INTEGRATION AS A CHALLENGE

INTEGRATION AS A CHALLENGE

As mentioned earlier, a number of indicators suggest that psychology is in the early stages of ‘personality revolution’, comparable with the cognitive revolution more than 30 years ago (Cervone & Mischel, 2002a). The recent decade-long surge of interest in and research on personality, particularly in I/O psychology, could be the initial stage of this revolution. If I/O psychologists want to be at the forefront of this revolution, it is incumbent on our field to stay current with relevant empirical and theoretical develop- ments in related areas of psychology (e.g., clinical, developmental, social) and other disciplines (e.g., behavioral genetics, neuroscience). While we believe I/O psychology has an opportunity and the potential to be a primary contributor to the advancement of personality theory and assessment, there is also the potential for I/O to fall behind, both in the marketplace of ideas (e.g., production of new knowledge and methods) and, more practically, in securing grants, contracts, and other funding (basic and applied). Staying current with the major research and methodological trends in the emerging, interdisciplinary science of personality presents challenges for I/O psychologists.

Making Sense of Research Findings, Methods, and Techniques for which

I/O Psychologists Have No Formal Training

One discipline outside of psychology where major advances in personality research are currently being made is behavioral genetics (see Funder, 2001; Grigorenko, 2002; Livesley et al., 2003; Plomin & Caspi, 1999). Indeed, with the completion of the Human Genome Project and the proliferation of DNA testing, genetics research and testing are likely to revolutionize psychological research and practice in the 21st century (Patenaude et al., 2002; Plomin & Crabbe, 2000). As noted earlier, although genetics research is not entirely new to I/O psychology (e.g., genetic bases of job satisfaction; Arvey et al.,

P ERSONALITY IN I NDUSTRIAL /O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 141 1989; Ilies & Judge, 2003), the overwhelming majority of I/O psychologists

receive little to no formal training in genetics, are unfamiliar with its major journals and professional associations, and seldom attend and/or submit research to conferences in the field. Short of returning to graduate school, what are we to do? One solution is to engage in interdisciplinary research or applied projects where I/O psychologists team up with genetics researchers to solve problems related to personality. An illustrative example that could be used as a model for these efforts can be found in the emerging field of social– cognitive neuroscience (see Ochsner & Lieberman, 2001). A similar type of collaboration could lead to the identification and use of genetics research to understand personality in the workplace.

Finding Time to StayCurrent

Another challenge, independent of obtaining the requisite expertise to make sense of research from other disciplines, is the challenge of finding sufficient time to do so. New knowledge generation increases exponentially every year (Adair & Vohra, 2003). While calls for keeping up with research outside of one’s own discipline sound good, how one accomplishes this is considerably less clear. Although formal mechanisms, such as the various Annual Review series, presently exist, I/O psychology could potentially do more. Some suggestions include: (a) the preparation and publication of interdisciplinary reviews (both qualitative and quantitative) in major I/O outlets; (b) greater attendance and participation of I/O psychologists in more general, cross- disciplinary conferences (e.g., APA, APS); and (c) inviting and encouraging the participation of leading researchers from other disciplines in national conferences and workshops, particularly those associated with organizations such as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the International Congress of Applied Psychology.

Maintaining Established Scientific and Professional Boundaries of I/O Psychology

At a time when there is much self-reflection in I/O psychology regarding its ‘identity’ (i.e., Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001; Ryan, 2003), the prospect of greater integration with other areas of psychology and disciplines outside of psychology is likely to raise concerns, and for good reason. Maintaining and regulating professional boundaries is essential for ensuring the strategic direction, reputation, and long-term viability of a discipline. I/O psychology arguably has a decided advantage over other areas of psychology (e.g., social, cognitive). Our field and its knowledge and methods are tied to a well-defined context, the world of work. Perhaps more impor- tantly, that context is directly connected to and reinforced by physical, spatial, and temporal boundaries. This is not the case, for example, in