as pressure from

extemal stakeholders (i.e., macro level) and individual motivation and

goals (i.e., micro level).I-O psychology hasalongand illustrious tradition

in terms of the generation of knowledge regarding foundations of a field

that are based on individual action and interactions, what is labeled mtcro-

t'ot dations (e.g., Foss, 20 1 l ). CES can help I-O psychology place these

microfoundations within a broader organizational and societal context.

Our proposed integration of micro- and macro level actors and

processes will not be easy given the traditional I-O Psychology emPha-

sis on the micro level. Thus, to achieve this integration, it is helpful to

What Corporate Environmental Sustahability Can Do . 383

categorize CES into peripheral and embedded CES. perQreral CES focuseson activities that are not integated into the daily strategies and operations.Examples are volunteering and philanthropy. On the other hand, emted-ded CES refers to an integration into straregy and dailyoperations by usingthe fi.m's core competencies.

We model our distincrion betw€en peripheral and embedded CES afterthe notion of embedded sustainability recently pur forward in the prac-titioner literature by l-aszlo and Zhexembayeva (2011)- Embedded CEScan include building on the core competencies of the company in orderto deliver sustainable products and services and is integrated into thedailyoperations and overall organizational culture (e.g., B€rtels, papania, &Papania, 2010). Examples ofhow firms build on their core competenciesto embed CIS are cE's e€oimagination program through which cE usestechnology to provide environmentally-friendly products, and IBM's useoftheir information systems capabilities to help create smarter and greenercities througb their Smart€r Planer progmm. Srared differently, similar tohowAguinis (2011) proposed regarding CSR in general, CES is not viewedas separate from overall organizational strategy and daily operations;rather, "all policies and actions are affected throughout the enrire organization and at all levels of analysis (i.e., individual, group, and organiza,tion)" (Aguinis, 201 I, p. 865).

Viewing CES as pe pheral or embedd€d is imponanr in rerms of whatCES can do for I-O psychology for the following reasons. First, ir iscrucialfor future reseatch, especially research at the individual level ofanalysis-the "bread and butter" of I-O psychology. IfCES is at rhe periphery andmanaged by only a few organizarional members (e.g., sustainabiliry ofiAceror corporate foundation), then it is unlikely rhat micro-level research willmake important contributions. However, ifCES is embedded, then scholars can use cutrent I-O psychology theories to conduct funher researchon how human capital systems may promote int€gration of CES intodaily operations. Second, such a categorization allows future research tomore precisely assess outcomes at the individual level of analysis. As themeaninSfulness literature has put forward (e.g, Pratt & Ashfonh, 2003),employee outcomes (e.g., id€ntification, commitment, satisfaction) canvary depending on whether individuals find meaningin work (i.e., embed-ded in one's daily work). So, for example, our cateSorization can help IO psychology understand when and why employees are likely to "own"

sustainability (DuBois, Astalhova, & DuBois, rhis book) and rhe extent to

384 . Herman Ag inis and At,le GLa|a!

which CES is likely to affect the effectiveness ofhuman resource manage

ment practices such as recruiting (willness & Iones, this book).

CES CAN HELP I-O PSYCHOTOCY BE MORE OPENAND EXPTICIT ABOUT VALUES

In a comprehensive compendium of the field of l-O ps,vchology, Rogel

berg (2007, p. x)crv) noted that "...the goals of I/o psycholog,v arc to bet

ter understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well being of

both individuals and organizations." Likewise, the Society for Industrial

and Organizational Psvchology (SI0P) makes an expli€it mention ofval-

ues by noting that the field's mission "is to enhance human well being

and performance in organizational and work settings by promoting the

science, practice, and teaching of I O psychology" (Society for lndustrial

and Organizational Psychology, 2012). In other words, one of I O psy

chology's very open andexplicit goals isto help individuals, organizations,and society. This clear and explicit goal seems to collide with the goal ofa

silent majority ofacademics who advocate disinterest in practice in order

to achieve scientific objectivity (Palmer, 2006). Such a detachment from

values has been advocated so that research will "not be subverted to lhoseoimanagemenr, and that l l -O pwcholoSv re.ear.hers and Prrcl i l rorrer 'will not become mere servants ofthose in positions of power" (Cascio &

