If you been under the most all-encompassing rock for the last 2 years, you might not know that politics play a large role in the national discourse around every topic.  No matter one’s leanings it is clear that much investment is made in trying to predict one act of national-level behavior and the motivations behind this behavior. Specifically, we are talking about voting and the motivations for voting: both why people vote and why they select a candidate on the ballot. 

There has been a global recognition of the increase in doctoral degrees conferred with comparatively few professorships and academic positions becoming available. Associations such as The Canadian Association for Graduate Studies are noting large discrepancies between the supply and demand for new professors (Sekuler, 2011). This calls into question dominant models of graduate education as training the future professoriate. Industrial and organizational psychology is perhaps well situated as a field to be less concerned about this trend. After all, many students who enter graduate training in our field do so with the intention of careers in consulting, human resources, or governmental and nonprofit work. As such, this month’s TIP-Topics column aims to provide guidance for graduate students looking to develop or enhance competencies deemed critical for I-O practitioners outside academe.

The registration/licensure of industrial-organizational psychology is a topic that is discussed globally. Typically, the details are conferred within the context of a particular country, as the practice of industrial-organizational psychology is usually guided by specific jurisdictions which differ depending on geographic region.

As we’ve discussed in previous columns, the overlaps between corporate learning and development (L&D) and I-O are as common as they are obscured. That’s why this column ostensibly exists, to (hopefully) help I-Os gain some context for conversations with our kinfolk in L&D. To that end, in the next two installments of Learning About Learning, we’re focusing on the trends in training from both L&D and I-O perspectives.

Whether pursuing a career as a scientist-practitioner or continuing to ascend the ranks of academia, early-career I-O professionals are likely to be in a position in which they must translate I-O specific topics to members of legislature. Acquiring grant funding is a near necessity to obtain tenure as an I-O professor, and the federal government is one of the leading employers of I-O psychologists, either as civil servants or via contract work (SIOP Member Salary Survey, 2016). A crucial aspect of success as an I-O professional lies in our ability to effectively communicate why we should be granted federal funding and how our research can influence federal policy related to the workplace. As a result, we sought to understand the intricacies of I-O translation when communicating with members of the federal government. We interviewed three esteemed I-O psychologists who each have demonstrated expertise and achievement in these areas: Denise Rousseau, Debra Major, and Lorenzo Galli (see biographies below).