What is I-O?

Ethics Panel Members: Jerry Greenberg, Dan Ilgen, Rick Jacobs, Dick Jeanneret, Deirdre Knapp, Joel Lefkowitz, Rodney L. Lowman, Robert McIntyre, Lois Tetrick, Nancy Tippins, Walt Tornow, Vicki Vandaveer 

This months column began with what at first appeared to be a straightforward question to which a subset of our panel put together a tentative response. As the TIP publishing deadline grew closer, a divergence of views among our panel members became more and more evident. Importantly, this divergence was driven as much or more by the way we were seeking to achieve consensus than by the challenge of the dilemma. In the end, what resulted may be regarded as only a partial answer to the inquiry, but one that nonetheless created the context for us to more fully explore how forthcoming ethical issues and inquiries might be approached in the context of this column. By this I do not mean to imply that we have achieved resolution to any, much less all, of our process issues. However, we did achieve a sense of awareness of some of the challenges we will continue to experience moving forward and an understanding of what should comprise an acceptable response to any given inquiry (One conclusion: That we provide, where possible, clearly articulated references to the APA Ethics Code). One additional point of agreement is also clear: The Ethics Code simply does not address all situations that I-O professionals will face. Our challenge is that an individual dilemma will often reflect a conflict between the choices that seemingly meet client requirements with constraints imposed by what may be only indirectly relevant ethical standards. Perhaps this is a restatement of the obvious as to why there is a dilemma at all. After all, we all want to do the right thing, but perhaps wonder at times what have I missed in this situation. One of us articulated the point as follows:

• Many ethical dilemmas are not articulated specifically in professional codes, and ours is no different, so one often cannot cut and paste an answer.
• Many dilemmas are very complex so that solutions will sometimes at best be acceptable and not entirely satisfying.
• Its very helpful to acquire some background and practice in using one or more general systems of ethical reasoning/decision makingits not a matter of finding the right cookbook recipe.

So, the reader can probably sense that a clear-cut outcome will not be forthcoming in this issues column. Moreover, we anticipate that this will be true in the future as well. That said, heres the dilemma that served as our starting point for this column: 

The Dilemma

What are the ethical standards regarding selection of expatriates? The research indicates that factors such as family life and the stability of a marriage are important to success. In regard to a candidates privacy, what is the stance on including factors such as these in selection/promotion assessment?

The immediate answer to the first part of the question is: The Ethics Code does not specifically address expatriate selection. It may be apparent that the question is as much or more a technical question than an ethical one. Not surprisingly, then, our discussion first focused more on the context of the situation and potential solutions that might meet the clients needs. The result of the preliminary conversation could hardly be considered a consensus opinion, but there was convergence on a number of ways for addressing the problem. What follows are some of the highlights of the discussion. 

One of our panel members put the question in context for us:

Performing the job is in the active context of living and working in a different culture. The job is performed while (a) learning and abiding by new customs, expectations, and laws; (b) adapting the performance of job tasks to environments with very different standards and proceduresoften while working to upgrade those; and (c) even (consciously or not) representing ones own country and company to the government and local community (company employees behavior helps determine the degree of welcomeness of that companyaffecting all kinds of government treatments including taxes, permits, and many other factors necessary to doing business in that country). Predicting an individuals effectiveness needs to account for the individuals effectiveness in-context. 

Emotional stress caused by spouse adjustment difficulty, marital problems, problems with children and/or aging parents who are having problems, and so forth can affect performanceat home or abroad. Abroad, these stresses are exacerbated by the unfamiliarity (and often feeling of isolation) of living in a different cultureespecially one with a different language, different living standards, different standards of medical care, and so forth. Excessive expat stress can be a source of significant distractionand has been linked to safety incidents, excessive number of days absent, and/or the well-documented significantly higher rate of early disengagement from the assignment. 

Expatriate pay and benefitsand early turnover and replacementare hugely costly for the employer, not only financially, but potentially politically within the community as welldepending somewhat on the employees position. An unhappy spouse can also cause problems among the other spouses, contributing even more stress into the ex-pat system. The employer needs to make good ex-pat selection decisions.

