3 pages essay

The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 93

Making the Transition:

Insight From Second-Year

Graduate Students

Chantale N. Wilson and Aaron J. Kraus

The University of Akron

As second-year graduate students, we have recently transitioned from under-

graduate to graduate education and experienced the “surprise and sensemaking”

(see classic article by M. Louis, 1980) this change brings. Indeed, many TIP

readers may fondly remember their own feelings of excitement and eagerness as

they moved from undergraduate to graduate status, and also the apprehension,

uncertainty, and trepidation associated with the transition. Regardless of whether

one has had several years since picking up a college textbook or continues

directly from an undergraduate degree, entering a graduate program involves a

range of adjustments, changes, and challenges. This installment of TIP-TOPics

will elucidate what we and our peers found to be major issues and changes a

first-year graduate student encounters, relate how the I-O program at the Uni-

versity of Akron (UA) addresses these issues, and offer suggestions to help facil-

itate a smooth and fluid transition process.1 We also address how aspects of the

UA model might transfer to other academic and applied situations.

Changing Emphasis in the Classroom

Life as a first-year graduate student is filled with new relationships, experi-

ences, goals, and expectations. For example, as undergraduates we have expe-

rienced up to 17 years of formal educational settings that emphasize the impor-

tance of achieving high grades. Those grades have signaled our learning of

knowledge and skills, our standing relative to other students, and have, in part,

helped us to gain entry to graduate school. This emphasis is soon to change,

however. Those graduates who will be most desired by employers have profes-

sional expertise and ethics, research productivity, applied experiences, teaching

prowess, and perhaps some degree of social acumen, but not necessarily a 4.0

grade point average in their graduate studies. This shift in focus changes the

graduate classroom dynamic, where mastering content and comprehension now

predominate over memorization, and also makes engaging in nonclassroom-

based learning activities critical. Potential employers will forgive an A- in Per-

formance Appraisal if the applicant successfully designed a performance

1 We thank the first- and second-year cohorts at UA for sharing their perspectives and experi-

ences to help inform this edition of TIP-TOPics.

94 January 2012 Volume 49 Number 3

appraisal system during an internship, or a B+ in Training if the applicant pub-

lished a new model for facilitating behavioral change in an organizational set-

ting. Grades and classroom performance are only one component of graduate

training, which also emphasizes research, applied experience, and teaching.

The transition from undergraduate to graduate education also creates a

new interpersonal dynamic with peers. Sharing classes with an intimate

group of similar high-achieving individuals can cultivate a sense of motiva-

tion and enthusiasm but also may lead to comparisons of ability and feelings

of competition when a graduate student defines his or her goals primarily in

terms of relative performance. The resulting emotions and comparisons can

be detrimental to one’s self-efficacy and may lead to hesitation in asking for

help when needed. Yet, such challenges can also stimulate critical thinking,

innovation, and higher levels of learning when one’s peers demonstrate that

high standards are achievable. When it comes to setting goals for future suc-

cess in graduate school and beyond, a learning-goal orientation places indi-

viduals on a better path for success with a more optimistic and persisting atti-

tude than a performance-goal orientation (VandeWalle, 1996; VandeWalle,

Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). Individuals with learning-goal orientations

strive to develop and become accomplished in and generalize new skills to

different situations, whereas performance-goal oriented individuals focus on

displaying competence to others by seeking positive, and avoiding negative,

feedback about an outcome. Individuals with a strong learning-goal orienta-

tion are better at mitigating negative emotions associated with goal setting

and can respond more adaptively to adverse events than performance-orient-

ed individuals (Cron, Slocum, VandeWalle, & Fu, 2005). To promote learn-

ing-goal orientation in graduate students, UA embraces a model of collabo-

ration. We feel reducing competition encourages a learning-goal orientation

among graduate students; therefore, sharing diverse knowledge, skills, and

perspectives amongst one another helps develop well-rounded I-O scien-

tist/practitioners who can adapt to different environments.

Expectations of Graduate Students

Graduate students are held to high standards, and rightfully so. Professors

and advisors expect graduate students to develop an extensive set of knowl-

edge, skills, and abilities, regardless of their previous backgrounds. At times,

acquiring these expected competencies will seem like a challenge, but suc-

cessful graduate students will consider this an opportunity not only to learn

specific skills but also to acquire the metaskill of learning independently. The

ability to learn independently and continue to improve skills is critical for

both scientist and practitioners of I-O psychology, so developing this capac-

ity early in graduate school contributes to success in graduate school and later

professional development.

