The Fantastic Four Years: Recommendations for I–O Programs 21

The Fantastic Four Years:Recommendations forIndustrial–Organizational Programs

CHRISTOPHER W. WIESEUniversity of Central Florida

JULIA M. FULLICKQuinnipiac University

Though Byrne et al. (2014) identifiednoticeable deficiencies in the educationof industrial–organizational (I–O) psy-chologists, we believe their proposedremedy is problematic. Specifically, pro-longing a graduate student’s admissioninto ‘‘the real word’’ through postdocsand internships can place a financial bur-den on those providing the additionaleducation—especially if they are expectedto offer ‘‘adequate pay and health benefits’’as Byrne et al. recommend. As departmentsacross the country face extreme budget cuts,petitioning for more funding does not cur-rently seem like a viable option (see Oliff,Palacios, Johnson, & Leachman, 2013).

Nevertheless, this does not discountthe educational shortcomings identified

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Christopher W. Wiese.E-mail: cwiese@knights.ucf.edu

Address: Department of Psychology, Institute forSimulation & Training, Orlando, FL 32816

in the focal article. Rather than extend-ing a graduate student’s scholastic career,we propose that I–O programs canaccomplish the same goals within a 4-year time frame. Specifically, we addressthis issue by presenting three phasesof recommendations—beginning at therecruitment stage and ending with the dis-sertation. We understand that the resourcesof every program differ and not every pro-gram will find it feasible to act on theserecommendations; however, our hope isthat I–O programs find some value in them.

Phase I: Recruitment, Selection,and Ingratiation

I–O programs often rely on insufficientindicators of a graduate student’s ability tosucceed in a PhD program. For instance,selection committees tend to place moreweight on quantitative GRE scores thanon understanding of I–O, performance inI–O courses, and performance in research

22 C.W. Wiese and J.M. Fullick

methods courses (Tett, Walser, Brown,Simonet, & Tonidandel, 2013), the latter ofwhich, we believe, are more representativeindicators of future graduate studentperformance. Thus, we recommend theimplementation of three selection devices:(a) structured interviews, (b) contentspecific (I–O) standardized tests, and (c)basic research methods examinations.There has been a great deal of researchindicating that structured interviews area desirable selection tool (e.g., Campion,Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Conway, Jako,& Goodman, 1995). Further, both scoresfrom an I–O-specific standardized test andresearch methods exam would better reflectfuture performance in the PhD program.

Next, we recommend that programsincrease their efforts in attracting com-patible applicants. From a recruitmentstandpoint, this can be done by publicizingthe culture of the program and researchinterests of faculty members, and providinga great deal of transparency during studentvisits about program expectations, careeroutcomes, and so forth. There are severalempirically supported theories and researchareas (e.g., attraction/selection/attrition, fitliterature, and realistic job previews) thatsupport these three notions. Realistic andtransparent communication about programexpectations will ensure a better fit forapplicants and faculty members.

We also advocate the selection of fewerstudents each year so that faculty memberscan adequately provide the necessarydevelopmental feedback and guidance forstudent growth and training. Thus, anassociated recommendation is that majoradvisors check in yearly with students tomake sure they are on track for theirlong-term career goals. This would beginwith their first semester and concerntopics such as their progress towards theircareer preference (e.g., research-oriented,teaching, hybrid, psychology, or businessuniversity; internal or external practitioner)and successful completion of specializedtraining for their area. The next phasewill cover our recommendation for theeducation of I–O psychologists.

Phase II: Education

Some of the criticisms brought up in Byrneet al. concerned the lack of educationin the areas of interdisciplinary research,consulting and business skills, grant writing,and teaching. In these next two phases, weargue that these areas can be addressedwhile keeping the total time in the programaround 4 years. Specifically, we proposethat the first 2 years of a graduate student’straining focus solely on education andthe integration of these presently neglectedskills into the curriculum. As you can seein Table 1, it is possible to organize classschedules such that a graduate studentcan be exposed to a large breadth ofI–O knowledge within their first 2 years.In addition, within these 2 years, onecould take classes/seminars specificallyconcerning interdisciplinary research, grantwriting, and teaching.

