Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T03:22:08.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Licensure of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists: It's Déjà Vu All Over Again1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2017

Steve W. J. Kozlowski*
Michigan State University
Georgia T. Chao
Michigan State University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steve W. J. Kozlowski, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Road, Room 309, East Lansing, MI 48824-1116. E-mail:


If one has been involved in the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) since its inception, as we have, one will have had several opportunities to reflect on the issue of licensing to regulate the practice of industrial and organizational psychology (IOP). Some find value in licensure, but the vast majority of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists do not. As the target article written by the Licensure of Consulting and Industrial-Organizational (I-O) Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force (2017) documents, there have been several policy statements made by SIOP leadership over the years. The essence of SIOP's policy is quite clear and consistent. Although SIOP does not support and will not promote the licensure of I-O psychologists, it does support a pathway to licensure for those who desire it, and is supportive of efforts to reduce the many barriers to licensure for those who desire it. It is our understanding that SIOP's participation in the LCIOP Joint Task Force was predicated on this long-standing policy.

Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

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.)


Although we both serve as members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Executive Board in the capacities of Past-President and Representative to the American Psychological Association Council, the views expressed in this commentary are ours alone. They are not intended to reflect the views of any other group or institution.


With appreciation and apologies to Yogi Berra:


AACSB. (2003). Report of the doctoral faculty commission to AACSB International's Board of Directors. Retrieved from Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (APA). (2011). Model act for state licensure of psychologists. American Psychologist, 66, 214226.Google Scholar
Byrne, Z. S., Hayes, T. L., McPhail, S. M., Hakel, M. D., Cortina, J. M., & McHenry, J. J. (2014). Educating industrial–organizational psychologists for science and practice: Where do we go from here? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7 (1), 214.Google Scholar
Ford, J. K., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). Solutions in search of the problem: Innovation, flexibility, and graduate education. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 99, 390403.Google Scholar
Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force. (2017). The licensure issue in consulting and I-O psychology: A discussion paper. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (2), 144181.Google Scholar
Murray, M. (2011). MBA share in the U.S. graduate management education market. Business Education & Accreditation, 3 (1), 2940.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. (2016, September 1). Whatever they say . . . it's about money. The Psychology Times, pp. 11–14. Retrieved from Google Scholar
SIOP. (2006). 2006 Member Survey: Employment Setting. Retrieved from Google Scholar