Why is I/O Psychology for Sale? - Why those studying and practicing in the official STEM field should get out of "commercialized" application.

This is my opinion and my opinion alone.

This is something that should be well known in the field that I work in. In the problems that I see, in the limitations that I witnessed, in the imposter syndrome that manifests because of it, this is something I feel I have to speak out about. I see it going down a path of not only diminutization and disrespect, but also devaluing. If clinical and counseling psychology are able to be successful out in the field independently, why not Industrial-Organizational? We are now (officially...on record) as being listed under STEM (though I thought we were STEM by being under Psychology in general), so we should be able, more then not, to establish ourselves as practitioners that serve populations that are the most critical to any business and government....the workforce. Yet, the majority of us still go to job websites and apply to job opportunities that conspicuously lessen our value and be at the beck and call of private industry who still to this day does not have a holistic understanding of what we do outside of what they want to believe. This bothers me a lot because I-O Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology is a field that has the power to literally make a company an employer of choice within a matter of months. We understand the workforce from the human side of it and we studied and researched enough to influence direction towards a healthy workforce in mind and body as well as an "interested" workforce that will not engage in counterproductive behavior including absenteeism, theft, and resignation. The questions that I seek to explore the answers to our why is expertise industrial organizational psychology for sale and why are we allowing ourselves to be purchased to not even practice what we’ve invested to learn and apply?

WHAT I THINK A COMMERCIALIZED I-O PSYCHOLOGIST IS

A professional with the background that is just in it for the salary and has no interest in the true researched and applied practice of the field in providing unbound fact-based service in the health and wellness of the workforce independent of the direction and management of the company that they serve.

It's a professional that's just in the field for the money. That's it. Nothing more. Not to work to achieve optimal mental or physical well being of the workforce indefinitely, but just existing as another employee or vendor that will get their cut of the company revenue in salary or profiting for themselves. They'll either do whatever the company leadership tells them (usually HR) by the performance metric mandates and just do enough to get that direct deposit on 12am Friday Morning. They may or will not work anymore then they are paid to do or cannot do what they were actually trained and educated to do because they are not in a position to think outside the box without the company having the final decision. Even as vendors, they still have to appease the client in order to get paid and will do so with subdued hesitation or changing course almost immediately if the client company frowns on their delivered solution. I see it all too often when I see frustrations posted on LinkedIn alone about how the company they work for does not listen to their ideas for increasing workforce health. I even counseled some when they reached out to me because no one was listening. That's why some of them are just content to roll out whatever the company wants them to roll out and others simply do it because of their conventional personalities of rank and file.

Coming from my own story, I was the same way in the beginning. I thought after graduate school that corporate america was the only way to go. My school(s), not one of them, taught me any different into working for myself or establishing myself as a suitable business partner that had the ability to sit at the boardroom table and be treated as an "equitable". Not an equal, but an equitable (I'll explain later what that means). Anyway, to make a long story short, I did not stay working in corporate jobs for long because having the knowledge that I have in Industrial-Organizational, I saw what was going to be my personal hell and my devils in line managers if I did not get out soon. The problem was that I kept going from one corporate job to another and then too fearful to strike out on my own because I did not know how to do that. It stopped pretty much after 2020 because of the Pandemic and now I am in contracting in the role of a business partner where I can do the very thing that I was educated, trained and developed to do....practice my field without any limitation. I'm being sought for what I know and not what tasks I can do and I must say it is phenomenal! When my field is commercialized, or bought in limited pricing, taxed over time and allowed to practice only in mandated corporate tasks, then it's no longer a field to help who it's designed to help, but a commoditized asset written in the accounting ledger under at title with the rest of the assets the company owns and operates.

Why I think that commercializing oneself in thought and opportunity in I-O Psychology is dangerous is because there's no way for that professional to truly do what they are capable of doing. They are stuck or held back just reviewing data to report to company leadership to make a decision, developing talent training focused on saving costs or increasing revenue, or creating leadership laser focused on doing the former 10 times over. When can one say that they are practicing their field in it's entirety and with open freedom working strictly for someone else or accepting company clients that you literally had to work on for more than six months to finally agree to a price on condition? What clinical or counseling psychologist we know is willing to settle? They have at least the freedom to work for a company or go into private practice or both. Why can't I-O Psychology do the same?

AVOIDING COMMERCIALIZATION

I see my field growing in interest so much that anyone that is studying it or practicing it should definitely be aware of what their options could be. This is how I would avoid commercialization:

1. Industrial organizational psychologists should be 100% independent of any company or corporate decisions. They should not be guided by corporate leaders and should be treated as auditors an independent advisors - They cannot serve the workforce and corporate leadership at the same time (the no two masters rule). Industrial-Organizational Psychology, like clinical and counseling, has a focused expertise that requires just as much study, training and learning as their psychological cousins. We cannot perform to value with someone who possesses no training or understanding to give us direction on work. Company leadership would do much better and get brighter results in partnership with us and not ever as employees.

"Also, here's the space where I am going to explain being treated as an "equitable" vs. as an equal: I have the specialized training and field knowledge so yes, I should be given preference as that expert who can solve problems that no one else would have at that boardroom table to prevent someone from resigning or engaging in counterproductive behavior of their free will where the company does not lose money by termination. I-O Psychology has more equity-in-expertise to be able to solve specific human problems."

1. Industrial organizational psychology should be utilized more in government as tax dollars seek to solve problems while private dollars seek to control assets (like workers) - I know that this is not perfect ideology, but it's at least going on the right track. Industrial-Organizational Psychology knowledge and expertise could be used to investigate and explore policy change in labor regulation and expansion overall in the local, county, state and federal level that would set private industry to a standard in treatment and engagement of employed professionals. I am really proud and excited that government agencies are leading the way as accepting I-O Psychology as resource that could solve problems in work. They recognize the value that we have in our cognitive and efficacious capability of increasing the value of their workforce and the capacity to do it efficiently and effectively. Government leadership has a sincere interest in I-O Psychology and, though with a journey to improve, utilizes it to increase the value of tax dollars being invested into public services.
2. Changing Industrial – Organizational Psychology in our higher education programs to be more value driven in terms of market pricing and not salary positioning - Our knowledge and expertise and in some cases experience is now certified by the United States government in official capacity. Our higher educational institutions should be developing and advancing us to think outside the box entrepreneurial as well as academic. We should be directed to think and behave like business partners to write our own value with the expertise that we apply. I would even start with internships that set us up as partners, not as employees, to companies and organizations to work with us in applying our expertise. That will give us and should give us leverage to start setting our own value right from day one. There should be classes on contracting, setting hours, or building industry in our field so that we know how to set our market pricing and solidify our value with clinical and counseling psychology. Some of them are doing a fantastic job of starting in that direction, but theirs is a long journey of development ahead.

Conclusion

Our field should only be subject to the same structure of job seeking in a way to where we are leading rather than being simply employed. We should seek to build independent opportunities (contracting, entrepreneurship) or connecting with government to impact work and labor at a higher opportunity as our work has the power to actually influence policy in labor law and regulation. I-O Psychologists must think independently and be independent so that we can help make the workplace better for those that are trying to earn a living from looking for a job to doing the work that they were meant to do. We cannot do good if we are contained and limited with our focus being on just paying bills with a salary and by doing so listening to and adhering to “what the Corporate leader wants”.

I-O Psychology should never be a corporate asset. Those that are studying in the field should never feel as if they have to settle for a job. Those leading the field should always mentor the professionals in development to always think in equity and never think and present themselves for a quick and undervalued sale .

Dr. Simpson, Industrial-Organizational Psychologist