How not to run a “learned” Society?

Below is a copy of a letter sent to Sarb Bajwa this week which we are reproducing with the permission of Felicity Hill-Miers, who coordinated the response. It has 99 signatories. We understand that the Division of Occupational Psychology is also preparing a response expressing their serious reservations. They are not alone – the Division of Counselling Psychology is expressing similar concerns (we are approaching them for more information).

A combined response from Occupational Psychologists working in the private sector, and as self-employed independent practitioners, on the closure of the Qualification in Occupational Psychology (Stage 2). 

Dear Sarb Bajwa,

Many Occupational Psychologists working in private sector organisations, alongside self-employed independent practitioners, were deeply concerned to hear that you had informed the Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team of your intention to cease delivery of the qualification. 

We were surprised and alarmed that prior to your announcement, there had been no consultation with the Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team and the DOP Committee, nor had the information been shared with the BPS Senate and wider BPS employees such as your member network leads. We would really appreciate understanding the rationale behind the decision and would appreciate some further information. 

 A large number of individuals, representing a significant number of organisations who employ Occupational Psychologists, as well as those who operate independently, are incredibly concerned that the decision was made without any consultation of the relevant in-house BPS areas, let alone with the wider DOP members. As a society who represents the psychology professions, it is strongly felt that critical decisions need to be made in consultation with your members, and that missing out on this key stage has shown an extreme lack of consideration for your member’s needs. We should be seen as your stakeholders and customers, who have a vital an important voice in regard to the BPS and our professions. 

There are obviously some grave concerns about the decision-making that has underpinned this announcement, and the way that the move has been handled so far without consultation or rationale provided. Due to this, a number of us have come together to jointly voice our concerns and ask a variety of pertinent questions. 

There is a clear desire to have a rationale shared behind the decision-making, whether financial and other. Financially, as BPS members, there is a large concern around how you, as the CEO, and the Trustees, have allowed the BPS to get into such an untenable position that you feel you have to close three qualifications, with potentially more joining the list in the future. 

There is concern about what the future looks like for those of us in Occupational Psychology roles or working across wider sectors utilising our skills. There is also concern about those in their early careers and what this now means for them. There is significant value placed on us as a professional group, with our unique areas of expertise, and this move feels completely devaluing of that. It is felt that our credibility comes from having our chartered status and the associated qualification. Years have been spent ensuring clients regard chartered status as a marker of excellence and reassurance of expertise, and many organisations are firm advocates of the need to provide that professional “kitemark”. It should be noted that for many of us, our clients require our consultants to hold chartered status in order to work with them. Taking this away suggests our status is less worthy and we are less capable psychologists than those who work in other settings, such as clinical.

In a time of such constant and fast-moving change in organisations, particularly technological and with the influx of artificial intelligence and unregulated start-ups and technology companies, Occupational Psychologists are needed more than ever to provide support. It therefore becomes even more essential to understand human behaviour at work, and it feels we are in a time of continued growth and respect of our industry, where the real value of our work is being recognised in the workplace. On top of this, we also provide support to people and organisations that perform safety/mission critical roles (i.e. there are people out there undertaking dangerous tasks, that we help make safer). 

We wonder therefore what consideration has been given to the impact of this decision on the reputation and integrity of the profession, and how people and organisations will now view us and our worth? This decision feels incredibly damaging to the reputation that many of us, and colleagues before us have worked tirelessly to promote, and risks damaging the future of many aspiring Occupational Psychologists who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of this profession, not for their own benefit, but to hopefully benefit the lives of many in the working world.

Many of us speak fondly about our personal career journeys, and the support and encouragement we’ve had along the way from others. Many of us now spend considerable amounts of time supervising, mentoring and guiding others on their journey into the field. This is a profession where people are proud of the work they do, and where our field is widely recognised for the services we provide. This decision has endangered that greatly. 

The QOP Stage 2 remains a central part of the UK Occupational Psychology profession and the move to cancel the qualification appears poorly conceived and has been badly handled to date. There are many questions about what the future qualification route may be, if any, and what preparation has taken place to look into this. There is concern about the impact on Stage 1 accreditation providers and if there is any expectation that a different provision of Stage 2 would be sought externally, that no market readiness activity has taken place prior to closing QOP. The potential resultant talent shortage with the removal of QOP is of significant concern.

