The other day while paying some bills and accidentally dating my checks with a "97" instead of a "98," I suddenly had a strange thought (not an unusual event by any means) regarding the next millennium—what are we going to call that first decade? After all, it is part of our culture to talk about the roaring 20s, the happy days of the 50s, the free love of the 60s, the disco of the 70s, the yuppie 80s, and the sport-utility vehicles of the 90s. How then will we refer in passing to the years bounded by 2000 to 2009? Not the "pre-teens," the 2000s, or the 00s I hope? While APA’s Science Directorate (McCarty, 1998) has officially announced the launch of what they are terming the "Decade of Behavior" in response to the serious need to aggressively secure funding and support for psychological research from the U.S. Congress, I doubt that this term will catch on with the public. Although this may seem a trivial issue at first, if we don’t generate a name soon there will be an entire generation of young people lacking in identity. Of course this is just one of the many issues we face as a society on the brink of the twenty-first century. Besides the ultimate judgment of Bill Clinton’s presidency, or the question of whether or not external consultants will ever be treated with respect, there is that dreaded PC clock problem that has everyone wondering about and waiting for the big crash at midnight on January 1st of the year 2000. Of course the outcomes of these issues are all as yet unknown.

Unfortunately for us (or fortunately, depending on how things turn out), the future regarding organizational life and the potential contribution of I-O psychologists is also unknown. Let’s face it, between the prevalence and almost cultural acceptance of downsizing in corporations these days, and the changing nature of jobs required, it doesn’t take much to wonder what type of work you might be doing in the future. Moreover, as we all remember from a past discussion in these pages, the future of tenure is probably uncertain as well. Just because we may not know what I-O psychologists will be doing in the next millennium, however, doesn’t mean we have to sit back and wait for things to happen. Between what we know from the historical evolution of the nature of work and organizations as well as the copious amounts of research being done in I-O and related organization science fields, if we put our minds to it we can easily generate some trends, thoughts, and hypothesis regarding the future of work life, organizations and I-O psychology. After all, the futurists out there have been doing it all along. That juggernaut of commercialism, Scott Adams (1997), for example, has predicted that skilled professionals such as internal I-O practitioners will flee their corporate jobs en mass to become entrepreneurs, consultants, contractors, prostitutes, and cartoonists in what he calls the revenge of the downsized. Of course, since Scott told me that he was too busy to comment here (as was President Clinton, Mike Moore, and Dave Barry, I might add), I approached a number of people who should have a handle on the future of our field—I-O psychologists, practitioners, and researchers—for their thoughts on the subject. Thus, the official "question" this time reads as follows:

As we enter the twenty-first century (a) What are the most important issues facing organizations and their people that need to be addressed? (b) What should I-O psychologists (or anyone working with organizations) be doing to improve things?

As you will see below, with four different sets of comments, we have a variety of opinions and ideas including the return of individual work and individual differences, the challenges we face in maintaining our relevance as practitioners, tips for consulting in the "00s," and the need for psychology to come together as a fully integrated discipline. Once again, I will let the experts have the floor.

It is only two more years before the year 2000 is on our doorstep and soon we’ll be researching and practicing in the third millennium. At the societal level, all the changes that might bear on our science and practice are already going on. Thanks to pioneering I-O psychologists, our past has been one of accomplishments. As we enter a new century and a new millennium, our field deserves recognition for keeping up with the demands that organizations and the society place on us. At the beginning of the twentieth century, when factories, mass production and major world wars called for the efforts of I-O psychologists, much of what is at the heart of our field came to exist (e.g., ways of selecting, placing, training personnel). As the new millennium unfolds, it looks as though the march from craft guilds to mass production factories is being reversed. Organizations have to deal with customer-specified production. Jobs have become fungible in that employees are expected to continuously relearn their jobs. This necessitates a sustained long-term investment by organizations in their employees. I-O psychologists have to be at the forefront to ensure a successful transformation that results in a win-win situation for all. Voltaire once said "The way to become boring is to say everything," so in the rest of our comment, we will focus only on the issues that we see as central to the science and practice of I-O psychology in the next millennium, rather than try to cover in detail all the trends that are likely to influence the way work gets done.