Finding Connections

Rather than allowing students to becomeoverwhelmed by the disparity between dif-ferent disciplines, students can be taughtto find the connecting similarities duringtheir coursework. It is important to empha-size to students that they do not have tobe an expert in every topic. Instead, theyshould know how to bridge divides and findcommon ground to be able to solve inter-disciplinary problems and work with peoplein other disciplines. As the graduate class-room is the perfect environment for criticalthinking projects where students can begiven the opportunity to engage in hands-onpractical applications of theory and theorytranslation, we recommend integrating casestudies and real world experiential learn-ing into the coursework. For instance, aprofessor can bring in a panel of businessprofessionals to judge team case projects(pulled from alumni network) and providereal-time feedback on their presentationskills. These projects allow both individualsand the team as a whole to receive specificfeedback from the audience, teammates,panel of judges, and faculty members. This

The Fantastic Four Years: Recommendations for I–O Programs 23

Table 1. Example Program Layout

Year 1—Fall Year 2—Fall

PsychologicalFoundations

Fields of psychology(emphasis on social,physiological, andcognitive)

Psychometrics Research design

History and systems ofpsychology

Scale development

Humanperformance/humanfactors

Classical test theory

Industrial–organizationalpsychology

Item response theory

Generalizabilitytheory

Principles of Business,Professionalism, &Ethics

Consulting and businessskills (emphasis oninterpersonal skillspractice and training)

Industrial Psychology II Career development

Ethical, legal, andprofessional contextsof I–O psychology

Criterion theory anddevelopment

Personnelrecruitment,selection, andplacement

Training: theory,program design,and evaluation

Research Methods I Descriptive, basicinferential statistics,qualitative methods

OrganizationalPsychology II

Leadership andmanagement

Statistical methods dataanalysis

Organizationdevelopment

Organization theoryConsumer behaviorSmall group theory

and team processes

Year 1—Spring Year 2—Spring

OrganizationalPsychology I

Attitude theory,measurement, andchange

Applied ResearchMethods

All encompassingmethods class

Judgment and decisionmaking

Basically preparing forresearch methodscomprehensive exam

Work motivationHealth and stress in

organizations

24 C.W. Wiese and J.M. Fullick

Table 1. Continued

Year 1—Spring Year 2—Spring

Industrial Psychology I Individual differences InterdisciplinaryCollaboration

Each student has to takeon the role of adifferent scientificliterature andcomplete a project bythe end of thesemester

Individual assessmentJob/task analysis and

classificationJob evaluation and

compensationPerformance appraisal

and feedbackResearch Methods II Regression,

meta-analysisIntroduction to Grant

WritingCapstone requirement

Must submit grantproposal

Year 1—Summer Year 2—Summer

Research Methods III SEM, factor analysis,IRT, networkanalysis, latentgrowth modeling,HLM

Teaching Seminar Semester-long seminaras well as an actualevaluation of theirteaching by a facultymember each timethey teach

IRT, Item Response Theory; HLM, Hierarchical Linear Modeling.

has been well received by students andalumni in classes by Dr. Barbara Fritzscheat the University of Central Florida. Studentsquickly learn that creativity, innovation, andcritical thinking skills are necessities in thereal world as one cannot simply follow atextbook recipe to solve a problem.

Developing Mentoringand Feedback Skills

In line with Byrne et al.’s recommendationto train mentoring skills, we suggest thatstudents need not wait until a postdocposition to begin. A key skill for them tolearn is how to provide effective, accurate,and constructive feedback (both positiveand negative). Drawing from our ownexperience, we have utilized role-playingexercises in our classrooms in which

students practice giving and receivingfeedback. We then debrief as a classand discuss what worked and what couldhave been done more effectively. Further,I–O programs should promote a mentoringclimate. Peer mentoring can be quiteeffective throughout a graduate programas students support one another throughshared experiences and lessons learned. Itis also an excellent way to socialize newstudents into the program, providing themwith an additional resource for professionalsupport as well as a referral source fornavigating their graduate career.

Professionalism

In addition to mentoring and feedbackskills, from the very first class profession-alism, ethics, and character building should

The Fantastic Four Years: Recommendations for I–O Programs 25

be woven into every single course. It isimportant that students, especially thosefresh from undergrad, are aware of thevisibility of their actions as well as theimportance of reputation and representingtheir organization in a positive manner. In afield as small as ours, you never know whowill be making your hiring and/or promo-tion decisions one day.

