What is I-O?

Ann Marie Ryan

As was done last year by Bill Macey, I wrote to each of APAs five Presidential Candidates asking them to answer three questions. The questions were developed specifically regarding issues that related to APA and I-Os relationship with the broader field of psychology. I noted in my letter to the candidates that SIOP will not endorse or recommend any candidate to the membership. However, I hope the responses to questions related to concerns of a large segment of the membership enable individual SIOP members to make informed choices.

Four of the candidates graciously responded to my request. Here are the questions and their responses, presented verbatim. 

Question 1

A recent survey of SIOP members indicates that most are opposed to the licensure of I-O psychologists. At the same time, many of our members live in states where they are required to be licensed and are finding it increasingly difficult to meet requirements. For example, California requires course work in child abuse, something not part of I-O practice. Additionally, nine states do not permit I-O psychologists to be licensed. What is your position on licensure and licensure requirements for I-O psychologists? 

Laura Barbanel:

The issue of licensure for SIOP members is a complicated one with a long history. Historically, SIOP members have not wished to be licensed, not seeing themselves as providing health care. Today, however, many SIOP members do wish to be licensed, understanding that licensure is what defines the psychologist as a professional psychologist. Herein lies the dilemma. Licensure as defined in state statute requires an internship and an additional year of experience, which is not available to I-O psychologists. Some other kind of supervised experience as defined by the I-O field needs to be delineated for the I-O psychologist. Creating the process by which this could happen would be a long and arduous task, involving APA, the I-O experts, state and provincial psychology boards, and state legislatures. But it does need to be done. It is a task that needs to get started to help advance the professional status of
I-O psychologists. Those who do not wish to be licensed could still have the option of not being licensed where that is indeed an option in their state. 

James Bray:

As a member of the Board of Educational Affairs and APA Council, I strongly supported the I-O training guidelines developed by SIOP. I was very impressed with the quality of the guidelines. I believe that we need to incorporate the relevant I-O training guidelines into our APA model. The proposed psychology training and licensure model developed as part of Norine Johnsons presidency is an admirable step toward resolving some of the very difficult issues faced primarily by clinical/counseling psychologists. I have raised a number of concerns within the APA Council of Representatives with the current proposal because it does not adequately allow for the diversity of psychologists, especially for I-O and consulting psychologists. Licensure is for the regulation and protection of the profession and the clients who we serve. I believe that our licensure laws should be crafted to accomplish these goals. Thus, I support the rights of states to determine the appropriate regulation but to make sure that it does not exclude areas such as I-O psychology. I also support the rights of states and psychologists to choose to exclude certain areas of psychology from licensure. APA and SIOP can help by developing model licensing laws that include the needs of I-O psychologists. 

Diane Halpern:
Licensure is a way of providing the public with the assurance that the professionals they hire have the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) needed to perform their job. Professional licensure is often necessary because there are few individual consumers who would know how to determine if any professional, including a psychologist, who is listed in a directory had appropriate education and training or has numerous violations of ethical standards. Professionals and others who work in academic settings are not required, and in some states not permitted, to attain a license because they are hired by other professionals who can make meaningful judgments about the education and training of the person they are hiring. The difficulty in determining the need for licensure for I-O psychologists is created by the many different types of work performed by I-O psychologists. An I-O psychologist who works for the military or consults with large corporations does not need to be licensed because there is no individual consumer who needs an external assurance that this person is competent. When I-O psychologists offer executive coaching to a middle manager who wants to learn how to move up in an organization, the situation is similar to a consumer who is looking for a qualified psychotherapist to help with his marriage problems. Licensing is a good idea when consumers cannot determine for themselves if the professional they are hiring is competent.

I-O psychologists do not offer services for child abuse, so requiring that they have course work in this specialized (and sensitive) area does not make sense. The licensing requirements need to be meaningfully related to the work for which the license is required. APA and Division 14 members can work together to determine defensible licensing requirements and coordinate lobbying at the state level that will bring licensing requirements in line with the work analysis. APA can help with state-by-state lobbying strategies because licensing boards can be aversive to any change and slow to act even when they understand the need for change. Some states have strong state psychological associations already in place that can help with reforms in licensing laws. As APA president, I would play a key role in coordinating across states and across the diverse range of psychologists within each state so that the variety of psychologists can support each other. 

