Organisational Psychology A2 overview and key studies
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- —
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
—Organisational Psychology overview• Specialist Option 4: Organisational Psychology- Organisational psychology is the study of behaviours within the workplace. Candidates will need to consider how social, physical and psychological environments affect individual and group behaviour in the workplace. For this option, candidates will look at aspects of job role, satisfaction, motivation, safety and leadership. Candidates should have the opportunity to explore the different issues and debates relevant to the psychological theories and concepts and the research methods used to investigate people working in organisations and workplaces. For all topics and studies, candidates should be able to:- describe, evaluate and compare the psychological theories, research, approaches, and explanations.- describe and evaluate research methods and methodological concepts (for AS and A Level)- consider how the topic area relates to psychological issues and debates (for AS and A Level)- apply the findings of the study and topic area to the real world. After each topic there is a list of issues and debates and research methodology which are most relevant to the topic. This list is not exhaustive and teachers may use other relevant issues and methodology in their teaching.—Organisational Psychology key studies• Key studies for Organisational Psychology- Landry, A T, Zhang, Y, Papachristopoulos, K and Forest, J (2019), Applying Self-Determination Theory to- understand the motivational impact of cash rewards: New evidence from lab experiments. International Journal- of Psychology, 55(2): 487-98- Cuadrado, I, Morales, J F and Recio, P (2008), Women's access to managerial positions: an experimental study- of leadership styles and gender. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(1): 55-65- Claypoole, V L and Szalma, J L (2019), Electronic Performance Monitoring and sustained attention: Social- facilitation for modern applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 94: 25-34- Swat, K (1997), Monitoring of Accidents and Risk Events in Industrial Plants. Journal of Occupational Health,- 39(2): 100-04- Giacalone, R A and Rosenfeld, P (1987), Reasons for Employee Sabotage in the Workplace. Journal of- Business and Psychology, 1(4): 367-78—Organisational Psychology key-study requirements• For each key study, candidates should know, understand and evaluate- the context of the study and relationship to other studies- the main theories/explanations included in the study- the aim(s) and hypotheses of the study [if stated]- the design of the study, including all methodology as appropriate, such as the research method(s) used, sample size and demographics [if known] and sampling technique [if known], procedure, technique for data collection- the results, findings and conclusions of the study- the main discussion points of the study.- describe and evaluate research methods used in and methodological concepts included in the study (for AS and A Level)- describe and evaluate the psychological issues and debates (for AS and A Level) included in the study.
Organisational psychology links people, groups, tasks and workplace systems
| Level | Core questions | Typical outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Individual | What needs, goals, attitudes, skills and health shape work? | Motivation, satisfaction, performance, absence/sabotage |
| Group/leadership | How do leaders, roles, teams, norms and identity coordinate or exclude? | Decisions, cohesion, conflict, access to authority |
| Task/technology | How do workload, autonomy, monitoring and design change attention/control? | Accuracy, vigilance, stress, privacy and error |
| Physical/safety system | How do hazards, housekeeping, reporting and prevention interact? | Near misses, injury severity/frequency and lost time |
| Organisation/context | How do reward, justice, culture and policy distribute consequences? | Commitment, trust, productivity, welfare and turnover |
| Syllabus area | Recurring relationship |
|---|---|
| Motivation | Reward meaning and psychological needs affect intrinsic motivation/performance |
| Leadership/management | Style, stereotypes and role congruity affect evaluation/access |
| Group behaviour | Presence, monitoring, teamwork and conflict alter effort/attention |
| Work conditions | Physical/psychological conditions and safety systems shape error and health |
| Satisfaction/attitudes | Job features, fairness and explanations influence satisfaction, commitment and counterproductive behaviour |
For every organisational claim: define the construct → identify the level/mechanism → show how it was operationalised → state the observed outcome → compare benefits/costs for workers, managers and organisation → restrict transfer to the sample, task, culture and timescale.
| Lens | Workplace-specific question |
|---|---|
| Individual–situational | Worker disposition/need or reward, leader, group, task and system? |
| Reductionism–holism | What does isolating one variable reveal—and what workplace system is omitted? |
| Determinism–free will | Does surveillance/reward alter probability while preserving autonomy and voice? |
| Ethics | Are consent, privacy, fairness, job security and vulnerable power relations protected? |
| Validity/generalisation | Does a student/lab/self-report outcome transfer to actual work and cultures? |
Organisational psychology is not only a toolkit for extracting productivity. A defensible application balances performance/safety with autonomy, fairness, privacy, health and unintended stakeholder effects.
