A Means Not an End

Abstract

Ryan and Ford (2010) asserted that the identity of I-O psychology is blurred with other allied disciplines (OB, HRM, IR, ODC, etc.). I agree. They are concerned with identifying what sets I-O psychology apart from these other disciplines and concluded that the science (italics in original) component of I-O psychology is the critical differentiating marker variable. I disagree. Ryan and Ford equate “I-O psychologists” with “I-O psychological knowledge”; therefore, only individuals trained as I-O psychologists can produce I-O psychological knowledge. The less-than-subtle implication that only I-O psychologists are scientists is not born out by the scientific literature. Our top scientific journals (i.e., those that have the P-word in the title) have had editors, associate editors, and members of the editorial review boards whose academic training is not in psychology. Articles published in these journals are also authored by nonpsychologists. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has given awards and granted fellowship status to nonpsychologists whose scholarly work has been deemed to be of special merit and significance. Quite clearly, I-O psychologists do not have a monopoly on I-O psychological research.

Organizational justice and organizational commitment among South Korean police officers

“…The following review highlights the major findings of this research throughout this history. Organizational justice is the theoretical concept regarding how people are treated within an organization and is usually divided into two dimensions: distributive and procedural justice (Muchinsky, 2008). Distributive justice refers to the fairness with regard to the distribution of the outcomes to the members of an organization (Jones, 1998).…”

Industrial–Organizational Psychologists in Business Schools: Brain Drain or Eye Opener?

“…Second, we offer a balanced and inclusive discussion of positive and negative consequences of this phenomenon by adopting a qualitative approach (i.e., Study 2). A qualitative assessment is needed to address this issue because the topic seems to be highly divisive given that past treatments have generally taken a position that the phenomenon is mostly negative (e.g., Highhouse & Zickar, ; Knapp, ), positive (e.g., Costanza & Jensen, ), or inconsequential (e.g., Muchinsky, ). Accordingly, we describe results of a qualitative study in which we gathered a wide range of perspectives from SIOP Fellows and presidents, which allowed us to consider the opinions of some the most influential leaders in I–O psychology research and practice.…”

A Profession Awry or Poised for the Future? Work Psychology and Professional Identity

“…In particular, Lefkowitz (2010), Pinto and Stacey (2010), and Wright (2010) all advocate a greater centrality of the individual at work as a key to resolving identity concerns, with values rather than knowledge as the basis of distinctiveness. Second, and closely related, many of the commentaries sought to remind us of the importance of the P for psychology in our identity (Avedon et al, 2010; Costanza & Jensen, 2010; Cunningham, 2010; Knapp, 2010; Wright, 2010), although there was some acknowledgment of feelings of less connection to other areas of psychology (Shanock et al, 2010) and, in the clear outlier case, no desire for connection (Muchinsky, 2010). Third, the scientist–practitioner model was noted as central, particularly for those working in applied rather than academic settings (Avedon et al, 2010; Knapp, 2010), although points were made regarding overemphasis on this at the individual level (Lefkowitz, 2010) and challenges to being able to maintain this centrality in interdisciplinary programs (Shanock et al, 2010).…”

“…The evaluative perspective focuses on how positive regard defines a positive work identity, whether it be in how we view ourselves or how others view us. In all but one commentary (Muchinsky, 2010), authors obviously valued their psychology identity and many also called for efforts to enhance the positivity of evaluations others make of our field (Cunningham, 2010; Lefkowitz, 2010; Schmidt & Landers, 2010; Wright, 2010). Part of what Dutton et al labeled a development perspective is adaptive identity development , which focuses on incorporation of new content or discarding of old in response to change.…”

“…The commentaries on our article provided many different perspectives on identity management, from urging us not to forego roots (Avedon, Rand, & Grabow, 2010; Cunningham, 2010; Knapp, 2010; Lefkowitz, 2010; Pinto & Stacey, 2010; Wright, 2010), to embrace new directions (Costanza & Jensen, 2010; Schmidt & Landers, 2010; Shanock, Rogelberg, & Heggestad, 2010), or to adopt a laissez‐faire attitude (Muchinsky, 2010). Rather than responding specifically to each commentary, we address some themes apparent in multiple commentaries.…”