In their focal article, Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) argue that “academic SIOP members who reside in business schools would assign greater prestige and relevance to top management journals than do academic SIOP members who reside in psychology departments” (p. 273). They tested this by examining the average prestige and relevance scores assigned to flagship management journals such as Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR), and Journal of Management (JOM) by academic work setting. The results of t tests indicated that business faculty rated these journals as more prestigious and more relevant. Based on these results, Highhouse et al. concluded that “to the extent that business school faculty are predominate influencers of [industrial-organizational] I-O psychology, this suggests that management scholarship will continue to set the priorities for future I-O scholarship” (p. 273). In our view, this is not an accurate conclusion for at least three reasons:
-
The comparison of journal ratings is incomplete.
-
The methodology to test the study hypotheses is weak.
-
The interpretation of the results is not justified.
First, the test of the hypothesis is incomplete because they only tested for differences between flagship management journals. The authors should have also examined differences between flagship I-O psychology journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) Personnel Psychology (PPsych), and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP). In fact, the same data that are used to conclude that business faculty rate flagship management journals as more prestigious and relevant than do psychology faculty also shows that business faculty rate flagship I-O journals as more prestigious and relevant. Additionally, as noted in Table 7, fewer business faculty members rarely find anything of interest in these journals than do psychology faculty.
The ratings shown in Tables 3 and 6 indicate that JAP is rated as the most prestigious and relevant journal by business faculty, and it is in fact rated as more prestigious and relevant by business school faculty than by psychology faculty. In addition, PPsych is rated the third most prestigious journal (just behind AMJ) and the fourth most relevant with a score of 2.53, which is just behind and almost the same as AMJ and JOM, which both received a score of 2.54. Thus, it is basically tied for second place with AMJ and JOM. As with JAP, business faculty also rated PPsych as more prestigious and relevant than did psychology faculty. With respect to OBHDP, it is not rated as high by business faculty as are JAP and PPsych; however, like JAP and PPsych it is rated higher in prestige and relevance by business faculty than by psychology faculty. Thus, business faculty not only rate flagship management journals higher in prestige and relevance; they also rate flagship I-O psychology journals as more prestigious and relevant. This means that if the hypothesis was that academic SIOP members who reside in business schools would assign greater prestige and relevance to top I-O psychology journals than academic SIOP members who reside in psychology departments, then it too would be supported. Thus, a more appropriate conclusion is that I-O psychologists who reside in business schools rate top management and top I-O journals as higher in prestige and relevance than do those who reside in psychology departments.
Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) also tested for differences in perceptions of journals that focus specifically on “I”-side topics between psychology and business faculty, arguing that journals that publish research on the “I” side of I-O psychology will be rated lower in prestige and relevance in business schools. They found that psychology faculty viewed these journals as more prestigious and relevant. However, as already noted, both JAP and PPsych were rated higher in prestige and relevance by faculty in business schools, and they both have a long and strong tradition of publishing articles on “I”-side topics such as recruitment, selection, training, and performance appraisal. In fact, a review of research published in JAP over the last 100 years noted the “prevalence of research focusing on individual differences, staffing, and performance over time” (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Chen and Salas2017, p. 244). According to the authors, “the emphasis of the journal on publishing methodologically sophisticated and rigorous research on individual differences has remained strong from its first decade until today” (p. 246). Thus, it is inaccurate to suggest that business faculty view “I”-side research as lower in prestige and relevance given that they rate JAP and PPsych high in prestige and relevance and even higher than do psychology faculty.
Second, the methodology used by Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) is relatively weak given other stronger and more objective methodologies that could have been used. If Highhouse et al. want to know the journal prestige and relevance that I-O psychologists associate with different journals, they should provide participants with the list of the journals that are shown in Table 2 and ask them questions such as the following: “How many articles have you submitted to each journal in the last 5 years?” and “How many articles have you published in each journal in the last 5 years?” This would provide a much more objective indication of journal prestige and relevance than simply asking participants to indicate their view of the prestige and relevance of each journal. Another approach would be to review the flagship management and I-O psychology journals over various periods and identify the author(s) of each article and whether they reside in psychology departments or business schools. The results would probably indicate that the majority of articles published in both JAP and PPsych are from faculty in business schools (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014).