Kathleen M. McNamara:

Having attended APA meetings where I-O psychology has been represented (most recently the Commission on Education and Training Leading to Licensure), and having heard debate over the years among members of APA Council, I am very aware that licensure is not a new concern. If there were a clear answer, SIOP would not be posing this question to candidates for the presidency. I do not have a position on this question. Rather, I think it is a very complex issue that is more relevant than ever as the culture of business, industry, and corporations changes around us and as more accountability is demanded. More than ever, I-O psychologists need to be at the forefront, with their domain of expertise clearly understood and recognized by the industrial-organizational world and by their own discipline. At the same time, a vulnerable public must be assured that no harm will come from the activities of I-O psychologists.

Although it would be ideal for I-O psychologists, themselves, to determine if the nature of what an I-O psychologist does is something that causes a need for protection from harm, we are all too aware that it is not the nature of government to be ideal, nor is it the nature of APA governance! Reviewing the literature in I-O psychology and SIOPs own TIP, academic and practitioner cultures are very evident. Within the I-O practitioner arena, the functions that overlap with traditionally licensed practice (e.g. individual assessment) and those which do not fit into this traditional definition (e.g., team effectiveness, decision making within organizations) can be identified. Thus, the likelihood is slim that licensure for I-O psychology will be completely eliminated. The need for leadership within the field to circumscribe that which reasonably falls in the purview of licensing versus ethics and the fields own guidelines is essential.

I believe that, to the extent I-O psychology can articulate its domain and assign values to the functions of its own practitioners to address the potential for harm, the president and other APA leadership can work in concert with SIOP to bring about a balanced discussion in Council, achieve agreement within the discipline on a reasonable standard for protection of the public (whether through licensure or another mechanism proposed by the field), and develop a strategy to address licensure requirements that appear unreasonable. 

Question 2

We have witnessed a spate of articles advising clinical psychologists to enter the workplace as a new practice domain. Many of our members are concerned about individuals who are approaching new practice areas without appropriate training/retooling (e.g., personal assessment, executive coaching, team interventions). What if any types of additional training should psychologists trained in traditional psychology programs receive before practicing in workplace settings in nonclinical areas? 

Laura Barbanel:
No psychologist should work out of his or her area of expertise. If psychologists trained in one area of psychology wish to retrain to work in another area, they need to fulfill the training requirements of the substantive area. That would apply to clinical psychologists wishing to work in the schools or industry and I-O psychologists working in the clinic.

The specifics of the retraining are worked out in some substantive areas and need to be worked out in I-O as well. 

James Bray:
Psychologists should only practice within their scope of training and licensure. There is some overlap among the various specialty areas of psychology and cross-fertilization among areas can only serve to strengthen our profession. SIOP has properly pointed out that it is important to not only learn a particular technique or assessment method, but to also have the training on how and when to apply it in particular context. As president, I would highlight the need for appropriate training for practice in this area and support SIOPs efforts to insure appropriate training. I am also concerned about other professionals branching out into I-O psychologys areas (e.g., small- business consulting and evaluation) and would ask APA to raise concerns about these types of activities to protect our profession. 

Diane Halpern:
This question is closely related to the earlier one. Both questions address the broad topic of appropriate scope of practice. There are also touchy turf issues involved in these questions. The underlying question can be rephrased more simply: Is executive coaching so dissimilar to individual therapy or counseling that different types of education and training are needed for each? and, alternatively and by extension, Is team intervention so similar to group therapy that a common set of education and training experiences is sufficient? These are likely to be contentious and continuing issues among psychologists. This is the type of issue that requires a good president to be a good listener who can bring different groups together to tease apart the similarities and differences. It may be that some types of group interventions (e.g., assertiveness training) do not require specialized education and training; whereas other types of group interventions (e.g., changing organizational structures) do. I hope that Division 14 members were not expecting a simple answer to this difficult question because a simple answer would be simply wrong. It is better to ask what sorts of situations and interventions require specialized education and training and to support conclusions with examples and strong reasons, a process that will take time and cooperative effort. This is another area where good leadership in APA can make a difference. 

