Research collaborations are two-way streets. To obtain support from organizations, academics must communicate the value of their research projects to the stakeholders. In their focal article, Lapierre et al., (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) described this process as the academic “sales pitch”, one that must be “short yet attention grabbing” (p.20). Academic research in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, however, is rooted in esoteric jargon (e.g., validity and reliability) and unconvincing evidence (e.g., r and r 2) (Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol, & Sim, Reference Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol and Sim2017; Rynes, Reference Rynes and Kozlowski2009). These concepts are difficult for non-academics to understand and may even undermine the value of our work (Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, Reference Brooks, Dalal and Nolan2014; Kuncel & Rigdon, Reference Kuncel, Rigdon, Weiner, Schmitt and Highhouse2012; Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, & Camara, Reference Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, Camara and Lissitz2009). CEOs and other senior leaders often have limited time, attention, and expertise to process your pitch: A bad one could effectively derail the collaboration before it even began.
In this commentary, I discuss three methods (analogies, stories, and alternative validity statistics) for communicating the value of research to nonacademics and provide suggestions for best practices. These methods may be used in print (e.g., media coverage), presentations (e.g., oral presentation to stakeholders), or informal conversations (e.g., you have 30 seconds to deliver the colloquial “elevator pitch” to the CEO). I hope to provide academics with a flexible toolkit for sharing their research with popular media, organizational stakeholders, and the public.
Analogies
An analogy compares relations in a novel domain to relations in a familiar domain (Holyoak, Gentner, & Kokinov, Reference Holyoak, Gentner, Kokinov, Centner, Holyoak and Kokinov2001). For example, the analogy “memory operates like a library” relates a novel concept (memory) to a familiar concept (library). When presented with this analogy, learners use their knowledge about the properties of libraries to make inferences about how memory operates (Donnelly & McDaniel, Reference Donnelly and McDaniel1993). In education, teachers often use analogies to describe unfamiliar or difficult concepts by comparing them to familiar topics (Newby, Ertmer, & Stepich, Reference Newby, Ertmer and Stepich1995).
Analogies can be useful for communicating technical concepts such as reliability and validity, both of which are cornerstones of employee assessment and selection. However, reliability and validity may be difficult for a nonexpert to understand. As a result, the value of reliable and valid selection system may be underappreciated by organizations (Colbert, Rynes, & Brown, Reference Colbert, Rynes and Brown2005). Table 1 contains a list of analogies that researchers can use to describe – in 30 seconds or less – the enhanced reliability or validity of an evidence-based selection procedure.Footnote 1 The purpose of these analogies is to communicate the concepts of reliability and validity to someone quickly and efficiently. These analogies can be plug and play in a variety of situations such as a press release or the 30-seconds sales pitch.
Table 1. Example Analogies for Reliability and Validity
Story Telling
Stories are, at the core, retellings of real-life experiences (Schank & Berman, Reference Schank, Berman, Green, Strange and Brock2002). Relatedly, Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) suggested that should “refer to any previous experience in implementing valuable change” (p. 560) as a way to indicate one's credentials and expertise. Stories are particularly useful from a sales perspective. In a study of professional sales professionals, Gilliam and Flaherty (Reference Gilliam and Flaherty2015) found that stories can be used for a variety of purposes such as to persuade, inform, and build bonds with the customer. Many salespeople also use personal stories as ice breakers when meeting with a client for the first time. Stories can also be useful for communicating—vividly—the value of organizational interventions. Zhang and Ritter (Reference Zhang and Ritter2018), for instance, found that managers were more likely to endorse the use of a structured interview when they were presented with a story about its success rather than factual advice. A more broad example can be found in Hollywood: The popular book and motion picture Moneyball (Lewis, Reference Lewis2004) told the story of the Oakland Athletics baseball manager Billy Beane, who pioneered data-driven methods and transformed the selection and assessment of professional baseball players—a field previously dominated by intuition and subjectivity (Lewis, Reference Lewis2004). Indeed, stories can be valuable tools for communicating the value of evidence-based organizational practices to nonacademic stakeholders.
However, one should consider the timing and nature of the story. Although personal stories are effective for breaking the ice in some business-to-business interactions, they are much less useful in the later stages of the discussion. Similarly, one might also not want to begin a collaborative relationship with business stories. As one veteran buyer in the study noted: “If they come in for a first meeting and start sharing their successful stories with what they have done with company xyz, I'm not with them” (Gilliam & Flaherty, Reference Gilliam and Flaherty2015). Still, success stories can be more effective than facts and evidence for the purpose of persuasion (Dal Cin, Zanna, & Fong, Reference Dal Cin, Zanna, Fong, Knowles and Linn2004), and is a valuable tool for sharing the value of your research to organizational stakeholders (Sinar & Grubb, Reference Sinar and Grubb2018).
