No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 June 2017
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.
Although we both serve as members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Executive Board in the capacities of Past-President and Representative to the American Psychological Association Council, the views expressed in this commentary are ours alone. They are not intended to reflect the views of any other group or institution.
With appreciation and apologies to Yogi Berra: http://yogiberramuseum.org/just-for-fun/yogisms/