Aguinis, 2008, p. 1074).Tushman and O'Reilly (2007) argued that this self-imposed distancing

from vatues, with the goal ofachieving objectivity, reduces the quality of

I-O psychologv research, undermines the external validity ofour theories,

and reduces the overall relevance ofthe data used to test ideas. CES offers

I o psychology a different path: the possibility ofmaking clear and open

statements about values values that I-o psychology researchers and

practitioners hold but often may choose to not make Public. As ar8ued

by Lowman (2013), it is better to discuss values and ethical standards in

the open-and debate them rather than hiding them or pretending they

do not exist. For example, Intel's leadership believe, and openly proclaim,

that "business has a fundamental responsibility to consider the long'term

consequences ofits activities on the environment" (Barrett & Niekerk, this

book). An open discussion about values is needed because, acknowledged

Wat Corporate Enirotlfiental Sustaifiability Can Do . 385

or not, they play an important role in how people make decisions. As notedby Swanson ( I 999), "values cannot be ignored and are part ofthe decision-making process whether managers realize it or not" (p.507).

A discussion of values within the cont€xt of specific research and practice domains is not newto I O psychology (Werner, thisbook). Forexample, consider the rationale for and use oftest-score banding in personnelselection. Users and developers of permnnel selection tools face a para-doxical situation: the use ofcognitive abilities and other valid predictorsofjob performance leads to adverse impact (Aguinis & Smith, 2007). Thus,choosing pr€dictors that maximize €conomic utility often leads to theexclusion of members of certain demographic groups. Pre-employmenttest-score banding has been proposed as a way to incorporate both utility and adverse impact considerations in the personnel selection prccess(Aguinis, 2004). Banding avoids the strict top-down selection strategy thattnically leads to adverse impact and, instea4 is based on the premise that(a) pre-employment measures are never perfecdy valid, and (b) both predictors and criteria (i.e., measures ofperformance) are also never perfectlyreliable (Aguinis, Cortina, & Goldberg, 1998). Thus, an observed differ-ence in the scores oftwo job applicans maybe the result ofmeasurementerror and less than perfect test validity instead of actual differences in theconstruct that is measured ( e.9., general cognitive abilities). Consequently,ifit cannot be determined with a reasonable amount of certainty that twoapplicants differ on the construct underlying a predictor, thes€ two appli-cants are deemed statistically indistinguishable fiom one another and tie-brealing criteria may be used to choose one ofthem over the other. Forexample, assume that the computation ofbands leads to the conclusionthat pairs of applicants lohn-Susan and Peter-Ed have indistinguishabletest scores. If a school of business is seeking to increase the number offemale students in the program because women are severely undenepre-sented vis-a-vis the relevant population, Susan may be a preferred candidate over ,ohn. Similarly, i f a police depanment is altempting to increisethe ethnic diversity of its workforce, they may wish to choose Peter (Afri-can-American applicant) over Ed (Caucasian applicant).

Test-score banding has generated ve4/ sFong and emotional rcactionsfrom the I-O psychology community. For example, Schmidt and Hunter( 2004) argued that banding is internallylogicallycontradictoryand thus sci-entifically unacceptable. In their view, banding violates scientific and intel-lectual va.lues and, therefore, its potential r:se presents selection specialists

386 . Hermdn Asuinis and Ante Glaws

with the choice ofembracing the "values ofscience" or'other imponantvalues." ln contrast, Aguinis, Cortina, and Goldberg (2000) argued that, iftwo scoies fall within thesameband, they are considered statistically indis-tinguishable and secondary criteria (e,g-,job experi€nce, ethnicity) may beused in maling a hiring decision-panicularly if an organization placesstrategic importance on such "ti€-breakers." In the end, as concluded byMurphy (2004), whether someone supports the use of banding is likelyto reflect broader conflicts in interests, values, assumptions about humanresource selection, and one's position r€garding the tradeoffbetween ef6-ciency and equity. In other words, "there is no question there is an issueofvalues here that should be directly addressed" (Barrett & Lueke, 2004,p.9s) .

