Politics, policy, and pedagogy: Preparing I-O psychology students amid ongoing policy shifts

If one has been involved in the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) since its inception, as we have, one will have had several opportunities to reflect on the issue of licensing to regulate the practice of industrial and organizational psychology (IOP). Some find value in licensure, but the vast majority of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists do not. As the target article written by the Licensure of Consulting and Industrial-Organizational (I-O) Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force (2017) documents, there have been several policy statements made by SIOP leadership over the years. The essence of SIOP's policy is quite clear and consistent. Although SIOP does not support and will not promote the licensure of I-O psychologists, it does support a pathway to licensure for those who desire it, and is supportive of efforts to reduce the many barriers to licensure for those who desire it. It is our understanding that SIOP's participation in the LCIOP Joint Task Force was predicated on this long-standing policy.

“What if gender mattered less? Pigs might actually fly before that happens,” said Dr. Mikki Hebl at the Shaken & Stirred event at the 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference (I-O Shaken & Stirred, 2017). If gender mattered less, “SIOP itself would see differences. Women comprised only six out of the 21 SIOP fellows this year, and five of the 25 major award recipients yesterday . . . were women.” With that, she dropped the microphone and walked off the stage. This video has been viewed on YouTube more than twice as many times as most of the other Shaken & Stirred videos that are available, and it is this boldness that is needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology if we expect to see changes.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the current research on gender and diversity related topics presented at the 22nd Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference.Design/methodology/approachThe Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), a division of the American Psychological Association, seeks to “enhance human well being and performance in organizational and work settings by promoting the science, practice, and teaching of industrial‐organizational psychology”. There were 22 posters and 13 symposia pertaining to gender and diversity issues presented at the 2007 conference. An overview of these papers is provided.FindingsResearch findings indicate that although there has been progress, women still face barriers in their organizations. In addition, research on race related issues continues to indicate that perceptions of discrimination impact employee attitudes.Originality/valueThe 2007 SIOP Conference continues to provide researchers and practitioners insight into the latest findings on diversity related topics. This year's conferences expanded diversity research beyond race and gender to further enhance knowledge on topics such as, religion, sexual orientation, and methodological issues.

Professional ethics has not been a major focus in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology—in comparison with our study of unethical behavior in organizations. Consequently, we know very little about ethical situations actually faced by I-O psychologists. This article presents and tests a structural perspective on understanding the nature of ethical dilemmas that can facilitate such study. A taxonomy of five paradigmatic forms of ethical dilemmas is defined and placed in a theoretical context. Narrative descriptions of 292 ethical situations were obtained from a sample of 228 professional members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in the United States and were used to empirically test the taxonomy. The narratives were content analyzed for form of dilemma, work domain of occurrence, relevance to human resource administration concerns, and favorability of the situation’s resolution. The work domains that were most problematic were academic research/publication activities, individual assessment/assessment centers, consulting issues regarding the client, and academic supervising/mentoring. There were no significant differences as a function of respondents’ sex, seniority, or professional membership status (member/fellow). This relatively “content free” structural aspect of ethical dilemmas enables comparisons across different domains (of professions, organizations, demographic groups, age cohorts, etc.) in which the overt idiosyncratic ethical problems experienced are not commensurable. Similarly, it can yield interpretable longitudinal comparisons despite changes in the manifestations of ethical problems encountered over time.

We think that before reading our reactions to the focal article, readers should be aware of the history of the Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force. The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) initiated the LCIOP, and the objectives of the task force were developed without input from Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In June 2013, Don Crowder informed Mark Nagy (SIOP Chair of State Affairs) that the ASPPB approved the establishment of a joint task force related to licensure of consulting and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists. The membership composition of the task force was determined by ASPPB, and SIOP was allotted one member. By including a member of SIOP, ASPPB can describe the task force as a cooperative effort and SIOP ostensibly has the opportunity to help shape recommendations made with regard to the licensure of I-O psychologists. Don Crowder now serves as the president of ASPPB. In Crowder's October 2016 ASPPB meeting address, he encouraged jurisdictions to review their statutes, and, if permitted, require licensure for both health service providers (HSPs) and general applied psychologists (GAPs).

