Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor:
I would like to commend TIP for the Pro-Social I-O series by Stu Carr. The column is not only inspiring but a useful and important vantage point for I-O psychology. Dr. Carr’s recent interview with Malcolm MacLachlan about contributions that I-O can make to address global health concerns was particularly informative and motivating. Being new to the field, with my own hopes of integrating I-O psychology and human rights initiatives, I am thankful for the leadership and vision of Dr. Carr and those he interviews and look forward to more enlightening interviews in the Pro-Social I-O series.
Jeffrey Godbout
Graduate Student
University of Baltimore
Why Licensing of I-O Psychologists Is a Very Bad Idea
I disagree strongly with Dick Jeanneret’s letter on licensing (TIP, 47[1]July, 2009). My comments are my own, and I do not claim to represent the views of any SIOP Committee.
History
Over 25 years ago, I did some research with two colleagues in other fields on the issue of medical licensing. (The article appeared in Medicolegal News, Oct. 1980, Vol. 8, #5). This has an interesting history. For many decades medical licensing did not exist. The impetus did not come from patient complaints or scandals but from the doctors themselves, e.g., the AMA. They wanted sole power over the field of medicine.
Since licensing became popular, everyone wants to get in on the act—some states even license hair stylists, not to mention scores or hundreds of other professions.
To give an example of how far this trend has gone, the Institute for Justice has been engaged in a 3-year court battle with the “Florida design cartel” (which has spread to other states such as Texas), which has sought to license interior designers. This would criminalize furniture suppliers, companies that sell commercial filing and storage systems, retail business consultants, product display companies, and corporate art consultants. Who set the example for such an absurdity? APA, among others.
Motives
What is the motive for licensing? The rationalization is that “we need to protect the public,” but I do not know of a single study that shows licensing protects the public better than no licensing in psychology or any other field. I am sure APA has never done such a study. (I once asked them but got no answer.) And I doubt that such a study could even be done. At last count there were over 100 schools of therapy, and the studies show very inconsistent results across methods (and therapists), and there is disagreement regarding even how to measure therapeutic success. “Protecting the public” is just a rationalization—but for what?
The real motives are (1) status seeking, and (2) monopoly power (forcibly keeping competitors out to protect one’s income). To me, this is pretty shameful. [BTW: I challenged, in an e-mail, the entire APA Council of Representatives—over 200 people—to justify licensing of therapists. I did not get a single reply.]
Rights
Morally, licensing declares you don’t have the right to make a voluntary contract with another person to perform certain services without permission of the government. What gives the government this right? If people are as ignorant and irrational as the government or the associations claim, what guarantees are there that government bureaucrats will be rational and omniscient? This is elitism of the worst kind. (Actual fraud, of course, is already punishable under existing law.)
Consequences
How is the government to know how high to set the standards? If they are set too high, there will be a shortage of practitioners, and prices will be much higher than they would be otherwise. If the standards are too lax, there might be more unqualified practitioners, though that assumes there are objective standards that are unequivocal. Even if you had unquestionable standards, where you set the cutting point, by the very nature of licensing, has to be arbitrary.
Further, since licensing is done state by state, the states may differ in their requirements. This restricts the free flow of practitioners across the country.
The Uselessness of Licensing for I-O Psychologists
On practical grounds alone, this is the height of absurdity. The tasks they perform are far too varied and many people outside the field (e.g., business consultants) do the same thing as psychologists. Are we really going to license people to teach leadership? Counsel executives? Interview candidates? Do personality assessments? Design incentive systems? Restructure organizations? Help with team development? Morally, who has the right to say who can offer what to whom and, practically, who is to say who has the “right” amount of skill?
Furthermore, pencil-and-paper tests cannot measure practical skills. This applies to therapy as well as I-O psychology skills. Numerous people who have been on licensing boards have admitted that such tests are a farce.
Dick says that the APA Modeling Licensing Act defines required coursework. But how could the APA know which courses should be taught when I-O psychologists might do one or more of 100 different things? And are university courses the only way to learn skills?
Keeping Out of Jail
I agree that once laws are in place, self-protection requires one to obey them. But that does not mean we have to accept them just because they have been around for many years. Our long-term goal should be to have such laws repealed—and hope that other professions will be inspired to follow suit.
Private Certification
For those concerned about standards and who think skills can be adequately measured, I have no objection to private certification boards. The success of such boards would rise and fall on their competence. The critical advantage over government licensing is that private certification would be voluntary. Thus practitioners with clients who trusted their skills would be free to forego licensing if the practitioners perceived it to be unnecessary. Similarly, purchasers of services would be free to require or not require practitioner certification as they saw fit. Arbitrary government coercion would be replaced by voluntary trade. This is the moral ideal we should strive for.
Edwin A. Locke
Dean’s Professor of Leadership and Motivation (Emeritus)
Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland