The big news since my last update of SIOP’s activities (see my penultimate column in the January TIP) is that SIOP Executive Director (ED) Dave Nershi announced his plans to retire effective 1 May 2017. Dave has been SIOP’s ED since 2005 and he has been extraordinarily effective in supporting your elected leadership, managing the Society, and delivering a wide range of services to SIOP members. His service as ED has been instrumental to SIOP’s flourishing as a professional association. Finding a new ED to succeed Dave is critical to SIOP’s future evolution. Dave’s retirement announcement was not anticipated, so as you can imagine, it demanded my full attention because SIOP did not have an ED succession plan in place.

Three years ago, when I became editor of TIP, I had no idea what I had gotten myself into.

I mean that in the best possible way.  Which is not to say, I suppose, that I didn’t have some delusions early on.

It was probably late March 2013, so I wasn’t fully “official” yet, and I was out mowing the lawn for the first time that season.  I had my earbuds in, my Zune blasting away, and my brain musing about what would be different, now that I was an editor.  Because editors are, I have always believed, Important People. 

I was on the cusp of becoming an Important Person!  Wasn’t it the case that Important People didn’t mow their own lawns?  Being an editor had to have some perks, right?  Why, now that I was Important, I might never have to mow my own lawn again!

Given that the scientist–practitioner model underpins I-O psychology, the practice of I-O psychology should be based on evidence-based science and practical issues should inform scientific pursuits. However, over the past several years, there has been discussion, research, debate, and activity centered on identifying and/or addressing perceptions of “gaps” between practice and research with the I-O field (e.g., Madigan & Giberson, 2010; Silzer & Cober, 2010; Silzer & Parson, 2012).

We in I-O are fairly sporting when it comes to discussing the ambiguities and contradictions and inconsistencies associated with the nuances of human behavior in the workplace—cheers to us. We seem to falter, though, when it comes to talking about the future: the future of work, of organizations, of SIOP, of our own jobs. Our narratives become jumbled; we start talking past each other, focusing on different criteria, making different assumptions. Our background in science doesn’t prepare us to have meaningful conversations about speculation, prophecy, conjecture. This may be a point to our credit on most days, but it will not serve us if and when the world changes and we are caught off guard and unprepared.

When I was considering academic positions over 3 years ago (which, by the way, how has it already been 3 years?!), there were so many factors to consider. What was the reputation and atmosphere of the school and department? Was the location going to be nice? Was Mike going to be able to find work? Would I be teaching the types of classes that I wanted to be teaching? Were the tenure requirements reasonable or insane? There were so many things to account for, and so many ways to justify the answers to the aforementioned questions if things didn’t quite fit with the expectations I had at the time. However, one aspect of my job search was a big non-negotiable: I wanted to work somewhere that had a PhD program.