Kathleen M. McNamara:
Those trained in traditional clinical psychology programs typically receive no coursework or seminars that address even the general knowledge base related to organizations, corporations, business, or industry. As many new practitioners will affirm, they do not even receive training in the business of practice! Once one gets beyond the general definitions in these areas, the myriad of concepts that are associated with the culture of the workplace, management, and labor relations are to be considerednot necessarily in depth, but at least to the degree that the individuals know what they do not know, and do no harm! More finely tuned (and along a similar dimension as far as depth) would be the areas of personnel and human resources (including EEO, affirmative action, diversity training), performance appraisals, core competency models, leadership, and various aspects of selection, promotion, and development of employeesnot that the consultant doing something like executive coaching must be an expert in human resource management but that person must know the context within which those they are coaching exist. Depending on the niche into which the clinician intends to fit, other training could be appropriateteams (not groups!), decision making (not problem solving), executive dynamics and development (not just coping with the glass ceiling)and so forth.

Because I am not an I-O psychologist, and have not considered consulting in the workplace, I am sure that I have only scratched the surface of the training that would allow clinicians to competently practice in nonclinical areas of the workplace. I feel strongly that psychologists should not function outside of their areas of expertise. As your president has encouraged the SIOP membership, I also encourage you; participate at gatherings of those who would think themselves capable of functioning in your domain. Educate them, not with crash courses focused on how to but with serious dialogues that convey the depth of what you do.

Consistent with the theme for my presidential initiative to demonstrate the value of psychologists in public service settings to the profession as a whole, I would invite I-O psychologists to showcase what they have done either working in or consulting with public service settings (e.g. federal, state, county agencies). These large systems can certainly serve as a basis for demonstrating the best practices of psychologists working with organizations and can provide case examples of the need for competencies and skills beyond that provided in the traditional clinical psychology program. 

Our recent member survey indicates concern, particularly among our academic members, regarding the status of I-O psychology in the field of psychology and in psychology departments. For example, introductory textbooks provide little more than passing reference to our field, major departments treat applied fields as second-class, and so forth. If elected, what will you do to assist SIOP in promoting I-O psychology to other psychologists? 

Laura Barbanel:
The promotion of I-O psychology to other psychologists has to be a collaborative effort of SIOP and APA. SIOP has as one of its missions the promoting of I-O psychology to other areas of psychology. This can be done through presentations at the APA convention, symposia and CE workshops as well as other participation in the life of the profession, most notably through APA. Yet it is sometimes difficult to get full participation from SIOP members, both as presenters and participants. There is an interaction here between the lack of recognition of I-O psychology by other areas of psychology and the disaffection of SIOP members. If, however, SIOP members do not seek to educate the other members of the profession, how will the other areas of psychology know more about I-O? The vicious cycle will continue. Some joint effort between SIOP and APA has to be developed. A planning group of SIOP and other members of APA needs to be developed to work out a plan to do this. I would hope to be able to make this happen. 

James Bray:
I believe that I-O psychology represents a very important but underutilized specialty in psychology. As president, I can and will effectively represent the multiple points of view within APA and foster an ongoing collaborative approach for the organization. Throughout my life I have made associations and friends with a broad spectrum of psychologists and people who represent interests in I-O psychology, business, and other areas. I believe our profession is stronger because of these multiple viewpoints.

I-O psychologists can contribute their expertise to the demands of healthcare systems for evaluation and documentation of effectiveness interventions and programs. One of my areas of scholarship is applied methodology (Bray & Maxwell, Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Sage). As a result I know that I-O psychologists have the training, experience, and methodologies to help clinically oriented psychologists improve their evaluation skills and methodologies. I strongly encourage I-O psychologists to become more involved in these areas. I also have a personal interest in aviation. As president, I will encourage stronger links and initiatives with the aviation industry, Federal Aviation Administration, and NASA to use the expertise of psychologists, especially I-O psychologists.