I-O psychology has in its roots individual differences and differential psychology. After much wandering away from these roots in the 1960s and 1970s due to situationalist and behaviorist paradigms, since the middle of 1980s, the field of I-O psychology has come back to its roots. This is largely due to the ever-increasing pace of change in the environments that work occurs. When the only constant is change in all aspects of work, enduring personal characteristics become the focus of I-O psychology. For example, personality variables are important determinants of work behaviors. After a 30-year hiatus of personality measurement at work, it appears that personality testing for personnel selection purposes has reemerged from the underground. Recent meta-analyses of personality constructs indicate that there is a tremendous amount of insight to be gained by examining the role of personality in work environments. The study of personality variables has a lot to offer to our theoretical understanding of behavior at work. Further, such study can help us improve personnel selection systems.

Work that people do is becoming more demanding in terms of information processing and decision making. This trend is likely to continue. It is not inconceivable that over the next 100 years, what are now referred to as medium-complexity jobs may eventually disappear. This would leave in the new century two sets of jobs: one with heavy information processing, the other with low-paying, low-skill, entry-level jobs. In such a scenario, the standard deviation of performance across individuals will be higher, with a concomitant increase in the payoffs for human resource interventions.

Organizations will become both smaller as well as global. On one hand, the behemoth organizations will be broken into smaller units; and the electronic cottage will involve smaller groups of individuals functioning together. I-O psychologists will have to emphasize team functioning in such a scenario. On the other hand, we have organizations with operations spanning across continents. As such, cultural differences need to be considered as potential moderators of all types of interventions and processes.

Never before have the competing values of individual merit, economic efficiency, and international competitiveness on one hand and economic equality, opportunity for minorities, and valuing diversity on the other have come into sharper focus than they have through various legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. The key to failure for I-O psychologists would be to try to please everybody and, more importantly, to attempt to provide "scientific reasons" for things that are a matter of value judgment, morality, or choice.

Even though crime in our society is declining in general, counterproductive behaviors at work appear to be on the rise. These behaviors include tardiness, malingering, unexcused absences, vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, disciplinary problems, theft, white-collar crime, and even workplace violence. All of these counterproductive behaviors are costly to employers. To control counterproductive behaviors on the job, I-O psychologists are likely to enhance the ways that organizations guard against, reduce, and control such behaviors.

The influence of genetics on behavior has been, and continues to be, a hotly debated topic. There have been significant shifts in the nature-nurture argument, with several recent discoveries focusing on genetic explanations. Genetic influences on a wide range of work-related individual differences have been documented. A number of twin studies have suggested that workplace behaviors, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, have heritable components. It appears that largely inherited individual differences are causally responsible for many of the phenotypically observed thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors that are central to effective interpersonal functioning at work. With genetic discoveries at the cutting edge of biological sciences, we simply cannot ignore genes as a major source of variation in human behavior at work.

Our concepts of jobs and work units continue to evolve. Jobs as defined in the past are disappearing. This will mean I-O psychologists’ traditional tools of job analysis, job design, as well as areas organized around the concept of jobs (e.g., performance appraisals, personnel selection, training, compensation) will need to be readjusted.

Organizations have increasingly played an important role in ensuring the mental and physical health of their employees. Workplace wellness programs have been found to enhance the quality of life, and I-O psychologists should impress upon organizations the need and wisdom of offering such employee assistance programs. Further, our research and knowledge base should enable us to design effective programs tailored to individual needs.

Corporate downsizing has caused traumas in many organizations, and visible scars are everywhere. Increasing use of temporary and part-time workers will require us to reconceptualize processes in accomplishing work goals as well as traditional career paths. I-O psychologists can and should help employees manage the career transitions where identity is tied to skills rather than a position. I-O psychologists are also uniquely positioned to ensure that organizations treat their employees with respect and dignity during the transition phases. Now is the opportunity to utilize our knowledge of organizational justice and fairness. The employee should be capable of managing a protean career.