In sum, CES gives an opportunity to I O psychology to discuss valuesopenly and explicitly. What is a researcher's position regarding CES? Doesa practitioner believe that CES is a necessary evil, or something that I-Opsychology should support and encourage? Based on our earlier discus-sion, should CES be emb€dded or p€ripheral? More broadly, CES can helpthe field of I-O psychology be more open abour values and belief systemsin other areas such as diversity (e.9., what is the value of diversity for anorganization, its stakeholders, and society?) and performance manage-ment (e.g., is it acceptable that pay-for performance systems lead to largeditrerences in pay across employees?). Given tbe nature ofl-O psychology

and SIOP's value-laden mission statement,an open and explicit discussionabout values can be highly beneficial for the field.

CTS CAN HETP I-O PSYCHOTOGY CONSIDTR PEOPTEAT WORK IN TERMS OF SUSTAINABTE TONC-TERMINVESTMENTS AND PARTNERSHIPS

As noted earlier, a long-standing concern in the field is that I-O psychol-

ogy researchers'and practitioners'interests and values may be subvertedto those of management, thereby tuming I-O psychology into a mereservant of those in positions of power ( Baritz, I 960). To address this concern, CES can help I-O psychology think about organizational membersin teams of long-teim investments and partnerships. Consistent withSIOP'S mission, I O psychology researchers and practitioners can work

Wat Corporate Em/ionmental Sustainability Can Do . 387

towards the dual goal ofenhancing individual well-being and organizational performance.

A highly influential theoretical model in management, and particularlystrategic management, is the resource-based view (RBV) ofthe firm (Bar-ney, Ketchen, & Wright, 201l). ln a nutshell, rhe perspective is that 6rmsthat are able to acquire valuabl€ resources that are neither perfectly imita-ble nor substitutable without great effort are likely to gain a competitiveadvantage. Human resources is an important compon€nt ofRBV, which isconsistent with a view held in the field ofl-O psychology that people are acritical asset (Cascio &Aguinis,20l l).

Consider the perspective that CES can contribute ro I-O psychologyregarding the view ofpeople as a source ofa firm's competitive advantage.First, the "acquisition" ofpeople should consider a future long term andsustainable employee-employer relationship. Operationally speaking, thismeans that personnel selection procedures should focus not only on pre-dicting individual iob performance, which is the current focus ofl O psychology, but also a sustainable employee-employer relationship over time.For example, what will be the groh'rh opportunities for a job applicanrshould she ioin the organization? Wlat will be the possible career parhsfor the iob applicant? Will there be leadership opportunities? Whar will bethe opportunities to expand into other types of responsibilities? CES alsoallows for more overt integration ofvalues inlo the entire human resourcedevelopment process. CES has been found to signal to potential employeesthat an organization has deeper values than simplyshorr-term profit maxi-mization (Turban & Greening, 1997).Inturn, such values have given companies a comp€titive advantage in recruiting. Moreover, emMding CES inthe organization cannot be done without a shift ofthe organizational cul,ture to one that embmces values ofCES (e.g., <aring for well,being ofstake-holders and environment)- As a result, succession planning would need toexpand to consider the whole person. Currendy, there is an overemphasison pay and promotion. As Wrzesniewski ( 2003 ) puts forward in her model,employees have three major needs that should be met job related (e.g., pay,job security), career relared (e.g., pay equity, promotion, ability ro applyskills to a job, feeling us€fuI), and calling oriented (e.&, doing somerhingto make the world a bener place). tt is the lafter calling orientation that isoften overlooked in I-O psychology ressarch and practice.

