The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology [1 ed.] 9781433828096, 143382809X

Table of contents :
Contents
Series Editor’s Foreword
Introduction
1
Ethical Issues at the Individual Level
2
Ethical Issues at the Group Level
3
Ethical Issues at the Organizational Level
4
Emerging Ethical Issues and Challenges
5
How Organizational and Business Ethics Affect Consulting Psychology Practice
6
Toward More Complex Ethical Models: Unfinished Business
References
Index
About the Authors

Citation preview

The Ethical Practice of

Consulting Psychology

EthicalPracticesTitlePp.indd 1

8/17/17 12:37 PM

Fundamentals of Consulting Psychology Book Series The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology Rodney L. Lowman and Stewart E. Cooper An Introduction to Consulting Psychology: Working With Individuals, Groups, and Organizations Rodney L. Lowman Transcultural Competence: Navigating Cultural Differences in the Global Community Jerry Glover and Harris L. Friedman Using Feedback in Organizational Consulting Jane Brodie Gregory and Paul E. Levy

A PA F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O N S U LT I N G P S YC H O LO G Y

The Ethical Practice of

Consulting Psychology RODNEY L. LOWMAN AND STEWART E. COOPER

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION  •  Washington, DC

EthicalPracticesTitlePp.indd 2

8/17/17 12:37 PM

Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the process of scanning and digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. The opinions and statements published are the responsibility of the authors, and such opinions and statements do not necessarily represent the policies of the American Psychological Association. Published by American Psychological Association 750 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 www.apa.org

APA Order Department P.O. Box 92984 Washington, DC 20090-2984 Phone: (800) 374-2721; Direct: (202) 336-5510 Fax: (202) 336-5502; TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123 Online: www.apa.org/pubs/books E-mail: [email protected]

In the U.K., Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, copies may be ordered from Eurospan Group c/o Pegasus Drive Stratton Business Park Biggleswade Bedfordshire SG18 8TQ United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0) 1767 604972 Fax: +44 (0) 1767 601640 Online: https://www.eurospanbookstore.com/apa E-mail: [email protected] Typeset in Minion by Circle Graphics, Inc., Columbia, MD Printer: Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI Cover Designer: Naylor Design, Washington, DC Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lowman, Rodney L., author. | Cooper, Stewart Edwin, 1953- author. Title: The ethical practice of consulting psychology / Rodney L. Lowman and Stewart E. Cooper. Description: First Edition. | Washington, DC : American Psychological Association, [2018] | Series: Fundamentals of consulting psychology | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017014784 | ISBN 9781433828096 | ISBN 143382809X Subjects: LCSH: Psychology, Industrial. | Organizational sociology. | Business ethics. | Psychology—Moral and ethical aspects. Classification: LCC HF5548.8 .L669 2018 | DDC 158.7—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017014784 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record is available from the British Library. Printed in the United States of America First Edition http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-000 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

To Linda and Marissa (RL) and to Jane (SC) with thanks and appreciation.

Important Notice

T

he statements and opinions published in this book are the responsibility of the authors. Such opinions and statements do not represent official policies, standards, guidelines, or mandates of the American Psychological Association (APA), the APA Ethics Committee or Ethics Office, or any other APA governance group or staff. Statements made in this book neither add to nor reduce requirements of the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017), hereinafter referred to as the APA Ethics Code or the Ethics Code, nor can they be viewed as a definitive source of the meaning of the Ethics Code standards or their application to particular situations. Each ethics committee or other relevant body must interpret and apply the Ethics Code as it believes proper, given all the circumstances of each particular situation. Any information in this book involving legal and ethical issues should not be used as a substitute for obtaining personal legal and/or ethical advice and consultation prior to making decisions regarding individual circumstances.

Contents

Series Editor’s Foreword ix Rodney L. Lowman Introduction 3 1.

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

17

2.

Ethical Issues at the Group Level

37

3.

Ethical Issues at the Organizational Level

57

4.

Emerging Ethical Issues and Challenges

77

5. How Organizational and Business Ethics Affect Consulting Psychology Practice 6.

Toward More Complex Ethical Models: Unfinished Business

97 115

References 137 Index 153 About the Authors

165

vii

Series Editor’s Foreword Rodney L. Lowman

T

he field of consulting psychology has blossomed in recent years. It covers the applications of psychology in consultation to organizations and systems, but also at the individual and team levels. Unfortunately, there are very few graduate training programs in this field of specialization, so consulting psychology roles are mostly populated by those who came to the field after having trained in other areas of psychology— including industrial–organizational (I-O), clinical/counseling, and school psychology. Yet such training is rarely focused on consulting psychology and psychologists, and graduate students have to learn through on-the-job training, reading books and articles, attending conferences and workshops, and being mentored in the foundational competencies of the field as they seek to transition into it. After a number of years of editing Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, the field’s flagship journal, I felt that an additional type of educational product was needed to help those transitioning into consulting psychology. The Society of Consulting Psychology therefore partnered with the American Psychological Association (APA) and worked with an advisory board (initially consisting of Judith Blanton, Dale Fuqua, Skipton Leonard, Edward Pavur, Jr., and myself) to create a new book series describing the specific, fundamental skill sets needed to practice in this area of specialization. Our goal in this book series has been to identify the major competencies needed by consulting psychologists and then to work with qualified authors to create short, accessible but ix

SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD

evidence-based texts that would be useful both as standalone volumes and in combination with one another. The readers would be graduate students in relevant training programs, psychologists planning a transition into consulting psychology, and practicing professionals who want to add to their areas of expertise. What constitute fundamental skills in consulting psychology? The educational guidelines created by the Society of Consulting Psychology and approved by the Guidelines for Education and Training at the Doctoral and Postdoctoral Levels in Consulting Psychology/Organizational Consulting Psychology (APA, 2007) and the Handbook of Organizational Consulting Psychology (hereinafter, Handbook; Lowman, 2002) provide useful starting points. Both of these contributions were organized around the concept of levels (individual, group, and organizational) as a taxonomy for identifying fundamental skills. Within those categories, two broad skill sets are needed: assessment and intervention. As with many areas of psychological practice, the foundational skills that apply in one area may overlap into others in the taxonomy. Interventions with individuals, as in executive coaching for instance, usually take place in the context of the focal client’s work with a specific team and within a specific organization, which itself may also constitute a client. Understanding the systemwide issues and dynamics at the organizational level usually also involves work with specific executives and teams. And multicultural–international issues suffuse all of our roles. The APA Guidelines and the Handbook concluded, properly, that consulting psychologists need to be trained in and have at least foundational skills and experience at the individual, group, and organizational levels, even if they primarily specialize in one of these areas. In inviting you to learn more about consulting psychology through this book series, I hope you will agree that there is no more exciting or inherently interesting area of study today. The series aims not just to cover relevant literature on timeless topics in consulting psychology but also to capture the richness of this work by including case material that illustrates its applications. Readers will soon understand that consulting psychologists are real-world activists, unafraid to work in real-world environments. x

SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD

Finally, as one who trained in both I-O and clinical psychology, I should note that consulting psychology has been the one area in which I have felt that all of my training and skill sets were both welcome and needed. In a world where organizations and the individuals and teams within them greatly need help in functioning effectively; in bridging individual, group, and organization-level needs and constituencies; and in coping with the rapid expansion of knowledge and escalating competition and internationalization, this book series aims to make a difference by helping more psychologists join the ranks of qualified consulting psychologists. Collectively, we can influence not just an area of specialization in psychology, but also the world.

ABOUT THIS BOOK The senior author has published widely on ethical issues in the practice of I-O and consulting psychology (see, e.g., Lefkowitz & Lowman, 2017; Lowman, 2006, 2011a, 2011b, 2013a, 2016b).1 The second author has also published on this topic (Cooper, Newman, & Fuqua, 2012; Cooper & Shullman, 2012). Together, the authors of this book have been training psychologists in ethical practices in consulting psychology for a number of years and together we have written on some of these issues (see, e.g., Cooper & Lowman, in press). In our workshops on consulting psychology ethics, we usually ask participants to submit cases they have encountered in their own practice for confidential discussion. We have always been struck by the breadth of the ethical issues represented in these cases, as well as how deeply professional psychologists consider them. For many participants, this may be one of the few times that they have had the opportunity to discuss these issues with their peers, and it is often cathartic to share what happened and what they did about it. Whenever we discuss ethical issues with consulting psychologists, we are soon confronting the questions that concern multiple levels of practice—individuals, groups, and organizations—and the complexities of who can consent, who is the client, what is the status of the others who Portions of this section were contributed by coauthor Stewart E. Cooper.

1

xi

SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD

are not defined as clients, and what happens when the organization itself is a client. Consulting work is typically done in the context of organizations, which raises questions about whose ethical standards apply—the psychologist’s, the organization’s, or both? We write this book after almost two decades of high-profile corruption in large corporations (see, e.g., Lefkowitz, 2004), making this one of the most ethically challenged periods in business history. We therefore discuss some of the ethics challenges of the first decade of the 21st century and how those have affected organizational expectations and pressures to behave in particular ways and the implications of that for psychologists (see Chapter 5). We also discuss some of the limitations of psychologists’ ethics codes, primarily APA’s (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the APA Ethics Code), when applied to consulting psychology and suggest improvements. This book aims to integrate theory and practice, and we intentionally include a number of cases. This is because, in our experience, it is more effective for people to learn about ethics by thinking about case material. (All case material is fictional but representative of the types of case material we have encountered over the years.) In determining the ethics context in which our cases should be considered, we have mostly used the APA Ethics Code as the criterion against which to evaluate behavior and actions. This is because the APA Ethics Code is among the most advanced psychology codes yet developed. However, we also include other ethics codes when doing so adds value to the discussion and also consider some ethics codes of other professional groups. We hope this book will be valuable to practicing consulting psychologists and those in training. We also hope that the book will find an audience among practicing managers because they also help to determine whether behavior in organizations will be exemplary or challenged.

xii

The Ethical Practice of

Consulting Psychology

EthicalPracticesTitlePp.indd 1

8/17/17 12:37 PM

Introduction

I

magine 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 client 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?

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.

3

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

These cases illustrate the kinds of ethical challenges consulting psychologists encounter when working in organizational contexts. The existing 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 situationally 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 psychodiagnostician, as psychotherapist, as school psychologist, as consultant to business, 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 individual 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 psychologists’ work in consulting contexts. One such case noted: An industrial psychologist with long experience discovered empirically a method of selecting certain types of executive ability of great 4

INTRODUCTION

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 scrutiny. 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 professional 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 Psychological 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 inappropriate. Speaking for the company, Seashore maintained that the use of well-validated personnel tests was one of the best ways to prevent discrimination, 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, identifying ethical responsibilities to groups, organizations, and to society. Sutich (1944) articulated several principles about consulting and clinical relationships centered on the premise of “democratic” (vs. autocratic) relationships. As formal ethics codes have evolved over the years since the initial formalized code of the APA, they have increased in sophistication and complexity (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 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.

1

5

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

(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 Organizations, 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 provide 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 individuals 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 situations and concerns that arise when psychology is applied in work and organizational 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. 6

INTRODUCTION

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 77 77 77 77 77 77

informed consent, confidentiality, multiple relationships, conflicts of interest, competence, research-science and evidence-based practice, and 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 performance, 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), 7

8

Levels Individual Group Organizational

Informed Consent

Multiple Confidentiality Relationships

Conflicts of Interest

Evidence-Based Competence Practice

Figure 1 Consulting levels and illustrative ethical issues in assessment and intervention activities.

Business and Psychology Conflicts

e

sm

ses

As

Int

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Ethical Issues

nt

on

nti

e erv

INTRODUCTION

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 intervening 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 grouplevel 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 9

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

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 workrelated 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 sufficient 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, evaluations, or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental 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 organizations that are judged “too big to fail”; small, family-owned organizations 10

INTRODUCTION

that are composed mainly of those related to the owners; ones in government 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 people 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 direction and resource allocation, so there are political elements as well. Assessment at the organizational level is usually complicated, especially 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 consulting 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 capacities, 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 11

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

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 organizations 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 temptation 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 professional 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) 12

INTRODUCTION

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 relationships 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 psychological 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 primary 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.

13

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Case Discussion We have not kept track of the responses of participants in ethics training and workshops, but most frame the issue in terms of how the psychologist 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’ obligations as stated in Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational 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 psychologist’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”; confrontation or going over a manager’s head may at times be required. Consulting 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 likelihood 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. 14

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK 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 provide guidelines for avoiding and solving ethical dilemmas in these and later chapters with case examples that illustrate real-life scenarios that consulting 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 coaching. 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.

15

1

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

T

his chapter discusses ethical issues faced by consulting psychologists who work at the individual level. We recognize that the separation of the professional activities of consulting psychologists into three levels can be artificial, but we still find it useful to focus on each of these levels separately. Here is a working description of what constitutes consulting work at the individual level: “Consulting psychologists working at the individual level address two primary roles: (a) career and work-related assessments and (b) interventions with individuals to assist them with work-related issues” (Lowman, 2016b, p. 21).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-002 The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, by R. L. Lowman and S. E. Cooper Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

17

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

COMPETENCY CONCERNS Ethics Case 1.1: What Kind of Psychologist Are You? The following case illustrates the complexity of individual-level work and the psychologist’s roles in the context of an organization. A psychologist trained in clinical psychology who had expanded his practice to executive coaching was working on an individual coaching assignment with a manager. The organization paid the fees for the coaching. The terms of engagement specified that the consulting psychologist would report monthly to the employee’s manager about attendance and progress made in the coaching sessions. Soon into the sessions, which focused mostly on the employee’s engagement and somewhat variable performance at work, it became clear to the psychologist that the employee was suffering from diagnosable depression. In discussing a possible referral for treatment of the depression, the employee denied that she was experiencing depression and declined the recommended referral. It seemed likely to the psychologist that the employee was not going to improve in her work performance without addressing the depression, which was work-related. Should the psychologist report this information to the organization? Case Discussion In general, a dually trained psychologist (in this case, clinical and organizational psychology) must make clear his or her specific role in working with clients. Being trained as a clinical psychologist suggests competence in diagnosis of clinical depression but sheds no light on the appropriateness of using that skill set when working in the organizational consulting context. However, having the skill puts the psychologist in a dilemma. Assessing depression may be important when the work issues derive from the depression (see Lowman, 1993; J. C. Thomas & Hersen, 2002; J. Wang et al., 2010). It may also be important to rule out depression that does not yet affect the work role but that threatens the client’s well-being. Whether the consulting psychologist or a clinical–counseling psychologist with relevant expertise should conduct this assessment must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, when the consulting psychologist does not 18

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

have clinical skills, it is still important to know enough about depression to refer the employee for further assessment and consultation. In some cases, however, depression is circumscribed and derived from the work issue. When the work issue is addressed, the depression typically lifts or is ameliorated. Therefore, there is no reason to insist that the work issues should be postponed until the depression has been treated. In fact, the opposite approach would likely be the most efficacious path to take for both the client’s performance at work and personal well-being. One ethical issue raised by this case is professional competence. The American Psychological Association (APA, 2017) addresses this in Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, Sections (a) and (c): (a) Psychologists provide services, teach and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience. ... (c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques, or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation or study.

CONFIDENTIALITY Issues of confidentiality arise when third parties who are involved in a psychologist’s work at the individual level have agreed-upon rights to data and information about employees. Clearly, ethically complicated issues arise when there are obligations to report progress being made in interventions but the information affecting the case may be sensitive and health related. As much as possible, such issues should be anticipated in advance of the engagement and the rules of engagement established in a mutually agreed upon way at the outset. Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, provides guidance on this. 19

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Ethics Case 1.2: “I Thought You Said This Was Confidential?” An internal consultant (one employed rather than externally contracted by an organization) was working with Chris, a senior manager in a large corporation’s headquarters. The manager had been referred to the coach because his performance was inconsistent. The company was a very hierarchical one with considerable power held at the top. The CEO was known for his intimidating style. A physically large man in his 50s, he usually got his way. He and other staff engaged in long and tortuous fights with many heated discussions on the (infrequent) occasions when he did not get his way. The psychologist–coach was a staff (vs. line) employee and worked in the Human Resources (HR) department, a function not well respected by those in senior management. As part of his role he attended some of the senior staff meetings and was asked to provide process feedback. At the end of one such meeting, when the psychologist would normally debrief the CEO about his leadership style and its impact on the group dynamics, the CEO confronted the coaching psychologist after others had left the room and asked, “Do you recommend that we retain Chris?” Caught by surprise, and already trying to formulate some difficult feedback for the high-level boss, the psychologist blurted out: “I think Chris is making good progress in the coaching but I’m not sure what his upside potential is.” “Thanks,” the CEO replied, “that supports our decision to terminate him.” Immediately after saying what he did, the psychologist regretted his response. He tried to walk back his statement, but it was too late, and any further comments were brushed aside as the CEO moved to the business purposes of the meeting. The next day the psychologist met with Chris as part of their regular coaching session. Feeling guilty about what had transpired the previous day with the CEO, he felt compelled to share with him what happened. Without mentioning that the CEO intended to fire Chris, the coaching psychologist acknowledged that the CEO had asked him for his opinion about Chris and that he had responded that he was making good progress. He left out the part about not being sure of his potential. 20

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

Chris asked why he had talked with the CEO about their supposedly confidential sessions, and the psychologist acknowledged that he was caught off guard and probably should not have said anything. The rest of that day’s session seemed strained. Two weeks later Chris was terminated. Case Discussion This case illustrates some of the realities of delivering psychological services in a corporate environment. Power and authority are facts of life in business organizations, and persons in powerful positions have rights and assumed power that can be quite intimidating. Therefore, this work is not for the faint of heart. The psychologist does not cease being a psychologist simply because of the venue of practice. Reviewing the APA (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code), we find a number of concerns are raised about the psychologist’s behavior. First is the question of confidentiality. Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality Psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable precautions to protect confidential information obtained through or stored in any medium, recognizing that the extent and limits of confidentiality may be regulated by law or established by institutional rules or professional or scientific relationship. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.) Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality (a) Psychologists discuss with persons (including, to the extent feasible, persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent and their legal representatives) and organizations with whom they establish a scientific or professional relationship (1) the relevant limits of confidentiality and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their psychological activities. (See also Standard 3.10, Informed Consent.)

The consulting psychologist in the case example promised confidentiality to Chris (the person being coached) except for brief reports to his 21

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

boss. There was no mention in the reported confidentiality aspects of informed consent that referenced exceptions or institutional rules that might govern these issues. The psychologist had no authority to speak to the CEO concerning the case, no matter how demanding that individual might be. Having breached confidentiality, the psychologist attempted to fix the breach but did so in a less-than-honest way. He provided partial feedback, implying that his recommendation was positive, and this was deceptive. Although the APA Ethics Code does not directly address this matter in its ethical standards, Principle C: Integrity is relevant.1 Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty and truthfulness in the science, teaching and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists do not steal, cheat or engage in fraud, subterfuge or intentional misrepresentation of fact. Psychologists strive to keep their promises and to avoid unwise or unclear commitments. In situations in which deception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefits and minimize harm, psychologists have a serious obligation to consider the need for, the possible consequences of, and their responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects that arise from the use of such techniques. (APA, 2017)

Ethics Case 1.2 (Revised): “I Thought You Said This Was Confidential?” Let’s rewrite the case described in the preceding section to demonstrate an alternative approach to the scenario, picking up the narrative from the moment of the CEO’s inquiry about Chris’s progress. The psychologist was caught off guard by the question but quickly thought back to his coaching arrangement, remembering that the consent form that Chris had signed only gave the psychologist permission to share with management whether the coaching sessions were being attended and a brief summary of the issues being worked on. The psychologist paused, 1

Ethics principles in the APA (2017) Ethics Code are not enforceable, but they can guide ethical decisionmaking.

22

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

looked directly in the eyes of the CEO, and said, “Sir, the terms of my work stipulate that our sessions are confidential except for brief reporting of attendance and issues being worked on to his direct supervisor (not the CEO).” To this the CEO replied, “Well, we’re trying to decide whether or not to terminate him and I believe we’ve just decided to do so. And that,” he said “is also confidential.” The next day the psychologist met with the manager as part of their regular coaching sessions. Feeling guilty about what had transpired the previous day with the CEO, he felt compelled to share with the client what had happened, leaving out the part about being terminated. He indicated that the CEO had asked him for feedback and he told the CEO the terms of their engagement and that he could not share any information about the coaching sessions except as had been agreed. They went on to discuss other matters. Two weeks later Chris was terminated. (Revised) Case Discussion In the revised case, the psychologist maintained appropriate boundaries with the confidential information. This was in keeping with Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands, which makes clear that the psychologist must identify a conflict when it occurs and attempt to resolve it in a manner consistent with the code (see p. 14 in the Introduction, Standard 1.03). Because, in the revised case, the CEO had made clear that the information he had indelicately stated about the planned termination was confidential, the psychologist was correct not to disclose it. This is in keeping with the Ethic Code standards on confidentiality and with Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands (see p. 14 in the Introduction, Standard 1.03) which addresses what psychologists should do when there is a conflict with the requirements of an organization and their ethical responsibilities. In this case, however, the psychologist also had duties deriving from his roles as both an employee of the CEO’s organization and as a consultant to the CEO. It is possible that the CEO made the termination decision in anger and on the spot in response to the psychologist’s refusal to share information. The CEO was not the direct supervisor of the manager and 23

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

would therefore not normally be the one to have made the decision to terminate. Additionally, the CEO might need a face-saving way to back away from his statement if it were made impetuously. With these issues in mind, the psychologist might have pursued the discussion with the CEO about the planned termination to ensure that the CEO had appropriately considered all options including the implications of becoming involved with terminations of staff who were not his direct reports. This would be a difficult conversation and one in which the coaching client (Chris) could not be specifically discussed by the psychologist. However, given the dual relationship responsibilities to both Chris and the CEO, some follow-up response might be appropriate. For example, the psychologist might have said, “I’m sorry if I upset you with what I said, but professional ethics keep me from disclosure. May I, however, ask you a question or two about your decision?” If the CEO allowed that conversation to proceed, the psychologist might then ask, “Are you sure that termination is the only option at this time?” “How does Chris’s direct supervisor feel about termination?” “If you proceed with terminating Chris, do you have a plan in place for getting his work done?” “Are there specific things he would need to change for you to be satisfied with his work?” Such questions, if made with the authentic goal of being helpful, might have raised relevant issues without challenging the executive’s authority. Such questions are process-oriented, not taking a stand on whether the coaching client should or should not be retained. Other ethical approaches would also be possible. This case also illustrates the complexities of multiple relationships in consulting work. The psychologist had a dual relationship with the coaching client, Chris; with Chris’s supervisor; and (indirectly) with the CEO of the organization. This situation is addressed in two sections in Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships, Sections (a) (see p. 12, this volume) and Section (b), which states (b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code. (APA, 2017) 24

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

WHO IS AT RISK? The next case addresses individual level assessment and notes that individual level ethical concerns occur in situations also raising group and organizational level ones.

Ethics Case 1.3: Assessment for Selection Has Individual Level Consequences A psychologist developed a selection measure that was then used by the company, along with an interview, as the basis for selecting applicants. The test was normed using the top performers in the company (about 25 people); they happened to all be from the same race and gender. The test consisted of 15 items of personality and a series of five items meant to assess intelligence. The psychologist subsequently left the organization to work in a consulting firm, and the test continued to be used under the supervision of personnel who were not trained in psychometrics. The test’s usage was expanded to include candidates for promotions as well as new hires. Despite considerable griping about “that bloody test,” it continued to be used. The net result of using this test was that White males were favored in selection in part because gender-specific and race-specific norms were used despite very small samples in the normative base. As the company grew, complaints were filed by minorities and women. Over time, a class action suit was filed against the company; the test was thrown out and the company was fined. Case Discussion Several APA Ethics Code standards apply to this case, including Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, Section (a): (a) Psychologists provide services, teach and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience. (APA, 2017) 25

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm (a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/ patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. (APA, 2017)

and Standard 9.02, Use of Assessments (a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques. (b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation. (APA, 2017)

The creation of psychological tests for use in assessment is a complicated undertaking requiring specialized expertise (see, e.g., Farr & Tippins, 2017). Test construction requires sophisticated expertise in planning, designing, and validating tests. Consulting psychologists may or may not have that expertise, and if they don’t, they would be practicing outside their areas of expertise. The psychologist in this case did not competently perform the validation work suggesting issues of competency (Standard 2.01). The test was poorly designed, incorrectly normed, and had little evidence on the validity of the intended inferences (Standard 9.02). Insufficient protections were built into the use of the measure, and when the psychologist left the organization the test was administered by people who had not had sufficient training. What may be lost in the process is that psychological testing can affect people’s lives as well as the health and well-being of an organization. It is not unusual to hear organizational psychologists state that the APA Ethics Code does not apply to their work (“if an organization is stupid enough to hire an incompetent psychologist, that’s their problem”). In other words, 26

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

the public, the intended group being protected from harm by psychologists’ licensing laws and standards, is not at risk. This is not true; poorly designed tests that are used for purposes of selection or promotion can harm individuals who are unfairly denied opportunities on the basis of those test results (Standards 9.05, Test Construction, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results). Applicants who were misclassified and who were not selected on the basis of the test results can experience harm. Applicants who were selected when they should not have been can cause harm to the organization. Applicants who took the test and believed, correctly, that the results were unfair may harbor a negative perception of the value of testing, which can be considered a negative outcome. And finally the company was harmed by the class action lawsuit. For psychologists, accuracy in test development and use is an ethical responsibility (see APA Ethics Standard 9.05, Test Construction [APA, 2017]). Psychologists who develop tests have an ethical responsibility to each test user and test taker for whom decisions will be made partially or entirely on the basis of the test results. Those interpreting tests similarly have ethical responsibilities (Standard 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results).