No look at the future will be complete without a mention of the increased need for diversity training and multiculturalism. Our research base in stereotyping, prejudice, and group dynamics should place us in a vantage position to help organizations in the twenty-first century.

The growth of the World Wide Web (WWW) is already affecting the way in which we communicate research findings to one another. Instead of relying on journals, many organizations today, when confronted with problems and/or questions, surf the Internet in search of web pages that contain answers to their questions. On the positive side, this has the potential to reduce the gap between science and practice. But I-O psychologists have a key role in being vigilant in preventing organizations from being hoodwinked by the most dazzling web page designs to the detriment of the important issues at hand.

In general, we are optimistic about the possibilities for I-O psychology in the next millennium. Much progress has been made in the key domains that constitute the field of I-O psychology. Meta-analysis as a methodology plays a crucial role in establishing a cumulative knowledge base. If we want to avoid rediscovering the wheel, it is critical that we build the future of I-O psychology on our traditionally strong foundations of individual differences, psychological theory, and empirical rigor. A quote from Elizabeth Barrett Browning perhaps best captures our meaning here: "If we tried to sink the past beneath our feet, be sure the future would not stand." In a world where there is so much to be done, there will always be something for I-O psychologists to do. As the world enters the new millennium, investments, production, distribution, and consumption of goods have become more mobile than ever before in history across nations and continents, but human capital is still rooted in social and cultural contexts. The challenge for I-O psychologists is to facilitate the great global exchange while ensuring that various stakeholders are not shortchanged. Based on our history, we are confident that we will rise to this challenge.

A number of changes in the structure and functions of jobs and organizations are likely to have long-lasting implications for I-O psychologists. Many organizations are downsizing and restructuring, eliminating layers of management, trimming work forces, and moving from function-oriented to project-oriented structures. Jobs are becoming more complex, with duties that are less well delineated or defined. Although these changes are happening at different rates in different sectors of the economy, it is reasonable to believe that work and work organizations in the United States will evolve in ways that fundamentally affect many familiar work processes. Changes most likely relevant to I-O psychologists include:

Changes in careers—Because there will be fewer managerial levels and fewer functional departments in many organizations, there will also be fewer opportunities for promotion, or even for identifiable changes in functional specialization. This will substantially affect the way we define careers and career success (e.g., less emphasis on hierarchical movement as the ultimate criterion for evaluating careers). Succession planning will become increasingly difficult, because traditional procedures that rely on long-term assignments to multiple developmental roles (e.g., manager, director, vice president) will no longer be tenable. The question of how to conceptualize and evaluate careers will become increasingly important to I-O psychologists.

Changing emphasis in selection—Traditional models that start with a careful analysis of the job and the KSAs needed to perform it, followed by the identification and development of tests and assessment procedures that are tightly tailored to the job (e.g., content-valid selection systems) will become increasingly irrelevant. As jobs become more fluid and ambiguous, the idea of tailoring selection to the specific content of the job will become less useful. Selection systems will not only be developed differently, but will also place increasing emphasis on constructs that are currently not seen as central in personnel selection (e.g., personality traits linked to flexibility and adaptation).

Changes in performance appraisal—It is likely appraisal systems will devote increasing attention to "contextual" dimensions of performance and proportionately less to job-specific task performance dimensions. Because contextual performance behaviors are similar across a wide range of settings, the value of tailoring performance appraisal systems to specific jobs or organizations will diminish.

Changes in training—Jobs are becoming increasingly complex, which implies that the proportion of labor market entrants who will be fully prepared to perform these jobs is likely to decrease. This will probably lead to critical labor shortages and training bottlenecks in entire classes of jobs (especially those whose cognitive/skill demands exceed the levels shown by job applicants). Organizations will typically be faced with the choice of either simplifying jobs (e.g., going back to earlier structures in which the duties of specific jobs were well-defined and kept within contractual limits) or investing substantially in training. Training is most likely to increase in its importance in settings where the gap between the demands of jobs and the abilities and skills of workers is sufficiently small to make the strategy of closing this gap with additional training a viable one. A critical skill that I-O psychologists will have to master is "training triage"—determining when and where training is likely to close the gap between what applicants can do and what jobs demands.

