>

mainheader

President Eden King sent all candidates for APA President three questions that are directly related to SIOP interests. Three of the five candidates responded, and their full answers appear below.


Jean Lau Chin, EdD, ABPP

  • How will you ensure that you are receptive and responsive to the priorities of I-O psychology (and applied psychology more generally), given the strongly clinical presence and focus of APA?

I have stated in my platform my emphasis on applied psychology (and I-O) as a priority.  I think the image of psychology within APA has been largely shaped by its directorates in which Practice largely meant clinical practice in its advocacy, etc.  With the new restructuring and Office of Applied Psychology, APA has taken a major step in elevating applied psychology.  As APA president, I would convene one of my Integrative Leadership Forum to address this.  The many applications of I-O psychologists and applied really is about the future of psychology where psychology affects all aspects of our everyday lives, and not just in our clinical psychotherapy offices. 

  • A spate of articles and efforts have advised clinical psychologists to “enter the workplace” as a new practice domain. As a result, many SIOP members are concerned about others entering this domain without appropriate training/retooling (e.g., in personal assessment, executive coaching, team interventions). What types of additional training should clinical psychologists receive before practicing in non-clinical areas within workplace settings? 

The emphasis of most clinical training is on the individual and on psychopathology. Bringing psychology to the workplace does require additional training in consultation skills, team interventions, knowledge of systems dynamics, executive coaching as differentiated from psychotherapy, and personal assessment toward improving performance.  These reflect a shift from pathology to achieving potential, and a recognition of individuals functioning within a system.   

  • Our recent SIOP member survey indicates concern, particularly among our academic members, regarding the status of I-O psychology in the field of psychology and in psychology departments. Introductory textbooks provide little more than passing reference to our field; major psychology departments treat I-O psychology and applied fields as second-class despite their psychological strengths and impact on society; and so forth. If elected, what will you do to assist SIOP in promoting I-O psychology to psychologists and psychology writ large?

During my campaign, I held one of my Let’s Talk Series on Applied Psychology to shed light on and to hear member concerns about this area of psychology. I called attention to Hugo Munsterberg, the “father of industrial psychology”, who was instrumental in the shift to applied psychology in the workplace at the turn of the 20th century.  The emphasis of my Integrative Leadership Forums are bring all perspectives together toward achieved actions and solutions.  In one on Applied Psychology, I would include divisions like SIOP to weigh in and reflect their concerns.  I think bringing together the vast areas in which I-O psychology and applied fields already have impact would go a long way toward a new face of psychology – that could and should central in APA’s marketing the image of psychology. 

For additional information, please go to: https://www.jeanlauchinforapapresident.com/

 


Steven D. Hollon, PhD

  • How will you ensure that you are receptive and responsive to the priorities of I-O psychology (and applied psychology more generally), given the strongly clinical presence and focus of APA?

I am a research clinician who started his career at the University of Minnesota that has long had a strong I-O contingent. I am a devotee of using the best of empirical science to guide real world applications and in that regard likely have more in common with the typical I-O psychologist than with most practicing clinicians. I chaired the committee that advised the APA on how to set up clinical practice guidelines. This was not popular within APA but it was in the public interest and in the interest of the profession. No profession long survives that does not provide a service to the public and I can show my clinical colleagues how to best make the case for the services they provide. The bottom line for me is that I think that APA went off track about a quarter century ago when it was taken over by people who were dominated by clinical practice concerns and that both the public and the profession will be better served if we return to our roots as a scientific discipline. I do not know if that will be popular but I do know that I can do a better job of making the case that psychological services deserve to be reimbursed when that case is based on hard empirical evidence than when it relies upon wishful thinking on the part of practicing clinicians. My experience with my I-O colleagues back at Minnesota leads me to suspect that the way I approach the field is more in line with the SIOP than it is with most practicing clinicians. I welcome your input.

  • A spate of articles and efforts have advised clinical psychologists to “enter the workplace” as a new practice domain. As a result, many SIOP members are concerned about others entering this domain without appropriate training/retooling (e.g., in personal assessment, executive coaching, team interventions). What types of additional training should clinical psychologists receive before practicing in non-clinical areas within workplace settings? 