INDIVIDUAL VERSUS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS: THE TANGLED WEB Consulting psychology applications can be complicated, and work with individuals may cross into the organizational level in ways that are unanticipated. Psychologists have knowledge that can be highly useful, but rarely is technical language the most helpful way to present it. Consulting psychologists often have to accurately translate complicated psychological concepts into verbiage that others, typically managers and leaders, can understand. The following case is illustrative. Ethics Case 1.4: When Bosses Change . . . and Technology Intervenes One of the realities of organizational life is turnover among staff. A psychologist may have a very strong relationship of mutual respect and support with his or her manager, only to find that the manager is replaced by 27

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

one who has a high need to control others and to use authority and power in aggressive ways to assert control. In the case of one corporation, a consulting psychologist had been coaching employees of the company on a contractual basis for a number of years. The usual and customary procedures were for the managers in the various departments who wanted an employee to have coaching services to authorize the services and then for the individual client to contact the psychologist directly to obtain assessments. The psychologist had a very informal relationship with the relevant vice president (VP) out of whose budgets the coaching services came. When coaching services were needed, a supervising manager could contact the coach directly to make the referral. The coaching psychologist, with the consent of the person being coached, provided a brief summary on a quarterly basis of the progress made against major goals of the coaching that had been agreed to by the employee on the recommendation of the employee’s boss. The psychologist’s VP contact retired, and a new one was appointed. The new VP came from another corporation and was a supporter of the coaching program but was under pressure to reduce costs. She identified a new software system that would manage the coaching program and promised to lower the costs. The system was designed as an integrated one in that the employee’s objectives, outcomes, progress notes, ratings, and financial management were kept in the same system. With the new technology, the coaching’s effectiveness could be measured against business objectives, and process research could also help to identify which coaches were the most effective. Coaches were assured that the data in the new system, including confidential information about the coaching client’s issues and progress notes, would be protected. However, non­ professionals had access to the data, and when analyses were completed those coaches with the lowest outcome results, as judged by the degree of goal attainment by the coachee’s ratings of goal attainment, were terminated. Case Discussion As a contractor of professional services, an organization has a legitimate need to assess and manage a consulting program. Most business organizations are concerned about cost–benefit ratios in all of their programs, and 28

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

it is often an essential part of day-to-day applications. On the other hand, consulting psychologists also have ethical obligations to assure that promises made are kept and that participants in consulting services have their rights and obligations defined up front (see Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations). In this case, the psychologist would have been well advised to meet with the new VP at the time of the transition. The psychologist could have reviewed the existing procedures and tried to understand the goals of the new VP and how those might affect the coaching program. This may have facilitated a later discussion with the VP when the decision was made to acquire and use the new software. At that time the conditions of the coaching engagements could be reviewed with the VP, together with the need to protect confidential information and to assure that adequate precautions were taken to avoid compromising data. To the extent that outcome data were legitimately important to the company, the transition into that new system would require careful management. Existing obligations would need to be honored. Collecting sensitive psychological information such as progress notes and ratings of goal achievement in the same system as objectives and billing information, however, raises a number of concerns. Who would have access to the information? How would the data be analyzed and by whom? Would identities of participants be kept protected by use of a special number or identity-disguising method? What protections are there for protecting the system from hacking or other possible compromises to the data? Raising such issues in a problem-solving approach with the VP would be more useful than having to deal with them in a confrontational way when a problem arises. Moreover, the psychologist has an ethical obligation to bring up the relevant issues. If asked to do something against the psychologist’s ethical obligations, the obligation ethically is to confront, and to attempt to resolve, those issues. This is identified in Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands. The next case scenario illustrates what many professionals would rather not be reminded of too frequently: mistakes will be made. Elaborate systems and expectations are established in any profession to create professional standards of behavior and mechanisms to deal with 29

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

problematic behavior. Yet despite years of rigorous training, oversight boards, and severe consequences, errors occur. Whether in aviation, medicine, engineering, or psychology, professionals must recognize and attempt to minimize, and minimize the consequences of, professional errors.

TO ERR IS HUMAN—WHAT THEN? Ethics Case 1.5: Whoops! A leadership assessment of a candidate for a company position was conducted and one of three candidates was selected. The consulting psychologist was then asked to provide feedback on the assessment findings to the successful candidate in order to assist with his onboarding. In reviewing the information for the feedback, the psychologist discovered that a mistake had been made in reporting the score on the sole measure of intelligence, one of the key predictors of success (see, e.g., Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Salgado, 2010). The candidate’s score was in fact under the minimal cut scores for what the company considered acceptable. The psychologist decided to leave the results as they were and not to reveal the error to his colleagues. In the feedback session the new hire was encouraged to seek out help when needed on complex projects. Case Discussion Mistakes happen, but in high-stakes assessment they should occur as rarely as possible. Clearly, the consequences of the scoring error were consequential. This was true for higher scoring individuals who might have been chosen instead of the chosen candidate; the company, which was misled; and the “successful” candidate who would not otherwise have been selected and may be at risk for failure on the job. Significantly compounding the ethical error, the psychologist lied, by omission, about the error that occurred. It is one thing to make mistakes; it is another to consciously pretend they did not happen. The psychologist had the obligation first to determine why a particular mistake occurred. Was this a clerical error or one generated by a computer-scoring program? 30

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

Were there sufficient checks and balances built into scoring procedures to avoid scoring errors? Or was the score correct and incorrectly transferred to the report? Discovering the error should have set in motion a serious review of procedures. What should be done when a consequential error occurred, one that would have resulted in a different decision having been made? If a different selection decision would have been made had the correct score been reported, the psychologist had obligations to the client organization and to the person assessed to reveal the error so that all parties could determine a suitable response. There are no painless remedies in this case. Learning of the mistake, the company’s confidence in its new hire might be undermined. It had already invested considerable money in the new hire (e.g., relocation fees). It might choose to terminate the hire based solely on the knowledge, cutting its losses and moving on. This could, however, potentially result in litigation since the psychologist was acting as an agent of the employer, and applicants had the reasonable expectation that in consenting to the assessment, appropriate tests would be used, and they would be properly administered and interpreted. Similarly, the employee may be performing well on the job, so a decision to terminate based on a predictor rather than on actual job performance once on the job could be problematic. It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which lying would be an ethical option. The organization’s representatives must be told about the error, so that they are able to contribute to the choices to be made. The company might have access to information other than the test results that would lend confidence to the choice made. It is possible that in hiring the individual, the company had placed more stock in the behavioral evidence than in the assessment results. Perhaps it could work closely with the individual to compensate for areas of apparent weakness. The individual assessed and selected also had the right to a corrected copy of the report and to understand that an error was made. The low cognitive score also needs to be considered in the context of other test scores 31

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

and of work history. Possibly the test could be re-administered without charge. The psychologist could also suggest ways in which a relative deficit might be able to be compensated for. For example, by selecting by choosing subordinates with strengths in the manager’s areas of relative weakness the team as a whole might be effective.

A CHANGE OF DIRECTION It is not unusual for psychologists trained in mental health or healthrelated areas to transition into consultation roles unrelated to their original training. Although movement into nonclinical/health psychology by psychologists without appropriate training might become a concern of licensing boards and trigger ethical charges, the transitions into consulting work are often less monitored than transitions in the other direction. Yet there are many risks to improper transitions into consulting roles as this case illustrates. Ethics Case 1.6: Coaching Competence A psychologist whose work had primarily been in clinical psychology had expanded her practice to include work-related coaching. Until that point she had worked primarily in an inpatient unit for persons experiencing serious mental illness. Over time, she became somewhat burnt out from this work and had begun transitioning to outpatient practice with less disturbed clients such as those with milder forms of depression. Based in a large metropolitan area, she noticed that many of her clients discussed work issues—problems with supervisors, dissatisfaction with their salaries, issues in work conflicts between spouses on work–family roles. She attended a few conferences on organizational consultation but focused mostly on individual psychological interpretations of issues raised in psychotherapy. She then wrote a popular book on the “ominous parallels” between family-of-origin dynamics and those in the workplace and changed her practice to focus exclusively on work and career issues. 32

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

Her usual approach was to examine the similarities between what went on in a person’s family growing up and the problems now being experienced in the workplace. In some cases, this was a seminal issue for clients and the work went well. For others, the approach did not seem to be relevant and they dropped out of the coaching without experiencing much benefit. Case Discussion This case raises important questions about the nature of coaching and how it differs from psychotherapy. Vandaveer, Lowman, Pearlman, and Brannick (2016) examined the question empirically with samples of industrial-organizational and consulting psychologists who practiced coaching psychology. They provided the following operationalized or working definition of coaching: An area of professional practice and research within psychology, coaching psychology is an individualized process of professional development in which a psychologist works with individuals oneon-one, and sometimes in a broader context, to help them enhance their effectiveness in their organizational roles and environments. Grounded in scientifically established psychological theories, principles, frameworks, and methods, coaching psychology is designed to benefit both the individual and the organization. Qualified coaching psychologists have a graduate degree in a psychology discipline from an accredited university plus relevant postgraduate qualifications, and they regularly undertake relevant continuing professional development. (Vandaveer et al., 2016, p. 122)

It would not appear that the psychologist in this case did much to requalify herself for an area of specialization that was new to her. Standard 2.01, Boundaries Competence, Section (c) of the Ethics Code (APA, 2017) addresses this. The psychologist might have argued that coaching and coaching psychology are both relatively new areas of practice and therefore standards do not yet exist for training or practice. Although this is certainly the case when comparing coaching with other areas of practice within psychology, 33

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

there is a growing and emerging literature on coaching and coaching psychology, and it was the psychologist’s ethical obligation to become familiar with that work (see, e.g., Lowman, 2013a, 2016c; Passmore, Peterson, & Freire, 2013). Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments, addresses this: Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline . . . (APA, 2017)

Concerning questions of the psychologist’s competence in this new area following Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, is relevant: (e) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and others from harm. (APA, 2017)

It might also be argued that the psychologist was not practicing psychology when engaging in coaching. In such a case, she should not have presented herself as “the coaching psychologist” and would have had to make clear in what context she was practicing. Thus, a psychologist may also be a nurse, a real estate agent, or a physician, but he or she must make clear to the client in which capacity he or she is functioning. Finally, the psychologist might have contended that she was limiting her coaching practice to cases in which her particular model of transference was relevant. There are indeed many roles in which clinical psychologists have made use of their clinical skills and training in business and other organizations (see Lowman, 2016a, for a summary). However, those boundaries would have been laid out and had some basis (e.g., research literature) for determining how to select those cases that fit this paradigm and to reject those that do not. Consulting psychology is an area of practice with its own research base and guidelines. Just as health and mental health psychologists would object to individuals establishing a health or mental health practice if they lack focused training, consulting psychologists, too, operate within similar 34

Ethical Issues at the Individual Level

ethical parameters. When one is consulting in one’s own area of specialization and only the consulting applications are new, there is less cause for ethical concern. However, when one is consulting in a new area of practice, all the usual parameters of moving to new areas of specialization of psychological practice apply. This chapter has identified and discussed a number of ethical challenges for consulting psychologists working with individuals. Chapter 2 focuses on ethical issues that arise for consulting psychologists when working at the group or team and intergroup (between groups) levels.

35

2

Ethical Issues at the Group Level

G

roups (a term we will use interchangeably with teams) are the agents of much of an organization’s work. Employees in an organization will most likely work as part of a team or work group in their day-to-day activities. This means that they are part of a group of people with a shared purpose. In matrix organizations (Galbraith, 2008), employees may be part of several work groups. Lowman (2016b) identified norms, roles, leadership, boundaries, and composition as important components of work groups. Some ethical issues have distinctive features when raised in connection with groups. These include confidentiality and privacy, implied or actual requirements for involvement in assessment and intervention work, protection of individuals from job-related or personal harm from other individuals or the group, undue influence of the consultant’s values, multi­cultural competence, use of assessment and intervention methods valid at the group level, and defining and coaching for competencies needed to be effective in team-level work. Associated issues of malpractice and liability also emerge in group-level

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-003 The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, by R. L. Lowman and S. E. Cooper Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

37

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

consultation work. Each of these group-level ethical concerns are explored in this chapter and illustrated with case examples.

SOME TYPICAL GROUP CONSULTATION METHODS To provide context for understanding the most typical ethical conundrums at the group level, it is helpful to know some of the consultation methods commonly applied in and between teams and groups. Human process strategies include issues of how people communicate, solve problems, make decisions, interact, and lead. As implemented at the group and intergroup level, these interventions include third-party interventions, team building, organizational mirroring, and intergroup relations interventions (Cummings & Worley, 2015). Third-party interventions (McLean, 2006) involve a process in which a consultant assists two parties confront one another using established conflict resolution techniques. In team building (Hackman, 2011), the consultant serves as a facilitator and collaborator to analyze selected issues and to develop a plan to address them. In organizational mirroring (McLean, 2006), the consultant facilitates a dialogue in which a group targeted for change receives feedback from other groups to enhance its functioning, including reducing conflict among members of the group and with other groups with which it interacts. Perhaps in a way analogous to individual openness or defensiveness, groups that are open to receiving and using feedback are often able to make productive changes (George, 2013; see also Gregory & Levy, 2015). Intergroup relations training seeks to enhance the functioning between and across groups (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013). Human resources management (HRM) strategies at the group level often focus on how to attract competent people, set goals and rewards, and plan and develop people. HRM tools that can be applied at the team level include goal setting (Tammemagi, O’Hora, & Maglieri, 2013), performance appraisal (Brown & Heywood, 2005), reward systems (Henagan, 2010), and workplace diversity interventions (Alhejji, Garavan, Carbery, O’Brien, & McGuire, 2016). The group rather than individuals are the unit of focus and analysis. Group-level strategic interventions are designed to help the team or group gain clarity of mission, vision, and goals specific to the unit. Strategic techniques that teams can use at this level include unit-focused strategic 38

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

planning (Choonhaklai & Wangkanond, 2014), creation of self-designing teams (Kuipers & Stoker, 2009), and team learning and knowledge management (M.-H. Wang & Yang, 2016). Group-level structural interventions are used to help the group analyze the ongoing methods it uses to accomplish tasks and respond to external issues. Structural strategies focus on how to divide labor among the team, coordinate effectively within and across groups or departments, and design team-based work. The cases described in the following section provide examples of the kinds of ethical issues that can arise at the group level. Ethics Case 2.1: Should Person– Group Fit Be Prioritized in Selection? A new organizational initiative involved assessing and hiring individuals based on their goodness-of-fit with the team they would be joining. Team members as a group conducted interviews with each candidate, after which each member had an equal vote in the decision to hire or reject the candidate. Candidates had to receive at least 75% of yes votes to be hired, and the vote of the team was considered final. Based on legal and other considerations, a new system designed by a psychologist replaced the team vote approach and was based on a personality assessment. The applicant’s match to the group average on work-related personality measures among existing employees was used as the basis for hiring. Those with optimal fits across five major personality dimensions (the so-called Big Five) of the group were hired; those whose profiles were more distal were not. Rejected candidates were not informed that they were being rejected on the basis of their personality “fit.” The system did not take into account adverse impact of the measure on protected classes. Nor was productivity of the group measured at the individual level as data on the correlation of person fit to team output was not available. Case Discussion: Was This Approach Ethical? The goal of industrial–organizational psychology is to ensure that selection techniques are reliable and valid for their intended inferences. To the extent that the described approach was formally validated against job-related 39

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

outcomes, the practice might have been defensible. But an important question concerns whether the practice adversely affected the employment opportunities of protected classes. In the United States, selection methodologies are required not to disadvantage protected classes such as women, defined minorities, individuals older than age 40, and so on. The case also raises complicated technical issues that have ethical implications. Team cohesion is an important mediator or outcome variable to the extent it is associated with positive workplace outcomes such as effectiveness and efficiency. Some types of work are more dependent on team outcomes than on individual efforts, and many rely on both. A literature on team selection is emerging (see, e.g., Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). To rely solely on the fit of applicants to the group as the criterion for selection should be carefully considered in light of two factors: available evidence of the strength of this connection to desired outcomes, and the sacrifice of other potentially more important individual level predictors. Additionally, the transition from the old to the new approach would require careful consideration as to how best to minimize possible adverse reactions to the new procedures that might be experienced by the team members.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND INFORMED CONSENT What are some of the key ethical concerns of consulting at the group level? Competence in working with groups is essential (J. T. Thomas, 2010). Dougherty (2015) cited several skill sets essential for group-level consultation including managing conflict within a group, facilitating concrete and specific communications among group members, linking the comments of one group member to pertinent comments of others, and sensing and using group dynamics to help groups meet their goals. Gaining the knowledge and skills to successfully work with groups typically takes a combination of education and supervised practice (Corey, 2016). Consultants who do not possess these key knowledge, skills, and attitudes may be ineffectual or even damaging. Maintaining confidentiality and respecting client privacy can be much more challenging for consultants working with groups rather than individuals (Newman, Robinson-Kurpius, & Fuqua, 2002). Unlike individual consultation or coaching, consultants who assess and work with groups 40

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

cannot guarantee confidentiality for anyone in the group except themselves (J. T. Thomas, 2010). Corey (2016) suggested that group facilitators can increase the likelihood of confidentiality being upheld by group members by providing a written statement up front, taking the time needed to discuss it, and periodically reminding group members of the need to maintain it. Informed consent and confidentiality in group-level interventions are related in that the latter is typically covered through the informed consent process (Dougherty, 2015). For example, details about confidentiality and any limits on it particular to the consultancy are often included as part of a written informed consent process and then discussed with the team receiving the consultation with additional opportunities for discussion with individuals. Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, of the APA (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as Ethics Code) has relevance for consultation at the group and intergroup levels. It requires that psychologists who deliver services to or through organizations specify the terms of engagement including the nature of the services and how they affect each of the parties involved (APA, 2017). This suggests that when consulting with teams or groups, all the members need to know the nature and uses of the team level assessments and interventions. However, in practice, team members may not really be able to choose not to participate due to implied pressure on career impact concerns; if so, this needs to be clarified at the outset either in writing or orally, and a process should be developed for direct interaction of the consultant with the team members to discuss this. If group members are required to participate in a team building activity, the consultant needs to discuss with the organizational client what happens if someone in a team does not wish to do so. At times, however, perceived needs of the group may outweigh the preferences of individual group members. This may be associated with coercion for involvement and is not uncommon for group-level interventions (Lowman, 2016b). Ethics Case 2.2: Making the Implicit Explicit A consulting psychologist was contracted to assist the executive team of a nonprofit organization. The team was well functioning in general but had added several new additional members in recent years. The consultant first met 41

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

with the leadership team to describe the upcoming team building exercise and to answer questions about it. Using a “gold and coal” exercise (V. V. Vandaveer, personal communication, May 15, 2012), team members were asked to identify the assets they bring to the group (the “gold”) and the areas where they need help from group members (the “coal”). As each person presented, the other members of the team were invited to add to the list of gold and to express if and how they could help with the coal. No written or oral informed consent for participation had been obtained, but consent was assumed to be in place since no one objected when invited to ask questions. The consultant later sent a document summarizing by name each member’s “gold and coal” so that all could see how their assessment of their skills and shortcomings compared with those of the other members of the team. One month later, and as part of the planned follow up, the consultant sent an e-mail to all participants and invited them to share reactions to the team-building exercise; participants were asked how they used the information they gathered about themselves and their team members, and they were requested to “reply to all” on their e-mailed responses. In reply, two members of the group privately objected that their information, which they thought was private, had been shared with the rest of the group and the larger leadership team. Case Discussion Confidentiality concerning personal information that can emerge from team-level interventions is essential but not absolute; in work groups, confidentiality can be very challenging or perhaps even unrealistic to request. There is an increased risk of breach of confidentiality when team members engage in both task-focused and personal interactions (and sometimes outside of work as well). Strong informal subgroups within the team are the norm rather than the exception (Corey, 2016). Informed consent should include ground rules regarding team members’ communications (at the workplace and outside the workplace) about the team or intergroup intervention with others. Informed consent as to the specific details (e.g., nature of the assessments or interventions to be used) involved in the consultation is also required. 42

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

In the case described in the preceding section, the consulting psychologist should have spent time in the initial meeting to review the specific details of the working session including what would be done with the information collected, who would receive it and in what format. Facilitating a discussion of possible problems and challenges with confidentiality should take place as part of a conversation between consultant and the group. The upset that emerged at the end of this process may have been preventable. Obtaining informed consent in writing may not be legally required but typically is a good idea. In a group consultation, rather than having each participant sign a form, a written summary by the consultant can memorialize the terms of engagement and serve as a reminder to participants of their mutual obligations to one another and the consultant’s obligations to group members. In addition, the consultant should discuss the terms of engagement with the participants and obtain oral consent to the ground rules and other terms of the project. The consultant could also make clear that information generated in the project was solely for the use of the leadership team and not to be otherwise shared. A full informed consent discussion would have included this point. In this case, the expectation of follow-up contact to discuss utilization of the information generated and how that would take place was not introduced in the initial contracting. The consultant also had not taken adequate steps to use informed consent to work out confidentiality concerns and matters.

Other Group Consent Issues Consider a team that has participated in a company-required diversity education program that involved use of role plays. A member of the team took pictures of one of the role plays and placed it on Facebook along with a less than positive comment about a team member who had been involved in a role play. This posting is then forwarded to others. Nothing had been said about maintaining confidentiality of information that might have emerged from the training. 43

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

A relevant ethics standard is 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality: (a) Psychologists discuss with persons (including, to the extent feasible, persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent and their legal representatives) and organizations with whom they establish a scientific or professional relationship (1) the relevant limits of confidentiality and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their psychological activities. . . . (b) . . . the discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant. (APA, 2017)

The psychologist should reasonably have considered and discussed both the rules of confidentiality and potential breaches to confidentiality that might occur in a group intervention. No one can anticipate all possible breaches, but participants could be asked to agree to a rule that no social media comments or postings about the training should be made. When the social media posting occurred it could have been dealt with in the group and with the individual. Depending on the particular consulting project, informed consent should include addressing the rules and expectations with respect to social media confidentiality expectations. Talking explicitly in the consent process about not posting online comments about the group, its members, or its activities. Because there might be a legitimate need to share experiences with team members and others, the consultant should educate members about how to do so in an appropriate way. A member of the team may want to describe a positive application of the work so may send out a group text message to the leadership team. Identifying both appropriate and problematic examples as teaching techniques in an interactive discussion is well suited to adult learners.

AVOIDANCE OF HARM Protecting individuals and groups from harm is an ethical concern for consultants who work with groups (Dougherty, 2015). Unlike individual therapy, with its focus on repairing the effects of emotional damage, the 44

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

harm that can occur in work settings can take various forms, such as occupational harm (e.g., not being promoted, being demoted, or being fired; team dissolution). Fuqua, Newman, Simpson, and Choi (2012) noted that people are affected by the consultation in various ways because of the very different levels of power in the organization that people have. Because the decisions made by those who have greater positional power often have large effects on those with less power, consultants are in a position to positively influence senior managers. As Newman et al. (2002) noted, consultants have an opportunity to promote virtuous behavior of leaders, not just to discuss ways to avoid harm. Fuqua and Newman (2009) advocated that consultants have a responsibility to help their clients balance a focus on organizational effectiveness with consideration of the welfare of employees and those whom the organization touches. As noted earlier, consultation whose focus is group- or intergrouplevel interventions may, at times, not be perceived to be in the best interests of group members or may even cause harm to them. Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm, addresses the need for “avoiding harm” (vs. the often misquoted “do no harm”). The inclusion of organizational clients in Standard 3.04 was deliberately made in the 2002 revision of the Ethics Code with the language “to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.” There are times, however, in consulting with groups and teams when actions that are perceived to be harmful to an individual may be necessary or unavoidable parts of organizational work. For example, promotion of a leader from within the team or selection of group members to be downsized may at best minimize, but not eliminate, harm. Ethics Case 2.3: No Choice but to Participate The CEO of a small engineering firm was interested in using a positively oriented healthy personality assessment to help members of a team learn about each other and the team as a whole. The CEO contracted with a consulting psychologist to use a well-validated inventory designed to assess normal personality. One of the members of the team privately expressed to the consultant that he was very reluctant to complete the inventory 45

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

because he had been fired from a previous job after taking another “personality” survey; he was worried that the same thing might happen again. The consultant shared this information with the CEO without identifying the specific source, and they discussed the option of excluding the team member from the intervention. Although this would have removed the immediate tension, doing so might also weaken the purpose of the assessment and feedback for the whole team. With the permission of the CEO, the consultant explored the individual’s concerns. The team member was reassured that the intention of the assessment was solely for team building purposes and voluntarily agreed to participate. Case Discussion A relevant standard in this case is Standard 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments: (a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evaluations or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental 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); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to evaluate decisional capacity. Informed consent includes an explanation of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees, involvement of third parties and limits of confidentiality and sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers. (APA, 2017)

In this case, the purpose of the assessment was for development, not selection. Obtaining informed consent was desirable because the assessment was not undertaken as part of a “routine” employment activity. An employee’s concern about coercion emerged through the consultant’s pursuing an informed consent process. Ethical concerns may emerge even in carefully planned consultations. When the employee’s concern emerged, the relevant issue was protection of the employee. Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm addresses this. 46

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/ patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. (APA, 2017)

There are many ways that participants in group activities may perceive that harm has occurred to them. In the preceding case, the consultant’s determination to avoid harm motivated his decision to speak directly with the employee and to consult with the company’s senior leader to address the reluctant participant’s concerns and to increase the needed level of engagement to meet the goals of the work. Although the aspirational principles of the APA Ethics Code are not directly enforceable, they still may provide additional guidance to consultants. Kilburg (2016) argued that because of the complexity of consulting in organizations, particularly at the more complex groups and systems levels, aspirational principles may be useful in informing decisions about general applied work such as consultation. The nature of the pressure/ requirement within organizations to participate in such interventions can run counter to Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, especially self-determination. Issues arise when the needs of the organization and team are made subordinate to those of the individual. In such contexts, consideration of the ethics standard on avoidance of harm to both individuals and to those in groups may be helpful. Ethics Case 2.4: Team Interventions: Not All Are Winners Because of team performance concerns in one of the units over which he had oversight, a vice president (VP) hired a consulting psychologist to provide consultation to the members of the unit on successfully functioning as a team. The consultant provided education and training information on the “five essentials of a successful team”: psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning of work, and impact of work. These were based on interviews with more than 200 employees, conducted by Google’s People Operations (human resources) team (Rozovsky, 2015); the consultant used the information verbatim and did little other work such as literature review or impact assessment. 47

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Participation in the intervention session was mandatory, and the tension in the room was palpable. Few members actively participated in the exercise, and a few of those who did asked pointed questions about how this material was supposed to help their team. Because team members were unhappy with this intervention, the consultant subsequently conducted a focus group to elicit feedback from the unit members for the unit leader. The role of the focus group leader (the psychologist) was to be one of listening and process facilitation rather than training. The atmosphere in this focus group was very strained and a number of complaints were voiced in the session about the team leader, some of the team members, and the company. Themes that were specific to the team and the team’s leader were identified, and the psychologist provided a series of mandatory group coaching sessions that included the team’s leader and also held individual coaching sessions with the team leader. The coaching was supposed to address the problems identified in the focus group. The psychologist had arranged at the outset of the consultation that the team leader would be the one to convey information about the progress of the consultation to the VP who had arranged the consulting. The team leader told the psychologist that the VP was being provided regular updates. The consultant later learned that this leader appeared to be engaging in retaliatory actions toward several members of the team who were perceived as having been critical of the team leader. The affected members did not mention this information in the group coaching sessions for fear of further reprisals against them. The interactions among the team members became so conflictual that two of the members of the team transferred to other departments within the organization. Case Discussion In this case, Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm, was arguably violated. Staff careers were adversely affected by the team leader’s misuse of the information. Efforts were made to avoid this but they were not successful. Other issues were also raised in this case. The competence of the psychologist to do this work was not clear. She jumped too early into the education and training intervention without taking the time to do an adequate diagnosis of the needs of the unit (G. N. McLean, 2006). To enter into a tense, difficult situation already known to 48

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

have problems with a simple “five steps to an effective team” approach was problematic in that none of the major issues were approached directly in this didactic approach. The consultant should instead first have assessed the microenvironment and then used a number of tools (e.g., interviews, brief surveys, observations of interactions) prior to initiating the consultancy (Gutkin, 2012). After the initial intervention failed, it was unlikely that the consultant could play the role of a neutral facilitator, especially in light of the failure of relationship building. These shortcomings raised concerns about the consultant’s competence. The consultant went on to assume a third role—coach—and was simultaneously the coach to both the team and the team’s leader, which raised issues of possible inappropriate multiple relationships (Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships) and potential conflicts of interest. Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest, states: Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation. (APA, 2017)

The consulting psychologist also did not take adequate steps to prevent the possibility that the team leader would retaliate against group members. The initial decision to have the team leader provide feedback to the VP on the progress of the coaching may or may not have been a good one. But as the psychologist became (or should have become) aware of the serious tensions between the team and its leader, she should have acted to change responsibility for that role to herself, and the participants in the coaching should have been given information about the revised reporting arrangement to the team leader’s supervisor. Had the consultant also done a more careful screening of the team followed by a careful implementation of contracting as set by Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, the consultant might have helped lessen the possibility of retribution but would 49

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

not necessarily have avoided or stopped it altogether. A thorough assessment up front would have included determining whether team members were likely to experience retaliation. Creating conditions in which group members could share their concerns as the interventions progressed might have mediated the seemingly abusive behavior as soon as it appeared.