Changes in the "psychological contract"—As organizations become increasingly reluctant to make long-term commitments to employees (e.g., lifetime employment, opportunities for steady promotion), it is reasonable to believe that workers’ commitment to and identification with organizations will diminish. These changes may lead to lower levels of motivation, increased work-avoidance behavior, and a lower willingness to "go beyond" the minimal demands of the job (e.g., engage in high levels of contextual performance behaviors).

The changes described above present both opportunities and challenges to I-O psychologists. The biggest challenge may be that some things that we do very well now (e.g., careful job analysis, content-valid selection) may become less useful. Our biggest opportunity probably comes from the fact that our role in organizations may become more critical as jobs become more complex, more fluid, and more difficult to fill.

Although Allan posed specific questions for us to think about, because we rarely read instructions we instead focused on the general question of "what new I-O products and services might lead to wealth, if you were clever enough to invent them?" Following are our wild ideas. They are based largely on personal experience and opinion, and a little on obvious trends in the world of work. Any similarity between these ideas and somebody’s existing products is purely coincidental.

Develop a management theory or system for virtual organizations. It is not entirely clear that our traditional management systems work well in the increasingly common virtual organization of today (e.g., telecommuting, job sharing, network organizations, etc.). We need to develop HR solutions for emerging organizational forms and emerging ways to organize work.

Develop models for managing people who work in multiple teams or have multiple organizational identities. Increasingly, workers are assigned to multiple teams within organizations, and they often work in teams consisting of members from several organizations. This creates new challenges to traditional management models.

Develop a means of comprehensively integrating HR systems with organizational strategy. Although often discussed and commonly promised, there is little scientific proof that we can actually do it.

Figure out how to define the role of leadership and management in self-managing work environments. Do we still need to manage self-managing teams? If so, how?

Design a selection procedure or system that has high validity and low adverse impact. No, we haven’t figured this one out, despite the claims of some consultants. We should add that the system must have high face validity and must not rely on complex and unstable weighting schemes, which rules out some recent proposals to solve this dilemma.

Develop a selection system for staffing teams that actually results in an optimal combination of workers. The notion would be to develop an ideal mix of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other worker characteristics necessary for optimal team performance. There is lots of talk here, but little hard data that we have actually done this or even understand what the optimal combinations are.

Develop process-based job analysis techniques. The traditional job- and worker-oriented job analysis techniques are static and may not capture the dynamic and process-oriented nature of many jobs.

Develop a job analysis database that describes and measures all jobs in a common language and on common metrics. Any I-O psychologist can see the many values of such a system. The government’s new replacement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (called the Occupational Information Network or O*Net) is an attempt to do this, but there is much yet to be done on that project, and it will require the efforts of independent practitioners to translate the data into usable systems for helping organizations and job seekers.

Develop a system of designing work and organizational structures that would improve both efficiency and satisfaction. Existing theories and technologies are good at getting us one or the other outcome. Yet, obtaining both simultaneously (which is what every organization wants) is a dilemma that has alluded us for half a century.

Create software that would accurately translate any business document or E-mail message from any language into any other language. This would have a tremendous positive impact on the administrative costs for multinationals, as well as open up international markets to smaller firms.

Train personnel on how to identify and recruit top talent away from competitors. This could lead to a great advantage in today’s competitive environment of low unemployment and limited talent pools.

Develop selection procedures that maximize expatriate success. The failure rate of expatriates suggests we have not yet cracked this nut. Such procedures may expand our thinking on selection by having to consider nonwork factors, such as family and cultural fit.

Transform our conceptualizations of employee development from periodic training programs to one of continuous learning. Rapid changes in technology and work require such a shift. We must figure out how to redesign organizational systems to promote continuous learning. We also need to better understand how the role of everyday work experience influences skills development.

