Practice Perspectives: Practitioner Cohort Differences:
Different Career Stages or
Changing Views?
Rob Silzer, Anna Erickson, Rich Cober*
* Author affiliations: Rob Silzer–HR Assessment and Development & Baruch/CUNY, Anna Erickson–Questar, Rich Cober–Marriott International.
SIOP membership is becoming more diverse in work activities and responsibilities. I-O practitioners can be found in a broad range of business organizations, government organizations, consulting firms, and academic positions. Many members now have 30+ years of experience in the field, and some are contemplating retirement.
We were interested in investigating whether there are differences in the professional views among practitioners with different years of experience. Do practitioners earlier in their careers differ significantly in their views from those in more advanced career stages? Are those differences due to the impact of the career stage or to changing generational views?
Respondent Sample
To investigate these questions we utilized data from the 2008 Practitioner Needs Survey (see references). A total of 1,005 survey recipients responded to the survey (a 37% response rate).
For this study, we limited our sample to respondents who were full Members or Fellows, had obtained a PhD, and were full-time practitioners (n = 465). As described in previous TIP articles (see references), full-time practitioners were identified as respondents who reported devoting “70% or more of work time” to being a practitioner.
We divided this sample into subgroups based on responses to two questions:
Question 21. In what year did you obtain your highest degree?
• Before 1970 • 1990–1999
• 1970–1979 • 2000–2008
• 1980–1989
Question 22. Please indicate the number of years you have practiced in an I-O psychology related field.
• < 5 years • 15–19 years
• 5–9 years • 20+ years
• 10–14 years
The Pearson’s correlation between the two continuous variables was r = -0.91 (p < .001). The actual respondent distribution on these variables can be found in Table 1. It is worth noting that just over 40% of the sample has 20+ years of experience—a highly experienced group.
I-O psychology practitioners in this sample work in a variety of employment settings (see Table 2) with:
• 38% in consulting firms
• 26% in private-sector business
• 18% in independent practice
• 12% in public-sector organizations
• 3% in nonprofit organizations
• less than 1% in academic settings
It should be noted that respondents self-selected their own work setting. Some practitioners who started their own consulting firm but who are the sole employee may have self-categorized into either consulting firms or independent practice. The distinction between these two categories is not well defined. A total of 57% of the respondents are either in consulting firms or independent practice.
One trend is that practitioners in independent practice typically received their degrees before 1990. It is likely that these individuals had early-career experiences in other settings, such as large consulting firms or business organizations, and then started their own consulting practice. This is a fairly well-known career path for I-O practitioners. In addition, the number of practitioners working in public-sector settings is larger for early-career practitioners. This might mean that there are a growing number of entry positions available in the public sector or that more senior practitioners leave the public sector for other work settings.
Practice Activities
We were interested in finding out if the importance placed on various work activities of practitioners varied by experience. In the 2008 survey, 17 practice activities were listed for respondents to rate. Respondents were asked two related questions:
1. Importance: “How important are each of these activities to your current effectiveness as a practitioner?” The response options were (a) highly important, (b) important, and (c) not important.
2. Primary source: “For the activities that are “highly important” or “important,” please indicate what your primary source has been for gaining proficiency (knowledge and skills) in each area.” Response options were (a) graduate school, (b) on the job learning/self-learning, and (c) structured training/development (postgraduate).
Table 3 lists those activities for which subgroups differed significantly in their ratings of importance based on analysis of variance (ANOVA). Only those items which showed statistically significant differences are displayed in this and all other tables.
Importance of Practice Activities
The importance of practice activities among practitioner subgroups was significant for 7 of the 17 practice activities:
• Advanced-career practitioners give higher importance to:
• Managing a business
• Coaching others and providing feedback
• Writing reports, articles, chapters (nonresearch)
• Early-career practitioners give higher importance to:
• Conducting primary research and data analysis
• Managing work projects and administrative activities
• Mixed results (nonlinear)
• Leading and managing others
• Writing for a scientific journal (early- and advanced-career practitioners give higher ratings)
These results seem consistent with role differences across career stages. Early-career practitioners are logically more focused on work projects and data analysis. Senior practitioners are more likely to focus on senior role activities such as managing a business and coaching others and may have more opportunity to write nonresearch reports and chapters. It is worth noting that the importance of conducting primary research decreases and the importance of writing nonresearch reports and chapters increases with career stage. The general results seem most consistent with a career stage model of I-O practice.
Primary Source for Gaining Proficiency
Survey respondents were asked to indicate the primary source of gaining proficiency in each of these activities. There was significant variance across nine activities among the practitioner subgroups (see Table 4).
• Advanced-career practitioners rate higher:
• “On the job learning/self-learning” as primary source:
- Managing work projects and administrative activities
- Making presentations
- Developing and designing systems, methods, and/or programs
• “Structured training (development postgraduate)” as primary source:
- Leading change management and OD efforts (although 70% say primary source is “on-the-job learning”)
• Early-career practitioners rate higher:
• “Graduate school” as primary source:
- Implementing and delivering programs and/or tools (although 80% say primary source is “on-the-job learning”)
- Making presentations (although 60% say primary source is “on-the-job learning”)
- Developing and designing systems, methods and/or programs (although 50% say primary source is “on-the-job learning”)
- Conducting selection and development assessments
• Mid-career practitioners rate higher:
• “Structured training (development postgraduate)” as primary source:
- Coaching others and providing feedback (although 70% say primary source is “on-the-job learning”)
These results may have multiple explanations. Early-career practitioners are more likely than other subgroups to cite “graduate school” as the primary source for gaining proficiency in many activities. This might be the result of changes in graduate school curricula. However, because early-career practitioners have limited postgraduate school experience, this may just reflect limited real-world experience. One might expect a much larger effect if the differences were the result of graduate school changes. One of the largest effects was for conducting selection and development assessments where the percent of practitioners citing graduate school as the primary source of proficiency increases from 38% to 66% for early-career practitioners. This might be due to graduate school changes as assessments have become more important to the field or to the impact on proficiency of real-work experience.
Senior practitioners more frequently than other subgroups cite “on-the-job learning” and “structured learning” as the primary proficiency source. Many of these practitioner activities are less likely to be studied in graduate school and more likely to be learned through job experience. So these results also seem consistent with a career stage model.
In the 2008 survey results, full-time practitioners rate the majority of the work activities as highly important or important to their current effectiveness. Practitioners also say they primarily gained professional proficiency in 15 of the activities by “on-the-job learning/self-learning.”
Professional Resources Used
Differences in the use of professional resources among practitioner subgroups were limited. Only two professional resources were used differentially in the last 12 months among the subgroups (see Table 5).
• Advanced-career practitioners–more likely to have used:
• Books: business/human resources
• Articles and publications: psychology, I-O (nonresearch)
As practitioners advance in their careers they are exposed to a wider range of books, articles, and publications, so it makes sense that they have greater access to these resources and are more likely to use them than early-career practitioners.
These results seem consistent with a career stage explanation. There is no obvious other reason why earlier career practitioners would value books, articles, and publications less than other subgroups, but they may just have less experience using them or less access to them.
Professional Development Activities
Respondents were asked, How valuable would each of these activities be to I-O practitioner development if SIOP provided them (assume that they would be high quality and low cost)? Participants were asked to indicate whether 20 potential activities would be highly valuable, valuable, or not valuable. The variance in responses across full-time practitioner subgroups can be found in Table 6.
Early-career practitioners value professional development activities slightly more than other subgroups, probably because those activities can be helpful in starting an I-O career. Mid-career practitioners value two activities—provide article and book summaries, research, and professional press; provide a practitioner journal or newsletter—more than other subgroups and probably would find these development activities useful in their work. Advanced-career professionals value one activity more than other subgroups: Provide more online resources.
Career stages might be at least part of the reason for these differences. However, additional development resources are valued by all full-time practitioners. The 2008 survey found that all the development activities are highly valued by all practitioner categories. Full-time practitioners, in particular, value additional education, training, and practice-specific information (practice-related publications, summaries, online resources).
Professional Knowledge and Skills Training
A related question asked survey respondents, How valuable would knowledge or skills training in these areas be to your professional development if SIOP provided them? Fifteen training topics were provided, and respondents were asked to indicate whether each would be highly valuable, valuable, or not valuable if provided by SIOP.
