To communicate effectively in policymaking systems, actors need to understand how policymakers process evidence and the environment in which they operate. Therefore, we combine psychology and policy studies to produce a three-step strategy. First, do not bombard people with evidence. Human beings have too much information to process, and they use heuristics to filter information to make decisions quickly. Synthesise and frame evidence to help you tailor it to the ways in which policymakers demand and understand information. Second, find the right time to act. Timing matters during key individuals' patterns of thinking and the alignment of conditions in political systems. Third, engage with real world policymaking rather than waiting for a 'rational' and orderly process to appear. To present evidence during mythical stages of a 'policy cycle' is misguided, and to 'speak truth to power' without establishing legitimacy and building trust may be counterproductive. Our overall message is pragmatic, not Machiavellian: effective communication requires the suppliers of evidence to see the world from the perspective of their audience and understand the policy process in which they engage.

Despite the singular importance of the work of national politicians in creating legislation, representing constituents and holding government to account, relatively little work has been done concerning their wellbeing and psychological health. There are unique, as well as universal, stressors that impact upon politicians; a neglect of these issues has profound consequences for those individuals and wider democracy. We propose a 'taxonomy of stressors' as a starting point for further inter-disciplinary and comparative research, and argue that it offers analytical leverage vis-à-vis a far broader set of debates concerning the future of representative democracy.

This article introduces the special issue “Beyond psychometrics: assessment for the new millennium” and further speculates on how a number of organisational trends may influence selection practice in the future. These trends include the continuing emphasis on delayering, of selecting “core” strategic staff, of organisational fit, the impact of technology, the devolution and outsourcing of selection, the rise of teleworking, the questioning of Western assumptions alongside globalisation, and diversity. Developments in selection responses to these factors are identified, such as the popularity of assessment centres, psychometric tests, personality instruments and genetic testing. Some suggestions are made for possible future developments including whole team (or board) selection, the greater use of depth interviews, clinical tests of neurological functioning, and of virtual simulations, and the notion of the possession by individuals of a portable and verifiable assessment portfolio.

British industrial, occupational and organizational psychology has an important yet largely forgotten history. Before and between the two world wars, significant theory and practice was vigorously developed, princes and prime ministers enthusiastically attended psychological functions and early radio broadcasts unselfconsciously emphasized the national importance of psychology for individuals, industry and commerce. Practical help provided by psychologists resulted in increased productivity and effusive public thanks from both employees and employers. As an illustration, we describe the genesis, flourishing and demise of the internationally admired National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP). We examine both the content and the methodological, political and values basis of its work, and provide examples of its relevance today. We identify several reasons for this apparent memory lapse, including a lack of institutional continuity, academic hegemony and ignorance, U.S. domination of psychology, worship of the new and ambivalence about political influence. An ignorance of our shared history may lead to undesirable consequences, including a debased rediscovery of forgotten ideas disguised as invention or, conversely, a failure to build on the work of the past. A more subtle risk may be a move away from a shared humanistic orientation based on common values and principles.

With the growth of mass education in the U.K. has come the seemingly inevitable growth of large group teaching. Many "technical" solutions to the problems of large group teaching have been proposed (e.g., use of microphones, structured handouts, buzz groups, etc.) but we contend that emotional aspects have been largely neglected and ignored. We argue that it is legitimate to consider the role of emotion in higher education, and its particular effects in large teaching groups. While it is, perhaps, easier and safer to pretend that all is well, there are clear emotional consequences to working in these large groups for both students and lecturers. For instance, students may experience powerful feelings of alienation, anger, and envy in large groups and compensate in various ways, some of which will be antithetical to achieving effective learning and a stimulating educational experience. Similarly, lecturers can also seek to cope with their own feelings of fear and uncertainty by behaving equally maladaptively. We examine the contribution psychodynamic thinking can make to our understanding of large teaching groups and contrast this with the consequences of adhering to simplistic technical models. We argue for the legitimacy of the role of emotion in higher education and seek to encourage a debate on this issue which will include appropriate research into the effects of trying to teach and learn in large groups. This paper thus seeks to raise issues and encourage debate in this relatively unresearched area. Further, we contend that it is important and necessary to conduct appropriate research into the emotional effects of such groups on both teaching and learning.