Practice Perspectives: Practitioner Satisfaction With SIOP

This is the first in a series of TIP articles reporting on the results of the Practitioner Needs Survey that was administered in first quarter of 2008 to the entire SIOP membership. The results are timely in addressing a number of widely discussed issues within SIOP. Because of the importance of the issues and the volume of significant data, the results will be presented in four articles focusing on (a) practitioner satisfaction, (b) professional development, (c) promotion of I-O psychology, and (d) licensing issues.

This article will focus on issues of practitioner satisfaction with SIOP and the benefits that practitioners want from a professional organization. More complete survey results will also be available on the SIOP Web site.

We anticipate that the survey results and these articles will bring some useful data to the discussion and to stimulate SIOP to formulate and execute an action plan that focuses on addressing practitioner professional needs and interests.

Introduction

Over the years there has been a good deal of discussion within SIOP on “science versus practice” issues. There is a history in I-O psychology of supporting science-based practice and practice-based science. In the past this has usually focused on the interaction between applied research in organizations (typically pursued by personnel research departments) and basic research in work psychology (pursued by academic researchers in university psychology departments).

There has been a growing presence of I-O psychologists in organizations. In human resource departments, I-O psychologists are taking line, staff, and internal consulting roles and are typically responsible for designing and implementing a wide range of HR initiatives and programs. In general, personnel research departments have largely disappeared or diminished in size. There also has been significant growth in external consulting opportunities for I-O psychologists. In both internal and external roles, many I-O psychology practitioners (outside of academic settings) have shifted from focusing on research activities to internal and external consulting, program development, and line HR activities.

As a result of these changes in I-O psychology careers, the science–practice balance in the field may have shifted from applied research versus basic research to research versus practice (nonresearch). Currently, approximately 60% of SIOP members are “practitioners” (supplied by the SIOP Administrative Office), some of whom may be involved in both research and practice activities, and the remaining 40% are in academic positions (evenly split between psychology departments and business schools). These distinctions are based on employment setting rather than actual work activities.

Current Issues

More recently some I-O psychology practitioners have suggested that their professional needs and interests are not being fully recognized or addressed by SIOP. Some signs of this are that there are currently few full-time practitioners on the SIOP Executive Committee and the overwhelming majority of SIOP awards and professional recognitions are now given to researchers and academics.

Several recent SIOP presidents, Leaetta Hough, Jeff McHenry, Lois Tetrick, and Gary Latham, and the president-elect, Kurt Kraiger, have expressed interest in improving SIOP support of I-O psychology practice. Some steps to address practitioner interests have been initiated, such as the SIOP Leading Edge Consortium. However, there has been little discussion about other steps that could be taken. Several officers of SIOP raised the question “What are the needs and interests of practitioners?” This survey was an effort to measure those practitioner needs and interests.

Professional Practice Committee Proposals

Beginning in June of 2007, members of the Professional Practice Committee (chaired by Rob Silzer and including 18 committee members) began discussing this question and formulating plans to address it. The Professional Practice Committee² then proposed two practice studies to the SIOP Executive Committee:

Practitioner Needs Survey: to identify and evaluate the needs and interests of SIOP practitioners and what SIOP, as a professional association, can do to address them.
Practitioner Career Study: to conduct a job/career analysis of I-O practice in order to formally document the breadth of work engaged in by I-O psychology practitioners and the competencies and experiences needed to succeed in various practitioner roles.

² Members of the practice Committee involved in drafting the original proposals include Rob Silzer, Rich Cober, Maury Buster, Alana Cober, David Dickter, Anna Erickson, Van Latham, Greg Robinson, William Shepherd, Matt Smith, David Van Rooy, and Tom Walk.

In the fall of 2007, the Executive Committee approved both studies. The Professional Practice Committee decided to do the two studies sequentially and to start with the Practitioner Needs Survey. It is expected that the Practitioner Career Study will be initiated in the near future.

The Practitioner Needs Survey was designed and administered in first quarter of 2008. Preliminary survey results were presented at the SIOP conference in San Francisco (Silzer & Cober, 2008). The full survey report will be posted on the SIOP Web site.

Survey Design and Administration

A core survey development team, led by Rob Silzer and Rich Cober and including Anna Erickson, Greg Robinson, David Dickter, William Shepherd, and Van Latham, worked on the development of items around a number of practice-related topics that had been identified.