Quo Vadis, as the name suggests, was originally conceptualized as a series of interviews that would capture new horizons for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, including its more socially responsive and especially humanitarian applications (Carr, 2007). Proposed to the APA’s Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) by the late Emeritus Professor Frank J. Landy, the series has been staunchly backed by successive editors of The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist (TIP), Professors Wendy Becker and Lisa Steelman. We are very grateful for this support, and for the consistent backing by SIOP, including permission to reprint a selection of interviews in this book. The selection process was very difficult, and more excellent interviews with leading figures and ground-breaking practitioners can be found online at http://www.siop.org/tip/tip.aspx. The present selection is divided into two main parts: the current chapter focuses first and foremost on demand, whereas the next chapter is more concerned, relatively speaking, with supply (after a distinction in Carr et al., 2008). The interviews quite literally speak for themselves, and in that sense need no introduction. However, they are each presented within a similarly layered structure, with interrelated but nevertheless distinct ‘levels of analysis’ (MacLachlan, Carr, & McAuliffe, 2010). These range from relatively macro-level, ‘political’ perspectives on the one hand to ‘individual’-level analyses on the other; ranged in-between are organizational, occupational, community and institutional (inter-organizational) perspectives. To that extent, humanitarian work psychology — in its application — is inherently inter-disciplinary.

Few would dispute that the nature of work, and the workers who perform it, has evolved considerably in the 70 years since the founding of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) as the American Psychological Association's (APA's) Division 14, focused on industrial, business, and organizational psychology. Yet, in many ways the populations sampled in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology research have failed to keep pace with this evolution. Bergman and Jean (2016) highlight how I-O research samples underrepresent (relative to the labor market) low- or medium-skill workers, wage earners, and temporary workers, resulting in a body of science that is overly focused on salaried, professional managers and executives. Though these discrepancies in the nature of individuals’ work and employment are certainly present and problematic in organizational research, one issue that should not be overlooked is that of adequately representing nationality and culture in I-O research samples.

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) is Division 14 of the American Psychological Association (APA) and an organizational affiliate of the Association for Psychological Science (APS). The mission of SIOP is “to enhance human well‐being and performance in organizational and work settings by promoting the science, practice, and teaching of industrial‐organizational psychology” ( http://www.siop.org/siophoshin.aspx ). Industrial organizational psychology (IO) applies psychological principles to the development of strategies that build better organizations that contribute to the health and well‐being of both individual employees and the organizations for which they work.

The focal article (LCIOP Joint Task Force, 2017) is a painstakingly thorough discussion of licensing issues regarding I-O psychology as they have evolved over the last 40–50 years. There is also a very large literature produced by Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members, and cited in the focal article, that discusses many of these issues in some detail (e.g., Campbell, Levy, Murphy, Schmitt, & Weiss, 2009). The focal article makes a very useful distinction between health service providers (HSP) and general applied psychologists (GAP). The position of SIOP for some time has been that licensure should be required for the former, but not for the latter, although a path to licensure should be provided for those who need it. I would certainly agree. Also, the Society of Consulting Psychology (SCP) is much more infused with applied clinical psychology than is SIOP. Consequently, the licensing needs of most SIOP members and most SCP members are most likely not quite the same.

Presents an obituary for Paul W. Thayer, who died on January 25, 2017, at the age of 89. Thayer was an industrial and organizational psychologist probably most distinguished by his professional service. He was a fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA), American Psychological Society (APS), and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). He received multiple awards for his service, including SIOP's Distinguished Professional Contributions Award (1986) and its Distinguished Service Award (1990), as well as the APA Award for Distinguished Service to Psychological Science (2014). Paul's most recognized scientific contribution was in industrial training. He coauthored (with William McGehee) the first scientific book on the topic titled, Training in Business and Industry (New York, NY: Wiley), in 1961, which is considered a classic in the field. (PsycINFO Database Record

This chapter discusses the professional identity of master’s industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology graduates. Implications for licensure within I-O psychology are reviewed. An important distinction is made between licensing and certification/credentialing, as well as an argument that establishing an I-O psychology certification process may be a viable means to maintain professional identity/brand and to encourage consistent graduate training in the field. Graduate Survey results are presented to highlight the benefits of professional organization memberships. The majority of I-O master’s graduates were members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) as graduate students; however, far fewer attend the SIOP annual conference regularly. Suggestions are provided for developing the professional identity of master’s I-O psychology graduates in the future.

