Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

Sheldon Zedeck

SIOP President 1986-1987

Early Developmental Experiences

I was born June 8, 1944 in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York. In the 1940s and '50s, Brooklyn was a borough of a quite diverse population, of all religions, ethnic groups, cultures, and values. Mentioning the section is important since early childhood experiences predict later behaviors, attitudes, and values. I believe that much of my early experiences, both in the streets of Brooklyn and at home shaped my interests and values. This autobiography will demonstrate the belief.

I was the second son of Judith and Hyman Zedeck. My father came to the U.S. from Poland in the late 1920s. He left his girlfriend, Judith, to seek a better life for himself and his future bride. After working for five years at several laborer type jobs, such as painting Navy ships, he became a citizen of the U.S., then went back to Poland to marry Judith, and shortly thereafter return with her to this country.

When I was born, my mother and father were running a "Mom and Pop" type of neighborhood grocery store in Brownsville. For about the first 15 years of my life we lived in a two-bedroom, five-story (without an elevator) apartment building; we then moved to another dwelling in the same neighborhood, an apartment in a three-story building that included a commercial operation on the lower level. Since my parents were working from about 6 AM to 8 PM in the store, I spent almost all my non-school time playing ball in the streets. We played the typical New York City games such as stick ball, punch ball, stoop ball, "fence" basketball (where we tried to score points by throwing a "spaldeen" rubber ball between a fence and the gate that was pushed back against the fence  -  the rules and the very small opening to shoot at did not permit dunking). When we weren't playing ball, we involved ourselves in games like "Johnny-on-the-pony" and other such team-oriented events. The point of this is that I was very much on my own, going home only to have meals, do my homework, and to sleep. Otherwise, I was with a group of kids, occupying ourselves in group activities. We made up the rules, we lived by them, and we got along. We did not need referees or umpires or counselors to mediate disputes or encourage us to keep busy. This world was quite different from the one that my children were raised in. The other point is that we all got along  -  people from different backgrounds and cultures  -  and everything seemed to be fair.

When I did see my parents, it was usually at their store where I ate my meals. But that's also where I learned about the value of education and a work ethic. My parents were always concerned about my preoccupation with sports and were constantly stressing the value of education. Neither of my parents had much formal education beyond high school in Poland, and they firmly believed that my brother and I had to go to college. My father had hoped that he could have gone to pharmacy school, but the economics of his family situation did not permit it. So, he and my mother constantly stressed that my brother and I would have a college education and that they were prepared to make all the necessary sacrifices to see that come true. And they certainly did make sacrifices. They worked all day long, six days a week. They worked without other help except when my brother and I were old enough to help out. One of my earliest recollections is when I was about 10 years old, had worked in the store during a holiday season, and my father gave me $5.00 for my efforts so that I could buy my first baseball glove (I've only owned two others and I'm still playing ball).

My early education was at P.S. 156 and Junior High School 263; these were neighborhood schools to which I could walk. I was not involved much in school activities, since there were none to speak of; basically when the bell rang we ran outside to the concrete playground and began playing our games. When I was about 11 years old, I began my "work career;" I helped out in my relatives' hardware and housewares store. This meant that I had to learn to juggle my school and recreational activities to fit working, but it also taught me how to juggle schedules  -  which for me has been operationalized by making certain that there be no or minimal free time in a schedule.

After several years working in the store and then moving on to high school (Thomas Jefferson High School), to which I had to take a bus or subway, I found other jobs that lasted for considerable periods of time. For one year, I replaced my brother in his job as a stock and counter person in a pharmacy. Then, for most of my high school career, I delivered meat for a butcher by bicycle to the customers. The bike was used in all seasons - rain, snow, or shine.

None of the jobs that I held while going to school could be considered intrinsically interesting, but they did demonstrate to me that hard work had some rewards. The money that I earned contributed to my spending money as well as a savings for my education or some other highly valued object (I used my savings to buy a car when I was a senior in college).

Since I had to be at work immediately after my high school classes, I had no time to get involved with high school sports. That is one of my regrets, since I would have liked to have played baseball or football (the latter seemed like a good possibility since the coach was my friend's brother).

