Neal W Schmitt’s scientific contributions

As we write this chapter, the field of industrial– organizational psychology in the United States has survived its third attempt at a name change. To provide a little perspective, the moniker industrial psychology became popular after World War I, and described a field that was characterized by ability testing and vocational assessment (Koppes, 2003). The current label, industrial– organizational (I-O) psychology, was made official in 1973. The addition of organizational reflected the grow-ing influence of social psychologists and organizational development consultants, as well as the intellectual and social milieu of the period (see Highhouse, 2007). The change to I-O psychology was more of a compromise than a solution—which may have succeeded only to the extent that everyone was equally dissatisfied. The first attempt to change this clunky label, therefore, occurred in 1976. Popular alternatives at the time were personnel psy-chology, business psychology, and psychology of work . The leading contender, however, was organizational psy-chology because, according to then-future APA Division 14 president Arthur MacKinney, "all of the Division's work is grounded in organizational contexts" (MacKin-ney 1976, p. 2). The issue stalled before ever making it Author Note: We are very grateful to the following people who took the time to provide their thoughtful contributions to this chapter: to a vote of the full membership, but it simmered for nearly 30 years. Although a name change initiative finally went to a vote in 2004, many were not satisfied with a process in which none of the alternatives garnered more than 50% of the ballots. Landy (2008) argued persuasively that he and many past division presidents were dissatisfied with an I-O moniker that seemed old-fashioned, too long, and out of step with international labels. As such, after a runoff of possible names, I-O psychology was pitted against organi-zational psychology in a 2010 vote of the membership of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). It seemed that the nearly 40 years of discontent would finally be resolved with a name with which every-one could live. Alas, industrial-organizational psychology prevailed by a mere 15 votes (over 1,000 votes were cast)! Perhaps it is fitting that our name remains a source of tension, as our field is filled with many fundamental tensions. In this chapter, we briefly discuss some of the tensions that have characterized I-O psychology and continue to exist at different degrees of force. It is important to keep in mind that tensions are not necessarily bad. Kurt Lewin contended that tensions reflect a body that is alive and well, and, without tensions, we are not learning or accomplishing things.