Furthermore, in addition to journal prestige and relevance, it would also be important to know the usefulness or usability of journals for I-O psychologists with respect to those journals that they actually use and find useful for their research and/or practice and frequently use as sources of information. Usefulness questions might ask participants about the extent to which they read and cite articles from each of the journals listed in Table 2 for their research and/or practice or just to stay informed. Finding out about the extent to which I-O psychologists frequently read, use, and cite articles in these journals would be more informative than simply asking them about the degree to which a journal publishes research of interest to them.
With respect to the comparisons made between I-O psychologists in business schools versus those in psychology departments, an even more important comparison is between I-O psychologists in business schools and business school faculty who obtained their PhD in a business school (in organizational behavior and human resources management). Is there a difference in journal prestige and relevance ratings between I-O psychologists and management PhDs in business schools? Do the I-O psychologists rate top I-O journals higher, and do the management PhDs rate top management journals higher in prestige and relevance? An even more important issue is whether business school PhDs are taking over flagship I-O psychology journals (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Eby, Weiss and French2014).
Third, Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) interpret their findings regarding differences in journal prestige and relevance between I-O faculty in psychology departments and business schools as indicative of an identity crisis in I-O psychology such that management scholarship is setting the agenda and priorities for I-O scholarship. The authors have made an extraordinary leap from finding differences in prestige and relevance ratings in flagship management journals to an actual change in the identity of I-O psychologists. However, I-O psychologists in business schools might be rating top management journals higher in prestige and relevance than are those in psychology departments simply because publishing in those journals is the basis for tenure, promotion, and merit-pay decisions in business schools. As noted by Aguinis et al. (Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014), articles published in these journals are what “counts” according to the reward system in business schools. To suggest that it represents a shift in identity is a huge stretch. If the authors really want to study the identity of I-O psychologists in business schools, then they should ask them questions about their identity and whether they identify more with I-O psychologists or business school faculty.
Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) also argue that “one’s employment setting often influences one’s professional identity” (p. 273). But isn’t it equally the case that one’s professional identity often influences one’s employment setting? Industrial-organizational psychologists whose identities and interests align more with organizational behavior topics might find themselves attracted to and employed in business schools absent any identity changes or denigration of “I”-side topics. In our view, the results of the Highhouse et al. study do not indicate that management scholarship is setting the agenda and priorities for I-O scholarship; rather, they indicate that I-O psychologists in business schools rate flagship management journals higher in prestige and relevance because these are the journals that “count” in business schools (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014).
Finally, both authors of this commentary were educated as psychologists (I-O and social psychology) and are now employed as professors in business schools. We disagree with the main premise of Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) that being in a business school leads I-O psychologists to shift their identity and loyalty from I-O psychology to business or management. As noted by Ryan and Ford (Reference Ryan and Ford2010), individuals possess multiple work-related identities that can be salient and used simultaneously. Along these lines, we are I-O psychologists who just happen to be employed in business schools as management professors. Ryan and Ford (Reference Ryan and Ford2010) also note that “setting clearly does not dictate what professional identity is embraced by an individual (i.e., our colleagues and former students who are now in business schools are indeed organizational psychologists)” (p. 251). In fact, the unique perspective one brings to the table as a psychologist in a business school can make one’s identity as an I-O psychologist even more salient and valued. In a similar vein, Aguinis et al. (Reference Aguinis, Ramani, Campbell, Bernal-Turnes, Drewry and Edgerton2017) found that many of the most-cited authors in I-O psychology textbooks who have moved to business schools continue to stay engaged with the I-O psychology community and have not abandoned the field of I-O psychology. Thus, it does not appear that I-O psychologists in business schools have forgotten who they are and where they came from. Furthermore, there are several positive consequences for research, business schools, and I-O psychologists that stem from the movement of I-O psychologists into business schools (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014).
In conclusion, our view is that if I-O psychologists are publishing their research in top management journals, regardless of where they are employed, this is a good thing because it means that I-O psychologists are setting the agenda for management research. After all, isn’t who you are more important than where you are?