Phase III: Application

The last phase of our program specificallytargets the application of the newly trainedknowledge and skills graduate studentshave learned in their first 2 years inthe program. We know that traineesneed the opportunity to perform theproducts of their training in a relativelysafe environment, there should be supportfrom their peers and supervisors, and theclimate of the environment needs to supportthe behavioral expressions of their training(Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010;Noe & Colquitt, 2002). For Phase III,our recommendation is for programs toprovide opportunities for application andreinforcement of these newly trained skills.That is, we propose that the third yearfocus on internships and the fourth yearon the dissertation. Though it is not acentral point of this section, the third yearis also an ample time for students to gainteaching experience, if they have not doneso already.

Internships

In order to remain competitive, I–O stu-dents must learn the business lingo, espe-cially if they plan to work as practitioners.We highly agree with Byrne et al.’s recom-mendation for required internships as theyare not only key to skill development butto political savvy and interpersonal skillstraining as well. Internships are an oppor-tunity for students to learn how to markettheir strengths and effectively illustrate theirworth to an organization before going onthe job market. In line with our fit rec-ommendations, we propose that a student

select an internship based upon their futurecareer aspirations.

While Byrne et al.’s recommendation ofhaving a systematic database of certifiedinternships through SIOP is being devel-oped, I–O programs should utilize theiralumni and faculty consulting connectionsto establish internships for students. Provid-ing students with these opportunities willreinforce the knowledge and skills learnedduring the first 2 years. During the intern-ship, graduate students should be tested ontheir methodological rigor, business skills,and professional ethics as well as be pro-vided with feedback and suggestions forimprovement.

For the students striving to join academia,we recommend what we call ‘‘Pre-Doc’’internships. These internships specificallyfocus on conducting research in an organi-zational environment. Through combiningtheir interests with the knowledge and skillsthey obtained over the past 2 years, thesestudents should conduct their own researchstudy and submit a first-author manuscriptto a peer-reviewed journal. Their hypothe-ses should be a product of the discussionsthey have had with their faculty advisor dur-ing their annual meetings, to ensure they areestablishing a research stream in line withtheir long-term career goals. This will rein-force the critical thinking skills necessary inthe realm of academe and prepare them forthe dissertation process to occur in Year 4.

The Dissertation

A student’s dissertation is the final test oftheir academic training. It is a product ofall of their accumulated knowledge andskills from coursework and internships/pre-doc positions. Thus, the dissertation shouldbe the focus of the student’s fourth year.Newly acquired business connections fromtheir internship experiences could facilitatea dissertation based on data collected fromthe field aligned with their knowledge oftheoretical contributions and real worldapplication.

26 J.L. Kottke, E.L. Shoenfelt, and N.J. Stone

Conclusion

The authors of the focal article are cor-rect: We need to take a good hard look athow we are training future I–O psycholo-gists. We need to ensure that I–O gradu-ates can compete with those from businessschools, social and counseling psycholo-gists, and behavioral economists. However,we do not believe there is a need to prolongformal education. Rather, we should makeit more efficient. I–O psychologists’ mostbasic training teaches us about efficiency,recruitment, and selection. Why not usewhat we know to better improve the trainingof our own ‘‘employees?’’

ReferencesBlume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang,

J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analyticreview. Journal of Management, 36, 1065–1105.

Byrne, Z. S., Hayes, T. L, McPhail, S. M., Hakel, M. D.,Cortina, J. M., & McHenry, J. J. (2014). Educating

industrial–organizational psychologists for scienceand practice: Where do we go from here? Industrialand Organizational Psychology: Perspectives onScience and Practice, 7(1): 2–14.

Campion, M. A., Palmer, D., & Campion, J. E. (1997).A review of structure in the selection interview.Personnel Psychology, 50, 655–702.

Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F.(1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internalconsistency reliability of selection interviews.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565–579.

Noe, R. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2002). Planning fortraining impact: Principles of training effectiveness.In K. Kraiger (Ed.), Creating, implementing, andmanaging effective training and development (pp.53–79). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oliff, P., Palacios, V., Johnson, I., & Leach-man, M. (2013). Recent deep state highereducation cuts may harm students and theeconomy for years to come. Center onBudget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3927.

Tett, R. P., Walser, B., Brown, C., Simonet, D. V.,& Tonidandel, S. (2013). The 2011 SIOP I–Opsychology graduate program benchmarking sur-vey: Part II: Admission standards and procedures.The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 50(3),13–34.