Second, based on CES principles, training and development inter-v€ntions should also be implemented within a broader perspective of

388 . Herman Aguillk and Aflte Glayas

long-term and sustainable employee-employer relationships. The tradi-tional appioach to training and development is to consider skills that arerequired for the current position (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). A consideration of sustainability means that an important component oftraininganddevelopment are the skills that will be needed for positions in the tuture.

Third, adopting a CES perspective suggests that performance manage-ment systems should also focus on a long-term and sustainable employeeemployer relationship (Aguinis, 2013). The typical performance manage-ment approach in I-O psychology emphasizes performance appraisal-themeasurement of job performance. Moreover, performance appraisalemphasizes past performance (Aguinis, loo, & Gottfiedson, 20ll). tncontrast, CES can help I-O psychology fiame perforrnance managementsuch that it "takes into account both past and future performance. Per-sonal developmental plans specii/ couFes of action to be taken to improveperformance. Achieving the goals stated in the developmental plan allowsemploye€s to keep abreast of changes in their field or profession" (Aguiniset al., p.505).In addition, perfomance appraisal often emphasizes the suc-cessful implementation oftask based on ajob des.ription that usuallydoesnot include macro level issues. CES allows for an expansion ofperformanceappraisalto also include contributions to brcader organizational goals.

Finally, the view of people as resources is also reflected in the litem-ture on the psychological contract, which refers to an unwritlen agree-ment in which the employee and employer develop expectations abouttheir mutual relationship (Rouss€au, 1995). Downsizing, mergers, acquisitions, and other inter-firm transactions have led to a decrease in satisfac-tion, commitment, intentions to stay, and perceptions ofan organization'strustworthiness, honesty, and concern for its employees (e.9., Osterman,2009). CES can help I-O psychologythink about long-term and sustainableemployee-employer relationships (Becker, thisbook).lust as CES has beenfound to have a positive signaling effect to external sraleholders resultingin increased value-based congruence (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) and trust(Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulus, & Awamidis, 2009), CES can have asignaling effect on intemal stakeholders-employees. Firm involvement inCES can signal that the organization cares about more than just short termprofit maximization at all costs, that it car€s about thewell-being of stake-holders. As a result, employe€s might have mor€trustand faith in the firm,thus strengthening tie psychological contract and reinforcing a long termemployee-employer relationship.

What CorporaE Envircnmental Sustainability Can Do . 389

CES CAN HEIP I.O PSYCHOTOGY REACH OUT TOOTHTR FIELDS OF INQUIRY AND RE.THINK TRADI.TIONAT AREAS OF RESIARCH AND PRACTICE

The content analysis ofth€ I-O psychology literature conducred by Cascio and Aguinis (2008) revealed that research in the field has remainedfairly stable in terms of th€ relarive attention devoted to various topicsand research domains. CES can help I-O psychology research and practicereach out to other fieldsofinquirysuch as engineering (Campbell&Camp,bell, this book), information and communication technology (Behrend &Foster Thompson, this book), and environmental studies (De Young, thisbook). Although research domains closer to engineering including humanfactors and ergonomics were popular early on, studies addressing thesei.sues are now absent trom lM and PPsych-