Identify strategies to retain skilled workers in situations where upward career movement is not possible. Flat, lean organizational structures may not allow for the same type of vertical movement traditionally seen in careers. Retention is likely to be a growing problem.

Develop performance appraisal systems that actually work. Every practitioner knows that performance appraisal systems rarely work as well as they sound in the textbooks. Although there have been some promising new trends (e.g., multisource feedback), developing systems that are both accurate and accepted will continue to be a Holy Grail.

Develop compensation systems that simultaneously satisfy a great number of objectives. Compensation systems are expected to reward and motivate an ever-widening array of behaviors and objectives, including both team and individual performance, both job and contextual performance, skill development, long tenure, flexibility of job assignment, shared financial risk, and many others, and do so in a procedurally fair manner.

Obviously, the list could go on and on. The future is anybody’s guess. Yet, we are confident that the profession of I-O Psychology will be there, leading management into the new millennium.

There will be a symposium at SIOP on this very theme, chaired by Rich Klimoski, with Ann Howard, Michael Rumsey, Henry Busciglio, Bob Vance, and me as participants, and Dick Jeanneret as discussant. Not wishing to steal my own nor the other participants’ thunder, I shall paint with the broadest brush my perspective on these important questions. You’ll have to attend our session for the specifics. My thoughts expressed here come from my own experience and observations, and in consideration of the kinds of assistance clients increasingly seek from us.

The top three issues, as I see them, are change, change, and change (and pretty much in that order): change in the way companies do business, in the way they structure themselves, in their relationships with customers/suppliers/competitors/employees; in business economics; in technologies; and even in how and when they change. The continuation of mergers and acquisitions; massive reorganizations stimulated by sagging profits, volatile global markets, dramatically increased competition, rapidly changing technologies, and so forth; competitors partnering with each other (e.g., Shell with Texaco); and business unit spinoffs, downsizing, and "re-engineering" have, of course, enormous effects on employees, their psychological state, and performance. Can anyone remember a previous time when psychologists’ expertise was as needed and as valued as it is today? On the corporation side, current issues that are relevant to psychologists’ capabilities include selection (fit with job and company), including finding skilled employees (increasingly difficult); retaining top talent; obsolescence of skills, style, and perspectives in many senior managers (insufficient turnover there!); effectively developing managers and ensuring adequate supply of ready successors; building a strong culture where employees have shared values and sense of identity with the company (especially challenging where there are home-based work arrangements, global assignments, etc.); and achieving desired changes in culture (accepted ways of doing things, external versus internal focus, flexibility/adaptability, etc.). On the employee side, major psychology-relevant issues arising from these changes include managing and maintaining some sense of control over one’s own career; coping with constant change; acquiring key competencies "in time" to be selected to use them; dealing with job loss at most inconvenient times and needing to "retool;" being required to learn new "rules of the game" following a merger; waking up one day to learn that the subsidiary one is currently working in has just been "spun off" before (s)he could get assigned to Corporate; ending one’s successful career by being terminated from a senior position; and... the list could fill this entire volume of TIP.

These issues and changes have tremendous implications for us I-O psychologists. While I-O psychologists are making significant contributions in many of these areas, our traditional I-O methods often fail to meet the needs of organizations—not fast enough, not forward thinking enough, not innovative enough, not broad enough, and so forth (we all know the accusations). A few examples of what has changed in HR management over the past 10 to 15 years:

Re-engineering, reorganizing, restructuring—led by non-I-O psycho-logists.

Less classroom training and more training on-line, "just in time," and on-the-job.

Increased use of individual coaching in manager development.

KSAPs ("P" for Personal characteristics rather than "O" [miscellaneous "Other"!] are called "competencies" today; and the construct has often gotten fuzzed up by including values and motives—attributes, indeed, but "competencies?"—Arguable.

The widespread popularity of Covey training is a sure sign that people are thirsty for developing intrapersonal effectiveness skills.