Survey development was an iterative process. Survey topics were distributed among the survey team for item generation. The original draft survey went through several rounds of item review and revision by both the core development team and survey reviewers³ who were asked to provide comments and suggestions on various survey drafts. An effort was made to develop a survey that adequately measured the key practice topics but that was not so long that respondents would not complete it. The SIOP Executive Committee approved the final survey draft in January 2008.

³ The Survey Reviewers included 35 experienced SIOP Members and Fellows, including seven SIOP presidents.

The final survey contained 29 items (most items contain multiple components) that provided coverage of each of the key topics. (A complete survey can be found in the final survey report that will be available on the SIOP Web site.) The Executive Committee did request that a census approach be used for survey administration. That is, individuals in all SIOP membership categories, including Members, Fellows, Associate Members, International Affiliates, and so forth (in all employment settings including academic settings) were sent the survey for completion (this included a total of 2,694 Members, Fellows, and Associates).

Survey instructions were written to clearly communicate that the intent of the survey was to measure the needs and interests of SIOP practitioners in all employment settings and at all levels of practice. All members were encouraged to complete the survey.

The SIOP Administrative office (in particular Larry Nader and Dave Nershi) provided the e-mail address list for Members, Fellows, Retired Members, Associates, and International Affiliates to Questar, SIOP’s survey partner. Questar⁴provided extensive survey design, administrative, and data analytic support for the survey effort. The survey was administered by sending e-mails to all member categories asking them to log onto the Questar Web site to complete the survey. The administration window was open from February 5 through March 14, 2008. During this period, an initial invitation e-mail, two reminder e-mails and a final “survey closing” e-mail from Rob Silzer and Lois Tetrick were sent by the survey administrator.

⁴ Questar made a significant contribution to this survey effort. Special thanks for their expert guidance and support go to Questar staff: Anna Erickson, John Venzke, Sally Blecha, Michael Durando and Jeff Buska.

Survey Respondents

A total of 1,005 survey recipients responded to the survey, resulting in an overall response rate of 36% for Members, Fellows, and Associates (see Table 1). Associates were more likely to respond to the survey (44%) than were Members (35%) or Fellows (31%). This may be because a higher percentage of Associate Members are likely to be full-time practitioners and as a result more interested in the survey content.

Table 1
Responses Rates by Membership Status
_____________________________________________________________
# Response
Membership status Responding Rate
_____________________________________________________________

Fellow
Member
Associate Member
International affiliates
Retired
Missing
Total
Fellows, Members & Associate members
73
764
122
30
4
12
1005
959

31%
35%
44%
17%
4%
--
--
36%

_____________________________________________________________

In addition there are 80 pages of write-in responses to various survey questions. This is a good indicator of the energy and commitment that respondents have to these issues.
Not surprisingly, response rates differed by employment setting, with higher response rates for individuals employed in applied settings (33–70%) and the lowest response rate for those employed in an academic settings (22%; see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Response rates by employment setting

Practitioner Categories

An effort was made to distinguish different categories of I-O psychology practitioners based on the amount of work time spent on practice activities. Respondents were asked to identify the “proportion (%) of work time devoted to being a practitioner versus educator (academic setting) versus scientist/researcher.” Respondents were free to define these categories of work activities within the broad framework that was provided. Based on their responses, four practitioner categories were identified:

Full-time practitioners: 70% or more of work time as a practitioner
Part-time practitioners: 21%–69% of work time as a practitioner
Occasional practitioners: 1%–20% of work time as a practitioner (a day or less a week)
Nonpractitioners: 0% of work time as a practitioner

Most of the survey data analyses looked at response differences across these four practitioner categories. The hypothesis was that full-time practitioners would respond differently to the survey than the other practitioner categories, and in particular the nonpractitioners (primarily researchers and educators in academic settings). Table 2 shows how different member groups were distributed across the practitioner categories.

Table 2
Membership Status Compared to Practitioner Categories
________________________________________________________________________
                                                                               Number of respondents
                                                               ____________________________________
                                                                Full time                        Occas.
                                                                70% or      Part time       20%   Nonpract.
Membership status                                        more          21-69%      or less        0%________________________________________________________________________

Fellow
Member
Associate Member
International Affiliate
Retired
Missing
Total
Fellows, Members & Associate members
20
474
100
10

8
612
594

12
73
11
5

101
96

28
148
4
10
3

193
180

13
69
7
5
1
4
99
89

________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2 presents a summary of the average time spent as an educator and as a scientist/researcher for each of the four practitioner categories, in addition to time spent on practice activities. The occasional practitioners (1–20% practice activities) spend more of their additional time as an educator than a scientist/researcher whereas nonpractitioners have an opposite trend in how they spend their time.