In addition to reachingout to otherfields, CES can help I-O psychologyre-think traditional I O psychology research domains such as job analysisandjob design. civen trends towatd a green economy, the nature ofmanyoccupations is changing. CES can help I-O psychology keep up the paceregarding these changes in the world ofwork ( Dierdorff, Norton, cregory,Rivkin, & Lewis, thisbook).In orderto design work that leads ro borh highmotivation and job satisfaction, I-O psychology researchers have exploredthe impact of characteristics such as skill variery, task identity, task sig,nificance, and autonomy (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).Although such an approach has led to greal success 'because the motivational approach is widely accepted, it appears that many in rhe fields ofI Opsychology and rnanagement concluded it was a 'case closed' with respectto work design" (Humphrey et al.,2007 , p. 1332). As a result, the literatureon work design has remained focused on a narrow set of characteristics(Humphrey et al., 2007). CES provides I O psychology wirh rhe opportunity to explore how work can be designed in a way that goes beyondskills, knowledge, and attitudes and tups into meaningfulness, d€eply heldvalues (e.9., caring fo.others), and purpose (e-g., feeling of contributing roa greater purpose). Employees are increasingly seeking to find greater ful-fillment at work that goes beyond pay satisfaction and career advancement(Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003) and CES has become an avenuefor finding meaninSat work by addressing issues about which many peo-ple are truly passionate.

390 . Hemon Aguinis ana Anrc Glayas

coNctusroNsWe began our chapter by asking the question of not only what I,O psy,chology can do for CES, but what CES can do for I O psychology. Overall,{JES can help I-O psychology address two imponant gaps: thc scicncc-practice gap and the micro macro gap. First, CES can help l-O psychology researchen conduct studies that address issues ofconcern to society.Second, CES can help I-O psychology researchers and practitioners con-ceptualize individual behavior (microlevel variables) within the broaderorganizational and societal conter.ls (macro level variables).

In oul chapter, we made the points that CES can help I O psychologybridge the science-practice and micro-macro gaps by focusing on severalspecific issues and domains. First, CES can help I-O psychology considerthe role ofcontext and "go macro-" A conc€ptualization ofCES asembedded, as opposed to peripheral, can guide I O psychology research and prac,tice towards the inclusion of higher level variables including the organiza-tional and societallevels ofanal)sis. Second, CES can help I-O psychologybe moreopen and explicit about valu€s. At its core, CES is about an explicitstatement that sustainability is good and I-O psychologycan benefit liom amore explicit discussion ofvalues and belief systems, which influencedeci,sion makingwhether individuals realize it or not. Third, CES can help I-Opsychology consider people at work in termsoflong-term investments andpartnerships. Although I-O psychology does consider people to be a keyorganizational asset, the field could benefit iiom re-thinking employee-employer relationships on amorelong term and sustainable basis- Finally,CES can help I-O psychology reach out to other fields ofinquiry as wellasrc-think traditional areas of research and practice. CES addresses issueslhat go beyond any specific field ofstudy and, thus, can help I O psychol-ogybuild productive bridges with other disciplines such asengineering-

In closing, oul chapter points to only a few specific I-O psychologydomains and issues to which CES can make contributions. In addition tolhe points we addressed in our chapter, CES can also help I O psychology become more global (Reichman, Berry, Cruse, & Lytle, this book) andmake important contributions to the measurement ofCES initiatives andtheir impact (Strasser, this book). We hope ourchapter will serve as a cata'lyst in terms of future research and practice to establish further synergiesbetween CES and I-O psychology.

\\hat Corporate Enircnmental Sustainability Can Do . 3gl

REFTRENCES

Aguinis, H. (Ed.) (2004)- T.rt ture ban ti'g in hunan r.nur.e eledion: LesaL tuhnieLdrd Joaidral i5r!?r Weslport. CT: Prae8e..

Aguinis, H. (201ll- Orga.izarioftl rsponsibilir)4 DoingBoodand doirgselt. rn S. Zede.k(Ed.), APA handbook ofitd$tial and orsaniationat pstrholo€l (vot_ l, pp. 8i5_879).washington, DC:.r.ncrican Psy.hologicat Asciarion_

Aguinis, H. (2013). Pdrl.manP n.hd|.nent (3rd .d.). upper saddle River, Nl: peaFon

Aguinis, H., Bo/d, B. K., Pierce, C_ ,{., &Shon,l. C. (20t l). Walhng new avenuc in managemenr research nerhodsand thories: Bridging micrc a.d mac.o donains. /olrnatoJ ManryeddL 37, 395403.

