A Message From Your President
Angelo DeNisi
One of the best things about SIOP is that there are so many competent, dedicated
people doing so many important jobs. For example, the present
TIP Editor,
Allan Church recently sent me an e-mail message asking how my President's
column was progressing. Now, you need to understand that Allan knew (and I know
he knew) that there was no column, and that I wouldn't even think about it
unless he reminded me. But Allan, being a diplomat, simply asked how far I was
progressing instead of saying what he really meant which is: "Get moving on
this column, dummy!" So, being good at following directions, here I am
again.
Things have actually been relatively quiet, which is a good thing. There are
a few issues that have surfaced, however, which you may want to know about. For
example, I don't know if you read the October issue of the APA Monitor,
but if you did, you might have noticed an article, reporting on a session at
this year's APA Conference, which dealt with psychologists helping companies
improve the bottom line. You might assume that such an article might describe
the efforts of some of our members who (hopefully) contribute to companies'
bottom lines all the time. Unfortunately, this is not what the article
was about. Instead, the session being described was conducted by a group of
clinicians who were discussing how clinical psychologists can contribute to
organizations by conducting counseling sessions for troubled employees, by doing
some personal assessments and by doing more interesting things such as
establishing and administering 360-degree feedback systems. There was no
discussion of what else clinicians should learn before doing this, by the way,
simply that this was a new way to improve their practices. A number of present
officers and past presidents of SIOP sent a letter to the Editor expressing our
displeasure with the implications of this article.
In a related vein, I think I reported that I would be attending a meeting of
the Tennessee Psychological Association to discuss some issues dealing with
clinical psychologists who wanted to expand their practices into organizational
settings. I shared the session with Eric Theiner (APA Council rep for Tennessee,
an active participant in the State Board of Examiners, and someone licensed as
both a clinical and an I-O psychologist), Melissa Linser (a practitioner in
Tennessee who is trained as an I-O psychologist), and Bob Bloom (who
organized the session and who is also licensed as both a clinical and an I-O
psychologist). We each spoke a bit but mostly we answered questions from the
audience, which consisted primarily of clinical psychologists. I'll spare you
the details, but a few interesting issues became clear to me.
Clinical psychologists are hurting as a result of managed health care, and
they are looking for ways to expand their practices. Furthermore, they do
believe that organizations represent a potential new setting for those
practices.
Not all clinical psychologists are interested in the same ways of expanding
their practices, and we need to be sensitive to these differences, because they
represent different types of challenges to our members. I will try to explain
what I mean.
For example, some of the people present at our session simply want to get
work with EAP programs, or work as personal counselors to troubled employees.
They feel they have something to offer in areas such as the reduction of
violence in the workplace, and the incidents of sexual harassment. Furthermore,
they believe they are now qualified to do these things and that there are no
real barriers to them expanding their practice in these areas (other than
gaining entry). I don't believe that we can or should stand in the way of anyone
practicing in areas for which they are trained, and these kinds of interventions
would seem to be ones for which clinical psychologists are trained and qualified
to administer.
But, some other people would like to expand the nature of their practice to
include other topics that are clearly I-O psychology. They believe that they
should not practice in areas for which they are not qualified, and they
want to know how they can get the training they need to become qualified to do
work in areas such as appraisal and development. This is an issue I believe we
should think more about and on which we should take a position. If we could
outline what we believe someone needs to know, we might be able to
convince state boards as well. These people want to do the right thing, and we
should help them if we can.
However, it was also clear that some clinical psychologists want to be able
to say they are I-O psychologists. They want to be licensed as such, or
at least advertise their services as such. Apparently, at one time in Tennessee
one could be licensed as an I-O psychologist and a clinical psychologist, and
the people who were, had to demonstrate qualifications in both areas. But what
about people who are licensed in one area of psychology only? Well, state boards
have rules about that kind of thing, and they are actually pretty stringent. In
any event, we cannot do much to influence the requirements unless we are asked.
But many people try to gain legitimacy as I-O psychologists by applying for
membership in SIOP. At this point we can (and often do) intervene, as we have a
statement about what it means to be an I-O psychologist and this is what the
Membership Committee uses to make decisions.
Now, to make things more interesting, you should also know that the Board of
Professional Affairs (BPA) at APA is interested in these same issues. They have
formed a Task Force on "Envisioning, Identifying, and Accessing New
Professional Roles." The BPA is supposed to represent the interest of all
practitioners in psychology, but traditionally, they are not very interested in
the concerns of I-O types. In fact, the stated goals of BPA are to help
clinicians transition to other arenas of practice that explicitly include
industry. In fact, the Division of Consulting Psychology (Division 13) wants to
establish guidelines for allowing someone to be "certified" to do
"coaching" in all settings (again, think about what those guidelines
would be likely to say).
Be assured that your APA Council reps and the Executive Committee are keeping
a close eye on all this, but you must be aware of these issues as well. We need
to responsible professionals, which means we can't just keep people out because
they represent competition, but we must also make sure that APA stands by its
statements about DEMONSTRATED competencies when clinicians want to expand where
they work.
It was also interesting to note that Eric Theiner said several times during
our session in Tennessee, that state boards were not interested in I-O types and
that they didn't need to be licensed to practice. Now, I think he was
referring to Tennessee when he said this, but I would like to hear from some of
you out there about your experiences in this regard. Is this an issue for you?
On other fronts, last November we had a meeting of several members of the
Executive Committee with some members of the SIOP Committee on Ethnic Minority
Affairs. This committee (CEMA) has the goal of increasing the participation of
ethnic minority members of SIOP in SIOP activities, and we spent time talking
about how that might be accomplished and what the Executive Committee could do
to support the goals of CEMA. You've probably noticed the new feature in TIP
regarding CEMA activities, and you should see some other manifestations of
this meeting in the coming months as well. I believe that the time has come to
see a more diverse group of people in the SIOP leadership, and we're working
towards that goal.
One final piece of information regards the SIOP Foundation. I know you're
aware of most of the activities of the Foundation, but I wanted to focus your
attention on a few key points. The first time there was even a discussion of a
SIOP Foundation was about 4 years ago, and we are now ready to discuss how to
spend some of the money that has been generated. That is, in 4 years, we have
created a Foundation and have raised enough money that we can begin to spend it.
There will be more details about how it might be spent after the next Executive
Committee meeting, but I am amazed and impressed by the level of activity and
the degree of progress the Foundation Committee has made. All the committee
members have worked VERY hard for us, but I especially want to thank Irv
Goldstein and Lee Hakel for all the time they have put into this (given the
people involved, I guess I shouldn't be amazed at all!).
Well, that's all for now. Have a great holidaywhatever holiday is
approaching when you actually read this!
January 2000 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home