While working and playing through my teen-age years, I did enjoy school - particularly mathematics, history, and political science. The emphasis in my home was that I should be a "doctor" (doctor is in quotes since my parents knew "doctor" as basically a medical doctor). The pressure increased when my brother pursued a pharmacy degree, and then, before ever practicing, went off to the University of Michigan to obtain a Ph.D. in pharmacology. Still, he was not a "real" doctor and so in 1961 I entered the only school that was a realistic choice for me, Brooklyn College, to pursue a pre-med undergraduate degree. The choice was limited to Brooklyn College for several reasons. First, there was the cost. When I started, the fees were $8.00 per semester (when I graduated, they were $32.00 per semester and my father was quite disturbed by this 400% increase). Second, I had never really been away from home when I applied, and I wasn't prepared to leave then; rather, I thought commuter life would be acceptable. My entire teen-age life was spent in Brooklyn, with occasional visits to Manhattan to go to the museums or to the Bronx to see the New York Yankees play. Most summers, for two weeks, my family and I would go to the Catskill Mountains in up-state New York (and we passed through New Jersey to do so), but it wasn't until I graduated from high school and visited my brother and his family in Ann Arbor did I leave New York. Third, in the 1950s and 1960s, Brooklyn College was the college to attend since it had an excellent reputation, and it had produced (as part of the City University of New York system) more Ph.Ds and physicians than any other educational system in the country.

The summer of 1961, when I was 17, and before I was to began Brooklyn College, I quit my job as meat deliverer and took the big step to go away from home and work in the Catskill Mountains at a bungalow colony as a "soda jerk" and short order cook. I had no experience at either of these, but it gave me an opportunity to earn an anticipated great deal of money (basically on tips since salary was replaced by room and board in the healthy climate of up-state New York). I also thought the job would give me the opportunity to experience life away from home, be in the outdoors, and a have a chance to play softball on a dirt field rather than the concrete playgrounds in Brooklyn. Not much of the latter desires actually materialized since I worked from 10 AM to 10 PM five days a week, from 10 AM to midnight the sixth day, and on the seventh day off (Tuesdays), was involved in individual recreation while since all my contemporaries (counselors and life guards) worked at their jobs. In spite of the hours, I didn't mind the job. I liked keeping busy and the nature of the job allowed me to meet and talk with a lot of people (who were from different sections of New York). In some ways, I was like a bartender   -  people would come in for an "egg cream" (which only New Yorkers know the secret of) and spend time talking, and talking, and talking while I listened. One might get the impression that this would cause me to become a clinical psychologist.

After the summer, and prior to beginning classes at Brooklyn College (a place I had not been to prior to my first day on campus), I visited my brother at the University of Michigan. This visit impressed me since there were so many buildings, wide open spaces, and a community sense that I had not seen or experienced before. So, it was a surprise when on my first day at Brooklyn College, I found only two classroom buildings, an administration building, a gym, and a field to accommodate about 30,000 students who were going to college during the day and night.

At the outset, I did what my parents expected and began as a pre-med major. I enrolled in calculus, organic chemistry, anatomy, and other courses that would make me the next "Ben Casey." Initially, all was going along well grade-wise, though I was not fulfilling my interests. It seemed that I was going to school for the sake of school. (While going to college, I worked as a cashier in a supermarket.)

Several events occurred, however, that changed my focus and life. First, in my second year of college, I joined a "house plan," which is a poor person's fraternity. This gave me the opportunity to meet a group of guys who have turned out to be life long friends. But, now being in an "organized" group that was involved in social and athletic events, I had the opportunity to spend time socializing (usually in the school cafeteria) and playing ball (finally, in an organization where they had official referees and umpires). Second, grades and interest in the courses I was taking diminished (I don't know which is the cause or the effect) such that I began to question whether I wanted to be a doctor (or continue education beyond the bachelor's degree). As I was questioning my direction, I frequently observed and listened to some friends while they were meeting to discuss their psychological statistics homework problems and their experimental psychology projects. These sounded interesting. At the completion of the Fall semester of my junior year, I and some of these psychology major friends decided to go to Miami, Florida for Winter break, and this turned out to be a third significant event.

This was going to be my second trip out of Brooklyn and what better way to do it then to take a Greyhound bus. It was an enlightening experience. It was just after my political hero, John Kennedy was assassinated, and there was more and more awakening with respect to civil rights. While on the bus trip through the South I could not believe the discrimination that existed - as an example, separate facilities for Blacks and Whites. The unfairness that I was beginning to read about was then blatantly before me. Given my prior experiences in Brownsville, the community in which I lived and interacted with, I found the conditions difficult to understand as well as to accept.

A fourth event that redirected my energies took place while I was in Miami - I called home to check on my grade in Physics (a course which gave me absolutely no pleasure). When my father informed me that it was less than a "C," the disappointment in his voice and my realization that medical school may be out of the picture caused me to re-think my major. So, I returned for the Spring Semester and began taking all of the psychology courses I could, which at Brooklyn College, were basically experimental, social, and abnormal psychologies. The ones that I enjoyed most were experimental and statistics.