Aguinis, H., Conira,l. M., & Coldber& E. ( 1998). A newprocedure forconputingequi!.lence buds in per$.nel *le.1ron. Hunan pdfonar.., | 1,35r-365.

Aguinis, H., Cd.iina, j. M., & coldberg E. (2000). A.la.iq,in8 nole on ditie.en.es bcnveenthe W.I- Cascio,I. Ourzz, S. Zedftk, and I_1. coldstein ( l99l ) and H. Aguinn. l.M.(brtina, dd E. coldb.rg (t998) banding p.ocedures. Hutun petotuate, jj,t99-204.

Aguinn, H., & Glayas,{. (2012). W}ar wc know and donl know about corpoaie sociat.esponsibilit): A reviMand iaet.hage dr. Iounal of Managenem, 3a,932468.

Aguinis, H-, too, H" & cottftedson, R- K. (2011). why we hare pcrfo.man.e management md why we sbould foye ir- BusiE$ Hoti@ns,54,sors}l.

Aguin(, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefrs oftruiningand daelophenr for individuals lDdteams, orgdiations, dd siery. Annual R'je|' oJ psycholog/, 60,451474-

Aguinis, H., & Smirh, M. A. (2007). Undeda'din8 ihe impact of16rmtidiryand biasons.rection eror and adr<se inplcr in human re$urce slection. p@",et psy.hotogr,,6q 165 199.

Batirz, L. (1960)- The s@ants otowr Mid.UdoM, CT: westeyln UniveBiry p.e$.B.rne).I. 8., Ket.he., D. J., & wridt, M. (20u). The turu.e of resou.ce-based lheory

Revitalization or dedine?./o,dol ol Managmefl,3Z 1299 r3r3,-Barett, c. V., & Lueke, S. B. ( 2004). LeSat and pmcrical imptications ofbaDding fo. Fson -

ner selection. In H. Aguinis (Ed .), Test s@re ba"lling in hunan retuuce yteclion: rrgat,E.hnical, an.l so.ietdL ksu.s (pp. 7l I tr). wesrpon, Cr: p.aeger.

Bertels, S., Papania, r-, & Pa!dti^. D. (2oro). Embe.Iding sustainability in oryariatirnalculture: A srstenatic t@iN of rte bo.Iy oJ knoetajte. landon, Onrario: Nerwork forBusine$ Sustainabiliry.

Cascio, w F., & Aguinis, H. (20{)8). Resrch in indushiat and organiarionat psycholo8yfrom 1963 ro 2oo7: Chang6, choices, and rrends. .Iouml of Applien prl.hokg/, ;j,1062-t081.

Cacio, w. F., & Aguinis, H.l2ort). Appti..! ptyehotry in h,na, /esoure nana+ement

Fo$, N. l. (201 I ). Why mic.o foundaiions for re$urce-ba*d rh@ry are needed ud Nhatthey na) look lile. .Iolaai o/ Managen.rt, 37, t4t3-r42a-

Huphrey, S. E., Nahrgdg, l. D., & Moryeson, F. p. (2007). lnregrating motivational,social, a.d conte\1ual work desigD f@tur6: A neta mattric summary and theoretic.lextension of the work design lit ntlte. Ioumal of Appti.d psychotogy, 92, 1332_1356.

razlo, C., & Zhexehbalwa, N. (2otr). Enbedated ,ustainabitity: Th. f6t big.onpetiriveadt!ffage Palo Alto, CA: Sranford UniveBity prs.

392 ' Herman Aguinis and Ante Glavas

Murphy, K. R. (2004)- Conflicting values and inrerdrs in banding rsearch lnd practice. InH. Aguinis (Ed-), I€5t-J.ore bandiflg in htndn rsource selection: kgal, technial. atdso.ierdl ksua(pp. t75-192). westport, CT: Pneger.