Figure 2. Average time spent in nonpractice activities.

The four practitioner categories also varied on a number of other biographical variables. For example, full-time practitioners are found almost exclusively in applied settings, whereas occasional practitioners and nonpractitioners are found primarily in academic settings. Part-time practitioners are more evenly spread across all employment settings (see Table 3).

Table 3
Percentage of Respondents in Each Employment Setting by Practitioner Category
_________________________________________________________________________
                                                                              % of respondents
                                                 _____________________________________________
Employment setting                          Full time      Part time     Occasional    No practice
_________________________________________________________________________

Consulting firm
Independent practice
Nonprofit organization
Private-sector business
Public-sector organization
Academic institution
Other/Missing
Total
36%
16%
4%
27%
15%
1%
1%
100%

29%
12%
10%
11%
9%
25%
4%
100%

4%
1%
3%
2%
2%
84%
4%
100%

6%
2%
6%
10%
8%
62%
6%
100%

_________________________________________________________________________


Similarly, occasional practitioners and nonpractitioners are most likely to be professor/faculty members (see Table 4). And over 50% of the full-time practitioners are either managers or executives.

Table 4
Percentage of Respondents in Each Position by Practitioner Category
________________________________________________________________________
                                                                              % of respondents
                                                        ________________________________________
Practitioner category                         Full Time    Part Time   Occasional No Practice
________________________________________________________________________

Individual contributor
Supervisor
Manager, director, department head
Executive, officer
Professor/faculty
Total
41%
5%
28%
25%
1%
100%

33%
8%
24%
17%
18%
100%

12%
3%
16%
4%
65%
100%

27%
3%
11%
9%
50%
100%

________________________________________________________________________

Satisfaction With SIOP in Practitioner Area

Satisfaction with SIOP support for practitioner-related concerns is an important issue with practitioners and a key question in the survey. Specifically, respondents were asked, “How satisfied are you with SIOP in these practitioner areas?” Twelve practitioner topic items (see Table 5 for the 12 complete items) were developed based on input from numerous SIOP members who identify themselves as I-O psychology practitioners.

Table 5
One-Way ANOVA Results for Satisfaction With SIOP Across Practitioner Category
_______________________________________________________________________
                                                                                   ANOVA results
                                                                           ____________________________
Result                                                                                F                      η2
_______________________________________________________________________

Efforts to make SIOP the "first choice" organization for I-O practitioners
1.78
N/A

Opportunity to elect I-O practitioners to SIOP Executive Committee positions
18.79**
0.074

Recognition of practitioners for contributions to I-O Practice
15.29**
0.063

SIOP efforts in advancing and promoting I-O practice
7.78**
0.026

SIOP opportunities for professional networking (in-person or online)
4.06**
0.015

Opportunity for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions and future direction
22.78**
0.085

Recognition of practitioners for Fellow status
11.54**
0.053

SIOP leadership understanding of key practice issues
26.01**
0.092

Providing a clear vision of the future of I-O psychology and practice
6.61**
0.024

SIOP support for practice-oriented research and projects
6.44**
0.027

SIOP support for advancing your I-O practice career
10.29**
0.038

SIOP support for practitioners who want to get licensed (test prep, etc.)
2.95*
0.015

________________________________________________________________________

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01

Figure 3 compares the satisfaction of the four practitioner categories. The response scale was a Likert scale (5 = strongly satisfied, 4 = satisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 1 = strongly dissatisfied).

Figure 3. Average satisfaction by practitioner category (ordered by level of satisfaction for full-time practitioners).

Full-time practitioners (70% + time) were more dissatisfied than other practitioner groups in almost all areas (see Figure 3). For 9 of the 12 items full-time practitioners expressed more dissatisfaction than satisfaction. However, even in the remaining three areas (promoting SIOP as first choice, election of practitioners, and opportunities for professional networking), 25–30% of full-time practitioners reported being dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied.