The variance in responses across the subgroups can be found in Table 7.
The results suggest that:
• Early-career practitioners rate higher:
• Job/competency analysis skills
• Project management skills
• I-O technical knowledge/skills
• HR knowledge and systems
• Business management (knowledge and skills)
• Early- and mid-career practitioners rate higher:
• Consulting skills
• Organizational assessment/program evaluation
• Leadership skills
• Strategic skills
• Communication skills
Based on these results it seems that early-career practitioners are eager to participate in a range of knowledge and skill training. No doubt they see this as helpful to their careers, although it raises questions about how much training they are receiving in any of these areas in graduate school. Mid-career practitioners rate training in some areas as more valuable than other subgroups (consulting, organizational assessment, leadership, strategic, and communication skills). As I-O practitioners move into a wider range of career positions, it seems likely that these skills will increasingly be required to be successful. Perhaps a case can be made for a changing views rationale for the differences.
In the 2008 survey at least 60% of full-time practitioners (as well as part-time and occasional practitioners) rated almost all training areas as highly valuable or valuable. See the final survey report for specific results.
Satisfaction With SIOP
SIOP support for practitioner-related needs is an important issue for I-O psychology. Respondents were asked, How satisfied are you with SIOP in these practitioner areas? with 12 practitioner-related items. In this analysis no significant differences in satisfaction were found across the practitioner subgroups for any of the items. Levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction are consistent across these subgroups. The 2008 results found that “I-O psychology practitioners are dissatisfied with how well SIOP is meeting their professional needs, particularly in the areas of
• SIOP leadership understanding of key practice issues
• Opportunity for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions and future direction
• Providing a clear vision of the future of I-O psychology and practice
• SIOP support for practitioners who want to get licensed
• SIOP support for advancing members’ I-O practice careers
Science–Practice Gap
The 2008 survey results on the perceived gap between I-O science and practice has been presented in two previous TIP articles (see references). Respondents were asked to indicate, In which areas do you find the biggest gap between the available science/research on a topic and actual organizational practice in your work? Respondents evaluated the gap in 26 content areas and identified whether (a) practice was ahead of science/research, (b) science/research was ahead of practice, (c) little or no gap exists, or (d) do not know.
Practitioner subgroups varied in their responses in only two of the 26 areas. The variances are reported in Table 8.
No significant differences were found between practitioner groups for the other 24 areas included in the original survey. The results suggest that as practitioners gain more experience they become more aware of actual organizational practices in some areas (i.e., recruiting) and may be more likely to see practices ahead of science. But what was most important is that there were few differences among the subgroups. See the survey final report for overall results.
Promotion of I-O Psychology
Survey respondents were asked, How valuable would each of these activities be to better promote I-O psychology practice and science by SIOP? Eleven activities were provided and respondents were asked to indicate highly valuable, valuable, or not valuable for each activity if pursued by SIOP. Only four were rated differently across groups. Mean ratings for perceived value are displayed in Table 9.
The results suggest that early- and mid-career practitioners particularly value activities promoting I-O psychology. They put particular emphasis on tangible marketing activities, such as advertising and conferences. The strong support among all full-time practitioners for almost all 11 activities (see survey final report) suggests the views of all practitioners may have changed and are more supportive of active marketing efforts now than 10 or 20 years ago.
The overall 2008 survey results indicate that SIOP members strongly value efforts to support and promote I-O psychology, in particular “Positioning SIOP as the leading source of organizational psychology work and thinking to the business community.”
Licensure Issues
Several questions related to licensing issues were included in the survey.
Identification as a Psychologist
One central question asked, Do you consider yourself to be a psychologist? Most respondents in all practitioner categories responded Yes (ranging from 77–94%, 87% of full-time practitioners). The variance among full-time practitioner subgroups was not significant (based on year obtained highest degree [Q21]):
Licensure Preparation
Respondents were asked, To what extent did your graduate program adequately prepare you to meet licensure requirements? The variance among full-time practitioner subgroups was:
There is significant variance across these member groups (Pearson chi-square two sided = 82.8, p = .000). These results suggest an increasing lack of knowledge by early-career practitioners about licensure requirements. It may suggest that graduate schools are giving less attention to licensure requirements. In addition, there may less concern about licensure for the increasing number of practitioners who work in business organizations. It does raise questions about how SIOP and practitioners will address the licensure issues raised by the evolving APA Model Licensing Act.