Pursuing the new major was not easy for my parents to understand or accept. The most they knew about psychology was what they knew about Sigmund Freud. Nevertheless, when they learned that I planned to go to graduate school, with the possibility that I would pursue a doctorate, they were pleased, since I would be "some kind of doctor;" they were more accepting of the notion that there were other kinds of doctors since my brother was at that time earning his Ph.D. in pharmacology.

There are two other events that shaped my life prior to entry into graduate school. First, in my sophomore year when I was involved in a social event, I met a first-year student, Marti Rosen. Though we dated once that year not much evolved out of the relationship until my senior year, when we began seeing each other more frequently. But, I was planning to go off to graduate school and she still had another year at Brooklyn College, so the relationship was put on hold. Second, during my senior year (1964-65), the Viet Nam War was escalating and there was great concern that I and my classmates would be drafted. In those days, you could delay your obligation if you volunteered for the National Guard or continued in school. The latter contingency reinforced my interest in going to graduate school.

The major decision that I faced was which graduate program in psychology to pursue. My assessment was that I was most interested in experimental aspects of psychology, in areas that involved statistical reasoning, and in problems that were encountered in worklife. I wasn't interested in clinical psychology, or in studying at a micro level short-term or long-term memory; rather I was interested in why and how people dealt with the activities in which they were most involved, work.

And so I pursued the interest and learned that Industrial Psychology fit the bill. Unfortunately, there was no course in I-O psychology at Brooklyn College, but I did look at some texts that were in the library and found that given my "extensive" work history, I could relate to the issues presented in these books - job satisfaction, motivation, and selection.

The choice as to which particular university to apply to was relatively easy. I decided that I wanted to leave New York, and that given my very brief experience in visiting Ann Arbor, the Midwest would be a nice place. Also, I could not apply to too many places, since that would result in significant application expenditures. So I did some more "research" and determined that Ohio State, Bowling Green State University (BGSU), and Case Western Reserve were the places to apply. It was not intentional that I applied to three universities all located in Ohio; perhaps I am like others who believe that every state west of New York is the West and that Ohio was the Midwest. The decision regarding which of these universities to enter was even easier  -  I was accepted by Bowling Green, rejected by Ohio State, and never heard from Case Western Reserve. And so, in Fall 1965, I went off to Bowling Green to see what life had in store for me.

Graduate Training

My four years at Bowling Green went rather quickly. Upon arrival there, two incidents are most memorable. First, my rooming arrangements were in a family's home not far from the campus. I shared one room with another graduate student while there were two other rooms on the top floor of the home rented by other graduate students. On my second day there, I overheard one student telling another that he had been shopping for furniture for his room, and that he felt good about his purchases, since he had "Jewed" the seller down. I did not know what he meant, and when I inquired and learned the meaning, I began to wonder about my choice of living in the Midwest. A second, more positive early experience, occurred when I was walking to the local barber shop in town and I was waiting for the light to change at the crosswalk. While standing there, another pedestrian came up and said "Nice day, isn't it?" I immediately checked to see if I still had my wallet. Lo and behold, he was only being friendly, a prevailing disposition in this small town of about 15,000.

One other factor about my early experience at Bowling Green is that I was there without Marti. "Absence may make the heart grow fonder," or whatever, but I quickly realized that I missed her. Consequently, during my first year at Bowling Green I made frequent weekend and holiday trips back to New York. Eventually, we were engaged on April 1, 1966 and married on August 21, 1966. Now, twenty five years later, I can say that it was the best selection decision I ever made.

The Bowling Green program, in psychology in general and in I-O in particular, was emerging when I arrived. Initially, there was only a Masters program, though there were plans for a Ph.D. program to be implemented within about two years. Most of the faculty concentrated on experimental psychology. The I-O faculty member was Bob Guion, who had recently returned from his sabbatical at Berkeley and had just completed his textbook on personnel testing. There were several students in the program at that time  -   among others, Frank Landy (who had started one year earlier), Nick Imparato, and Loren Appelbaum. Two particular recollections relate to our contact with Guion. First, we wondered if we could use his textbook as satisfaction of the foreign language requirement. The book was impressive and overwhelming to new graduate students, and taking the course from the author did not make life easier. Second, the number of students in the I-O program was about a dozen, with some believing that they ultimately wanted to be consultants while the others looked forward to going into academics. The view held by the students was that you did not talk about entering consulting in front of Guion; he stressed research and that's what we should be doing.

