APA Presidential Elections
Bill Macey
Back in May, I wrote a letter to each of the five APA Presidential Candidates
after nomination results were published in the APA Monitor. I asked them to
provide information that might help SIOP members to individually determine whom
to support in the upcoming election. As a structure for their comments, I asked
four questions. I included some basic background information about SIOP,
including membership data, the April 2001 issue of TIP, SIOPs Mission
Statement, and a copy of Kevin Murphys presidential column in the April 1998
issue of TIP which articulates SIOPs strategic initiatives.
Importantly, I noted in my letter that SIOP will not endorse or recommend any
candidate to the membership; my objective was simply to provide information SIOP
members need to make an informed choice.
Four of the candidates graciously responded to my letter. Here are the
questions and their responses, extracted verbatim from larger bodies of text
where appropriate:
Question 1
How will you ensure that you hear the point of view of I-O psychology
and other groups given the strongly clinical focus of APA?
James H. Bray, PhD
I am an active scientist-practitioner-educator-advocate and deal with all of
these issues in my daily professional life. 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, the arts, science and other
areas. I believe our profession is stronger because of these multiple
viewpoints. 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.
Kathleen M. McNamara, PhD
Coming from a small state, living and practicing in rural areas, and serving
in the public sector, I am keenly sensitive to the voices of those who believe
they are not heard or represented in the power structure. I will establish a
means to listen to those voices.
I will schedule regular conference calls with invited participants
(recommended by directorates or requests brought by a recognized group),
selected board and/or council members, and directorate staff, with a specific
topic and time for open discussion.
Further, participation in the Consolidated Meetings would facilitate
communication. I was pleased to see SIOP has been actively nominating
individuals to APA governance, but until the elections increase the voice of I-O
or other small groups in governance, alternative ways to participate should be
explored.
Stanley Moldawsky, PhD
I am a clinical psychologist in private practice. I helped create the Rutgers
University Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology and served as
a visiting professor for 14 years. We have three programs: clinical, school, and
organizational. I learned when I served on the APA Board of Directors that at
that level you represent all of psychology and not just the constituency that
helped elect you. As president I will represent every division of APA. You can
reach me by phone, fax or e-mail, and you will be heard and responded to. That
is a promise.
Robert J. Sternberg, PhD
I have been president of two larger divisions (1 and 15) and two smaller
divisions (10 and 24) of APA, so I am familiar with and responsive to the needs
of all sizes and kinds of divisions. As president, I would represent the needs
of all constituencies of APA, not just my own.
I have a long-standing interest in I-O psychology. As an undergraduate, I did
independent work with Richard Hackman and took the I-O course from Ben
Schneider. As a graduate student, Lee Cronbach was a member of my dissertation
committee.
Much of my work is in I-O psychology. I have been funded for over 20 years by
the militaryfirst the Office of Naval Research and then the Army Research
Instituteto do research and development on human abilities. Out of this work
have emerged situational-judgment tests (requiring display of tacit knowledge)
used to test the skills of and develop training programs for managers at various
organizational levels, as well as military leaders and people in various other
occupations. We have worked in many corporations construct-validating our
instruments. Our measures supplement (but do not substitute for) conventional
measures of general ability and can help somewhat to improve prediction of job
success. I have also studied conflict resolution as it applies to individual and
organizational settings. These days, I am especially interested in leadership,
and Victor Vroom and I have been invited to exchange letters as part of a series
for Leadership Quarterly.
I have argued that intelligence is multifaceted and that general ability is
part of but not the whole story with regard to ability-based prediction of
occupational success. I know some SIOP members may disagree. But I would hope
that these members would find our mutual interest in these issues more important
than possible (relatively small) ideological differences.
Question 2
There are currently nine states where I-O psychologists cannot be
licensed, and many others where it is extremely difficult for I-O psychologists
to be licensed. Less than 1/3 of SIOP members are currently licensed. What are
your thoughts on whether I-O psychologists should be licensed and how the
proposed changes by APA to licensure laws will affect I-O psychology?
Specifically, do you support a tightening of the model licensing act to restrict
licensure to only those with a degree from an APA accredited program? Would you
support exclusions for areas such as I-O where the clinical model does not
apply?
James H. Bray, PhD
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 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. 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. Licensure is for the regulation and protection of
the profession and the clients whom 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.
