Practice Perspectives: Where I-O Worlds Collide:
The Nature of I-O Practice
Rob Silzer, Rich Cober, and Anna Erickson
The practice of industrial-organizational psychology is central to our field, but there are different views of what the term actually means. Over the last several years, a series of articles in TIP and a SIOP report have explored I-O practice and the professional interests and needs of I-O practitioners (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, 2008a). In this article we discuss the nature of I-O practice and identify some of the work activities of I-O psychologists that differ for those working in organizations, consulting firms, and academic institutions.
Distinguishing I-O Practice and Research
Over the years many people have struggled with both the definition of I-O psychology practice and the terms that we have used to refer to I-O psychologists. One of the key challenges is that the name of our field seems focused on specific contexts—industrial and organizational settings—and not on a clearly differentiated content area of psychology. As Campbell notes, we “have borrowed heavily from social, cognitive, clinical and counseling psychology, personality and individual differences and even behavioral genetics” (2007, pg 454). Our content areas draw widely from other content areas of psychology. However, Campbell suggests that there are some areas that “had their core development within I-O psychology,” such as “leadership, training design, performance theory, human motivation, high performance work teams, assessment methods, nature of human judgments of performance, attitude (job satisfaction) assessment, quantitative modeling” (pg 448).
The name of our field, industrial-organizational psychology, has remained fairly constant over the last 50 years (after earlier being considered applied psychology), despite some recent attempts to change it. Subgroups of I-O psychologists have become ever more distinct as the field has gained some success and influence in organizations. The tension between science and practice in our field has been around for many years (see Koppes, 2007; Zicker & Gibby, 2007) and continues to be a significant concern (e.g., see upcoming Atlanta SIOP conference session on the science–practice gap, Silzer, et al., 2010a). Although tension may exist due to the professional needs of these subgroups, there is broad agreement that the success and ongoing professional sustainability of each subgroup rests in the value-adding performance of the other.
The diverging professional interests and needs of I-O researchers and practitioners (the use of this term is further explored below) have become even more evident recently (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, 2008a), and SIOP as a professional organization is being challenged to more actively support the interests and needs of both subgroups. Often a third key role of I-O educators is not frequently seen as a separate subgroup because it is dominated by researchers in academic work settings, who tend to focus on their research needs and interests. As a result, practitioners have voiced significant concerns that practice issues, knowledge, and skills are largely ignored by graduate training programs. This issue also is getting more attention lately (Silzer et al., 2008a).
In the 1980s and 1990s, significant numbers of I-O psychologists took applied positions in organizations and consulting firms. Although initially many worked in personnel research roles, they later broadened their responsibilities and moved into roles in leadership development, staffing/selection, talent management, organizational development, human resources, assessment, coaching, organizational effectiveness, and so on. The professional interests, needs, and roles of practitioners have significantly broadened and often diverged from the interests and needs of I-O psychologists who focus primarily on research activities (both in and out of academic institutions).
We would suggest that the field has noticeably expanded as the roles for I-O psychologists have broadened, although Campbell argues that the field has “regressed…to a much narrower focus” (2007). Which view you hold may depend on whether you are primarily looking at published research in the field (perhaps seen by some as narrower and more reductionist) or looking at what I-O psychologists are actually doing and how they are contributing in organizations (clearly broader). This suggests that one major difference in views between I-O researchers and practitioners is that they are looking at different parts of our field, perhaps to some degree based on the difference in valuing rigor versus relevance.
The labels we have used for these subgroups have varied over the years and have been confusing. In early years some psychologists, such as Seashore, argued for the term “technician to refer to those who were engaged in applying psychological techniques and principles to solving human problems” (Zickar & Gibby, 2007). Most practitioners today would likely find that term very inappropriate (and offensive) given the complexity of their work and the high level of expertise that is required. It seems to represent a trend in our field that continues today of suggesting a one-way direction of knowledge from researchers to practitioners. For example, the movement encouraging “evidence-based” approaches (Rynes et al., 2007) has the potential to bring great benefits to organizations. But it also could run into resistance if it becomes perceived as a one-way communication process where researchers “tell” practitioners that they know better how to do things rather than engage in constructive partnerships to bring evidence-based practices to bear.
