A Message From Your President October 2007

As I write my column, I have just returned from the SIOP 2007 Leading Edge Consortium (LEC) in Kansas City. Our third fall consortium, under the leadership of Leatta Hough, engaged senior SIOP members and executives in a forum for dialogue between scientists and practitioners. Topics were creativity and innovation, with Bill Mobley and Michele Frese as co-chairs and a fantastic slate of speakers representing I-O psychology as well as other disciplines. See the summary and pictures of the conference in this issue of TIP and look for the DVD on our Web site soon.

This was my first LEC and I found the discussion to be lively and engaging, in a setting that allowed ample opportunity to speak with presenters and attendees alike. Plans are currently underway for the 2008 LEC to be held in Cincinnati on October 17–18, under the leadership of Jeff McHenry. The topic is coaching and I encourage you to make plans to attend. I am honored to have the opportunity to develop the 2009 LEC, and I welcome any suggestions that you have for topical themes.

SIOP submitted comments about the proposed revision to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Dick Jeanneret and Shelly Zedeck co-chaired the task force with Winfred Arthur, José Cortina, Marilyn Gowing, Jerry Kehoe, Jim Outtz, Bob Ramos, Paul Sackett, and Suzanne Tsacoumis providing their expertise. Final comments that were forwarded to APA are posted on SIOP’s Web site. I wish to thank the task force and all members who provided comments.

SIOP has also joined the U.S. ANSI Technical Advisory Group (TAG) in commenting on the ISO Standards for Workplace/Employment Testing. This is a proposal initiated in Germany to promulgate standards concerning employment testing to align practice globally. It is an international project with an anticipated timeline of 3 years. Donald Truxillo, Wayne Camara, and G. Harris served as the U.S. representatives at the meeting in Vienna in October. SIOP will continue to work on this project as a member of the U.S. TAG to provide input on best practices relative to employment testing.

By now, SIOP’s e-newsletter is a standard mechanism for communication. SIOP Newsbriefs allows us to get information to members quickly without inundating everyone with individual e-mails during the month. The SIOP Executive Committee has always been concerned about sending too many e-mails to members, and it is our intent that the e-newsletter will facilitate communication of events and requests for information that can’t wait for TIP. Please do check the individual entries in SIOP Newsbriefs and let us know if you have any suggestions as to how to improve this communication device.

Only a little over 3 months remain until the SIOP conference in San Francisco. I do hope that you plan to attend. As we move to a 3-day format, Steven Rogelberg, Doug Pugh, and the entire Program Committee have several exciting innovations. I am so proud of everyone’s contributions to making this conference a success—the engagement of so many of our members in planning and preparing the conference is a hallmark of SIOP volunteerism! One innovation is the inclusion of theme tracks. Please take a look at Steven and Doug’s articles in this issue of TIP for more information.

I want to close my presidential column with several musings. Perhaps sitting in three meetings back-to-back for so many days allows one’s mind to wander! Or, maybe it was the stimulation of interacting with individuals from a wide range disciplines (including psychology subdisciplines) who are engaged in so many different primary work settings, including corporate executives, HR professionals, consultants, applied researchers, applied scientists, and basic scientists, including all of the subdisciplines of psychology.

Three things strike my imagination. One is that the “universe” in which
I-O psychology resides is incredibly broad. We can and have contributed to understanding behavior at multiple levels in the organization, but our contributions are not necessarily well recognized. Second, and because of our breadth, the competencies involved in the practice of I-O may need to be reviewed, especially relative to SIOP’s guidelines for education and training. We are one of only four specialties recognized by APA and yet, I-O is the only one of the four that does not have identified proficiencies. Is this an accurate reflection of I-O psychology as a specialty? A third observation is that a number of psychologists prefer to call themselves something other than psychologists. For example, many cognitive psychologists refer to themselves as cognitive neuroscientists or cognitive scientists. Associated with this, I was struck by the number of fields that are moving to the more microlevel of behavior—neuroeconomics, neurosocial psychology to name a few. Where does this leave I-O? Are we keeping abreast with psychology as a discipline and with related fields?

I certainly don’t have the answers to these musings, but I do think these are questions that we, as members of SIOP, should be discussing. We have several activities associated with our strategic plan that may inform my musings. Plus, there are several opportunities at our upcoming conference, including a theme track on education in I-O psychology, that will allow dialogue on topics of concern to SIOP members. I look forward to engaging discussions.

Remember our Strategic Goals and let me or any of the members of the Executive Committee hear your thoughts:

Visible and trusted authority on work-related psychology
Advocate and champion of I-O psychology to policy makers
Organization of choice of I-O professionals
Model of integrated scientist–practitioner effectiveness that values research, practice, and education equally and seeks higher standards in all three areas.