Kathleen M. McNamara, PhD
The primary purpose for licensure is protection of the public, so the most
logical starting point is the question: Is I-O licensure desirable for
protection of the public?
To the extent that licensure evolved in response to clinical practice, and
the political arena has been so perilous that opening laws even for our
own changes was avoided, the model act is outdated in a number of ways.
The issues obviously are broader than licensure and accreditation relative to
I-O psychologists.
With that said, I recognize that there is some immediacy in the I-O situation
which should not be deferred to a time uncertain! The whether-or-not part
of this question is clearly tied to SIOPs own strategic goals, in particular
to the identity clarification and globalization goal. I-O
psychologists are best qualified to address details relating to licensure
developments affecting them. Recently proposed changes to the model licensure
act resulted from external changes in health care delivery. If in the identity
clarification process, SIOP adopts functions in the definition of an I-O
psychologist which clearly fall in the realm of health, then there is no
whether or not. Rather, it becomes a question of how does SIOP work with
APA and the state associations to craft appropriate languagewith rationale
and justification as necessary for public testimony.
The accreditation question becomes one of what is to be included in the
language for licensure, and not one of exclusion. Your issues need to be heard.
Whereas a policy statement needs to be concise, the discussion can be extensive
and thoughtful. The proposal regarding restriction to a person with a
degree from an APA-accredited program is reasonable if APA is to remain
internally consistentwe believe that our accreditation serves many purposes,
including emphasizing quality over quantity. The Accreditation Committee is
continually looking at this. Recently, there has been more flexibility and
adapting to the needs of the field, within the parameters set by those to whom
our Accreditation Office must answer, rather than being a top down
process. If SIOPs identity clarification yields a good fit with licensure
parameters (generically speaking, not APA-defined), but APA accreditation is
nonexistent or not appropriate in its present state, then what standards address
quality, and how are these incorporated into a paradigm acceptable to APA? As
president, I would not support a simple exclusion. I would rather say what
is than what is not, and I would provide a forum for hearing that.
Stanley Moldawsky, PhD
Regarding licensure for I-O psychologistsThe division is split on its
expectations for its members. I will support the division in however they
decide. I support those who wish to be licensed and support those who wish to be
excluded from licensure until such time as the division decides which way it
needs to go. I spent 4 years on the Accreditation Committee and studied the
programs that sought accreditation as well as those who didnt. I was
convinced that those who didnt had fatal flaws (like the returns on my
e-mail addresses which are incorrect) that meant the program was not strong
enough for accreditation. I was a strong supporter of getting those programs up
to speed. Ultimately, programs should be accredited so their graduates can know
they have received the best education offered. Ultimately, licensure should be
available to those from an accredited program only. Meanwhile programs have time
to improve themselves.
Robert J. Sternberg, PhD
I believe its to everyones advantage to have some kind of voluntary
certification procedure in I-O psychology, with individuals deciding of their
own free will whether to pursue it. First, it can help clients of I-O
psychologists ensure that the psychologists they hire are truly qualified.
Second, it can protect I-O psychologists from competition from unqualified
people who falsely claim to have I-O expertise. In the current regulatory
climate, I expect the demand for licensing to spread. Other possible ways to
show competence are through diplomas or certification by an organization such as
SIOP.
The clinical model, which largely was devised for people who are providers of
psychotherapy, does not furnish a precise analogy to the kinds of demands made
on I-O psychologists. Thus I do not believe the issue is one of tightening or
loosening a licensing act that may apply well for clinical psychologists but
less well for I-O psychologists, but rather, one of devising a model that works
well for I-O psychologists.
Question 3
How will your initiatives reflect both the practice and science of I-O
psychology?
James H. Bray, PhD
My two top priorities as APA president are to expand practice opportunities
for all psychologists and expand funding for psychological science and
education. 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.
APAs lead in creating the Decade of Behavior sets the stage for increasing
federal funding for psychological and behavioral science. Over 50% of health
problems are caused by psychosocial and lifestyle factors, yet less than 5% of
the National Institutes of Health budget is spent on research in these areas.
Congress is in the process of doubling the NIH budget over the next 5 years.
This is a propitious time for APA to join with other behavioral science groups
to increase the percentage of the NIH budget for psychological science. Congress
is also considering increased funding for training of psychologists. I have been
an active advocate with the Science and Education Directorates through the
Public Policy Advocacy Network. As president, I will strongly advocate for APA
to spend the resources to take advantage of these unprecedented opportunities.
