Munsterberg believed in the utility of applied psychology.  His belief in applied and experimental psychology allowed him to develop many influential ideas that were published in some of his most recognized books.

In continuing on with the functional spirit of the times, Munsterberg was open to studying in various areas that he thought would be relevant to psychology, regardless of the fact that it had nothing to do with consciousness.  Also, he used a variety of techniques that allowed him to test many of his concepts. 

Through his applied and experimental work, he greatly influenced psychology that related to business and industry.  He was recognized as the founding father of Industrial/Organizational psychology, along with other influences as well. 

He was also seen as a good lecturer and public speaker.  

A major weakness that flawed Munsterberg's legacy was his devout patriotism to Germany, especially before WWI.  Munsterberg always vocalized his support for Germany and this in turn angered many Americans.  This resulted in the rejection of Munsterberg in the academic and social realm.  Even the mention of his contributions were rare during this time after he was made an outcast.  Since he went against the zeitgeist of the time, he was set in a bad position that led to a weakness in terms of influencing others in the United States and else where.

Many people criticized Munsterberg for his style in writing regarding various aspects.  First, he wrote almost all of his work in German, which resulted in the need for these texts to be translated.  The only Americans that could access the works of Munsterberg without translations would be Americans who obviously spoke German.  Thus, his range of information could have influenced many more people at even a greater exponential growth.  Secondly, he was criticized for being a bad writer.  Also, he had a tendency to duplicate his previous writings in later books that he wrote (Landy, 1992). 

When Munsterberg would report the findings from his studies, he would usually not report the data in complete sets or with detailed analyses (Landy, 1992).  For instance, he would give testimonials and not careful descriptions in validation studies that he worked on. 

In addition, when Munsterberg wrote on various topics, he often wrote in an open fashion that lacked the typical structure and format of a psychological report.  Also, he had the tendency not to give credit to individuals who had done the original work on the research topic (Landy, 1992).