Two other faculty members who made an impression that first year were Max Freeburne and Pete Badia. Freeburne taught the statistics course and I have interesting memories of sitting at the mechanical calculators trying to determine the F ratios for the homework problems. Frustration came easily when there was a mechanical failure and I had to start re-entering the raw data. Badia was the experimental psychologist interested in studying rat vocalizations. I never took a course from him, but I worked in his laboratory and learned a number of things. First, I learned good experimental design. Second, I learned that I was allergic to rats and would be better off working with people.

When I first entered BGSU I did not have any financial support. But I had some savings from all of my prior jobs and managed to get through by not spending much money except for food and lodging  -  there wasn't much to do in Bowling Green, then a place with one movie theatre and little else in terms of cultural endeavor. For the Winter semester, however, I was awarded a research assistantship to work with Carol Vale who was joining the faculty that semester after receiving her Ph.D in quantitative psychology from Berkeley. It was Carol Vale who taught me much in terms of psychological statistics and its theory, more than how to calculate an F ratio and sums of squares.

After the first year at BGSU I went back to Brooklyn to be married and also to find a job for the summer. I applied at Psychological Corporation for a summer position, took the Short Employment Tests, and then waited. Since no call came, I took the same job I had while at Brooklyn College  -  cashier in a supermarket. A week after starting full-time at the supermarket, Psychological Corporation called and told me they had a job in test development. I accepted on the phone, told my supermarket employer that I had a job that was directly related to my career, but because I needed the money and felt some obligation to the chain, I would work there Friday evenings and Saturday. It was an agreeable arrangement and I looked forward to my work as a psychologist. After two summer months of proofing and scoring pilot tests of a typing exam being developed by Psychological Corporation, I realized that there may be something to realistic job previews. Nevertheless, the experience was valuable  -  I earned money and I spent lots of lunch breaks walking around Manhattan seeing the sights that I had not been able to see during my childhood.

My second year at Bowling Green, Marti obtained a job in a local school district as a speech and hearing therapist, I was a Research Assistant, and we lived quite comfortably. Eventually, Marti entered the Speech program at BGSU and earned her Masters.

Meanwhile, the program at BGSU was changing. A doctoral program was implemented and there were several new faculty additions. Patricia Cain Smith and Olie Smith joined the faculty from Cornell as did Joe Cranny who was a recent Ph.D from Iowa State. Initially I worked as a research assistant for Cranny, but I also took on additional work in Badia's laboratory, and was involved in statistical consulting for various faculty and others. Overall the faculty at BGSU impressed upon me the notion of not to accept much at face value, but that instead research should be conducted to seek answers. Though I never took a course from Olie Smith, my frequent contacts with him while I was meeting with Pat, have had a lasting impression. It was Olie who always asked: "What do you think of ... ?" This meant we either had to have an answer or we should figure out a way to get one.

Pat Smith is one of three psychologists who have had an extremely personal and significant impact on my professional life. The other two are Bob Guion and Mary Tenopyr. Pat was very supportive of me  -  I could work on any problem in which I was interested, and she participated as a mentor and colleague. Her inclination to discuss research at any time, day or night, at the office or home, made graduate school fun. It was always a relief to know that if you had a question or problem dealing with research, that you could call Pat at home, and she would tell you to come right over to discuss it with her (and Olie). From Pat, too, I learned the value of statistics and its use as a tool and not as a means by itself. Yet another aspect of my training with Pat deals with my writing, or lack of writing, skills. When I submitted my Master thesis to her for review, I was quite distressed to get it back all marked up  -  just about a comment per line. She realized the impact it was having on a young graduate student, and sat down with me and explained precision in writing. (As I write this autobiography, I am not sure that she would approve of the prose and style, but my excuse is that this is cathartic and non-academic.)

The second psychologist who has impacted my career is Bob Guion. Aside from being able to study personnel psychology with one of the leading experts in that field, I was most impressed with his emphasis on research design and unwillingness to accept "conclusions" without a research basis. One of the first courses that I took from Guion was on research methodology, and it took me some time to understand why I did poorly on a course paper when I had lots of references from secondary, non-research sources.

Exposure to the faculty at BGSU, the escalating Viet Nam War, and the urgings of Marti caused me to apply for the Ph.D. program at BGSU. When I was accepted it meant two more years in Bowling Green, but they were pleasurable. With not much to do in town, we spent our time at the library, socializing with many of our graduate student colleagues, and, for me, interacting with an excellent group of I-O graduate students, which includes besides those mentioned above, Jim Goodale, Reggie Goodfellow, Jan Wijting, and Steve Wollack among others.