With the retirement of Ray Fowler, APA will soon transition to a new executive leader. I believe that it is important that APA use the expertise of I-O psychologists to help with this transition to make APA a more effective organization. I will also encourage I-O psychologists to be more involved in organizational development and human resource management within the organization. As president, I will have several groups of advisors from I-O and other areas to insure that our diversity is represented in APA policies.

For more information about my candidacy, please visit my Web page: http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/familymed/jbray. Thank you for the honor of being nominated to serve as your president and for your support and vote. 

Diane Halpern:
Good strategies to bring I-O psychology into the mainstream curriculum include creating complete teaching modules that are easy for instructors with limited knowledge of I-O psychology to incorporate into core courses and enlisting I-O faculty to teach in other areas of the curriculum. The availability of teaching materials, along with strategies for instruction and a complete set of reading and learning activities, is especially important because this information could fit in numerous places in the undergraduate curriculumbusiness schools, sociology, introduction to psychology courses, labor economics, and family studies, to name a few. Easily usable modules that do not require an entire course or curricular restructuring are more likely to be effective and to reach a broader audience than other, more ambitious attempts to include these materials in the curriculum. I believe that the development of separate and ready-to-use teaching modules is an innovative approach to the dissemination of the information. SIOP has already begun an excellent database of teaching materials, but there are few outside of SIOP who know that it exists. Periodic reminders and updates when exercises or topics are added will help with the integration. It would also be helpful to send suggested materials to authors of top-selling texts along with reasons why the material should be included in the authors text. In my current position as director of the Berger Institute for Work, Family, and Children, I have begun a similar project that is designed to introduce issues in worklife balance into the undergraduate curriculum.

I-O psychology can be promoted to other psychologists by actively reaching out via a speaker who works as an I-O psychologist in an applied setting, asking others to join in a debate regarding real controversies (e.g., issues in personnel assessment or compensation fairness), and bringing interesting data into classes in statistics, ethics, psychology and the law, and experimental laboratories. I also suggest the development of career and academic advising materials for students so that they understand the practical advantages of I-O courses, including the broad range of career options, some of which are more financially rewarding than those available for other psychologists. There are great colleagues in divisions concerned with teaching and education who would love to help with this project.

Thank you for considering my candidacy. If you have questions or ideas for me, please contact me at Diane.Halpern@ClaremontMcKenna.edu or on the Web at http://berger.claremontmckenna.edu. 

Kathleen M. McNamara:
SIOP leadership already have proposed strategies for marketing the field to others, including other psychologists. These strategies are based on membership participation, and to whatever degree, using the visibility of the APA president (e.g. personal invitations to specific members, presidential citations, highlighting the field in the presidents column in The Monitor, etc.) would facilitate more involvement by members. As president I would be prepared to take those steps.

As I mentioned in my response to one of the previous questions, consistent with my presidential initiative to focus on the role of psychologists in public service in promoting the association-wide agenda, the work of I-O psychologists in or with public service settings can be featured as well.

Although there may be little mention in introductory textbooks about I-O psychology, a focus at an earlier stage may be helpful in creating a future demand to which psychology departments will need to respond. If SIOP is not already working with TOPSS (Teachers of Psychology in Secondary Schools), a partnership with this dedicated and creative group of leaders, developing curriculum modules for high school psychology classes, can add another dimension to the marketing of I-O psychology.

I have indicated in my response to the questions presented to the presidential candidates for publication in The Monitor that I would include among my highest priorities for a science agenda, areas already determined by the scientific community as a good fit for the Decade of Behavior. Beyond those initiatives, among my priorities would be those areas that address the pressing needs of society, and those that expand the knowledge base by not only including as research subjects a much more diverse population, but also by designing research to specifically address the unique differences of individual diverse populations. I believe that I-O psychology can make significant contributions in these areas, and these contributions can lead to visibility for the field and promotion of the field within psychology. I would encourage SIOP members also to consider a special package of journal articles to be submitted for publication in Professional Psychology Research and Practice, where not only would I-O psychology be spotlighted for other psychologists, but press releases could be issued to bring the I-O findings to the attention of the general public.

As president, I would be willing to meet with SIOP leadership to discuss additional ideas that may be proposed and how I might be able to facilitate accomplishing the objectives of the Society.

October 2002 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home