Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:20:34.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fifth Scenario: Identity Expansion in Organizational Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

David P. Costanza  and
Jaclyn M. Jensen
David P. Costanza*
Affiliation:
The George Washington University
Jaclyn M. Jensen
Affiliation:
The George Washington University
*
E-mail: dcostanz@gwu.edu, Address: Department of Organizational Sciences & Communication, The George Washington University, 600 21st Street NW, #201, Washington, DC 20052
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 281 - 285
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

*

Department of Management

**

Department of Management, The George Washington University.

References

Ackoff, R. (1999). Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L. T. Jr. (1997). A history of Division 14 (The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology). In Dewsbury, D. A. (Ed.), Unification through division: Histories of the divisions of the American Psychological Association (Vol. 2, pp. 101–126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208.Google Scholar
Costanza, D. P. (2006). Whither I-O: Get thee from psychology? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 44, 75–82.Google Scholar
Katzell, R. A., & Austin, J. T. (1992). From then to now: The development of industrial-organizational psychology in the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 803–835.Google Scholar
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191.Google Scholar
Offermann, L. R., & Gowing, M. K. (1990). Organizational psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 95–283.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 235–262.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