Fluent Essays

In this week’s Discussion, you examined how individual morals and values influence ethical decision making. Now, for this Assignment, you will focus on how your own morals and values guide your ethical behavior. You will also assess your ethical competence using the Learning Resources from this week. As you do so, consider the following questions: Is there a practice area of I/O psychology with which you are unfamiliar? If so, would you be able to recognize ethical issues in that area if they arose? Similarly, is there an area of the APA Ethics Code that is unclear to you? How well would you be able to apply ethical standards from this area? It is important to consider these questions now, at the beginning of the course, so that you can plan to devote more attention to specific weeks in the course that address areas of ethical knowledge and skills in which you need more development. Furthermore, regularly assessing your ethical competence is good practice. Sound ethical decision making is a skill that is learned and developed over time with routine reflection and practice. To prepare for this Assignment: Review Chapter 1 and Appendix A in the text, Business Ethics: An Ethical Decision-Making Approach and Chapter 8 in the APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology. Then, review the journal articles in this week’s Learning Resources. Reflect on your personal morals and values and how they could influence your ethical decision making in the practice of I/O psychology. Review the Introduction in The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, Chapter 8 in the APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology, and Chapter 2 in the SAGE Handbook. Self-assess your ability to recognize and resolve the ethical dilemmas discussed in the Learning Resources. Review the APA Ethics Code. Identify principles and/or ethical standards with which you are unfamiliar and may need further development. Explore SIOP’s Committee for the Advancement of Professional Ethics (CAPE) page and identify ethics resources that could contribute to your ethical competence.   By Day 7  Write a 2 page paper on the following: Explain how your personal morals and values might influence your ethical decision making within the practice of I/O psychology. Provide specific examples to support your explanation. Using the Learning Resources from this week, self-assess your ethical competence in the context of I/O psychology, that is, your ability to recognize and resolve ethical dilemmas. Then identify three ethical skills and/or areas of knowledge in which you need further development. Describe what steps you will take to develop those skills or areas. Be specific. 3 Imagine a psychologist working in a large corporation. She is coaching a middle level executive working under strict confidentiality assumptions that were delineated in a signed, written contract. During the session, the cli- ent reveals that he and a coworker have been embezzling money from the company. Does the psychologist in this publicly traded company have an ethical obligation to report the information, regardless of promises of confidentiality? Consider another scenario: For several years, a psychologist has been consulting to a small family-owned company. The psychologist trained in industrial–organizational psychology. Friction among the family members was typical, but interactions had become dysfunctional after the eldest adult child threatened to leave the organization if he was not made president of the company. Both parents were part of the business, the father serving as the president and CEO and the mother as the treasurer and corporate secretary. Was the psychologist qualified to provide services to this family in crisis? Introduction http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-001 The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, by R. L. Lowman and S. E. Cooper Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . T H E E T H I C A L P R AC T I C E O F C O N S U LT I N G P S YC H O LO G Y 4 These cases illustrate the kinds of ethical challenges consulting psy- chologists encounter when working in organizational contexts. The exist- ing ethical rules do not always present clear guidelines that apply in such situations. After all, they were established for different purposes. Whether for professional practice or research, the first psychology ethics code of the American Psychological Association (APA) was mostly created in the context of individual actors (Hobbs, 1948) and not situ- ationally influenced (Kilburg, 2006) concerns. Hobbs (1948) noted that the first ethics code to be developed should meet the needs of individuals working in the various areas of psychology. Problems of general interest to all psychologists should be supplemented by a consideration of problems of special concern to the psychologist as teacher, as research worker, as psychodiagnosti- cian, as psychotherapist, as school psychologist, as consultant to busi- ness, industry, and government. (p. 84) Yet a review of the case vignettes that had been widely solicited and that were said to have been part of the empirical basis of the first APA ethics code (see, e.g., “Ethical Standards for Psychology,” 1951) suggests that, in the area of business/industrial and consulting work, the focus, as for many of the other practice areas presented, was mostly on psychologists acting individually. Here is an example: In a classified directory under the heading “Psychologist,” one indi- vidual has advertised his services as “Consulting Psychologist— Certified by State Department of Mental