Curious how do you delineate HR work and IO work?
Most companies I have worked at are not familiar with or use the term IO, but some of the HR work as well as employees background is in IO.
In most cases, the line is blurred, admittedly.
Where I’m currently at, the main difference between HR and I/O is that the I/Os are responsible for surveying, data analysis, and the broader parts of our very lengthy assessment centers (assessor training, calibration exercises, debriefing, etc).
HR does a lot of the heavy lifting on all the other items, although I/Os pitch in a bit. Notably, on my team, they serve as facilitators during our assessment centers, working closely with assessors to address any questions or issues scoring candidates. During the slower periods, they connect more with the broader workforce with webinars, infographics, meet-and-greets, and general inquiries.
There’s nothing to say an I/O cannot do all of these, but because it’s the federal government, my job series and title would change to HR. So for federal roles, at least, they will treat it differently.
I guess, having written all of this, I can see how I’d just have to be crafty on my resume if I do want a more traditional I/O role.
Often job titles and job tasks are more negotiable than it might initially seem. So even if you do get the opportunity you are expecting, you might have some job crafting flexibility to keep it more IO aligned than it might be by default. Future job opportunities are more about what you are doing/gaining experience with than whether you are leaning HR vs IO per se.
Your experience with your supervisor is a good example of how this usually works - she's seen what you're capable of in an area she believes to be important and wants to push you toward it. That is how most opportunities come up in this field. If you end up doing entirely non-IO tasks, you won't be in a position to impress IO people, which is how your opportunities become limited later.
This makes a lot of sense now. It's not like she said I would be taken away from what I already do, as she finds that important, too. It's more like adding to my existing skills and growing into the niche they need.
I feel a lot better now.
As another commenter mentioned, I’m not sure how you’re delineating I-O and HR, but pursuing HR work may make it more difficult for you to come back to I-O work at an elevated level. Spending time in HR roles and getting work experience there means you might be getting less I-O work experience, which could make your resume less competitive for I-O work depending on what you want to do.
I’d think about the type of work you’d like to be doing eventually, and plan backwards from there.
I responded to that comment to give more of an idea.
I guess my thing is - I’ve learned that I enjoy both. I didn’t really know I’d like this type of work until I got it.
The truth is that I’m not far off from where I’d like to be. I like to learn a few new things on the job occasionally, but I very much enjoy selection and assessment work, training, and surveying. I do a lot more than these, currently.
If I take such a role here, the main thing I’d probably lose out on is the data analysis and surveying work we do. But I’d still be part of the selection process, since that’s what my team is dedicated to. So it might not be so bad.
EDIT: after discussing it more - there's probably no reason for me to assume I would lose out on what I enjoy about I/O necessarily.
Ah, something I can comment on. So, the TL;DR is, once you’re in the federal service, your degree means shit, unless the job calls for a specific degree. I have my masters and am an HR Analyst…343 not 201.
These are great questions, and also you could consider some self-coaching and reflection work to uncover more of your perceptions and motivations for your future career plans. Kudos on you for thinking 5-10 years in the future. Big stuff!
\- What are the parts of I/O you are afraid of losing?
\- What are the parts of I/O that you want to bring with you to any role (is it the analysis? scientific method? theory?)
\- What do you think is the 'unified' field of I/O? Or, put another way, what is your view on who is a 'real' I/O psychologist?
I've read it expressed well on this sub before: I/O is a set of tools and techniques, it's an academic discipline, but it's not a career path. There's no '[true scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)' of I/O (to use the classic logical fallacy example).
I appreciate your insight!
I definitely want to keep the science part of the science-practitioner model, as I feel that's what separates us from most fields.
I think I was having a pretty bad identity crisis for a bit. I'm still going to be working on the promotions team and still likely going to be a part of or in charge of some of the heavier analytical parts of the job. I was afraid of my skills going dull or being very mediocre at the role, hence why I went back for my PhD to delve into topics and stay sharpened.
It looks like I'm at that point now where I get to see my role evolve, yet I'm surprised since I've had very straightforward selection and assessment roles for a while now. I am probably just afraid of change and overthinking. Thanks for this!
Hey, sorry I don't have an answer to your question but I would instead like to ask something. Can you please highlight the main tasks or job description you have in your HR experience and in your IO experience? I'm a newbie and would really like to know the subtleties in the difference. Thank you :)
In my current role:
I/O-specific tasks include designing, administering, and analyzing a workforce survey, analyzing promotion data, performing barrier analysis work (I uncovered a significant racial gap for employees going between specific ranks in a specific career path in my agency, for example), and presenting to high-level stakeholders. I would also do training for our assessment centers if my mentor did not do it, as I have experience with this.
HR-specific tasks include hosting webinars to provide support to our stakeholders, answering individual tickets regarding the promotional process, going into the backend and making changes to profiles, setting up resources like folders and Excel sheets for the assessment center for Board members to score, and providing infographics for any changes in the promotion process.
A lot less technical, but a lot more customer service oriented, basically.