Companies need help in planning, leading, managing and effecting positive change; and employees need help in anticipating, preparing for, coping with, and managing change. Specifically, I believe I-O psychologists could add even greater value than we do now by doing more of the following:

Be more future oriented (real application of Schneider’s "strategic job analysis") so that selection procedures are appropriately identifying those candidates with the skills and experience necessary in future leaders in order to achieve strategic business objectives.

Focus on fit with culture, values, and business strategy as well as entry job skills (reduce undesired turnover, ensure talents are manifested).

Focus more on diversity (i.e., heterogeneity of KSAPs within teams, business units) to achieve the strongest possible work unit.

Practice more "systems thinking," both with respect to the impact of interventions on other parts of the organization, and to the impact of the consultant/change agent on the system with which (s)he is interacting (even in the most "I" assignment).

Better understand how the work environment/culture affects the manifestation of the attributes for which a candidate has been selected.

Focus more on intrapersonal effectiveness (coping, adapting, changing).

Better understand and address the role of emotion and affect (positive as well as negative, and for men as well as women) on effectiveness.

We desperately need to rethink this whole area, and we need new approaches (Deming is right about demotivation potential). Companies need to know how employees are performing, and employees need feedback in order to improve. However, traditional methods of performance assessment fit older hierarchical structures; 360-degree feedback has been an improvement in many ways, yet it has its own limitations and potentially damaging consequences.

In general, in order to best serve organizations’ many needs today, I feel strongly that psychology needs to come together as a discipline. All of us can benefit tremendously from the knowledge bases of other areas of psychology. It seems to me that we need to become more flexible, more adaptable to the changing organizational landscape, understand within-person change and capabilities (vs. always using large sample statistics to predict), value art and intuition as well as science; and accept the immeasurable and find a way to assess its value in a meaningful way. When I think of the powerful contributions we might make by applying the best of I-O, clinical, social, developmental, cognitive, and counseling psychology—even sociology and education!—to the major issues facing organizations today, it is exciting. It means significantly expanding our horizons, broadening the range of "acceptable data and approaches," learning from each other. The challenges and opportunities are many; the rewards and contributions to our knowledge base will be far beyond our imaginations. OK, OK, I admit I’m a closet INTP who has been trained, initiated, approved, and continually daily tested as an ESTJ!

Clearly, based on these comments, although the twenty-first century for organizations and I-O psychologists may be fraught with complex and changing issues regarding the nature of jobs and careers, the types and methods of training that will be needed, the role of technology and its affect on communication and information sharing, diversity in individual skills and cultural orientation in a global business environment, shifting organizational structures and forms, and applicability of traditional selection and appraisal methods, all the individuals commenting here were optimistic about the future of I-O as a field and the challenges we are going to have to face. Although I am much encouraged by the enthusiasm inherent in the responses above, it is my albeit more cynical guess that, given its inherent inertia, it is unlikely that the core nature of I-O psychology will evolve at a rate anywhere near a pace to keep up with the changes taking place in organizations. We’ll always be lagging behind. While I am sure that the field will change enough to meet some of the demands identified, what I am less sure about is how I-O psychology will end up in the final analysis. As I see it, there are really only three choices: We could become (a) insular anachronistic noodlers, (b) moderately useful technocrats, or (c) fully integral professionals. Of course, as the character Mark Renton notes at the end of the movie "Trainspotting," the key here as in life is to "choose your future" and make of the field what we want it to be. I think I hear the chorus of an old Coke commercial from the 1970s being played somewhere.