You have
Access
In their focal article, Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) argue that “academic SIOP members who reside in business schools would assign greater prestige and relevance to top management journals than do academic SIOP members who reside in psychology departments” (p. 273). They tested this by examining the average prestige and relevance scores assigned to flagship management journals such as Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR), and Journal of Management (JOM) by academic work setting. The results of t tests indicated that business faculty rated these journals as more prestigious and more relevant. Based on these results, Highhouse et al. concluded that “to the extent that business school faculty are predominate influencers of [industrial-organizational] I-O psychology, this suggests that management scholarship will continue to set the priorities for future I-O scholarship” (p. 273). In our view, this is not an accurate conclusion for at least three reasons:
The comparison of journal ratings is incomplete.
The methodology to test the study hypotheses is weak.
The interpretation of the results is not justified.
First, the test of the hypothesis is incomplete because they only tested for differences between flagship management journals. The authors should have also examined differences between flagship I-O psychology journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) Personnel Psychology (PPsych), and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP). In fact, the same data that are used to conclude that business faculty rate flagship management journals as more prestigious and relevant than do psychology faculty also shows that business faculty rate flagship I-O journals as more prestigious and relevant. Additionally, as noted in Table 7, fewer business faculty members rarely find anything of interest in these journals than do psychology faculty.
The ratings shown in Tables 3 and 6 indicate that JAP is rated as the most prestigious and relevant journal by business faculty, and it is in fact rated as more prestigious and relevant by business school faculty than by psychology faculty. In addition, PPsych is rated the third most prestigious journal (just behind AMJ) and the fourth most relevant with a score of 2.53, which is just behind and almost the same as AMJ and JOM, which both received a score of 2.54. Thus, it is basically tied for second place with AMJ and JOM. As with JAP, business faculty also rated PPsych as more prestigious and relevant than did psychology faculty. With respect to OBHDP, it is not rated as high by business faculty as are JAP and PPsych; however, like JAP and PPsych it is rated higher in prestige and relevance by business faculty than by psychology faculty. Thus, business faculty not only rate flagship management journals higher in prestige and relevance; they also rate flagship I-O psychology journals as more prestigious and relevant. This means that if the hypothesis was that academic SIOP members who reside in business schools would assign greater prestige and relevance to top I-O psychology journals than academic SIOP members who reside in psychology departments, then it too would be supported. Thus, a more appropriate conclusion is that I-O psychologists who reside in business schools rate top management and top I-O journals as higher in prestige and relevance than do those who reside in psychology departments.
Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) also tested for differences in perceptions of journals that focus specifically on “I”-side topics between psychology and business faculty, arguing that journals that publish research on the “I” side of I-O psychology will be rated lower in prestige and relevance in business schools. They found that psychology faculty viewed these journals as more prestigious and relevant. However, as already noted, both JAP and PPsych were rated higher in prestige and relevance by faculty in business schools, and they both have a long and strong tradition of publishing articles on “I”-side topics such as recruitment, selection, training, and performance appraisal. In fact, a review of research published in JAP over the last 100 years noted the “prevalence of research focusing on individual differences, staffing, and performance over time” (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Chen and Salas2017, p. 244). According to the authors, “the emphasis of the journal on publishing methodologically sophisticated and rigorous research on individual differences has remained strong from its first decade until today” (p. 246). Thus, it is inaccurate to suggest that business faculty view “I”-side research as lower in prestige and relevance given that they rate JAP and PPsych high in prestige and relevance and even higher than do psychology faculty.
Second, the methodology used by Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) is relatively weak given other stronger and more objective methodologies that could have been used. If Highhouse et al. want to know the journal prestige and relevance that I-O psychologists associate with different journals, they should provide participants with the list of the journals that are shown in Table 2 and ask them questions such as the following: “How many articles have you submitted to each journal in the last 5 years?” and “How many articles have you published in each journal in the last 5 years?” This would provide a much more objective indication of journal prestige and relevance than simply asking participants to indicate their view of the prestige and relevance of each journal. Another approach would be to review the flagship management and I-O psychology journals over various periods and identify the author(s) of each article and whether they reside in psychology departments or business schools. The results would probably indicate that the majority of articles published in both JAP and PPsych are from faculty in business schools (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014).
