To the extent that leadership is learned, it is learned through experience. This article begins with seven conclusions about the role of experience in leadership development, ponders the reasons that what is known is so rarely applied, suggests some ways to put experience at the center of leadership development efforts, and concludes with a series of recommendations for practice and for future research.

There has been much confusion and controversy concerning the concept of emotional intelligence (EI). Three issues have been particularly bothersome. The first concerns the many conflicting definitions and models of EI. To address this issue, I propose that we distinguish between definitions and models and then adopt a single definition on which the major theorists already seem to agree. I further propose that we more clearly distinguish between EI and the related concept of emotional and social competence (ESC). The second issue that has generated concern is the question of how valid existing measures are. After reviewing the research on the psychometric properties of several popular tests, I conclude that although there is some support for many of them, they all have inherent limitations. We need to rely more on alternative measurement strategies that have been available for some time and also develop new measures that are more sensitive to context. The third area of contention concerns the significance of EI for outcomes such as job performance or leadership effectiveness. Recent research, not available to earlier critics, suggests that EI is positively associated with performance. However, certain ESCs are likely to be stronger predictors of performance than EI in many situations. Also, EI is likely to be more important in certain kinds of situations, such as those involving social interaction or significant levels of stress. Context makes a difference.

Using concepts from the literature on individual and collective identity, we argue that organizational psychologists are at a tipping point with regard to identity. Assertions regarding a lack of distinctiveness from other fields, ambiguity in individual identification with the field among new entrants, hyperadaptation to external forces, and a failure to manage within-identity dynamics associated with science and practice are presented. These assertions are supported with descriptions of the nature of growth in the field, challenges in academic psychology departments, and calls for changing research agendas. With the aim of engaging others in collective sensemaking, alternative future scenarios for organizational psychology are presented.

The major premise of this article is that increased exposure to—and increased application of—theories, methods, and findings from the judgment and decision-making (JDM) field will aid industrial–organizational psychology and organizational behavior (IOOB) researchers and practitioners in studying workplace decisions. To this end, we first provide evidence of the lack of cross-fertilization between JDM and IOOB and then provide an overview of the JDM research literature. Next, with the aid of a panel of prominent IOOB scholars who share JDM interests, we discuss the philosophical and methodological traditions in IOOB and JDM, the areas in which IOOB has already been enriched by JDM as well as the areas in which it might be further enriched in the future, ways of increasing cross-fertilization from JDM to IOOB, and ways in which IOOB can in turn contribute to JDM. Through this focal article, we hope to spark conversation and ultimately engender more cross-fertilization between JDM and IOOB.

The first thing that struck me about the Ryan and Ford (2010) article was the irony of the title. Their choice to use the term “organizational” psychology instead of “industrial-organizational” (I-O) psychology was treated rather blithely in a footnote, but I am willing to bet that many readers were taken aback by the word choice. Although I am personally comfortable with calling myself an organizational psychologist, the most recent proposal to change the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) to the Society for Organizational Psychology was defeated. At least some of those who voted against the change viewed it as an ominous move to change our identity as a profession. I do not believe it was, but I do think the word choice in the context of this focal article is more substantive to the topic than the authors intended.

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?”

We were asked by the editor of this journal about our reactions to the Ryan and Ford (2010) article. More specifically, she asked (a) to what degree “organizational psychologist” was part of our identities in our roles as the senior-most human resources executive in our respective organizations and (b) which of the scenarios described at the end of the Ryan and Ford article would most benefit organizations and the people who work in them (rather than examining which would be most beneficial to the profession itself).