Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:11:47.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's in a Name? Just the Essence of One's Professional Identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Jonathan Pinto  and
Patrick Stacey
Jonathan Pinto*
Affiliation:
Imperial College Business School
Patrick Stacey
Affiliation:
Imperial College Business School
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Imperial College Business School, Tanaka Building, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 277 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Imperial College Business School.

References

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 363–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 7, 391–411.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of the four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (2002). The virtual organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062–1081.Google Scholar
Cassell, P. (1993). The Giddens reader. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 163–199.Google Scholar
Forsyth, P. B., & Danisiewicz, T. J. (1985). Toward a theory of professionalization. Work and Occupations, 12, 59–76.Google Scholar
Gasser, M., Butler, A., Waddilove, L., & Tan, R. (2004). Defining the profession of industrial–organizational psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42, 16–20.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., & Fehr, R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should … adopt a global perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 493–517.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A., & Gioia, D. (2009, August). Professional identity, organizational identity, and scientific innovation. Presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73, 40–50.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2007). Where did this name come from anyway? A brief history of the I-O label. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 42, 16–20.Google Scholar
Hotho, S. (2008). Professional identity—Product of structure, product of choice: Linking changing professional identity and changing professions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 721–742.Google Scholar
Koppes, L. (2007). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, M. A., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2005). Crackberries: The social implications of ubiquitous wireless e-mail devices. In Sorensen, C., Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., & DeGross, J. I. (Eds.), Designing ubiquitous information environments: Socio-Technical issues and challenges (pp. 337–344). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 3, 194–204.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493.Google Scholar
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 433–458.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M. (2003). Defining ourselves: I-O psychology's identity quest. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41, 21–33.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2010). Organizational psychology and the tipping point of professional identity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 241–258.Google Scholar
Tetrick, L. (2008). Healthy organizations: How healthy is SIOP? The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 46(2), 13–19.Google Scholar