Ryan and Ford (2010) asserted that the identity of I-O psychology is blurred with other allied disciplines (OB, HRM, IR, ODC, etc.). I agree. They are concerned with identifying what sets I-O psychology apart from these other disciplines and concluded that the science (italics in original) component of I-O psychology is the critical differentiating marker variable. I disagree. Ryan and Ford equate “I-O psychologists” with “I-O psychological knowledge”; therefore, only individuals trained as I-O psychologists can produce I-O psychological knowledge. The less-than-subtle implication that only I-O psychologists are scientists is not born out by the scientific literature. Our top scientific journals (i.e., those that have the P-word in the title) have had editors, associate editors, and members of the editorial review boards whose academic training is not in psychology. Articles published in these journals are also authored by nonpsychologists. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has given awards and granted fellowship status to nonpsychologists whose scholarly work has been deemed to be of special merit and significance. Quite clearly, I-O psychologists do not have a monopoly on I-O psychological research.

Of the four possible “futures” for I-O psychology discussed by Ryan and Ford (2010), one (Scenario 2: Identity Merger) struck close to home. In fact, it is not the future for us, it is the present. The three of us are I-O psychologists with appointments in both a psychology department and a fully integrated interdisciplinary organizational science (OS) PhD program. The program, which is now 5 years old, spans two colleges (Liberal Arts & Sciences and Business) and includes individuals from four departments (Psychology, Management, Sociology, and Communication Studies). Although considerable thought was invested in how to structure and operate such an interdisciplinary program well before we accepted our first class of students, our collective thinking has evolved dramatically as we have experienced the program.

We address the issue of organizational psychology and the tipping point of professional identity by framing our comments around the recent failed attempt to change the name from the current Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). From the discussions on the SIOP Web site, it is clear that the professional identity and name change issues are intertwined. By applying an identity lens to the recent name change process, we develop a fifth identity scenario, identity refinement. Furthermore, we propose that because the name change is a vital aspect of the identity crystallization, rather than being merely a matter to be voted on, it should be framed as a major change initiative, and adopting a structuration theory approach (Giddens, 1984; Hotho, 2008) in this regard would be most beneficial.

Ryan and Ford (2010) have argued that organizational psychology is at a tipping point in terms of its distinctiveness from other fields. Although the four scenarios they propose for organizational psychology's future cover a wide range of potential outcomes, we propose that there is another, more expansive, more optimistic scenario for our field: our identity needs to continue to evolve, expand, and extend itself to accommodate the evolving and expanding nature of the modern organizations we study. We suggest that the way forward for organizational psychology is to continue what we have done in the past: integrate theories from multiple disciplines, adopt multiple perspectives to the questions we face, and embrace the ambiguity inherent in the organizations we study. This additional scenario, which we term identity expansion, follows both from the history of the field and from research on professional identity. Below, we argue that both historically and theoretically such a future for our professional identity makes the most sense. Furthermore, we believe that organizational psychologists are in an excellent position to both shape and benefit from this expansion in identity.

Central to the argument of Ryan and Ford (2010) is that the identity of “industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologist” is at a number of tipping points that could lead to major changes in the field. The two tipping points that we will focus on are (a) the increasingly blurry distinctions between current I-O psychologists and HR/OB professionals and (b) the growing number of new I-O psychologists who do not have a deep-structure I-O identity because they are ultimately employed in fields outside of I-O psychology.