MULTICULTURAL AND INTERNATIONAL ISSUES Another ethical issue more likely to arise in groups occurs when the membership is culturally diverse and the consultant’s values conflict with the values of the group as a whole or with group members. Conflicts could arise because of differences in worldviews such as time orientation (e.g., the team and its individual members’ orientation towards punctuality and certainty of time vs. approximation and flexibility of time) or value of relationships versus task accomplishments; differences in views of organizations such as hierarchy versus formally structured; and differences in views of the client system such as disagreements about causes of problems or solutions to them (Cooper & Lowman, in press; Cooper & Shullman, 2012). Consultants must be diligent and mindful of such value conflicts both to develop better working relationships with the teams and groups with whom they are working and to avoid being culturally myopic (Cooper & Leong, 2008; Lowman, 2016a). Multicultural competence is closely associated with values. Each group has its own culture, and each individual within the group his or her own cultural context (Ingraham, 2008); a multicultural approach is one that gives weight to the cultural context of the organization and of the likely cultural adaptations needed for individuals or the team based on cultural influences. This diversity in the workplace is becoming a critical issue for most groups (Sue, 2008). Language patterns, learning styles, and ways of interacting are influenced by culture, and cultural differences among team members and the consultant will affect group dynamics. Knowledge of and respect for cultural heritage and worldviews is essential for success in consultation with groups (D’Andrea & Heckman, 2008). Consultants often need to adjust their level on the expert–facilitator continuum due to general cultural expectations of group (Cooper, Newman, & Fuqua, 2012). 50

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

Multicultural issues in contemporary consulting go beyond the U.S.-centric ones that form the basis for much of the literature. Lowman (2013a) showed how each of the many major diversity categories (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and the like) need to be enriched and elaborated to account for globalization. For example, cultural expectations for Latinos of Caribbean background differ in important ways from those of South American background. This is particularly true for consulting psychology since modern business teams are commonly composed of members from around the world or consist of teams based in multiple countries. Cultural competence has greatly advanced as it tackles such contextual complexity. Consulting psychologists do well to deliberately develop their cultural competencies (Kilburg, 2016). Doing so involves reflecting on their experiences, soliciting feedback on their skills, and seeking supervision of their consulting work. Ethics Case 2.5: Cultural Competence in One Place Is not Cultural Competence in Every Place A consulting psychologist who was educated and lived in the United States and who had expertise in the use of action learning (Leonard & Marquardt, 2010) was hired to assist the leadership teams in a multinational corporation in the development of total quality control improvement processes. Action learning is an approach to solving real problems that involves teams taking action and reflecting upon the results, which helps improve the problemsolving process as well as the solutions developed by the team. The action learning process is founded on a commitment to action and benefits from diverse perspective on the team. In this consultancy, the action learning process was selected as the intervention it was seen as a good means to enhance the group’s quality improvement processes. The psychologist was flown to Asia to work with the leadership teams working in the company’s China offices. At the start of the 5-day training with an assembled group of teams, the consultant (trained in industrialorganizational psychology) immediately outlined the tasks to be accomplished as well as the schedule, which included only half hour lunches. Lunch breaks were kept short so that the consultant could shorten the 51

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

length of the business part of his trip; he had arranged to do some touring since this was a first time in this part of the world. The training did not go well. Employees participated reluctantly and spent most of their time texting or calling others outside of the workshop. There was little engagement within or across teams. The consultant confessed to another consulting colleague that he was perplexed and frustrated because he had used this same training structure successfully with organizations in both the U.S. and Germany. Case Discussion It is important for consultants to understand their cultural values and to challenge their biases and stereotypes. In this case, the consultant had some international experience in working in Germany, and although Germany’s culture and his own share many similarities, they are very different from what would be typical of work cultures in Asia. One relevant ethics standard is Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, Section (a), and especially Sections (b) and (c): (b) Where scientific or professional knowledge in the discipline of psychology establishes that an understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language or socioeconomic status is essential for effective implementation of their services or research, psychologists have or obtain the training, experience, consultation or supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their services, or they make appropriate referrals, except as provided in Standard 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies. (c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation or study. (APA, 2017)

Transcending personal cultural bias and avoiding imposing personal worldviews on clients is often difficult when there are major differences within, and possibly between team members. To the extent possible, it is 52

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

helpful to align the values of the group process with the cultural values of the team members. The consultant should have prepared himself for work in the Asian culture. For example, he might have undertaken education and training or obtained supervision in working within an Asian cultural context. Had he done so, he would have paid much more attention to building a relationship with the members of the teams prior to attempting to focus on the work that was needed and would have recognized the need for the team members to have non–task-focused time to connect with each other and family. In addition to following the Ethics Code, the consultant might have consulted other references, such as the Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (APA, 2003; see Chapter 4, Section II), which are relevant to ensuring good practice when working in a culturally diverse setting. Other resources (e.g., Cooper & Leong, 2008; Lowman, 2013b, 2016b) also offer valuable guidance to consultants who are engaged in consultation with multicultural teams and in international aspects. Consultants committed to obtaining cross-cultural competence engage in an ongoing process of self-awareness and learning about others (Stuart, 2004). This continuous education requires a keen curiosity, a disposition of flexibility, and a belief that each culture has positive features (Moule, 2012).

SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION The need to use valid evidence-based procedures raises ethical considerations at the group and intergroup levels. Although research on assessments and interventions at this level are more limited than for other psychologically informed activities such as psychotherapy, studies do exist and some outcomes are known. Outcome research at the group level is particularly difficult because random assignment of groups to conditions is difficult in real-world applications. Quasi-experimental research designs (Trochim, Donnelly, & Arora, 2016) have been commonly used; 53

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

they include longitudinal measurement, a comparison unit, and statistical analysis. Gibson and Froehle (1991) presented a meta-analysis of organizational interventions that have received support, several of which were at the group level.

Ethics Case 2.6: Not So Valid Assessment An external consulting psychologist introduced a new appraisal system to be used for an organization’s team development efforts. The consulting firm for which the consultant worked held proprietary interest in the system, which was advertised on the company’s website and in aggressive marketing as being highly useful in developing work teams. The assessment system involved collecting 360-degree sources of data on 10 team performance and interpersonal indices based on Likert ratings of five questions on each dimension that appeared to relate to that area. However, when a manager from the company requested a copy of the instrument’s technical manual, the company sent a three-page summary, primarily comprising marketing material; no technical manual had yet been developed. The assessment system was generic and intended to be used by any organization. Little evidence of the reliability and validity of the measure for its intended inferences was available. Additionally, there was nothing in the system that allowed it to be customized to the specific objectives of an organization. The consulting psychologist advised the primary organizational contact that the purpose of the appraisal system was to identify areas for team development with pre-set suggestions given if the scores on a scale are moderate and another set of suggestions if the scores are low on the index. The consultant noted that the scores were best used solely for team and team leader development and should not be considered to be sufficient or even appropriate for evaluating team leader performance. When the organization experienced falling sales, the upper level leadership decided to cut staff and to use team outcomes and assessment scores as the basis for deciding which team leaders to let go. Employees who received the lowest ratings were terminated from employment. 54

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE GROUP LEVEL

In one case, an entire small team was eliminated in part based on the results of the assessment. In all, 20 team leaders and team members were terminated. Seven of these individuals subsequently sued the organization for wrongful termination. Evidence from the assessment was obtained by the plaintiffs in the discovery process. Several problems with the measure were identified. For example, some raters gave consistently lower scores than others, and many of the areas of rating were irrelevant to the duties associated with the positions of those who had been terminated. Case Discussion The first set of ethical concerns in the work that the consulting psychologist did involves issues in assessment. Standard 9.01, Bases for Assessments, states: (a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (APA, 2017)

The appraisal system that the consulting firm developed, marketed, and employed had not undergone the necessary validation studies needed to match the company’s advertising rhetoric. Standard 9.02, Use of Assessments, Section (a) also has relevance to this case. It states: (a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques. (APA, 2017)

Prior to implementing the use of the assessment system, there should have been more evidence for the validity of the inferences intended to be made by it. Of further concern in this case was that the assessment was English based and a number of those on the team spoke English as a second language. Standard 9.02, Sections (b) and (c) have relevance. 55

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

. . . (b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation. (c) Psychologists use assessment methods that are appropriate to an individual’s language preference and competence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to the assessment issues. (APA, 2017)

In this case, it was not the psychologist who was misusing the results of the assessment for purposes of performance evaluation and termination. Indeed, the psychologist argued that the test should not be used in this manner. Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists’ Work, is relevant in this regard. If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation. (APA, 2017)

The consulting psychologist appropriately advised the company representatives not to use the assessment results for team leader or team evaluation. When it became apparent that the company was going to do so anyway, the obligation to avoid misusing the psychologist’s work became even more important. The psychologist could have called meetings with higher level managers, HR staff, and/or legal representatives of the company to identify the likely consequences of the actions being planned. If no compromise approach could be worked out the psychologist might well want to put his concerns in writing and strongly advise the organization not to proceed with this plan. As this chapter has illustrated, much organizational functioning occurs at the group/team level. This chapter has identified commonly occurring ethical issues at the group level. Examples of ethical standards covered in the chapter include confidentiality, informed consent, avoidance of harm, cultural competency, and scientific basis for assessment and intervention were covered. Commonly encountered and best practices were illustrated.

56

3

Ethical Issues at the Organizational Level

C

onsulting at the organizational level can lead to many positive outcomes both for the organization and the groups and individuals within them, but complicated ethical questions can arise as well. For example, there is the question of who can give consent for organizational-level coaching (size matters: unless the company is very small, the organization’s board or CEO will seldom be involved in the consent process unless for consultation related to the board or upper executive level). Furthermore, tension between individuals, groups, and organizations regarding consent and participation is common in organizational consulting because participants in change or assessment projects differ in their perceived need and readiness to effect change. To illustrate this tension, consider that an organizationwide survey is usually agreed to be undertaken by an upper organizational-level manager but that employees at lower levels may consider it to be a waste of their time and energy or fear misuse of the results. Can employee participation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-004 The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, by R. L. Lowman and S. E. Cooper Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

57

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

ethically be made mandatory? How are data fed back at the group and individual levels without compromising individual identities? And what makes an organizational-level assessment or intervention consulting psychology and not something else? This chapter first addresses ethical issues at the organizational level conceptually and then through presentation and discussion of several cases. To provide context for understanding the most typical ethical conundrums at the systems level, it is helpful to know some of the types of consultation methods psychologists use at this level and the main ethical concerns that have been discussed in the literature. Ethical issues are involved in the selection and implementation of organizationwide assessments and interventions. Organizational-level interventions are based on the premise that organizational (system)-level change, because it is often based on an understanding of the structure and processes of the organization, is likely to be more powerful and longer lasting than individual- or group-level change (Lowman, 2016a, 2016b). In consulting at the organizational level, competing interests are common, and balancing them across different units and levels of the organizations can be a challenge for both the consulting psychologist and the employee. Commonly employed systemwide consultation methods include survey feedback/action research (G. N. McLean, 2006), total quality management (TQM) and its offshoot Six Sigma (e.g., David & Strang, 2006), capacity building (e.g., Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010), strategic planning (Demers, 2007), and large-group interventions (which are designed to help people collaborate effectively by thinking and acting from a wholesystems perspective; Mohrman, 2002; Worley, Mohrman, & Nevitt, 2011). Cummings and Worley (2015) described other approaches that consulting psychologists are likely to employ in their work at the organizational level. Psychologically trained consultants working at the systems level may focus on human process techniques such as organizational confrontation meeting and intergroup relations interventions. Human resources management (HRM) strategies such as reward systems, workplace diversity interventions, and workplace stress and wellness interventions are also common. Consulting psychologists are also called in to assist organizations with strategic planning. Some typical tools that are used include 58

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

integrated strategic change, organizational design, culture change, organizational learning and knowledge management, merger and acquisition integration, strategic alliance interventions, and network interventions (Carter & Sullivan, 2013; Cummings & Worley, 2015). Examples of structural techniques at the systems level include organizational reengineering (Pellicelli, Meo, & Cioffi, 2012), parallel structures (Sørensen & Mattsson, 2016), total quality management (C´wiklicki, 2016), high-involvement organizations (O’Neill, Feldman, Vandenberg, DeJoy, & Wilson, 2011), and work design (Tripp, Riemenschneider, & Thatcher, 2016). Some common ethical issues identified in the Introduction to this volume—informed consent, confidentiality, multiple relationships, conflicts of interest, and competence—are directly relevant to consultation assessment and intervention at the organization consultation level but with twists due to the complexities and multiple constituencies involved. They are discussed in this section.

COMPETENCE How consulting psychologists can become competent to work at the organizational level is an important factor to consider for those transitioning into consulting. Cooper and Lowman (in press), Cooper, Newman, and Fuqua (2012), Cooper and Shullman (2012), and Lowman (2016b), among others, have called attention to the problems that arise with obtaining and demonstrating consulting competencies. As of this writing, there are not many doctoral programs in consultation and only a few isolated program concentrations or specializations in consulting psychology. Most doctoral programs accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) in those areas include only minor curricular attention to consultation. Based on returns from a question sent out to the program directors at all of the APA-accredited doctoral programs in counseling psychology, most programs relegate coverage of consultation to a small part of a course which also includes topics such as clinical supervision and program planning (Cooper & Shullman, 2012). Although there are exceptions, most programs in industrial–organizational or business psychology typically do not require coursework in consultation. If offered, it is an elective among 59

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

other offerings. Furthermore, consulting psychology is not an APArecognized specialty or proficiency at present, and few formal learning structures are available for most consulting psychology practitioners. Thus, it is often up to professional psychologists moving into this practice area to obtain the requisite education, supervised experience, and peer consultation needed to have the competencies this complicated work requires. The ethical course of action for those with limited or no experience in consulting psychology would be to complete a formalized training program in this area, including supervised experience in the new area of practice. Such a stance is congruent with the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code, 2017) Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, Section (c): (c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation or study. (APA, 2017)

Standard 2.01, Section (e) also has relevance. (e) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and others from harm. (APA, 2017)

In the case of organizational or systems-level interventions, establishing competences are particularly a challenge. Few training programs in psychology focus on that level, and internship or postdoctoral opportunities may be limited. Yet learning about systems-level thinking in the context of organizations is necessary. One option for those whose training opportunities do not include this level would be to apprentice with someone working in this area and to consider doing organizational/systemic work with smaller and perhaps not-for-profit small companies. The following two cases explore ethical issues in interventions taking place at the systems level. The first case emphasizes confidentiality. 60

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

Ethics Case 3.1: Who Should Be at the Table? A consulting psychology firm was brought in to assist a business billing services company as part of an ongoing strategic planning process. The consultation firm first met with the members of the executive leadership team, and once the basic parameters had been worked through and an initial product developed by a work team assembled for that purpose, the team was assisted in developing a plan to roll out an interactive group-based discussion process to obtain feedback about each component of the plan from diverse constituencies. The consultants ended their contact at this time prior to the commencement of the group conversations. The components of the plan consisted of the development of vision and mission statements, core principles, and a number of primary areas with objectives and subobjectives. Two areas of tension emerged concerning this strategic planning process, the first early on when the consultants were engaged with the organization. There was disagreement and discord within the organization as to who should sit at the table for the initial drafting of the plan. Those not involved in the writing believed their voices were not heard or valued; that once excluded, always excluded; and that those who were on the work group would have undue influence and would build their areas into the plan favorably. After the consultants had left, it informally came to their attention that many in the organization had felt that the group meetings were perfunctory and that feedback offered would not be taken seriously. Moreover, the facilitation skills of the leaders of these small discussion groups reportedly varied greatly. Toward the end of the first year, the consultants were informed that conflict had emerged as to who would be involved in the annual review, revision of the plan, and the extent to which various constituencies would provide feedback. Case Discussion Consultants can offer value-added services by assisting organizations to consider ethics and morality in their decisions. In this case, strategic planning was the main driver in moving the company forward and 61

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

would be a key determiner of the firm’s resource allocations. When resources are limited, tensions between various subsystems and units of the organization are likely to increase. The consultants assisting with the strategic planning expertise could help the organization develop processes that would be viewed as fair and reasonable. The combination of strategic planning offering numerous times and venues for input and getting back to the persons making the suggestions would seem likely to contribute to higher engagement in the development process and buy in by those most affected. A good plan and solid process typically assist those in the organization align the overall organizational goals with identified objectives. In this case, the consultants should have assisted the organization in thinking through the support needed to increase the likelihood of success of the strategic planning. The probability of success would have been higher had the consultants provided facilitator training to those leading the group discussions or done the facilitation themselves. Additionally, the involvement of the consultants, at least to some degree, during the implementation phase could have helped to address the individual and organizational resistance that emerged.

INFORMED CONSENT Newman, Robinson-Kurpius, and Fuqua (2002) described the challenges of informed consent when conducting systems-level consultation, particularly in compliance elicitation. They strongly advised consultants to employ a process rather than a legalistic approach to obtaining informed consent from all parties involved, one that involves ongoing dialogue. They also addressed challenges to confidentiality in consultation with organizations, which are often closely associated with informed consent. They argued that constraints commonly exist in maintaining confidentiality in organizational-level consultation and that genuine dialogue and effort are required to minimize the likelihood of misuse of information, especially subsequent to the consultation engagement. 62

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

The good will and principled behavior of many are needed to maintain confidentiality. Clients have personal or professional reasons to keep their information confidential, and psychologists have an ethical obligation to honor their privacy. But other members of the organization only have social and peer pressure to maintain information about others that is uncovered during the organizational consultation process. Consultants must develop support for confidentiality and remind employees frequently about its importance. This is similar to the challenge to maintain confidentiality in any applied work involving more than one person. Many of the same processes can be employed to lessen the likelihood that confidentiality will be breached, such as having individual and group discussions, adding specific confidentiality language to informed consent, and soliciting suggestions from others on protecting sensitive information (Newman et al., 2002). The naturally occurring power differentials that exist in virtually every organization are sources for confidentiality concerns because there may be payoffs to individuals or groups to make confidential information about other individuals or groups more public. Issues about confidentiality exist when consulting psychologists intervene at the individual level and the group level but are much larger when interventions are organizational (Lowman, 2016a, 2016b). The following case illustrates both competence and informed consent issues. Ethics Case 3.2: Survey Mischief When its workforce became much more diverse, a state government organization contracted with a consulting psychologist to assess the organizational climate of several branches of the government to identify areas for improvement or remediation. The employees were informed that their responses to the survey would be anonymous but that completing the inventory was good for the development of the organization and would therefore be mandatory. Employees were informed that a tracking system would be used to assure total participation. They received reminder e-mails and then 63

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

in-person messages from their supervisors until they completed the task. The survey was constructed as a series of Likert scale items intended to assess culture dimensions the literature had identified as being important in establishing a good multicultural climate. Rather than using a previously validated and studied tool, the psychologist took the major constructs from the literature, reviewed existing measures, and wrote new items. A work group reviewed all items for any problems. The psychologist had recommended gathering preliminary psychometric data from a sample of employees. However, budget constraints prevented psychometric testing of the survey. The survey was administered and a 50% response rate was obtained. Some employees complained that they were being forced to participate, and some of the employees’ unions advised their members not to participate. The consultant met several times with the work group to go over the survey results. At the first meeting, the consultant focused on interpretations of and reactions to the findings. The second meeting consisted of a facilitated conversation about possible action steps that the organization could take to improve the diversity-related climate. The third meeting, taken after an e-poll of the various alternatives that were considered, focused on developing implementation strategies for the highest rated action steps. When this was complete, the consultation was concluded and the employees were left to carry through the implementation on their own. Case Discussion A number of ethical issues are raised by this case. Some of the most important work in an organizational survey occurs in its planning stages. In this case errors of omission and commission could have been avoided. It would have been preferable to set up an advisory group to help plan the project. Even then, however, the psychologist would still have needed to set the terms about what was and was not acceptable professionally. In this case, the survey was developed from scratch despite the availability of many well-validated measures of the constructs to be measured. The APA Ethics Code addresses this issue explicitly in Standard 9.05, Test Construction. 64

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

Psychologists who develop tests and other assessment techniques use appropriate psychometric procedures and current scientific or professional knowledge for test design, standardization, validation, reduction or elimination of bias and recommendations for use. (APA, 2017)

In this case, the use of a nonvalidated instrument was problematic. Because there was no funding to insert and validate the new measure, an existing off-the-shelf measure that had already been validated for the intended inferences should have been used. A preliminary version of an unvalidated survey should not have been employed when the intent was to validly measure constructs. The psychologist should also have employed better test development processes to create items. The consultant attempted to gain survey data without informed consent and without giving employees the option to not participate. It would have been much more effective to have engaged with employees’ representatives before administering the survey. The consultant knew that employees were represented by unions, and it was foolish not to consult with union leaders before the survey was administered. As it turned out, the unions advised their members not to participate, and the sample response was half of what (naively) had been sought. Additionally, sending the survey request and reminders through the employees’ immediate supervisor may have implied that the supervisor would have access to the data and may have implied mandated participation. Was the psychologist obligated to assure that informed consent was obtained from participants? Standard 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments, is applicable. (a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evaluations, or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental 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); . . . Informed consent includes an explanation of 65

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees, involvement of third parties and limits of confidentiality and sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers. (APA, 2017)

We would argue that obtaining informed consent may not have been required by the Ethics Code if the sole purpose of the data collection effort had been to gather data for interpretation and use at the organizational level. However, we would still maintain that an explanation should have been included about the purpose of the data collection, the issue of anonymity, the identification of nonresponders (if applicable), and the consequences of nonparticipation. The psychologist should also have advised that the request for the survey data should not have come from the individual supervisor under the described circumstances but rather from the advisory team, the head of the organizations, or some central government agency. This would have lessened the fear of adverse consequences by those who might expect a penalty for not responding or for what they reported in the survey.

MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS Cooper and Lowman (in press), Cooper, Newman, and Fuqua (2012), and Lowman (2016a, 2016b) noted that multiple relationships are common in organizational-level assessment and intervention work. Managers who initiate the request for the consultation may already have a professional or personal relationship with the consultant through prior work or professional connections or through connections in the community. Such relationships may or may not constitute multiple relationships, but it is important to carefully consider how the prior contact may influence attitudes, perceptions, and points of view, sometimes in subtle ways. Additionally, the culture of doing consultation often involves meeting in diverse settings (including over meals and at social events) and sharing more personally than what would be acceptable or productive for psycho­ therapy (Lowman, 2013a). A key tool to managing multiple relationships (and managing them rather than avoiding them is the usual need in organizational consulting; see Lowman, 2016b) is the use of the consultant’s professional judgment. Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships, was written 66

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

with the needs of consulting psychologists being a key concern (Celia Fisher, personal communication, September, 1999) and addresses some of these concerns.

BARTERING Major books on ethics (e.g., Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2013; Pope & Vasquez, 2016) and on ethics in organizational psychology (e.g., Lefkowitz, 2008; Lowman, 2006) include coverage of the ethical issues of bartering as a means of payment for services. Given that some organizational consultation takes place with business organizations, it is likely that parties engaged in consulting work experience situations that include bartering. For example, an organization, especially a young and struggling one, might offer to pay a consulting psychologist in stock shares rather than money. Would this type of bartering arrangement be ethically acceptable? An ethical concern about bartering is that the economic self-interest of the consultant might interfere with what is best for the client or the client system. Such a concern can exist with individual- and group-level consultation, but because of the larger number of individuals involved, it may be more problematic when engaged in organizational consultation as the interests of the consultant are more likely to be at cross purposes with the interest of more clients. If, for example, a psychologist were to be paid in stock shares that might either be worth nothing or a high payout for the consultant, that situation, reasonably, might be expected to cloud judgment. Standard 6.05, Barter With Clients/Patients, states: Barter is the acceptance of goods, services, or other nonmonetary remuneration from clients/patients in return for psychological services. Psychologists may barter only if (1) it is not clinically contraindicated, and (2) the resulting arrangement is not exploitative. (APA, 2017)

This APA ethics standard is not written broadly—what does “clinically contraindicated” mean in the context of consulting to organizations? “Exploitative” is a limited type of problem that can arise in bartering situations. It could be argued that the conflict of interest standards better address 67

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

multiple forms of conflict but we believe they should be integrated into a broader revised version of this standard. Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2013) commented that psychologists should never instigate a barter arrangement. Such a position is based on an acknowledgment of the power differentials between therapist and client in psychotherapy, which might make it difficult for the client to refuse. In organizational consultation, however, the power differential is limited, and so such a practice may not be counterindicated. Clarifications of this ethics standard as applied to organizational consultation should be considered when the Ethics Code is next revised.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST Bartering often raises conflict-of-interest issues. In organizational-level consultation work, one common conflict of interest occurs when a psychologist tries to sell the client more services than are needed. Another common conflict of interest emerges when psychologists recommend their own assessment instruments, when in fact others might be better instruments (Lowman, 2016b). Such economic self-service is (by no means exclusive to psychologists) should be guarded against. An informed client might take the time to research various options, but many clients trust the consultant to have their best interests at heart. Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest, gets at this. Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation. (APA, 2017)

The following case illustrates aspects of each of these three ethical concerns. Ethics Case 3.3: Stock Options, Relatives, and Secret Deals Success Consultants Inc., a mid-size consulting firm, was primarily staffed by psychologists. A regional firm, it worked mostly with for-profit corporations. The head of the firm, a psychologist by training, was close friends 68

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

with the CEO of an automotive parts–related manufacturer. Some of the consulting firm’s employees worked for the company. The company had lost a major contract because of poor quality control. Defective parts had caused brake problems for a number of customers and led to a class action lawsuit against the firm. The CEOs of the consulting firm and the manufacturing company discussed the difficult options, and then the consultant suggested that downsizing seemed to be the best immediately available option. The company CEO agreed. The consultant proposed that as part of the consultation fee, the psychologist consultant would receive stock options in the company in lieu of cash. Because of the current market conditions and the industry, the company’s being better off after the downsizing would likely result in a high payout for the consultant if the company were able to turn itself around. The two agreed that the consulting psychologist would not reveal anything about the stock options being part of the compensation. The consulting psychologist assembled a team to work with the company. Part of the work involved creating a plan to determine which employees should be terminated and the amounts of their payouts. The head of the consulting team, a friend of the CEO, revealed the identities of his relatives who worked at the company to members of his consulting team and suggested that although no favoritism should be shown, he hoped that his relatives were not among those who would be terminated. As part of the consulting team’s work with the company officials to develop and implement the reduction in force process, a decision had to be made about the size of the layoff. They discussed the pros and cons of various layoff options: It might be better for workplace morale to let fewer employees go, but doing so might make the immediate financial picture less attractive to stock investors. Company stock might not increase as much as it would with a larger layoff, at least for an extended period of time. The head of the consulting firm exerted pressure on the team to recommend that they advocate for laying off the highest number of employees being considered. His stated reason to them was that it is better to not underestimate such matters. He did not inform them of his stock option arrangement. None of his five relatives who worked with the company lost their jobs. 69

