I/O Psychology and the bridging of A. N. Leont'ev's activity theory.

Abstract

Abstract Soviet activity theory, largely developed by A. N. Leont'ev, can be seen as a European complement of American I/O psychology and an important current of action theories in general. This paper identifies major strength of Leont'ev's theory as bridging potential it achieves by situating activity between each of several major pairs of opposite poles: mind and matter or body (exemplified by thinking workers and their work tasks), subject and object, understanding and explanation, theory and practice, humanist psychology and behaviourism. Some implications of activity theory and its bridging potential are pursued in contexts of I/O theory-construction and research methods, and in substantive problem areas of job design, job analysis, organization development, and personnel training. An Overview of Activity Theory THE PRIMACY OF ACTIVITY Die Tat ist alles - The deed is everything, wrote Johann Wolfgang Goethe in Faust, Part 2. For Martin Heidegger, major problem of Western philosophy since Plato seems have been exclusive focus on abstractions and theory which obscure practical activity and pre-theoretical knowledge out of which concepts and categories really evolve in first place. G. W. F. Hegel moved away from static essences dynamic processes, an orientation which greatly influenced action- and revolution-oriented Karl Marx. In America, pragmatism is philosophical school of thought most immediately associated with a focus on the deed, on Greek pragma (act, business). Skinner (1989) reminded us that to define once meant to mark bounds or ends, that to distinguish was originally to mark something by pricking it, and that to determine meant to locate end of something. On level of human evolution, Dennett (1984, pp. 38-41) humorously traced development of thought from overt acts of communication between Bob and Alf back in early stone age, internalized conversations with others and eventually with oneself. Activity theory is a conceptual framework based on idea that activity is primary, that doing precedes thinking, that goals, images, cognitive models, intentions, and abstract notions like definition and determinant grow out of people doing things. What is unique about activity theory is that it pursues ramifications of this idea in contexts ranging from broad philosophical issues such as development of mind, political economics, and practical questions of how work impacts on long term well-being of workers. THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND PRACTICAL FACES OF ACTIVITY THEORY Originated by L. S. Vygotsky, developed by A. N. Leont'ev (1978, 1981), influenced greatly by general psychology of S. L. Rubinstein, and applied with vigour in both West and East Germany as well as in Scandinavia and Switzerland, activity theory can be seen as a European complement of American I/O psychology and management practices it supports. In both Eastern and Western Europe, activity theory has emerged in two contexts. The first is philosophical issue of relationship between subject and object, second is issue of how work should be designed and executed. The two contexts overlap. Activity theory sees workers as deliberating subjects and promotes job and work design interventions which allow workers engage in human, i.e., thinking and reflecting, way of being. In concrete terms, activity theory seeks increase two kinds of opportunities available workers: Opportunities regulate their own behaviour on job and, in long run, opportunities learn and develop. Corresponding two contexts of subject versus object dichotomy and broad issue of how work should be designed, we pursue two related objectives in this article. The first is examine this European way of looking at basic dichotomies that underlie psychological theorizing and practice with a view bringing extremes closer together. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.