Need to consider I-O science and practice

One area that we feel the authors overlooked is emphasizing both the science and the practice of our field. The focal article’s title “How can we bring science and evidence-based practice to the public?” is a good question to ask. However, most of the article is spent discussing why industrial-organizational (I-O) science is not reaching the public. Even if the authors intended to use the term “science” to represent our science and practice, the consistent use of the term still made it feel as though the practitioner side of the field was poorly represented. Some example quotes from the focal article to illustrate our point include:

• • It is our contention that our science can do many great things for the world of work if we could get it out there more readily and fully into the hands of decision makers, policy makers, and the public. Namely, our science can be used to improve individual, organizational, and societal health, well-being, and effectiveness. (p. 2)

• • We postulate that there are a variety of barriers, both structural and individual, to I-O science reaching the public. (p. 3)

• • Even if we had open access to our science and the public indeed found our work, the question becomes would managers effectively consume our research and translate it into practice? (p. 4)

It is easy to conclude that the role of the practitioner was completely left out of the conversation. Although the growing scientist–practitioner divide is frequently referenced in our work and discussions (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Ramani, Campbell, Bernal-Turnes, Drewry and Edgerton2017; Halfhill & Huff, Reference Halfhill and Huff2003), the disregard for the practitioner is partially to blame for the poor representation of our science and solutions with the general public. That said, although the focal authors do not blatantly focus their recommendations on academics, suggestions emphasize the direct connection between our science and the public rather than accounting for the practitioners’ role in the equation. By bypassing the connection between academics and practitioners, various opportunities were missed. In many ways, practitioners are the conduit of I-O science and the key stakeholders that I-O science affects.

It should not be surprising that this omission was also not picked up by members of the review board for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (IOP), who were used as survey respondents for the focal article. Based on the listed affiliation of the 34 board members, 71% are academics. Of the remaining 29% who do not have an academic affiliation, only one individual works within an organization. The remaining are external consultants. This is not a criticism of the journal or its review board. But it does highlight a growing issue in our field that practitioners are underrepresented in a variety of areas within the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), including appointments, executive board, awards, and fellowship nominations (Silzer & Parson, Reference Silzer and Parson2015). Our point is that the survey results and the authors’ recommendations would have been more robust had input from practitioners, who work within client organizations each day, been better represented.

But an even bigger point is that our value proposition of science and practice is much stronger when combined than when viewed in isolation. At the risk of sounding like Luke Combs fans, we truly are better together. The importance of focusing on science and practice is clear. Taking the SIOP 2015 career survey as a general guide of our member’s primary career path, 63% of survey responders are either in government, industry, or consulting, whereas the remaining 37% are academic (Zelin et al., Reference Zelin, Oliver, Chau, Bynum, Carter, Poteet and Doverspike2015). The practitioner majority, well-positioned to reinforce, distill, and ingrain I-O science and solutions in organizations, highlights the value of reinforcing the connection between our science and practice. Moreover, this point is also demonstrated by the growing demand for human resources (HR) solutions from organizations. According to a recent study by Indeed (Kolko, Reference Kolko2021), HR job postings have increased 52.5% above prepandemic levels. Although not a perfect illustration of the demand for I-O psychologists, it demonstrates organizations’ growing investment and interest in the promise of HR solutions, which I-O psychology inform. Taken together, there appears to be an untapped opportunity to demonstrate the power that our scientist–practitioner model presents to those that we serve. With that said, we do concede that practitioners are not without fault with respect to I-O psychology (including I-O science) not being well known to the public. We, practitioners, need to play a more active role in propelling the field by promoting our science. Cited by the focal article, HR managers do not read the academic literature and quite often are not even interested in it. Their beliefs often run counter to consistent and stable research findings (Rynes et al., Reference Rynes, Colbert and O’Boyle2018) because they continually are tempted by non-evidence-based solutions that typically are better marketed, novel, and simplistic in nature (Rotolo et al., Reference Rotolo, Church, Adler, Smither, Colquitt, Shull, Paul and Foster2018). Thus, the question becomes how to better connect I-O science with I-O practice to ensure a consistent and effective implementation of our evidence-based solutions. Ensuring that our I-O practitioners stay connected to the literature can communicate the strengths and limitations of our solutions, and pushing for evidence-based decision making in organizations can help strengthen these connections.

Need for deeper questions

A second major area that we felt was absent in the focal article was a deeper exploration of the problem at hand prior to jumping to recommendations. Rogelberg et al. (Reference Rogelberg, King and Alonso2022) provide a very powerful suggestion to create a central structure among relevant SIOP committees for communications. However, by stating that “the onus on reaching the public starts to fall on individual I-O psychologists taking matters into their own hands” (p. 5), the authors seem content with equipping individual I-O psychologists with the skills to get our science to the public. This contrast in recommendations lacks a consistent central strategy that we think is critical to significantly moving the needle—and moving it in the way that we as a field intend. We believe a deeper line of questioning around our field’s audience and content is needed to further help understand the full issue and to provide a clearer path forward. To start this dialog, we need to answer the following questions:

1. 1) Is the public the primary audience to consume our science? One could argue that I-O practitioners are by far the majority consumers of I-O science. After all, they are the ones who turn the science into evidence-based practice. Other primary audiences are HR business partners, business leaders, and students and researchers from other parts of academia (e.g., social psychology, behavioral economics, etc.). This is exactly the decision process that led the SIOP Visibility Committee in 2008 to create subcommittees focused on each of these audiences versus the public overall. These subcommittees continue today. The argument is that as a volunteer organization, we have limited time and resources for increasing awareness and understanding of our field. Therefore, we should focus our energies on audiences who have a vested interest in our science and practice. Although we believe a broader understanding of I-O psychology by the general public would assist in our efforts with these targeted audiences, the reality is that SIOP does not have the capacity as currently organized, staffed, and funded.

