From the Editor: Horton Hears a Who
Allan H. Church
W. Warner Burke Associates, Inc.
Welcome to the January 2000 issue of TIP. Clearly, this issue has got
to be one of the most anticipated SIOP publications of the millenium! After all,
it's the first issue of a new year, of a new decade, of a new century, of a
new and so forth.
Ok, I admit, perhaps it's not as exciting, as say, those anxiously awaited
decision letters that go out at around the same time for the annual conference.
But it's close, right? Of course, one's disposition regarding those letters may
differ depending on the outcome, while I am confident that everyone will enjoy
this issue of TIP, regardless of the favored location in which it is
read. Well, perhaps confident is too strong a descriptorhow about optimistic?
In any case, whatever your reactions are to this issue or the contents therein,
by all means, drop me an email at allanhc@aol.com
and let me know. I look forward to hearing from you!
Who Are You?
As those of you who read my musings in the last issue may remember, I, like
many others in our capitalistic buy.com society, receive too much junk mail.
While clearly other SIOP members have the same problem (see this issue's
Missives for more on the mysterious notes from "J" and a proposed
solution), I am in the unique position of being able to comment publicly about
it. This time, I would like to focus on another ubiquitous direct mail
phenomenonthose Who's Who selection letters.
I am sure that many of you are familiar with the scenario. One day an
official looking letter arrives in the mail congratulating you for being
selected from the millions of professionals "in your field" as a
potentially qualified candidate for inclusion in an upcoming edition of the XXX
Who's Who. After a thorough review process from numerous sources including
associations, trade publications, newspapers, magazines, books, reference
publications, and referrals, they go on to inform you that selection into this
list is indeed an honor"a heritage shared by thousands of unique
professions for over 100 years," one claims. With further positive ego
strokes like "as a highly respected professional in your field" or
"your achievements merit this important recognition" the letter seems
almost too good to be true. Further, all you need do is complete the enclosed
biographical data form and you're in like Flintwith no cost to you. After
all, it's an honor just to be listed. Since when does positive recognition and
reinforcement come this easily, particularly in the field of organizational
consulting (speaking from my own practitioner bias here)?
Well, it doesn't actually. Although I am not yet entirely convinced that
these are all a big scam designed to prey on the insecurities of an
over-populated workforce in the (any) field, after I received my fifth
invitation letter from four different Who's Whos (one came from the same
organization after I had already joined). Each one claims to be the "thus
and such" of its kind. Clearly, not all is well in Who's Whoville.
In case you were wondering the next time you see one of these, here's what
really happens if you go along by completing the data form and entering their
system (from someone who has learned from experience). Within a few weeks or
even days, a series of Who's Who representatives, all with no prior
knowledge of each other having called, will begin to contact you. The call is
ostensibly to inform you of their decision about your listing and to confirm
your personal information. In reality, however, the call is a sales pitch.
That's right, while the offer of "no money down" is still valid,
somebody needs to pay for this juggernaut and it would appear that this comes in
the form of purchasing a wall plaque and massive hard bound book that lists the
same information you sent to them in exceedingly small type. They'll even give
you advice on where to display their always-described-as "handsome"
wall plaque. "It would look great in your den, the living room over the
mantle, or how about in your office at work to impress your colleagues" one
Who-zealot recently intoned to me on the phone. And did you know these come in
fine grain wood, shiny black lacquer, and even stately green marble? Of course,
you are always free to say no thanks, just the listing is fine with me. Such a
response, however, simply sets off an internal tape in his/her head that plays a
well known Arnold Schwarzenegger line from the movie, The Terminator.
As if that's not enough, even if you do buy (literally) into this, it's not
over yet. Sometime later, perhaps a few months, or even a year or two you'll be
queried and harried about your interest in the special deal they are running in
the latest membership edition (e.g., the Golden 2000), or becoming a lifetime
member, or having your credentials promoted to an even better section of the
book (e.g., the VIP or Industry Leader listing). Each of these options offers
with it a new and improved wall plaque (to go along with the other one you may
or may not have), and of course an additional set of Whodues. What's more, enter
into one system and you are now on the Who's Who joiner list that is
obviously circulated across the different organizations.
Yes, as you can tell, I have been there and done that. I am Who's Whobee, I
admit it. It's even listed somewhere on my complete vita. Here's my excuse: the
first one actually caught me off guard several years ago, and this particular
organization even had to conduct a 20-minute phone interview, which made it seem
more legitimate at the time anyway. Since then, however, I have learned to just
say no. There is an old saying (so says my favorite engineer Mr. Scott) that I
always try to remember in life: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice,
shame on me." Nonetheless, it is sort of fun to see the different mailings
and their various claims to fame.
