Thoughts on I/O academics and practitioners

[Paul Mastrangelo]

I should really resist getting into this discussion, but it is a Friday...

Scott is a former student of mine, and Allan has heard me talk about this
particular subject at SIOP in New Orleans. There are communication gaps
among several groups: HR practitioners who never heard of I/O, consultants
from I/O, consultants from business schools and OD programs, scientists in
academia, and perhaps the IT folks. To say that one of these groups is
obsolete seems biased and illogical; employers need more experts, not
fewer, because our knowledge base is expanding rapidly. No, I think the
problem is the failure to communicate science to those in the trenches AND
the failure to communicate timely problems to the those who are scientists.

CASE IN POINT: As someone pointed out, I/O types (including me) love
personnel assessment, but currently employers need recruitment research
more than selection research. Why don't I drop my personnel assessment
research then? Many reasons:
1) I am rewarded for conducting research even if the research is not
timely, useful, or appropriate. See Kerr's famous article on Rewarding A
while Hoping for B...
2) Research takes years to develop and cannot be started and stopped at
the drop of a hat.
3) I don't have the contacts within the field who call me up and invite
me to help their recruitment problems (perhaps because many are unaware
that research DOES exist on recruitment sources and efficacy...I/O has a
real PR problem).

Look at this thread! People are talking at one another more than
conversing! There needs to be more and better communication among all of
these "experts" in the field of "work psychology" ( I don't have an
inclusive term for all of these sub-specialties).

Having said that, here is my plug for an article I wrote for an online
magazine called HR.com on the topic of the Myers-Briggs, which is another
spark among these volatile groups. I wrote the article because I want HR
managers to begin to understand some of the technical aspects of testing
and measurement. Psychologists largely hate the MBTI, but trainers/HR
managers love the thing. I wanted to bridge this gap. Now, the article
itself is watered down by academic standards, and shame on academia if it
discourages me from watering down useful information! I need feedback from
people who do not read JAP or Personnel Psychology (as if I have published
there anyway!).

If HR managers do not find this information useful, then hopefully I get
feedback that can alter my research, my thinking, and my teaching. This is
a more efficient way to communicate among separate specialties. The link to
the article is:

http://hr.com/HRcom/index.cfm/WeeklyMag/B393BB90-3D7D-11D4-8DE8009027E0248F

So, I invite I/O scientists to continually "test" their science by writing
to the people in the trenches. Likewise, I invite practitioners to HELP
academicians ground their research in reality.

Paul M. Mastrangelo, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Industrial/Organizational Psychology
University of Baltimore
1420 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21201-5779
(410) 837-5352 fax: (410) 837-5336
Learn about I/O, UB, and me at http://home.ubalt.edu/Pmastrangelo

[Kathy Grimes]

Couldn't be truer says I, a diehard INXP. I'd much rather be classified as
that than within the other popular corporate classifications of lion,
otter, beaver, or golden retriever :-/ You can see what you're up
against. I/O likely does have a PR problem and it may begin with a
perception of the discipline's willingness to accept the limitations of
corporations with respect to incorporating I/O's recommendations. How
those recommendations are communicated, and a high level of awarness of and
respect for an industry's current challenges, is critical. Any corporation
needs to be cultivated/wooed and for some, it may take some very creative
planning.

Kath

[SLN...@aol.com]

Paul:

Your points are great!! I think there's a real place for applied research -- I know I read and use it everyday in my work. My issue is not with academia but rather with our roles in the "real world" as psychologists. I guess my only issue (and this relates to all my earlier comment) is that what is happening in organizations today, requires different views about and approaches to solving HR problems. This is called change!! And what I have noticed is that a lot of traditional I/O psychologists fail miserably in delivering products and services to their senior leadership that fit the bill. I have been in a number of meetings in where other I/O psychologists have delivered a pile of data/charts to our senior HR director and he, in turn, asked "so what" ... "now tell me what I need to know" (meaning, give me a fix for the problem!).

