I-O Psychology versus Organizational Behavior
What is the difference between Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior? Not much, but a recent question on LinkedIn inspired me to do some research and get to the details of it. I thought to throw the info up on here as well just in case any students deciding on grad school might find it useful. Oh yeah, and also to help with that whole I-O visibility thing, too.
As far as practitioners go, they do pretty much the same thing. Both IO and OB have a mission to enhance individual performance for a result of improved organizational effectiveness. When it comes to researchers, the strength of OBM is its practical significance and focus on applied issues. I-O psychology, on the other hand, has variety and complexity of organizational research topics on its side. A compare and contrast is in the image below:
A key take-away? If you want to know how to effect behavioral change at work, go read Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. If you want to explore reasons behind behavior at work, go read Journal of Applied Psychology.
A Brief History
OBM was inspired by Skinner and behaviorism while I-O psychology is a little more complex.
First there was Psychology. Hugo Munsterberg, a German guy, studied under Wilhelm Wundt (“father of psychology”) at Harvard in the late 1800s. He then went on to be the first to measure abilities in workers and tie them to performance. Something that seems kinda obvious to us as something important now, but was considered weird then.
Then there was Industrial Psychology. The Stanford-Binet test was adapted to make the Army Alpha to select soldiers during World War I. Principles of Scientific Management were applied by time and motion specialists.
Then we realized people mattered too. The Hawthorne studies show that if you pay attention to them, they’ll perform better, sparking the Human Relations Movement.
Standards are good. When organizations realized that interests, attitudes, and personality contribute to performance all the Bobs started selling them crap so Title VII, etc. came along.
Today, we like the interdisciplinary approach. No matter what you call it, nothing is in its own bubble. Our genetics determine our neurochemical makeup which composes our traits which predispose our behavior which then drives performance but not without the influence of your motivation, your choices, your past, your boss, or the @$$hole that cut you off this morning. Mulitply that by a few hundred or thousand and you have a formula for your organizational performance [figuratively speaking].
Related Research:
- Bucklin, B.R., & Alvero, A.M. (2000). Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior Management: An Objective Comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20(2), 27.
- Geller, E.S. Organizational Behavior Management and Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Achieving Synergy by Valuing Differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 111-130.
My passion is to apply insights from psychology to make work and life better. On this site I gather and reflect on bits and pieces of wisdom related to business, careers, self-improvement, finances, & health. 
I got that LinkedIn discussion notice too… and you beat me to the punch. I guess that makes us even, huh?
I think you are pretty spot on about the differences between the two fields. I especially like the journal metaphor. I am a JAP kind of guy, but I should probably peek at JOBM from time to time.
I never really considered the differences before the question came up. It’s good to know, though!
I don’t think it’s fair to say that the differences between JOBM and JAP necessarily reflect differences between OB and I/O. For example, I would call both JAP and Personnel Psychology top-tier I/O journals, but P-Psych is going to have much more information with a potentially practical use than JAP probably will.
So – “If you want to explore reasons behind behavior at work, go read Journal of Applied Psychology.” – I agree. But that doesn’t mean that characterizes I/O as a whole. I would say that I/O, HRM, and OB are all vaguely the same thing – the differences are really only in training and immediate purpose. The content is essentially the same.
Good points Richard and thanks for the clarification.
The Buckley (2000) source is actually just a comparison of JOBM and JAP… and the table comes from Geller (2002). I just reviewed both articles here.
I also agree that they’re all pretty much the same – especially in practice.
I have always thought of the difference between the two as blurred but you can see one major difference between the two textbooks (which I have taught both OB and IO) and it is the lack of empirical research in the OB textbook. OB just does not focus on empirical research and statistics like IO does but like you mentioned they do have the high fidelity case studies!
This article is good to get overview of both business phenomenons.OBM is simpler to understand and to execute in the business model than the IOP.I think both are effective as per the marketing perspective and the business scenario.
thanks for the posting…I am starting to explore a potential PhD and this has helped me understand the reason why different universities name their programs the way they do…
I am observing that IOP programs tend to be aligned to Departments of Psychology while OB are more aligned to Departments of Business?
Anyone would comment about where the top research is going on in each of the fields?
After many years, I am just now at the point of researching grad programs. I know what lit my fire, but not sure if the particular program I originally saw is still the one I wish to pursue. I would appreciate recommendations for grad programs of merit for both OB and Org Psych.
Thanks for any input.