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Case Discussion There are several issues of ethical concern in this case. The first concerns the multiple relationships of the chief consultant. By informing the team of his relatives working in the organization and by applying pressure on them to show favoritism toward the relatives, the psychologist’s objectivity was compromised. Standard 3.05 prohibits multiple relationships when objective judgment is likely to be impaired. In this case, there were two multiple relationships: the friendship of the consultant and the CEO of the manufacturing company and the relatives working for the company. The “secret deal” with a stock option along with the recommendation, if less than a command, to “look out for” the relatives, both suggest that judgment was clouded and the multiple relationships should have been avoided. Another issue is the direct conflict of interest that the head consultant has allowed to be created by his allowing part of the compensation be tied to future corporate profits when there would likely be a connection between the total number of employees terminated and the upcoming financial picture for the organization. Bartering, in and of itself, is not ethically wrong (Standard 6.05), but in this case bartering was ethically unacceptable because of the CEO’s relationships with some employees. The effect of the layoffs on the stock options should not have been discussed. Additionally, the secrecy about including stock options as part of the compensation package was problematic. Had it been known, the consultation team might have questioned the instructions they received to push for a large layoff. Both the multiple relationships and barter issues point to a clear conflict of interest that impaired professional judgment. There was no real discussion about what went wrong in the organization to cause the legal problems it was experiencing. A class action lawsuit is a serious event. Questions of quality control were not addressed even though they were at least as important as managing the layoffs that resulted from the poor quality control. Questions are raised about the consultant’s competence. The consultant might have been blinded by conflicts of interest and so focused only on the layoffs without considering the broader organizational issues. 70

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

LEADERSHIP MATTERS Much of the work done by consulting psychologists in organizations involves interacting with those in leadership roles. As a result, the psychologist can be put in complicated situations. On the one hand, the consulting psychologist’s expertise can be quite useful in understanding complex behavioral problems that can affect the entire organization. On the other hand, care must be taken to use the psychologist’s knowledge in a way that does not result in potential misuse of the psychologist’s expertise. Ethics Case 3.4: All That Glitters Is Not Gold A nationally prominent CEO, beloved by many in the organization, had come to the attention of a consulting psychologist based on complaints that had been received from some of his subordinates of inappropriate and generally disruptive behavior. He was brought into the organization as a “star” whose lectures and inspiring books on leadership were legendary and wildly popular. Although he had held high-level positions, including as CEO, in several corporations before coming to the current one, he rarely stayed long. In his present company the board of directors were generally pleased with the company’s performance; his direct reports were less enthusiastic, and there had been a fair amount of turnover among them. At work he was a popular figure to those who did not work with him directly, and his frequent “inspirational talks” to employees were wellreceived. The trouble for direct reports was that the content of his messages did not match his behavior. Although in his popular writings the CEO had written extensively about organizational engagement and commitment to the organization, in his own behavior he was frequently absent, dis­ engaged, and more focused on his upcoming lectures than on the well-being of the company. He did not seem to understand that people were dependent on his input and performance and that his absences affected morale. Because the CEO was mercurial, alternating between effusive support and quick-tempered flare-ups, his direct reports were reluctant to bring things up unless they perceived that he was in a good mood. After things 71

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

worsened, the consulting psychologist was called in by the board to assess the low morale of the leadership team and the declining performance of the company. It soon became apparent that the self-focused behavior and bloated self-confidence of the CEO masked an inability to lead a team of senior executives. In the psychologist’s interview with the CEO, held at the request of the board, the CEO appeared to have little idea of how to get out of the mess he was in. He attacked his direct reports, blamed the recent problems on them, and reacted aggressively when the issue of his frequent absences was raised. The psychologist shared with the board his assessment of the situation. He noted that the turnover among the senior managers would likely continue and that in his opinion the CEO was the problem and had a narcissistic personality disorder that made it difficult for him to see the world through others’ eyes, including the employees. The psychologist noted that personality disorders were very difficult to treat, and he doubted that the CEO’s personality would easily change. He suggested that the CEO be given a time-limited opportunity to turn the situation around and that the board should consider terminating him if he was not successful. The personnel committee of the board asked the psychologist if he would work individually with the CEO as a coach, but the psychologist declined, indicating he did not think he could be effective with him. During the CEO’s next performance review, the board’s personnel committee presented a summary of the concerns about the CEO’s behavior and recommended that the board exercise its right to terminate his contract. A heated debate ensued, with about a third of the participants angrily denouncing the report and recommendation and the rest strongly supporting it. Ultimately the CEO resigned, saying he wanted to focus his attention full-time on his private ventures. It was the CEO’s fifth such departure in 10 years. After he left the company he wrote another “managerial guru” book making use of his experiences at the company in a selfflattering way. Case Discussion In this case, an apparently successful executive was arguably in the wrong place at the wrong time. Managerial “gurus” do not necessarily make great 72

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

leaders; the executive was thought by some to be narcissistic, and the literature suggests that narcissism in a leader can have both positive and destructive aspects (see, e.g., Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley, 2015; Kaiser, LeBreton, & Hogan, 2015). In concluding that the CEO had a personality disorder, the psychologist had reached a professional judgment about his likelihood of change. It was not unethical per se for the psychologist to decline to work with the executive if he felt that he could not be effective with him (and the literature does suggest that personality disorders, if that’s what this was, are difficult to change; see, e.g., Dingfelder, 2004; Dowgwillo, Dawood, & Pincus, 2016). On the other hand, the psychologist’s sharing with the board his assessment that the CEO suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder raises ethical concerns. Did the CEO understand or give his consent to sharing information about the psychologist’s diagnostic assessment at the start of the assessment? How necessary was it for the psychologist to provide to the board a diagnosis of the CEO to make his point? Was the psychologist appropriately trained and qualified to make the diagnosis? Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, and Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, are relevant. The consulting psychologist did have an ethical obligation to communicate with the company’s board (his client) his assessment of the situation, and the recommended changes. For many reasons, however, the psychologist, even if qualified, might have chosen not to work with the CEO on an individual basis. However, rather than simply painting a bleak picture of the CEO’s prognosis, he might have suggested referral to a specialist in the presumed condition and to recommend someone to provide coaching to the team. Consulting psychologists must carefully determine the parameters of an assignment and its implications before agreeing to do it. A psychologist’s expertise and knowledge must be carefully applied and within the bounds of professional competence. Leaders and managers are not psychologists, and psychological knowledge can be misused. Before invoking diagnostic terms that may merely label something or someone, the psychologist must consider what will most likely result in a successful intervention. Their role is to assess and intervene in 73

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

a way likely to maximize the health and well-being of the system and its component parts. Thinking and communicating in behavioral rather than diagnostic terms may often be more effective. For example, calling a client “obsessive–compulsive” may be less helpful than framing the issue as “excessive worry” or “overly attentive to minor details.”

MANAGING VALUES CONFLICTS BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGISTS AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIENTS Chapter 5 of this book considers the overlaps and differences between the ethics of psychology as a profession and the ethics of organizations as businesses. Several articles (e.g., Fuqua & Newman, 2009; Newman et al., 2002) have underscored the importance of consulting psychologists assisting many of their organizational clients to negotiate the conflict between management versus helping perspectives. This could be viewed as an aspect of competence needed for many consultations. Historically, the management perspective emphasized production systems approaches to organization, whereas the psychologist consultant often emphasized the human capital aspects. Consultants often have to obtain additional knowledge of management and business in order to have credibility and to be effective. When consulting with for-profit organizations, psychologists should balance profit motives and internally and externally oriented social interest, focusing on the business outcomes and quality of life for the employees and the community. Some evidence from the APA Center for Organizational Excellence (see https://www.apaexcellence.org/) suggests that organizations that are perceived to value their employees generate a higher level of work engagement from them, and for many companies, a better bottom line. Perhaps because of the publication and dissemination of such studies, taking care of staff and improving the work environment has assumed more importance for managers. Google is often featured as being a company that exemplifies this approach. As illustrations, the Google organization was a pioneer in providing 20% free time to promote creativity and legendary 74

ETHICAL ISSUES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

in-house benefits such as nap pods. Less wealthy companies can attend to their employees’ needs in ways appropriate to their own means and the expressed needs of employees. When consulting with nonprofit organizations, many of which have a more direct focus on education or other benefits for the public good, economic considerations are still major factors in making organizational decisions. Because of the tighter financial margins that most nonprofits operate within, having the resources to provide quality of life enhancing support to employees is often a challenge. Attention to this need, though, is leading to some sharing of best practices, some of which (e.g., greater employee involvement) involve no or low costs. Focusing on services to clients, Lowman (2016c) highlighted some ethical considerations in organizational-level assessment and intervention consultation. Concerning organizational assessment, he called for advocacy from consulting psychologists to not limit assessment to what is legally allowable (e.g., to consider providing feedback even when not mandated), to be concerned about professional ethics in the context of those being assessed even when there may not be a legal requirement to provide feedback, and to take seriously Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence of the Ethics Code to guide the consultant’s behavior. He also called attention to the problem of misuse of data collected as part of a consulting project. Such misuse of information gathered during the consultation or after the consultation has ended can cause harm or a perceived threat. He argued that consultants need to be more aware of the scientific basis for the interventions they choose to use. He also noted the likely conflicts of interests among the differing parts of every organization and the importance of using both aspirational principles and the ethics standards to inform decisions. With both assessment and intervention, Newman et al. (2002) made a strong case for including in consultations discussions of virtue ethics (i.e., to consider the desirable thing to do as opposed to focusing only on what not to do) and on moral obligations. Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics; it emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes 75

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

the consequences of actions (consequentialism; Sinnott-Armstrong, 2016). Newman et al. (2002) commented that in their experience, the vast majority of consulting clients find such conversations valuable. This chapter has focused on ethical issues that commonly arise in organizational level consultation. Ethical principles addressed included competence, informed consent, multiple roles, conflicts of interest, and values conflicts between consultant and the client. Suggestions for managing these ethical issues were identified and discussed.

76

4

Emerging Ethical Issues and Challenges

I

n the previous chapters, we have provided a foundation for considering the ethical practice of consulting psychology and specific ethical issues that are likely to be at play when consultation occurs at the individual, group, and organizational levels. In several areas, ethical standards are fairly well developed and there is not much controversy about their application. As new approaches and opportunities develop, however, new ethical issues arise and must be considered. In this chapter, we consider ethical issues that are associated with three emerging areas of consulting psychology practice: telepsychology-based consulting practice, multicultural/international culture competence in an increasingly globalized world, and current concerns in the practice of coaching psychology.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-005 The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, by R. L. Lowman and S. E. Cooper Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

77

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

ETHICAL ISSUES OF TELEPSYCHOLOGY-BASED CONSULTING PRACTICE Whether they work with individuals, teams, or organizations, virtually all consulting psychologists use some aspects of telepractice in their work. A practitioner conducting an assessment to determine an executive’s strengths and weaknesses uses web-based psychological inventories to collect the data needed; a consultant uses videoconferencing observation of team meetings and provides process feedback and facilitated reactions at the end of these meetings. Working at the organization level, a consulting psychologist might be hired to help an organization develop a positively valence image and will draw on Internet research. The American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Joint Task Force for the Development of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists (2013) offered the following definition of psychology telepractice: Telepsychology is defined, for the purpose of these guidelines, as the provision of psychological services using telecommunication technologies. Telecommunications is the preparation, transmission, communication, or related processing of information by electrical, electromagnetic, electromechanical, electro-optical, or electronic means (Committee on National Security Systems, 2010). Telecommunication technologies include but are not limited to telephone, mobile devices, interactive videoconferencing, email, chat, text, and Internet (e.g., self-help websites, blogs, and social media). The information that is transmitted may be in writing, or include images, sounds or other data. These communications may be synchronous with multiple parties communicating in real time (e.g., interactive videoconferencing, telephone) or asynchronous (e.g., email, online bulletin boards, storing and forwarding information). (p. 792)

Cooper and Neal (2015) conducted an empirical study to explore consulting psychologists’ engagement and use of telepsychology. The research surveyed consultants’ use of technology in multiple direct and indirect areas of consulting practice. The results provided evidence that consulting psychologists 78

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

use multiple forms of telepractice (e.g., use of technology, social media, communications, and business and professional production tools). Yet the use of these technologies and tools has not been matched by consideration of best practices or ethical concerns. Rossett and Marino (2005) listed several benefits of using telepsychology: the elimination of geographic barriers, increased access to consultation by clients, better provision of one-to-one support, lower costs, and faster response times. Coaching has increasingly been conducted through telepsychology (Pascal, Sass, & Gregory, 2015). Clutterback and Hussain (2010) reported that more than half of the coaches surveyed in their study engaged in phone coaching as a regular part of their way of working with clients. Rossett and Marino (2005) noted several benefits from the use of e-coaching sessions, including online assessments, accessibility of coaching notes, and reminders of assignments and meetings. The multiple benefits of telepractice, a number of which are only possible through technology, are clearly upsides of its development. However, the use of telecoaching and teleconsulting raises ethical challenges above and beyond in-person practice. A first area of concern is whether telepractice is sufficiently similar to in-vivo practice to be effective. The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) revision in 2002 did not address technology because issues associated with it were only emerging toward the end of the revision process (Celia Fisher, personal communication, April 2001). Ethics Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, is relevant: (a) Psychologists provide services, teach and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience. (c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation or study. 79

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

(e) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and others from harm. (APA, 2017)

The following case illustrates some of the ethical quandaries that might emerge with the use of telecoaching and telepractice. Specifically, it makes one think about the ways in which in-person practice is similar to and differs from telepractice and how one can address the particularities of telepractice in a way consistent with ethical practice. Ethics Case 4.1: Is It or Is It Not the Real Deal? A consulting psychologist has been conducting face-to-face executive coaching for several years and had a sense of pride on the level of relationship he was able to establish with clients and on the gains they typically made during the coaching engagement. A new company, which had locations in several U.S. states and one in Mexico, contracted with him for coaching services. To save travel and other expenses, the company asked the consultant to use telephone and online technology. The consultant included testing as part of some of the coaching work and set up an online assessment center to evaluate candidates for selection and to conduct an interview with each by phone. He conducted the coaching sessions without modification but found them less professionally satisfying because he could not see or evaluate the reactions of the clients sufficiently. The consultant also did not determine whether his psychology license or malpractice insurance would cover these activities. He assumed that coaching clients online and over the phone would not cause any jurisdictional practice issues, and he also assumed that the informed consent process employed when doing in in-person coaching could be used without modification for his telepsychology activities. Case Discussion In one sense, using a different modality to conduct coaching psychology sessions is simply a change of delivery method. However, many technical, 80

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

ethical, and legal issues should be considered before a practitioner can offer these services. First, the psychologist should review the literature and existing guidelines on telepsychology to determine what issues need to be considered in delivering services in an appropriate and secure manner. Second, it would be important to determine any legal restrictions of delivering services in this manner in new jurisdictions. Do the states (or does the country) regulate the delivery of virtual services to persons residing in those locations (Blanton, 2014)? The psychologist should also determine whether malpractice coverage applies under these circumstances. It might be argued that the psychologist could simply declare that in delivering coaching services he was doing so as a “coach,” a title and set of activities which is not regulated by most state or provincial laws, in contrast with “psychologist,” a largely regulated profession. Although a case might have been made for that approach, the psychologist did not do that. The psychologist could not lay claim to the title and benefits of being a psychologist who performs coaching services and then exempt himself from the ethical and legal duties of a psychologist. Whatever rights the psychologist might have had to privileged conversation with clients would not apply if the consulting psychologist is performing services as a coach. The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) has released a model practice act that contains language for applied psychologists that includes limited cross-jurisdictional practice (ASPPB, 2017). The psychologist also erred by not revising his consent process. We recommend that consulting psychologists use written consent forms to clarify the terms of their engagement with clients; in addition, the forms used for consent to face-to-face coaching would likely require revision to account for the technological limitations of virtual service delivery (e.g., threats of hacking, unintended disclosure of intended confidential information, and the like; see Lowman, in press). The expectation that the consulting psychologist would offer coaching services to staff in the company’s Mexico location raises the question 81

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

of cultural competencies. If he did not speak Spanish and had little familiarity with the Mexican culture, he would need a plan to address his cultural limitations in order to be able to deliver these services competently (see APA, 2003; Lowman, 2013b). The next case highlights additional information privacy and security issues that can arise with telepractice (see Matthews, 2014). Two standards are relevant to this discussion: Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality (discussed in Chapter 1 in connection with Ethics Case 1.2) and Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, which states in part: (c) Psychologists who offer services, products, or information via electronic transmission inform clients/patients of the risks to privacy and limits of confidentiality. (APA, 2017)

Although it provides little detail, this guidance lays a foundation for subsequent guidance developed by APA on this topic.

Ethics Case 4.2: Nonsecure Consulting With a High-Security Team A consultant engaged in coaching members of an executive team often had to rely on the use of video technology to work with his clients. Their work involved the detection of foreign threats to national security, and so they traveled frequently and were only available by video conference. Given the highly sensitive nature of the work, the consultant wanted to make sure that the transmission was encrypted; he also wanted to ensure that he, and not the company providing the video technology, owned and controlled the data. He chose to use a platform compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; see also Ablett, 2017; Lustgarten, 2015) because it met some relevant standards for privacy and confidentiality for sensitive medical information, and it provided a clear legal agreement that the provider alone owned the transmission. (The data in question were not covered by HIPAA, but the standard used by a HIPAA-compliant vendor suggested likely protection of the data.) Moreover, because he worked with high-security clearance clients, the 82

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

consultant decided that use of two-factor authentication (in which each party had to enter access information two times) would enhance security. Despite these precautions, the consultant discovered that in an online assessment he was conducting in the context of selection of the next team leader, one of the clients received assistance from a hidden person in the room on how to respond to the questions being asked. (After the fact, the consultant learned of a program that scans the assessment room in real time, allowing live video recording of the assessment.) More problematically, however, the consultant also learned that an outside party had been making attempts to hack the server where all the interviews were stored. The consultant hired a technology firm to investigate, but it had not been able to determine whether this behavior was part of a general hacking attempt or a deliberate one to get at the computer in which the specific sensitive data stored. He decided to use an air-gap computer (one not able to be connected to the Internet) to store data in the future. Case Discussion Several ethical code standards are relevant to this case: Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, Sections (a) and (c); Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations; and Standard 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments. Issues of test and data security were also applicable to this case; they are covered in part by Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security: The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code. (APA, 2017)

The psychologist appropriately used a HIPAA-compliant video platform and stored the information on an air-gapped server (see Ablett, 2017). The consultant called a specialist to assess for hacking, which made sense given the 83

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

highly sensitive nature of the consultancy and the stakes involved. Using a video monitoring system for the remote administration of assessments would have been useful, and storage of sensitive data on an airgap computer lowers the possibility of data compromise. Still, none of these procedures can absolutely guarantee the security of data, so it is advisable to give advance notice of the potential risks to clients. (Further information on consulting in national security settings can be found in Civiello, 2009.)

Resources on Telepsychology Books that provide comprehensive resources on telepsychology are now being published. Examples include Luxton, Nelson, and Maheu (2016), A Practitioner’s Guide to Telemental Health: How to Conduct Legal, Ethical, and Evidence-Based Telepractice; and Campbell, Millán, and Martin (2018), A Telepsychology Casebook: Using Technology Ethically and Effectively in Your Professional Practice. As shown in Ethics Cases 4.1 and 4.2, the Ethics Code includes limited focus on direct services telepsychology. Other professional organizations have promulgated some ethical guidance. The 2014 American Counseling Association’s ACA Code of Ethics (2014) has an entire section (H) focused on telepractice. The APA Guidelines for the Practice of Telepsychology (Joint Task Force for the Development of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists, 2013) are particularly useful for consulting psychologists. The eight guidelines provide the key factors the consulting practitioner should consider when developing and engaging in telepsychology. Each of the guidelines with the exception of the last (which is legally oriented) is based on standards from the Ethics Code. The rise of remote assessment is a specific area where attention to these guidelines is essential. As a final set of helpful resources for those engaged in telecoaching and teleconsultation, a number of useful websites are now available. Each of these websites contains a section with a focus on ethics and telepractice. 84

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

The TeleMental Health Institute (http://www.TeleMentalHealth.com). The site contains many useful documents (see the Resources page). It includes various telepractice ethics and guidelines as well as information on a number of different email, video, storage, and other companies. Although this site has an orientation toward health services telepractice, much of this has high overlap and relevancy to applied psychology telepractice. 77 The Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA Division 46; http://www.apadivisions.org/division-46/index.aspx). In addition to the website, the division publishes the Amplifier Magazine (https:// div46amplifier.com/) that also contains telepractice related pieces. 77 Telepsychology 50-State Review (http://www.apapracticecentral.org/ advocacy/state/telehealth-slides.pdf). This website presents information on telepsychology practice in all 50 states. Information is provided about the following categories: telehealth/telepsychology statutes and/ or regulations, practice of psychology defined to include specifically telepsychology, licensing board advisory opinions, telehealth coverage mandate, temporary/guest practice provision, and penalties for unauthorized practice of psychology without a license. For those who practice cross-jurisdictionally, this centralized information is helpful. Access to this website is available to all. 77 Electronic Health Record Templates (http://www.trustinsurance.com/ resources/articles/). The Trust offers insurance, risk management, and other information to psychologists. The templates page contains many useful resources relevant to telepractice, such as choosing encryption software, coaching, a sample electronic communication policy, and a sample coaching contract. 77

The ethics and law of telepractice, including telepsychology, is rapidly changing. For example, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement (Long & Quek, 2002), which focuses on personal information transmitted across national boundaries, has been nullified since WikiLeaks began to publish classified information on its site; state or other relevant statutes about telepractice are emerging. It is recommended that practitioners find trusted sources to keep up with these changes. 85

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

ETHICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH MULTICULTURAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATION A major focus of psychological applications in the 21st century has been on understanding the importance of attending to the cultural factors of clients—individuals, groups, organizations, and communities (Cooper & Leong, 2008; Leong & Huang, 2008; Lowman, 2013b). Related scholarship in the field of consulting psychology includes works on domestic multicultural issues, particularly race (Christian, Porter, & Moffitt, 2006; Cooper & Leong, 2008; Herring, 2009) or on global cultural issues emerging from international psychology (Glover & Friedman, 2015; Lowman, 2013b, 2016b; Mullin & Cooper, 2002). There are a number of diverse ethical concerns in both of these areas that play out with assessment and intervention. Some examples follow. When conducting assessments it is important to ensure that the inventories used do not have a cultural bias that would affect the results; to develop a solid working relationship in some cultures, a level of personal disclosure is needed (Cooper & Leong, 2008; Dougherty, 2015). To be successful in conducting domestic multiculturally informed consultation or international consulting work, consultants typically need to develop the requisite competency in cultural knowledge, attitudes, and skills (Lowman, 2016b). Dougherty (2015) shared practical suggestions for consultants across four main stages of consultation. At entry, members of certain minority cultural groups may be concerned about the interpersonal orientation of a consultant who is from a majority culture, whereas a consulting client from a majority culture may be more interested in the assistance value of a consultant. High-context cultures are those that communicate in ways that are implicit and rely heavily on context. In contrast, low-context cultures rely on explicit verbal communication. During diagnosis, a consulting client from a high-context culture may prefer interviewing and observation, whereas those from a low-context culture may prefer surveys or document research. Some cultural groups may see the focus of diagnosis as being the group, and some may see the focus as being the individual. Intervention follows next. Dougherty (2015) suggested that some cultural groups 86

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

choose to focus on building and using relationships rather than focusing on time. He added that some cultural groups may see efficiency of the plan as most beneficial during evaluation whereas other groups may evaluate the social impact of plan. During disengagement, some consulting clients may require a longer follow-up period before termination because of the degree of dependency or the importance of the relationship. APA’s (2003) Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (hereinafter referred to as the Multicultural Guidelines) can help consulting psychologists develop their multicultural competencies throughout the consultation triad (consultant, consulting client, and client system). The document consists of six specific guidelines. The first five each include implications for education and training, research, and practice in psychology. The sixth guideline focuses on assisting organizations to use organizational change processes to support culturally informed organizational (policy) development and practices. Authors (e.g., Ratts, Toporek, & Lewis, 2010) have written about using consultation to help client organizations better use the diversity within them. A number of years ago, a major corporation expanded its operations to countries around the globe. The model for running these organizations, in terms of structure and processes, was directly exported from the United States. The top leadership was puzzled and frustrated to find that, in setting after setting in Africa and Asia and other locations, the approach was not working. They brought in a Dutch social psychologist for help. He suggested that the structure and process of the organization needed to conform to the local cultural values; to accomplish this, it was essential to know what these values were. The name of the psychologist was Geert Hofstede and thus began his major body of work (see Hofstede, 1980) on his six-factor cultural dimensions theory. Utilization of the research findings was of significant assistance to this now huge multinational corporation and to many other multinational organizations subsequently. A good deal of other work on cross-cultural factors helpful for consultants has emerged in recent years. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 87

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

(2012) concluded that what distinguishes people from one culture compared with another is where these preferences fall in one or more of seven dimensions. The GLOBE studies (see Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012) were among the first large-scale studies of managers and leaders across cultures. Findings supported the considerable influence of culture on societal leadership expectations and the importance of considering managerial behaviors in the context of leadership expectations within each society. Multicultural and International Competence Many authors have advocated for the importance of consultants developing multicultural competence including international competence (Arredondo & Tovar-Blank, 2014; Glover & Friedman, 2015; Lowman, 2013b). Although in some need of updating, the Multicultural Guidelines (APA, 2003) still provides a useful multicultural resource. For some types of consultation, the final section of these guidelines is particularly relevant. Two special issues of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research also provide useful information on culturally competent consultation practice. Cooper and Leong (2008) and the articles in “Culture, Race, and Ethnicity in Organizational Consulting Psychology” applied multicultural knowledge and tools from other areas of psychology to the practice of consultation. The article “International Organizational Consultation: Consulting Psychology Goes Global” (Cooper, 2012) expands this focus to the role of international cultural factors. Ethics Case 4.3: Issues of Cultural Competence A multinational company that planned to expand its operations into a number of countries wanted to develop a process for high-level administrators to strengthen their cultural competencies prior to transfer. The company’s head of human resources approached a consulting psychologist who had engaged in several coaching projects with the idea that the company would use a request for proposals to outsource the development of this program to the consultant and that the psychologist would then write up a specific proposal. He won the contract. 88

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

The consultant had limited knowledge of such training programs but wanted to take on the work, so he read a few books on the topic and explored similar programs already created elsewhere. The psychologist consultant then partnered with a tech-oriented person to translate several educational modules he had created in hard copy that included content and videos plus a quiz to assess learning. The consultant turned this program and report over to the director of human resources and was paid. The company implemented the training. Some executives found it helpful. Feedback from personnel in several of the countries, however, was that the leaders who were sent there were not well prepared for understanding and dealing with cultural differences (see Glover & Friedman, 2015). Case Discussion Perhaps the most relevant standard here is Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, Sections (b) and (c): (b) Where scientific or professional knowledge in the discipline of psychology establishes that an understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language or socioeconomic status is essential for effective implementation of their services or research, psychologists have or obtain the training, experience, consultation or supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their services, or they make appropriate referrals, except as provided in Standard 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies. (c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation or study. (APA, 2017)

In this case, the consultant, although possessing coaching competencies, was not qualified to provide the consultation on which he had bid, and he did not bring in competent staff to assist him. This case illustrates the challenge of doing consultation work in an area typically not covered in predoctoral education or supervised internship experiences. Psychologists 89

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

wishing to become consulting coaches in multicultural or international contexts need to properly develop their skills before taking on such projects.