This article summarizes perspectives of a group of industrial-organizational (I–O) psychologists who have served with distinction in a number of administrative roles in academic administration. It is based on a panel presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). The discussion covered attractions of academic administration, aspects of I–O psychology that are well-suited to academic administration, relevant preparation not included in the typical I–O education, unexpected aspects of higher education administration, the biggest challenges and greatest rewards, and factors to be considered when contemplating an administrative career in academe. These perspectives are presented in the context of brief reference to articles on administrative roles and issues in higher education and a summary of the guidelines (SIOP, 1999) describing competencies developed in doctoral education in I–O psychology. Differences between roles of faculty and administrators a...

The rate of technological change is quickly outpacing today's methods for understanding how new advancements are applied within industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. To further complicate matters, specific attempts to explain observed differences or measurement equivalence across devices are often atheoretical or fail to explain why a technology should (or should not) affect the measured construct. As a typical example, understanding how technology influences construct measurement in personnel testing and assessment is critical for explaining or predicting other practical issues such as accessibility, security, and scoring. Therefore, theory development is needed to guide research hypotheses, manage expectations, and address these issues at this intersection of technology and I-O psychology. This article is an extension of a Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) 2016 panel session, which (re)introduces conceptual frameworks that can help explain how and why measurement equivalence or nonequivalence is observed in the context of selection and assessment. We outline three potential conceptual frameworks as candidates for further research, evaluation, and application, and argue for a similar conceptual approach for explaining how technology may influence other psychological phenomena.

As faculty in master's industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology graduate programs, we read with great interest the focal article on initiating and maintaining partnerships with organizations (Lapierre et al., 2018). We applaud the efforts of the authors to present guidelines and recommendations for successful applied research in organizations. Although Lapierre et al. directed their recommendations primarily to doctoral faculty and their students, there currently are 159 I-O psychology master's programs listed on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) webpage (http://my.siop.org/GTP). Because of the applied nature of most master's programs, by necessity we work continuously to gain entry into and partner with organizations for internship placements, applied course projects, and applied service opportunities. We, along with other master's faculty colleagues, have published and presented on the topic of partnering with organizations (e.g., Shoenfelt, 2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, 2012; Shoenfelt et al., 2015; Shoenfelt, Stone, & Kottke, 2013; Shoenfelt, Walker, Long, Smith, & Whelan, 2012; Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson, & Frame, 2018; Stone, Shoenfelt, Morganson, Moffett, & Van Hein, 2017). In this response, we offer an analogous perspective from the master's level based on tacit knowledge garnered from more than a century of combined experience. We note that many of the recommendations in this focal article likewise surfaced in our work. Here we highlight the challenges unique to master's-level and teaching-intensive faculty in implementing these recommendations. In our response, we embrace Lewin's (1946) definition of action research that there is no action without research and no research without action. Thus, we broadly define applied research as asking an important applied question and systematically collecting data to answer that question in a manner in which the results inform organizational action (whether or not it results in a peer-reviewed publication).

The first thing that struck me about the Ryan and Ford (2010) article was the irony of the title. Their choice to use the term “organizational” psychology instead of “industrial-organizational” (I-O) psychology was treated rather blithely in a footnote, but I am willing to bet that many readers were taken aback by the word choice. Although I am personally comfortable with calling myself an organizational psychologist, the most recent proposal to change the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) to the Society for Organizational Psychology was defeated. At least some of those who voted against the change viewed it as an ominous move to change our identity as a profession. I do not believe it was, but I do think the word choice in the context of this focal article is more substantive to the topic than the authors intended.