Five key studies connect motivation, leadership, monitoring, safety and sabotage
| Landry et al. (2019/2020) | Evidence map |
|---|---|
| Question/design | Two lab experiments manipulated cash reward as autonomy-supportive/informational versus controlling |
| Result/mechanism | Autonomy-supportive framing increased psychological-need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and performance relative to controlling framing; Study 2 web sample had 325 adults (170/155) |
| Limit | Reward meaning matters, not cash alone; short tasks/self-report and non-employees limit workplace transfer |
| Cuadrado et al. (2008) | Evidence map |
|---|---|
| Design | 136 undergraduates; 2 leader sex × 2 male-/female-stereotypical leadership-style experiment |
| Outcomes/result | Competence, efficacy and trait evaluation; regardless of leader sex, stereotypically feminine style received more favourable/competent/efficient ratings |
| Limit | Tests role-congruity evaluations through scenarios/students, not actual promotion behaviour or manager performance |
| Claypoole & Szalma (2019) | Evidence map |
|---|---|
| Design | Two experiments, 197 participants total (106/91), completing a 24-minute computer vigilance task with electronic/video presence conditions |
| Result | Electronic performance monitoring improved target detection; strongest effects appeared when two video-presence forms operated together |
| Limit | Detection benefit supports electronic social facilitation on one task—not universal productivity, welfare or ethical surveillance; real workplaces may add stress/privacy effects |
| Swat (1997) | Evidence map |
|---|---|
| Design | Three-year safety-monitoring project across foundry, machinery, meat-processing and furniture plants (2,964 workers); analysed 83 1993 accidents plus minor events |
| Result | ≥45.8% involved basic housekeeping violations; in one plant 95% of accidents/minor injuries were not reported |
| Conclusion/limit | Record circumstances, minor injuries/near misses and housekeeping to expose repeatable causes; observational records depend on reporting quality and four Polish plants limit transfer |
| Giacalone & Rosenfeld (1987) | Evidence map |
|---|---|
| Design/sample | Anonymous volunteer questionnaire from 38 unionised labourers at a north-eastern US electrical factory; rated 11 reasons and sabotage methods on 1–7 scales |
| Result | Workers accepting more reasons also justified slowdowns, destructiveness and chaos more—but not dishonesty |
| Limit | Reveals justification/account patterns, not observed sabotage causation; tiny single-factory volunteer self-report and sensitive-topic response bias constrain generalisation |
Match conclusions to outcomes: intrinsic motivation/task performance, evaluated leader competence, vigilance detection, recorded safety events, or sabotage justification. None alone proves a universal workplace policy or actual long-term organisational success.
Evaluate each organisational study as a linked evidence and stakeholder chain
| Reconstruct in order | Organisational question |
|---|---|
| Context/theory | What workplace problem and mechanism motivated the study? |
| Aim/hypothesis | What exact comparison/association was predicted? |
| Design | Lab/field/survey/records; IV/conditions, DV, controls and timescale? |
| Sample | Worker/student, role/industry/country, size and recruitment/allocation? |
| Procedure/measure | What did participants/records reveal, and was it behaviour, performance, attitude or event data? |
| Results | Direction plus useful numerical/significance evidence? |
| Conclusion | What bounded claim answers the aim? |
| Discussion/application | Who benefits/bears cost, what alternative explanations, and what should be tested before policy? |
| Evaluation lens | Evidence-linked question |
|---|---|
| Causality/control | Was the workplace variable manipulated/randomised, or only associated in records/self-report? |
| Ecological validity | Does the task, power relation and consequence resemble actual employment? |
| Construct validity | Does detection, rating, accident record or justification represent the claimed work outcome? |
| Reliability/reporting | Are procedures/scales consistent, and are accidents/sabotage suppressed or socially desirable? |
| Generalisation | Does student/single factory/four plants/country transfer across jobs and cultures? |
| Ethics/stakeholders | Consent, privacy, surveillance, fairness, job risk, discrimination and organisational benefit? |
Compare studies on one dimension at a time. Claypoole offers manipulation/control but an artificial vigilance task; Swat offers real, multi-year safety records but under-reporting and no manipulated control. The trade-off—not a generic ‘lab bad/field good’ label—is the evaluation.
Do not move directly from a significant result to policy. First identify the measured outcome, causal strength, worker/manager trade-offs, possible gaming or harm, and whether the result survives in the intended workplace over time.