Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,
I want to thank Frank Landy for his recent TIP article on a name change for our Society. I agree with him 100%. I especially liked his discussion of “work and organizational psychology.” That term definitely brings us closer to our European colleagues, while using “industrial” pushes us apart. I have used either “organizational psychologist” or “work and organizational psychologist” for many years. Settling on the two word title of “organizational psychology” seems like the best solution for the Society.
Virginia E. Schein
Organizational Psychologist
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
To the Editor:
A Proposal About Our Name
In the last issue of TIP, Frank Landy asked “What Shall We Call Ourselves? Food for Thought” and noted that 22 past presidents of SIOP replied to his informal poll about SIOP’s name (http://www.siop.org/tip/Oct08/02landy.aspx). As one of the 18 who favored a change, I am writing to propose that the name issue be put to the membership one more time.
As reported by Scott Highhouse in his brief history of our I-O label (www.siop.org/tip/July07/06highhouse.aspx), when we last voted on the name in 2004 a majority favored some change, but “Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology” was retained anyway, having gotten a plurality of first place votes. Scott quoted my concern about that vote, “Someone should have realized that the status quo would win that contest—I think there should have been a runoff among the alternate names, and then a single choice between SIOP and whatever won the popularity contest in the first round.” Use of the Hare system for counting the ballots confounded the question of whether there should be any change at all with the content of the alternatives being offered.
Thus, I propose that the membership be asked to vote in an election contrasting the most popular alternative from 2004, “Society for Organizational Psychology,” with “Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.”
My personal preference for our name is Society for Organizational Psychology, because “organizational” is the most common term in the names of membership associations for us around the world, and it is the most general of the adjectives describing our practice and science.
What should count, however, is the preference of the membership expressed in an unconfounded vote. It is time to move from thought to action.
Milton D. Hakel
Department of Psychology
Bowling Green State University
To the Editor:
This is one person’s view of what has befallen our profession. For years we have been whining (yes, whining) about the fact that we do not have a seat at the table, and no one needs us. The sad fact is that no one needs us because we’re not really needed. For example, when was the last time anyone called an I-O psychologist to pull a tooth or write an estate plan or vaccinate for tetanus?
Within our profession, we make a distinction called the scientist–practitioner model. Let’s take a closer look at it. Are we really a science? Last time I checked we were a social science. Yes, we use sophisticated measurement tools and mind-numbing statistics, but we also practice an art that relies on judgment, intuition, and experience. Furthermore, the scientist–practitioner model is divisive. It implies that there is a distinction along with an implicit hierarchy separating the two. We are one family and to be divided against ourselves only hurts us and pushes our chairs further away from the table.
Another pet peeve is our preoccupation with buzzwords and silly sounding jargon. Although many of these terms are shared with HR, words like “thought leader” and “on-boarding” reflect a faddish tone and do little to help our credibility. Moreover, when we allow ourselves to speak with words and terms like “passion,” “energized engagement,” and other examples of hyperbole, we devalue the words and distort our ability to think in reasoned terms.
As a profession (and unfortunately, as a society as a whole), we have become obsessed with being PC, and at the same time we have lost our sense of humor. Just as our society has hamstrung itself in a trend toward political correctness, so have we as a profession. Our slavish devotion to the latest trends, our unwillingness to challenge the value and implication of politically correct attitudes in our society, much less our own profession, ultimately serves no one very well.
At the same time, our profession has made valuable contributions to organizations. For example, let’s count our blessings. Although testing has been held in disrepute by certain individuals and advocacy groups, business values it and sees it as useful. Our survey methods have allowed organizations to measure morale and customer attitudes. 360-degree feedback has been a boon to providing candid feedback to managers and employees. Where in the past performance appraisals were written with a lack of temerity for obvious reasons, anonymous feedback allows people to speak more comfortably. The assessment center method is of value in identifying emerging leadership, especially in those situations where people must separate from the ranks.
Let’s stop searching for the obvious and following the fads. So much of what passes for rigorous research is an investigation into minutia. We love the elegance of collecting and analyzing our data, publish in refereed journals as well as present at poster board sessions and conferences. Meanwhile, most of the business world could care less, and we wonder why we are not valued. The cycle continues while our time could be spent building our credibility.
In closing, let’s modify our rigid stances on matters. It seems that criticism of our profession and its direction has not always been welcomed, with defenders prepared to shoot the messenger. Yet, until we are able to address practical solutions that truly benefit our constituents, I full well expect to see future articles decrying how we are devalued. We need to stop whining and start listening, lest we continue in our ways and generate even more self-pity.
Stephen A. Laser, PhD
Managing Director
Stephen A. Laser Associates