The following are answers to frequently asked questions about a possible SIOP name change. To be sure the Executive Board gets your feedback, post your comments about a possible new name below.
What is the reason for a name change?
As Highhouse (2007) pointed out, we have changed our name several times, and considered changing it other times, in response to either changing social norms or the emergence of new areas of study within the discipline. We were the division of "industrial and business psychology" in the American Association of Applied Psychology (prior to its merger with APA), until "business" was dropped in about 1962. "Organizational" was added into our name in the early 1970s both to reflect the growing awareness of organizational contexts in our research, andthe desire to appeal more broadly to scholars (who chose not to be members of Division14).
There are three steps. The first is a vote of membership, since changing our name means changing our by-laws. The vote would be done electronically, after notifying members by e-mail. The procedure would be similar to a vote for new officers or last year’s vote to change the governance structure.
The second step is notifying APA of the intent to change our division name. There is a 60-day review period by other divisions. Unless we are changing our name to something like “Clinical and Organizational Psychology,” this step should not present problems.
The third step would be literally changing the name on our web site, stationery, publications, bank and financial forms, etc.
In response to multiple criticisms of the last vote (with 5 choices), the Executive Board is proposing the name “The Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology and the “The Society for Organizational Psychology” as the two alternatives. The latter name was selected with full recognition that there is no consensus on a new name, but that Organizational Psychology consistently emerges as the preferred alternative.
According to conventional wisdom, leadership is about influencing individuals to contribute to group goals. Although the preferred way for leaders to influence followers has changed with the times—command and control leadership during the predictable days of industry, a more engaging person-oriented approach for the softer and less certain knowledge economy—the core assumption remains that leaders contribute to the bottom line by cajoling, inspiring, and motivating followers.
The problem is that this view cannot explain the Apple paradox.
Sebastian Schist CEO/President Schist Manufacturing & Mining Long View, NY 10005 Attn: Jeffrey Saltzman Pleasantville, NY 10570
Dear Jeff,
It has been a long time since we have spoken and I hope this letter finds you and your family well. I am well, as is my family, with little Hilda growing like a weed. Berta is fine also and still that fabulous cook you remember.
As you can imagine my company is struggling to cope with the economic challenges we are all facing. And while I am confident we are doing many of the right things to cope with the situation, I am searching for additional ideas that could be applied not only here but to all organizations as they struggle with this economic tailspin.
The news stories in this column have been gathered through the use of a Google News Feed. They are neither filtered nor endorsed by SIOP but aggregated automatically using specific search terms.
