The Industrial-Organizational Psychology Curriculum: Is What We Teach Valued by Business?

*Note: Send correspondence to Michael Gasser, Department of Psychology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, 50614-0505; E-mail: michael.gasser@uni.edu.

A recent survey of Fellows in the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) examines the characteristics that distinguish graduate education in industrial-organizational psychology (I-O) from graduate education in human resources management (HRM) as taught in business schools (Gasser, Butler, Waddilove, & Tan, 2004). The survey reveals that a distinguishing feature of I-O educational training is the use of empirical/statistical evaluation as part of sound scientific methodology. Graduate education in I-O typically follows a scientist–practitioner model, two orientations that Dunnette (1990) argues a good I-O psychologist should blend. According to the scientist–practitioner model, a practitioner should use the scientific method to carefully evaluate whether what is being done in an organization actually works. For example, does a training program teach the employees what they were expected to learn? Does a selection test actually predict the future performance of employees? The scientist–practitioner model suggests that it is impossible to know the answer to those questions unless the practitioner uses an empirical/statistical methodology. Further, the scientist–practitioner model promotes the idea that empirically based evaluations are of great benefit to the organization.

Empirical/statistical methodology is an important part of I-O graduate training. Bartles, Macan, Gutting, Lemming, and McCrea (2005) examine the curricula of 102 doctoral and 122 master’s I-O graduate programs and find that 73 of the master’s programs and 64 of the doctoral programs use a balanced scientist–practitioner model. Three of the master’s programs and 27 of the doctoral programs use a curriculum focusing mostly on research. Given Dunnette’s (1990) description of the scientist–practitioner model as incorporating a strong empirical/statistical element in training, it seems that most
I-O programs highlight this skill for their students. A job analysis of I-O psychologists done by Blakeney et al. (2002) also shows that the capacity to conduct empirical analyses is one of the top skills defining the job. Finally, Trahand and McAllister (2002) find that statistical methods and research methods are the two highest rated competencies for coverage in the curricula of master’s level programs. At all levels, graduate training in I-O psychology is characterized by a focus on empirical/statistical methodology.

If graduate training in empirical/statistical methodology is an important characteristic that distinguishes I-O psychologists, then it is important to know if this skill is valued in the general business community. A survey done by Lentz, Tuttle, Allen, Brutus, and Handler (2005) shows that some of the top concerns of I-O psychologists for the coming decade include showing a connection between the skills of I-O psychologists and the financial success of an organization, increasing the recognition of I-O in the business community, competing with business school graduates, and improving the perceived relevance of I-O in the business community. All of these issues are related to an overall concern about how I-O is valued in the business community.

In this study we compared the emphasis I-O program coordinators place on training for practical applications and empirical/statistical evaluation with the value business leaders place on these same skills in potential employees. Do business leaders value the same skills in potential employees that are emphasized in I-O graduate training? This question is especially important for graduates who will soon be in the job market and I-O program coordinators who are training the next generation of I-O psychologists. Private-sector human resources (HR) positions are the jobs for which many graduates in
I-O are competing (Lowe, 1993). Employment in business settings is common even with undergraduate psychology majors (Borden & Rajecki, 2000) and even more likely with undergraduate psychology majors focusing specifically on I-O (Kirnan, Reilly, & Decker, 2000). If the skills taught in I-O programs are not valued or are less valued than more generic business skills that involve the ability to perform a business process without evaluation, then I-O graduates are at a disadvantage in their job search.

Method

We created a survey that included four work processes (i.e., hiring, training, employee surveys, compensation). Two skills were evaluated for each process. One skill involved proper use of the work process, and one skill reflected empirical/statistical evaluation of the work process. The authors of this study chose the four work processes intuitively because they represented major categories of work in the HR domain and seemed to be readily identifiable by both I-O psychologists and business professionals. The two skills for each domain were identified as defining skills for I-O program graduates (empirical/statistical evaluation skills) and business school graduates (applied skills) in previous research (Gasser, Butler, Waddilove, & Tan, 2004). The work processes included in the survey were (the specific usage or empirical/statistical evaluation skill is in parentheses) hiring (i.e., the ability to legally conduct an interview, using statistics to determine if the interview is hiring better employees), training (i.e., presenting information clearly and effectively in a training session, using statistics to evaluate whether the material was learned in the training session), employee surveys (i.e., organizing and presenting survey responses, using statistics to link the results of the survey to changes that should be made in the organization), and compensation (i.e., appropriately and legally managing a compensation program, using statistics to evaluate a compensation system to see how it is affecting employee motivation).