Furthermore, in addition to journal prestige and relevance, it would also be important to know the usefulness or usability of journals for I-O psychologists with respect to those journals that they actually use and find useful for their research and/or practice and frequently use as sources of information. Usefulness questions might ask participants about the extent to which they read and cite articles from each of the journals listed in Table 2 for their research and/or practice or just to stay informed. Finding out about the extent to which I-O psychologists frequently read, use, and cite articles in these journals would be more informative than simply asking them about the degree to which a journal publishes research of interest to them.
With respect to the comparisons made between I-O psychologists in business schools versus those in psychology departments, an even more important comparison is between I-O psychologists in business schools and business school faculty who obtained their PhD in a business school (in organizational behavior and human resources management). Is there a difference in journal prestige and relevance ratings between I-O psychologists and management PhDs in business schools? Do the I-O psychologists rate top I-O journals higher, and do the management PhDs rate top management journals higher in prestige and relevance? An even more important issue is whether business school PhDs are taking over flagship I-O psychology journals (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Eby, Weiss and French2014).
Third, Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) interpret their findings regarding differences in journal prestige and relevance between I-O faculty in psychology departments and business schools as indicative of an identity crisis in I-O psychology such that management scholarship is setting the agenda and priorities for I-O scholarship. The authors have made an extraordinary leap from finding differences in prestige and relevance ratings in flagship management journals to an actual change in the identity of I-O psychologists. However, I-O psychologists in business schools might be rating top management journals higher in prestige and relevance than are those in psychology departments simply because publishing in those journals is the basis for tenure, promotion, and merit-pay decisions in business schools. As noted by Aguinis et al. (Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014), articles published in these journals are what “counts” according to the reward system in business schools. To suggest that it represents a shift in identity is a huge stretch. If the authors really want to study the identity of I-O psychologists in business schools, then they should ask them questions about their identity and whether they identify more with I-O psychologists or business school faculty.
Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) also argue that “one’s employment setting often influences one’s professional identity” (p. 273). But isn’t it equally the case that one’s professional identity often influences one’s employment setting? Industrial-organizational psychologists whose identities and interests align more with organizational behavior topics might find themselves attracted to and employed in business schools absent any identity changes or denigration of “I”-side topics. In our view, the results of the Highhouse et al. study do not indicate that management scholarship is setting the agenda and priorities for I-O scholarship; rather, they indicate that I-O psychologists in business schools rate flagship management journals higher in prestige and relevance because these are the journals that “count” in business schools (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014).
Finally, both authors of this commentary were educated as psychologists (I-O and social psychology) and are now employed as professors in business schools. We disagree with the main premise of Highhouse et al. (Reference Highhouse, Zickar and Melick2020) that being in a business school leads I-O psychologists to shift their identity and loyalty from I-O psychology to business or management. As noted by Ryan and Ford (Reference Ryan and Ford2010), individuals possess multiple work-related identities that can be salient and used simultaneously. Along these lines, we are I-O psychologists who just happen to be employed in business schools as management professors. Ryan and Ford (Reference Ryan and Ford2010) also note that “setting clearly does not dictate what professional identity is embraced by an individual (i.e., our colleagues and former students who are now in business schools are indeed organizational psychologists)” (p. 251). In fact, the unique perspective one brings to the table as a psychologist in a business school can make one’s identity as an I-O psychologist even more salient and valued. In a similar vein, Aguinis et al. (Reference Aguinis, Ramani, Campbell, Bernal-Turnes, Drewry and Edgerton2017) found that many of the most-cited authors in I-O psychology textbooks who have moved to business schools continue to stay engaged with the I-O psychology community and have not abandoned the field of I-O psychology. Thus, it does not appear that I-O psychologists in business schools have forgotten who they are and where they came from. Furthermore, there are several positive consequences for research, business schools, and I-O psychologists that stem from the movement of I-O psychologists into business schools (Aguinis et al., Reference Aguinis, Bradley and Brodersen2014).
In conclusion, our view is that if I-O psychologists are publishing their research in top management journals, regardless of where they are employed, this is a good thing because it means that I-O psychologists are setting the agenda for management research. After all, isn’t who you are more important than where you are?