“Applied psychologist” was another term widely used to distinguish those not doing basic psychological research. And then in 1949 the Boulder conference on science and practice in clinical psychology gave rise to the science–practice model (APA, 1950). A version of the model was adopted by I-O psychology, even though the actual terms scientist and practitioner were not fully adopted by the field. For many years, (until recently) few I-O psychologists referred to themselves as scientists or practitioners; rather, everyone tended to think of themselves as I-O psychologists. For many years there was minimal distinction between research and practice activities because the field was so applied in nature and the areas of interest were more focused. However, as the field expanded beyond the original areas of focus—such as selection, productivity, and job performance—and into a broader range of issues at both the organizational and individual level—such as leadership development and organizational development—the research did not always sufficiently expand to guide these areas.
This has changed in the last 10 years as personnel research departments have largely disappeared from organizations (in some cases now outsourced to research consulting firms) and as I-O psychologists have broadened their roles and responsibilities inside organizations. Practitioners in I-O psychology (in organizations and consulting firms) have emerged as a large subgroup in our field (some would say they now represent a majority of SIOP members) and have expressed professional interests and needs that are noticeably different from those I-O psychologists focused on doing research. This has led to an interest in having specific labels to distinguish these I-O subgroups. Some labels we have heard being used recently include:
- academics versus nonacademics
- academics versus practitioners
- researchers versus practitioners
- organizational psychologists versus academics
Each of these pairs raises concerns. For example, the first pair is rather dismissive of practitioners (describing them as not another group). The second pair confounds where someone works with the activities they do. The third pair leaves out educator roles as a separate subgroup. And the last pair seems to focus more on differences in work locations and not differences in work activities, and has the potential for leaving out psychologists who do not easily fit into either work location. In addition, because some I-O psychologists refer to themselves as organizational psychologists, this last pair suggests that academics are not organizational psychologists.
We propose a framework of the work activities and work locations of I-O psychologists (see Table 1) that might better distinguish I-O subgroups and lead to more useful descriptive terms. We suggest three major categories of work activities (research, education, and practice) and outline the most frequent work locations for I-O psychologists.
We think the three major work locations categories, with subcategories, account for the large majority of I-O psychology work locations. However, we recognize that there are other less numerous positions held by I-O psychologists. We strongly encourage SIOP to endorse and support the proposed Practitioner Career Study, or some meaningful version of the current proposal, that will help to document both the work activities and work locations of I-O practitioners but also help us better understand practitioner career paths.
We have identified three major clusters of work activities, based on the recent SIOP member survey (Silzer et al., 2008a) and think they represent the major clusters of I-O psychologists’ work activities (that focus on our field). In the past the field has typically been represented by a dichotomy (science vs. practice), and the role of I-O educator has often been ignored. We think I-O education is an important activity of I-O psychologists and should be recognized, if for no other reason than to clarify the differences between research and education, values, and interests.
Of course these distinctions raise some issues. We expect that some may not agree with separating research and practice. Some would argue that everything we do as I-O psychologists is practice. There has long been a distinction in our field between science and practice. We would argue that any distinction between research and science is minor and typically advocated by those who want to distinguish basic science from applied science. In our field those two areas significantly overlap. We would also argue that practice can be something very different from research, although we recognize that there is an underlying continuum. We anticipate that some people see their research efforts as their I-O practice. However that reasoning would then put virtually everything I-O psychologists do under practice and continue to confound the different interests and values of various subgroups.
It could be argued that practice is the active application of available psychological knowledge in order to take action on immediate issues. Some rigorous empirical research in organizations might not fit easily in that definition and does seem closer to science in systematically collecting additional knowledge to inform the field and impact later actions. Most I-O practitioners in organizations (not involved in research) would likely understand and support this distinction, although those heavily involved in research will probably object. One might argue that conducting an individual psychological assessment (and collecting data on the individual) has some similarities to conducting an organizational survey or conducting a selection validation study. In all three cases, data are collected to be used later to reach conclusions and decisions. But few would suggest that individual psychological assessments are research projects in the typical sense.