2. 2) If we are focusing on the general public, is our science the right part of our field to be consumed? Or should we instead be focusing on our evidence-based practices? In many ways, I-O practice is what most workers experience before they become aware of any I-O-related research. The key is to make the public understand that our practice is informed by our science. In other words, we believe that the field of I-O psychology could be helped the most by educating the public about (a) the value of I-O evidence-based practices, (b) how to tell whether a practice is evidence based, and (c) what to do if it’s not.

3. 3) Taking this point further, is our science even worthy of public consumption? If we were to decide that our science should reach the public, we need to do some fundamental rethinking about what content is worthy and how best to relay it to a general audience. To emphasize our point, we encourage the reader to compare recent article titles of prominent I-O science journals (for example, Journal of Applied Psychology or Personnel Psychology) with those of outlets that have a much broader audience such as Harvard Business Review or Fast Company. As Rynes et al. (Reference Rynes, Colbert and O’Boyle2018) point out, we need to ask ourselves whether our research is worth transmitting. In its current form, we feel that the answer is no. But this should not be a surprise to any of us. The authors point out that graduate education does not groom us or reward us for publishing in mainstream channels. Moreover, much of our science is incremental in nature. That is, our publications are mostly an extension of existing research—examining a specific hypothesis or replicating prior research with different audiences or research designs. This is the way science progresses. Rarely do we see an article representing new or breakthrough I-O science that is worthy of mainstream channels. To illustrate this point, Rotolo et al. (Reference Rotolo, Church, Adler, Smither, Colquitt, Shull, Paul and Foster2018) examined focal articles from the IOP journal between 2008 and 2016. They found that the vast majority (62%) dealt with traditional I-O topics and only 10% of the articles were considered “frontier” (new concepts applied in new and novel ways). Given that we cannot expect new and breakthrough research in every published article, what can we do? In our opinion, two fundamental things: (a) Teach our graduate students to “think like an influencer.” Social media influencers have the ability to choose what to promote and do it in a way that appeals to the audience they are targeting. Whether on social media or not, I-O psychologists need to think like this while still being evidence based. (b) Become adept at distilling decades of research into a crisp, concise, and compelling way. We need to be able to speak “egg head” as well as English and justify why evidence-based solutions are better than bright shiny objects (Rotolo, Reference Rotolo2009).

A better way forward

As mentioned above, we believe the most effective recommendation provided by the authors is to create a centralized committee structure. Although that may go a long way in helping to “coordinate communications” as they put it, it doesn’t go far enough in our opinion. In our view, the path that will have the most influence on our profession is the following:

1. 1. Change our mindset: It is time to begin to think about our profession (both our science and evidence-based practices) as a product. We need to think like a company selling this product and recognize that we have consumers and that we have a certain market share and mind share. We also need to realize that we have competitors of our product. This is a shift in mindset that needs to guide our decision making as a society. For example, thinking about our profession as a product means we need to engage in marketing of that product—not visibility or external communications and so on—as our current committees are labeled. Those names suggest more passive activities (e.g., the definition of visibility is “the state of being able to be seen”). Marketing is the active promotion of a product—and is precisely what we need.

2. 2. Better leverage our Society: Our field and our Society are inextricably linked. Our Society needs to more broadly and aggressively promote our field not just our Society. Much like larger professional associations that do this (e.g., American Medical Association, American Bar Association), SIOP is the primary mechanism for assuming this responsibility. SIOP currently engages in promotion activities as well as leverages the services of a marketing firm. However, to our knowledge the budget is very limited and therefore their engagement is focused on only a few key areas. The fact that the authors pose their main question in their focal article suggests that SIOP’s current marketing efforts are insufficient.

3. 3. Commit to a central structure: As outlined by the authors, once we have the right mindset and alignment on the role of the Society, then the next step would be to organize centrally. We should think carefully about the design of this new structure and the balance of roles and responsibilities between SIOP committee members and administrative office staff. Although committee members can bring new ideas as members roll in and out of the committee, administrative staff can bring more stability and deeper expertise. As stated in the point above, if we model SIOP’s activities around some of the larger professional associations, much of this work would be part of the administrative office’s ongoing agenda.

4. 4. Develop and execute a holistic marketing strategy: Yes, we need to centralize our structure, but more importantly we need to develop and execute a holistic marketing strategy. This includes carefully creating a value proposition and brand messaging as well as identifying target customer segments, primary channels, a detailed marketing plan, and evaluation strategies. We need to identify marketing tactics that would move the needle in public awareness, identify the budget for those activities, and then determine how to generate the revenue to cover the additional marketing activities. As mentioned above, today it is the other way around. We are confident that SIOP members would gladly pay a little more in dues, for example, to see the Society lobbying for greater visibility of our field. We would all benefit from that.

As a field, we need to understand that engaging in points above is a long journey. Borrowing from Lavidge and Steiner’s (Reference Lavidge and Steiner1961) hierarchy of effects model, consumers progress through cognitive phases that flow from awareness and understanding of a product into an affective phase of liking and preference and then finally a behavioral phase of purchase and commitment. For I-O psychologists, that final behavioral phase would equate to our primary stakeholders proactively seeking out our solutions and our science, considered as the main source of truth on I-O-related topics. One measure of success could be that when the next bright shiny object in HR comes along, business leaders, HR partners, and yes, even the general public would ask “What do I-O psychologists think about this?” We can get there but only with a holistic, concerted, and strategic effort.