The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

The Licensure of Consulting and Industrial–Organizational (I-O) Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force has been examining the controversial issue of licensing I-O and consulting psychologists since 2014. We argue that constructive engagement with licensure is important for setting the future direction of the laws and regulations that govern professional psychology. We review relevant background information, current pressures on regulators, and recent developments in this area. We outline recommendations for jurisdictions’ regulators as well the I-O and consulting psychology communities to consider, discuss, and possibly act on. Others are invited to join the constructive, sometimes vigorous discussions we have enjoyed within the LCIOP Joint Task Force.

There are at least four interrelated reasons why the practice of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology should not require a license that is mandated by the state or province where the I-O psychologist resides. First, there is no subject matter domain unique to the practice of I-O psychology. Second, because there is no subject matter domain unique to I-O psychology, the subject matter is extensively practiced by other unregulated professions. Hence, a law mandating a license to practice I-O psychology, restricted to graduates from a doctoral program in a psychology department, is unlikely to be enforceable. It simply would not stand up to a legal challenge. Third, the espoused benefit of a mandated license, namely, to protect the public, is specious. Finally, a mandated license for the practice of I-O psychology by I-O psychologists could lead to the death of I-O psychology programs. Each of these four concerns is explained below.

I have written on this subject in the past (Locke, 2009; Locke, Mode, & Binswanger, 1980), but here I will both reiterate and expand on what I have said before.

The focal article (LCIOP Joint Task Force, 2017) is a painstakingly thorough discussion of licensing issues regarding I-O psychology as they have evolved over the last 40–50 years. There is also a very large literature produced by Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members, and cited in the focal article, that discusses many of these issues in some detail (e.g., Campbell, Levy, Murphy, Schmitt, & Weiss, 2009). The focal article makes a very useful distinction between health service providers (HSP) and general applied psychologists (GAP). The position of SIOP for some time has been that licensure should be required for the former, but not for the latter, although a path to licensure should be provided for those who need it. I would certainly agree. Also, the Society of Consulting Psychology (SCP) is much more infused with applied clinical psychology than is SIOP. Consequently, the licensing needs of most SIOP members and most SCP members are most likely not quite the same.

We think that before reading our reactions to the focal article, readers should be aware of the history of the Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force. The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) initiated the LCIOP, and the objectives of the task force were developed without input from Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In June 2013, Don Crowder informed Mark Nagy (SIOP Chair of State Affairs) that the ASPPB approved the establishment of a joint task force related to licensure of consulting and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists. The membership composition of the task force was determined by ASPPB, and SIOP was allotted one member. By including a member of SIOP, ASPPB can describe the task force as a cooperative effort and SIOP ostensibly has the opportunity to help shape recommendations made with regard to the licensure of I-O psychologists. Don Crowder now serves as the president of ASPPB. In Crowder's October 2016 ASPPB meeting address, he encouraged jurisdictions to review their statutes, and, if permitted, require licensure for both health service providers (HSPs) and general applied psychologists (GAPs).

If one has been involved in the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) since its inception, as we have, one will have had several opportunities to reflect on the issue of licensing to regulate the practice of industrial and organizational psychology (IOP). Some find value in licensure, but the vast majority of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists do not. As the target article written by the Licensure of Consulting and Industrial-Organizational (I-O) Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force (2017) documents, there have been several policy statements made by SIOP leadership over the years. The essence of SIOP's policy is quite clear and consistent. Although SIOP does not support and will not promote the licensure of I-O psychologists, it does support a pathway to licensure for those who desire it, and is supportive of efforts to reduce the many barriers to licensure for those who desire it. It is our understanding that SIOP's participation in the LCIOP Joint Task Force was predicated on this long-standing policy.

Many industrial and organizational (I-O) and consulting psychologists who engage in practice of their profession, for example as “management consultants,” compete against consultants with a wide array of backgrounds and disciplinary degrees. Indeed, in consulting work, one of us has competed against practitioners with backgrounds in fields ranging from accounting (CPAs) to sociology, communication, anthropology, business administration, and even those with degrees in divinity.

At first blush, licensing industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists seems like a worthy pursuit. The work we do is important, can affect many lives for better or worse, and (we believe) requires a high level of education, training, and competence. Given a deeper look, however, we believe that the Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force (2017) review overestimated the benefits of licensure, which are substantially outweighed by the practical challenges associated with a licensure program. Our response to the LCIOP represents two perspectives that can inform the feasibility of such an undertaking: a view from the inside of a federation of regulatory boards and a view from the world of certification as an alternative approach for ensuring quality in a diverse, complex profession.

The issue of registration/licensure as it is currently being discussed in North America is one that is near and dear to many of us involved with industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology in Canada. The consequences of any potential regulatory changes could be profound, and Canadian regulatory authorities, like any others, may be cued by other jurisdictions, including those within the United States, concerning standards and requirements.

We comment on the focal article (LCIOP Joint Task Force, 2017) from the perspective of practitioners and academics in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, who have been involved for some years in debates about the regulation of psychology in Australia.