Whilst the qualification is challenging, it is also seen as a rewarding process which enhances the skills of those who undertake it. The Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team have worked hard, and closely with the wider profession, to ensure that the 2019 route reflects the requirements of our roles. It is reflective – encouraging critical thinking, it instils the consultancy cycle and skills needed for those entering the profession, as well as having a strong focus on using an ethical and evidence-based approach. Without this pillar of best practice, how do we ensure that those who want to enter the profession have the right knowledge, skills and attributes needed? Without an entry route, how is our profession sustainable? How will service users (clients) have confidence that they’re obtaining appropriate advice/support? How will they know if a provider is competent? 

Outside of concerns on those already chartered, there are significant concerns about those currently studying on MSc programmes and QOP already. The impact on them is significant, financially, emotionally and on their future career. They are just starting to enter a field which feels in grave danger of no longer existing. Many people set their whole career path based around attaining chartership, sometimes moving jobs to cover the breadth of areas, sometimes taking pay cuts to join organisations where chartership is supported. The lack of consideration of this group is appalling. 

This decision acts as part of a major change programme, which is currently being handled incredibly poorly. It should be noted that many Occupational Psychologists specialise in this area, and you are urged to reflect on your approach here and manage this change better. There are some within this group who would actively offer their support to ensure positive outcomes.  

A huge amount of trust has been broken with this move, and it is felt that the BPS actions are in breach of your own Ethics and Conduct: respect, competence, responsibility and integrity. For an organisation that supposedly supports psychologists, promotes work/wellbeing issues and supports social mobility the lack of communication has been seen as disgraceful. We expect you to be a membership organisation who supports and values us as individuals and as a profession.

It is felt by some that through active and open dialogue, through listening, engaging and consulting with the members of your organisation, this may be remedied. So as a group, we are asking for transparency and explanation about how the decision has been reached. We urge you to consider that future decisions of this nature are communicated differently, and that we as members are engaged with in advance. Many are in disbelief that with the awareness that the decision has been shared with your members, that the BPS themselves have failed to offer any kind of communication at all.

We request that you reconsider any plans to withdraw the QOP.  We would ask that you consider our concerns, and also respond to a number of questions:

1. Why was there no consultation with the Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team, the DOP Committee, BPS Senate or DOP members, prior to your announcement to the Qualification Team?
2. What is the specific rationale and drivers that underpin the decision-making? What attempts have been made to remedy the situation prior to making this decision? What issues, risks and impacts were taken into consideration, and how have these been mitigated?
3. Where do you see the future of the Occupational Psychology profession, with the main entry route removed? How do we continue to grow and evolve what is seen to be a thriving profession with the removal of QOP? Are you considering alternative methods, or are you saying that the profession is no longer required? If alternative methods, what research has taken place to look at market readiness? What do you feel the implications of this decision are on the profession and its members?
4. What specific consideration has been given to the withdrawal of QOP as the recognised route through for Occupational Psychologists to gain statutory registration with the Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC)? What impact do you think this will have on use of the protected title moving forwards?
5. What do you think the impact of removing the main entry route will be on how people and organisation’s value Occupational Psychologists? Do you see the profession being devalued following this move?
6. What is your messaging to those of us who are already registered Occupational Psychologists, who have continued to support the BPS and the profession, when it has felt that for years there has been something very wrong behind the scenes for many years? What does the BPS plan to do to support us and the potential impact on us from organisations finding out we are potentially a legacy profession? 
7. What is your messaging to those already undertaking their QOP, wondering whether there is now any point and whether they are wasting their time and money – particularly for those who are self-funding? How do you intend to support those currently registered moving forwards? How do you intend to support the supervisors of those registered?
8. What is your messaging going to be to those who are enrolled on accredited MSc Organisational/Occupational/Business Psychology postgraduate degrees who are already undertaking that further, expensive study to make their way into the field?
9. On the BPS website, it says “We are the British Psychological Society. For more than 120 years, we have championed psychology, psychologists and the wider psychological professions, supporting our members through every stage of their careers.” Has this focus now changed? What role do the BPS feel they now will play as our professional body?
10. How do you intend to build back trust with your members?

This combined response covers the collective feelings of a large number of organisations and Occupational Psychologists. However, we ask that you also view the individual responses from so many who feel so strongly about this decision, shared as an appendix.