Kathleen M. McNamara, PhD
Without communication from I-O psychologists, even the possibility that the
initiatives are inclusive of both science and practice is not going to exist! I
firmly believe that the APA president is responsible to the entire membership
and that our science and practice are interdependent and supportive of each
other, whether for I-O or any other specialty. As noted in Question 1, I will
establish a way to be informed about I-O psychologys science and practice as
it pertains to my initiatives.
Stanley Moldawsky, PhD
I have planned three initiatives: increased public education, prescription
privileges for qualified psychologists, and greater opportunities for diverse
groups in psychology and APA governance. The first, public education, means more
funding for our initiatives. Workplace stress is one of the aspects of the
public education campaign. This also includes determining what is causing the
stress. Is it a personal problem for a clinical person to help with, or is it an
organizational problem requiring investigation and problem solving? The third
initiative, diversity, means recruiting applicants from minority groups into
psychology as well as into APA. What they choose to major in is a personal
matter and I am not looking for one kind of psychologist. I assume I-O folks can
be helpful in this recruiting process.
Robert J. Sternberg, PhD
I am myself both a scientist and a practitioner. As a scientist, I have
published many (800+) books and articles, have won many awards, and have held
$15 million in government grants. As a practitioner, I have consulted with close
to a thousand organizations over the years and am guiding the formation of the
new practice wing at the Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies,
and Expertise at Yale, which I direct. We train and employ I-O psychologists
through our Center, and we have presented papers at SIOP for the past several
years.
I have two interests that bear strongly on I-O psychologytraining and
assessment, and conflict resolutionand if I am elected, would work to ensure
APAs leadership, with guidance and participation from SIOP, use I-O-based
techniques to improve training, assessment, and conflict resolution in
organizations ranging from schools to corporations to countries.
Question 4
For a variety of reasons, many clinically trained psychologists are
seeking opportunities to practice in areas that have traditionally been
considered the domain of I-O psychology. Consequently, many I-O psychologists
are quite concerned that individuals receive the appropriate retraining
necessary to practice competently. As APA president, what position would you
take to ensure that such individuals receive the appropriate retraining?
James H. Bray, PhD
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. 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.
Kathleen M. McNamara, PhD
As with any area of practice, APAs ethics code addresses ones
responsibility to practice only within areas of competency. The majority of
those who seek opportunities in the traditional I-O areas more than likely would
argue they have the competency! Consequently, it appears that the root and
solution for the problem may lie in areas identified in your strategic
goalsvisibility and public policy initiatives. Whereas your process was more
externally focused (except for the student and introductory psychology
components), addressing this internal component is central to any
solution. The approach appears at least two-fold: bringing the issue to the
attention of practitioners within the context of marketplace or other
initiatives, and defining the competencies and concerns if one does not have
that full range of competencies.
Stanley Moldawsky, PhD
I believe in our ethics code which says you practice what you have been
trained to do and you dont practice what you havent been trained to do. It
is as unethical for a clinical psychologist to do organizational work as it is
for an I-O psychologist to do clinical work. Either should be retrained if they
choose to enter a different domain. The problem occurs in the grey areas where
overlap exists. Here the best judgment of the psychologist must be respected. I
support retraining. I have been involved in working with students at Rutgers who
came with a doctorate and required new course work and supervision to qualify
for a PsyD in clinical. The same holds for I-O or clinical. I will represent
psychology in all of its areas. As APA president, I would consider that part of
my job description. I ask for your support.
Robert J. Sternberg, PhD
First, it is important that anyone who is not trained in I-O (or any other
area of) psychology who wishes to practice in a new area is indeed retrained,
rather than believing that training for one specialization is adequate for
practice in another specialization. I think the best way to ensure that clinical
practitioners who wish to retrain are adequately retrained is to establish a
joint committee composed of distinguished I-O psychologists from SIOP and
clinical psychologists to formulate guidelines for such retraining. Given that
the field of entry is I-O, I would expect the chair of and the majority on the
committee to be from I-O psychology (and would recommend the reverse chair and
majority were the committee to advise on I-O psychologists who wish to retrain
as clinical psychologists).
October 2001 Table
of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home