One day, a well-dressed, mature gentleman—one might be tempted to describe him as elderly, except he appears extremely vital and alert—walks into a psychotherapist's office for a first visit. After just a few brief exchanges, the therapist gets the impression that the gentleman is a socially adept, financially successful, educated professional, and a well-regarded member of the community. But all is not as it seems on the surface. This new patient “presents” with lingering complaints of vague malaise, and despite his apparent success, he reports having experienced long-term intermittent bouts of anxiety and fear stemming from threats that the therapist cannot be sure are real or imagined: Various people seem regularly aiming to put him out of business; family relatives are disrespectful, demeaning, and do not understand him. Moreover, there is an existential quality to his anxiety: As a younger, middle-aged man, although already successful, he changed his name legally because he felt it better suited his identity. In fact, he came close to changing his name twice again in recent years, but, after agonizing about it for a long time, could not make up his mind what to change it to; nothing seemed to “fit” well enough. The therapist surmised, however, that the patient was more concerned with the impression his name would make on potential business clients and competitors than with any genuine expression of his nature, and he seemed relatively unconcerned with maintaining his nominal family identification. It struck the therapist that his patient's insecurities were not in keeping with his considerable accomplishments in life. In fact, for an educated professional, the patient seemed to lack insight into his own character and values.

One of the typical roles of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists working as practitioners is administering employee surveys measuring job satisfaction/engagement. Traditionally, this work has involved developing (or choosing) the items for the survey, administering the items to employees, analyzing the data, and providing stakeholders with summary results (e.g., percentages of positive responses, item means). In recent years, I-O psychologists moved into uncharted territory via the use of survey key driver analysis (SKDA), which aims to identify the most critical items in a survey for action planning purposes. Typically, this analysis involves correlating (or regressing) a self-report criterion item (e.g., “considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job”) with (or on) each of the remaining survey items in an attempt to identify which items are “driving” job satisfaction/engagement. It is also possible to use an index score (i.e., a scale score formed from several items) as the criterion instead of a single item. That the criterion measure (regardless of being a single item or an index) is internal to the survey from which predictors are drawn distinguishes this practice from linkage research. This methodology is not widely covered in survey methodology coursework, and there are few peer-reviewed articles on it. Yet, a number of practitioners are marketing this service to their clients. In this focal article, a group of practitioners with extensive applied survey research experience uncovers several methodological issues with SKDA. Data from a large multiorganizational survey are used to back up claims about these issues. One issue is that SKDA ignores the psychometric reality that item standard deviations impact which items are chosen as drivers. Another issue is that the analysis ignores the factor structure of survey item responses. Furthermore, conducting this analysis each time a survey is administered conflicts with the lack of situational and temporal specificity. Additionally, it is problematic to imply causal relationships from the correlational data seen in most surveys. Most surprisingly, randomly choosing items out of a hat yields validities similar to those from conducting the analysis. Thus, we recommend that survey providers stop conducting SKDA until they can produce science that backs up this practice. These issues, in concert with the lack of literature examining the practice, make rigorous evaluations of SKDA a timely inquiry.

Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) provide several valid criticisms of survey key driver analysis (SKDA), which is an approach used to identify causes of important employee and organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction or employee engagement.

A fair reading of Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin's (2017) astute analysis of survey key driver analysis (SKDA) presents a good case that such analyses are driving down the wrong road and should slow down or come to a halt. In large part, the SKDA they describe seems to be a misleading set of exercises.

In contrast to the view that survey key driver analysis (SKDA) is a misused and blind empirical process, we suggest it is a reasonable, hypothesis-driven approach that builds on cumulative knowledge drawn from both the literature and practice, and requires reasoned judgment about the relationships of individual items to the constructs they represent and the criteria of interest. The logic of key driver analysis in applied settings is no different than the logic of its application in fundamental research regarding employee attitudes (e.g., Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, 2012). However, there are important survey design and analysis issues with respect to how key driver analyses are best conducted. Just some of these are discussed below.

In their focal article, Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) raise a number of concerns about survey key driver analysis (SKDA). Although many are valid, we think their critique ultimately goes too far and risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have found that SKDA can be an effective way to generate insight and action when analysis is done correctly and results are used appropriately. In this response article, we first provide data that counters Cucina et al.’s findings. Then we describe the approach we take to survey key driver analytics and application. In doing so, we hope to address some of the core concerns raised in the focal article and identify ways for scientists and practitioners to conduct SKDA in a responsible way.

In their focal article, Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) raise an important and timely issue, but go too far in arguing that practitioners should abandon survey key driver analysis (SKDA) altogether. There are many valuable benefits to using SKDA, and rather than discontinuing the practice entirely, we suggest that a better approach is to focus on ways to make it even more valuable to organizations. It is true that this area is in need of further research, but instead of asking whether we are driving down the right road, perhaps the right question is, “Are we there yet?”

Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) raise an important issue in evaluating whether our current approaches for key driver analysis on employee opinion survey data are indeed best practices. As has been argued elsewhere (Putka & Oswald, 2016; Scherbaum, Putka, Naidoo, & Youssefnia, 2010), there is and can be misalignment between current and best practices. We agree with Cucina et al. that our field should engage in larger discussion of these issues. That discussion is critical, as industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists are competing with those outside our field who have either little knowledge of best practices in data analysis (but who have been empowered by technology that automates the analysis) or little knowledge of psychology (but a great deal of knowledge in big data analytical techniques). I-O psychologists are in the vanguard of survey data analysis (Ducey et al., 2015), and we have a responsibility to maintain the standards of our field as well as to wield our influence to guide other practitioners outside our field on sound theoretical and analytical approaches.

In their critical review of survey key driver analyses (SKDA), Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) contend that methodological issues limit the usefulness of SKDA and recommend that survey providers stop conducting SKDA until these issues can be overcome. I contend that many of these methodological issues are either overstated or able to be addressed through the proper application of the technique by a competent professional. In this commentary, I make recommendations for how SKDA should be applied so that methodological issues are addressed and the value of SKDA is maximized. Many of these recommendations were made in Lundby and Johnson (2006), who were cited by Cucina et al. but did not have much impact on their focal article.