What is I-O?

First, I have a few thoughts about clinicians entering the I-O arena. I must preface my remarks by pointing out that the latest SIOP member survey (as reported in the July 2000 issue of TIP) indicated that only 1% of Members (and 3% of Student Affiliates) identify clinicians moving into I-O as the trend that will have the greatest impact on the field over the next several years. This finding does not appear to mirror the level of concern expressed by a few individual SIOP members, and I believe that it reflects a more levelheaded view held by most of the membership. I dont think that an invasion of clinicians is imminent, nor do I feel that most of those who have moved into the I-O arena from the clinical side reflect much of a threat to the integrity of the field.

Its certainly true that managed care, an enormous glut of clinical and counseling psychologists, and the ever-swelling number of therapists of other persuasions who are now eligible for various types of licensure (social workers, family counselors, nurses, and so on) have greatly impacted clinical and counseling psychology. In many cases, clinical and counseling psychologists have been unable to differentiate themselves from other, presumably less-trained (but less expensive), clinicians. I do believe that these economic pressures have led a small number (as far as Im aware, there are no good statistics on this) of clinicians to diversify into areas that are traditionally considered I-O psychology.

Although irritating to some true I-O psychologists, I dont think that much can be done about this. Some I-O psychologists have called for licensure as a solution, but I view this as unnecessary, costly, and probably ineffective. In most states, licensing for psychology falls under the rubric of health-related boards designed to protect the public. My feeling is that I-O psychology would be sparing itself a major, collective headache by avoiding any kind of specific I-O licensure entirely, at least under the system of psychology boards,as it currently exists. My sense is that the creation of a specific license for I-O psychologists (and all the hassles that accompany it) will still fail to prevent some areas of overlapping practice, simply because there are a few areas that are extremely difficult to partition as being clearly I-O versus clinical. Its my contention that it is in these fuzzy areas that most of the clinicians-turned-I-O psychologists are working anyway: organization development, individual assessment, workplace stress, and others. 

The Blurred Lines of Practice

I spent my career as a clinical psychologist in the U.S. Air Force, an organization that doesnt even have a job code for uniformed, doctoral-level I-O psychologists. All uniformed psychologists are licensed clinical psychologists and are organizationally part of the Biomedical Sciences Corps. The doctoral-level I-O psychologists who work for the Air Force are civilian, federal employees. Perhaps as a result of this situation, some Air Force clinical psychologists find themselves in jobs that fall somewhere along the boundary of clinical and I-O psychology. I was a prime example of this. In my first assignment, a large proportion of my job consisted of interviewing and testing personnel in order to make recommendations regarding their suitability for security clearances, nuclear weapons duty, police work, and other jobs. Was I doing clinical psychologyor I-Oor both? Considerations of mental status and mental health history clearly fall within the clinical arena. But assessing personality-job congruence, making recommendations regarding job placement, and designing and carrying out studies of turnover sounds a bit like I-O psychology.

Nonetheless, my second assignment further blurred the boundaries of professional identity. As a psychologist at the Behavioral Analysis Service, located at the largest personnel training center in the Air Force, I spent most of my professional time conducting evaluations to determine fitness for duty, doing job selection for drill instructors and police, and conducting quantitative research on predictors of attrition. I published articles in the areas of training attrition, job satisfaction, occupational stress, predictor models, and so on. Was this I-O psychology or clinical psychology? And does it really matter-so long as the work was done well?

My point is that there will be some areas where clinical psychology and I-O psychology intersect and some overlap is likely to occur. Yet, I can appreciate the concerns of I-O psychologists because I have been shocked by how many clinical psychologists have only a sparse knowledge of I-O psychology in general. Perhaps this is the reason that when some clinicians venture into the I-O arena, for example, they feel that they can do so with little or no additional training!

I once gave a presentation to Air Force clinical psychology interns and staff at a large medical center. My presentation concerned the current status of personality testing in personnel selection. I attempted to present the latest research, replete with cautionary statements and some prerequisite background necessary to understand the issues. Although I was complimented on the presentation, I was also amazed (and a bit dismayed) at how many attendeesnot only interns but staff as wellwere hearing many of the issues for the first time. Perhaps it was that I had the advantage of electing some graduate courses in I-O psychology while a doctoral student at Tennesseeand having always had an interdisciplinary orientation. But I learned quickly that some clinicians remain largely unaware of the historical and scientific foundations of I-O psychology and thus do not even know enough to recognize what they dont know!

Nonetheless, the good news is that, in my experience, very few clinicians are moving into I-O psychology. In my opinion, most of those that do so are moving into areas that overlap somewhat with I-O psychology, and these individuals are probably sufficiently qualified by training and/or experience to function in a competent manner at least thats my hope. In fact, my experience in working side by side with I-O psychologists is that well-trained clinicians and well-trained I-O psychologists often make a highly effective team so long as all share the fundamental scientist-practitioner viewpoint. In any case, if clinicians working in I-O are not adding value to their client organizations, they probably wont be around for long. But the same applies to any I-O psychologist. 

Are MBAs Really a Problem?

My views concerning MBAs moving into areas common to I-O psychology are informed by my own status as a full-time MBA student in a well-known business school. When I left the Air Force, I decided that the timing was perfect for a career transition. Interested in applications of psychology in business and applications of technology to psychology, but in total ignorance of core business knowledge, I decided to set off upon a skills upgrade of major proportions. My own experiences as a psychologist in a business school have provided me with enough material for a separate article (perhaps a humorous piece!), but for now Ill keep my comments centered on the issue of MBAs working in I-O psychology. Suffice it to say that the cultures and world views of business school and psychology school are very different, though neither is necessarily better. I agree with the previous commentary in TIP by Bill Verdi and others (see the October 1999 and January 2000 issues in particular), who pointed out that MBAs are not trained in the scientist-practitioner model and have, in general, a highly action-oriented, bottom-line mentality.