In addition, full-time practitioners who were Members or Fellows expressed high levels of dissatisfaction (35–40 %) and low levels of satisfaction (12–30%) in five areas:

SIOP leadership understanding of key practice issues
SIOP support for practitioners who want to get licensed (test prep, etc.)
SIOP support for advancing your I-O practice career
Opportunity for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions and future direction
Providing a clear vision of the future of I-O psychology and practice

In one area—SIOP efforts in advancing and promoting I-O practice—there was a more balanced split of views, with 37% of full-time practitioners (Members and Fellows) reporting being satisfied (or strongly satisfied) and another 37% reporting being dissatisfied (or strongly dissatisfied).

The one exception to these trends is that full-time practitioners (Members and Fellows) were more likely to be satisfied (48%) than dissatisfied (25%) with efforts to make SIOP the “first choice” organization for I-O practitioners.

To consider variance across practitioner category, one-way ANOVAs were conducted for each item (see Table 5). Generally, across almost all areas, full-time practitioner and part-time practitioner satisfaction with SIOP was found to be significantly lower than occasional practitioners and nonpractitioner satisfaction. For example, the areas of greatest difference in satisfaction were:

SIOP leadership understanding key practitioner issues
- Full-time practitioner—% satisfied is 26%
- Nonpractitioner—% satisfied is 66%
Opportunity for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions and future direction
- Full-time practitioner—% satisfied is 29%
- Nonpractitioner—% satisfied is 63%

This suggests that full-time practitioners (almost entirely in applied settings) think that SIOP leadership does not adequately understand key practice issues and that SIOP does not provide them with enough opportunity to influence SIOP decisions and future direction. On the other hand, nonpractitioners (largely in academic settings) are more satisfied that SIOP does understand and does provide opportunity for practitioners. It seems to be a clear example of an in-group and out-group dynamic, but it is striking because the majority of SIOP members work in applied settings and not in academic environments.

Further analyses revealed that practitioners working in applied settings tend to be noticeably more dissatisfied with SIOP than individuals working in academic settings. Specifically practitioners employed in “private-sector business” tend to be the group least satisfied with opportunities for recognition and influence within the SIOP organization, whereas individuals employed in “academic institutions” tend to be the most satisfied in these areas. These group differences were most significant on the following items:

Recognition of practitioners for Fellow status
Recognition of practitioners for contributions to I-O practice
Opportunity for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions and future direction
Opportunity to elect I-O practitioners to SIOP Executive Committee positions
SIOP leadership understanding of key practice issues

There were a range of write-in comments to the “satisfaction with SIOP” question. Here are a few examples that give cause for concern:

“Efforts are still far too academic, which is why I participate in very little. Most of SIOP has no relation to my job or career, or even interests.”
“Recognition of practitioners as scientists.”
“SIOP is run by academics and many of them don’t have a clue about the real practice of I-O psychology ‘in the trenches.’”
“SIOP should consider making criteria for Fellowship status more transparent.”
“What SIOP needs to do is provide a clear vision for the future of I-O psychology with respect to the blended nature of our discipline (science and practice).”

These results suggest that those individuals who spend a larger share of their professional time in the practice of I-O psychology, as opposed to teaching it or in research activities, are consistently less satisfied with SIOP support than those who spend most of their time in other activities. The differences in satisfaction are very clear.

Organizational Membership and Benefits

Most respondents reported belonging to one or more professional organization, in addition to SIOP. Nearly three quarters of respondents in all practitioner categories said they belong to the American Psychological Association (APA). See Figure 4 for memberships in professional organizations by practitioner category.
Figure 4. Organizational membership by practitioner category (% of respondents).

Differences between practitioner categories (see Table 6) were examined using one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey’s HSD tests. Nonpractitioners and occasional practitioners were more likely to belong to the Academy of Management (AOM) and Association for Psychological Science (APS), whereas full-time practitioners and part-time practitioners were more likely to belong to APA Division 13 (Society of Consulting Psychology) and local I-O professional groups (e.g., New York Metropolitan Applied Psychology Association).

Respondents were also asked to identify other professional organizations to which they belong. There is quite a long list of other organizations mentioned by respondents—approximately 80+ different organizations and another 15 APA Divisions. However very few organizations were identified by more than one respondent, and none was identified by more than five respondents. This shows that beyond the list of organizations provided in the survey (see Table 6), SIOP members have wide-ranging professional interests.

