Society For Industrial And Organizational Psychology Research Articles

A Surprising Journey Through a Changing Landscape

My research journey was completely unexpected. I never envisioned becoming a professor, or still working after more than 40 years. I discuss this journey in terms of how events unfolded without much planning, in hopes of encouraging others to accomplish more than they believe they can. Since I have had a long career, I also discuss some ways in which the field of management has changed and how these present challenges to our field in the future. It is my contention that the field benefits most from good scholars doing good work on topics that interest them, and not by scholars learning how to game the system or worrying too much about which journals “count.” I also discuss some differences I experience being associated with both the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and the Academy of Management. I conclude on an optimistic note pointing out various efforts to address some of the challenges I outlined.

Ethical decision making in the 21stcentury: A useful framework for industrial-organizational psychologists

AbstractEthical decision making has long been recognized as critical for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists in the variety of roles they fill in education, research, and practice. Decisions with ethical implications are not always readily apparent and often require consideration of competing concerns. The American Psychological Association (APA)Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conductare the principles and standards to which all Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members are held accountable, and these principles serve to aid in decision making. To this end, the primary focus of this article is the presentation and application of an integrative ethical decision-making framework rooted in and inspired by empirical, philosophical, and practical considerations of professional ethics. The purpose of this framework is to provide a generalizable model that can be used to identify, evaluate, resolve, and engage in discourse about topics involving ethical issues. To demonstrate the efficacy of this general framework to contexts germane to I-O psychologists, we subsequently present and apply this framework to five scenarios, each involving an ethical situation relevant to academia, practice, or graduate education in I-O psychology. With this article, we hope to stimulate the refinement of this ethical decision-making model, illustrate its application in our profession, and, most importantly, advance conversations about ethical decision making in I-O psychology.

Forms of ethical dilemmas in industrial-organizational psychology

AbstractProfessional 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.

Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) is pleased to offer the fifth edition of thePrinciples for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures, which was approved by the APA Council of Representatives in August 2018 as an authoritative guidelines document for employee selection testing and an official statement of the APA. Over a three-year period, thePrinciplesRevision Committee updated this document from the fourth edition to be consistent with the 2014Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, invited commentary from SIOP and APA that informed subsequent revisions, and solicited a thorough legal review.

Allies From Within: I-O Practitioners in Organizations

The focal article (Lapierre et al., 2018) highlights many good suggestions but only briefly mentions partnering with an academically trained internal industrial and organizational (I-O) practitioner. We believe beginning a partnership with a similarly trained ally well-versed through training in academic language and through experience in “business speak” will yield a stronger end result. The appreciation for an internal I-O practitioner should not go overlooked; when an academic partners with the right practitioner in the right environment, the partnership can be mutually beneficial and more rewarding than other options. For instance, recently we collaborated to set up a partnership for scientific discovery and mutual interest that involved 12 teams representing 14 different institutions spanning academe and practice to conduct a machine learning competition. This partnership enabled many academics and practitioners access to a complex organizational dataset in order to contribute to both an organization and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) community (see Putka et al., 2018).

Gaining Organizational Entry and Developing Partnerships for Applied Research and Experience: A Perspective From Industrial-Organizational Psychology Master's Programs

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).

Let the Pigs Fly: What We Say and How We Say It When We Talk About Gender

“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.

A Call for Conceptual Models of Technology in I-O Psychology: An Example From Technology-Based Talent Assessment

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.

Paul W. Thayer (1927–2017).

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

Whither I-O Psychology and Legislative Restrictions?

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).

The Licensure of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists: It's Déjà Vu All Over Again

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.

Licensing of I-O Psychologists: Some Potentially Lethal Features

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.

Winning the HRM Evidence-Based Impact Award—Lessons Learned: A Conversation With Key Stakeholders to the Process

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and its Foundation have increasingly focused on linking science to practice, and to that end have partnered with Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) and its Foundation to create the Human Resource Management (HRM) Impact Award for firms demonstrating great practices in evidence-based human capital and management practices. Jack in the Box, the 2016 winner of this award, was so honored because of its integration of surveys and analytic models with leadership practices to understand, predict, and manage the right people drivers of important business outcomes. Instead of a research paper, we have chosen to share their story through conversational interview questions with the various stakeholders who contributed to the journey leading to the award and, in so doing, provide key lessons for others wishing to increase the impact of human capital in their organizations.

James L. Outtz (1947-2016).

This article memorializes James L. Outtz, who passed away March 26, 2016. For more than 40 years, Outtz was a leading researcher, practitioner, and consultant in the areas of hiring and promotion, employment discrimination, selection-test design and implementation, and legal issues pertaining to employment. He worked tirelessly to enhance opportunities for workforce diversity through greater inclusion of minorities and women. Another important focus was on strategies to minimize adverse impact through alternative approaches to selection. His work significantly influenced best practices in equal employment opportunity, and he was a highly sought-after legal-compliance consultant and testifying expert, advisor to courts, and participant on consent decrees with experts and lawyers from all sides of an issue. His efforts involved some of the most prominent corporations in America and most visible public-sector jurisdictions. In his final 2 years, he became president-elect of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (PsycINFO Database Record

Where in the World Are the Workers? Cultural Underrepresentation in I-O Research

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.

Conducting Ethical Research With Big and Small Data: Key Questions for Practitioners

The focal article (Guzzo, Fink, King, Tonidandel, & Landis, 2015) sought to “raise awareness and provide direction with regard to issues and complications uniquely associated with the advent of big data,” (p. 492), and we commend their success in offering Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members a solid foundation and resources on which to draw. Our aim here is to extend their position, particularly to drive the conversation toward concrete recommendations for how industrial and organizational psychologists (I-Os) working in industry can apply the principles set forth in the focal article in our day-to-day work, specifically around the issue of avoiding ethical missteps in this new landscape.