The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 95

Explaining Your “Profession” to Others

Parents, friends, acquaintances, and others usually understand the nature

of one’s undergraduate pursuits and interests, but graduate students soon find

it is more challenging to describe the purpose and scope of graduate school

and the field of I-O psychology to others. In a previous TIP-TOPics article,

Thoroughgood (2010) argues the importance of developing and mastering a

“2-minute elevator speech,” as well as strategies to break down communica-

tion barriers faced when describing the highly specialized field of I-O psy-

chology. Beyond the task of explaining what I-O psychology is, one may also

need to explain to college friends who have now entered the working world

that graduate school is, in fact, a job! Graduate students may not be able to

share stories of a “9 to 5” day or earning a sizeable paycheck with old high

school or college friends, and this disconnect may create unsettling feelings

and reemphasize the need for that impressive “2-minute elevator speech.”

When faced with the disconnect between our own graduate student expe-

riences and that of our peers who have already entered the working world,

with its increase in dollars and status, it is helpful to remember that one day

we too will enter the professional world. Furthermore, we will have excellent

training that allows us to have a real impact on a continuously evolving work-

force facing challenging problems that affect people’s lives as well as nation-

al and international economies. We hope the individually targeted thoughts

and strategies just presented are helpful to other graduate students making the

transition from being undergraduates. In the next section we describe poten-

tial types of support that are more collective and institutionalized.

How Akron Smoothes the Transition Process

The process of self-discovery and identifying one’s purpose and goals as

a graduate student is facilitated by the autonomous nature of a graduate pro-

gram. Graduate programs embrace students who are proactive, opportunistic,

and highly ambitious. The most successful graduate students surpass the

basic requirements for coursework and seize additional opportunities. At UA,

graduate students are encouraged to find unique and relevant opportunities to

gain knowledge and experience beyond the classroom. Those opportunities

range from applied projects coordinated through the department’s in-house

consulting center (the Center for Organizational Research, or COR), devel-

oping research proposals from class term papers into publishable studies,

interning at companies in the greater Akron/Cleveland area, and even volun-

teering I-O consulting services.

Many of these practical skills exercised externally originate in the class-

room. UA’s collaborative model stresses cooperation and teamwork through

the assignment of multiple group projects, the implementation of study

groups for quantitative methods courses, and engagement in applied team

96 January 2012 Volume 49 Number 3

projects. After all, a supportive, team-based workforce can increase both pro-

ductivity and satisfaction (Campion & Higgs, 1995). Consequently, frequent

collaboration is visible throughout UA’s I-O psychology department. Group

projects are required throughout the curriculum. Dr. Dennis Doverspike’s

class on personnel selection is no exception. As part of the course require-

ments, student teams develop requests for proposals, conduct adverse impact

analyses, and create mock selection systems. These activities provide practi-

cal experience and help produce graduates who are professional, adaptive,

and astute scientist/practitioners. UA’s culture embraces a supportive and col-

laborative nature, consistent with findings that supportive teams and organi-

zations tend to have higher levels of creativity and satisfaction (e.g., Pirola-

Merlo & Mann, 2004).

UA helps to ease the transition of first-year graduate students through a

socialization process congruent with the department culture. The I-O psychol-

ogy program is cohesive and supportive, recognizing the challenges faced by

first-year graduate students and endeavoring to reduce them. Students are

encouraged to work through issues and adversity together, both as a cohort and

an entire program. Relationships developed among first-year students, men-

tors, officemates, and faculty members provide incoming students with both

academic and social guidance. These relationships often lead to collaboration

on research teams, applied experiences, and extracurricular activities. Further-

more, the close-knit culture encourages an “open-door policy” in which stu-

dents feel comfortable walking into a fellow student or faculty member’s

office to freely discuss any issues or concerns they may be having.

As an example of actions taken to build student–faculty relationships, Dr.

Andrea Snell refers to UA graduate students as “junior faculty members” and

treats them as such. Another way that UA helps forge faculty–student rela-

tionship bonds is by sponsoring joint informal activities that take place outside

of the department such as potluck dinners, meeting for happy hour, intramural

flag football, or putting together a faculty–student Akron Marathon relay team.

In particular, faculty members expect graduate students to direct their own

efforts, ask pertinent questions, and seek frequent feedback from their advisors.

Developing strong, high-quality advisor–advisee relationships can lead to ben-

eficial outcomes such as career development and increased productivity in the

mentee (Allen, Shockley, & Poteat, 2010). For many students, advisors not

only provide the obvious opportunities for professional experience but are a

force for diversifying those experiences by pushing students to explore multi-

ple research interests and challenging them to think creatively as they develop

conceptual, methodological, and analytical approaches for shared projects.

How the UA Way Translates to Diverse Settings

Readers considering how to transfer aspects of the UA model and culture

to their own academic or applied contexts may find that providing employ-

The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 97

ees with autonomy and personal control over information and decisions at

work is a good place to start. Employee perceptions of personal control pos-

itively relate to well-being and negatively relate to perceived workplace stres-

sors (Skinner, 1996; Spector, 2002). Likewise, employee perceptions of orga-

nizational support for development and perceived career opportunities are

significant predictors of high job performance and lower turnover (Kraimer,

Seibert, Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2010). These and other works suggest both

the institution and students (or organization and employees) mutually benefit

from fostering an environment of support, autonomy, and encouragement to

seek opportunities for development.

