I/O Psychology VS Social Organizational Psychology? HELP!

[ILuvPsych2013]

Hey everyone, I have been looking at I/O programs for about a year. In my search, I ahve started coming across some Social/Organizational Psychology programs at places like NYU, Northern Illinois University, Temple University, and Columbia. Does anyone know the main differences between I/O and S/O? Is one more suited for academic vs. applied settings? Is one more prestigious than the other? Just trying to make sure I am exploring all of my options.

Thanks!

[BenThereDoneThat]

I came across that as well when looking. From my understanding, S/O is pretty much directly applied and little research is done, whereas I/O could be more research based depending on the program. This is subjective, but when I came across this exact question on other forums, people were saying that I/O would at first glance appear to be more prestigious just because S/O is even more rare to see, and as such, companies might not know exactly what they do. Personally, I would like to get an MA in S/O, and then a PhD in I/O, but not quite sure yet what I will do either.

Pulled straight from Columbia's site

A central component of a program in Social-Organizational Psychology is the belief that behavior must be understood from the point of view of the individual and the context within which the individual is behaving. Kurt Lewin's famous statement that behavior is a function of the person and the environment is the foundation on which a program in Social-Organizational Psychology rests. Such programs examine the psychology of organizations and apply theories of both Social Psychology and Organizational Psychology to different organizational contexts. Instead of focusing solely on the individual, Social-Organizational Psychology emphasizes the impact that social forces have on performance and the factors that result in similar individual behavior across situations. A goal of Social-Organizational Psychology is to ultimately improve organizational performance through the creation of a suitable social environment. Social-Organizational Psychologists focus on such topics as motivation, rewards and recognition, leadership, group processes, conflict resolution, organizational culture, organizational change, and organizational performance.

http://www.tc.columbia.edu/o%26l/OrgPsych/index.asp?Id=General+Information&Info=What+is+Social-Organizational+Psychology%3F

[iopsych]

From what I can tell the difference is the fact that TC's S-O program seems to focus heavily on the organizational side and less focus is placed on the industrial side.

So a strong focus on teams, leadership, motivation, org. theory, and attitudes.

With less of a focus on selection, training, performance appraisal, criterion theory, individual differences, job analysis, and individual assessment.

[ILuvPsych2013]

Thanks to both of you, that does help. So basically it sounds like the S/O route is more applied. I love social psych, so it peaked my interest. But like Ben Goodaker-Craig said, I was worried that companies may not know what it is...hmm, decisions decisions Thanks for your feedback!

[iopsych]

Thanks to both of you, that does help. So basically it sounds like the S/O route is more applied. I love social psych, so it peaked my interest. But like Ben Goodaker-Craig said, I was worried that companies may not know what it is...hmm, decisions decisions Thanks for your feedback!

I would not say it is more applied. I don't get that vibe at all. If anything I would say it is less applied as most org. psych topics are more theoretical. Motivation, leadership, and org. theory are very theoretical topics.

Selection, training, performance appraisals, and job analyses are all very applied topics.

Now leadership can be assessed and developed, but that is through utilization of selection, and PAs, and training.

I would say that a balanced I and O program would be a better fit for someone wanting to go applied than an S-O program. Plus the I/O community is very small, while Columbia may have a very good repuation among the average populace, among I/Oers it is nothing compared to Michigan State, Bowling Green, USF, Minnesota, Penn State, etc.

[BenThereDoneThat]

I agree that Columbia does have a good reputation through the average populace, but was concerned how it's viewed in the I/O or S/O communities. The few things that scare me about the program is the fact that it's $50k for the MA program and

Currently and historically there have not been scholarship monies or assistantships available to students at the MA level in the program.

, it's taught through the education department, and

our MA program attracts individuals most interested in a practice-based rather than research-based career. In addition, there are only very limited opportunities for our MA students to engage directly in assisting with faculty research or pursuing their own student research. Therefore, the majority of students in the program do not pursue doctoral studies after completing their master’s degree. However, approximately 5% of graduates annually pursue doctoral studies.

Since I want to pursue an I/O PhD, and won't be able to do research at Columbia, I may not apply there after all.

In response to Caffeinated, I only said I thought it was more applied because this is exactly what Columbia stated their program as being, and I haven't really found any more S/O programs besides Claremont which is absurdly overpriced at about $18K a semester.

[ILuvPsych2013]

Interesting...thank you both so much for your thoughts. I think I'm going to stick with my original plan (I/O)

[gradschool13]

Hi everyone!!!

 

Finally glad i found this thread. hope someone will answer.

 

I was admitted into NYU and Columbia for the I/O programs (at Columbia it's S/O). Was wondering if someone could provide a difference between them.

 

I spoke to the head of the NYU program and he was really great, explained a lot about the program. it seems quite applied and less theoretical, with a focus on quantitative measures and applied statistics. less electives than Columbia but more a balance of I and O.

 

Columbia seems more focused on the O side, and that's where it gets a bit confusing for me. I want to go more to the O side, to consulting. TC is bigger though and so i worry about less attention from professors and recruiters and more being lost in the shuffle when it comes to networking.