Participants were also asked an open-ended question: “What are the primary benefits that you want from belonging to a professional organization?” The most common response focused on “professional networking and sharing best practices,” mentioned by nearly one third of all respondents as a desired organizational benefit (see Table 7).

Table 7
Primary Benefits of Organizational Membership
_____________________________________________________________________
                                                                                % of respondents
                                                                ________________________________
                                                                                                         Occas./No
                                                                    Full time     Part time    Practice 20%
Benefit                                                              70%+        21-69%       or less
___________________________________________________________________

Networking, sharing
Learning, education, professional development
Access to information, best practices/research
Reputation, influence of organization
Professional personal recognition, status
Career support & job search
Conferences
Community
Opportunity to present and participate
Work, business development opportunity
31.4%
23.9%
21.5%
4.3%
3.7%
3.4%
3.4%
3.2%
2.6%
2.2%

33.3%
17.5%
22.8%
14.0%
5.3%
1.8%
5.3%
--
--
--

22.4%
20.9%
26.9%
10.4%
1.5%

7.5%
1.5%
6.0%

______________________________________________________________________

Another commonly mentioned benefit was “learning, education and professional development,” followed by “access to information, such as journals, best practices, etc.” Full-time practitioners were more likely to mention “learning, education, and professional development” than other practitioner categories, and occasional practitioners and nonpractitioners were more likely to mention “access to information.” Actually these seem to be similar organizational benefits, just tailored somewhat to different professional and academic needs.

"Organizational reputation and influence of the organization” was most likely to be mentioned by part-time practitioners and included responses such as “advocacy of the profession”; “branding”; “central voice”; “quality standards”; “state-of-art I-O practice, credibility, and respect”; and “public awareness of the field.” Occasional and nonpractitioners were most likely to mention “conferences” and “opportunities to present and participate” as a primary benefit of belonging to a professional organization.

Conclusions

The results of the Practitioner Needs Survey regarding satisfaction with SIOP and desired organizational benefits are clear:

I-O psychology practitioners are dissatisfied with how well SIOP is meeting many of their professional needs, particularly in the areas of:
- SIOP leadership understanding of key practice issues
- Opportunity for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions and future direction
- Providing a clear vision of the future of I-O psychology and practice
- SIOP support for practitioners who want to get licensed (test prep, etc.)
- SIOP support for advancing your I-O practice career
Full-time practitioner views on how well SIOP is meeting their needs differ significantly from the views of nonpractitioners and occasional practitioners
Full-time practitioners, when compared to occasional and nonpractitioners, are more likely to be members of local I-O professional groups and APA Division 13 (Society of Consulting Psychology) and much less likely to be members of Academy of Management (AOM) and Association for Psychological Science (APS)
Respondents in all practitioner categories cite the following as the primary benefits from belonging to a professional organization:
- Professional networking, sharing
- Learning, education, professional development
- Access to information, best practices/research

Recommendations

Based on these results we, the Core Survey Development Team, are making the following recommendations to SIOP, the SIOP Executive Committee, and SIOP committee chairs. They are organized around four key areas: representation, understanding and valuing I-O psychology, engagement, and influence.
Our recommendations:

1. Representation: Ensure that practitioners are fully represented in all aspects of SIOP

(a) Create several Executive Committee seats exclusively for practitioner representatives to ensure that practice views are always fully represented. Work toward making the SIOP leadership and Executive Committee membership fully reflective of practitioner membership in SIOP.
(b) Promote practitioner representation on all SIOP committees, EC task forces, SIOP Foundation Board, and so forth.

2. Understanding and valuing practice contributions: Identify and recognize the contributions of I-O practice and practitioners to the field of I-O psychology

(a) Develop standards and guidelines for valuing the professional contributions of I-O practitioners.
(b) Take steps to communicate these standards and guidelines to SIOP membership and encourage SIOP leadership to better understand practice issues.
(c) Identify outstanding professional contributions by I-O practitioners to the profession and outstanding I-O practitioners. Consider their contributions in advancements in programs, organizational initiatives, implementation efforts, contributions to business, leadership on HR issues, and so on.
(d) Promote the contributions of I-O practice and practitioners for awards and professional recognitions given by SIOP and the SIOP Foundation and consider adding new awards and recognitions that fully recognize these achievements.
(e) Make the SIOP Fellow requirements transparent to SIOP membership and develop a set of professional contribution standards appropriate to practice that allow full opportunity for practitioners to gain Fellow recognition.