Another related problem is that some researchers (often in academic institutions) argue that they are full-fledged practitioners and want to speak for all practitioners, even though their values, interests, and professional needs differ significantly from those of most practitioners (particularly those who do not do rigorous research). This is one of the chief underlining causes of practitioner dissatisfaction within SIOP (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, 2008b). Most practitioners in organizations and consulting firms see themselves as having very different needs and interests from those who primarily focus on doing rigorous research. But let’s be clear, we strongly support the importance of research knowledge as a key value for all subgroups but see very different interests and needs in other areas across the groups.
There is also a practical reason for making the researcher/practitioner distinction. Some researchers have made an overt effort to impose their strict rigorous research standards on all practitioners when evaluating and recognizing the work of practitioners in organizations. This standard is often inappropriate and unworkable for much practitioner work. It has undervalued practitioner contributions to the field and has resulted in SIOP giving almost all professional recognitions and awards to researchers with published research while shutting out practitioners who do not have published research in peer-reviewed journals. We need to develop professional standards for practitioners that are appropriate and relevant to their work.
We might also argue that the professional interests and needs of researchers are very similar to the scientists in our field. Murphy and Sideman (2006) argue that the science-driven culture, “characterized by an emphasis on precision, empirical confirmation, and scientific caution,” is often in conflict with the practice-driven culture that “emphasizes attempting to solve real world problems, without necessarily waiting to work out all the details of the underlying theory or the empirical tests” (p. 43). They also suggest other differences in:
- values: a focus on methods versus a focus on problems,
- criteria: a focus on replicability/precision versus a focus on persuasiveness/action orientation,
- audiences: focused on other scientists versus focused on potential users.
We suggest that researchers are typically more aligned with science-driven cultures than practice-driven cultures. It is evident not only in what they do but in what they value. There seems to be widespread appreciation for the differences in science and practice values. Some however argue for an expanded group of values. For example Lefkowitz (1990) has suggested formal recognition of a “triarchy of value concerns—scientific, humanistic, and economic.” Campbell (2007) advocates paying attention to four different value systems: science, the organization, the individual, and the public good.
One of the hurdles in discussing these issues is that most people have chosen either a research-oriented career (typically in an academic institution or a research consulting firm) or a practitioner-oriented career (in an organization or consulting firm). The difference in their professional needs and views of the profession are substantially shaped by their personal experience in these different career paths. What they see and advocate for is highly likely to be linked to the career path they have chosen.
I-O Practice Activities
In exploring the nature of practice we think it is helpful to better understand the work activities of I-O psychologists in the three major work settings. In this and previous TIP articles we have discussed practitioner and researcher differences. Although we are all I-O psychologists, we are often focused on different activities across the practice/research/education spectrum. Although it should be pointed out that many I-O psychologists are active in several of these areas.
We were interested in better understanding the work activities of I-O psychologists working in different settings, such as consulting firms, private-sector/public-sector organizations, and academic institutions. We turned to existing data to help us understand those differences.
We reviewed the survey data from the SIOP Practitioner Needs Survey (Silzer et al., 2008a) and focused on responses to Question 2: How important are each of these activities to your current effectiveness as a practitioner? Respondents were asked to rate 17 different work activities on a three-point importance scale (highly important, important, not important). We cross-tabulated the job type of the respondents (individual contributor, supervisor, etc.) with the organizational setting in which they worked. The cross tabs provided a useful picture of the types of jobs held by survey respondents in different settings (see Table 2).
A review of the relative frequency of job types by organizational setting confirms what most I-O psychologists would hypothesize are the typical jobs held by individuals in different settings. In consulting firms, a large number of respondents are executives/officers, which reflects the substantial number of I-O psychologists in independent practice (29% of the survey respondents working in consulting settings). The second highest proportion of jobs in consulting settings was in individual contributor roles. In private- and public-sector organizations/institutions, most respondents were employed in individual contributor or manager-/director-level jobs. In academic institutions, the overwhelming majority of respondents identified themselves as professors/faculty.