Big Data Recommendations for Industrial–Organizational Psychology: Are We in Whoville?

Guzzo, Fink, King, Tonidandel, and Landis's (2015) focal article was intended to be not a set of standards but instead “stepping stones” to “raise awareness and provide direction” (p. 492) to our field for working with big data. We believe that the work done by the authors successfully achieved those objectives, and we encourage the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Executive Committee to keep advancing this work toward greater clarity and guidance. Having clear alignment among members of our field and guidelines for handling nebulous issues such as big data is an important aspect of the scientist–practitioner model.

Brain Drain, Invader, Virus, Traveler: On the Evolution of Industrial–Organizational Psychology

Aguinis, Bradley, and Brodersen (2014) write of the apparent migration of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists to business schools and raise questions about the value and consequences of such migration. As a scholar in a school of business I found this article to be provocative, stimulating, and even surprising (my own eye opener). For example, it caused me to consider the important, and often underevaluated, distinctions between disciplines and departmental loci, fundamental differences (and similarities) between psychology and business, and the growth, decline, and general evolution of disciplines. Although I have spent more than 40 years as a faculty member in the Wisconsin School of Business, I see myself as similar in many ways to scholars in I–O psychology departments. I have published in psychology journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Industrial and Organizational Psychology; have served for many years on the editorial review board of the Journal of Applied Psychology; and have presented at Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and Association for Psychological Science (APS) meetings. I have regularly taught courses and seminars on I–O psychology and related organizational behavior (OB) topics for decades.

Irwin L. Goldstein (1937–2013).

Irwin L. Goldstein-known as Irv by everyone-was born in New York City on October 4, 1937 and died on March 18, 2013. Irv loved ideas, especially good theoretical ideas that had practical applications. He was both a scholar and a practitioner of industrial psychology. At various times, he was associate editor of both the Journal of Applied Psychology and Human Factors, and his very influential book Training in Organizations (1974) went through four editions. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) benefited enormously from his efforts on its behalf. If you chatted with Irv about any of his administrative positions, but especially about this last one, you would hear how much he felt, once again, that he was learning and how excited he was about what was actually possible in higher education. Irv retired from this position in 2012. In his many academic administrative roles, Irv was a mentor to all-graduate students, faculty, department chairs, and deans as well. Irv had had excellent role models to work from, and he cared for excellence and hard work-always with a twinkle in his eyes.

Advances in Selection and Assessment in Europe

Employee recruitment, selection, and assessment have become one of the strongest areas of research and practice in the field of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology. Numerous psychology graduates are employed in human resource management consultancies, human resource management departments, and in specialized work psychology/psychological testing firms; and involved in staffing, recruitment, selection, performance appraisal and training of personnel, and other aspects of applied psychology in countries worldwide. These trends are similarly true within the European Union and so the purpose of the present Special Issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment (IJSA) is to showcase and highlight recent advances in employee selection research in Europe. The development of the field is also apparent from the large numbers of scientific articles appearing in both general Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology Journals and specialized outlets, such as the IJSA, which is currently celebrating its 20th volume. Also, a number of influential handbooks have recently been published both in the United States and Europe (e.g. Handbook of Employee Selection, edited by James L. Farr & Nancy T. Tippins; Handbook of Personnel Selection, edited by Arne Evers, Neil Anderson, & Olga Voskuijl), and the number of conference papers and symposia presented in international conferences, such as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), the European Association of Work & Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), the Academy of Management (AoM), and the International Congress of Applied Psychology (ICAP), dealing with issues related to employee recruitment, selection and assessment, has been steadily increasing during the last few years. Recent research in employee selection has shifted focus from the traditional selection paradigm, that is, the relationship between the predictor and the criterion, toward other important issues as well. For example, there is increased interest in different selection methods (e.g., situational judgment tests), the role of technology and the Internet in recruitment and selection (e.g., video resumes and the effect of social networking websites), the applicant perspective (e.g., trust, fairness, and applicant reactions research), the use of new statistical and methodological approaches (e.g., multilevel analysis and diary studies), ethical issues and adverse impact, high stakes selection, and so forth. These recent developments of the field in Europe has led the guest editors of the current special issue to organize a small scale conference entitled ‘EAWOP Small Group Meeting on Selection & Assessment in Europe’, in Athens, Greece, in June 2011 (http://www.eawopsgm. wordpress.com/), under the auspices and support of the EAWOP and the Athens University of Economics & Business. The meeting was part of the EAWOP Small Group Meetings initiative and attracted a large number of European researchers specializing in the field of recruitment, selection, and assessment. Twenty-four papers were presented during the meeting and the authors were invited to submit a full version of their paper for consideration in the current special issue. Following a full double-blind review process, as is normally the case at IJSA, 12 papers were finally accepted and are included in the current special issue. As editors, we are delighted to be able to publish these papers as showcase articles illustrative of very recent developments across different countries in Europe and covering a notably diverse set of topics in employee selection. The success of the Athens Small Group Meeting, along with the increased interest in recruitment, selection, and assessment in Europe, motivated the participants in Athens to establish the European Network of Selection Researchers (ENESER). The Network’s aim is to advance selection research in Europe, to bring together researchers carrying out applied research in the field of employee recruitment, selection, and assessment, and to