Who Makes the Decision?

Our panel achieved consensus on at least one point, perhaps best characterized by the comment: Of course, we all agree about sticking with job-related factors in predicting expatriate effectiveness. Another added We would all agree that the nature of and ability to adapt to the culture is very important and went on to say the immediate question is one of privacy and the ethical responsibilities of the psychologist. That said, the question remains as to the methods that one might use, who might be involved in the hiring decision, and how concerns for privacy might drive our answers to those questions. The challenge as seen by one is clear: 

Its hard to imagine a situation in which ones personal life is a KSA required to perform a job task. However, it is quite easy to envision ones personal life affecting ones ability to use those KSAs and perform a job task. We dont typically allow the circumstances of ones life to alter the assessment of KSAs or the opportunities we offer the individual. 

Consistent with that view of the dilemma, another panel member suggested that the information needs to be given to candidates in the form of a realistic job previewfrom there, it becomes a self-selection problem. Importantly, this recommendation directly addresses issues arising from any privacy concerns. Yet another contributor built on this theme, suggesting that it would be beneficial to ask candidates to self-assess on the factors identified in the realistic job preview (RJP), an approach that would arguably use a variation of informed consent thus also addressing privacy concerns.

Thorny issues nonetheless remain, as suggested by one of our panelists: 

The issue is who should use what data for the decision. The tricky part is to prepare and share the RJP data in a way that does not distort the situation in ways that would appear to twist the arm of the applicant or paint a more negative picture than is justified from the data. The issue of timing should also be considered. One option is to share the RJP information as part of the job announcement or at other stages before offering the position versus after the offer is granted and before the person accepts/rejects the offer. I suspect a reasonable case can be made for either. In both cases, applicant impressions play a role and would need careful attention.

Building on the RJP

One of our contributors suggested exercising a degree of caution in using the RJP, indicating that

The realistic job preview alone has some limitations. Ive seen people who were very excited about the opportunityeven after receiving a full RJPhave difficulty once in the new setting as the reality sinks in. The employee often does fine, as he/she has a strong support system at workunless the spouse has difficulty adjusting. The spouse typically has to work at forming a support network (very often there is an existing spouse network) and being OK with being without her/his spouse much of the time. 

If additional strategies are required, our panel member goes on to suggest the use of an individual assessment process. The legitimacy of this approach is based on the observation that the psychologist can get beneath irrelevant and privacy-invasive factors (such as perceived marital stability) to get at the individual characteristics most highly related to success in an expatriate assignment. This view is consistent with the observation of another contributor who indicated we do examine contextual/organizational/interpersonal relationships all the time not only with individual assessment but other strategies such as 360 surveys, assessment centers and organizational interviews. 

Then, the question becomes one of who uses the assessment information. Our panel member goes on to suggest the following possibilities: 

• Alternative 1: Give the assessment information only to the ex-pat candidate and spousefor use with the RJP to make an informed decisionand to plan how to address potential difficulties. 
• Alternative 2: Give the assessment information to both the candidate and spouseand to the hiring manager for use in selection. In this case, that process becomes part of the companys ex-pat selection policy. People who believe that is unfair can choose not to apply for the assignmentor may choose ultimately not to work for an employer who has that policy.

One of our members further noted that the scenario does not imply a selection issue alone:

What happens to the selected individuals and their families once they accept the assignment can in principle be at least as important as who got selected. There are a great many things an employer can do to provide circumstances that enhance the likelihood of successful expatriate assignments. These include: (a) on-site training in the new culture for both the individual and the family members; (b) extensive support systems as the adjustment is made to the new working and living conditions; (c) early identification and intervention as problems are experienced; (d) personal and/or family/marital assistance for those experiencing personal problems in adjustment; and (e) facilitation of communication about all aspects of the assignment with persons in or outside the company trained to be helpful in such roles. 