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE PRACTICE OF COACHING In his article on expertise and the development of coaching, Kilburg (2016) stated that the history of executive coaching is more than a century long. Yet, as late as the mid 1990s, almost no scholarly literature on coaching was available. This has changed greatly in the past 20 years, however, and several hundred articles and many books have appeared. The Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research has been one of the lead journals in this area with five special issues published in the last 20 years: Volume 48, No. 2 (Spring 1996); Volume 53, No. 4 (Fall 2001); Volume 56, No. 4 (Fall 2004); Volume 57, No. 1 (Winter 2005); and Volume 60, No. 1 (March 2008). Books about executive coaching have also been published in recent years (e.g., Kilburg, 2000; Stober & Grant, 2006). Moreover, publications such as The Monitor on Psychology have featured coaching as an area of practice expansion to consider as dollars for mental health care provision have decreased. Having a foundation in understanding coaching is helpful for understanding some of the current ethical issues in its practice. Coaching has emerged as a recognized career path or professional competency area for psychologists that differs considerably from therapy (Anderson, Williams, & Kramer, 2012). Within the coaching field different specializations, such as life coaching, career coaching, and leadership coaching, have developed (Harris, 2009). As further evidence of increased specialization over time, even within consulting to leaders in organizations, distinctions have been made between coaching executives and coaching managers (Vandaveer, Lowman, Pearlman, & Brannick, 2016). Although coaching is generally considered its own specialized modality of intervention, the boundaries between it and therapy (see Gebhardt, 2016) or between it and business consulting are ambiguous at best. Anderson, Williams, and Kramer (2012) contrasted coaching and counseling on a continuum of functionality of the client. Clients who are low functioning are more likely to experience significant impairment 90

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

in some or many aspects of their lives and would benefit more from psychotherapy. Clients who are high functioning are typically interested in flourishing in their work and/or personal aspects of their lives and would benefit from coaching (Anderson et al., 2012; Lowman, 1993). Coaching is congruent with some aspects of positive psychology (Foster & Lloyd, 2007). Viewing therapy and coaching (or coaching and consulting) as occurring on a continuum rather than orthogonal is congruent with the field of counseling psychology, with its long-term emphasis on assessing and using client strengths and on uncovering and altering environmental/ contextual influences along with its focus on vocational psychology. Clear distinctions may exist for clients at either end of this continuum but many coaching clients are more toward the middle, and present needs and personal issues have to be addressed to some extent for the coaching to be successful. The belief that coaching and therapy are on a continuum rather than being dichotomous, combined with the complexities of state-based professional licensure and practice restrictions, serve as two contextual factors for the focused attention on ethical issues in coaching in recent years. Coaching: A New Frontier Some Questions and Answers (Harris, 2009) provides material covering the definition of coaching and answers several key questions about this emerging area of practice. Historically, some standards included in the 2002 (revised in 2010 and 2017) APA Ethics Code are likely to emerge during coaching work: Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists’ Work; Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence; Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm; Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships; Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interests; Standard 3.10, Informed Consent; Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations; Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality; Standard 6.05, Barter With Clients/Patients; Standard 9.02, Use of Assessments; and, by analogy at least, Standard 10.10, Termination of Therapy. Many of the ethical issues that arise in coaching situations noted in recent years remain important today, and new issues are emerging. Uses of technology and practicing with or without a license across state lines are common practices but add complexity to engaging in good ethical practice and may run contrary to legal standards. 91

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Should There Be a Separate Ethics Code for Coaching? Is coaching a distinct area of professional practice? The question has not yet been settled. If it is determined to be a separate profession, it arguably would not come under the same ethical standards and legal restrictions as those affecting the practice of psychology. In any case, some applied psychologists have argued that the APA Ethics Code was written primarily for health services practice and has little relevance to coaching or other applied practice (R. R. Kilburg, June 13, 2015, personal communication). However, this view is not likely to gain much traction, and most psychologists will continue to look at the Ethics Code for guidance on their professional coaching practice. The International Foundation of Coaching and the International Association of Coaches have their own respective codes of professional ethics focused on coaching that complement the APA code as sources of guidance (see Lowman, 2013a). Because good ethical practice contributes to good professional practice and legal risk reduction, those practicing or entering coaching can benefit from attending to the potential ethical issues that can arise. Passmore (2009) suggested that psychologists acting as coaches make decisions, mostly implicitly, based on their personal proclivities to be either deontological (rule-based) or consequential (the consequences of one’s conduct determine the rightness or wrongness of that conduct). Thus, those who focus on the deontological side focus on the rightness or wrongness of actions in and of themselves, whereas those who are more consequentially oriented focus on what will bring the best results. Coaches make many decisions on this deontological–consequential continuum, often without awareness. Passmore (2009) articulated six dimensions that he believes serve as an underlying foundation for all the codes inclusive of APA, the International Foundation of Coaching, and the International Association of Coaches: utility (placing the interests of clients first), autonomy (encouraging the self-determination of the client), 77 confidentiality (assurance of privacy of the information that is shared), 77 77

92

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

avoid harm (includes by either commissions or omissions), justice (focusing on fairness and protection for those involved), and 77 respecting the rights of others (attention to issues of dignity and bias). 77 77

If an ethics complaint was raised or if a lawsuit for negligence and harm was filed, these six principles would probably be brought up in the proceedings. The specifics, of course, would greatly depend on the nature of the behaviors being considered. Ethics Case 4.4: Was It Coaching or Was It Therapy? A counseling psychologist wishing to expand his private practice by engaging in coaching to mid-level executives in nonprofit organizations had obtained a certification for coaching and contracted for supervision of his work with an experienced coach. He had approached several regional organizations and has started work with upper level managers from two of them. One of his coaching clients has recently gone through several major losses and might be dealing with a serious medical condition. The coaching sessions had increasingly been focusing on the more personal issues of the client rather than on her performance at work. This change has been gradual, and the consultant had expected it be short-term but soon realized that might not be the case. The coaching consulting raised the issue in his own supervision. His supervisor assisted him in evaluating whether he should refer the client for therapy and focus solely on the work-related coaching. Another option considered was to integrate the two; he felt that he had the skill sets to do both and had established a strong working alliance with the client. Considering the best interest of both the client and the organization with whom the coaching contract had been made, however, he decided to refer the client to a therapist to deal with the personal challenges and to focus the coaching solely on the work issues. Case Discussion The psychologist’s decision to focus his work with the client on work issues is supported by consideration of at least two standards: Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships, and Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest. The latter 93

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

is especially relevant because it is ultimately the organization and not the individual who is the client in executive coaching. It states in part: Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation. (APA, 2017)

Depending on the particulars, it may be in the best interest of the client for the coaching consultant to have some communications with the therapist about the client. If that is the case, Standard 3.09, Cooperation With Other Professionals, is relevant: “When indicated and professionally appropriate, psychologists cooperate with other professionals in order to serve their clients/patients effectively and appropriately” (APA, 2017).

Recommendations for Ethical Coaching Practices So, what action steps should a psychologist providing coaching do to engage in ethical practice? Gebhardt (2016) contrasted executive coaching with psychotherapy in six areas: roles, skill sets/core competencies, education/training, licensing/credentialing-certification, governing bodies/confidentiality, and fees/reimbursement. Gebhardt’s main point is that while some overlap between executive coaching and therapy occurs, distinct differences in these six areas for these two related professional activities clearly exists. In general, coaching roles are less formal than clinically oriented roles. Core competencies may include a focus on positive psychology and strengths. Education and training programs exist, some leading to certification from them. Coaching is included in the ASPPB model practice act previously discussed. Development of knowledge and skills to engage in coaching will likely involve the need for postgraduate education and supervision. Determining the basis of assessment of coaching competencies would go along with this. Coaching often involves work in very different settings than therapy 94

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

plus more of a personal relationship between psychologist and client. Further, the multiple roles involved in coaching are often complex. Additional training in ethics related to coaching is required to engage in it properly. Many of the issues raised in this section also apply to industrial– organizational psychology whose training did not include individual level work with individual level clients, as in coaching.

SYNTHESIS AND OVERLAP ARE THE NORM This chapter has given separate treatment to three emerging issues—the use of telepsychology in consultation, issues of multiculturalism and internationalism as these play out in consulting, and the rising popularity of executive coaching (Kilburg, 2000). A multivariate view of the world is much more accurate than is a univariate one. What that means is the in many cases there is overlap among two of these three or all three. For example, almost all coaching will involve some cross-cultural elements and almost all consultants use some form of technology to carry out their work with clients. Consultants who do coaching with multinational companies often find themselves dealing with overlapping issues for which there is no easy or self-evident way forward.

95

5

How Organizational and Business Ethics Affect Consulting Psychology Practice

M

ost consulting psychology work one way or the other takes place in the context of organizations, whether that entails working with the entire organization or with only a few individuals or work groups within that organization. Usually the major purpose of the organization is not the provision of psychological services, and the psychologist’s ethics are not central to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. Still, psychologists’ ethical obligations do not go away simply because they are applying psychology in settings whose missions are not psychological. Those working in corporate settings where corporate ethics may be compromised face particularly challenging circumstances. Indeed, by most standards, the period spanning the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century are arguably one of the most as being one of the most unethical periods in U.S. business history. Although many checks and balances were in place (e.g., auditing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-006 The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, by R. L. Lowman and S. E. Cooper Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

97

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

certifications; the requirement of government approval for major acquisitions or mergers) that might restrain trade, those systems were not infrequently circumvented, with ultimately disastrous consequences. An emblematic but far from isolated example was Enron, a Houstonbased energy corporation, founded in 1985 by the merger of two natural gas pipe companies (see B. McLean & Elkind, 2003; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). The company was established to sell natural gas, historically a highly regulated commodity, at market prices (determined by supply-and-demand) rather than regulated prices, and Congress, in an era of free trade of regulations, deregulated price controls of natural gas. This led to large fluctuation in natural gas prices and huge increases in revenues for Enron. Its stock price soared. However, under the leadership of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, accounting practices that were not allowable under accounting rules and laws were used and some that had not been allowed were permitted, resulting in huge increases in claimed income that actually relied on future delivery of product and sustained. This approach greatly misstated the value of the company and resulted in a meteoric rise in the company’s stock prices. What had been a bright and shining star “new age” company became one in serious financial trouble that was hiding its difficulties from the company’s investors. Collusion between the company’s auditors, Arthur Andersen, then one of the largest accounting and audit firms in the United States, resulted in substantive misrepresentation of the finances of the troubled Enron. By 2001, when the scandal became public, Enron declared bankruptcy. In less than a year the stock’s price went from more than $90 a share to less than $1 a share, and stockholders filed a major lawsuit against the company. The accounting firm destroyed documents and committed other questionable acts that resulted in the revoking of its license to audit companies by the Securities and Exchange Commission; ultimately it, like Enron, failed. What was the source of the failure? Would psychologists working in, or consulting to, such an organization have had any ethical obligation to take action on the information they had about the company? Who and what were responsible for failures like Enron? Assuredly, there were unscrupulous and unethical leaders who helped take such companies down. But the zeitgeist of the times—progrowth (Frankel & 98

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

Orszag, 2002) and antiregulatory—also contributed. Under the direction of laissez-faire capitalist advocate Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve pursued a steady policy of loose money. Deregulation was also a persistent theme of the era, and Congress resisted efforts to enhance regulation. Those opposed to the antiregulatory attitudes, such as Brooksley Borne, then chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, were attacked and not allowed to do their jobs (see “The Warning,” 2009). New investment vehicles called derivatives (Scalcione, 2011) traded on a very nontransparent (“dark”) market. Excessive investments in such highly risky ventures resulted in the bankruptcy of state governments (e.g., Orange County, California; Jefferson County, Alabama). Other large corporations, like Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG, either failed or had to be bailed out. With fraud and malfeasance in the real-estate loan market, that system also collapsed. A severe global recession ensued in 2007. It might be assumed that after such a calamitous debacle, unethical behavior in organizations would now be under control. Yet, despite considerable attention to cleaning up the corruption of this era during the Obama administration, corruption and misdeeds have persisted. Consider the following far-from-inclusive list. Senior leaders in one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world, Volkswagen, rigged the computer systems on 11 million of its diesel cars so that they fraudulently passed emission standards. The resulting civil and criminal charges brought against Volkswagen cost the company $20 billion. It is estimated that shareholder suits may result in an additional $10 billion (Tabuchi, Ewing, & Apuzzojan, 2017). This is separate from the lawsuit charges and reputational damage. 77 In another major scandal, the Wells Fargo bank engaged in fraudulent credit card and new accounts practices (Davidson, 2016). Records show that they targeted at-risk individuals with the prospect of easy credit using aggressive sales tactics to cross-sell new accounts that entailed large fees. Under intense pressure from the company to increase accounts, employees also, without the customers’ knowledge, opened new accounts for existing customers and transferred money into them, 77

99

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

and customers had to pay charges for insufficient funds. Employees applied for credit card accounts in customers’ names without their knowledge, resulting in annual fees and late fees. They also issued and activated debit cards with phony PIN numbers, without the knowledge or consent of the customers. Two million of the bank’s 70 million accounts were affected and over 5,300 employees were fired; the bank was fined $165 million and its CEO resigned (Merle, 2016). 77 The Maylan company acquired rights to EpiPen, which is used for immediate injection of epinephrine for emergency treatment of allergic reactions. The medication itself cost about $1, but the control the company had over the injection methodology resulted in a monopoly that allowed the company to raise the price from $58 in 2007 to $600 for a two-pack in 2016 (Carpenter, 2016). 77 The conservative network Fox News was accused of tolerating a climate of sexual harassment by several of its male leaders leading to the forced departure of the company’s chairman, Roger Ailes. Thereafter, the company settled a similar case of sexual harassment by television host and star Bill O’Reilly (Steele & Schmidt, 2017). Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples of corporate malfeasance and unethical practices since 2009. These examples illustrate the ethically challenged environment in which organizational consulting psychologists may encounter in their work. They must therefore be prepared to know what responsibilities, if any, they have to report fraud, abuse, and unethicality. Although most professions have a professional code of ethics, management is an exception. Because there is no common code of ethics for most managers, their behavior and that of their organizations tends to be governed by laws, regulations, and company-specific policies. This also creates potential problems for psychologists, who are required to obey their code of ethics when others in power are not. Largely in response to corporate excesses and their consequences, laws were passed prescribing behavior required in for-profit organizations. As one example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Green, 2004) was largely a response to the Enron debacle and imposed a number of requirements 100

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

on for-profit publicly traded organizations. The provisions of the act included a number of very specific requirements: A Public Company Accounting Oversight Board will set terms for independent audits. 77 The CEO must personally sign and be accountable for the corporation’s tax returns. 77 Criminal charges will be brought against those found guilty of adverse treatment of whistle blowers, impeding investigations, and falsifying or destroying records. 77 Companies must disclose whether they have a code of ethics, whether it applies to senior company officials, and whether there are exceptions to it; if there is no such code, they must explain why the company does not have one. 77

Companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange also had new rules and requirements in response to the malfeasance of companies like Enron. These spoke to requirements for the independence of particular board members including those on the accounting, audit, and compensation committees. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (Acharya & Cooley, 2011) tightened up responsibilities and operational procedures for oversight regulatory bodies. Whether these changes would prevent another Enron today is not clear. Beyond the problems that derived from having deregulated a highly regulated industry (natural gas) in a destabilizing way, much of the Enron disaster was caused by the violation of laws rather than their absence.

PSYCHOLOGISTS’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER SARBANES-OXLEY With the increased emphasis on corporate controls, psychologists need to know how laws like Sarbanes-Oxley Act affect the companies with which they consult. Here are some suggested practical steps that psychologists can take before they work with a for-profit corporation covered by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 101

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

77 77

77 77

77

Determine whether the company is publicly traded and covered by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other relevant regulations. Identify whether there is an ethics code in the organization. If there is not, find out (a) why there is not, (b) whether there have been any exceptions reported, and (c) what obligations, including reporting obligations, it places on employees and consultants. Know whether there is an ombudsperson in the company with whom concerns can be raised. Find out if, as an employee or consultant, you have any mandated reporting requirements if you learn of financial fraud or similar allegations; modify the consent form to reflect any associated confidentiality limitations. Before you start an engagement, discuss with relevant company officials what obligations you have to deal with particular kinds of disclosures you may encounter in your work as a consultant and adjust confidentiality exception disclosure to be compatible with those requirements.

PSYCHOLOGISTS’ ETHICS IN THE CONTEXT OF ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS We have noted the absence of a common code of ethics for managers. Indeed, this is a central difference in how business and managerial ethics differ from psychology’s and other professions’ ethics codes and guidelines. Although there has been a movement since Peter Drucker’s (e.g., 1954) early efforts to professionalize management, there has been no successful effort, consensually agreed upon by members of the profession, to create and adopt an ethics code for managers. An example of what such a code might someday look like is suggested by the efforts of a group of Harvard MBA students (“MBA Oath,” n.d.). This nonenforceable and entirely voluntary code illustrates how such a code might be possible. It states: As a business leader I recognize my role in society. My purpose is to lead people and manage resources to create value that no single individual can create alone. 77 My decisions affect the well-being of individuals inside and outside my enterprise, today and tomorrow. 77

102

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

Therefore, I promise that: I will manage my enterprise with loyalty and care, and will not advance my personal interests at the expense of my enterprise or society. 77 I will understand and uphold, in letter and spirit, the laws and contracts governing my conduct and that of my enterprise. 77 I will refrain from corruption, unfair competition, or business practices harmful to society. 77 I will protect the human rights and dignity of all people affected by my enterprise, and I will oppose discrimination and exploitation. 77 I will protect the right of future generations to advance their standard of living and enjoy a healthy planet. 77 I will report the performance and risks of my enterprise accurately and honestly. 77 I will invest in developing myself and others, helping the management profession continue to advance and create sustainable and inclusive prosperity. 77

In exercising my professional duties according to these principles, I recognize that my behavior must set an example of integrity, eliciting trust and esteem from those I serve. I will remain accountable to my peers and to society for my actions and for upholding these standards. This oath I make freely, and upon my honor. (“MBA Oath,” n.d.)1

Such a code is conceptually similar to the codes of many professional groups. It is focused on the public good more than on individual benefits, it speaks of balancing the needs of various stakeholders, and it turns on its head the idea that business organizations are solely for supporting the value of shareholders or one constituency group. However, this (or a similar) code is not likely to be adopted anytime soon by management as a whole. Few business schools have endorsed or publicized it, though a number of individuals with MBAs and MBA students have signed on. There are many reasons why an ethics code is not likely to be adopted soon. For one thing, there is no apparent energy or interest in doing so From “MBA Oath.” Retrieved from http://mbaoath.org/about/the-mba-oath Reprinted with permission.

1

103

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

by the professional organizations representing managers such as the American Management Association and of course not all managers have MBAs. Also, no professional license is required for most management roles. Managers and the corporations in which they work might bridle at the thought of behavioral restrictions. And although the MBA code described above might be inspirational, operationalization and enforcement of such a code would take agreement among a number of stakeholders. Having a code such as the one described to govern the professional behavior and ethical expectations of managers would make psychologists’ roles in organizations much easier, but until it comes to pass, psychologists working in organizations will need to assert their commitment to their professional ethics in the context of the specific organizations with which they work.

CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGISTS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES VERSUS BUSINESS ETHICS When psychologists consult in the context of organizations, they may be the only ones who have the responsibility to follow an enforceable code of ethics, and so they need to plan what they should do when their ethical standards conflict with what they are asked to do. In many cases managers may defer to the psychologists’ expertise and recommendations and allow them to act consistently with their prescribed ethics. Confronted with a requirement to do something inconsistent with their ethics code, psychologists can explain the requirements of their ethics code, and this may be sufficient to cause organizational representatives to back off from demands that psychologists, who may themselves be employees of the organization, take (or not take) actions that would be inconsistent with their professional ethics. Alternatively, leaders may not care about psychologists’ ethical obligations and “pull rank,” asserting their authority and the organization’s right to control behavior. Such situations will result in potential conflict, and it is important for consulting psychologists to give thought to how to handle such a conflict before it occurs. Psychologists who work in organizational settings might come into conflict with managers who aggressively assert their authority. By their 104

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

nature managers are generally dominant, extraverted, and assertive. Their job after all is to make things happen, working with and through other people (see Lowman, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). As a result, managers may require persuading that the psychologist might have a valid position that should be considered, even when it conflicts with what the manager wishes to do or with corporate policies. Reaching written agreement before the onset of delivering psychological services in organizations is recommended whenever possible (see Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations; American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). Should the company not be willing to sign a formal agreement, the psychologist can still document the understanding and specify procedures for addressing concerns if they arise after the outset of the program. In the case of unanticipated changes in agreements or issues that were not considered or were not relevant at the beginning of service delivery, psychologists will have to work with managers who may not be very sympathetic to the request to change agreed upon terms. Psychologists do have an ethical obligation to persist in their efforts to assure that their clients and others with whom they work are protected and that their behavior is consistent with their own ethical mandates (see Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands; APA, 2017). But it does not mean that the place to start is by getting into a fight with managers, especially ones in a position of authority. Rather, searching for common ground and attempting to find the areas of mutual concern are generally good ways to begin working together. For example, what are the manager’s objectives in demanding to see all the individual level responses to a survey when respondents had been promised that data would be aggregated? Is the manager aware that such a change in the assumptions would likely mean that future efforts to administer surveys would be compromised? Psychologists also need to make clear to nonpsychologist managers that the ethics of their profession require that the psychologist behave in particular ways and that behaving in ethically inappropriate ways would likely cause her or his license to be withdrawn, which would reflect badly on both the company and the psychologist. 105

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Some managers, like some individuals, are not amenable to reasonable efforts to find common ground. In that case the psychologist may need to seek out the input of other authorities within the organization. An ombudsperson or head of the human resources function might be good places to start. Going over the manager’s head to discuss the situation with the manager’s superiors may be a last resort but if not done carefully may be a career-damaging move. A compromise might be to offer to have a joint meeting of the manager and the manager’s boss (or other authority in the company) to attempt to resolve the issue. There are other steps that consulting psychologists can also consider. These include the following: 1. Establish an advisory group. Having an advisory group consisting of professionals, employees, and other consultants may be a useful mechanism to help address issues that arise in implementing the consulting contract. This could be a group called upon as needed or one that meets regularly to advise on the project. It can help lend credence to suggestions that might be rejected if made by the psychologist only. The group also can help the consultant think through complicated issues in which there are no obvious or easy answers. 2. Set up complaint resolution procedures. A complaint mechanism can provide a vehicle to address issues and concerns before they get out of hand. Some companies have ombudspeople who consider complaints and advise staff on the options available to resolve the concerns. If that mechanism does not exist, the psychologist may want to include provisions for complaint resolution in the consulting contract. 3. Assure that the consulting contract covers dispute resolution. Anticipating problems in advance is usually a wise strategy since problems anticipated are often problems avoided. When there is a formal contract or a letter of agreement, ethical parameters can be stipulated and procedures identified for ethical or other concerns that arise unexpectedly. This at least provides a particular venue by which organizational leaders can be brought into discussions in cases in which problems cannot be worked out informally. 106

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

HELPING TO CREATE ETHICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS Consulting psychologists can play an important role in addressing organizational ethics and helping to make organizations more ethical. Such initiatives can be focused at the individual, the group, and the organizational level. Such interventions are in addition to, and do not need to take the place of, those that come from laws and rules. Criminalizing unethical behavior, especially when the laws are consistently enforced, can certainly cause a lessening of misconduct, but clear laws did not prevent Madoff from creating a highly successful Ponzi scheme that defrauded many investors of their money (Henriques, 2012). Still, since managers clearly do not have enforceable ethics codes required by their profession, strong and strongly enforced laws, rules, and guidelines are both appropriate and necessary. What Can Be Learned From the Empirical Research? An empirical literature has begun to emerge about organizational ethics (see, e.g., Wimbush, Shepard, & Markham, 1997). The focus takes us back to the organization of this book into the three levels: individual, group, and organizational. Kish-Gephart, Harrison, and Treviño’s (2010) provided an aggregate of the existing literature on organizational ethics in their article “Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and Bad Barrels: Meta-Analytic Evidence about Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work.” In this meta-analysis, “apples” were the individuals in organizations, “crates,” the moral issues, and “barrels” the organization’s climate. This literature is fairly recent but has already become extensive and complicated; here we briefly summarize some themes and discuss practical implications; our focus is mostly on the individual and organizational levels.

Individual Level The question of whether some people are inherently more ethical than others, or, put the other way, whether some people are more inherently unethical than others, has been well studied in the organizational and 107

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

personality psychology literature. A central construct is the question of whether integrity is a continuous variable, in which most people have a moderate amount and a few at each end of the spectrum have too much or too little of a characteristic that will increase the likelihood of their behaving unethically on the job. Assessment by qualified professionals can be useful for identifying potential risk factors and screening out, or managing carefully, those with risks for ethical malfeasance or for failure on the job. A fairly extensive literature on integrity testing has emerged. Integrity tests aim to identify test takers at high risk for problematic behavior on the job. Considerable evidence suggests that measures of integrity predict well to poor behavioral performance on the job through absenteeism, stealing, lying, unauthorized use of sick leave, and problems with authority (Berry, Sackett, & Wiemann, 2007; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993, 2003, 2012; Sackett & Schmitt, 2012; Wanek, Sackett, & Ones, 2003). Many of the integrity tests, however, were typically used with lower level employees (e.g., in retail, warehouse, or cashier work). Higher level assessments may reflect problems (and test-taking approaches) of a more complicated nature and a subtle approach to measurement. Considerable literature also exists on the use of so-called normal personality characteristics to predict work behavior (see, e.g., Barrick & Mount, 2005; Hough & Dilchert, 2017; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005; Oswald & Hough, 2011). The one variable that has shown the most support in adding incremental explanatory power of work outcomes over and above ability variables has been conscientiousness. Arguably, this variable is measuring the flip side of low integrity. That is, high scorers on conscientiousness tend to be those who do what they say they are going to do; show up for work and meetings on time; and display appropriate behavior with their co-workers, supervisors, and customers. Moving specifically to the managerial population, the work of Hogan and his colleagues (e.g., Hogan & Hogan, 1997; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2011; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005) suggests that, regardless of their other, often considerable, abilities, some managers have consistent behavior that puts them at risk for failure on the job. Considering that traditional organizations of any size are largely hierarchical, and 108

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

given the predictive power of general cognitive ability, it is likely that those who rise to higher levels of management are likely to have been culled to be among the “best and brightest” among their peers. Yet it is not unusual for highly placed managers to fail on the job, and Hogan and colleagues argue that such failure is largely due to personality “problems” (so-called dark side characteristics; see Kaiser, LeBreton, & Hogan, 2015) that make them overly self-focused, insensitive to the needs and desires of others, and an assortment of other such problematic behaviors. Measures like those of Hogan and Hogan (1997) were designed to assess for the presence of dark side characteristics and potential derailers. Given the costs of investing in new hires and the very high costs of senior executive failure, companies would be wise to carefully screen new hires or candidates for promotion or job change to identify those potential hires who may be at risk of failing on the job. The cost–benefit ratios can be very high, but appropriate qualifications are needed by trained professionals to implement such assessment programs. Organizational Level Kish-Gephart, Harrison, and Treviño (2010) posited that the ethical climate of an organization might determine whether employees or members are likely to behave in an ethical or unethical manner. According to this theory, people with essentially the same individual make up are more or less likely to engage in unethical (or ethical) behavior depending on whether the climate encouraged ethical or unethical behavior. In particular, their meta-analysis found that ethical climates emphasizing egotistical behavior focused primarily on perceived self-interest were more likely to be associated with unethical behavior (and behavioral intention), whereas benevolent and principled climates were likely to have the opposite effect. Merely having an ethics code was not associated with higher ethical conduct or intentions but enforced ethical conduct codes were associated with more ethical behavior and intent. Still, the meta-analysis also found that ethical/unethical behavior or reported intentions was not always planned; some actions clearly are impulsive. This study and others have also shown that individual and organizational level variables can interact to affect ethical behavior. Elango, Paul, 109

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Kundu, and Paudel (2010) found that younger managers were more likely to be influenced by organizational ethics than older ones and that older managers were more likely to express ethical intent than younger ones. The study also noted the need for organizations to consider congruence of organizational values and ethical behavior. When values and ethics are congruent, employees are more likely to report positive ethical intent than when they are discrepant (see also Lefkowitz, 2008).

