Organizational Psychology and the Tipping Point of Professional Identity

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.

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Means Not an End

Muchinsky

2010

“…My reaction to Ryan and Ford's (2010) tipping point discussion stems from the footnote assigned to the title of their article, “In keeping with recent trends in the field, we use ‘organizational psychology’ rather than industrial/organizational psychology throughout, except when directly quoting a source or providing a historical referent.” This one sentence vividly illustrates the identity crisis Ryan and Ford have aptly discussed; even among like‐minded colleagues, we are unable to agree on what we should call ourselves and what that label might actually imply. I was especially confused by this choice of professional labeling when Ryan and Ford later concluded that, “[Our field's] distinctiveness is not well articulated for new entrants, affecting the extent to which organizational psychology becomes a deep‐structure identity of individuals that will affect, over time, the viability of the collective identity.” What message are we sending to potential new entrants if we are not willing to retain the field's existing moniker because it is too cumbersome or difficult to explain to others?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

You Lost Me at Hello: Aren't We I-O Psychologists Still?

Cunningham

2010

My reaction to Ryan and Ford's (2010) tipping point discussion stems from the footnote assigned to the title of their article, “In keeping with recent trends in the field, we use ‘organizational psychology’ rather than industrial/organizational psychology throughout, except when directly quoting a source or providing a historical referent.” This one sentence vividly illustrates the identity crisis Ryan and Ford have aptly discussed; even among like-minded colleagues, we are unable to agree on what we should call ourselves and what that label might actually imply. I was especially confused by this choice of professional labeling when Ryan and Ford later concluded that, “[Our field's] distinctiveness is not well articulated for new entrants, affecting the extent to which organizational psychology becomes a deep-structure identity of individuals that will affect, over time, the viability of the collective identity.” What message are we sending to potential new entrants if we are not willing to retain the field's existing moniker because it is too cumbersome or difficult to explain to others? The typical student reaction I experience when discussing our professional name and identity is something along the lines of: “What do you mean SIOP wants to change its name? What's wrong with the one that it already has?”

“…Of the four possible “futures” for I‐O psychology discussed by Ryan and Ford (2010), one (Scenario 2: Identity Merger) struck close to home. In fact, it is not the future for us, it is the present.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A View Into the Future of Organizational Psychology: Our Experiences With an Interdisciplinary Approach to Graduate Education

Shanock

Rogelberg

Heggestad

2010

Of the four possible “futures” for I-O psychology discussed by Ryan and Ford (2010), one (Scenario 2: Identity Merger) struck close to home. In fact, it is not the future for us, it is the present. The three of us are I-O psychologists with appointments in both a psychology department and a fully integrated interdisciplinary organizational science (OS) PhD program. The program, which is now 5 years old, spans two colleges (Liberal Arts & Sciences and Business) and includes individuals from four departments (Psychology, Management, Sociology, and Communication Studies). Although considerable thought was invested in how to structure and operate such an interdisciplinary program well before we accepted our first class of students, our collective thinking has evolved dramatically as we have experienced the program.