Letter to the Editor

Rob Silzer and Allan Church

Letter to the Editor Draft V2

Dear Morrie,

Thank you for your service as TIPEditor. 

We are writing in reaction to the results of the recent 2015 Practitioner Needs Survey that was reported in the last issue of TIP(Oliver, Ferro, Napper, & Porr, 2015). 

Oliver et al. report startlingly low practitioner satisfaction with SIOP ratings from their recent membership survey. The average satisfaction rating across 12 areas is below 3.0on a 1.0–5.0 rating scale. In some areas the ratings are even much lower (see Oliver et al., 2015 and Silzer & Parson, 2015):

• Recognition of practitioners for Fellow status: 2.77
• Recognition for practitioner contributions: 2.73
• Support for I-O practice careers: 2.76,
• Opportunities for practitioners to influence SIOP decisions: 2.82

What is most disappointing is that these practitioner satisfaction ratings are on average at the same low level as they were 8 years ago based on the results of the 2008 Practitioner Needs Survey (Silzer, Cober, Erickson, & Robinson, 2008). In 2008, there were also major differences in satisfaction among member groups with full-time practitioners’ ratings falling far below other member groups on almost all areas. In 2015 some practitioner satisfaction ratings have fallen even lower than the 2008 ratings. The ratings are moving in a downward trend over the last 8 years. 

Earlier member surveys in 2000 and 2002 (Waclawski & Church, 2000, 2002) found no major differences in reported satisfaction between different member groups (as opposed to the significant differences found in the 2008 survey results). The three lowest rated areas of member satisfaction were: 

• Hotel room availability at the conference (2.61 in 2000, 2.51 in 2002). 
• SIOP’s ability to promote I-O to business (3.25 in 2000, 3.14 in 2002,with practitioners being slightly more dissatisfied than other member groups). 
• SIOP’s ability to promote I-O psychology to other areas of psychology(3.54 in 2000 and 3.37 in 2002. 

There are two troubling trends over the last 15 years. 

• Practitioner satisfaction ratings have been getting significantly WORSE
• A divide has EMERGED and WIDENED in satisfaction ratings between member groups 

The 2015 results clearly indicate that SIOP is not doing enough to serve the interests and professional needs of I-O practitioners. The other possibility is that the SIOP leadership is indifferent to I-O practitioners. After all, the SIOP leadership and the president’s role continue to be dominated by academics/researchers. Surely SIOP leadership has been well aware of the dissatisfaction of I-O practitioner members. Do they just not care about member satisfaction?

In most organizations an employee satisfaction rating of 3.0 or below would set off alarm bells and urgent action would be taken to address the underlying issues and raise the employee satisfaction levels. Most I-O practitioners fully understand this issue and many are skilled in addressing employee satisfaction issues in their client organizations. Perhaps it is conceivable that some academic/researcher members do not fully understand the critical nature of this result or its negative impact on the whole organization. But how can they just ignore this critical issue for the last 8 years? There is little doubt the low ratings are a fundamental organizational problem in SIOP and they are at a critical level. It is troubling that SIOP leadership has not addressed these issues.

There are some immediate steps that can be taken to begin to address these concerns

1.Require public leadership commitment. Starting this year all candidates for the positions of president elect and professional practice officer should be required to answer specific questions on their commitment to i-o practitioners and the actions they intend to take to address the practitioner satisfaction issues. Their responses should be distributed to all SIOP members. 

2. Develop apractitioner strategic plan. SIOP should launch as special task force composed of a mix of full time practitioners from internal and external settings with varying degrees of experience and knowledge of the societyto develop a practitioner strategic plan that describes and addresses the critical areas of practitioner dissatisfaction. 

It is important that the task force fully represent all practitioner members, including internal/external, new and experienced, some experienced and inexperienced with SIOP leadership/politics. The draft should be distributed for membership public comment and the final plan presented at the SIOP conference. Every SIOP president and Professional Practice Officer should be held publicly accountable for achieving the plan. The plan should:

• Provide equitable representation on leadership slates and key leadership positions and perhaps a balance rule for the Executive Board 
• Develop communication outlets for practitioners including alternative publication formats that better support practitioner needs (such as shorter more timely articles, dual focus articles, editing by practitioners, etc.)
• Identify steps to reach equitable recognition in awards, appointments, committee chairs, and so on.
• Introduce new conference formats that better meet practitioner professional needs
• Outline roles and linkages between the plan and other existing committees (e.g., Publications, Conference, Professional Practice) as well as a means for establishing a permanent process for ensuring practitioner engagement is closely monitored and satisfaction increases over time.
• Provide recommendations for ways to reengage senior I-O practitioners who are internal to organizational settings who have moved away from SIOP given its academic leanings at conferences and in publications. Attention should also be given to engaging independent practitioners who have been disappointed with the lack of SIOP professional support. 

How many years have I-O practitioners heard excuses from the SIOP leadership on why practitioners professional needs are being ignored or dismissed? Although we now have data documenting 8 years of dissatisfaction, the problem has existed longer but has been getting worse. 

SIOP members, particularly I-O practitioners, need to hold the SIOP leadership accountable for addressing these significant practitioner concerns. Nothing less than a fully satisfied membership is essential to the success and effectiveness of SIOP. 

The time to act is right now. 

Respectfully,

Rob Silzer, PhD

Allan Church, PhD

Oliver, J., Ferro, M., Napper, C. & Porr, B. (2015). Overview of the 2015 Practitioner Needs Survey. TheIndustrial-Organizational Psychologist, 52(1), 49–56. 

Silzer, R. F., Cober, R.T., Erickson, A. R. & Robinson, G. (2008). Practitioner satisfaction with SIOP. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 46(1), 43–58.

Silzer, R. F., & Cober, R. T. (2015). Key practitioner issues and recommendations for future SIOP action. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 53(2), 32–46. 

Waclawski, J., & Church, A. H. (2000). The 2000 SIOP member survey results are in! The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 38(1), 59–68.

Waclawski, J., & Church, A. H. (2002). And the survey says…The 2002 SIOP member survey results. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40(1), 16–27.