 

I really enjoyed hte supplemental essay for NYU's application ( http://www.psych.nyu.edu/programs/ma/ioadmissions.html --- go to the bottom) and found it to be exactly what iwanted. being given a problem case and told to find a solution, to diagnose and come up with a plan for fixing the issue. i'm a problem solver, i like to make things work more efficiently. but see myself a being a bit bored with the individual assessment area of I/O and HR and more a sucker for developing org culture and efficiency.

 

Same cost for both.

 

Baiscally i'm confused as to how heavy the reputation of Columbia as an Ivy matters. versus NYU and its smaller program. whether hte people making hiring decisions know about the diff between the 2 and the supposed more research quantitative measure based part of NYU.

[iopsych]

What specifically do you wnat to do with consulting on the O side?

 

If you think about the actual topics the I side is where the majority of the consulting is.

 

Selection

Training and Development

Performance Management

Job Analysis

Survey Design

 

Those are typical consulting practices.

 

Some get into organizational development, change management, etc., but all the consultants that I know that do this have years of business, typically operations type experience.

[gradschool13]

If you can take a look at the NYU supplemental essay ( )http://www.psych.nyu...admissions.html ), you can get a better idea of what i'm interested in. i found it to be creative, exciting and challenging. What I mentioned previously was what I kind of want to do for a career. Look at my prior post.

 

Basically I want to try and effect organizational development and culture... I don't know what the typical responsibilities of an I/O psychologist more on the O or I side would be.

 

I really don't know if the NYU program is better. Alumni of NYU mentioned they chose it over Columbia because of the focus on quantitative research methods they learned and that it was super important for hiring when it came down to future jobs. Columbia people basically said its more on the O side and that it would be better for what i was interested in.

 

Please help me : Ihave to decide by this sunday and am so lost! I know both schools are good, but I know whichever I go to will change my future.

 

I mean what exactly do jobs with the following you mentioned entail?

Selection

Training and Development

Performance Management

Job Analysis

Survey Design

 

I like both-- NYU is smaller and seems to have great connections with clients; Columbia seems to have bigger sway as an Ivy. But I'm just not sure which is best for my needs. What does theoretical vs. applied mean exactly?

[gradschool13]

I mean if you could describe what the strengths of bnoth and weaknesses of both would be, it would be really helpful. this is a good decision to have but its weighing me down and making me really worried i don't know which is best for me. They both are good for consulting, but is Columbia really weak on the quantitative tools and research methods needed?

 

I want to be given a problem and told that i have to diagnose it and make a solution and additionlly try to assess how the human capital structure is organized. i see myself more on the human capital and less on the HR (payroll, compensation) side.

[I/O The Derry-O]

Here's an excerpt from an article I found:

 

"Taylor Sparks, a graduate student in industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology, called the "dual" character of this specialty confusing, especially for new students. At least it was confusing to her. But she described the split effortlessly, labeling the industrial side as more empirical and precise, often employing quantitative and empirical methodology, and the organizational side as more “fuzzy” and humanistic often using more qualitative methods."

 

 

Full article: http://www.allpsychologycareers.com/topics/industrial-organizational-psychology.html

 

I think the article does a nice job of explaining the importance of having a balanced approach to I/O, which from the sounds of it, NYU has the more balanced approach compared to Columbia's program...

 

If I were you, I would choose NYU. Plenty of schools that aren't Ivies, but are still well respected with NYU being one of them.

[iopsych]

Probably to late, but as I have mentioned in other threads I/O is a very small community. Most jobs you will take out of grad school will be working with other I/Os. Columbia is not an Ivy when it comes to I/O, in fact they have very little presence in the community. You almost never seen anything come out of Columbia that makes it into a large journal (JAP, PPsych, AOM, etc.) and I have never actually met anyone that went to Columbia (I have worked at or with many of the top I/O firms; DDI, Kenexa, SHL, PDRI, FMP, etc.). So they aren't getting/or taking jobs at these firms. They may be staying in NYC and taking jobs at Deloitte, EY, etc. and if traditional consulting where you work 60-70 hours a week sounds like your style it may be something you want to consider.

 

But, Columbia is not considered an Ivy in the I/O community. Remember, grad school is very different than undergrad.

 

The Ivy's in I/O are; Minnesota, Michigan State, Penn State, USF, Bowling Green, etc.

[girl0nthewing]

I, too, am trying to decide between the NYU and Columbia programs for the upcoming Fall. It has been a very confusing process for me.

 

It seems from my research via SIOP resources that if you are interested in research, then NYU is definitely the way to go -- it is consistently ranked about 6 points higher for research than Columbia's program (13th in the country vs. 19th).