CASE illustrations In this section we illustrate some of the ways contexts matter in addressing ethical issues in consulting psychology. We begin with a case involving confidentiality. The usual reasons for breaking confidentiality for therapy clients— imminent danger to self or others or abuse of children or the elderly—do not often arise in organizational settings, but there may be reasons to break confidentiality and they should be discussed at the outset of the consulting engagement (Lowman, 2016b). Before addressing that issue, it should be noted that consulting psychologists who are not licensed do not have the same legal protections of confidentiality (“privilege”) as those who are licensed. In most U.S. states, psychologists must be licensed in the state in which they work in order to be bound by confidentiality rules. Care must therefore be taken by unlicensed psychologists not to imply that confidentiality is legally protected when it is not. Because complex situations can arise in organizational level consulting when information is shared that may have to be released. The following case is illustrative. Ethics Case 5.1: When Should Confidentiality Be Broken? A consulting psychologist was hired to provide coaching services to upper level managers in an energy company, which at the time was enjoying phenomenal growth. She developed solid relationships with the majority of those who were coached. Over time, she came to learn through three of the coaching clients that some in the company were concealing major financial problems from the investors; the chief financial officer and other executives had managed to get the external accounting firm to conceal the 110

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

actual financial status of the company. The consultant was unsure what to do; she had committed to confidentiality of information shared in the coaching she was doing with them and all three had specifically asked for confirmation of that. Such confidentiality was seen as essential to develop trust. However, the consultant felt that what they were doing with their investors was unethical and possibly illegal. Moreover, it was unclear whether the consultant’s work itself was violating any APA-related ethical standards. Quantitative and qualitative ratings of the consultant’s coaching work indicated that the clients were pleased with the consultant’s services, and the consultant enjoyed her consultation with them. The psychologist met with the head of the consulting organization with whom she was affiliated. Being careful not to share identifying information, the psychologist sought suggestions from peers (fellow psychologists engaged in consultation) in bringing up the issues she learned about from her coaching clients. The overall recommendation was that she should have a direct conversation with the company’s president and head of the board. The consultant recognized that such a dialogue would likely create large waves and may cost her future consultation work for being a whistleblower, but she felt that the risk needed to be taken. She did so, and in the coming months, facts of concern about the company’s financial situation emerged. The company’s stock took a major hit, as did its reputation. The company has not engaged the consulting psychologist in any further work, and the consulting company suffered a decline in business. The consultant wondered if her former client had retaliated against her (and the firm she worked) by discouraging potential clients from hiring her. Case Discussion This case involved a duty to report alleged illegal activities. The consultant may have had legal or ethical obligations related to her work in an organization covered by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (see Chapter 6, this volume). There may be a legal mandate to report as dictated by the particular state in which the organization is functioning or by federal law. The consulting psychologist would need to identify whether this was an exception to confidentiality that required sharing the information with others in the organization and if so whether that exception had been included in the consent process. 111

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, is relevant to this issue. It states: If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations or other governing legal authority, 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)

Chapter 6 of this book discusses this and related issues in detail. The consultant in this case should have discussed limitations to confidentiality at the outset of the consultation and in her work with the individuals whom she coached. Such a discussion could achieve the avoidance of probable harm caused in its absence. Although the investors are a more indirect client of the consultant and those who buy from the company even more indirect, her primary loyalty is to the organization that hired her and not to the individuals with whom she is working. This priority of the organization over individuals aligns with Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm. Thus, conversations about who is the client and the various situations where confidentiality is limited or must be reported are essential to best practice. Ethics Case 5.2: Bad Apples Can Corrupt Barrels A corporate psychologist learned from a reliable source that a senior manager was having an extramarital affair with one of his subordinates. She consulted the company’s human resources (HR) vice president (VP), who asked a series of questions and concluded that there was not a sufficient basis on which to act, particularly given the unwillingness of the psychologist to divulge the source of her information. The spouse of the senior manager learned of the affair and showed up at her spouse’s office with a gun, threatening to kill both her husband and the subordinate. Both security and the local police were called, the situation was calmed down, and the weapon removed. The spouse was taken into custody and faced charges. 112

ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

After the incident, the HR director was contacted by the company’s president. The HR director indicated that the psychologist had brought the alleged affair to his attention but he did not find the evidence compelling. The president directed HR to conduct an internal investigation of the behavior of the two parties. On its conclusion, the resignation of the subordinate was forced while the senior executive, who was working on an important project, was allowed to continue in the company with an oral warning. The subordinate filed a sexual harassment complaint against the senior executive, which resulted in considerable adverse publicity for the company. The psychologist met again with the HR VP to express concern that the subordinate rather than the boss was being singled out for adverse consequences. The VP essentially responded it was not her concern. Security in the building was also tightened as a result of this incident; metal detector screening was required both to get into the building and to each floor. The costs of implementing the new screening procedures along with the costs attributed to employees’ time were considerable. Case Discussion The consulting psychologist appropriately contacted the head of the HR department to discuss the allegation of the affair. Depending on how the information was obtained, and the company’s specific policies, it may or may not have been appropriate to have identified the parties by name. The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code; 2017) Standards 3.03, Other Harassment, and 3.04, Avoiding Harm, clearly prohibit sexual or other harassment on the part of the psychologist but that was not what was at issue in this case. Standard 3.04 applies more closely to the facts of this case. Complaints that might result in charges of sexual harassment must be taken seriously by organizations to avoid even greater problems later on. On the other hand, idle gossip or anonymous speculation is not a sufficient basis of action. Employers should have clear policies in place that include what employees should do if they learn of information that, if true, would require a response by the organization. Psychologists, in turn, need to know those policies and how to deal with information obtained that violate those rules or applicable laws. 113

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

By protecting the boss having the affair, the company contributed to the perception that it was sexist and unfair and that affairs were permissible for bosses but not for their subordinates. The psychologist might have done more to address the procedures to be used when allegations of sexual misconduct occurred and to try to assure that there was an objective source for acting on such allegations.

CONCLUSION Consulting psychologists frequently work in the context of organizations. Assuring that their own behavior is compliant with ethical standards can be a challenge, especially since there is no obligation of companies or managers to obey psychologists’ ethics. Thinking about ways to handle challenges to psychologists’ ethics can help psychologists respond with confidence should unanticipated conflicts arise.

114

6

Toward More Complex Ethical Models: Unfinished Business

T

his book has focused on identifying ethical issues in the practice of consulting psychology with three types of clients: individuals, groups, and organizations. We have aimed to demonstrate that the concept of individual, group, and organizational levels is a useful heuristic when considering the work activities of consulting psychologists, but the levels are not rigid boundaries separating consulting psychologists’ work activities and the ethical issues likely to arise when working at each level. The American Psychological Association (APA; 2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code)—and, by implication, many other psychologists’ ethics codes—has been mostly developed in the context of the delivery of individual level psychological services and not consulting services, where clients might be individuals, groups, or entire organizations. References to organization and group clients were added in the 2002 revision of the Ethics Code, and a new standard (Standard 3.11,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000058-007 The Ethical Practice of Consulting Psychology, by R. L. Lowman and S. E. Cooper Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

115

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations) was added, but little was done to assure that the issues associated with groups and organizations as client really applied, or were sufficiently developed, to address the complexities of such work. This chapter makes the case that consulting psychology helps us identify some of the limits of the existing ethics standards used by psychologists. We argue that existing models of psychological ethics have not taken adequate account of the group and organizational levels at which psychological services are delivered, much less the ethical issues associated with the delivery of psychological services when groups and organizations are the clients. We further argue that consulting psychologists must look to alternative models and must start the process of considering ethics, or at least parts of it, anew if we are to develop robust guidelines for practice in this area.

HISTORY MATTERS It is useful to remember that the APA, founded in 1892 with 31 (male) members and G. Stanley Hall as its first president, had no ethics code for the first 50 years of its existence. This was partly influenced by the fact that the early APA reflected mostly the concerns of scientists and researchers. Practice issues were not the concern of the early leaders of the APA. But as applied work developed, it did not find a particularly welcoming home in the APA; it was not until 1919 that a section on clinical psychology was formed. Because of a perceived lack of support from APA, applied, nonclinical psychologists created their own organization, the American Association of Applied Psychology (AAAP), in 1937. (The Journal of Applied Psychology, one of the premiere journals in industrial–organizational psychology, was founded in 1912 and from the outset was well-respected for its science.) In 1945 the AAAP merged with the APA, and a formal division of Industrial and Business Psychology was created (Koppes, n.d.). The initial efforts to create a professional ethics code contrasted greatly with today’s code. The first APA ethics code (adopted in 1953) consisted of a 170-page document filled with case materials provided by then-members 116

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

of the APA (D. Smith, 2003). Over the years it has gone through several iterations, but none of them took into consideration the practice of psychology in organizations. The 2002 version of the Ethics Code did add a number of references to “organizations” and “consulting,” but most of these additions (with the exception of Standard 3.11) were minor terminology additions rather than a reflection of the ethical issues that face psychologists practicing in organizational or consulting contexts. Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, and Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands, were later amended in 2010 (APA, 2010b); Standard 3.04b, Avoiding Harm, was added in 2017 (APA, n.d.) to address complaints that the Ethics Code did not adequately address the ethical responsibilities of psychologists working in national security contexts. We discuss these complaints and the surrounding ethical issues in the next section. The point here is not to resolve these issues but rather to identify them as aspects of the Ethics Code that are more ambiguous than would be desirable, particularly those related to the work of consulting psychologists in organizational contexts.

CASE ILLUSTRATION: THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION’S INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT In 2005, the APA convened the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (hereafter referred to as the “PENS Task Force”) to consider whether the APA Ethics Code provided adequate guidance for psychologists working with interrogations and other informationgathering activities related to national security.1 The PENS Task Force eventually published a report concluding that the Ethics Code did sufficiently address such activities (APA, 2005). James Risen subsequently published a book in 2014 entitled Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War in which Both authors of this book served in APA governance leadership roles during the time of the IR Report. Stewart Cooper currently serves on APA’s Board of Directors. All opinions expressed in this chapter and book are the personal views of the authors and may or may not reflect the views or policy of APA.

1

117

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

he alleged that there had been collusion between the CIA and the APA to facilitate changes in the 2002 revision of APA’s Ethics Code to allow participation by psychologists in the use of torture and so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. In 2014, APA’s Board of Directors contracted for an independent review to determine whether there is any factual support for the assertion that APA engaged in activity that would constitute collusion with the Bush administration to promote, support or facilitate the use of ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques by the United States in the war on terror. (APA, 2014, para. 3)

The review culminated in a report prepared by David Hoffman and colleagues of the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, titled the Report to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association: Independent Review Relating to the APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Independent Review Report or the IR Report; Hoffman et al., 2015). Hoffman’s investigation was allowed unfettered access to APA’s emails, and he completed interviews with a large number of psychologists, as well as APA staff and governance members,2 who had been involved in a number of activities that related to APA policy and its Ethics Code. The report included the following list of findings of organizational problems: APA staff and governance involved in the composition of the PENS Task Force and its decision making had potential conflicts of interest that should have been more fully disclosed; 77 the then-APA ethics director had acted in ways to delay and to protect from action ethics complaints that had been made about several of those alleged to have been involved in inappropriate interrogations and torture; 77

2

APA employees include both psychologists (whom we refer to as psychologist-staff members) and non­ psychologists. We also use the term APA governance members to refer to psychologists who are not employees but who hold elected or appointed nonstaff (voluntary) positions in APA, such as being members of the Board of Directors, the Council of Representatives, and various others boards and committees.

118

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

some senior psychologist-staff in APA had failed to properly oversee some of those who were involved in the issues covered in the report, raising questions about the adequacy of supervision of their subordinates’ work; 77 some senior members of APA governance had acted in ways that were overly aggressive and arguably manipulative in trying to garner support for their points of views; 77 the APA Board of Directors had bypassed the normal procedure of going through APA’s Council of Representatives by adopting the PENS report as policy using “emergency action” provisions; and 77 many of these actions were designed to curry favor with the Department of Defense (DoD) so that they would support various programs in which APA was involved. 77

Of note, the Independent Review Report also contradicted some of the allegations that had been made. Hoffman wrote, “With regard to the revisions of the Ethics Code . . . we found that the meaningful changes occurred prior to 9/11 and were not influenced by an effort to help the government’s interrogation efforts” (Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 10). In addition, Hoffman concluded that, contrary to critics’ claims, there was “no evidence of significant CIA interactions regarding PENS” (Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 47). The purpose of bringing up this highly complicated set of events (the revised report issued by Hoffman was more than 500 single-spaced pages) is not to debate whether every detail in the IR Report was gotten right but rather to consider the extent to which the APA Ethics Code was an adequate vehicle by which to address such matters and if not, how would it need to be changed. What the IR Report described were complicated intra- and interorganizational actions in which certain staff members (some of whom were psychologists) or governance officials of the APA were allegedly engaged. The Ethics Code (2017) states (in the section “Introduction and Applicability”) that the code’s applicability was limited to their roles as psychologists: This Ethics Code applies only to psychologists’ activities that are part of their scientific, educational, or professional roles as psychologists. Areas covered include but are not limited to the clinical, counseling, and school practice of psychology; research; teaching; supervision of 119

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

trainees; public service; policy development; social intervention; organizational consulting; forensic activities; program design and evaluation; and administration. This Ethics Code applies to these activities across a variety of contexts, such as in person, postal, telephone, Internet, and other electronic transmissions. These activities shall be distinguished from the purely private conduct of psychologists, which is not within the purview of the Ethics Code. (APA, 2017)

Suppose now that a similar set of behaviors attributed to APA psychologist-staff members in the IR Report were carried out by psychologists while working in a nonpsychological employment organization. Would the activities, if performed by psychologists, have been considered to have been part of their psychological roles? If not, since the APA Ethics Code distinguishes “purely private” behavior, on what basis would ethical action be undertaken? For example, there are a number of psychologistmanagers who have risen to high-level positions as university, hospital, mental health, or corporate administrators. Arguably (unless their terms of employment specifically required adherence to the Ethics Code), they were not functioning as psychologists and not bound by psychologists’ ethics and rules when serving as senior leaders. Although the Ethics Code asserts that “administration” is encompassed in psychologists’ activities, this term begs for clarification. Are these “professional roles” simply because they are performed by psychologists? Should these psychologists be required to obey the APA Ethics Code when functioning as managers of major organizations (universities, foundations, for-profit organizations) especially since the APA Code was not designed with such roles in mind? Put another way, could such psychologists be charged with ethical violations based on their activities in these roles? We believe that clarification is needed. Interestingly, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) frames the issue a little differently: Relationship of the Code to Personal Behaviour This Code is intended to guide and regulate only those activities a psychologist engages in by virtue of being a psychologist. There is no intention to guide or regulate a psychologist’s activities outside of this context, although an individual psychologist might make a personal decision to 120

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

be guided by the Code’s principles and values outside of this context. Personal behaviour becomes a concern of the discipline only if it is of such a nature that it undermines public trust in the discipline as a whole or if it raises questions about the psychologist’s ability to carry out appropriately his/her responsibilities as a psychologist. (CPA, 2017, p. 7)

This approach seems to provide a bit more leeway for enforcement groups (e.g., professional associations, licensing boards) to potentially act even when the behavior would “undermine public trust in the discipline.” Even this addition is not well elaborated and might raise legal challenges if used in enforcement. For example, if a psychologist were convicted of vehicular homicide while under the influence of drugs, and the occupation of the psychologist were prominently featured in the news reports, the impact on public trust is reasonably clear to all. On the other hand, suppose a psychologist were involved in a personal business lawsuit that resulted in unfavorable press that included the psychologist’s occupation. A licensing board or psychological association taking action in such circumstances might be on less firm footing if it concluded that taking punitive action would “undermine trust” in psychology. In addition, the CPA Code helpfully addresses what should happen when areas not explicitly covered by the CPA Code arise. In judging whether unacceptable conduct has occurred, many jurisdictions refer to a code of conduct. Some complaints, however, are about conduct that is not addressed directly in a code of conduct. The Code provides an ethical framework for determining whether the complaint is of enough concern, either at the level of the individual psychologist or at the level of the profession as a whole, to warrant corrective action (e.g., discipline of the individual psychologist, general educational activities for members, or incorporation into the code of conduct). In determining corrective action for an individual psychologist, one of the judgments the adjudicating body needs to make is whether an individual conscientiously engaged in an ethical decision-making process and acted in good faith, or whether there was a negligent or willful disregard of ethical principles. The articulation of the ethical decision-making process contained in this Code provides guidance for making such judgements. (CPA, 2000, p. 6) 121

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

After the IR Report was published, several senior APA staff members retired, resigned, or otherwise left the organization (APA, 2015). Presumably, the psychologists among those who left the organization would not have been subject to the Ethics Code for the described behavior if it related to “purely private” administrative roles, but even that assessment is ambiguous when the administrative roles in question were in a psychology organization and the behavior potentially affected the entire field of psychology. But what about the ethical responsibilities of those psychologist who served in volunteer roles in the governance of the APA members who were identified in the IR Report as having behaved inappropriately? For example, some of those involved in the creation of the PENS Report were described as having behaved in ways that were at least arguably inconsistent with the ethical behavior requirements of the APA Ethics Code. Given that all were psychologists and all were involved in the work of the APA, wouldn’t there have been an ethical basis for action? Although it might be argued that such behavior was part of their “professional behavior as psychologists,” those named were volunteers and not per se functioning as psychologists. Or was this “purely private conduct” by psychologists and therefore not subject to the Ethics Code? On the one hand, ethics tribunals and licensing boards understandably do not want to become adjudicators of complaints of psychologists who have become administrators, particularly when they are no longer just supervising psychologists on psychological work. On the other hand, not making clearer when psychologists’ “professional roles” begin and end is, we argue, best not left as ambiguous as it now is in the current Ethics Code.

ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS OR THE BEHAVIOR OF PSYCHOLOGISTS IN ORGANIZATIONS? We believe there remains ambiguity about when psychologists’ ethics codes apply to work in organizational contexts when there is, or is not, a specifically psychological service being delivered. Imagine a psychologist who is 122

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

a senior leader in a consulting firm who supervises psychologists and nonpsychologists. The position involves overseeing consulting services, the budget function, and marketing. Is the work “psychological” simply because it is being performed by a psychologist? What if a psychologist were director of human resources who used her training in psychology only when supervising the personnel selection functions but otherwise did not? What about psychologists who behave inappropriately while serving in volunteer positions for a professional association of psychologists? Would the professional association be expected to take action based on its guidelines for misconduct or would there be a basis for ethical action? Does the Ethics Code apply to such situations? Would it matter if the professional organization were the very one that promulgated the code and adjudicates ethics complaints? What if the organization were the APA Insurance Trust or the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards? We argue that the Ethics Code should explicitly address whether or not psychologists’ volunteer activities are covered when engaging in particular roles. We have an opinion as to whether they should or should not be. For example, we have witnessed what we consider to be unprofessional behavior on the part of psychologists when serving in governance roles of professional psychology organizations, behaviors that include using arguably abusive language and attempts to control others by being insulting and characterizing individuals (also psychologists) by their assumed levels of intelligence and bullying that would not be allowed in most work settings. Why then would such behaviors be ethically acceptable when they occur in an organization of psychologists? We also argue that psychologists functioning as administrators in psychological organizations should be more clearly specified as to which aspects of their roles are covered by the Ethics Code and which are not. Not every nuance can be identified and addressed, but the findings documented in the IR Report about psychologists in staff positions at the APA provide strong evidence that the Ethics Code should not lack ambiguity as to its applicability. And it is the Ethics Code itself, not someone’s interpretation of it, that should be the basis for action in our opinion. 123

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

LIMITATIONS OF THE ETHICS CODE FOR CONSULTING ROLES In this chapter, we have focused mostly on the applicability of the Ethics Code to ethical issues raised by the IR Report as an example of how organizational and psychological ethics can intertwine. It is worth mentioning that consulting issues did arise in the IR Report (Hoffman et al., 2015, pp. 59–60, 156, 158, 181, 209, 220, etc.). A variety of situations were mentioned in which individual psychologists were described as functioning in consulting roles and in ways judged by the IR Report’s authors to have been problematic. Was such behavior covered under the Ethics Code? We would argue that to the extent the consultation referenced in the IR Report constituted the provision of psychological services, it should unambiguously be covered by the Ethics Code. Indeed, the psychologists would presumably not have been consulting other than on the basis of their psychological knowledge and expertise. Yet, in the voluminous commentary and discussions that have publicly appeared in the period following issuance of the report, little mention has been made about the role of those consulting psychologists.

UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS As we have noted throughout this book, the ethical standards of the APA include much that is relevant for the practice of consulting psychology. The addition of the terms organizational clients and organizations to the APA (2002) Ethics Code helped to make clear that organizational and consulting psychologists were not exceptions to the code. Consider this excerpt from the Preamble: Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific and professional knowledge of behavior and people’s understanding of themselves and others and to the use of such knowledge to improve the condition of individuals, organizations, and society. (APA, 2002)

The addition of Standard 3.11 also provided useful guidance in setting up consulting psychology contracts. However, for the practicing 124

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

consulting psychologist there remain many ambiguities that need greater clarity if they are to be taken seriously in their practice. In this section, we raise some of these issues by identifying specific questions that we feel need elaboration. It is not our intent to suggest here specific changes to the APA or other professional psychology ethics codes but rather to dig into the details and to explain why the practical application of the Ethics Code to consulting psychology is not always obvious. What Specifically Are the Ethical Obligations of Consulting Psychologists Under Standard 1.03? Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands, identifies an obligation of psychologists to deal with conflicts between organizational “demands” and ethical obligations. Yet, consulting and other psychologists may reasonably ask what ethical obligations they have under this standard. For example, for many years the U.S. military did not allow openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals to serve in the military (see “Key Dates in U.S. Policy on Gay Men and Women in Military Service,” n.d.). An active duty military psychologist in that era asked to assess a soldier to determine whether she is gay and to sign off on a recommendation for a dishonorable discharge based on that finding could be in a situation covered by Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority. Standard 3.01, Unfair Discrimination, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (among other characteristics). In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law. (APA, 2017)

Would a psychologist asked to evaluate a military member when LGBT individuals were banned from the military have had to communicate to the client that he or she disapproves of the policy but is required to conduct assessments because of current Department of Defense (DoD) policy? Because the applicable policy is decided at the presidential levels, does the DoD psychologist have the obligation to make the disagreement 125

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

known at the level of her/his specific work or at the level at which the policy is actually made? As written, Standard 1.02 is not well elaborated as to the specific ethical duties and would seem to be naive about the power structures of organizations, particularly large and complex ones. No ethics code can be expected to cover every contingency, and psychologists must use good judgment in applying the code to real-life situations. But excessive ambiguity does create problems. For example, a change in the 2010 Ethics Code was made to articulate what Standard 1.03 did not allow. Specifically, a sentence was added: “Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights” (APA, 2010a). However, that is a statement of clarification, and one can imagine many more circumstances that would also not be allowed. Those standards that contain inherent ambiguities require either elaboration or policy interpretations about how they apply in various types of situations if they are to be meaningful. We argue that better guidance is needed in elaborating responsibilities in terms of what constitutes compliance with the ethical mandate of “mak[ing] known their commitment to the Ethics Code” in Standard 1.03 (APA, 2017). Consulting psychologists might benefit from first considering those circumstances in which they would feel obliged to resign from the organization, or take other extreme action, rather than do what they feel would egregiously violate their professional ethical standards. For example, if ordered to fabricate or falsify psychological data, to disclose confidential information in a way that was not mandated by law and was contrary to agreement, or to present false information that would benefit the organization, for many would constitute sufficiently egregious demands for ethical violations to warrant a very strong stance, including possibly resignation from the organization. However, in most ethical dilemmas in consulting work, the parties should not be assumed to be unreasonable, unpersuadable people. Rather than considering Standard 1.03 to apply to discrete, isolated situations, consulting psychologists might do better to think of this obligation as benefitting from an ongoing responsibility to educate organizational clients and clients in organizational contexts on the ethical responsibilities of psychologists, why they exist, and, over time, to build respect and integrity for the roles that psychologists play in the organization. 126

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

How Absolute Is the Commitment to Individuals When an Organization Is Also a Client and the One Paying the Bills? Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, makes clear that when obtaining consent for psychological activities involving multiple parties in organizational contexts, the psychologist must provide information “beforehand” to clients and others about the terms of the engagement (APA, 2017). On the surface this is a very thorough statement of some of the factors that psychologists working “to or through organizations” need to consider. In practice, however, this statement bears some elaboration. The entire standard is about “services delivered to or through organizations” so the psychologist needs to understand whether this means that the organization is itself a client. If so, who in the organization, typically a corporation, is able to consent on behalf of the organization? In most cases the client is not the organization as a whole but rather some designated part of it—a department or division, a branch, or some subpart of it (see Fisher, 2014; Fuqua et al., 2012). We also note that the term client, in this context, is not a defined term in the Ethics Code, nor is there consensus about the definition of client in consulting contexts. Kramer and others (Kramer, Kleindorfer, & Colarelli, 1992; Kramer, Kleindorfer, & Colarelli-Beatty, 1994) explored how respondent groups defined the term client. In neither study was there consensus about what the term client meant. In the second study the three most common characteristics that respondents used to identify the client were 1) those who are responsible to solve the problem or see that it gets solved, 2) those who have the authority to implement and/or commit the organization to an agreement, and 3) those who are most affected by the solution that gets implemented. (Kramer et al., 1994, p. 17)

There were differences in responses by type of psychologist and by nonpsychologist organization development (OD) professionals. In the context of school psychology (which often involves organizational dimensions), Fisher (2014) noted that “Who is the client?” is the wrong ethical question in approaching such work. Rather, there are usually multiple clients and they may change over time. 127

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

In an important article on the topic of client definition in the work of consulting psychologists, Fuqua et al. (2012; see also Newman, RobinsonKurpius, & Fuqua, 2002) differentiated between client and consultee and noted a number of issues in actually working in organizational settings to apply Standard 3.11. They noted also that “beforehand” is often not practical in consulting applications, which tend to be more fluid and to take time to determine the relevant parties and their respective roles and the important role of power differentials. After identifying and discussing a number of important issues that considerably complexify the straightforward language of Standard 3.11, they identified 11 issues that are important in defining the client:  1. Who is paying for the services?  2. What roles do the contracting parties play in the organization?  3. What formal and informal authority do the contracting parties hold?  4. How are the contracting parties related to the recipients of the intervention?  5. What procedures will be used to ensure that informed consent is established with all those who will receive direct intervention?  6. What consequences do exist or may come to exist for parties who decline participation?  7. What limits may exist to confidentiality of information produced by the consultation process?  8. What classes of people may be directly or indirectly affected by the intervention who will not be participating in the consultation process?  9. Will the roles and/or structures of the organization create the perception of coercion for any class of participants and, of course, how do we confront the perceived coercion? 10. What kinds of information are required to meet the terms of the contract and who will be expected to provide the information? 11. What roles will the consultant(s) play in managing information resulting from the consultation intervention? (Fuqua et al., 2012, p. 116) 128

