APA Presidential Elections

APA Presidential Elections Bill Macey Back in May, I wrote a letter to each of the five APA Presidential Candidates after nomination results were published in the APA Monitor. I asked them to provide information that might help SIOP members to individually determine whom to support in the upcoming election. As a structure for their comments, I asked four questions. I included some basic background information about SIOP, including membership data, the April 2001 issue of TIP, SIOP s Mission Statement, and a copy of Kevin Murphy s presidential column in the April 1998 issue of TIP which articulates SIOP s strategic initiatives. Importantly, I noted in my letter that SIOP will not endorse or recommend any candidate to the membership; my objective was simply to provide information SIOP members need to make an informed choice. Four of the candidates graciously responded to my letter. Here are the questions and their responses, extracted verbatim from larger bodies of text where appropriate: Question 1 How will you ensure that you hear the point of view of I-O psychology and other groups given the strongly clinical focus of APA? I am an active scientist-practitioner-educator-advocate and deal with all of these issues in my daily professional life. As president I can and will effectively represent the multiple points of view within APA and foster an ongoing collaborative approach for the organization. Throughout my life I have made associations and friends with a broad spectrum of psychologists and people who represent interests in I-O psychology, business, the arts, science and other areas. I believe our profession is stronger because of these multiple viewpoints. With the retirement of Ray Fowler, APA will soon transition to a new executive leader. I believe that it is important that APA use the expertise of I-O psychologists to help with this transition to make APA a more effective organization. I will also encourage I-O psychologists to be more involved in organizational development and human resource management within the organization. As president, I will have several groups of advisors from I-O and other areas to insure that our diversity is represented in APA policies. Coming from a small state, living and practicing in rural areas, and serving in the public sector, I am keenly sensitive to the voices of those who believe they are not heard or represented in the power structure. I will establish a means to listen to those voices. 20 The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist

I will schedule regular conference calls with invited participants (recommended by directorates or requests brought by a recognized group), selected board and/or council members, and directorate staff, with a specific topic and time for open discussion. Further, participation in the Consolidated Meetings would facilitate communication. I was pleased to see SIOP has been actively nominating individuals to APA governance, but until the elections increase the voice of I-O or other small groups in governance, alternative ways to participate should be explored. I am a clinical psychologist in private practice. I helped create the Rutgers University Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology and served as a visiting professor for 14 years. We have three programs: clinical, school, and organizational. I learned when I served on the APA Board of Directors that at that level you represent all of psychology and not just the constituency that helped elect you. As president I will represent every division of APA. You can reach me by phone, fax or e-mail, and you will be heard and responded to. That is a promise. I have been president of two larger divisions (1 and 15) and two smaller divisions (10 and 24) of APA, so I am familiar with and responsive to the needs of all sizes and kinds of divisions. As president, I would represent the needs of all constituencies of APA, not just my own. I have a long-standing interest in I-O psychology. As an undergraduate, I did independent work with Richard Hackman and took the I-O course from Ben Schneider. As a graduate student, Lee Cronbach was a member of my dissertation committee. Much of my work is in I-O psychology. I have been funded for over 20 years by the military first the Office of Naval Research and then the Army Research Institute to do research and development on human abilities. Out of this work have emerged situational-judgment tests (requiring display of tacit knowledge) used to test the skills of and develop training programs for managers at various organizational levels, as well as military leaders and people in various other occupations. We have worked in many corporations construct-validating our instruments. Our measures supplement (but do not substitute for) conventional measures of general ability and can help somewhat to improve prediction of job success. I have also studied conflict resolution as it applies to individual and organizational settings. These days, I am especially interested in leadership, and Victor Vroom and I have been invited to exchange letters as part of a series for Leadership Quarterly. I have argued that intelligence is multifaceted and that general ability is part of but not the whole story with regard to ability-based prediction of occu- The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 21