Two groups of participants were included in this study. The first group included local business leaders (i.e., full-time, salaried employees of local businesses, n = 30). The employees were selected because they were in leadership positions with a clear set of subordinates. Graduate students, employed as interns in each respective organization, approached the business leaders and asked them to complete the survey. All of the business leaders approached agreed to participate in the study. No incentives were offered for participation. Business leaders completed paper-and-pencil versions of the survey. Fifteen reported the job title of “manager” and 5 reported the job title of “president/vice president”; thus, the majority of the sample held managerial roles within their respective organizations. These individuals were instructed to imagine they were hiring an employee who would handle human resource functions. Then, they were asked to evaluate the list of skills as if those skills were characteristics of a candidate for the aforementioned HR position. For business leaders, skills were evaluated on a scale ranging from 5 = very valuable to 1 = not valuable.

The second group of participants included coordinators of I-O graduate programs (n = 30), identified from the Webpage for SIOP. Each of the I-O program coordinators contacted agreed to participate in the study by completing the survey via telephone. No incentives were given for participation. The I-O coordinators and the business leaders evaluated identical skills. However, I-O coordinators were instructed to evaluate the list of skills based on the emphasis their graduate program places on teaching each skill. For I-O program coordinators, skills were evaluated on a scale ranging from 5 = very strong emphasis to 1 = very little emphasis.

Results

Independent-sample t-tests were used to evaluate whether significant mean differences existed between the responses of the business leaders and the responses of the I-O graduate program coordinators. The first business process analyzed was hiring. The first skill, “being able to appropriately and legally conduct an interview,” was reported as being valued significantly more by business leaders (M = 4.77, SD = .43) than was emphasized in I-O programs (M = 3.43, SD = 1.07), t(58) = 6.32, p < .01. Conversely, “using statistics to determine if the interview is really hiring better employees,” was not found to be significant (t(57) = -1.63, p = .11). I-O program directors reported a mean of 4.13 (SD = .97) for this skill and business leaders reported a mean of 3.72 (SD = .96).

Next, training was analyzed. First, “being able to present information clearly and effectively in a training session” was reported as being valued significantly more by business leaders (M = 4.57, SD = .63) than was emphasized in I-O graduate programs (M = 4.07, SD = .98), t(58) = 2.36, p = .02. On the other hand, “using statistics to determine if the employees really learned what was being taught in a training session” was reported as being emphasized significantly more in I-O programs (M = 4.07, SD = .83) than it was valued by business leaders (M = 3.54, SD = .88), t(56) = -2.37, p = .02.

The third work process analyzed was employee surveys. Interestingly, the first skill, “being able to organize and present the responses of a large number of surveyed employees,” was reported as being emphasized more in I-O programs (M = 4.33, SD = .84) than it was valued by business leaders (M = 3.90, SD = .82), t(57) = -2.02, p = .05. The second skill, “using statistics to link the results of the survey to changes that should be made in the organization,” was reported as being valued significantly more by business leaders (M = 4.41, SD = .87) than it was emphasized in I-O programs (M = 3.87, SD = 1.00), t(57) = 2.23, p = .03. Thus, for this work process the results were in the opposite direction from the results of the first two work processes.

The last work process examined was compensation. First, “being able to appropriately and legally manage an employee compensation program” was reported as being valued significantly more by business leaders (M = 4.67, SD = .55) than it was emphasized in I-O programs (M = 2.27, SD = 1.17), t(58) = 10.16, p < .01. Second, “using statistics to evaluate a compensation system to see how it is affecting the motivation of the employees” was reported as being valued more by business leaders (M = 3.86, SD = .85) than it was emphasized in I-O programs (M = 2.53, SD = 1.17), t(56) = 4.91, p < .01. Business leaders consistently valued work processes related to compensation more than such processes were emphasized in I-O program curriculums.

Discussion

Business leaders value both the applied skills and the statistical/empirical skills within each job process. The means for business leaders are above three (on a five-point scale), indicating a positive reaction to the skill. This is also generally true for the emphasis placed on each skill by I-O program directors. For both applied and statistical/empirical skills, all of the means derived from the data provided by I-O program directors are above three (on a five-point scale) except for the compensation-related skills. Means for both empirical/statistical evaluation and applied usage in compensation fall below three for I-O program directors.

For both the selection and training work processes, business leaders value the applied usage skill to a greater degree than I-O program directors report emphasizing the same skill in their programs. For the training work process, business leaders value the empirical/statistical skill to a lesser degree than I-O graduate program directors report emphasizing this skill. The result is nonsignificant for the selection-related empirical/statistical skill.

