Cynthia D. Belar, PhD, who led APA's Education Directorate for 14 years before retiring in 2015, returned to APA as interim CEO in January to guide the association as it implements changes in response to the Independent Review (For more details, see the September Monitor.)
In an address to APA's Council of Representatives in February, Belar gave her assessment of the forces that have been driving APA over the past 30 years and how they have affected perceptions of APA and its true mission.
Here is a condensed version of her remarks.
Despite the pain from the Independent Review, one of the biggest favors it has done for us is to highlight investigator David Hoffman's impression that APA was most concerned with getting psychologists jobs, at least in the areas under review. How did he miss the fact that that is not the APA mission? We are a charitable scientific and educational organization whose purpose is to advance psychological science and its application to the promotion of health, education and human welfare. And, in fact, that is what we do. And on what does APA spend most of its money? The integration and dissemination of psychological knowledge through our publications program. Some could actually say that we are primarily a publisher of scientific knowledge.
But Mr. Hoffman is not the only one [who] seems to have missed what is our mission. For example, I was shocked to be called a representative of a trade association at a federal policy meeting years ago; indeed, the Boston Globe recently used that description of us in print. Moreover, I have heard members of our own governance use the term "guild" to describe APA, and to propose specific guild-type activities for the association. Staff often feel that pressure from our members and are not always sure how to respond.
And I am sure the APA elected officers have felt the same pressures during the campaign cycles. I have also heard many individual members say, "What is APA doing for me?" and express desire for more help with pocketbook issues — as if our mission were to benefit them individually versus promote human welfare.
You don't hear that kind of statement about the Red Cross, the Sierra Club, the American Cancer Society, AERA….
Now I am not anti-guild. In fact I think all of psychology needs a strong guild, not just practitioners — although it has been that community to most successfully call the need to APA's attention. Some in academia have unions to protect their interests. Others' needs are met more indirectly by APA's strong advocacy for the advancement of science. But APA is not a guild. Our mission is to serve human welfare, not the profession.
So how come our publics, our consultants, many of our members and even some in governance seem to think APA is a guild? How have we unwittingly contributed to that perception? And what must we do to clarify our mission to ourselves and to others — to keep our direction due North, not the magnetic North that can lead us astray.
I believe we must refocus on the mission of APA as a charitable scientific and educational organization designed to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives. It is a great and important mission and we have the talent in this organization to pursue it.
So how did the perception of our mission drift occur over time? [In my opinion, it began in the 1980s when] APA increased its legislative advocacy efforts in response to managed care. Leaders found that psychologists themselves were averse to advocacy activities and much effort was devoted to developing a community of advocates for the profession.
Over time, APA realized it needed to do more advocacy, and advocacy around pocket book issues. This led to the creation of the APA Practice Organization, which had a different tax status, and allowed for more legislative advocacy.
As I reflect on the discourse then and now, we have not focused enough on the distinctly different missions of the organizations. It is really the mission that differentiates them; one is not just a subcomponent of the other.
APA's mission is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.
APAPO's mission is to promote the professional interests of psychologists. Quite simply, the APAPO is primarily for the benefit of practicing psychologists versus APA's goal of benefiting the public.
I do realize that APA and APAPO's missions are not mutually exclusive. I know I am overdramatizing the differences, but they are fundamentally different in ways we do not always appreciate. And it has become very clear to me that APA is too often seen as more concerned with advancing ourselves than with serving human welfare — a perspective certainly highlighted by the IR. Perhaps some of our members do want to focus on self-interest, just as others would wish us to be a social justice organization per se without the focus on and grounding in the psychological science and practice contributing to those efforts.
One issue we need to look at is our communications. We need a shared language that reflects our mission. This can be especially confusing in discussions of member benefits as might the term "serving members" — but this is commonly used terminology. If you believe that a member benefit is having access to networks, educational materials and resources that help you be the best psychologist you can be in promoting human welfare, then this is the place for you. If you want to engage with colleagues in advocating for psychology contributions to human welfare, then this is the place for you. If you believe that the most important member benefit is having an organization that focuses on protecting your business interests and pocketbook issues, then you must put your resources and energy into the APAPO.
I am not implying here that a change in the APA mission or structure would be the solution. Proposals for such change have been studied numerous times in the past with consistent conclusions that, in addition to significant financial consequences, there would likely be significant damage to APAs public credibility if it were to change from its focus on the public good. I also believe APAPO — a psychologists' guild organization — needs a strong APA with its human welfare focus for it to achieve its own potential.
I hope I have made the case that our current crisis also presents us with a great opportunity to address some fundamental, festering problems that have been with us for a while. I hope you will stay the course and not prematurely cease the process of self-examination as the dust from recent events settles. Let's stop the perceived drift to the magnetic North. As the interim APA CEO, I will be a broken record in re-affirming our mission. I hope you will join me in that effort.