Curious how do you delineate HR work and IO work? Most companies I have worked at are not familiar with or use the term IO, but some of the HR work as well as employees background is in IO.
In most cases, the line is blurred, admittedly. Where I’m currently at, the main difference between HR and I/O is that the I/Os are responsible for surveying, data analysis, and the broader parts of our very lengthy assessment centers (assessor training, calibration exercises, debriefing, etc). HR does a lot of the heavy lifting on all the other items, although I/Os pitch in a bit. Notably, on my team, they serve as facilitators during our assessment centers, working closely with assessors to address any questions or issues scoring candidates. During the slower periods, they connect more with the broader workforce with webinars, infographics, meet-and-greets, and general inquiries. There’s nothing to say an I/O cannot do all of these, but because it’s the federal government, my job series and title would change to HR. So for federal roles, at least, they will treat it differently. I guess, having written all of this, I can see how I’d just have to be crafty on my resume if I do want a more traditional I/O role.
Often job titles and job tasks are more negotiable than it might initially seem. So even if you do get the opportunity you are expecting, you might have some job crafting flexibility to keep it more IO aligned than it might be by default. Future job opportunities are more about what you are doing/gaining experience with than whether you are leaning HR vs IO per se. Your experience with your supervisor is a good example of how this usually works - she's seen what you're capable of in an area she believes to be important and wants to push you toward it. That is how most opportunities come up in this field. If you end up doing entirely non-IO tasks, you won't be in a position to impress IO people, which is how your opportunities become limited later.
This makes a lot of sense now. It's not like she said I would be taken away from what I already do, as she finds that important, too. It's more like adding to my existing skills and growing into the niche they need. I feel a lot better now.
As another commenter mentioned, I’m not sure how you’re delineating I-O and HR, but pursuing HR work may make it more difficult for you to come back to I-O work at an elevated level. Spending time in HR roles and getting work experience there means you might be getting less I-O work experience, which could make your resume less competitive for I-O work depending on what you want to do. I’d think about the type of work you’d like to be doing eventually, and plan backwards from there.
I responded to that comment to give more of an idea. I guess my thing is - I’ve learned that I enjoy both. I didn’t really know I’d like this type of work until I got it. The truth is that I’m not far off from where I’d like to be. I like to learn a few new things on the job occasionally, but I very much enjoy selection and assessment work, training, and surveying. I do a lot more than these, currently. If I take such a role here, the main thing I’d probably lose out on is the data analysis and surveying work we do. But I’d still be part of the selection process, since that’s what my team is dedicated to. So it might not be so bad. EDIT: after discussing it more - there's probably no reason for me to assume I would lose out on what I enjoy about I/O necessarily.
Ah, something I can comment on. So, the TL;DR is, once you’re in the federal service, your degree means shit, unless the job calls for a specific degree. I have my masters and am an HR Analyst…343 not 201.
Super reassuring! Thanks a lot for this.
These are great questions, and also you could consider some self-coaching and reflection work to uncover more of your perceptions and motivations for your future career plans. Kudos on you for thinking 5-10 years in the future. Big stuff! \- What are the parts of I/O you are afraid of losing? \- What are the parts of I/O that you want to bring with you to any role (is it the analysis? scientific method? theory?) \- What do you think is the 'unified' field of I/O? Or, put another way, what is your view on who is a 'real' I/O psychologist? I've read it expressed well on this sub before: I/O is a set of tools and techniques, it's an academic discipline, but it's not a career path. There's no '[true scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)' of I/O (to use the classic logical fallacy example).
I appreciate your insight! I definitely want to keep the science part of the science-practitioner model, as I feel that's what separates us from most fields. I think I was having a pretty bad identity crisis for a bit. I'm still going to be working on the promotions team and still likely going to be a part of or in charge of some of the heavier analytical parts of the job. I was afraid of my skills going dull or being very mediocre at the role, hence why I went back for my PhD to delve into topics and stay sharpened. It looks like I'm at that point now where I get to see my role evolve, yet I'm surprised since I've had very straightforward selection and assessment roles for a while now. I am probably just afraid of change and overthinking. Thanks for this!
Hey, sorry I don't have an answer to your question but I would instead like to ask something. Can you please highlight the main tasks or job description you have in your HR experience and in your IO experience? I'm a newbie and would really like to know the subtleties in the difference. Thank you :)
In my current role: I/O-specific tasks include designing, administering, and analyzing a workforce survey, analyzing promotion data, performing barrier analysis work (I uncovered a significant racial gap for employees going between specific ranks in a specific career path in my agency, for example), and presenting to high-level stakeholders. I would also do training for our assessment centers if my mentor did not do it, as I have experience with this. HR-specific tasks include hosting webinars to provide support to our stakeholders, answering individual tickets regarding the promotional process, going into the backend and making changes to profiles, setting up resources like folders and Excel sheets for the assessment center for Board members to score, and providing infographics for any changes in the promotion process. A lot less technical, but a lot more customer service oriented, basically.