For the work process “employee surveys,” business leaders value empirical/statistical evaluation of the work process to a greater degree than I-O program directors report emphasizing that skill in their graduate curriculum. For the applied usage skill, I-O program coordinators place more emphasis on organizing and presenting responses to employee surveys than business leaders report valuing that same skill. This finding is the opposite of what we expected. Although we are aware of no empirical data to support this assertion, anecdotal evidence suggested by management professionals involved in the study indicate that the evaluation of employee survey data is one of the few activities in which empirical/statistical evaluation is used within a HR department. It is understandable that business leaders in this circumstance consider empirical/statistical evaluation to be so valuable. It is also possible that some I-O program coordinators interpret “organizing and presenting the responses” as constituting statistical evaluation in addition to presentation of the responses. Another possibility is that organizing and presenting the results is a process considered to be at a more introductory level compared to actually making recommendations for change based on the results of the survey. Thus, it may be that in a graduate training program the more basic process of organizing and presenting results receives the most focus.

I-O program directors reported less emphasis in I-O graduate programs on topics related to compensation, either in terms of appropriate usage or empirical/statistical evaluation of the effect of compensation on motivation, when compared to the value placed on these skills by business leaders. This lower emphasis on compensation is problematic because compensation is a topic of interest among business leaders. In fact, processes related to compensation showed the largest discrepancy between what business leaders value and what I-O program directors report is emphasized in their curriculum, both for applied usage and also for empirical/statistical evaluation.

Given the difference between the value business leaders place on these skills and the emphasis placed on them in I-O graduate training, graduates from an I-O program may be at a disadvantage when applying for HR positions. One implication of this research is that I-O programs may need to redesign their curricula to place a heavier focus on applied business skills, especially skills related to compensation. On the other hand, rather than altering I-O program curricula, I-O programs may need to indicate to students that their education is oriented to preparing them for positions in organizational consulting and/or academia. Another potential implication of this study is that, instead of altering the curriculum, I-O psychologists must do more advertising to educate business leaders about the value of the skills they possess.

One concern with this study is that the business leaders probably have a low level of information regarding what is required to do empirical/statistical evaluation for any of the work processes examined. They may believe that most business professionals can easily do proper evaluation. However, evaluations done without the benefit of scientific rigor are often more at the level of basic reaction criteria or are based on anecdotal information. To address this concern, the process of scientific methodology and empirical data analysis would have had to be explained within the survey or through some training of the business professionals. For logistical reasons, these additions to the study were not possible.

Another related concern with this study is the low level of information provided to the surveyed business leaders about the type of job they are supposedly hiring for. In addition, no information was given about what other qualities candidates might have. Because of this low level of information, the decisions made by the business leaders should be considered low-involvement decisions. As a result, their ability to determine the value of certain skills as opposed to others may be less valid than in a situation where they have more knowledge of the job and job candidates they are considering. Future researchers may want to present the skills and work-process areas they investigate in the context of resumés to be evaluated for a specific job with a full job description.

Additional concerns exist with the business leader sample. Although the business leaders are generally in positions where they are expected to conduct interviews when hiring subordinates, we do not collect data on level of experience with general HR functions or the number of interviews they had conducted in the past. Finally, another limitation of the sample is that the business leaders come from local organizations, while the sample of I-O program coordinators come from a number of locations in the U.S. Future researchers may wish to collect equivalent national samples of both business leaders and I-O program coordinators.

Also for logistical reasons, the number of work processes we are able to explore is limited. Very different results may have been discovered when examining other work processes. For example, in the general area of motivation, researchers may examine work redesign and job satisfaction, areas typically studied in I-O program curricula. Future researchers may wish to examine other work processes besides those we examined and other features that distinguish I-O besides an emphasis on empirical/statistical evaluation when examining what skills business leaders value.

References

     Bartels, L., Macan, T., Gutting, B., Lemming, M., & McCrea, R. (2005, January). Teaching the practitioner side of the scientist–practitioner model. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42, 60–64.
     Blakeney, R., Broene, R., Dyck, J., Frank, B., Glenn, D., Johnson, D., et al. (2002, April). Implications of the results of a job analysis of I-O psychologists. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39, 29–37.
     Borden, V. M., & Rajecki, D. W. (2000). First-year employment outcomes of psychology baccalaureates: Relatedness, preparedness, and prospects. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 164–168.
     Dunnette, M. (1990). Blending the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology: Where are we and where are we going? In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–27). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
     Gasser, M., Butler, A., Waddilove, L., & Tan, R. (2004). Defining the profession of industrial-organizational psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42, 15–20.
     Kirnan, J. P., Reilly, M., & Decker, W. (2000). Effectiveness of an undergraduate program in industrial/organizational psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 1, 27–30.
     Lentz, E., Tuttle, M., Allen, T., Brutus, S., & Handler, C. (2005, July). The future of I-O psychology: A survey of SIOP members. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 43, 159–167.
     Lowe, R. H. (1993). Master’s programs in industrial/organizational psychology: Current status and a call for action. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 27–34.
     Trahan, W. A. & McAllister, H. A. (2002). Master’s level training in industrial/organizational psychology: Does it meet the SIOP guidelines? Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 457–465.