Osterman, P. (2009)- The ttuth abort ni.ldle nahagrs BGron, MA: Ha^,ard Busine$

PalDe., D. (2006)- Taking stocl ofrhecriteria we use toaaluareon. dorheis wo.lc ASQfiV ye^s our. Adminktranve S.ide Quaflqlf, 5t,531559.

Pctt. M. G., & Asbfonh, B. E- (2001). Foslering melningfuhs in working and hean-ingtulness at work An idenlit.y peBpective. In K. Cam.ron, ). E. Dunon & R- EQuinn (Eds), Poririr. o/8arianoaal schokrship {pp.309 327). Sd Frm.isco, CA:

RoSelberg, S. G. {2007). rnt.oduction. In S. c. Rogelberg (FA-), Enqtlopeiia of induttrialand otganibnonal pryholog (vol. I, pp. l]F ffin). Thoerd Oak, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Pit.fiowical cornaels it or&arian6: Wnnd and unwinefaSre eb Nehbury Park, CA: SaEe-

Rupp, D. E. (2011). An emptoyft'..nrer€d model of organiational justice and sial.esponsibility. Ors4rtz4rtoral Ps/thology Roitu, l, 72-94.

S.hnidt, F. 1., & Hunter, l. E. {2004). SED banding a a tesr of scienlific valu6 in l/Oprychology. In H. Aguinis (Ed -).-l en-sc6e bandiig in hunar Boure tuk tion: kgdl.techni@l, af,d societal issu.s (pp. 151- 173). westpon, CT: Praege..

S€., S., & Bhatt.charya, C- B. (2001). Dc doing Sood always lead ro doinS bener? Con-sume. reactions to <orporate social r6ponsibility. /oundl ol Marketi"g Res.dt.lt,38,115-243.

Societ/ fo. trdusr.ial and Organiational Prycholo8y (2012). Mision statement. Rehievedlanuary 29, 201 2 ftom hltp://M.siop.ortmi$ion.dpx

Swanson. D. L. (199). Toward an integhtiv. th@.y ofbsines and ecieqr A re@rchstrat.g) for corporate social perfoman... Aadmt of Managedefi RsiN, 24506 521.

''The batde for brainpowel ( 2Ut5, Ocrobt 5l- Th. Eto"o'in Retrioed lanulry 29, 2012,from hnp://w.economisr.com/node/7961894

Turbd, D. B. & G.ening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social pcrfom.nce and o.ganizational attractiveness ro prospe.rtue nployd- Aadent of Managnent Joumal 44,654 472.

Tushman, M., & O Reilry, C., (2007). RMrch dd reletuce Implicario6 of Psteulsquadrant for doctoral programs and faculty developmenr- Aadtuy of ManagenentJottfldl,50,769 774.

\4achos, P. ,\., Tsahalos, A., vr(hopoulus, A. P, & A\/leidis, P. K. (2m9). C-rporatesocial respotuibiliq. An.ibutions, loFlty, ard the mediaring rol. oftrusr. /o/nal ofthe A.d.lenl of Ma*etint Scidce; 37, r7O r9o-

wuesnisski, A. (2001). Findiq positive medinS in worlc In K. s. cd.ron. l. E. Dut-ton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positue oryoniatiotul yholaRhip: Foundanons of a nodsapiire (pp. 296 308). Sd lfrncisco, CA: BeBen-Koehler.

wnesniMski, 4., Dutton, I. E., & D€bebe, G. (2003). InterpeFonal sen* making and rhemeaning ofworl- R.sar' tr Oryanizttiwl Beharior, 2t 91135.

zed<k, s. (Ed.) (20 r I ). ,4",a handb@k of industial and oryaniutional psy.ltolisl washington, DC: Ame.ien Psychol%ic"l A5wiation.