pational success. I know some SIOP members may disagree. But I would hope that these members would find our mutual interest in these issues more important than possible (relatively small) ideological differences. Question 2 There are currently nine states where I-O psychologists cannot be licensed, and many others where it is extremely difficult for I-O psychologists to be licensed. Less than 1/3 of SIOP members are currently licensed. What are your thoughts on whether I-O psychologists should be licensed and how the proposed changes by APA to licensure laws will affect I-O psychology? Specifically, do you support a tightening of the model licensing act to restrict licensure to only those with a degree from an APA accredited program? Would you support exclusions for areas such as I-O where the clinical model does not apply? The proposed psychology training and licensure model developed as part of Norine Johnson s presidency is an admirable step toward resolving some of the very difficult issues faced primarily by clinical psychologists. I have raised a number of concerns within the APA Council of Representatives with the current proposal, because it does not adequately allow for the diversity of psychologists, especially for I-O and consulting psychologists. As a member of the Board of Educational Affairs and APA Council, I strongly supported the I-O training guidelines developed by SIOP. I was very impressed with the quality of the guidelines. I believe that we need to incorporate the relevant I-O training guidelines into our APA model. Licensure is for the regulation and protection of the profession and the clients whom we serve. I believe that our licensure laws should be crafted to accomplish these goals. Thus, I support the rights of states to determine the appropriate regulation, but to make sure that it does not exclude areas such as I-O psychology. I also support the rights of states and psychologists to choose to exclude certain areas of psychology from licensure. The primary purpose for licensure is protection of the public, so the most logical starting point is the question: Is I-O licensure desirable for protection of the public? To the extent that licensure evolved in response to clinical practice, and the political arena has been so perilous that opening laws even for our own changes was avoided, the model act is outdated in a number of ways. The issues obviously are broader than licensure and accreditation relative to I-O psychologists. With that said, I recognize that there is some immediacy in the I-O situation which should not be deferred to a time uncertain! The whether-ornot part of this question is clearly tied to SIOP s own strategic goals, in par- 22 The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist

ticular to the identity clarification and globalization goal. I-O psychologists are best qualified to address details relating to licensure developments affecting them. Recently proposed changes to the model licensure act resulted from external changes in health care delivery. If in the identity clarification process, SIOP adopts functions in the definition of an I-O psychologist which clearly fall in the realm of health, then there is no whether or not. Rather, it becomes a question of how does SIOP work with APA and the state associations to craft appropriate language with rationale and justification as necessary for public testimony. The accreditation question becomes one of what is to be included in the language for licensure, and not one of exclusion. Your issues need to be heard. Whereas a policy statement needs to be concise, the discussion can be extensive and thoughtful. The proposal regarding restriction to a person with a degree from an APA-accredited program is reasonable if APA is to remain internally consistent we believe that our accreditation serves many purposes, including emphasizing quality over quantity. The Accreditation Committee is continually looking at this. Recently, there has been more flexibility and adapting to the needs of the field, within the parameters set by those to whom our Accreditation Office must answer, rather than being a top down process. If SIOP s identity clarification yields a good fit with licensure parameters (generically speaking, not APA-defined), but APA accreditation is nonexistent or not appropriate in its present state, then what standards address quality, and how are these incorporated into a paradigm acceptable to APA? As president, I would not support a simple exclusion. I would rather say what is than what is not, and I would provide a forum for hearing that. Regarding licensure for I-O psychologists The division is split on its expectations for its members. I will support the division in however they decide. I support those who wish to be licensed and support those who wish to be excluded from licensure until such time as the division decides which way it needs to go. I spent 4 years on the Accreditation Committee and studied the programs that sought accreditation as well as those who didn t. I was convinced that those who didn t had fatal flaws (like the returns on my e- mail addresses which are incorrect) that meant the program was not strong enough for accreditation. I was a strong supporter of getting those programs up to speed. Ultimately, programs should be accredited so their graduates can know they have received the best education offered. Ultimately, licensure should be available to those from an accredited program only. Meanwhile programs have time to improve themselves. I believe it s to everyone s advantage to have some kind of voluntary certification procedure in I-O psychology, with individuals deciding of their own The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 23

free will whether to pursue it. First, it can help clients of I-O psychologists ensure that the psychologists they hire are truly qualified. Second, it can protect I-O psychologists from competition from unqualified people who falsely claim to have I-O expertise. In the current regulatory climate, I expect the demand for licensing to spread. Other possible ways to show competence are through diplomas or certification by an organization such as SIOP. The clinical model, which largely was devised for people who are providers of psychotherapy, does not furnish a precise analogy to the kinds of demands made on I-O psychologists. Thus I do not believe the issue is one of tightening or loosening a licensing act that may apply well for clinical psychologists but less well for I-O psychologists, but rather, one of devising a model that works well for I-O psychologists. Question 3 How will your initiatives reflect both the practice and science of I-O psychology? My two top priorities as APA president are to expand practice opportunities for all psychologists and expand funding for psychological science and education. I-O psychologists can contribute their expertise to the demands of healthcare systems for evaluation and documentation of effectiveness interventions and programs. One of my areas of scholarship is applied methodology (Bray & Maxwell, Multivariate Analysis of Variance, SAGE), as a result I know that I-O psychologists have the training, experience, and methodologies to help clinically oriented psychologists improve their evaluation skills and methodologies. I strongly encourage I-O psychologists to become more involved in these areas. I also have a personal interest in aviation. As president, I will encourage stronger links and initiatives with the aviation industry, Federal Aviation Administration and NASA to use the expertise of psychologists, especially I-O psychologists. APA s lead in creating the Decade of Behavior sets the stage for increasing federal funding for psychological and behavioral science. Over 50% of health problems are caused by psychosocial and lifestyle factors, yet less than 5% of the National Institutes of Health budget is spent on research in these areas. Congress is in the process of doubling the NIH budget over the next 5 years. This is a propitious time for APA to join with other behavioral science groups to increase the percentage of the NIH budget for psychological science. Congress is also considering increased funding for training of psychologists. I have been an active advocate with the Science and Education Directorates through the Public Policy Advocacy Network. As president, I will strongly advocate for APA to spend the resources to take advantage of these unprecedented opportunities. Without communication from I-O psychologists, even the possibility that the initiatives are inclusive of both science and practice is not going to 24 The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist

exist! I firmly believe that the APA president is responsible to the entire membership and that our science and practice are interdependent and supportive of each other, whether for I-O or any other specialty. As noted in Question 1, I will establish a way to be informed about I-O psychology s science and practice as it pertains to my initiatives. I have planned three initiatives: increased public education, prescription privileges for qualified psychologists, and greater opportunities for diverse groups in psychology and APA governance. The first, public education, means more funding for our initiatives. Workplace stress is one of the aspects of the public education campaign. This also includes determining what is causing the stress. Is it a personal problem for a clinical person to help with, or is it an organizational problem requiring investigation and problem solving? The third initiative, diversity, means recruiting applicants from minority groups into psychology as well as into APA. What they choose to major in is a personal matter and I am not looking for one kind of psychologist. I assume I-O folks can be helpful in this recruiting process. I am myself both a scientist and a practitioner. As a scientist, I have published many (800+) books and articles, have won many awards, and have held $15 million in government grants. As a practitioner, I have consulted with close to a thousand organizations over the years and am guiding the formation of the new practice wing at the Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise at Yale, which I direct. We train and employ I-O psychologists through our Center, and we have presented papers at SIOP for the past several years. I have two interests that bear strongly on I-O psychology training and assessment, and conflict resolution and if I am elected, would work to ensure APA s leadership, with guidance and participation from SIOP, use I-Obased techniques to improve training, assessment, and conflict resolution in organizations ranging from schools to corporations to countries. Question 4 For a variety of reasons, many clinically trained psychologists are seeking opportunities to practice in areas that have traditionally been considered the domain of I-O psychology. Consequently, many I-O psychologists are quite concerned that individuals receive the appropriate retraining necessary to practice competently. As APA president, what position would you take to ensure that such individuals receive the appropriate retraining? Psychologists should only practice within their scope of training and licensure. There is some overlap among the various specialty areas of psychology, and cross-fertilization among areas can only serve to strengthen our profession. SIOP has properly pointed out that it is important to not only learn a particular technique or assessment method, but to also have the train- The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 25

ing on how and when to apply it. As president I would highlight the need for appropriate training for practice in this area and support SIOP s efforts to insure appropriate training. I am also concerned about other professionals branching out into I-O psychology s areas (e.g., small business consulting and evaluation) and would ask APA to raise concerns about these types of activities to protect our profession. As with any area of practice, APA s ethics code addresses one s responsibility to practice only within areas of competency. The majority of those who seek opportunities in the traditional I-O areas more than likely would argue they have the competency! Consequently, it appears that the root and solution for the problem may lie in areas identified in your strategic goals visibility and public policy initiatives. Whereas your process was more externally focused (except for the student and introductory psychology components), addressing this internal component is central to any solution. The approach appears at least two-fold: bringing the issue to the attention of practitioners within the context of marketplace or other initiatives, and defining the competencies and concerns if one does not have that full range of competencies. I believe in our ethics code which says you practice what you have been trained to do and you don t practice what you haven t been trained to do. It is as unethical for a clinical psychologist to do organizational work as it is for an I-O psychologist to do clinical work. Either should be retrained if they choose to enter a different domain. The problem occurs in the grey areas where overlap exists. Here the best judgment of the psychologist must be respected. I support retraining. I have been involved in working with students at Rutgers who came with a doctorate and required new course work and supervision to qualify for a PsyD in clinical. The same holds for I-O or clinical. I will represent psychology in all of its areas. As APA president, I would consider that part of my job description. I ask for your support. First, it is important that anyone who is not trained in I-O (or any other area of) psychology who wishes to practice in a new area is indeed retrained, rather than believing that training for one specialization is adequate for practice in another specialization. I think the best way to ensure that clinical practitioners who wish to retrain are adequately retrained is to establish a joint committee composed of distinguished I-O psychologists from SIOP and clinical psychologists to formulate guidelines for such retraining. Given that the field of entry is I-O, I would expect the chair of and the majority on the committee to be from I-O psychology (and would recommend the reverse chair and majority were the committee to advise on I-O psychologists who wish to retrain as clinical psychologists). 26 The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist