SIOP Name Change FAQS 3-Why Organizational Psychology?

What alternative names would we be voting on?

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.

What are some alternatives and why Organizational Psychology?

In the 2004 election, the alternatives were the Society for Organizational Psychology, the Society for Work Psychology, the Society for Work & Organizational Psychology, and the Society for Business Psychology. Among the alternatives, Organizational Psychology received the most votes followed by Work Psychology. The Society for Work & Organizational Psychology does little to solve the length problem. Advocates of work psychology note that virtually everything we study involves work in some capacity, therefore the name is inclusive. However, for others, the name connotes too narrow a focus, conjuring images of, say, time-and-motion studies (or as Landy writes, get-your-hands-dirty work) more so than implementing organizational change or enhancing leader effectiveness. Organizational psychology, considered as a descriptor of where our research is done and who benefits is seen as more inclusive by many members.

“Work” and “Work and Organizational Psychology” were both considered by the marketing firm that recommended “Applied Organizational Psychology” as the name that would best brand us externally. (The Executive Committee dropped “applied” because it draws attention away from our profession’s broad research contributions.)

While one of our first global partners, EAWOP, includes work in their society name, across all international associations and societies, more use organizational than work in their name.
While there has been no systematic polling of all members with respect to an alternative name, past samples show a clear preference for organizational psychology. Landy does not present a count of his poll of past-presidents, but wrote that most preferred organizational psychology. In the 2004 vote, the Society for Organizational Psychology received 21.1% of the vote, Society for Work Psychology 12.1%. In the 2002 interviews, 59.5% liked the name “Society for Organizational Psychology,” and only 38.1% liked “Society for Work Psychology.”

Does this mean we are going to be the Society for Organizational Psychology or SOP?

Not necessarily. A number of members have expressed dissatisfaction with the SOP acronym. We could use that acronym and pronounce each letter as in “S-O-P”. This is what the Society for Organizational Behavior does. It is also possible that the society name could be changed to something like The Society for Organizational Psychology (TSOP) or the International Society for Organizational Psychology (ISOP) to avoid the SOP acronym.

Regardless of the full society name and acronym chosen, the vote would be between “industrial-organizational psychology” and “organizational psychology” as the core identifier of who we are. The full society name and acronym will be on name change ballot. In the mean time, the Executive Board will entertain suggestions to alternatives which keep the basic "organizational psychology" element.

What should I do now?

We encourage you to participate in an online discussion of the name change through the comment feature, as the decision to hold a vote in the late summer rests in part on how our members react to the issues contained in this FAQ.

Comments

[Diana Muntean]

I like the idea of Internatioinal society for organizational psychology, but why not just chance the "industrial" part to "international" and keep SIOP's name (Society for International-Organizational Paychology.

[Abel Gallardo]

Industrial and Organizational Psychology is fine. Don´t loose your time.
Today is not clear what will happen in the organizations of the future, related to economic strategies to be adopted in this globalized and globalizing world.
We must prepare, as I-O psychology specialists, to take on increasingly challenging roles. We must consider the financial criteria and/in the future business decisions. For example, it is necessary to analyze the role of china and the costs of labor, the migration of production facilities, and many other things.
Best,

[Mike Cilla]

Since it seems that the "I" side has more to do with individuals versus the "organizational" side of our field, why not replace "Industrial" with "Individual". SIOP could remain the acronym for the professional society (Society for Individual and Organizational Psychology) and I believe the I/O (Individual-Organizational) brand would be more relationally relevant to what the field actually encompasses versus the Industrial-Organizational brand. That is, if there needs to be any name change at all.

[Dr. Dennis Faust]

I disagree with the idea of changing the name of the SIOP organization. Many of us still spend most of our day conducting task analysis, requirements analysis, human factors and ergonomics, highly technical training, work flow modeling, workstation design, safety and such. This kind of work is best described as industrial psychology. Frankly, organization development has constituted the least of my work over the past decades of my career. But there are psychologists working that area and mainly concerned with organization behavior. Both of these kinds of effort need to be recognized. Let's stick with the "I/O" in SIOP--it encompasses both our trade and brands.

[Roy G. Perham, Ph.D.]

I tend to introduce myself as an "industrial psychologist," or as an "I/O psychologist." I find that most people I meet in business or academics tend to think "industrial" psych. is scientific (time/motion studies?), versus unscientific touchy/feely "organizational" psych. Org. Psych. reminds them of that American Airlines commercial in which businesspeople were trying desperately to get earlier flights to escape a group exercise that required them to react to the labels they were wearing on their heads (With apologies to ASTD!)

[Pablo Xia]

At the risk of stating the obvious, whatever the outcome of a vote, some members will be unhappy. Some may simply ignore any change (or the keeping of the status quo) in terms of how they self-identify. I think that any outcome should be followed by the biting of the bullet and acceptance that the subject of another name change will NOT be revisited again, at least not for a long time. The uncertainty that a possible name change creates is detrimental to the profession, so it must be laid to rest.

[Richard N. Landers]

To those that suggest dropping "industrial" will somehow solve all of our visibility problems - if we change to SOP, what happens when "organizational" becomes an outdated term? It will happen; it's only a question of when.

Will we simply change our name again and again every few decades to stay "current", as was done with even greater regularity before the change to "I/O" in 1973? Doesn't sticking with and promoting a single name make more sense for achieving a coherent brand identity in the long term?

[Al]

I've been in this field since 1986, and this issue seems to arise every few years. "SIOP works"...we never come up with a significantly better alternative, and it remains timeless. KEEP SIOP. Now, go back to work!

[Richard]

I like the concept of "ISOP" but agree that it doesn't describe us as we are. I think "OPA" does.

[Ira Levin]

I strongly urge us to change our name to Organzational Psychology and drop the "Industrial." This term is an artifact of the past and a bygone era. The term "organizational" is more encompassing and inclusive. It provides an umbrella construct for all types and forms of social systems whether they are private sector, publicly traded, not for profit,public sector, and community based groups. The "I" and the "O" have become artifical divisions within our field--with the "I" professionals focused on measurement and individual level work, and the "Os" coming from more social pscyhology roots and working in the areas of teams/groups, and enterprise wide interventions. It is time for us to sythesize and integrate the various aspects of our field and move toward the future where organizational forms and types will continue to evolve.

It is also time for us to move beyond the old debate about whether our association is one of research and academics or practitioners. This is another false divide. Both constituencies are critical to our future health & our ability to contribute constructively to the human based ills of society.

[Carolyn Toth]

Since the preference is for SOP or for IOP, this writer prefers Industrial-Organizational Psychology (IOP). However, since this has been an ongoing concern for several years, it should come as no surprise that none of the suggestions is truly better than SIOP. SOP is easy to remember and easy to use, makes a good connection to other divisions within the APA where they are "Society" and is still consistent with the intent of the mission, vision, and goals of SIOP through the essence of the name.

[KarinT]

What about "Psychology of Employment and Organizations" (PEO) or Psychology of Organizations and Employment (POE). I do not have a problem with the word "society" or "association".

[Sherry]

Here are some practical questions that I want everyone to seriously consider: What happens to everyone that has a degree in I/O Psychology? Do our degrees suddenly become irrelevant once the name changes? If we have a degree in I/O psychology are we suddenly now outdated and less marketable?

[Romella]

In a letter to the Editor of TIP (http://www.siop.org/tip/Oct08/15letters.aspx), I laid out why I/O Psychologists have to stop pretending to be HR professionals. With the wide array of tools in our collective toolkit, we should be doing more than just selection assessments and some OD lite.

At the end of my letter to the Editor, I said that I-O psychology has to figure out how do two things: 1) Differentiate itself from HR and 2) Be relevant.

To this end, we need to be more globally inclusive, more business focused, more socially-culturally aware, and make it clear that our sphere of influnce is NOT limited to the world of HR.

I think that both the "Industrial" (or a good synonym thereof) and the "Organizational" should remain in some fashion and anything that evokes HR (e.g., work or personnel) is a very bad idea and will hamper the growth of the field.

[Sarah]

I agree that, alone, "organizational psychology" infers that we organize calendars, closets, and sock drawers... tasks which also mirror the "life coach" stereotype. Needless to say, all of these connotations make our work appear to be anything but scientifically grounded or rigorous.

Consequently, I agree with those who have suggested that we couch “organizational psychology” in with a term like personnel or workplace (v. work).

Finally, I strongly support a name change that includes our international partners (and yes, Canada is international). In that we need to stick with our “new brand” for at least the next few years (if not forever), let’s have a visionary mindset and include those peers from around the globe whom we hope to have an even stronger relationship with in the years to come.

[Carl]

If we really want our field's name to move out of the mid 20th century and into the 21st, we should also consider adding the term "international" to it to better reflect the continued globalization of the workplace. Perhaps, then, we should change our name to: The International Society for Organizational Psychology (ISOP), which has the added hip and contemporary benefit of having the letter I at the beginning (e.g., iPhone, iPod, iReport). If we wanted to embrace internationalism even more, we could consider putting the noun before the adjective as they do in many non-English languages and using a fancy French spelling, thereby making it: The Society Internationale for Organizational Psychology or -- SIOP -- ☺

[Dale]

"Association" seems better than "society." "Organizational" is clearly the best alternative. AOP?

[Tom Hilton]

I have found that most lay people, and many psychologists, are not certain about what constitutes industrial psychology. Loss of the "I" probably would be noticed by few, and welcomed by monosyllablists (apologies to Bechett).

[Rodger Adair]

"I like the idea of using the term "association" instead of "society." How about the Organizational Psychology Association (OPA)?"

Posted by: Laurent Lapierre | May 04, 2009 at 10:12 AM

How about the Association of Organizational Psychologists?

[Rodger Adair]

how abut "The International Alliance of Organizational Psychology". That could make the initials TIAOP or IAOP, getting away from SOP.