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 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).

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.

There was a phrase among the Boston immigrant Irish in the latter part of the 19th century that went something like this, “I shook the hand that shook the hand that shook the hand … of the Great John L ….” This saying was in reference to the strong sense of identity that the Boston Irish shared with one of the first of their very own to gain international recognition and fame: the heavyweight champion of the world (1882–1892), John L. Sullivan. Undoubtedly the first national sports hero and best-known American of his generation, John L. Sullivan represented the hopes and aspirations of the millions of Americans who identified with him (Isenberg, 1988). His widely heralded success story is credited for acting as a “tipping point” for many youth to forsake a life of crime.

It's important to place the issues expressed by Ryan and Ford (2010) in historical perspective. Although they acknowledge some earlier expressions of concern, especially with respect to professional training (Naylor, 1971), I think it's fair to characterize the overall tenor of their essay as one of sounding the alarm: a new and unique impending identity crisis. However, as previously noted, “industrial-organizational psychology seems to be subject to recurring identity threats” (Lefkowitz, 2005, p. 18).

The commentaries provided an array of perspectives on identity management in our profession. However, there was general agreement on what should be central and distinctive about our field and on the need to cultivate a positive identity for the profession. The commentators also suggested a number of ways to cultivate this identity. For us, the commentaries also stimulated further reflection on our approach to training graduate students. We share our reflections and encourage readers to take the time to reflect on their own efforts to contribute to the profession's management of identity.

Although synthetic validation has long been suggested as a practical and defensible approach to establishing validity evidence, synthetic validation techniques are infrequently used and not well understood by the practitioners and researchers they could most benefit. Therefore, we describe the assumptions, origins, and methods for establishing validity evidence of the two primary types of synthetic validation techniques: (a) job component validity and (b) job requirements matrix. We then present the case for synthetic validation as the best approach for many situations and address the potential limitations of synthetic validation. We conclude by proposing the development of a comprehensive database to build prediction equations for use in synthetic validation of jobs across the U.S. economy and reviewing potential obstacles to the creation of such a database. We maintain that synthetic validation is a practically useful methodology that has great potential to advance the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology.

Conclusions about the effectiveness of selection systems require gathering, evaluating, weighting, and interpreting validity data, but these conclusions are obviously challenged to the extent that this process is suspect. Local validity information within the organization may be desirable but not available, and conducting a local validity study may be practically infeasible because of limited time, resources, and small sample sizes. Specific validity studies outside the organization may also be problematic if they are based on jobs or settings of questionable relevance, small sample sizes, range-restricted incumbent samples, and unreliable or content-deficient predictor and criterion measures. It is usually an understatement to say that sifting through a pile of such studies to make educated guesses about the validity of selection measures within of a specific organizational setting could be an idiosyncratic, time-consuming, and frustrating process, resulting in little confidence in any summary conclusions.

Johnson et al. (2010) note the need for a vector defining the relationships between job components and overall job performance (OJP) in the job requirements matrix approach to synthetic validation. This need is also implicit in the job components validity approach that they discuss. In our view, relationships between job components and overall criteria such as OJP are central to synthetic validation, as the effectiveness of this approach depends on the generalizability of relationships between job and criterion components across jobs, organizations, and (of increasing importance) countries.

In reading the title of Johnson et al.'s (2010) article on synthetic validity, I immediately asked myself “Better at what?” Motor oil serves three functions in internal combustion engines: lubricate, cool, and clean engine parts. There is little doubt that synthetic motor oil does all three of these better than nonsynthetic motor oil, although some might argue that it is not as cost effective. Johnson et al. described two approaches to synthetic validity and then argued why synthetic validity is “the best approach for many situations.” I strongly agree with their contention that synthetic validity is “practically useful” and with their less directly stated contention that it also holds value in developing theory. Hence, I will limit my comments exactly to how synthetic validity inferences might best contribute to the complimentary goals of advancing theory and practice, although these might cause Johnson et al. to rethink some of their observations.

Our focus is on the difficulties that synthetic validity encounters in attempting to achieve discriminant validity and the implications of these difficulties. Johnson et al. (2010) acknowledge the potential problems involved in attaining discriminant validity in synthetic validity. For example, they report that Peterson et al. (2001), Johnson (2007), and other synthetic validity studies report failure to achieve discriminant validity. What this failure means is that a synthetic validity equation developed to predict validity for Job A does as well in predicting validity for Jobs B, C, D, and so forth as it does for Job A. Johnson et al. then go on to propose that this problem might be overcome by careful attention to both the criterion and predictor sides of synthetic validity. We question whether their proposals can be made to work.

The focal article (Johnson et al., 2010) provides a highly upbeat assessment regarding the potential for job component validation (JCV) and J-coefficient methods to “substantially advance the science and practice of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology through synthetic validity” (emphasis added). It follows on the heels of earlier, similarly enthusiastic endorsements (Jeanneret, 1992; Jeanneret & Strong, 2003; LaPolice, Carter, & Johnson, 2008). For example, LaPolice et al. claimed that the JCV Rs they obtained “are all very close to the maximum correlation for each dependent variable, suggesting that our models are approaching the best possible prediction” (p. 435, emphasis added).

Synthetic validity is very much like monogamy. It is an idea that is universally admired but not widely practiced. The concept of synthetic validity has been around for almost 60 years (Lawshe, 1952) and it is described in virtually every testing and measurement book and every industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology textbook I have ever read. I still vividly remember my undergraduate Psychological Testing professor dismissing synthetic validity as “made-up validity.” I thought he was wrong then, and I still do. Nevertheless, it is worth asking why synthetic validity studies are so rare.