My research career stems from my personal experiences and my graduate school days. If I can trace a common theme, it deals with equity and fairness. My first research project was my Masters thesis (supervised by Pat Smith) on fairness, or the determination of equitable pay. My Brooklyn College days, the experimental psychology courses, and reading Woodworth and Schlosberg, lead to my application of a psychophysical approach to the study of equity. Other research that I undertook at BGSU included a number of projects on moderator variables (with Joe Cranny, Pat Smith, and Carol Vale). Guion's book had a brief section of moderator variables and subgroup analysis. I assumed that there must be an issue of equity or fairness in the topic and I spent my early research looking for methodologies that could identify the differences that existed among groups in terms of relationships to other sets of variables. My dissertation (again supervised by Pat Smith) attempted to develop the moderator procedure, but it turned out like others - much promise, but little in the way of rejecting generalizability.

Another part of my career that evolved at BGSU dealt with consulting. I was fortunate that Bob Guion gave me the opportunity to consult and conduct research in industry. One of the first projects in which I was involved pertained to writing items for a test for the National Employment Agency Association. A second project provided the opportunity to work with the initial version of Ernest McCormick's PAQ in the Armco Steel plants in Ohio. The effect of these and other experiences was that I realized I wanted to do research for which I could see an immediate impact; that a company would take my product and be able to use it. This was just as interesting to me as tackling a research question that would contribute to our understanding of behavior. The way I have tried to combine the two foci is to conduct, when possible, research within a real setting  -  there would be a product for the company and findings that would contribute to the literature.

During my final year at BGSU I began to think about the type of job I wanted; academic, research organization, or consulting. Given my mentors and training, I considered the first two options. Thus, one of my more memorable events is the interview with LIAMA, an insurance research organization. when I was interviewed, there was one particular member of LIAMA who put me through an orals on statistics, but not on the statistics that I had learned at BGSU. Rather, I was asked a series of questions about topics with which I was not that familiar such as chi-square and other nonparametric statistics. There was also the question that I asked: What time do you need to come to work? The answer was that there were regular hours, which I believe were from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The point was that if someone in the field had a question, someone had to be available to answer it. Though I certainly did not begrudge working long hours, I had gotten used to the fact that as a researcher I could work when I wanted and for how long I wanted. Nevertheless, given my answers (and perhaps question), I did not receive an offer from LIAMA. But the lesson that I learned, which really reinforced what my father had always told me, was that it was better to be your own boss and not work for anyone else.

Professional Career

Thus, academics was my goal. Perhaps one of the best examples of a "chance" theory of occupational choice is illustrated by how I obtained my first (and only) academic job. In Spring of 1965, Bob Guion was asked by the Psychology Department at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) to again visit the Department. Unfortunately for Guion, but quite fortunate for me, he was at the beginning of his term as chair of the Department at BGSU and could not accept the invitation. But, he recommended a new Ph.D. to be the visitor  -  me; UCB agreed and I accepted. I was pleased to join a strong I-O group composed of Edwin Ghiselli, Bill Graham, and Milton Blood.

In Fall of 1969, Marti and I arrived in California with the expectation that we would be there for one year. We told our families that it was a one year deal and that seemed to satisfy all concerned. (One of my biggest disappointments in life is that my father passed away in December 1968, just at the time I was proposing my dissertation topic, and thus never lived to see his second son also become a "doctor.") California was a new experience. I thought I was a liberal from New York, but we were in for a shock to learn what liberalism truly meant. We were fascinated by the area and for the first few months we spent just about every free moment and weekend sightseeing. Then in November 1969, I was asked if I was interested in a tenure track position. I took Ghiselli's advice and looked at other positions to "see if I had a really good offer or if there was a better job elsewhere." In December 1969 we accepted the UCB offer (and reduced our sightseeing).

The early years at UCB were both enjoyable and frustrating. The opportunity to work with Ghiselli, Blood, and Graham was extremely rewarding. Blood, Graham, and I collaborated on research and consulting; Blood and I undertook the writing of a textbook, an experience from which I learned a great deal.

Contact with Ghiselli contributed to some of my fondest memories. First, he was one of the finest human beings I have known. When we first arrived at UCB, I had told Marti that I was looking forward to meeting the person who took up a number of references in my dissertation. Not only did he make me feel extremely welcome at UCB, but he and his wife went out of their way to make Marti feel comfortable. Second, I learned from Ghiselli that though you strive to design and conduct the cleanest research design, you need to accept what you have, and understand its limitations; you also can learn from less than perfect situations. Third, I learned that senior faculty need to serve as role models for others. Prior to going to teach my first class at UCB, Ghiselli "just happened to drop in to my office" to inquire how things were going. When I told him I was about to go give my first lecture, he said: "Just remember, you know more than the students." Whether that was true or not, it certainly provided some confidence.