3. Engagement: Involve practitioners more fully in SIOP and address their professional satisfaction and engagement needs

(a) Involve I-O practitioners as reference points and advisors on all SIOP issues. Set up advisory groups of different practitioner groups who represent external consultants, internal HR staff and consultants, applied researchers in organizations, and HR managers/executives.
(b) Leverage I-O practitioners who are seen as “strategic leaders” in their own organizations and fields to get their advice on what SIOP can do to increase SIOP relevance and to further engage I-O practitioners, and then act on their advice.
(c) Improve practitioner-focused communications. Provide a practitioner newsletter or journal that might include summaries of advancements in practice and relevant research.
(d) Take steps to improve the organizational benefits that members value in the areas of professional networking, professional development, and access to best practices and relevant research.
(e) Actively pursue, engage, and recruit I-O psychologists who are not SIOP members.
(f) At the same time I-O psychology practitioners have to be willing to get more involved in SIOP and volunteer more of their time to professional activities.

4. Influence: Give practitioners opportunities to influence SIOP decisions and future direction

(a) Allow practitioners to have equal voice and influence in SIOP on key decisions and on the future direction of SIOP.
(b) Implement a Future Vision Initiative in SIOP that conceptualizes the desired future for I-O psychology and practice, and then execute an action plan to achieve that future with the full involvement of practitioners.

There are a number of current trends in our profession that could significantly change the profession of I-O psychology, such as:

I-O practitioner dissatisfaction with SIOP support and the perception that SIOP leadership does not support I-O practice.
The lack of SIOP leadership understanding and support for I-O practice.
The movement of I-O psychology professors to business schools and the emergence of PsyD and applied practice programs in I-O psychology.
The proliferation of master’s degree programs in I-O psychology.
The proliferation of other professions and consultants who are doing work in the area of I-O psychology.
The move by APA to license and control the profession of psychology.

These trends, if ignored, have the potential to significantly change the I-O psychology profession and, in some views, seriously damage the profession. It is important that SIOP and the Executive Committee step up to these challenges, formulate a comprehensive plan, and take action to define the future of I-O psychology and to proactively address and influence these trends. If we do not shape our own future then someone else will.

Next Steps

There are some immediate steps that the SIOP Executive Committee could take to pursue these recommendations:

Develop specific goals for implementing these recommendations in the four areas of representation, understanding and valuing I-O practice, engagement, and influence. Also include goals for other critical practitioner areas such as professional development, promotion of I-O psychology and practice, and licensing (see the full survey report and the next TIP articles in this column.)
Form a highly visible Strategic Practice Group that will outline a clear, timely, and actionable strategic plan for practice that will accomplish these goals.
Publish the Strategic Practice Plan for the SIOP membership to comment on, in order to create a psychological contract and commitment with the I-O practitioner community.
Most importantly, take action on the Strategic Practice Plan and engage SIOP committees in accomplishing the stated goals.
Provide monthly/quarterly updates to keep the SIOP membership informed on progress against the Strategic Practice Plan.
Take action on the Practitioner Career Study, which has already been approved by the Executive Committee.

The authors are committed to completing the data analyses on the survey results and reporting those results in several TIP articles and a final survey report, which will be made available on the SIOP Web site. Future TIP articles in this column will focus on Practitioner Needs Survey results and recommendations for professional development, promoting I-O psychology and practice, and professional licensing/certification.

We encourage TIP readers and SIOP members to write to us, the SIOP president/leadership/Executive Committee, and TIP with their thoughts and suggestions on these SIOP issues. This is an area that should involve all SIOP members in order for SIOP to achieve greater organizational success in the future and for the profession, both the science and the practice, of industrial-organizational psychology to gain increasing influence in the world.

And one final thought. We hope that the SIOP leadership will take these I-O psychology practice recommendations seriously. We strongly suggest that the SIOP Executive Committee follow the advice of one of the survey respondents:

“Pay attention to the results of this survey!!!”
“Take the information and do something NOW!”
“Don’t discuss it to death.”

Reference

Silzer, Rob S., & Richard T. Cober. (2008, April). Practitioner Needs Survey: 2008 Results Overview. Presentation at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.