The reason I have brought this whole issue up in the first place (just when
you thought there was no point to this story) is that I find it disconcerting
that there are so many of these groups out there peddling their lists of
supposed top-notch professionals that in all likelihood are not very
discriminating at all (talk about a selection method with low validity). Similar
to some of the arguments being made by various respondents (see this issue of "TIP
Missives") to Bill Verdi's provocative piece last issue on MBAs in
I-O and Ron Shepps's comments on the need to integrate I-O and
organization development (OD) more, the issue here is one of boundaries. The
central question is this: Does having more and more boundaries around our
collective areas of expertise ultimately serve to protect us or isolate us? Or,
does it matter that I am listed in the same book of leaders in business with
someone with an entirely different set of credentials? Although I would imagine
that relatively few prospective employers or clients for that matter would care
one way or the other about a Who's Who listing when comparing individuals
for a new job or consulting engagement, maybe I'm wrong. It does seem possible,
for example, that a plethora of such lists could contribute to the erosion of
our credibility as I-O professionals by helping to blur the lines over time (OD
already has its own credibility problems that are far more complex, but that is
the subject of a future column, not to mention a recent book chapter that I just
finished). Don't get me wrong, I am sure that some of these groups are indeed
worth belonging to (though I wish I knew which onesdoes anyone have any
suggestions?) and would connote some degree of value, I am just surprised and
concerned about the sheer number that seem to exist.
Moreover, while SIOP really should be seen as the Who's Who of applied
practice and research in the workplace, neither the organization's name nor the
I-O label is embedded deep enough into the average corporate mindset (well alone
the public's perception) to carry with it the connotations that we would all
like. Oddly enough, in fact, the people that I have come into contact with over
the years are likely to be more familiar with OD than I-O, even if their
understanding of the former is not always so positive.
The other reason the proliferation of Wholists concerns me is that it says
something about the inherent insecurities of human nature and, some might argue,
even preys on them. Obviously, enough of the people selected for these things
are so enamoured with the idea of seeing their own names in print or hanging on
a wall that they part easily with several hundreds of dollars. (Hey, they got me
and at least two other people I know well and who shall remain nameless.) While
I can certainly see the need for positive reinforcement, particularly in this
field, and there is nothing wrong with being involved in these things per se (I
tend to exhibit "joiner tendencies" for example, when it comes to
associations), I do wonder if these groups are really providing any benefits of
membership beyond this element. After all, if these organizations really are
just a means for giving oneself some positive regard, I can help you get plaques
made for a lot cheaper than they are, sell `em, and I'll even list you in the
newly revised Church's Who's Who of IISR (i.e., Insecure Individuals
Seeking Recognition). If someone out there has experienced a positive (or
negative) result, outcome, experience, or whatever of being a member of one of
these Who's Whos, please drop me an e-mail.
In sum, while I don't know the impact of all of these Who's Who lists,
the implied "need for credibility" inherent in their obvious
widespread appeal does make me wonder about the nature of our society and what
it is doing to the human condition. Perhaps Bellah et al. (1985) were right.
What do others think? And, as a final aside and on a totally micro note, in
reviewing such flyers herself, my wife has wondered whether it shouldn't really
be Who's Whom instead?
Here, There, Everywhere
Once more into the breach, my friends. This issue has a number of interesting
features, columns and news items for your reading pleasure. Listed below is a
quick overview of some of the highlights.
Featured Articles
Angelo DeNisi opens the issue once again with his Presidential column.
This time he focuses on some important issues regarding the possible future
presence of clinical psychologists in organizations in general, and in the field
of I-O in particular. Boundary issues abound. As an aside, as TIP Editor
I've been called many things before, but diplomat is probably one of the more
positive ones.
Next, Art Gutman, from the Florida Institute of Technology, provides
us with a nice integrative article that summarizes the decisions and issues
involved in a number of recent court cases. Look for Art to provide more pieces
like this in the future.
Have you ever wondered how one might go about actually evaluating the value
of a graduate program (aside from noting the employment history or publication
record of its graduates)? Well, if you have, the article by Stefani Yorges
should prove very interesting, if not somewhat daunting from an implementation
perspective. Such efforts, however, are more evidence that we may be entering an
age where the "student is always right" is close at hand.
As was the case last issue, Nasha London-Vargas provides our final feature.