Then organizational setting was used as a grouping variable for conducting tests of mean differences in the importance assigned to different work activities. The response means on importance were tested using a one-way ANOVA with a post-hoc Tukey test to provide us with insight regarding homogenous subgroupings (see Table 3). In this way, we not only could test where significant mean differences existed across the three work settings but could also clearly see where work activities converge.
The results presented in Table 3 indicate that across the three work settings there are significant differences for the importance of all the work activities except for making presentations (which could include company presentations, class presentations, and client presentations).
The most important work activities varied by works setting:
- Consulting work settings: consulting and advising clients; building relationships; implementing and delivering programs; making presentations; developing and designing systems, methods, and programs; managing work projects and administrative tasks.
- Private-/public-sector work settings: consulting and advising clients; building relationships; managing work projects and administrative tasks; making presentations; implementing and delivering programs.
- Academic settings: making presentations; conducting primary research and data analysis; building relationships; teaching courses or training programs; consulting and advising clients.
Looking at the most important activities across the three settings suggest some overlap in work activities. We formally evaluated this overlap (using the posthoc Tukey test) and identified the degree of statistical differentiation in importance responses across work-setting groups. The last column in Table 3 identifies the work-setting groups that were homogeneous in their responses on the importance of each work activity. For example, “writing reports” was seen as a relatively more important activity for both consultants and academics than it was for private-/public-sector practitioners. Seven of the work activities were rated more similarly on importance by consultants and private-/public-sector practitioners than those employed in academic institutions.
These findings are interesting and likely make intuitive sense for many I-O psychologists employed in consulting and private-/public-sector organizations. This study included only a limited number of work activities and provides only an initial understanding of differences across work settings. Because of the many changes in our field and the expanded roles for I-O practitioners, we think it is critical that a more thorough study of professional roles be initiated.
Our next TIP article will focus on the future of I-O practice and discuss steps that SIOP and practitioners can take to address the interests and needs of I-O practitioners. Also see the upcoming session at the Atlanta SIOP conference on the future of I-O practice (Silzer, Ashworth, Paul, & Tippins, 2010b).
References
American Psychological Association. (1950). Training in clinical psychology. Oxford, UK: Prentice Hall.
Campbell, J. P. (2007). Profiting from history. In L.L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 441–457). New York: Psychology Press.
Koppes, L. L. (Ed.). (2007). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 441–457). New York: Psychology Press.
Lefkowitz, J. (1990, July). The scientist–practitioner model is not enough. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 28(1), 47–52.
Murphy, K. R. & Sideman, L. (2006). The two EIs. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.). A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed? (pp. 37–58). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rynes S.L. et al. (2007, October). Editor’s forum on the research–practice gap in human resource management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 985–1054.
Silzer, R. F., Ashworth, S., Paul, K., & Tippins, N. (2010b, April). Envisioning the next 25 years of I-O practice—An exercise. Panel discussion to be presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Silzer, R. F., Cober, R. T., Erickson, A., & Robinson, G. (2008a, October). Practitioner Needs Survey: Final survey report. Society for Industrial and Organizational Society. Bowling Green, OH. (Available at: http://www.siop.org/Practitioner%20Needs%20Survey.pdf).
Silzer, R. F., Cober, R. T., Erickson, A. R., & Robinson, G. (2008b, July). Practitioner satisfaction with SIOP. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 46(1), 43–58.
Silzer, R. F., Cober, R., Farr, J., Hakel, M., Jeanneret, P. R., Saari, L. & Salas, E. (2010a, April). The science–practice gap: A fishbowl exercise focused on changing the future. Invited session to be presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Zicker, M. J. & Gibby R. E. (2007). Four persistent themes throughout the history of I-O psychology in the United States. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 61–80). New York: Psychology Press.