Ask any C-level executive what keeps them up at night and chances are that a lack of deep leadership bench is at the top of their list. In fact, only 18% of HR professionals rate their organization as strong in current leadership bench strength (Hanson, 2011). So it is not surprising that identifying, developing, and retaining high potential talent is one of the most critical human capital issues facing organizations today (Silzer & Church, 2009). Changing workforce demographics, the impact of globalization and technology, and increased scrutiny from investors and boards of directors have increased the spotlight on the quality of an organization’s leadership talent pipeline.

I-O psychology is one of the fastest growing fields (Schellenberger, 2010; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014) of this decade, and the job of industrial organizational psychologist has been ranked the second most attractive job in science (“Industrial Organizational Psychologist Overview,” 2018). As more undergraduate students enter the field of I-O psychology, this will result in an increased demand for graduate-level degrees. With the growing influence of I-O psychology as a result of this influx, there is a need to understand from where I-O PhD programs draw their faculty. These faculty train new I-O psychology PhDs, and their training can have an effect on the course of the science (Smaldino & McElreath, 2016) and the academic life of these institutions. One way to understand how I-O psychology graduate programs grow is through an investigation of the academic origins of their faculty.

At a recruiting event for my organization, I (Bharati) was approached by a job applicant. With the demographic information section of the application in hand, she asked, “I am half White and half Black. Which box should I check? Both boxes for White/Caucasian American and Black/African American, or just the one that says “Other?” This confusion reflects a larger national discussion in the U.S. regarding the definition of the “Other” category: does it mean “multiracial,” “none of the above,” both, or something else?

No one who works with tests and other employment practices wants their employer to be sued because of a discriminatory practice, so their acting to mitigate potential employer liability is part of their job, even if not explicitly stated in a job description. So, how a practice, such as test use, hiring or compensation, can be challenged as illegal, and the applicable standard under which a claim could happen, should be common knowledge.

Let’s do an exercise: think back to your graduate school days and to those who graduated with you; or, if you’re still enjoying the graduate life, think about the alumni that you have met from your program.  Now, did all of these individuals go into practice?  Did they all go into academia?  For most PhD programs, we would guess that the answer to both of these questions is “no”; rather, graduates likely pursued a mixture of both of these career paths.  Now think about the program itself. Was it focused more on the practical aspects of I-O consulting—on planning and executing projects, on interacting with various stakeholders, and so on?  Or was it more research focused, concentrating on I-O theory and a variety of advanced statistical technques?  Or was it a fairly even offering of the two, equipping students with either (or both!) skillsets?  Now here’s the kicker: Did you know, going in, what this focus was?  If so, to what extent did that influence your decision to attend that program?  If not, would you have changed your decision having had this information?