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., (2018) 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 r2) (Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol, & Sim, 2017; Rynes, 2009). These concepts are difficult for non-academics to understand and may even undermine the value of our work (Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, 2014; Kuncel & Rigdon, 2012; Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, & Camara, 2009). 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.

中文翻译：

---

销售艺术：与主流媒体和高层领导分享研究的建议

研究合作是双向的。为了获得组织的支持，学者们必须将他们的研究项目的价值传达给利益相关者。在他们的焦点文章中，Lapierre 等人 (2018) 将这一过程描述为学术“推销”，必须是“简短但引人注目”（第 20 页）。然而，工业和组织 (IO) 心理学的学术研究植根于深奥的行话（例如，有效性和可靠性）和无法令人信服的证据（例如，r和r2)（Highhouse、Brooks、Nesnidol 和 Sim，2017 年；Rynes，2009 年）。这些概念对于非学术界人士来说很难理解，甚至可能破坏我们工作的价值（Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, 2014; Kuncel & Rigdon, 2012; Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, & Camara, 2009）。CEO 和其他高级领导者在处理您的宣传时通常只有有限的时间、注意力和专业知识：一个糟糕的人可能会在合作开始之前就有效地破坏合作。