I do not know what kinds of additional training/retooling would be necessary but I would look to Division 14 for guidance. I am no fan of “entering the workplace” simply to earn extra income if that means engaging in practices for which someone is unprepared. I am quite skilled when it comes to treating patients who are depressed and suicidal but I would not presume to engage in activities for which I was not adequately trained. George Bernard Shaw once said that all professions are “conspiracies against the laity” and I take that to mean that professions thrive when they serve the public interest and not when the public serves the interest of the profession. For clinicians to claim expertise that they do not have is not only shortsighted but wholly unnecessary. There is no nonpsychotic disorder (the bulk of the people that seek treatment) for which psychotherapy is not at least as efficacious as medication treatment and longer lasting. There is simply no need for clinical psychologists to “enter other workplaces” for which they have not been trained when they can compete on more than even terms with other disciplines in domains for which they have been trained.

  • Our recent SIOP member survey indicates concern, particularly among our academic members, regarding the status of I-O psychology in the field of psychology and in psychology departments. Introductory textbooks provide little more than passing reference to our field; major psychology departments treat I-O psychology and applied fields as second-class despite their psychological strengths and impact on society; and so forth. If elected, what will you do to assist SIOP in promoting I-O psychology to psychologists writ large?

If you have the data I will sing your praises. Clinical psychology has gotten “soft” and as a consequence we have lost market share to medication treatment. In the United Kingdom where the National Institute for Health and Clinical Evaluation (NICE) generates clinical practice guidelines that base treatment recommendations on the best available empirical evidence the National Health Service has invested £700 million pounds in training psychotherapists to implement those interventions with the greatest empirical support. I assume that different contingencies drive the process with respect to I-O psychology but the one thing that I do know from my contacts with colleagues in the UK is that you do not so much have to persuade other members of your profession but rather make the case to those individuals who hire your services (at NIMH they say that “you cannot herd cats but you can move their food”). If I-O provides services of value to its clientele (and I assume that things have not changed since the time that I was at Minnesota) then your students will get jobs (when I was at Minnesota a typically new PhD could expect a starting salary from industry that was approximately twice what their advisors earned) and if your students can get jobs then you have leverage with the departments in which you are located. As a research clinician I am used to being considered to be a “second-class” scientist by my colleagues who do more basic research; I deal with that by doing hard-nosed empirical research that is as rigorous as anything my colleagues do and my students get jobs as a consequence. Happy to help in any way I can (we are kindred spirits) but if you have the data (as you did when I was back at Minnesota) then we have all we need to do the job.

 


Robert H. Woody, PhD, SCD, JD

  • How will you ensure that you are receptive and responsive to the priorities of I-O psychology (and applied psychology more generally), given the strongly clinical presence and focus of APA?

My career has benefited greatly from my adhering to collective decision-making (I graduated from the two-year group psychotherapy program at the Washington School of Psychiatry). My publication record documents my commitment to practice (37 books and several hundred articles, primarily practice-oriented), albeit science is the foundation. 

  • A spate of articles and efforts have advised clinical psychologists to “enter the workplace” as a new practice domain. As a result, many SIOP members are concerned about others entering this domain without appropriate training/retooling (e.g., in personal assessment, executive coaching, team interventions). What types of additional training should clinical psychologists receive before practicing in non-clinical areas within workplace settings? 

The same sort of declaration could be made about the spate of clinical psychologists who, some believe, are rushing into forensic psychology. A simple answer to the question is not possible. The most appropriate answer would be that a reminder should be issued that ethical standards require evidence- and/or empirically-based competencies.

  • Our recent SIOP member survey indicates concern, particularly among our academic members, regarding the status of I-O psychology in the field of psychology and in psychology departments. Introductory textbooks provide little more than passing reference to our field; major psychology departments treat I-O psychology and applied fields as second-class despite their psychological strengths and impact on society; and so forth. If elected, what will you do to assist SIOP in promoting I-O psychology to psychologists writ large?

I respectfully disagree with the foregoing “second-class” status for I-O. At my university, there is not a scintilla of support for dubious status for I-O; in fact, if anything, I-O receives elevated status. To respond to your question, I already and will continue to promote ALL types of psychology (as long as standards and ethics are maintained).

For additional information, please go to: BobWoodyHelpsPsychology.com

 

APA Elections Endorsement Page | APA Elections FAQ Page