Article archive / August 1, 2012
Originally published: . Volume 3, No. 12. Source pages: 2.
Reading Mark Muse’s book about clinical psychopharmacology (see Bookshelf this issue) I was reminded of the muddle we have in Louisiana, compared to the rest of the country, over the term “medical psychology.” Mark Muse and Bret Moore define medical psychology as primary care. This appears to be the main reason the national groups of medical and health psychologists object to Act 251. Muse described in his book that 251 turned the “medical psychologist” into a mid-level practitioner. Many outside of Louisiana have described this to me before – that 251 took “medical psychologist” and made it into “prescribing psychologist.”
But this is only one issue.
Off and on I speak with Tom Stigall and ask him what he thinks about some concern or another, and we sooner or later get around to a topic about which we both feel strongly. He states it something like this: “Psychologists’ greatest issue is that they have never found a way to articulate to others their unique societal contribution.”
Proof of this was recently summarized in Scott Lilienfeld’s American Psychologist article, “Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific.” He pointed to a host of problems, including the public attitude that psychology is not much more than common sense.
When Huffington Post mauled research findings about unemployment figures for “psychologists” we saw the issue also. They confused undergraduate degrees with graduate training and completely jumbled meanings and facts. But this is what the public has for dinner.
This controversy, among others, indicates to me that we could do better in answering the question: “What business are we in?”
In the famous Harvard Business Review article by Theodore Levitt, “Marketing Myopia,” the story of the railroads was used as a warning. Railroads dominated for a century and recreated the American landscape by dramatically shortening travel times. But Levitt pointed out that railroad companies defined themselves as being in the railroad business. With this viewpoint, they saw automobiles, trucking, and airplanes as simply competition, rather than focus on their true contribution, the transportation business.
When we define ourselves incorrectly, we waste time, energy, the public’s and our competitors’ good will. A good business definition helps guide excellence and manages competition in a fair marketplace.
Our challenges in psychology seem related to the fact that we are born of philosophy, and then go on as both designers and craftsmen. We could debate if we are in the information business, the education business, the healthcare business, or whatever.
But a good model could help on all counts. APA had no strategic plan, a tool of business thinkers, until 2009, a full 117 years since it began. A strategic plan would go a long way toward managing diversity, dealing with marketplace changes, and finding ways to describe our contributions both to policy makers and the public, that don’t sound like doublespeak.
I take a great deal of comfort in the fact that our problems all appear related to the absence of a good business model and visionary leadership. Issues easily corrected.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.