As indicated earlier, there was not clear consensus among the panel regarding how the issue of family relationships should be appropriately addressed. On one end of the spectrum, it could be argued (not specifically characterizing any one individuals view) that it is never appropriate to make a selection decision with consideration of the family relationship much less inclusion of the spouse. On the other end, it could be questioned whether an RJP is sufficient for the companys interests to be protected and that the company is hiring a family unit not just an individual and that candidates for these positions must consent to both being evaluated. Importantly, this view underscores the fact that an effective assessment (always consistent with ethical practice) must add value to the selection decision; if not, why bother? 

It is clear that if we as panel members have different levels of comfort around how the family issue is to be addressed, it is because we disagree whether (a) the family issue is an issue; (b) family issues are a job-related source of assessment information; (c) it is technically feasible to gather such information; or (d) it is appropriate (legally or ethically) to perform such an assessment. Of course, these are not independent considerations. However, with regard to the last point, it is most important to reiterate that the ethical guidelines do not address issues of expatriate selection. Nonetheless, as we approached our publishing deadline, some within our panel expressed concern that our response was overly tentative, lacking clear relevance to the Ethics Code. Where was the ethical meat? asked one. So, with the strong caveat that it is up to the psychologist to carefully evaluate the situation and determine the relevance of the Ethics Code to their unique situation, we arrived at the following for consideration:

2.01 Competence. 
Boundaries of Competence (e) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others from harm. 

Comment: In the absence of specifically relevant ethical principles, it is incumbent on the psychologist to carefully consider who may be at risk, what steps can be taken to minimize that risk, and how those risks might constrain choices of how to proceed. In the present dilemma, choosing to place the burden for informed decision making on the job candidate (though the use of the RJP) addresses the concern for risk to the candidate. However, not all would agree that it addresses the risk to the organizational client. Furthermore, some strategies (such as sharing an RJP) may represent an intervention into a relationship that the I-O psychologist is not properly prepared to understand or address. 

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

Comment: The author of the inquiry suggests that,The research indicates that factors such as family life and the stability of a marriage are important to success. The practitioner must evaluate the adequacy and relevance of that research to the present situation. This underscores problems associated with interpretation of anecdotal findings of the practitioner or even those suggested by experts such as those contributing to the present column.

9.02 Use of Assessments
(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.

(b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation.

Comment: What does the research evidence say? Where information regarding validity is mixed or weak, how is the client informed of the resultant interpretive challenges? When the spouse is included in the process, how is feedback to the spouse framed and in what detail is that information communicated? How is the selection process integrated with recruitment efforts beyond the control of the psychologist and how does that color or influence how the realistic job information is presented and subsequently interpreted?

9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments 
(a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evaluations, or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations; (2) informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional, or organizational activity (e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when applying for a job); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to evaluate decisional capacity. Informed consent includes an explanation of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality and sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers.

Comment: The spouse may have a different framework for interpreting the assessment context. For example, he or she may not recognize how his or her own role may influence an eventual decision. The implied consent that is often appropriate in some selection contexts may not apply when the spouse is included. 

Clearly, some approaches to the dilemma avoid certain ethical problems that others do not. It can be argued that the I-O psychologists challenge is not to find the solution that avoids the ethical dilemma, but rather, one that creates the most beneficial solution for the client while adhering to the Ethics Code. Importantly, the choice confronting the psychologist here is different than one facing a well-informed business manager. Specifically, it is not one of risk management, but rather, a choice between competing needs with some requirements (ethical) overriding or constraining others.

Closure, or Lack Thereof

So, some ambiguity is going to remain in our response. At a minimum, we hope that our response provides some guidance about alternatives. Most importantly, reiterating a point made earlier and directly quoting one of our panel: the question of privacy and the ethical responsibilities of the psychologistare no different than they are in any other assessment situation. 

How to Submit
Submit your question in writing to The I-O Ethicist, SIOP Administrative Office, 520 Ordway Ave., PO Box 87, Bowling Green OH 43402. Alternatively, you may submit your questions on the SIOP Web site at www.siop.org. Please note that your submissions and correspondence will be treated in strict confidence and will be completely anonymous.

References

American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures. Bowling Green, OH: Author.

January 2004 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home