A strong network of open communication in an academic or work insti-

tution can encourage students and employees to strive for improvement, par-

ticularly when they are newcomers and face uncertainty. Finding the right

mix of individual autonomy and cooperative activities can be difficult, but a

balance is key for helping students or employees to succeed. The use of feed-

back systems and the promotion of a supportive feedback environment in

organizations may be effective in encouraging open communication and

understanding for individuals going through transitions. Organizations with

strong feedback environments continuously receive and solicit high-quality

feedback from various sources (London & Smither, 2002). This is demon-

strated at UA through the constant formal and informal feedback exchanged

among students, faculty, and peers. The encouragement of such processes can

give individuals a sense of competence, personal control, and intrinsic moti-

vation to perform, while also leading to greater role clarity and understand-

ing of the expectations for performance (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). In

addition, a strong feedback culture can promote more satisfied, committed

individuals who see feedback as valuable to successful performance in the

organization (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010; London & Smither, 2002), which is

seen in the development of our own first-year students. Providing such out-

lets for consistent communication and improvements in understanding can

help smooth transition periods filled with ambiguity for both the individual

and organization and lead to increased synergy.

In summary, the transitions a first-year graduate student experiences mark

an exciting and challenging rite of passage for aspiring I-O psychologists.

Having recently completed this transition, we are thankful for the supportive

environment created by peers and faculty, appreciative of the opportunities and

feedback from which we have learned, and grateful for the collaborative cul-

ture that prepares us to be effective scientists and practitioners. It is important

to build and maintain strong, supportive relationships, whether it is between

first-year students and other graduate students, an advisor and advisee, or fac-

ulty members and students. First-year students should be proactive in facilitat-

ing this socialization process by developing these relationships early in their

graduate careers, embracing a learning-goal orientation, and seeking unique

opportunities for growth outside the classroom. Intertwining these suggestions

with a collaborative culture, throughout academic and nonacademic settings,

supports a strong, cohesive, and productive department. Although every pro-

gram has their own way of easing the first- year transition, the model here at

UA has been successful and could be extended to other programs and applied

settings to help newcomer transitions. Applying these methods in the midst of

novelty and change can have short and long-term benefits for the development

and achievement of individuals and organizations alike.

The next edition of TIP-TOPics will address the work–life balance gradu-

ate students face. At UA, students are involved in many activities beyond

coursework. The next commentary addresses stress and time management in

graduate school and considers how to maximize the amount of time a graduate

student can spend on other areas of life beyond academics in order to obtain an

appropriate balance. If you have any comments, suggestions, or ideas you

would like to share, feel free to e-mail our team at [email protected].

Aaron Kraus is a second year MA/PhD student who joined the I-O psy-

chology program at the University of Akron after receiving his BA in psy-

chology from Western New England College, in Springfield, MA. His

research interests include attitudes and behaviors of younger and older job

seekers, and social networks in personnel selection.

Chantale Wilson is a second year MA/PhD student in the I-O psychology

program at the University of Akron. She received her BA in business, psy-

chology, and Spanish from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. Being

born and raised in Singapore has led her main research interests to include

global I-O and cross-cultural topics, as well as feedback, performance

appraisal, training, and work–family balance.

References

Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M., & Poteat, L. (2010). Protégé anxiety attachment and feedback

in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 73–80.

Campion, M. A., & Higgs, A. C. (1995). Design work teams to increase productivity and

satisfaction. HRMagazine, 40, 101–107.

Cron, W. L., Slocum Jr., J. W., VandeWalle, D., & Fu, Q. (2005). The role of goal orienta-

tion on negative emotions and goal-setting when initial performance falls short of one’s per-

formance goal. Human Performance, 18(1), 55–80.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on

behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.

Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2010, November 29).

Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career

opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0021452.

Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the Feedback

Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372–1405.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the lon-

98 January 2012 Volume 49 Number 3

gitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 81–100.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering

unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251.

Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and

team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,

235–257.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 71, 549–570.

Spector, P. E. (2002). Employee control and occupational stress. Current Directions in Psy-

chological Science, 11, 133–136.

Thoroughgood, C. (2010). The two-minute elevator speech: Communicating value and

expertise as I-O psychologists to everyone else. The Industrial Organizational Psychologist,

48(1), 121–125.

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, Jr., J. W. (1999). The influence of

goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249–259.

VandeWalle, D. M. (1996, August). Are our students trying to prove or improve their abili-

ty? Development and validation of an instrument to measure academic goal orientation. Paper

presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Cinicinnati, OH.

The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 99

Join the fun in

San Diego!

There is so

much to do!

Before or after the

conference, visit SeaWorld, San Diego

Zoo, LEGOLAND California, or the

San Diego Zoo Safari Park.

And don’t miss the beautiful beaches,

shopping, and historic tours!

www.siop.org/conferences