Bottom line: we work for senior HR leaders and if we can't change and keep up and provide them with current, relevant services, you may not think we will become obsolete, but they sure will (and the front door is usually not far away!!).

Scott

[X Summit X]

Great point Scott!!! And let me add that our clients are MUCH more
sophisticated now, than in the past. They don't view what we do as a
mystery....most have had pretty good exposure to stats (for now everything
is "Metrics" and "Scorecards"...no?) We can no longer dazzle them with
those charts and graphs and leave them to their own devices to interpret. I
think the single most critical event in the lives I/O psychologists was the
invention of the PC and desktop statistical software powerful enough for the
"layman" to run sophisticated analyses. Prior, we held the dubious honor of
being the "Research Lords of HR". We conducted the research, maintained
the data and we the only folks with the sophisticated skills necessary to do
personnel research. Now, through the marvels of modern technology, we have
folks doing "just-in-time" surveys, and crafting Scorecards outside the
preview of the I/O Psychologist. What has this left for us to do? Solve
problems.....our clients do not want us to simply expose organizational
problems, that no longer is "value-added". We are to run with the data we
collect as soon as we produce it and are to immediately craft (and shepherd)
solutions. Unfortunately, for many of us....our educations tended to be
fixated on problem identification and not solving.

We need to reorient our skills, demonstrate quicker turn-around and solve
our clients needs. BTW, I am in strong favor of dropping the "I" and simply
be known as Organizational Psychologists.

JSF

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[SLN...@aol.com]

Bingo JSF!! My HR Director (who has oversight for approximately 230,000
employees) told me and another psychologist recently, that he can hire any
"trained monkey" to run statistics and put the numbers into pretty charts ...
what he wants and needs are psychologists to interpret those numbers, and
provide and help him implement quick solutions to complex HR problems,
instead of always asking for more time (which has been the norm with many of
my peers) to do follow-on studies that lead no where. I think this is where
the OD folks have us beat hands down in that they are quick to recommend and
implement change. I really believe this is where the business and research
models clash!!!

Scott

[Cam Ellison]

If researchers need to know about real-life problems, here's one:

I have thus far (haven't looked for a couple of months) been unable to
find anything on strategic thinking and planning. We can posit a number
of characteristics of good strategists, but does anyone really know?

More importantly, is anyone game to do this?

Cam

--
Cam Ellison, Ph.D. R.Psych.
Senior Associate
John Fleury & Associates Ltd.
Management Psychologists
(P) 604.602.2564
(F) 604.684.7988

[Kathy Grimes]

JSF - That would be a good name change. You're right about the scorecards.
In progressive healthcare now, if you are a manager in any discipline you
are called upon to submit interpreted graphs on a range of indicators with
action plans if indicated. Kathy

[Kathy Grimes]

I do know that the consultant strategists who will not commit
enthusiastically to a specific and measurable plan of action can drive an
overworked organization up the wall. There are always multiple views to
any situation but concrete decision making and action are the best
insurance for getting a repeat call. Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Cam Ellison [SMTP:c...@FLEURYASSOCIATES.COM]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 3:19 PM
To: IOO...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Thoughts on I/O academics and practitioners

[Cam Ellison]

> I do know that the consultant strategists who will not commit
> enthusiastically to a specific and measurable plan of action can drive an
> overworked organization up the wall.

In my mind, a strategist is not a person who comes up with good ideas.
It is a person who develops, borrows, integrates, creates plans, and
puts them into effect (among other things). A lot of consultants are
Plants (a la Meredith Belbin) ­ great at coming up with ideas, but
prickly, scattered, focused on their ideas, and a little (or more) out
of touch with the real world. They are consultants, because they can't
cope in organisations. (If anyone should think I'm slinging mud, that's
my type ­ I am a Plant, but I recognise the need for good plans,
down-to-earth useful results, and all that ­ and I do my best to
practice what I preach.)

I am interested in what strategic thinking is, in a way that I can
identify and measure it. AT this point, I don't think anyone has even
come up with a good operational definition, never mind put it to the
test.