My early research years at UCB were continuations of what I had started at BGSU. After spending a number of years on moderator variables, I wrote my Psychological Bulletin article on the topic. Though I did not attach much significance to it at the time, except that it was an opportunity to summarize all that I knew about the issue, I have been impressed with the impact it has had on the field. To this day it is still cited, and though I haven't conducted any research on moderators since the early 1970s I am still asked to comment and review on the topic.

A research topic that I undertook early on at UCB dealt with performance appraisals. I was fascinated by the fact that most evaluations are based on subjective impressions   -  could these be fair? Thus I began a program that derived from Pat Smith's work on behavioral expectation scales. Whereas my early work focused on methodological issues and performance appraisals, subsequent work focused on the factors that influence performance decisions and on the variables that explain differences in perceptions. This work lead to an interest in the other side of the prediction equation, the predictors, and how they relate to performance.

The frustrating part about being at UCB in the early 1970s was that Ghiselli retired and Blood and Graham moved to other academic institutions. It was a time when UCB was rethinking its commitment to I-O psychology and the question arose as to whether we should stay. We had an offer to return to the east coast, to academics or to a research unit, but we decided that the quality of life for us and our new family (our daughter Cindy was born in 1970 and our son Jason in 1972) was best in California.

In 1976 I received tenure in the Psychology Department at UCB. We were very pleased that we could now establish firm roots here, but it was also still frustrating in that I was the only I-O psychologist at an institution that had a remarkable history and impact on our field. Being the lone I-O psychologist partly explains my interest in becoming active in the I-O division.

Another event, just prior to the tenure decision, that shaped my subsequent career was the birth of our third child, Elizabeth on April 1, 1975. She was born with an undeveloped brain that effected vision, motor functioning, and every other faculty. The prognosis, which took about a year to determine, was that she would never see, talk, or walk. This occurred just as I was going through the final stages of tenure. When tenure was awarded I was able to go on sabbatical, in Israel (1976-77), and spend time with my family, especially with Elizabeth. While overseas, we learned from our physicians that Elizabeth's problem was a genetic defect on chromosome pair 21, and that in fact the prognosis was substantiated. The time spent with Elizabeth was especially meaningful since she died before her third birthday in February 1978.

While in Israel I continued to work and write on performance appraisals, conducted research there with Israeli colleagues, and completed my involvement with John Campbell on the revision of Ghiselli's "Theory of Psychological Measurement." It was an interesting experience working with Campbell, a brilliant scholar and procrastinator, via the mail and phones and the only regret that I have about that time is that Ghiselli died shortly before the book was published.

When we left Israel in May 1977, my desire to compensate for the lack of opportunity to travel when I was a child resulted in our undertaking a camping tour for two months in 10 European countries for myself and family (Marti, the three children, and my mother-in-law). We saw just about every church, stained glass window, statue or monument, museum, battlefield, etc. that had been described in the tourist books.

When I returned to UCB in 1977, I continued my research on performance appraisals and picked up on policy capturing as a way of addressing questions as to how people make decisions and assessments. Policy capturing was a way in which I could use regression analysis (the topic emphasized in the Ghiselli revision) and individual differences to explore why people make different decisions when dealing with the same set of stimuli.

An interest that re-emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s was in test fairness; this stemmed in part from my project with Mary Tenopyr and Dick Reilly and physical ability testing and its fairness related to males and females. What interested me most were findings that a simulation device, such as the assessment center, minimized if not reduced differences between groups and adverse impact. Accordingly, I sought out an opportunity at AT&T for 1982-83 (another sabbatical) where I spent time with the many psychologists involved in assessment centers and testing. The opportunity to interact with Joel Moses, Dick Campbell, and Mary Tenopyr on particular projects and to have contact with Ed Adams, Doug Bray, Miriam Graddick, Ann Howard, Karen Lyness, Bob Ramos, Ken Pearlman, and others was invaluable in terms of my education and development. I believe that the experience with the AT&T assessment center has paid off numerous times with respect to my own research and consulting efforts - it is the model of the way things should be. I believe it has also fostered my belief that some of the differences we observe in test scores between ethnic groups can be explained in part by the stimulus used to assess those differences. The topic of test stimuli and their impact on minorities is a current interest of mine.

When I returned in the Fall of 1983 from AT&T to UCB I undertook an analysis of assessment centers that is described, in part, in a chapter in the Staw and Cummings "Research in Organization Behavior" series and is reflected, in part, in my research project at Berkeley's Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, which is currently ongoing with Ken Craik, Charles O'Reilly, Barry Staw, Phil Tetlock and others.

Also, soon after I returned from the sabbatical I began an interest in shift work and health, which is the precursor to my current interest in "work and family." My interest in "work and family" stems from a personal introspective analysis. I am a self-described "workaholic," but also invested in my family (now composed of another daughter, Tracy, born in New Jersey, in 1982). I enjoy and like being busy and active. Why? I will leave that question to those readers who are clinically oriented. But, needless to say, I watched my parents work "all the time;" I have not known any other way to function. I appreciate the inquiries, invitations, and requests that I receive to contribute to my profession, though in the last few years I have often lamented that I am too busy and need to learn how to say "no." (But as Ben Schneider has told me, we work all of our lives to put ourselves in the position to be asked to do things, so that in the end there is a reason why we are so busy and so heavily involved.) I have not figured out whether I am a "spillover" or "compensation" type, but today, along with my graduate students, I am working on a project that would develop a means by which we can test "work and family" theories. My goal is to be able to explain how we parcel out efforts and activities in the two spheres of organization and family. Much of my current thinking on this topic is described in a chapter in a forthcoming Frontiers volume (to be published late 1991 or early 1992).

An aspect of my research career that I want to comment on is my interest in methodology. Here, too, I have no explanation for that interest except to state that I have firmly believed (and was taught by Guion and Smith) that if you are going to examine a phenomenon, you ought to study it correctly. Thus, different ways of addressing questions have always interested me. Can our stimuli, procedures, and analytical techniques be refined to provide a better understanding of that which we are studying? To respond to my own question, I have examined methods for determining the existence of moderator variables, and for refining the behaviorally anchored rating scale procedure: I have adapted policy capturing for problems in personnel and motivation, and promoted regression analysis as a technique for answering questions other than for the development of a prediction equation in a personnel psychology situation. The latter has been a particular concern with my graduate students. Hopefully, the message will be conveyed with the recent publication of a textbook, "Data Analysis for Research Designs: Analysis of Variance and Multiple Regression/Correlation Approaches" (co-authored with Geoffrey Keppel, my colleague at UCB).

Before leaving my research career, I want to note that the years at UCB have been quite rewarding and challenging. I have played a number of roles in University affairs, such as chairing the campus' Committee on Educational Policy, Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and serving on the Budget Committee. Today, I am the Director of the Institute of Industrial Relations. In addition, the Department has been a supportive and encouraging environment in which to teach and conduct research. And, finally, I have been fortunate to "run" a small I-O program and work with a fine group of graduate students.

Consulting Career

As mentioned above, one of my interests has been in studying problems in functioning organizations with the anticipation that my products would be used and would have a positive impact. This has been accomplished by being involved in consulting.

My first active consulting activities, post Ph.D., were with Milton Blood and Bill Graham in the early 1970s when we developed an entrance level examination for the firefighter position in San Francisco. This activity also introduced me to the legal arena, since the tests were challenged and required defense in District Court. After participating in depositions, testifying in court, and helping prepare briefs in the early 1970s, I almost decided to forego my career in psychology and go to law school. But better judgment prevailed.

Perhaps the most significant event in my consulting career occurred in about 1975 when Mary Tenopyr asked me to participate in the development and validation of a physical ability test for entrance into the AT&T positions of installer, cable splicer, and construction. Tenopyr is the third of the three psychologists that I previously mentioned that had a significant impact on my professional life. Not only did she introduce me to the start of a fruitful consulting career, but Tenopyr exhibited the best in terms of the scientist-practitioner model. She understood the realities of organizational life, and its complexities and politics, but at no time did professional standards and practices suffer to accommodate organizational desires for a "quick and dirty" study or "quick fix." I am forever grateful for the opportunities Tenopyr provided for a number of years in AT&T consulting projects.

For the last 10 years or so Larry Fogli and I have been consulting together in the areas of testing, validation, surveys, etc. We have developed numerous products for clients and am I pleased to say that we have had an impact.

Division 14 and SIOP Career

My introduction to Division 14 and SIOP came in 1972 when Bob Guion appointed me to the Education and Training Committee. Perhaps the most significant event of that period, for the reasons provided above, was meeting Mary Tenopyr, the chair of the committee, and beginning a professional relationship that has lasted through the present. My desire to be part of Division 14 was twofold. First, it meets my need to be involved and to keep busy. Second, when I went to UCB, I was the fourth I-O psychologist. In the early 1970s, it looked as though I would be the only I-O psychologist remaining, and an important consideration for me was whether I could be nurtured professionally in such an isolated environment.  Since my family enjoyed California so much, I decided to try to reduce my academic isolation by interacting with other I-O psychologists through active involvement in the Division and attending conventions and other society type meetings (for example, the Society for Organizational Behavior). In many ways, my involvement in Division 14 and SIOP has been the most productive facet of my career. It has provided me with an opportunity to be involved, and in addition, to meet some of the nicest people, many of whom have become close personal friends.

After serving as a member of the Education and Training Committee, I served as Chair of it in 1974-75. Then from 1975-76 and from 1977-79 I served on the Workshop Committee. But 1979 was an important year, in that Mary Tenopyr asked me to edit The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist newsletter, or TIP, for a three-year term. I reluctantly accepted, but it turned out to be extremely rewarding. Not only did I attend all executive committee meetings with the goal to report back to the membership the significant events, but it gave me an opportunity to interact with many of the Division's members. I particularly enjoyed a column that I ran in each issue where I profiled one of our distinguished members. Interviewing them was extremely fascinating, especially for one who has developed a keen interest in the history of I-O psychology (I currently have over 200 I-O psychology and related subject matter titles in my library).

Immediately after the editorship of TIP I was elected to the Member-at-Large position for a three-year term (1982-85). These were very exciting years as the Division we began entertaining thoughts about a Society and, perhaps, independence from APA. This elected position meant service on the Long-Range Planning Committee, which was then involved with or initiated events such as examining our relationship with APA, particularly important since reorganization of APA was a hot issue; a new organizational structure for the Division; and creation of two new committees, the Mid-year Conference and Frontiers Series committees. In addition, we created an office and administrative position at the University of Maryland to support and undertake Division activities.

From the Member-at-Large position I had the honor to be elected to be President of the Society (which meant a three-year term, which includes being President-Elect and Past-President). My term as President can be described as one in which we played a waiting game to determine our future within APA. While I was President, the major area of interest was APA reorganization and what our role would be in it. My goal was to make us as independent as possible; if we had to leave APA that would have been acceptable, but my personal mission was to maintain our internal strength while co-existing with APA or any form it created. As I reflect back on the year as President, it seems that I spent most of my term in conversations with Milt Hakel, Dick Campbell, Irv Goldstein, and others on how APA reorganization was progressing (or regressing) and what our response should be. But there were also some proactive accomplishments, such as publication of the Society's third edition of its Principles, the initiation of plans to develop a SIOP directory, follow-up of the first Society conference with an equally successful meeting in Atlanta, holding of the first "strategic planning" session for the Society, among others.

At this time, I am currently in my second year of a three-year term as a Society Council Representative. Thus, when my term ends in 1992, I will have served 20 consecutive years on Executive Committee (excluding one year when I was on sabbatical and out of the country). The years have been most rewarding and fulfilling.

Postscript

As I look back over my 20+ years in the profession of I-O psychology and involvement in SIOP, the facet that is most dominant in my mind is the people involved. Several years ago Ben Schneider wrote that the people make the organization. He was correct. Throughout the many years, Marti and I have met numerous people in the Society who have become close and dear friends. Not only have our families spent time together at conventions, but we have taken vacations together, provided support to each other at times of personal difficulties, and have established long-lasting relationships.

From a personal note, I need to indicate that I did not volunteer to write this autobiography, but was asked to do so by Paul Thayer. I have often thought that an autobiography should be written when your career is winding down and you want to reflect back. For me, it was difficult to write, and even more so to end this autobiography since I feel that I am still in the midst of a very exciting and challenging career and life. I am currently working with friends such as Wayne Cascio, Larry Fogli, Irv Goldstein, Joyce Hogan, Jim Outtz, and Ben Schneider in attempts to do more with respect to fairness in testing and selection. Also, my graduate student cohort, friend, and colleague, Frank Landy and I are working together on the new journal, Human Performance, hoping to make it a valuable resource for researchers. In conclusion, I look forward to the upcoming years, to undertaking new challenges, and working with others who will impact me  -  if the future is as enjoyable and rewarding (but hopefully slower pace) as the first 20 years, I will be extremely happy.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY
SHELDON ZEDECK
March 1991
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY

Past Presidents TOC | SIOP Home