Thanks to Deniz and Vish, Kevin, Carl, Fred, and Mike, and Vicki for contributing their comments to what has clearly been a "forward thinking" discussion. Since this is also my final installment of From Both Sides Now (next issue I meet the future head-on myself in my new role as editor), I would like to take this chance to thank everyone that has either written for me, provided their comments and feedback, and/or otherwise been involved with the column since I started it back in May of 1993. This list includes, of course, Kurt Kraiger for letting me begin my rantings and Mike Coovert for letting me keep at it! Special thanks also to Janine Waclawski for her help over the years with everything from questions to content (most often critiquing mine), and to Mary Zippo for always trying to save me from my own typos! If, on the off chance, you have some final reactions, comments or words of wisdom to impart, please e-mail them to me at AllanHC96@aol.com. Or send by mail to W. Warner Burke Associates Inc., 201 Wolfs Lane, Pelham, NY, 10803, phone (914) 738-0080, fax (914) 738-1059. Thanks to everyone else for reading.

Adams, S. (1997). The Dilbert future: Thriving on stupidity in the 21^st century. New York, NY: Harper Business.

McCarty, R. (1998). APA launches decade of behavior. Psychological Science Agenda, 11(1), 1.

Michael A. Campion is a Professor of Management at Purdue University. Previous industrial experience includes 4 years each at IBM and Weyerhaeuser Company. He has an M.S. and Ph.D. in I-O psychology. He has over 50 articles in scientific and professional journals, and has given over 50 presentations at professional meetings on such topics as interviewing, teams, work design, testing, training, turnover, promotion, and motivation. He is past editor of Personnel Psychology and past president of SIOP. He is an active consultant with a wide range of private and public sector organizations on a broad variety of topics. [campionm@mgmt.purdue.edu]

Carl P. Maertz is a doctoral candidate in OBHR at Purdue University, School of Management. This fall he will be an assistant professor at Mississippi State University, School of Management. His specific interests are in turnover and international research. [Carl_Maertz@mgmt.purdue.edu]

Frederick P. Morgeson is a doctoral candidate in I-O psychology at Purdue University. Fred spent several years in industry prior to attending Purdue and has worked as an organizational consultant on a variety of organizational assessment, selection, and job analysis projects. His research interests revolve around leadership, team processes, job analysis, and philosophy of science issues. [morgeson@psyclops.psych.purdue.edu]

Kevin Murphy is a Professor of Psychology at Colorado State University. He received his Ph.D. (1979) from Pennsylvania State University, and has served on the faculties of Rice University and New York University, and as a visiting researcher at University of California, Berkeley, University of Stockholm and the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. He serves as President of SIOP and is the Editor of Journal of Applied Psychology. He is a member of the editorial boards of Human Performance, Human Resource Management Review, and International Journal of Selection and Assessment. He has published several books and papers in the areas of performance appraisal, psychological testing, and personnel selection. [krmurphy@lamar.colostate.edu]

Deniz S. Ones is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology of the University of Minnesota, where she holds the Hellervik Professorship in I-O Psychology. Chockalingam (Vish) Viswesvaran is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology of Florida International University. Both Dr. Ones and Dr. Viswesvaran received their Ph.D.s from the University of Iowa in 1993 under the direction of Dr. Frank Schmidt. Drs. Ones and Viswesvaran have both won the S. Rains Wallace Dissertation award (1994 and 1995, respectively) and the McCormick Early Career Contributions Award (1998) from SIOP. Between the two of them, they have published over 50 articles in the areas of integrity testing, personality measurement, job performance, counterproductive behaviors at work, as well as methodology pieces. Their collaborations in these areas continue. [Deniz.S.Ones-1@tc.umn.edu] [VISH@servax.fiu.edu]

Vicki V. Vandaveer is President and Founder of The Vandaveer Group, Inc., a human resources management consulting firm based in Houston, and an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at University of Houston and Rice University. Her clients are primarily large companies in the consumer products, pharmaceutical, personal computers, telecommunications, oil and gas, engineering and construction, banking, and retail industries; academic health care institutions; and professional service firms. Her practice is primarily in the areas of organization effectiveness analysis, planning, and intervention; executive team development and conflict resolution; executive selection and development; and leader succession planning. Dr. Vandaveer earned her Ph.D. in I-O psychology in 1981 from the University of Houston. She is a Fellow of APA and SIOP and currently chairs APA’s College of Professional Psychology. [VVandaveer@compuserve.com]