I believe that very few MBAs, in the absence of significant additional training, are qualified to do traditional I-O psychology work. But I havent met many MBAs that want to do the kind of work that characterizes much of I-O psychology. In fact, many MBAs have never heard of I-O psychology and appear a bit puzzled (but curious) when you describe some of the tasks that an I-O psychologist might perform in an organization.

The goals of an MBA program are to ensure that the recipient of the degree has a solid grasp of business fundamentalsfor example, accounting, finance, marketing, and so ona fairly in-depth knowledge of one or two functional areas (in my case, for example, Internet Technologies/MIS and Marketing), and the overall experiential and academic training to be a manager. This is clearly a very different set of goals than any PhD program in psychology. And, based on my own observation in the required Organizational Behavior (OB) course (MBA programs have at least one required course of this type as part of their core requirements), most MBA students appear to have minimal appreciation for psychological research and simply have not been trained to think like psychologists. I wonder if this is part of the reason why some I-O psychologists feel unappreciated by their organizations? 

Do MBAs Belong in Organization Development Instead?

The areas that seem to be causing concern on the part of I-O psychologists are the entry of many MBAs into organization development (OD) consulting, and the presence of both professions in HR areas. As for consulting, I dont think that I-O psychology can put up much of an argument that consulting should be the exclusive realm of psychologists. What is consulting? Is it not simply providing needed knowledge, skills, and abilities that an organization cannot provide for itself due to limited time or resources? By virtue of their training (and pre-MBA background, which can cover the gamut), some MBAs are highly qualified to be consultants. However, when I see firms recruiting MBAs for consulting positions within their organization-development divisions, I cant help but wonder if someone ought to make these firms aware that they might get more bang for the buck by hiring a few I-O psychologists, or in some cases, even a suitably trained clinician!

There is no doubt in my mind that, in some areas of OD, a doctoral-level psychologist is far more qualified than a typical MBA. Although some MBA programs (such as mine) offer a track in consulting, it is typically comprised of two courses, the content of which can be described as a fairly basic introduction to topics such as change management, organizational diagnosis, organizational design, and so on. There is also some team project work, which can be fairly extensive. The MBA clearly has the advantage in understanding business, but in my view, the appropriately trained psychologist is far better equipped to analyze complex situations involving the human element in business and to come up with solutions that can be studied to address their effectiveness. On the other hand, OD as an academic unit is usually a part of the management department (or constitutes its own department) within a business school, rather than being affiliated with a psychology department. Given that OD has its own history and is defined as separate from (but related to) I-O psychology, MBAs might be able to make a reasonable argument that they are equally entitled to the domain of OD consulting. Whether they truly have the knowledge and skills necessary upon graduation is another matter.

As for MBAs in the HR area, I dont see this as a major issue. MBAs that I know who have an interest in HR are mostly interested in general HR management or specialized areas of HR consulting such as compensation and benefits (for which their finance and accounting background is relevant). And since it can be argued that HR is a field in its own right, with its own professional organizations, and historically more closely tied to business schools than I-O programs, I dont see the notion of MBAs in HR as inappropriate nor as a problematic trend for I-O psychologists. However, for an I-O psychologist who wants to be viewed as something other than a specialist and strives to move to higher levels of management within HR, my impression is that he or she will need to adopt a framework more akin to that of the MBA. Perhaps even getting an MBA wouldnt be a bad career move. 

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, I believe that there are some areas where clinical and I-O psychology intersect and which cant be claimed as the exclusive domain of either profession. These fuzzy boundaries will continue to remain fuzzy, despite everyones best efforts to draw clear lines. As for MBAs, I dont think that they are barbarians at the gate mainly because there is no gateapart from an organizations ability to discriminate who can add value. Those who can add value will survive, and those who cant will not be around for long, despite whatever three letters they have after their names.

My advice to the field of I-O psychology is to look closely at the parallels with clinical psychologys largely losing battles over turf during the last 10 years and to avoid the same mistakes. Rather than a licensure strategy, I suggest a voluntarily national certification for I-O psychology. Put simply, some entityperhaps SIOP would be the appropriate choiceshould develop realistic criteria for who should ideally be entitled to call themselves I-O psychologists. The criteria will need to be realistic and carefully developed, because there are clearly some individuals with doctoral degrees in clinical psychology, social psychology, management, and a variety of other areas, who by virtue of their particular training, experience, and expertise, have earned this right. Such a certificate would have no legal bearing whatsoever, but this is for the best, since state legislatures and the courts have grown increasingly annoyed with guild issues and turf battles between professions (clinical psychologists have learned this painfully well).

Neither should I-O psychology adopt the ABPP Fellow status to serve the purpose of a general professional certification. The simple designation as a Certified I-O Psychologist by SIOP, based on a combination of academic training and strong evidence of significant experience in a domain that is clearly I-O psychology, would serve merely as something akin to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

Perhaps graduates of approved programs in I-O would be automatically approved, whereas those from other degree programs would require review on a case-by-case basis. Such a certification could be strongly marketed to the business world and governments. Eventually, the certificate would develop sufficient recognition to be useful. It would simply indicate that the designee was considered an I-O psychologist by SIOP, a body of his or her peers, rather than by virtue of self-proclamation. This type of program would be much less costly than licensure, which is fraught with problems and likely to be ineffective at keeping non I-O psychologists out of the fuzzy areas of the I-O psychology domain anyway.