Alternative Validity Statistics
Research evidence typically takes the form of a correlation or coefficient of determination. Although explaining 10% of the variance in counterproductivity or turnover might be impressive for the savvy academic audience, it is more likely to undersell the value of your services. In a recent conversation with a human resource professional at a large corporation, he lamented, while referring to the seminal meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (Reference Schmidt and Hunter1998), that best employee selection methods have only a 50% accuracy (referring to the meta-analytic validity of General Mental Ability tests [GMAs]): a statement that reflected a poor grasp of “validity” and complete misunderstanding of the evidence.
When sharing research evidence with the mainstream media or organizational stakeholders, academics should use avoid correlations, and instead use alternative validity statistics such as the binomial effect size display, expectancy chart, or common language effect size statistics. Brooks et al. (Reference Brooks, Dalal and Nolan2014) found that lay people were willing to pay more money for a training program when its effectiveness information was presented as an alternative statistic (e.g., binomial effect size display) rather than a correlation coefficient. In another study, people judged a consulting company's selection services more favorably when its marketing brochure contained expectancy charts (Zhang, Highhouse, Brooks, & Zhang, Reference Zhang, Highhouse, Brooks and Zhangin press). Individual differences in graph literacy and numeracy, however, could affect the interpretability of alternative validity displays (Okan, Garcia-Retamero, Cokely, & Maldonado, Reference Okan, Garcia-Retamero, Cokely and Maldonado2012). To facilitate the generation of alternative validity statistics, I have developed a free-to-use web app (Zhang, Reference Zhang2018). This app allows researchers to upload their own data and generate a variety of traditional and alternative validity statistics. These displays of validity information are particularly useful in presentation decks or other print material (e.g., one-sheet).
Conclusion
Academic psychologists are not salespeople. Nonetheless, giving a successful sales pitch is a necessary step in getting your feet in the door with respect to organizational collaboration. An effective sales pitch should be efficient, understandable, and persuasive. In this article, I described several methods to improve the effectiveness of the sales pitch, and in turn, increase the odds of forging a fruitful collaboration.
Research collaborations are two-way streets. To obtain support from organizations, academics must communicate the value of their research projects to the stakeholders. In their focal article, Lapierre et al., (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) described this process as the academic “sales pitch”, one that must be “short yet attention grabbing” (p.20). Academic research in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, however, is rooted in esoteric jargon (e.g., validity and reliability) and unconvincing evidence (e.g., r and r 2) (Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol, & Sim, Reference Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol and Sim2017; Rynes, Reference Rynes and Kozlowski2009). These concepts are difficult for non-academics to understand and may even undermine the value of our work (Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, Reference Brooks, Dalal and Nolan2014; Kuncel & Rigdon, Reference Kuncel, Rigdon, Weiner, Schmitt and Highhouse2012; Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, & Camara, Reference Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, Camara and Lissitz2009). CEOs and other senior leaders often have limited time, attention, and expertise to process your pitch: A bad one could effectively derail the collaboration before it even began.
In this commentary, I discuss three methods (analogies, stories, and alternative validity statistics) for communicating the value of research to nonacademics and provide suggestions for best practices. These methods may be used in print (e.g., media coverage), presentations (e.g., oral presentation to stakeholders), or informal conversations (e.g., you have 30 seconds to deliver the colloquial “elevator pitch” to the CEO). I hope to provide academics with a flexible toolkit for sharing their research with popular media, organizational stakeholders, and the public.
Analogies
An analogy compares relations in a novel domain to relations in a familiar domain (Holyoak, Gentner, & Kokinov, Reference Holyoak, Gentner, Kokinov, Centner, Holyoak and Kokinov2001). For example, the analogy “memory operates like a library” relates a novel concept (memory) to a familiar concept (library). When presented with this analogy, learners use their knowledge about the properties of libraries to make inferences about how memory operates (Donnelly & McDaniel, Reference Donnelly and McDaniel1993). In education, teachers often use analogies to describe unfamiliar or difficult concepts by comparing them to familiar topics (Newby, Ertmer, & Stepich, Reference Newby, Ertmer and Stepich1995).