 

When it comes to more professionally-oriented jobs, I'm not so sure. The SIOP rankings for I/O graduate programs by students themselves  rank Columbia consistently higher than NYU in every category and put them in the top 10, and don't mention NYU at all. Same goes for student satisfaction and program culture. Yet here in this forum Columbia seems to be considered very low-ranking.  This is making it a little bit harder to make the decision since in general I think I like the idea of the Columbia program better (minus the less rigorous quantitative standards) since it seems to be a little bit better for people seeking human resources management types of positions after graduation, whereas the NYU Program seems to be heavily geared towards consulting. Ideally I would like to be in a program that emphasizes both sides and would allow me to excel in either consulting or in a human resources generalist type position, and I would like to go to a school with the kind of prestige that would make me a better candidate for jobs once I decide which way I actually want to go.

 

I guess the major difficulty for me is making a decision based on these rankings, which since the field is still so small, are kind of arbitrary. What I really want to know is whether I'd be less likely to get a job if I went to Columbia versus NYU with a Master's Degree.

[Omngrl]

About two years later, I am now in the same position, having to decide between NYU and Columbia. It would be great if those who had been weighing their options between the two could mention what their decisions were in the end and whether they feel they benefitted from their programs.

 

I have done so much research and found the same data mentioned (such as SIOP rankings) and i have exhausted all my resources. The only I can do now is get advise from people who have attended one program or the other.

 

Any information would really help me right now.

[Cindy1368]

I recently finished Columbia's S/O program. I agree with previous commentators that it has a strong focus on human behavior, the O side (leadership, motivation, teams, attitudes, culture, etc.) and not so much on the quantitative ("I") side. There are quantitative courses (i.e. data analysis), but you'd be taking those as electives, at the cost of other [more interesting] organizational courses.

With that said, I think the program gives you the soft skills to be an effective consultant/HR professional. In other words, it helps you become more self-aware (if you're willing to put in the work) and work with others more effectively. It's not the most practical program, though there are classes that really try to give you tools... it's very theory-based. I would recommend supplementing this program with practical internships.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Cindy1368

[IsabellaBlue]

Hi all,

I'm glad I found this thread. Wondering if any of you have input/advice about my current situation: 

I'm currently in the Organizational Change Management program at The New School. The program focuses on organization development; it's not quite I/O or S/O psychology but has a lot of similarities. I chose the program because it seemed like a unique and innovative approach to organization development and management, and I liked The New School's values. I'm only 9 credits away from completing my degree, after this semester. It's heavily consulting-oriented which I find interesting. However, I've been profoundly disappointed with the overall quality and rigor of the program. Most of the professors I've had have not updated their curricula since the 90's, and are still using articles and books from the 70's about topics like data collection and management. I mean seriously. I understand  the importance gaining a foundation in the classics/founders of the field of organization development, but so much has changed since then, I feel like I'm being significantly shortchanged by this curriculum. I've brought this up in multiple classes and am met with defensiveness and closed-mindedness from the professors, and advice about doing my own research and finding my own materials. Willing to do this of course, but I feel like the main curriculum is actively obstructing my learning. This isn't what I had in mind when I enrolled. 

For context, here is the curriculum: http://www.newschool.edu/public-engagement/ms-organizational-change-management-degree-requirements/

So, I feel this is my last chance to switch gears, if that's what I decide to do. I've been seriously considering Columbia's social-organizational psychology master's, which I get the impression is more current and rigorous than my current program. My main trepidation, of course, is whether it is worth it to switch gears this late in the game.  It looks like I'll be able to transfer some credits, but obviously not all. So, I need to decide if it's worth it to pay more money and spend even more time in school when I'm so close to a degree, however dissatisfied I am with it. I'm considering switching for several reasons:

1) I want a more academically rigorous environment (I do not feel challenged at The New School)

2) I want a degree from a well-respected school in a recognizable field (nobody knows what organizational change management means)

3) My head is going to explode if I have to stay in the same classroom as these dinosaurs for another semester. 

But, are these good enough reasons to switch? I don't know. Only I can make that decision. The input I could use from you, for those of you who did S-O Psychology at Columbia: 

1) How was your overall experience? Were you satisfied? Stimulated? What didn't you like?

2) What was the curriculum like? Were there modern applications of S-O psych to present-day industries? 

3) What kind of financial aid is available?

Any data you can provide would me much appreciated. I'm doing a campus visit at Teachers College on Monday, but I would love inside intel as well.

Thank you!

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by IsabellaBlue

[DonEvest]

Neither NYU nor Columbia carry any weight in the field. None of the faculty publish or have any significant disciplinary accomplishments. You are much better off attending Hofstra, Baruch, or surrounding programs such as New Haven or Montclair State. All give more rounded, empirical, and applied training which will better prepare you for (a) designing your own solutions in companies, (b) acing consulting interviews by other I/O psychologists, and (c) linking you into the actual I/O discipline because all have faulty who are regularly involved in SIOP, METRO, and other I/O psychological entities. 

As a note on SIOP student surveys for Columbia and NYU - all are biased upwards because people's program attitudes are largely shaped by the institution's prestige rather than program quality. Someone attending a sub-par Harvard Graduate program will still evaluate it favorable because they are affiliated with Harvard. Same for other Ivy leagues - people's attitudes are great going in because the image of columbia and NYU far outpaced the actual quality of the grad programs. 

Edited April 4, 2020 by DonEvest