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

Informed Consent: What Notices Must Be Given to Clients About Exceptions to Confidentiality? Standard 3.11 notes the requirement that psychologists identify exceptions to confidentiality at the outset of providing services to or through organizations (APA, 2017). Again, on the surface this is certainly a reasonable request. But when clients are organizations or parts thereof and services are also provided to others in the organization, care must be taken to consider exceptions to confidentiality, assuming that confidentiality even applies. Fisher (2016) used the term conditional confidentiality to suggest that confidentiality is rarely if ever unconditional. For example, in health and mental health contexts, psychologists can often reasonably assume that sessions are generally confidential except in unusual situations such as viable threats made against people or mandated reporting of allegations of sexual, elder, or other abuse. Often the communications may be otherwise legally privileged meaning that they are protected from disclosure except for specific, defined exceptions. DeMers and Siegel (2016) cited the Pennsylvania law related to privilege (“Confidential Communications to Psychiatrists or Licensed Psychologists”), which states: No psychiatrist or person who has been licensed to . . . practice psychology shall be, without the written consent of his client, examined in any civil or criminal matter as to any information acquired in the course of his professional services on behalf of such client. The confidential relations and communications between a psychologist or psychiatrist and his clients shall be on the same basis as those provided or prescribed by law between an attorney and client. (Cited in DeMers & Siegel, 2016, pp. 384–385)

In this case, the statute was written broadly and could in theory apply to the communications of clients in organizational contexts. However, in some jurisdictions, the applicability of privilege is limited to psychologists performing mental health or health-related services with clients. Psychologists working in organizational consulting would do well to identify the confidentiality parameters, and privileges, if any, applying to their work with particular clients. 129

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

Confidentiality issues become much more complicated when consulting psychologists are not licensed. Whether consulting and industrial– organizational psychologists should be required to be licensed to perform consulting activities has been a complicated and somewhat divisive issue for many years. Howard and Lowman (1985) were among the first to systematically lay out the issues, and the discussion since then has been divided between proponents of licensure (e.g., Gormanous, 2009; Jelley, Bonaccio, & Chiocchio, 2014; Scontrino, Gormanous, & Blanton, 2010), those holding neutral positions (e.g., Silzer, Erickson, & Cober, 2009; Tippins, 2006), and those actively opposed (Locke, n.d.). Issues in providing appropriate supervision that meets licensing laws has also been an ongoing concern since the clinical models do not usually fit consulting psychology (Blanton, 2014). Although a few states exempt consulting or industrial–organizational psychologists from licensure, most do not and do not have an exemption for working in corporate settings. A major problem for consulting psychologists remains that their practices often cross state and international boundaries, so the rules and laws of multiple jurisdictions must be considered. Additionally, without a license to practice, there would be no defined privilege for confidentiality, and clients would need to be advised about the possibility of disclosures not only for mandated reporting requirements such as viable threats made against specific targets or reportable allegations of abuse but also limitations associated with the possible subpoena of the psychologist or client litigation. That such situations must be taken seriously is suggested by workplace violence statistics which, in the United States alone, include some 2 million complaints a year (which excludes many unreported violence concerns). In 2014 there were 403 workplace homicides in the United States (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2014). What this suggests is that an informed consent agreement that concerns consulting work with individuals (e.g., in coaching) in the context of organizations would need to be a conditional confidentiality with many potential limitations. One hypothetical example of a form identifying limitations to confidentiality (not to be regarded as legal guidance) might include the following language: 130

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

I understand that the purpose of this consultation is [x]. The information contained in the coaching sessions with the consulting psychologist will be treated as confidential except for the requirement to report to your supervisor about your attending the sessions regularly and a brief report on progress made. Information may also be disclosed that, under the laws of [x], are legally mandated to be reported (for example, sexual or elder abuse or threats to harm others may be required to report this information as reported by law). Although your psychologist is licensed in the state of [x] and it is believed that clients’ information protected as privileged, this has not yet been tested in the state of [x]. [Alternative version 2 of the last sentence: I understand that, because your psychologist is not licensed in the state of [x], there is no legal privilege by which the psychologist can decline information that is subpoenaed. I understand that I therefore can choose to share, or not to share, sensitive information with the psychologist.]

Psychologists are encouraged to consult legal counsel regarding the content of consent documents. The point of this section is simply to illustrate the kinds of exceptions to confidentiality that might need to be disclosed under conditional confidentiality. It also illustrates the complicated nature of the concepts of conditional confidentiality especially when trying to explain them to a prospective client. Many more complicated contingencies can also be imagined. Gottlieb and Younggren (2009) accurately noted: “No informed consent document can anticipate all the ethical dilemmas regarding boundary management that a practitioner may encounter” (p. 569). Still, there are many legal and other complexities. Consulting psychologists should therefore be cautious and should never blithely promise confidentiality that they may not be able to assure.

Are Multiple Relationships Inevitable in Organizational Consulting Work? Multiple relationships in organizational consulting are the norm, not the exception (Lowman, 2016b). Knapp, Gottlieb, and Handelsman (2015) noted: “Some multiple relationships are unavoidable—they occur 131

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

accidentally” (p. 102). Knapp et al., were especially concerned with the inevitable multiple relationships that arise when working in small towns or cities where there are few psychological providers. Likewise in organizational consulting, multiple relationships may occur in ways that either are unavoidable, coincidental, or unanticipated. For example, a consulting psychologist may report to a manager with whom he also serves on committees or a coaching psychologist may work with an individual client one hour and the next be in a meeting with the client’s boss. Opportunities abound for crossing boundaries, usually not in an ill-intentioned way. Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships, provides useful information on this topic. Curiously, this standard defines acceptable multiple relationships not by what they are but by what they are not—ones that “would not unreasonably . . . are not unethical.” Standard 3.05 is not entirely problematic. In one-on-one work the standard as written is probably sufficient for most commonly encountered multiple relationships. But when the consulting psychologists work across levels in the context of organizations where contacts with individuals, groups, and parts of the organization itself are continuous and the potential for role conflict are real, this version of the standard is not adequate. The following excerpt from the standard describes the modal relationship between consulting psychologists and organizations and the people within them: A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional 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 . . . (APA, 2017)

Consider the case of an internal salaried internal consultant in a medium-sized organization. Suppose the psychologist’s job is housed in the Human Resources (HR) department but the consultant works as a process facilitator with the senior management team, oversees the selection processes used by the organization, and also works with a number of individual coaching clients. It would be easy for such a psychologist to simply describe himself or herself as an “OD consultant” and in effect claim not to be functioning as 132

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

a psychologist. Many psychologists working in organizations do not even put their psychology degrees or titles of “psychologists” on their business cards or refer to themselves because they find that designation may distance them from those with whom they work in the organization. But they are still trained as psychologists and view their work as psychological and themselves as psychologists (see Silzer, Erickson, & Cober, 2009). However, for this discussion we assume that the psychologist is licensed, the identity is that of a psychologist, and the psychologist’s job title and business cards use the psychology degree and title. We believe the APA standard on multiple relationships needs elaboration at least for consulting psychologists’ work and possibly for that of others. We think a revised version of it would benefit from considering the particular issues that arise in organizational consulting to better understand the issues that arise in a psychology specialization in which multiple relationships are common. The original Ethics Code was built in part on case material; consideration of a wider range of case examples might have resulted in a more robust code. For example, here are some situations that may commonly arise in consulting psychology applications. Consulting psychologists may work with coaching clients in which services are paid for by the employer and in which there is a reporting obligation to the coaching client’s boss; 77 consult individually with members of the group and simultaneously with the group as a whole; 77 advise on selection decisions of senior leaders while also coaching the CEO; and 77 participate as a consultant in confidential senior executive team meetings while also performing other consulting roles in the organization. 77

What Ethical Obligations Do Consulting Psychologists Have When Consulting Psychology Engagements Change During a Consulting Engagement? Organizations are often rapidly changing institutions (Horney, Pasmore, & O’Shea, 2010). In modern organizations, the so-called VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) world is an everyday reality (Bawany, 133

THE ETHICAL PRACTICE OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY

2016). Managers come and managers go. A CEO may be golden one day and ousted the next (see, e.g., Fell, 2015; Grynbaum, 2016). When managers new to positions arrive, they often bring with them new agendas, new performance mandates, new assumptions, and the need to act to implement the agenda and goals for which they were hired. Although ethical standards understandably need to have continuity, they also need to change or to be elaborated as new situations evolve that the standards or aspirational principles were never anticipated to address. As goals and players change, the assumptions need to be revisited either with an eye toward their re-affirmation or to considering needed changes. This is anticipated in Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, Section (b): (b) Unless it is not feasible or is contraindicated, the discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant. (APA, 2017; italics added)

Yet neither Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, nor Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, has a similar admonition that recognizes that “new circumstances” may warrant new or revised agreements. We argue that consulting psychologists should have an advance plan to consider how they will respond to changes that arise after initial agreements and terms of engagements are established. Ethical omniscience is not expected or required of psychologists, but the willingness to engage with changes imposed by organizational representatives or others is imperative. For example, if a manager asks for release of information to her that had, before her arrival, agreed not to be released, the psychologist can (as suggested in Case 1.4) engage the manager about her needs and intents. But if that fails, the psychologist might be ethically obligated to explain the changed situation to those whose data was collected and to determine whether, noncoercively, they would be willing to do so. Other options might also be possible under the changed circumstances. As another example, suppose that a psychologist has learned (from a third party) that an employee being coached will be terminated. The psychologist would need to think in ethical terms about the effect of that information on the coaching relationship, 134

TOWARD MORE COMPLEX ETHICAL MODELS

the need (if any) to renegotiate the relationship and the consequences of making changes without the consent of those affected.

GUIDANCE FOR MANAGING ETHICAL ISSUES NOT COVERED IN THIS BOOK Inevitably, the practice of psychology involves situations that this book has not described or anticipated. In such circumstances, the ethical practice of consulting psychology involves learning how to think ethically, by which is meant knowing how to take practical situations and consider the relevant ethics code and literature to ask: What is the right thing to do in this situation? Thinking ethically is a bit like having appropriate social skills. First one must know that situations involve ethics before one is likely to attend to those issues. Psychologists have an obligation to be ethical in all that they do. Therefore, assuring that they keep their “ethical checklist” firmly in mind can help identify the appropriate ways to act in new situations. By being required to think and act ethically, psychologists may well become among those who serve as the “conscience” of the organization. This may help provide a position in which organizational leaders will listen to ethical concerns and consider them when weighing options or resolving differences in a particular situation. No book can cover or anticipate all ethical contingencies that may occur. It is therefore useful to consult writings that provide practical information on learning to think ethically. One recommended source is Knapp, VandeCreek, and Fingerhut (2017). The road ahead for consulting psychology ethics is neither linear nor likely to be smooth, as this chapter illustrates. The opportunities, however, are not just to advance the ethics of consulting psychology but also to take psychology ethics beyond the individual level of analysis.

135

References

Ablett, J. (2017). HIPAA compliant cloud storage—11 services reviewed. Retrieved from https://adeliarisk.com/hipaa-compliant-cloud-storage/ Acharya, V. V., & Cooley, T. F. (2011). Regulating Wall Street: The Dodd–Frank Act and the new architecture of global finance. New York, NY: Wiley. Alhejji, H., Garavan, T., Carbery, R., O’Brien, F., & McGuire, D. (2016). Diversity training programme outcomes: A systematic review. Human Resource Development Quarterly, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21221 Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68, 527–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032603 American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/2014-aca-code-of-ethics.pdf? sfvrsn=4 American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/code1992.aspx American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.57.12.1060 American Psychological Association. (2003). APA guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/multiculturalguidelines.aspx American Psychological Association. (2005, July 5). Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2005/07/pens.aspx 137

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2007). Guidelines for education and training at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels in consulting psychology/ organizational consulting psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 980–992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.9.980 American Psychological Association. (2010a, February 24). American Psychological Association amends ethics code to address potential conflicts among professional ethics, legal authority and organizational demands. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/02/ethics-code.aspx American Psychological Association. (2010b). 2010 Amendments to the 2002 “Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.” American Psychologist, 65, 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020168 American Psychological Association. (2014, November 12). Statement of APA Board of Directors: Outside counsel to conduct independent review of allegations of support for torture. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/ releases/2014/11/risen-allegations.aspx American Psychological Association. (2015, July 14). APA announces retirement and resignation of senior leaders [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www. apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/07/retirements-resignation.aspx American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Revision of Ethics Code Standard 3.04. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/standard-304.aspx Anderson, S. K., Williams, P., & Kramer, A. L. (2012). Life and executive coaching: Some ethical issues for consideration. In S. J. Knapp, M. C. Gottlieb, M. M. Handelsman, & L. D. VandeCreek (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in psychology: Vol. 2. Practice, teaching, and research (pp. 169–181). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13272-009 Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Iachini, A., Bean, G., Flaspohler, P. D., & Zullig, K. (2010). Capacity-related innovations resulting from the implementation of a community collaboration model for school improvement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 257–287. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10474412.2010.500512 Arredondo, P., & Tovar-Blank, Z. G. (2014). Multicultural competencies: A dynamic paradigm for the 21st century. In F. T. L. Leong, L. Comas-Diaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall, V. C. Mcloyd, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psychology: Vol. 2. Applications and training (pp. 19–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14187-002 Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB). (2017). ASPPB model act for licensure and registration of psychologists. Peachtree City, GA: 138

REFERENCES

Author. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.asppb.net/resource/ resmgr/docs/DRAFT_ASPPB_Model_Regulation.pdf Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18, 359–372. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/s15327043hup1804_3 Bawany, S. (2016). Leading change in today’s VUCA world. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 33(2), 31–32. Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00074.x Bersoff, D. N. (Ed.). (2008). Ethical conflicts in psychology (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bixler, R., & Seeman, J. (1946). Suggestions for a code of ethics for consulting psychologists. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 486–490. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063603 Blanton, J. S. (2014). Supervision practices in consulting and industrial– organizational psychology doctoral programs and consulting firms. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66, 53–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0035681 Brown, M., & Heywood, J. S. (2005). Performance appraisal systems: Determinants and change. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43, 659–679. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2005.00478.x Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., 573 U.S. (2014). Campbell, L., Millán, F., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (2018). A telepsychology casebook: Using technology ethically and effectively in your professional practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Canadian Psychological Association. (2017). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (4th ed.). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cpa.ca/ docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf Carpenter, Z. (2016, September 9). 5 myths about the EpiPen scandal. No, Mylan is not an “outlier.” The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/ article/5-myths-about-the-epipen-scandal/ Carter, L., & Sullivan, R. L. (2013). The change champion’s field guide: Strategies and tools for leading change in your organization. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Choonhaklai, S., & Wangkanond, R. (2014). The linkage between elements in the strategic planning process: A qualitative study. International Employment Relations Review, 20, 27–43. Christian, J., Porter, L. W., & Moffitt, G. (2006). Workplace diversity and group relations: An overview. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 459–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430206068431 139

REFERENCES

Civiello, C. L. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on organizational consulting in national security contexts. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61, 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015099 Clutterback, D., & Hussain, Z. (2010). Virtual coach, virtual mentor. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Cooper, S. E. (2012). Introduction to the special issue on international consultation: Consulting psychology goes global. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 243–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031584 Cooper, S.  E., & Leong, F.  T.  L. (2008). Culture, race, and ethnicity in organizational consulting psychology [Special issue]. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 133–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.60.2.133 Cooper, S. E., & Lowman, R. L. (in press). Ethical issues in psychological consultation. In M. M. Leach & E. R. Welfel (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of applied psychological ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, S. E., & Neal, C. (2015). Consultants’ use of telepractice: Practitioner survey, issues, and resources. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67, 85–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000015 Cooper, S. E., Newman, J. L., & Fuqua, D. R. (2012). Counseling psychologists as consultants. In N. A. Fouad (Ed.), APA handbook of counseling psychology: Practice, interventions, and applications (Vol. 2, pp. 515–539). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13755-021 Cooper, S. E., & Shullman, S. L. (2012). Counseling psychologists as consultants. In E. M. Altmaier & J.-I. C. Hansen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 837–855). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Corey, G. (2016). Theory & practice of group counseling (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development & change (10th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. C´wiklicki, M. (2016). Understanding management concepts through development of their tool box: The case of total quality management. Nase Gospodarstvo, 62, 56–62. D’Andrea, M., & Heckman, E. F. (2008). A 40-year review of multicultural counseling outcome research: Outlining a future research agenda for the multicultural counseling movement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 356–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00520.x David, R. J., & Strang, D. (2006). When fashion is fleeting: Transitory collective beliefs and the dynamics of TQM consulting. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 215–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786058

140

REFERENCES

Davidson, A. (2016, September 12). How regulation failed with Wells Fargo. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/ the-record-fine-against-wells-fargo-points-to-the-failure-of-regulation Demers, C. (2007). Organizational change theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeMers, S. T., & Siegel, A. M. (2016). Legal and statutory regulations. In J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, & D. K. Freedheim (Eds.), APA handbook of clinical psychology: Education and profession (Vol. 5, pp. 375–393). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Dingfelder, S. F. (2004). Treatment for the “untreatable” despite the difficult-totreat reputation of personality disorders, clinical trials of treatments show promise. APA Monitor, 35, 46. Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376–2223 (2009). Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47, 504–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jwb.2012.01.004 Dougherty, A. M. (2015). Psychological consultation and collaboration in school and community settings (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Dowgwillo, E. A., Dawood, S., & Pincus, A. L. (2016). The dark side of narcissism. In V. Zeigler-Hill, & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology (pp. 25–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 14854-002 Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York, NY: HarperBusiness. Elango, B. B., Paul, K., Kundu, S. K., & Paudel, S. K. (2010). Organizational ethics, individual ethics, and ethical intentions in international decisionmaking. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 543–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-010-0524-z Ethical standards for psychology; section 1, ethical standards and public responsibility; section 6, ethical standards in teaching. (1951). American Psychologist, 6, 626–661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057908 Farr, J. L., & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Fell, J. (2015, May 8). 9 CEOs who were fired or decided to step down. Entrepreneur. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/246043 Fisher, M. A. (2014). Why “Who is the client?” is the wrong ethical question. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 30, 183–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15377903.2014.888531

141

REFERENCES

Fisher, M. A. (2016). Confidentiality limits in psychotherapy: Ethics checklists for mental health professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14860-000 Foster, S. L., & Lloyd, P. J. (2007). Positive psychology principles applied to consulting psychology at the individual and group level. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59, 30–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10659293.59.1.30 Frankel, J., & Orszag, P. R. (2002). Retrospective on American economic policy in the 1990s. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2009). Consultation as a moral process. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61, 136–146. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0015496 Fuqua, D. R., Newman, J. L., Simpson, D. B., & Choi, N. (2012). Who is the client in organizational consultation? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 108–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027722 Galbraith, J. R. (2008). Designing matrix organizations that actually work: How IBM, Proctor & Gamble and others design for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gebhardt, J. A. (2016). Quagmires for clinical psychology and executive coaching? Ethical considerations and practice challenges. American Psychologist, 71, 216–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039806 George, T. (2013). Implementing and maintaining a knowledge sharing culture via knowledge management teams: A shared leadership approach. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 17, 69–91. Gibson, G., & Froehle, T. C. (1991). Empirical influences on organizational consultation. Consulting Psychology Bulletin, 43, 12–22. Glover, J., & Friedman, H. L. (2015). Transcultural competence: Navigating cultural differences in the global community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14596-000 Gormanous, G. (2009, August). To be or not to be a real psychologist: I/O issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e599412009-001 Gottlieb, M. C., & Younggren, J. N. (2009). Is there a slippery slope? Considerations regarding multiple relationships and risk management. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 564–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017231 Green, S. (2004). Manager’s guide to Sarbanes-Oxley Act. New York, NY: Wiley. Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2015). Using feedback in organizational consulting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/14619-000 Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear 142

REFERENCES

relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68, 1–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ peps.12072 Grynbaum, (2016, July 21). Inside Fox News, ‘there are people in tears.’ The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/business/ media/inside-fox-news-there-are-people-in-tears.html Gutkin, T. B. (2012). Ecological psychology: Replacing the medical model paradigm for school-based psychological and educational services. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 22, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10474412.2011.649652 Hackman, J. R. (2009, May). Why teams don’t work: Interview by Diane Coutu. Harvard Business Review, 87, 98–105, 130. Hackman, J. R. (2011). Collaborative intelligence: Using teams to solve hard problems. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Harris, E. (2009). Coaching: A new frontier some questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.trustinsurance.com/Portals/0/documents/coaching.pdf Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936 (enacted August 21, 1996). Henagan, S. C. (2010). The perils of workplace recognition: Antecedents to discomfort associated with being the target of upward comparisons. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 57–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973530903540109 Henriques, D. B. (2012). The wizard of lies: Bernie Madoff and the death of trust. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74, 208–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 000312240907400203 Hobbs, N. (1948). The development of a code of ethical standards for psychology. American Psychologist, 3, 80–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0060281 Hoffman, D. H., Carter, D. J., Lopez, C. R. V., Benzmiller, H. L., Guo, A. X., Latifi, S. Y., & Craig, D. C. (2015). Report to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association: Independent review relating to APA ethics guidelines, national security interrogations, and torture. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/independent-review/APA-FINAL-Report-7.2.15.pdf Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2011). Management derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (Vol. 3, pp. 555–575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12171-015 Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan development survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. 143

REFERENCES

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/1468-2389.00162 Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9, 169–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169 Horney, N., Pasmore, B., & O’Shea, T. (2010). Leadership agility: A business imperative for a VUCA world [Special issue]. People and Strategy, 33(4, Suppl.), 32–38. Hough, L., & Dilchert, S. (2017). Personality: Its measurement and validity for employee selection. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 298–325). New York, NY: Routledge. Howard, A. (Ed.). (1994). Diagnosis for organizational change: Methods and models. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Howard, A., & Lowman, R. L. (1985). Should industrial/organizational psychologists be licensed? American Psychologist, 40, 40–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.40.1.40 Ingraham, C. L. (2008). Studying multicultural aspects in consultation. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (pp. 269–291). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Jelley, R. B., Bonaccio, S., & Chiocchio, F. (2014). Educating industrial– organizational psychologists for science and practice: A Canadian perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(1), 51–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iops.12104 Joint Task Force for the Development of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists. (2013). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. American Psychologist, 68, 791–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035001 Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality and extreme leader behavior. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 55–92. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/apps.12024 Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Key dates in U.S. policy on gay men and women in military service (n.d.). Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute. Retrieved from http://www.usni.org/ news-and-features/dont-ask-dont-tell/timeline Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Foreword: Executive coaching as an emerging competency in the practice of consultation [Special issue]. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 59–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0092651 Kilburg, R. R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developing managerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/10355-000 144

REFERENCES

Kilburg, R. R. (Ed.). (2004). Trudging toward Dodoville, Part 1: Conceptual approaches in executive coaching [Special issue]. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56, 203–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.56.4.203 Kilburg, R. R. (2006). Executive wisdom: Coaching and the emergence of virtuous leaders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/11464-000 Kilburg, R. R. (2016). The development of human expertise: Toward a model for the 21st-century practice of coaching, consulting, and general applied psychology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68, 177–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000054 Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0017103 Knapp, S. J., Gottlieb, M. C., & Handelsman, M. M. (2015). Ethical dilemmas in psychotherapy: Positive approaches to decision making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14670-000 Knapp, S. J., VandeCreek, L. D., & Fingerhut, R. (2017). Practical ethics for psychologists: A positive approach (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2013). Boundary crossings and the ethics of multiple role relationships. Retrieved from http://www.continuingedcourses. net/active/courses/course066.php Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2016). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions: Standards and cases. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Koppes, L. L. (n.d.). Brief history of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc.-A division of the APA. Retrieved from https://www.siop.org/ History/historynew.aspx Kramer, T. J., Kleindorfer, K. L., & Colarelli, K. M. (1992). Who is the client in a complex consulting relationship? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 44, 14–23. Kramer, T. J., Kleindorfer, K. L., & Colarelli-Beatty, K. M. (1994). Who is the client: A replication and extension. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46, 11–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.46.3.11 Kuipers, B. S., & Stoker, J. I. (2009). Development and performance of selfmanaging work teams: A theoretical and empirical examination. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 399–419. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/09585190802670797 Lefkowitz, J. (2004). Contemporary cases of corporate corruption: Any relevance for I-O psychology? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42(2), 21–29. 145

REFERENCES

Lefkowitz, J. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should . . . expand the values of organizational psychology to match the quality of its ethics [Special issue]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 439–453. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/job.527 Lefkowitz, J., & Lowman, R. L. (2017). Ethics of employee selection. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 575–598). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Leonard, H. S., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). The evidence for the effectiveness of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7(2), 121–136. Leong, F. L., & Huang, J. L. (2008). Applying the cultural accommodation model to diversity consulting in organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 60(2), 170–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.60.2.170 Levinson, H. (2002a). Assessing organizations. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques (pp. 315–343). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Levinson, H. (2002b). Organizational assessment: A step-by-step guide to effective consulting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/10453-000 Locke, E., (n.d.). The case against licensing of psychologists. The Industrial Psychologist Newsletter [serial online], 25, 29. Long, W. J., & Quek, M. P. (2002). Personal data privacy protection in an age of globalization: The U.S.–EU safe harbor compromise. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 325–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501760210138778 Lowman, R. L. (1993). Counseling and psychotherapy of work dysfunctions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of organizational consulting psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lowman, R. L. (2005). Importance of diagnosis in organizational assessment: Harry Levinson’s contributions. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 8, 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15503461tpmj0801_3 Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (2006). The ethical practice of psychology in organizations (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association & Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11386-000 Lowman, R. L. (2011a). Risking your job: On striving to be an ethical leader in difficult organizational circumstances. In W. B. Johnson & G. P. Koocher (Eds.), Casebook on ethically challenging work settings in mental health and the behavioral sciences (pp. 215–222). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lowman, R. L. (2011b). A small world after all. In D. Anderson (Ed.), Cases and exercises in organization development & change (pp. 201–208). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. 146

REFERENCES

Lowman, R. L. (2013a). Coaching ethics. In J. Passmore, D. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.), Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring (pp. 68–88). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (2013b). Internationalizing multiculturalism: Expanding professional competencies in a globalized world. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14044-000 Lowman, R. L. (2016a). Business and other organizations. In J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, & D. K. Freedheim (Eds.), Handbook of clinical psychology: Vol. 1. Roots and branches (pp. 477–493), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14772-027 Lowman, R. L. (2016b). An introduction to consulting psychology: Working with individuals, groups, and organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14853-000 Lowman, R. L. (2016c). The psychologist as managerial coach. In Oxford Handbook OnLine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199935291.013.27 Lowman, R. L. (in press). Ethical and legal concerns in internet-based testing. In J. Scott, D. Bartram, D. Reynolds, & D. Foster (Eds.), International applications of Internet-based testing: Challenges and opportunities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lustgarten, S. D. (2015). Emerging ethical threats to client privacy in cloud communication and data storage. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46, 154–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000018 Luxton, D. D., Nelson, E.-L., & Maheu, M. M. (2016). A practitioner’s guide to telemental health: How to conduct legal, ethical, and evidence-based telepractice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130–160. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206313503014 Matthews, J. R. (2014). Introduction to special section on telepractice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 301–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0037855 MBA oath. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mbaoath.org/about/the-mba-oath McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. New York, NY: Penguin Group. McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler. Merle, R. (2016, September 8). Wells Fargo boots 5,300 employees for creating accounts its customers didn’t ask for. Washington Post. Retrieved from 147