Analogies can be useful for communicating technical concepts such as reliability and validity, both of which are cornerstones of employee assessment and selection. However, reliability and validity may be difficult for a nonexpert to understand. As a result, the value of reliable and valid selection system may be underappreciated by organizations (Colbert, Rynes, & Brown, Reference Colbert, Rynes and Brown2005). Table 1 contains a list of analogies that researchers can use to describe – in 30 seconds or less – the enhanced reliability or validity of an evidence-based selection procedure.Footnote 1 The purpose of these analogies is to communicate the concepts of reliability and validity to someone quickly and efficiently. These analogies can be plug and play in a variety of situations such as a press release or the 30-seconds sales pitch.
Table 1. Example Analogies for Reliability and Validity
Story Telling
Stories are, at the core, retellings of real-life experiences (Schank & Berman, Reference Schank, Berman, Green, Strange and Brock2002). Relatedly, Lapierre et al. (Reference Lapierre, Matthews, Eby, Truxillo, Johnson and Major2018) suggested that should “refer to any previous experience in implementing valuable change” (p. 560) as a way to indicate one's credentials and expertise. Stories are particularly useful from a sales perspective. In a study of professional sales professionals, Gilliam and Flaherty (Reference Gilliam and Flaherty2015) found that stories can be used for a variety of purposes such as to persuade, inform, and build bonds with the customer. Many salespeople also use personal stories as ice breakers when meeting with a client for the first time. Stories can also be useful for communicating—vividly—the value of organizational interventions. Zhang and Ritter (Reference Zhang and Ritter2018), for instance, found that managers were more likely to endorse the use of a structured interview when they were presented with a story about its success rather than factual advice. A more broad example can be found in Hollywood: The popular book and motion picture Moneyball (Lewis, Reference Lewis2004) told the story of the Oakland Athletics baseball manager Billy Beane, who pioneered data-driven methods and transformed the selection and assessment of professional baseball players—a field previously dominated by intuition and subjectivity (Lewis, Reference Lewis2004). Indeed, stories can be valuable tools for communicating the value of evidence-based organizational practices to nonacademic stakeholders.
However, one should consider the timing and nature of the story. Although personal stories are effective for breaking the ice in some business-to-business interactions, they are much less useful in the later stages of the discussion. Similarly, one might also not want to begin a collaborative relationship with business stories. As one veteran buyer in the study noted: “If they come in for a first meeting and start sharing their successful stories with what they have done with company xyz, I'm not with them” (Gilliam & Flaherty, Reference Gilliam and Flaherty2015). Still, success stories can be more effective than facts and evidence for the purpose of persuasion (Dal Cin, Zanna, & Fong, Reference Dal Cin, Zanna, Fong, Knowles and Linn2004), and is a valuable tool for sharing the value of your research to organizational stakeholders (Sinar & Grubb, Reference Sinar and Grubb2018).
Alternative Validity Statistics
Research evidence typically takes the form of a correlation or coefficient of determination. Although explaining 10% of the variance in counterproductivity or turnover might be impressive for the savvy academic audience, it is more likely to undersell the value of your services. In a recent conversation with a human resource professional at a large corporation, he lamented, while referring to the seminal meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (Reference Schmidt and Hunter1998), that best employee selection methods have only a 50% accuracy (referring to the meta-analytic validity of General Mental Ability tests [GMAs]): a statement that reflected a poor grasp of “validity” and complete misunderstanding of the evidence.
When sharing research evidence with the mainstream media or organizational stakeholders, academics should use avoid correlations, and instead use alternative validity statistics such as the binomial effect size display, expectancy chart, or common language effect size statistics. Brooks et al. (Reference Brooks, Dalal and Nolan2014) found that lay people were willing to pay more money for a training program when its effectiveness information was presented as an alternative statistic (e.g., binomial effect size display) rather than a correlation coefficient. In another study, people judged a consulting company's selection services more favorably when its marketing brochure contained expectancy charts (Zhang, Highhouse, Brooks, & Zhang, Reference Zhang, Highhouse, Brooks and Zhangin press). Individual differences in graph literacy and numeracy, however, could affect the interpretability of alternative validity displays (Okan, Garcia-Retamero, Cokely, & Maldonado, Reference Okan, Garcia-Retamero, Cokely and Maldonado2012). To facilitate the generation of alternative validity statistics, I have developed a free-to-use web app (Zhang, Reference Zhang2018). This app allows researchers to upload their own data and generate a variety of traditional and alternative validity statistics. These displays of validity information are particularly useful in presentation decks or other print material (e.g., one-sheet).
Conclusion
Academic psychologists are not salespeople. Nonetheless, giving a successful sales pitch is a necessary step in getting your feet in the door with respect to organizational collaboration. An effective sales pitch should be efficient, understandable, and persuasive. In this article, I described several methods to improve the effectiveness of the sales pitch, and in turn, increase the odds of forging a fruitful collaboration.