Hygiene.” His letterhead carries the same notation. The state in which he operates certifies psychological examiners and school psychologists but not consulting psychologists. His reference to state certification is thus misleading. (p. 644) Yet a few vignettes did speak to the multiple forces influencing psy- chologists’ work in consulting contexts. One such case noted: An industrial psychologist with long experience discovered empiri- cally a method of selecting certain types of executive ability of great Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . I N T RO D U C T I O N 5 apparent value to a certain firm. The firm hired him full time for personnel work at a very high salary, with the understanding that he would use his selection procedure solely for the benefit of this firm. The method has never been published nor exposed to scientific scru- tiny. The firm is satisfied, so too the psychologist. From the point of view of competitive business ethics the arrangement seems justified; but the secrecy is blocking scientific progress. Two ethical codes seem to be in sharp conflict. What should be the attitude of the profes- sional colleagues of the psychologist? (p. 630) In this case example, there is conflict between the norms or ethics of a business firm and those of psychologists. Similarly, Seashore (1951; see also Seashore, 1949), as a psychologist then working with The Psychologi- cal Corporation (now part of Pearson Assessments), noted that certain states with fair employment laws had asked the company to remove or replace certain test items that were considered by them to be inappro- priate. Speaking for the company, Seashore maintained that the use of well-validated personnel tests was one of the best ways to prevent dis- crimination, the presumed purpose of the fair employment laws. Prior to the creation of the first APA Ethics Code in 1952, other authors were already beginning to think about issues involved with organizational consulting roles.1 Bixler and Seeman (1946) recommended considering ethical responsibilities as differing by role and (in our terms) level, identify- ing ethical responsibilities to groups, organizations, and to society. Sutich (1944) articulated several principles about consulting and clinical relation- ships centered on the premise of “democratic” (vs. autocratic) relationships. As formal ethics codes have evolved over the years since the initial for- malized code of the APA, they have increased in sophistication and com- plexity (see, e.g., Bersoff, 2008; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016; Pope & Vasquez, 2016) as the issues to which they have been applied have increased in complexity. References to consulting and consultation were scattered in the 1992 APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 1 Throughout the book, references to the APA Ethics Code refer to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017), unless otherwise stated. Standards cited in the text refer to this 2017 revision, which is available at http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . T H E E T H I C A L P R AC T I C E O F C O N S U LT I N G P S YC H O LO G Y 6 (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) but not in any uniform manner. In the 2002 revision, a number of references to consulting and organizational psychology and one new standard (3.11) were added. Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organiza- tions, was a substantive, thoughtful addition to the code, very useful for consulting and organizational psychologists. It specifically addresses the contracting and informed consent phase of consultation where many ethical problems can be avoided if these early phases are handled correctly: (a) Psychologists delivering services to or through organizations pro- vide information beforehand to clients and when appropriate those directly affected by the services about (1) the nature and objectives of the services, (2) the intended recipients, (3) which of the individu- als are clients, (4) the relationship the psychologist will have with each person and the organization, (5) the probable uses of services provided and information obtained, (6) who will have access to the information, and (7) limits of confidentiality. As soon as feasible, they provide information about the results and conclusions of such services to appropriate persons. (b) If psychologists will be precluded by law or by organizational roles from providing such information to particular individuals or groups, they so inform those individuals or groups at the outset of the service. (APA, 2017) Many of the changes to the standards consist of minor word additions (“organizations,” “consulting,” “organizational clients”) to existing or slightly tweaked standards. As a positive outcome, these additions brought attention to the fact that not all psychology areas of practice involved working with behavioral and mental health concerns or with individuals. However, the changes did not adequately address or anticipate the kinds of ethical situa- tions and concerns that arise when psychology is applied in work and orga- nizational contexts. A remaining problem with the current code (APA, 2017) is that the term consultation is not used consistently. At times, it refers to psychologists seeking consultation to enhance their knowledge, competence, or attitudes. Elsewhere, it refers to services the psychologist is offering to the client or clients with whom they are working. Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . I N T RO D U C T I O N 7 CONSULTING LEVELS AND ACTIVITIES The practice of consulting psychology, the focus of this book, involves working at the individual, group, and organizational levels (Lowman, 2016b). Typically, consulting psychology is practiced in the context of work and work organizations, but the principles apply to many types of consultation and many types of organizations. An overly simplistic way to look at consulting psychology is that is involves three levels (individuals, groups, and organizations) and two types of activities (assessment and intervention). Overlap between the levels and the activities is common, particularly if the consultation is more complex. To this can be added a list of ethical content areas into which most ethics cases are organized. These content areas account in our experience for the majority of the ethical concerns likely to raise issues in practice. These include 77 informed consent, 77 confidentiality, 77 multiple relationships, 77 conflicts of interest, 77 competence, 77 research-science and evidence-based practice, and 77 conflicts between the organizational demands and psychologists’ ethics. Putting these three taxonomies (levels, activities, and content areas) together leads to the following matrix presented in Figure 1. Consulting at the Individual Level Consulting psychology practiced at the individual level includes both assessment and intervention roles. Activities that fall into individual level assessment include evaluating people for purposes of selection, job per- formance, and advancement. Such assessments mostly involve working with individuals who are within the so-called normal range of personality (with the exception of character disorders) and psychological or physical disabilities related to work. Individual-level interventions performed by the consulting psychologist include coaching (see Kilburg, 1996, 2004), Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . T H E E T H IC A L P R A C T IC E O F C O N S U L T IN G P S Y C H O L O G Y 8 Levels Informed Consent Ethical Issues Individual Confidentiality Competence A sse ssm en t Int erv en tio n Multiple Relationships Conflicts of Interest Evidence-Based Practice Business and Psychology Conflicts Group Organizational Figure 1 Consulting levels and illustrative ethical issues in assessment and intervention activities. Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . I N T RO D U C T I O N 9 performance improvement interventions, and skills development in essential work functions. Coaching has become noticeably widespread in recent years. Many ethical issues can arise in the practice of interventions at this level: failing to make clear the psychologist’s respective responsibilities to the organizational client and to individuals in the organization at the outset of an assessment or an intervention, using assessment measures based on their popularity rather than their validity evidence, crossing a line between counseling and coaching, divulging information provided under assumptions of confidence, shifting the role from psychologist to advocate, taking sides and misusing the psychologist’s influence, and not properly balancing the obligations to the person being coached and an organizational client paying the bills for the services. Consulting at the Group Level Groups (also known as teams) are a fundamental part of organizations. Most day-to-day work in organizations is performed by or in teams. Teams can work successfully and be associated with positive engagement, or they can be divisive, disrupt work processes, and constitute a source of turnover and unhappiness (Hackman, 2009). Assessing and interven- ing with groups requires careful consideration of the nature of informed consent; interventions must manage the tension between individual and group dynamics along with the larger system in which they are embedded. Consulting activities at the group level include assessing dysfunctional groups, assessing candidates for employment for the degree of their fit with an established team, helping groups manage conflicts among team members, helping to build cohesion among group members and shared common purposes, advising on selection methods that consider “fit” of person and group, and dealing with team leadership dynamics (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). The following scenarios can cause ethical issues at group- level assessment: the presence of group members who do not wish to participate in the assessment process; the selection of a job candidate on the basis of how well he or she fits with a work group’s social dynamics Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . T H E E T H I C A L P R AC T I C E O F C O N S U LT I N G P S YC H O LO G Y 10 without adequately considering his or her suitability for the job itself; the identification of sources of group problems, including when the boss or team leader appears to be the problem; and the determination of who will and who will not receive feedback. Ethical issues can also emerge in group-level interventions, such as in team building, addressing the behavior of disruptive group members, and conducting quality circles in which team members meet to discuss work- related problems and possible solutions. Issues around informed consent are common concerns at this level. Relevant questions include the following. Is it necessary for everyone in a work group intervention to participate in an intervention if that is necessary to perform the intervention? Does implied consent mean that, in a work context, nonparticipation is not an option? Should explicit consent be required of all members of the group? Is it suf- ficient for the manager in