The influence of vocational training on the brand images of organizational consultants.

The focal article (LaPierre et al., 2018) proposes several steps in developing a research partnership with organizations. We commend LaPierre and colleagues for bringing to light these recommendations. We agree that research partnerships may prove valuable for the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. For I-O psychology to grow as a science, more appropriate sampling and more relevant data sources are necessary (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Although I-O psychology master's and PhD programs continue to grow and produce more I-O psychology graduates that enter the applied marketplace, there remains a paucity of applied research partnerships between academics and organizations. Research partnerships are often established in other disciplines (i.e., computer science, public health, biochemistry) and have resulted in fruitful relationships for both parties (D'Este & Iammarino, 2010; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Santoro & Betts, 2002), but similar partnerships have not become the norm in I-O psychology. Despite a growing number of I-O psychology graduates and programs (Shellenbarger, 2010), I-O psychology academics have not leveraged those relationships to create research partnerships between universities and business. We would argue that this lack of research partnerships is due to the difficulty of navigating and negotiating with the multiple stakeholders involved in the process of developing a research partnership.

Section: Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Partnerships Between Academics and Consulting Firms: A Stakeholder Analysis

Islam

Lahti²,

Chetta

2018

“…The proposed audit would ask students to rate professionals with training in the various fields on the extent to which they value outcomes and behaviors that correspond with humanistic and business effectiveness principles. Nineteen value statements from the brand audit conducted by Nolan et al (2014) are included in Table 2 as examples for consideration. In addition to quantitative ratings of instrumental and symbolic associations, the proposed audit would also include open-ended questions designed to provide qualitative information about students' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of each field.…”

Section: Table 1 Continuedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because the brands correspond to areas of study rather than products or services, it may be useful to personify the brands by having participants respond to questions about professionals who have training in these fields rather than the fields themselves (cf. Nolan et al, 2014). The information collected about brands commonly corresponds to the "three key ingredients" of consumer-based brand equity, which are brand awareness, the differential effect of brand image, and consumer response (Keller, 1998).…”

Section: Auditing the Brand Image Beliefs Of Introductory I-o Psycholmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The instrumental functions most relevant to I-O psychology are beliefs about the products and services that professionals with training in the field are able to provide. Nolan et al (2014), for example, found that people generally believed that consultants with training in I-O psychology were significantly more capable of reducing the harmful effects of stress on workers, improving workplace communication, conducting research, and engendering perceptions of fairness/justice among employees than consultants with training in business administration or HR management. The proposed audit would ask introductory I-O psychology students to rate professionals with training in the various fields concerning their ability to provide products and services corresponding to the "Recommended Areas of Competence" outlined in SIOP's Guidelines for Education and Training in Industrial-Organizational Psychology.…”

Section: Auditing the Brand Image Beliefs Of Introductory I-o Psycholmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proposed audit would ask introductory I-O psychology students to rate professionals with training in the various fields concerning their ability to provide products and services corresponding to the "Recommended Areas of Competence" outlined in SIOP's Guidelines for Education and Training in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Twenty-five instrumental functions from the brand audit conducted by Nolan et al (2014) are included in Table 1 as examples for consideration.…”

Section: Auditing the Brand Image Beliefs Of Introductory I-o Psycholmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From Analysis to Evaluation: Brand Management and the Future of I-O Psychology

Nolan

2017

Self Cite

Aguinis et al. (2017) address an issue of upmost importance for the field of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology: recruitment. The ability to attract and retain talented individuals is a principle determinant of success in a knowledge-driven economy (Yu & Cable, 2012). The focal article notes that future practitioners and researchers are commonly exposed to the field of I-O psychology for the first time via introductory courses taken during their undergraduate education. A study by Rose et al. (2014) likewise suggests that introductory courses are among the most popular channels through which business and human resource professionals learn about I-O psychology. Consequently, the information communicated in these courses not only shapes the beliefs and behaviors of those who might one day produce/provide the goods/services of I-O psychology, but also those who might consume them. Introductory courses are, therefore, both an important recruitment source as well as an important marketing channel. Aguinis et al. provide a much-needed content analysis of the information communicated to students through introductory textbooks and offer insight into the ways in which this information may affect the future of I-O psychology. Building from their analysis of content, this commentary offers an approach to program evaluation that utilizes the principles of brand management to better understand how the messages communicated to students impact their beliefs about the field. Moving from analysis to evaluation is a logical next step in making a desired future for I-O psychology.

Getting in the game: I-O psychologists as debunkers and testers of business practice

Islam

Schmidt

2019

We thank the focal article authors for bringing the topic of Lean management to the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Much like a number of other major areas of business practice, Lean has yet to be studied by I-O psychologists despite its prevalent use in the business world. The lack of research into Lean management practices and its impact on employees exemplifies the challenges that face the science and practice of I-O psychology. Recent calls to expand the focus (Ones, Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Svensson, 2017) and methodological tools (Cucina & McDaniel, 2016; Spector, 2017) of I-O psychology highlight the increasing narrowness of our research and practice. These calls echo the concerns of earlier researchers (Gasser, Butler, Waddilove, & Tan, 2004; Ryan, 2003) about I-O psychology's trajectory. In this response, the authors would like to offer a new framework to expand the research focus of I-O psychology that would include a greater role of I-O in analyzing business practices such as Lean management. We see a potentially important role of I-O psychologists as "debunkers" and testers of business practice, echoing Gasser et al. (2004), using our methodological and statistical competence to help businesses toward research supported practices. In such a role we build from major elements of our current field identity rather than lose that identity attempting to mirror other fields (Ryan & Ford, 2010). We cannot be these "debunkers" however, if we only test theories from our own field and not the practices actually being used in organizations. The claims of a purveyor of a "fad" practice are easier to swallow when there is no existing research against that claim. This commentary will begin by outlining the concerns with I-O psychology's increasingly narrow focus and then suggest how the field could increase its real-world impact by examining vigorously and empirically business practice "fads" like Lean. A common theme emerges across the criticisms of I-O psychology's narrowing focus of research and limited applicability to practice has been one of identity (Lefkowitz, 2010; Ryan, 2003) and the lack of innovation and discovery of new concepts (Ones et al., 2017; Spector, 2017). However, we would argue that this narrowness of focus has highlighted the significant need to examine the identity of I-O psychology. In order to expand the identity of I-O psychology and to address the calls for innovation to reinvigorate the field, I-O psychologists must look to how we define ourselves. If we do not make such an examination, we may cling to outdated meanings, drift away from our mission, or even lose our bearing entirely engaging in hyperadaptation and becoming just a mirror image of external stakeholder values (Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Ryan & Ford, 2010). It is better to reflect and choose an appropriate role rather than have a different role forced upon the field or drift into irrelevancy to the larger business community. A common definition of I-O psychology is the application of psychological p...