Potential for Public Harm
Respondents were asked, Could individuals or their employer organizations potentially be harmed (i.e., experience financial or emotional distress) if someone without advanced training in behavioral science tried to do your work? The variance among practitioner subgroups was:
The responses do significantly vary across these full-time practitioner subgroups (Pearson chi-square two sided = 29.3, p = .004). Most full-time practitioners across the subgroups (66%) responded very likely or somewhat likely) do see some potential for harm. Advanced career practitioners, with extensive experience, rate the likelihood of harm higher than other subgroups.
Member Interest in Licensure
To gauge general interest in being licensed, respondents were asked, If licensing requirements were more appropriate for I-O psychologists, would you apply to be licensed? The majority of full-time practitioners (65%) responded yes.
The variance among practitioner subgroups was:
There is no significant variance across these member groups (Pearson chi-square two sided = 5.6, p = .232). These results suggest most full-time practitioners are interested in getting licensed if the licensing requirements were more appropriate for I-O psychologists. And the percent of practitioner does not vary much across the subgroups despite noticeable differences in the percent currently licensed.
APA has initiated a revision of the Model Licensing Act that could have far reaching implications for I-O psychology. SIOP members hold strong pro and con views on licensing issues (see references), so SIOP needs to be actively involved in influencing this process for the best interests of I-O psychology.
In some areas there may be changing views on licensure: decreasing knowledge about licensure requirements and less perceived licensure preparation by graduate schools; however, there is broad interest in getting licensed if the requirements are appropriate. The differences across full-time practitioner subgroups may reflect changes in views more than changes in career stages.
Conclusions
It is difficult to draw broad conclusions based on this data about the influence of career stages versus changing views. Because it is a cross sectional sample, actual effects are hard to tease apart. It does seem that the variance across subgroups is suggestive of career-stage differences in some areas:
• Importance of practice activities
• Primary source for gaining proficiency
• Professional resources used
• Professional development activities valued
• Science–practice gap
The variance across subgroups in other areas might be more likely attributed to changing views:
• Professional knowledge and skills training
• Licensure issues
The subgroup variance in the remaining area—promotion of I-O psychology—may reflect some impact of both career stages and changing views. However, it is hard to imagine this strong support for marketing and promoting I-O psychology existing 20 years ago.
Although these are some interesting results, caution should be used in interpreting this data given the limits of a cross-sectional sample. A more complete study should be initiated by SIOP to investigate and identify the actual career stages for SIOP practitioners. In particular, the SIOP Executive Board should support the Practitioner Career Study that has been proposed.
Practitioner Needs Survey References
Final Report
Silzer, R.F., Cober, R.T., Erickson, A.R., & Robinson, G. (2008, October). Practitioner Needs Survey: Final survey report. Society for Industrial and Organizational Society. Bowling Green. OH. (Available at http://www.siop.org/Practitioner%20Needs%20Survey.pdf)
TIP Articles
Cober, R. T., Silzer, R. F., Erickson, A. R. (2009, July). Science–practice gaps in industrial–organizational psychology: Part I–Member data and perspectives. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 47(1), 97–105.
Cober, R. T., Silzer, R. F., Erickson, A. R. (2009, October). Science–practice gaps in industrial–organizational psychology: Part II–Perspectives of experienced I-O practitioners and researchers. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 47(2), 103–113.
Erickson, A. R., Silzer, R. F., Robinson, G. & Cober, R. T. (2009, April). Promoting industrial-organizational psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 46(4), 45–56.
Silzer, R. F., Cober, R. T., Erickson, A. R. & Robinson, G. (2008, July). Practitioner satisfaction with SIOP. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 46(1), 43–58.
Silzer, R. F., Erickson, A. R., & Cober, R. T. (2009, January). Licensing and industrial-organizational psychologists. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 46(3), 89–99.
Silzer, R. F., Erickson, A. R., Robinson, G. & Cober, R. T. (2008, October). Practitioner professional development. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 46(2), 39–56.