REFERENCES

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/08/wellsfargo-fined-185-million-for-creating-accounts-its-customers-didnt-askfor/?utm_term=.b238b01776a4 Mohrman, S. A. (2002). The organizational level of analysis: Consulting to the implementation of new organizational designs. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques (pp. 54–75). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moule, J. (2012). Cultural competence: A primer for educators. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage. Mullin, V., & Cooper, S. (2002). Cross-cultural issues in international organizational consulting. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques (pp. 545–561). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Murphy, K., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18, 343–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1804_2 Newman, J. L., Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., & Fuqua, D. R. (2002). Issues in the ethical practice of consulting psychology. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques (pp. 733–758). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. (2014). Workplace violence. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https:// www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/ O’Neill, O. A., Feldman, D. C., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2011). Organizational achievement values, high-involvement work practices, and business unit performance. Human Resource Management, 50, 541–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20437 Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Salgado, J. F. (2010). Cognitive abilities. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 255–275). New York, NY: Routledge. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679 Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17, S19–S38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.487 Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2012). Integrity tests predict counterproductive work behaviors and job performance well: Comment 148

REFERENCES

on Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012). Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 537–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024825 Oswald, F. L., & Hough, L. M. (2011). Personality and its assessment in organizations: Theoretical and empirical developments In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 153–184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pascal, A., Sass, M., & Gregory, J. B. (2015). I’m only human: The role of technology in coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67, 100–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000025 Passmore, J. (2009). Coaching ethics: Making ethical decisions—novices and experts. The Coaching Psychologist, 5, 6–10. Passmore, J., Peterson, D., & Freire, T. (2013). Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring (pp. 68–88). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Pellicelli, M., Meo, C. C., & Cioffi, A. (2012). Organizational change: Business process reengineering or outsourcing? The Journal of the Faculty of Economics (University of Oradea), 21, 277–293. Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M. J. T. (2016). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Ratts, M. J., Toporek, R. L., & Lewis, J. A. (2010). ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice framework for counselors. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Risen, J. (2014). Pay any price: Greed, power, and endless war. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Rossett, A., & Marino, G. (2005). If coaching is good, then e-coaching is . . . Training & Development, 59, 46–49. Rozovsky, J. (2015). The five keys to a successful Google team. Retrieved from https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team/ Sackett, P. R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). On reconciling conflicting meta-analytic findings regarding integrity test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 550–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028167 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002). Scalcione, R. (2011). The derivatives revolution: A trapped innovation and a blueprint for regulatory reform. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer. Scontrino, M. P., Gormanous, G., & Blanton, J. S. (2010, January). A guide for I-O students (and faculty) about licensure. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 47(3), 11–15. Seashore, H. (1949). Ethical problems of the industrial psychologist. Personnel Psychology, 2, 103–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1949.tb01674.x 149

REFERENCES

Seashore, H. (1951). Personnel selection tests and fair employment practices. American Psychologist, 6, 128–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061212 Silzer, R., Erickson, A., & Cober, R. (2009, January). Licensing and industrial– organizational psychologists. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 46(3), 89–99. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2016). Consequentialism. In the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (unpaginated). Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher. py?query=consequentialism Smith, D. (2003). The first code. Monitor on Psychology, 34, 63. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/firstcode.aspx Sørensen, F., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Speeding up innovation: Building network structures for parallel innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20, 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616500249 Steele, E., & Schmidt, M. S. (2017, April 1). Bill O’Reilly thrives at Fox News, even as harassment settlements add up. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexualharassment-fox-news.html Stober, D. R., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting best practices to work for your clients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Stuart, R. B. (2004). Twelve practical suggestions for achieving multicultural competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 3–9. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.1.3 Sue, D. W. (2008). Multicultural organizational consultation: A social justice perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 157–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.60.2.157 Sutich, A. (1944). Toward a professional code for psychological consultants. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39, 329–350. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/h0060936 Tabuchi, H., Ewing, J., & Apuzzojan, M. (2017, January 11). Six Volkswagen executives charged as company pleads guilty in emissions case. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/business/volkswagendiesel-vw-settlement-charges-criminal.html?_r=0 Tammemagi, T., O’Hora, D., & Maglieri, K. A. (2013). The effects of a goal setting intervention on productivity and persistence in an analogue work task. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33, 31–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01608061.2013.758001 Thomas, J. C., & Hersen, M. (2002). Handbook of mental health in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 150

REFERENCES

Thomas, J. T. (2010). The ethics of supervision and consultation: Practical guidance for mental health professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12078-000 Tippins, N. (2006). Commentary from the field. An I-O psychologist’s perspective on licensure. Science Briefs, Psychological Science Agenda. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e521262006-003 Tripp, J. F., Riemenschneider, C., & Thatcher, J. B. (2016). Job satisfaction in agile development teams: Agile development as work redesign. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17, 267–307. Trochim, W., Donnelly, J. P., & Arora, K. (2016). Research methods: The essential knowledge base (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012). Riding the waves of culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Vandaveer, V. V., Lowman, R. L., Pearlman, K., & Brannick, J. P. (2016). A practice analysis of coaching psychology: Toward a foundational competency model. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68, 118–142. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000057 Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wanek, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Ones, D. S. (2003). Towards an understanding of integrity test similarities and differences: An item-level analysis of seven tests. Personnel Psychology, 56, 873–894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570. 2003.tb00243.x Wang, J., Smailes, E., Sareen, J., Fick, G. H., Schmitz, N., & Patten, S. B. (2010). The prevalence of mental disorders in the working population over the period of global economic crisis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 598–605. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/070674371005500908 Wang, M.-H., & Yang, T.-Y. (2016). Investigating the success of knowledge management: An empirical study of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Asia Pacific Management Review, 21, 79–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2015.12.003 The warning. (2009). Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ frontline/film/warning/ Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, J. M., & Markham, S. E. (1997). An empirical examination of the relationship between ethical climate and ethical behavior from multiple levels of analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1705–1716. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017952221572 Worley, C. G., Mohrman, S. A., & Nevitt, J. A. (2011). Large group interventions: An empirical field study of their composition, process, and outcomes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 404–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0021886311410837 151

Index

AAAP (American Association of

APA Guidelines for the Practice of Telepsychology, 84 Center for Excellence, 74 doctoral programs accredited by, 59 first ethics code of, 4, 116–117 Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists, 53, 87, 88 history of ethics code of, 116–117 Industrial and Business Psychology division of, 116 Joint Task Force for the Development of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists, 78, 84 Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security, 117–119, 122 and “professional roles” of psychologists, 120–123 Amplifier Magazine, 85 APA. See American Psychological Association APA Center for Excellence, 74

Applied Psychology), 116 ACA (American Counseling Association), 84 ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association), 84 Action learning, 51 Activities in consulting psychology, 7, 8 at group level, 9–10 at individual level, 7, 9 at organizational level, 11–12 Advisory groups, 106 Age, ethics and, 110 Agreements on handling ethics conflicts, 105 Ailes, Roger, 100 American Association of Applied Psychology (AAAP), 116 American Counseling Association (ACA), 84 American Management Association, 104 American Psychological Association (APA). See also Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA) alleged collusion with CIA, 118–119

153

Index

Bartering, 67–68, 70, 91

APA Guidelines for the Practice of Telepsychology, 84 APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS Task Force), 117–119, 122 Arthur Andersen, 98 ASPPB (Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards), 81 Assessments bases for, 55 in coaching, 18–19, 91 cultural bias in, 86 forced participation in, 45–47, 63–66 at group level, 9–10 with high-security teams, 83 at individual level, 7, 25–27 informed consent in, 10, 46 of integrity, 108 interpreting results of, 27 mistakes in, 30–32 multiple relationships with, 66–67 at organizational level, 11–12, 58, 66–67, 75 scientific basis for, 53–56 for selection, 25–27 test construction, 27 use of, 26, 55–56 Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB), 81 Authority, 21 Avoidance of harm in assessment for selection, 26 in coaching, 91 and confidentiality, 112, 113 at group level, 44–50 at individual level, 26 at organizational level, 112 team leader’s use of intervention information, 48–49

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (Principle A, APA Ethics Code), 75 Biases, cultural, 52 Bixler, R., 5 Borne, Brooksley, 99 Business ethics. See Organizational and business ethics

Campbell, L., 84 Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), 120–121 Choi, N., 45 CIA, APA alleged collusion with, 118–119 Client (term), 127–128 Clients, defining, 128 Coaching competence in, 18–19, 32–35 confidentiality in, 19–24 deontological vs. consequential, 92 emerging ethical issues for, 90–95 group, 48 at individual level, 18–24 individual vs. organizational level issues in, 27 at organizational level, 57 recommended ethical practices for, 94–95 specialization in, 90 and therapy, 90–94 through telepsychology, 79–82 working definition of, 33 Coaching psychology, 33–34 Codes of ethics. See Ethics codes Competence in assessments for selection, 25–27 in coaching, 18–19, 32–35, 91 cultural, 49–53 at group level, 48–50, 52 at individual level, 18–19, 25–27, 32–35 154

Index

in managing value conflicts between psychologists and organizational clients, 74–76 multicultural and international, 50, 88–90 obtaining and demonstrating, 59 at organizational level, 12, 59–66, 73 for telepsychology, 79–80, 83 in test construction, 26 Complaint resolution procedures, 106 Conditional confidentiality, 129–131 Confidentiality and changes in engagements, 134 in coaching, 91 conditional, 129–131 at group level, 40–44 at individual level, 19–25 individual vs. organizational level issues with, 27 and licensing, 110 notices about exceptions to, 129–131 at organizational level, 61–63, 110–114 with telepractice, 82–84 Conflict of interest in coaching, 91, 93–94 at group level, 49 at organizational level, 58, 68–70 Conflicts between ethics and legal requirements, 111–112 Conflicts between ethics and organizational demands, 14 at individual level, 23–24 individual vs. organizational level issues with, 29 at organizational level, 105–106 Conscientiousness, 108 Consent. See also Informed consent for organizational level coaching, 57 with telepsychology, 81

Consultation (term), 6 Consultee (term), 128 Consulting psychology, 59–60. See also individual levels of consulting areas of expertise in, 11–12 ethical content areas for, 7, 8 ethical standards for, 4–6 at group level, 9–10 at individual level, 7–9 levels and activities in, 7, 8 limitations of Ethics Code for, 124 oppressive leader case study, 13–14 at organizational level, 10–13 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 88, 90 Content areas in consulting psychology, 7, 8 Cooper, S. E., 78–79, 88 Cooperation with other professionals, 94 CPA (Canadian Psychological Association), 120–121 CPA Code, 121 Cultural competence, 49–53. See also Multicultural/international consultation guidelines for developing, 87 issues of, 88–90 in telepsychology, 82 Culture of doing consultation, multiple relationships and, 66 Cummings, T. G., 58

DeMers, S. T., 129 Department of Defense (DoD), 125–126 Depression, 18–19 Discrimination based on sexual orientation, 125–126 Dispute resolution, 106 DoD (Department of Defense), 125–126 155

Index

Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, 47 Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists’ Work, 91 Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, 112, 117, 125–126 Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands, 14, 23–24, 105, 117, 125–126 Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, 19, 25, 26, 33–34, 52, 60, 73, 79–80, 83, 89, 91 Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments, 34 Standard 3.03, Other Harassment, 113 Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm, 26, 45–49, 91, 112, 113, 117 Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships, 12–13, 24, 49, 66–67, 70, 91, 93–94, 132, 133 Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest, 49, 68, 91, 93–94 Standard 3.09, Cooperation with Other Professionals, 94 Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, 91, 134 Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, 6, 19, 29, 41, 49–50, 73, 83, 91, 105, 115–116, 124, 127–129 Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality, 21–22, 82, 91

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, 101 Dougherty, A. M., 40, 86–87

Egotistical behavior, 109 Elango, B. B., 109–110 Electronic Health Records Templates, 85 Emerging ethical issues/challenges, 77–95 with coaching, 90–95 with multicultural and international consultation, 86–90 with telepsychology-based practice, 78–85 Enron, 98, 100 Ethical climate of organizations, 109 Ethical organizations and behavior, helping to create, 107–110 Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA) 1992 edition, 5–6 2002 revision, 6, 79, 115, 117 2017 edition, 6 and alleged APA–CIA collusion, 118–119 ambiguity about application of, 122–123 aspirational principles of, 47 and changes in engagements, 134 coaching applications of, 91, 92 “consultation” as term in, 6 limitations of, 124. See also Existing ethical standards “organizational clients” and “organizations” as terms in, 124 Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, 75 Principle C: Integrity, 22 156

Index

Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, 21–22, 44, 82–84, 134 Standard 6.05, Barter With Clients/ Patients, 67–68, 70, 91 Standard 9.01, Bases for Assessments, 55 Standard 9.02, Use of Assessments, 26, 55–56, 91 Standard 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments, 10, 46, 65–66, 83 Standard 9.05, Test Construction, 27, 64–65 Standard 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results, 27 Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security, 83 Standard 10.10, Termination of Therapy, 91 Ethics codes. See also Psychology ethics codes and actual ethical behavior/intent, 109 for coaching, 92–93 evolution of, 5–6 foundational dimensions of, 92–93 limitations of. See Existing ethical standards for managers, 100, 102–104 MBA Oath, 102–104 of psychology vs. business, 4–5, 104–106. See also Organizational and business ethics Evidence-based procedures, 53–56 Existing ethical standards, 115–135 history of, 116–122 limitations of Ethics Code for consulting roles, 124 and organizational ethics vs. behavior of psychologists in organizations, 122–123

unresolved questions concerning, 124–135

Federal Reserve, 99 Fingerhut, R., 135 Fisher, M. A., 127, 129 Fox News, 100 Froehle, T. C., 54 Fuqua, D. R., 45, 59, 62, 66, 128

Gebhardt, J. A., 94 Gibson, G., 54 GLOBE studies, 88 Google, 74–75 Google’s People Operations, 47 Gottlieb, M. C., 131–132 Greenspan, Alan, 99 Group level consulting, 9–10, 38–39 Group level ethical issues, 9–10, 37–56 avoidance of harm, 44–50 confidentiality and informed consent, 40–44 and group consultation methods, 38–39 multicultural and international issues, 50–53 person–group fit in selection, 39–40 scientific basis for assessment and intervention, 53–56 Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (APA), 53, 87, 88

Hall, G. Stanley, 116 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 82 Hoffman, David, 118–119 Hofstede, Geert, 87 Hogan, J., 109 Hogan, R., 108–109 157

Index

Howard, A., 130 Human resources management (HRM) at group level, 38 at organizational level, 58

multiple relationships with, 66–67 at organizational level, 58, 60–67, 75 scientific basis for, 53–56

Individual level consulting, 7–9, 17

Joint Task Force for the Development

Individual level ethical issues, 9, 17–35, 107–109 coaching competence, 32–35 competency concerns, 18–19 confidentiality, 19–25 first ethics code developed for, 4 mistakes in assessments, 30–32 organizational level ethical issues vs., 27–30 risk to individuals, 25–27 Industrial and Business Psychology division (APA), 116 Informed consent, 10 in assessments, 10 in coaching, 91 as conditional confidentiality, 130–131 at group level, 40–44 at organizational level, 62–66 with telepractice, 83 Integrity, 108 Integrity (Principle C, APA Ethics Code), 22 Intergroup relations interventions, in group consulting, 38 International Association of Coaches, 92 International consultation. See Multicultural/international consultation International Foundation of Coaching, 92 Interventions forced participation in, 48 at group level, 9, 38–39, 41, 47–50, 109 at individual level, 7, 9

of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists (APA), 78, 84 The Journal of Applied Psychology, 116

Keith-Spiegel, P., 67 Kramer, T. J., 127 Kundu, S. K., 109–110 Lay, Kenneth, 98 Leadership GLOBE studies of, 88 organizational level ethical issues with, 71–74 Levels in consulting psychology, 7, 8. See also individual levels Levinson, H., 11 Licensing privilege and, 110, 130 for working in corporate settings, 130 Lowman, R. L., 17, 33, 37, 51, 59, 66, 75, 130 Luxton, D. D., 84 Lying about mistakes, 30–31 Madoff, Bernie, 107 Maheu, M. M., 84 Managers’ ethics codes, 100, 102–104 Martin, J., 84 Maylan Company, 100 MBA Oath, 102–104 Military, LGBT individuals in, 125–126 Millán, F., 84 Mistakes, 30–32 Misuse of psychologists’ work, 91 The Monitor on Psychology, 90

158

Index

Organizational level consulting, 10–13 common methods used in, 58–59 confidentiality in, 110–114 ethical challenges in, 3–4 and major purpose of organizations, 97 tools used in, 11–12 Organizational level ethical issues, 57–76, 109–110 bartering, 67–68, 70 competence, 59–66 confidentiality, 61–63, 110–114 conflict of interest, 68–70 impact of organizational ethics on consulting psychology practice. See Organizational and business ethics individual level ethical issues vs., 27–30 informed consent, 62–66 with leadership, 71–74 multiple relationships, 66–67 values conflicts between psychologists and organizational clients, 74–76 Organizational mirroring, 38 Organizational psychology, 4–6. See also Consulting psychology Organizations, 10–11 Organizations (term), 124

Multicultural/international consultation emerging ethical issues/challenges with, 86–90 at group level, 50–53 Multiple relationships, 12–13, 131–133 in coaching, 91, 93–94 and confidentiality, 24 and conflict of interests, 70 at group level, 49 at individual level, 24 at organizational level, 66–67, 70

Neal, C., 78–79 Nelson, E.-L., 84 Newman, J. L., 45, 62, 66, 75–76 New York Stock Exchange, 101

O’Reilly, Bill, 100 Organizational and business ethics, 97–114 and behavior of psychologists in organizations, 122–123 confidentiality at organizational level, 110–114 conflict between psychologists’ ethics and, 104–106 helping create ethical organizations and behavior in organizations, 107–110 at the present time, 99–100 psychologists’ ethics in context of, 102–104 psychologists’ obligations under Sarbanes-Oxley, 101–102 psychology ethics codes conflicting with, 4–5 in recent decades, 97–99 Organizational clients (term), 124 Organizational demands, conflicts between ethics and, 14, 23–24, 29

Participation in assessments, 45–47 consent for, at organizational level, 57–58, 63–66 forced, 45–48, 63–66 in interventions, 48 Passmore, J., 92–93 Paudel, S. K., 109–110 Paul, K., 109–110 Pay Any Price (Risen), 117–118

159

Index

with telepractice, 83 written agreement on ethics conflicts, 105 Psychologists “professional roles” of, 120–123 unlicensed, 110 Psychologists’ ethics conflict between organization and business ethics and, 104–106 in context of organizational and business ethics, 102–104 and mid-engagement changes, 133–135 Psychology ethics codes ACA, 84 ambiguity about application of, 122–123 APA. See Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct business ethics codes conflicting with, 4–5 CPA, 121 early, 4 evolution of, 5–6 foundational dimensions of, 92–93 limitations of. See Existing ethical standards Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 101

Pearlman, K., 33 Personality characteristics, predicting work behavior from, 108–109 Person–group fit, as priority in selection, 39–40 Personnel tests, ethics conflicts related to, 4–5 Positive psychology, 91 Power, 21 A Practitioner’s Guide to Telemental Health (Luxton, Nelson, & Maheu), 84 Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (APA), 117–119, 122 Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (APA Ethics Code), 75 Principle C: Integrity (APA Ethics Code), 22 Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, 47 Professional judgments bases for, 34 in managing multiple relationships, 66–67 The Psychological Corporation, 5 Psychological services, 6 bartering for, 67–68, 70 in coaching, 91 exceptions to confidentiality, 129 at group and intergroup level, 41, 49–50 at individual level, 19 individual vs. organizational level issues with, 27 and narcissistic CEO, 73 at organizational level, 67–68, 70, 73, 105

Report to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association (Hoffman et al.), 118–122, 124 Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity (Principle E), 47 Risen, James, 117–118 Risk to individuals, 25–27

160

Index

at individual level, 23–24 individual vs. organizational level issues with, 29 at organizational level, 105 Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence assessment for selection, 25, 26 for coaching, 91 at group level, 52 at individual level, 19, 25, 26, 33–34 multicultural competence, 52 for multicultural consulting, 89 and narcissistic CEO, 73 at organizational level, 60, 73 with telepractice, 79–80, 83 Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments, 34 Standard 3.03, Other Harassment, 113 Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm, 117 assessment for selection, 26 for coaching, 91 and confidentiality, 112, 113 at group level, 45–49 at individual level, 26 at organizational level, 112 Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships, 12–13, 132, 133 for coaching, 91, 93–94 and confidentiality, 24 at group level, 49 at individual level, 24 at organizational level, 66–67, 70 Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest for coaching, 91, 93–94 at group level, 49 at organizational level, 68 Standard 3.09, Cooperation with Other Professionals, 94 Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, 91, 134

Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., 62 Rossett, A., 79 Rucker, Pete, 102

Safe Harbor agreement, 85 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 100–101 provisions of, 101 psychologists’ obligations under, 101–102 Scientific basis for assessment and intervention, 53–56 Seashore, H., 5 Security, with telepsychology, 82–84 Seeman, J., 5 Selection assessments for, 25–27 priority of person–group fit in, 39–40 Sexual harassment, 113–114 Sexual orientation, discrimination based on, 125–126 Sidley Austin LLP, 118–119 Siegel, A. M., 129 Six-factor cultural dimensions theory, 87 Skilling, Jeffrey, 98 The Society for Media Psychology and Technology, 85 Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists’ Work, 91 Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, 112, 117, 125–126 Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands, 14, 117 ethical obligations of consulting psychologists under, 125–126

161

Index

Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations, 6, 29, 115–116, 124 and changes in engagements, 134 for coaching, 91 and commitment to individuals, 127–128 exceptions to confidentiality, 129 at group and intergroup level, 41, 49–50 at individual level, 19 individual vs. organizational level issues with, 27 and narcissistic CEO, 73 at organizational level, 73, 105 with telepractice, 83 written agreement on ethics conflicts, 105 Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality for coaching, 91 at individual level, 21–22 with telepractice, 82 Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, 134 at group level, 44 at individual level, 21–22 with telepractice, 82–84 Standard 6.05, Barter With Clients/ Patients, 67–68, 70, 91 Standard 9.01, Bases for Assessments, 55 Standard 9.02, Use of Assessments assessment for selection, 26 for coaching, 91 at group level, 55–56 at individual level, 26 Standard 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments, 10 and forced participation, 46 at group level, 46

at organizational level, 65–66 with telepractice, 83 Standard 9.05, Test Construction, 27, 64–65 Standard 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results, 27 Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security, 83 Standard 10.10, Termination of Therapy, 91 Stereotypes, cultural, 52 Sutich, A., 5 Systems level consulting. See Organizational level consulting

Team building, in group consulting, 38 Teams, 9. See also group level consulting informal subgroups within, 42 selection of, 39–40 Technology individual vs. organizational level issues with, 28 security with, 82–84 The Telemental Health Institute, 85 Telepsychology 50–State Review, 85 Telepsychology-based practice, 78–85 benefits of, 79 defined, 78 emerging ethical issues of, 78–84 resources on, 84–85 A Telepsychology Casebook (Campbell, Millán, & Martin), 84 Termination of therapy, 91 Test construction at organizational level, 64–65 for selection, 27 Third-party interventions, in group consulting, 38 Treviño L. K., 107, 109 Turnover, of bosses, 27–30

162

Index

Unethical business practices, 97–100

cultural, 52–53, 87 and multicultural competence, 50 Vandaveer, V. V., 33 VandeCreek, L. D., 135 Virtue ethics, 75–76 Volkswagen, 99

assessing individuals’ potential for, 108 and ethical climate of organization, 109 Unlicensed psychologists, 110 U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement, 85

Wells Fargo, 99–100

Values

Work groups. See Group level ethical issues Worley, C. G., 58

conflicts between psychologists and organizational clients, 74–76 congruence of ethics and, 110

Younggren, J. N., 131

163

About the Authors

Rodney L. Lowman, PhD, ABAP, is currently Distinguished Professor, Organizational Psychology Programs, California School of Professional Psychology, and is past provost/vice president of academic affairs and past acting president of Alliant International University. The author or editor of 12 books and monographs, Dr. Lowman has published more than 130 scholarly publications and made hundreds of professional presentations all over the world. His books include An Introduction to Consulting Psychology: Working With Individuals, Groups, and Organizations; Internationalizing Multiculturalism: Expanding Professional Competencies in a Globalized World; Handbook of Organizational Consulting Psychology; The Ethical Practice of Psychology in Organizations (2nd ed.); The Clinical Practice of Career Assessment: Abilities, Interests, and Personality; Counseling and Psychotherapy of Work Dysfunctions; and Pre-Employment Screening: A Guide to Professional Practice. He is past editor of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, series editor of the American Psychological Association’s Fundamentals of Consulting Psychology book series, and founding editor of The Psychologist-Manager Journal. He has also served on the editorial boards of other journals and has lectured widely both in the United States and internationally on professional ethics, consulting psychology, and counseling and psychotherapy of work dysfunctions. Dr. Lowman is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA), Divisions 1 (General Psychology), 12 (Clinical Psychology), 165

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

13 (Consulting Psychology), 14 (Industrial–Organizational Psychology), 17 (Counseling Psychology), and 52 (International Psychology), and he is a Diplomate of the American Board of Assessment Psychology. He also heads the Scientific Advisory Board of Leadership Worth Following, a Dallas-based consulting firm. He is past president of the Society of Consulting Psychology and of the Society for Psychologists in Management. He has served in a variety of governance roles for the APA and other professional organizations. Dr. Lowman has received many honors and recognitions for his professional work, including the Richard Kilburg Service Award from the Society of Psychologists in Management, the Service Award from the Society for Consulting Psychology, and the International Multicultural Provost’s Award from Alliant International University and the APA Presidential Citation. Stewart E. Cooper, PhD, ABPP, currently serves as director of counseling service and as a professor with the Psychology Department at Valparaiso University. He also is the head of Life Enrichment Associates, a private consultation practice. Dr. Cooper’s professional development has followed the scientist–practitioner model of combining teaching, research, and scholarship with clinical practice. His teaching expertise is in the areas of consultation theory and process, group therapy, counselor training, treatment of addictive disorders, and health psychology. The author of four books, seven book chapters, more than 100 journal articles, and numerous conference presentations, Dr. Cooper is a longstanding member of the editorial board of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research and several other journals, including the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration and other publications. Dr. Cooper was the liaison from the Society of Consulting Psychology to the writing of the 2002 APA Ethics Code. Subsequent to its passage, Drs. Lowman and Cooper have copresented numerous workshops and conference programs with a focus on the ethics of consulting psychology. During 2007–2008, Dr. Cooper served as the president of the Society of Consulting Psychology and as an APA Council Representative for two 166

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

terms. He was also chair of the APA Membership Board and chair of the APA Board of Professional Affairs and currently serves as a member of the APA Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology. He was elected to serve a term on the APA Board of Directors beginning in January 2017. Dr. Cooper is a recipient of the Service Award from the Society for Consulting Psychology and also an APA Presidential Citation for his service to APA Governance.

167