To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.

Dear Morrie, Thank you for your service as TIP editor. We are writing in reaction to the results of the recent 2015 Practitioner Needs Survey that was reported in the last issue of TIP (Oliver, Ferro, Napper, & Porr, 2015). Oliver et al. report startlingly low practitioner satisfaction with SIOP ratings from their recent membership survey. The average satisfaction rating across 12 areas is below 3.0 on a 1.0–5.0 rat- ing scale. In some areas the ratings are even much lower (see Oliver et al., 2015 and Silzer & Parson, 2015): • • • • Recognition of practitioners for Fellow status: 2.77 Recognition for practitioner contributions: 2.73 Support for I-O practice careers: 2.76, Opportunities for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions: 2.82 What is most disappointing is that these practitioner satis- faction ratings are on average at the same low level as they were 8 years ago based on the results of the 2008 Practitioner Needs Survey (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, 2008). In 2008, there were also major differences in satisfaction among member groups with full-time practitioners’ ratings falling far below other member groups on almost all areas. In 2015 some practitioner satisfaction ratings have fallen even lower than the 2008 ratings. The ratings are moving in a downward trend over the last 8 years. Earlier member surveys in 2000 and 2002 (Waclawski & Church, 2000, 2002) found no major differences in reported satisfaction between different member groups (as opposed to the significant differences found in the 2008 survey results). The three lowest rated areas of member satisfaction were: • Hotel room availability at the conference (2.61 in 2000, 2.51 in 2002). • SIOP’s ability to promote I-O to business (3.25 in 2000, 3.14 in 2002, with practitioners being slightly more dissat- 20 January 2016, Volume 53, Number 3