This time, she focuses on the topic of empowerment and provides some very
specific and helpful examples of possible ways to increase participation and
independence.
Editorial Departments
Mike Harris leads the charge this issue with a "Practice
Network" column focused on the role of I-O in performance
measurement and pay systems. One suggestion that Mike didn't mention but that
might work is if we, like Congress, tried to figure out a way to collectively
vote all our own salaries higher.
Kim Hoffman and Suzanne Vu take us on a TrIP Through Time in
this installment of "Tip-Topics" as they review the trials and
tribulations of the second year of graduate school. I have to admit that reading
this segment has the same cognitive effect on me as when I hear about the two
term papers my younger sister Julie had to complete for high school last
weekendI am very happy to be done with my formal education.
Next, Janine Waclawski's "The Real World" visits the
high-tech land of e-business and the Internet. Following her factoids segment,
she explores the use of technology in data-based applications (e.g., surveys and
feedback) in some relatively well-known organizations such as IBM, Dell, SAP,
Intel and Sun Microsystems, courtesy of some of the members of the Information
Technology Survey Group (ITSG). As an aside, did you know that IBM coined the
term e-business? (Thanks to Joe Colihan for this tidbit).
Dirk Steiner continues to bring us insighful commentary on the state
of I-O from around the world. The "International Forum" for this issue
presents a report from Chris Smewing on occupational psychology in the United
Kingdom. Interestingly enough, many of the issues raised by Chris regarding the
process for chartering, linkages and overlap with other professional areas such
as HRM and OD, and even the label occupational psychologist itself, are very
similar to those described by others above and in other places in this issue
(e.g., "TIP Missives," Angelo's column). It would seem as if
the "state of one's profession" is on the mind of everyone these days.
This edition of Steven Rogelberg's "Informed Decisions"
column focuses on a topic that should be of interest to many SIOPersthe
process of writing and publishing applied research. More specifically, Personnel
Psychology's Associate Editor Jim Smither and a number of well-known
members of the Editorial Board provide their thoughts and opinions on what it
takes to make the grade in the realm of applied papers. Their comments range
from general guidelines for collaborating and writing to some of the key
attributes that they look for (and evaluate) as reviewers.
"Traveling in Cyberspace" returns this issue with Part 2 of the
role of psychology in software design. In this installment, Phil Craiger
focuses on the topic of usability evaluation and several of the methods for
assessing this construct. As usual, he provides a couple of useful examples to
help some of us more visual types out.
Last, but not least, is the 2nd installment of our new "Early
Careers" column by Lori Foster and Dawn Riddle. Among
other things, they provide a very interesting and at times even entertaining
interview with Eduardo Salas. Look for other interviews in their column
in the future.
News and Reports
Of course, some people just read TIP for the news (it is officially a
newsletter after all) and this issue is full of it. We have an overview of the
15th Annual I-O Doctoral Student Consortium from Michelle Marks
and Martha Hennen which looks like a great lineup; the latest installment
of "Building Bridges" from Denise Bane which focuses on methods
for keeping in touch; a report from SIOP Secretary Janet Barnes-Farrell;
an important note from our president about membership dues; an APA Council
report from Wayne Camara; some details on the revision to the Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing from Dianne Brown Maranto;
an update from Irv Goldstein on the SIOP Foundation and some additional
information on its status and development from Lee Hakel; and more information
on several different court cases from our legal reporters (my term, not theirs) Heather
Roberts Fox and Lanka Karunaratne, as well as Emily Demonte and David W.
Arnold, Esq; and of course, the complete registration details and material
regarding the annual SIOP conference in New Orleans this April. Related, Murray
Barrick, our SIOP Conference Program Chair for 2000 sent in the following
mini-report: "The Program Committee would like to draw your attention to
the fact that the Confernce runs through Sunday, 1:00 p.m., and we hope you will
encourage everyone to stay for the entire Conference."
As always, this issue also has David Pollack's useful list of upcoming
conference dates and locations for next year, along with the usual "IOTAS,"
announcements and job postings. There are also some very interesting and
entertaining missives this time around, including an entire segment in response
to the MBAs in I-O discussion raised in the October TIP.
Well, it looks like this is the end. Please email me at Allanhc@aol.com
with your comments or reactions about this issue of TIP, the field of I-O
in general, or any ideas or comments you might want to share. I look forward to
hearing from you.
References
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A. & Tipton, S. M.
(1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life.
New York: Harper & Row.
January 2000 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home