charge of the group to say that participation is required as a condition of employment? Concerning the last question, one might argue that the issue of implied consent raised by APA Standard 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments, which applies to with assessments, could also apply here. Section (a) states in part: (a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evalua- tions, or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmen- tal regulations; (2) informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional or organizational activity (e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when applying for a job) . . . (APA, 2017) No similar standard exists in the APA (2017) Ethics Code for interventions. Consulting at the Organizational Level Regardless of the specific focus or level, consulting psychology typically takes place in an organizational context. Like individuals and groups, organizations come in many sizes and shapes. There are mega organiza- tions that are judged “too big to fail”; small, family-owned organizations Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . I N T RO D U C T I O N 11 that are composed mainly of those related to the owners; ones in govern- ment or not-for-profit; and those in the for-profit sector. Organizations can be conceptualized as living entities (as did the U.S. Supreme Court in declaring that companies were entitled to free speech protection; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014). They also have a life cycle from birth to maturity and (too often) to death. Organizations provide context and control. They define the espoused and “real” values of the company or entity; they make decisions that can, for better or worse, affect all those within the organization. They do not speak with one voice but instead have to marshal an often large collection of peo- ple to the common mission or objectives which the organization exists to serve. Typically, organizations have boards that hold the ultimate authority to set policy and to hire and fire the CEO and senior leaders who are often very well paid and who manage and direct the organization. Inevitably there are differences among those in the organization concerning desired direc- tion and resource allocation, so there are political elements as well. Assessment at the organizational level is usually complicated, espe- cially when an organization is large and complex. Levinson (2002a, 2002b; Lowman, 2005) was one of the first to apply psychological models to assessment of the organization as a whole. Others (e.g., Howard, 1994) integrated psychological and other models of assessment. A variety of psychological and other tools can be used in consult- ing psychology at the organizational level. Each approach has its positive features and its ethical challenges. These can include consulting activities related to strategic planning, helping organizations expand their capaci- ties, and action research. Typically, interventions at the organizational level, except in very small organizations, will likely be circumscribed to a particular area or function. There are many consultants, including psychologists, who bring their expertise to organizations, but, except in smaller organizations, few are expert enough to work with all aspects of the organizations or their functions. Financial and marketing experts may consult in their particular areas of expertise, but they are rarely expert at the human side of the enterprise. Psychologists need to know enough about finance and marketing to understand how those functions may influence all aspects of the organization, but usually psychologists direct Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . T H E E T H I C A L P R AC T I C E O F C O N S U LT I N G P S YC H O LO G Y 12 their attention to the people side of the organization and its culture, and they regard organizations as social psychological phenomena. It also follows that psychologists must carefully consider their specific expertise—and their limitations. On the one hand, psychologists cannot simply say that their clients are individual employees and that the broader context in which they are embedded is irrelevant. On the other hand, parts of organizations are also systemically interconnected (see, e.g., Katz & Kahn, 1978). Few, if any, psychologists can be competent in all aspects of orga- nizations or in knowing the impact those organizations can have on the individuals and groups within them. Ethical issues of competence to take on particular assignments becomes particularly important because the temp- tation or organizational pressures may push psychologists to move beyond their competencies or to move into new areas without appropriate training. Another ethical issue that arises at all three levels (individual, group, organizational) concerns multiple relationships. Typically, consultants will have relationships both with those who are in power in an organization (e.g., the group team leader or his or her boss who asked the consultant to intervene) and team members. Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships, Section (a) states: A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a profes- sional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person. A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists. Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical. (APA, 2017) Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . I N T RO D U C T I O N 13 As noted in the APA Ethics Code, multiple relationships are not in themselves unethical, but they do raise potential problems and cautions. It is important for the consulting psychologist to define the various relation- ships up front and to be clear how the intervention would be expected to apply. However, that only addresses the most obvious ethical challenges. The more subtle concerns include how to deal with the implied pressure to please the boss and to minimize implied coercion not to participate in psy- chological activities. How does one straddle the competing ethical and other obligations to different persons, groups, and levels within the organization? Other important ethical issues include informed consent and role conflicts. When consulting at the organizational level, who is able to give consent on behalf of the organization—the board, the CEO, the Human Resources (HR) director? To whom—or to what entity—does one’s pri- mary loyalty belong when there are conflicting obligations? ETHICS CASE 1: WHO IS IN CHARGE HERE? Here is a seemingly straightforward case2 that illustrates the complexity of making ethical decisions in consulting contexts. A consulting psychologist worked as an external consultant for several years in a company where he provided consultation and coaching. The talent acquisition director (not a psychologist) had recently been promoted to HR vice president (VP) and decided to assume control of the assessments in the organization. The VP wants to be directly involved in choosing the goals of the individuals being coached and wants also to receive copies of the assessment reports of each person being coached. The individuals being coached, however, have little respect for the VP and don’t want their reports disclosed. The VP states that since coaches are paid by the company, the reports are the company’s property. At this point, neither the individuals being coached nor the consulting psychologist have turned over the reports. If the reports are not released, employee careers may be adversely affected, and the psychologist will be at risk of being fired. 2 All cases in the book are either integrated from several examples or disguised to mask identity. Any resemblance to actual cases is purely coincidental. Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . T H E E T H I C A L P R AC T I C E O F C O N S U LT I N G P S YC H O LO G Y 14 Case Discussion We have not kept track of the responses of participants in ethics train- ing and workshops, but most frame the issue in terms of how the psy- chologist can protect his or her clients from an oppressive leader. The discussion often leads to an exploration of the role of psychologists in standing up for psychological standards when they are under attack. This approach is reasonable and consistent with psychologists’ obliga- tions as stated in Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organi- zational Demands: If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights. (APA, 2017) In one sense, this is appropriate guidance and speaks to the psychol- ogist’s ethical obligation to protect the rights of participants. However, it does not fully address the ethical concerns. Ethics in consulting contexts must go beyond the simple application of the “ground rules”; confronta- tion or going over a manager’s head may at times be required. Consult- ing psychologists work in an environment controlled by managers who have no obligation to obey psychologists’ ethics codes. Not infrequently, an overly assertive approach at the outset may result in even less likeli- hood of a successful resolution. A better initial approach might therefore be to meet with the aggressive manager to try to understand the person’s intended goals and to help the manager find better ways to achieve those goals. In this context it may be possible to have a civil discussion about the psychologist’s obligations, the ethical commitments already made, and the costs to trust and future assessment activities if the manager proceeds as planned. Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on . I N T RO D U C T I O N 15 OVERVIEW OF THE B O OK The subject of this book is ethics, and the specific context is organizational consulting psychology. In Chapters 1 to 3, we consider each of the levels (individual, group, organizational) and explore ethical issues that can arise when conducting assessments and interventions at each level. We also pro- vide guidelines for avoiding and solving ethical dilemmas in these and later chapters with case examples that illustrate real-life scenarios that consult- ing psychologists are likely to encounter. Chapter 4 focuses on emerging ethical issues in three emerging areas of practice in consulting psychology: telepsychology, multinational and multicultural consulting, and coach- ing. Chapter 5 examines the issues of conflicts that can arise between the APA Ethics Code (2017) and business and organizational ethics, including what to do when encountering unethical and corrupt business practices in an organization. This chapter also reviews consulting psychologists’ legal responsibilities in these situations, particularly under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In Chapter 6, we consider areas not adequately covered by the APA Ethics Code or other existing models and ethics codes. We note that in the rapidly expanding field of consulting psychology, what works and what does not work using existing ethical models may change. In many ways, the ethical practice of consulting psychology involves learning how to think ethically in areas and issues that cannot be anticipated at the present time. Co py ri gh t Am er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu rt he r di st ri bu ti on .