What Shall We Call Ourselves? Food For Thought 1
Frank J. Landy
Baruch College of CUNY and Landy Litigation Support Group
1 Editor’s Note: For a recap of the issue see: Highhouse, S. (2007). Where did this name come from anyway? A brief history of the I-O label. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(1), 53–56.
Several months ago, I began a dialogue with Gary Latham, SIOP president, about the name of our Society. Gary asked me to do a poll of past presidents on the issue and get back to him. I was able to get responses from 22 of those past presidents (including Gary and I, of course).
I know that as a society we considered this issue a few years ago but conditions are even more pressing now than they were at that time. In addition, I think that because there were so many alternatives and options made available in that referendum no one name could emerge as a “winner” that received more than 50% of the votes. Nevertheless, it is instructive that over 50% of the respondents rejected our current name (or put differently, less than 50% of the respondents chose our current name as the most desirable choice).
I think there are lots of reasons for suggesting a change. Many of them have not changed from a few years ago, but as we move deeper into the 21st century, some are assuming increasing importance. These include the following:
(a) There are just too many syllables in the current name; listeners are tuned out long before we have finished pronouncing our name.
(b) The “industrial” part is both confusing and archaic for the 21st century work of our membership. People think we are industrial engineers or work only in industry (writ small) and are not sure if we work in and study public-sector and governmental settings.
(c) We continue to be at odds with our colleagues in other countries on how we describe ourselves at a time when we should be drawing closer to them (i.e., with respect to increasing work globalization and workforce diversity). I am citing their published research in my writings more and more. Agreed, there are still several different names used internationally (work and organizational, work, occupational), but none use industrial in their titles.
(d) We need to position ourselves for the future, not stick with our past. I am sure that the branding people SIOP has retained would agree with this.
I realize that there may be pushback from traditionalists who feel that we may be abandoning our legacy. But, in fact our legacy has changed when conditions have merited such a change. We abandoned simply “industrial” when we added organizational; we have abandoned “personnel psychology” in favor of HR research and theory, and so on and so on. My own feeling is that many, if not most, of the traditionalists, if they have to explain to lay audiences who they are and what they do, do not call themselves I-O or industrial-organizational psychologists without lots of additional words to explain what that means. Even those of us who consider themselves solely academics describe meeting nonpsychologists and identifying themselves as simply work psychologists (which is what I do) or organizational psychologists (as others do.) And there is just as much a desire to change from those who have been in the field for 40 years (like me) as from those new to the field. This is not a cohort issue. I think we should change our name to match our behavior.
In any event, Gary asked me to do an informal survey of past presidents to see what they had to say on this issue. I contacted all for whom we had up-to-date e-mail addresses. There was overwhelming support for a name change. Eighteen of those who responded were in favor. Four were not in favor. Most preferred simply organizational psychologist, although some (like me) preferred “work psychology” or “work and organizational psychology.” I now agree that work psychology is a bit elemental and sounds like we only concentrate on get-your-hands-dirty work. Organizational psychology reduces our current Society name by five syllables. Most of our other psychological colleagues get by just fine with two word titles: social psychology, experimental psychology, educational psychology, clinical psychology, military psychology, and so forth. We can do just fine with two words as well. So, I am happy with simply organizational psychology. Personally, I do a heck of a lot more of what we insiders call “I” psychology than I do “O” psychology, and I will not feel that I am at a disadvantage with a new name such as organizational psychology (although I will wipe away a nostalgic tear for my old buddy “I”).
Food for thought.