Early Careers: In Dogged Pursuit of Success
Lori L. Foster
East Carolina University
Dawn L. Riddle
University of South Florida
The dog days of summer are upon us, and this season is bound to be a
scorcher. We begin this issue's Early Careers journey with a bit of
trivia for our faithful readers. The Greek word for "scorching" is
"seirios"a term used to name the Dog Star, Sirius. Visible from
every point on the globe, Sirius is the brightest star in the sky. Why all the
fuss about Sirius? As you know, in the first segment of each EC column,
we take an up close and personal look at a successful I-O psychologist.
This edition features Dr. Nancy Tippins. It seems that a feature on
Dr. Tippins would not be complete without due mention of her dog, Sirius.
Paralleling her pup's celestial namesake, Dr. Tippins is one of I-O psychology's
brightest stars, exemplifying the success to which many practitioners aspire.
This issues' Early Careers segment takes a peek into the life of
Dr. Tippins and promises to satisfy inquiring minds, canine lovers, and new
psychologists seeking practical tips and insights adaptable for career success.
In typical EC fashion, we asked our featured professional to identify
an important topic, issue, or problem confronting early career psychologists.
Dr. Tippins emphasized the pressure placed on I-O practitioners in private
industry to become HR generalists. This column's second segment, Career Gear,
highlights the qualitative differences between I-O and general HR work.
Afterwards, it explores the causes and consequences of the pressure to turn
generalist, as well as the magnitude and manifestation of this pressure. But
enough of the opening banter; it's time to get Sirius. On with the show.
Sirius Tippins at his
graduation from Bad Dog School. (Sirius is on the right!)
Nancy Tippins: The Professional
Professional Experience. Currently the Director of Leadership
Development and Selection Methods for GTE Service Corporation in Irving, Texas,
Dr. Tippins manages teams responsible for the design and implementation of
employee and leadership development programs, high potential assessment, and
succession planning; the development, validation, maintenance, and
implementation of selection tools; and development and maintenance of staffing
policies and procedures. Prior to GTE, Dr. Tippins held both I-O and HR
positions during her 10-year tenure with Bell Atlantic Corporation.
Professional Memberships and Activities. Being extremely active in the
service of our profession, Dr. Tippins is a Fellow and current President of
SIOP, after having served on and chaired numerous committees since 1986. She is
also a Fellow of APA and a Member of APS. Dr. Tippins serves on the Editorial
Board of Personnel Psychology, and she is currently involved in the
National Academy of Science's Committee on the Youth Population and Military
Recruitment.
Industry Groups. Dr. Tippins is also very active in industry
groups including (most currently): the Dearborn Group, the International
Selection and Assessment Conference, the National Staffing Forum, and the Equal
Employment Advisory Council Ad Hoc Committee on Employee Selection. She recently
joined the Summit Group.
Publications and Presentations. With all of these SIOP and
applied activities going on, who has time to publish and present? Nancy Tippins.
Dr. Tippins's resume chronicles nearly 50 local, national, and international
presentations at various meetings and conferences. In addition, she has
published articles in a variety of journals (including the Journal of Applied
Psychology and the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology),
and she has authored several chapters in edited books on assessment.
Nancy Tippins: The Person
But what really lies behind the impressive titles and inspiring career? A
dog. The following pages summarize Nancy Tippins's responses to some
"unprofessional" interview questions (in the sense of
"personal" being the antithesis of "professional"!). The
questions, provided in italics, are followed by Nancy's responses.
What do you do to relieve stress? "I walk the dog," Nancy
explains. It turns out Sirius is not only a dog, but also a counselor of sorts.
In fact, he knows Nancy quite well. "We converse," she admits, adding
that she typically brings paper and pencil along on her walks, just in case a
"eureka!" presents itself during the excursion. (Unconfirmed sources
tell us they've actually seen her writing against a tree in the dark during
moments of insight.)
Now, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention the fact that there has been some
debate about who's walking whom. A friend of Nancy's, Sue Coverdale, recently
accompanied the pair on their walk and was surprised to hear Nancy say things
like, "Sue, we have to cross the street right here," and
"Wait, Sue, we must sit at this specific bench right now."
Apparently, Sirius has the makings of a great leader.
What do you do during your time off? "I walk the dog," Nancy
explains. You're beginning to get an idea of what we were up against. This time,
we hounded her for more. "Well," she adds, "I read a lot."
In fact, Nancy has very diverse literary interests. She's devoted to the
newspaper, enjoys political commentary, loves good fiction, and admits she'd
read the back of a cereal box if that's all she had. At the time of this
writing, she had just finished Alice McDermott's Charming Billy and was
embarking on a book entitled If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have
Given Us Candidates: More Political Subversion from Jim Hightower. When
she's not busy walking, reading, and writing against trees, Nancy enjoys art
museums and the symphony. (She and her husband Mac hit the symphony every
weekend they're home.) In addition, Nancy is a grower of herbsrosemary,
oregano, garlic, and the like. It took a really long time for her to stop
laughing when we asked her which dishes she prepares with these herbs. One of us
even thought we heard her say, between chuckles, "It would take a lot of
herbs to cover up my god-awful cooking!" Suffice it to say she cultivates
the herbs and gives them away to the neighbors.
If you were stranded on a desert island and had one piece of reading
material, what would it be? "I'd have The Washington Post
delivered to my coconut tree," Nancy declares, confirming her
self-proclaimed devotion to the newspaper. Which sections are her favorites?
She loves them all, except the doggoned sports section, which she usually skips.
The order in which she reads the paper is contingent upon her day. Make no bones
about it, a bad day drives her straight to the crossword puzzles. On a good day,
you'll find her taking a more systematic approach to the paper, beginning with
the front page.
Do you have a nickname? If so, how did you get it? The family calls
her `Nan,' Sirius calls her `Nanny' ("...it's the only name he'll respond
to," she remarks. "If you yell `go to Nancy,' he won't know who you're
referring to!"), and you can call her `Nancy.' In fact, if you greet her
with a `Hi, Dr. Tippins,' she's liable to start looking for bugs. No, this isn't
a deep-seated phobia. "My father-in-law was a prominent entomologist,"
Nancy explains. "Every time I hear `Dr. Tippins,' I look around for him and
his bugs!"
What is your favorite beverage? You're mistaken if you think a glass
of wine is Nancy Tippins's favorite beverage. "That," she explains,
"is my favorite dinner." Between meals, you'll find Nancy sipping a
cold diet Coke. During most meals, her favorite beverage is iced tea.
Do you have a routine that you like to follow? On weekdays, Nancy is
up at 5:00 a.m. ("Rather," she corrects herself, "the alarm goes
off at 5:00..."), and she and Sirius are out for their walk by 5:30 a.m.
They return home around 6:30 a.m., get dressed, and sit down for breakfast and
pup pills (doggie allergy pills) around 7:30 a.m. Then it's off to work, where
Nancy spends most of her time (9:00_5:30) on the telephone and in meetings. She
tackles e-mail and other correspondence around 5:30 p.m. If her husband Mac is
out of town, she works until 7:30 or 8:00 p.m., goes home, walks the dog, has
her "favorite dinner," and reads the paper. However, if Mac is in
town, Nancy leaves work around 6:30 p.m. and the two venture out for dinner. The
Caf Express and The Grape are two of their favorite spots, though they have
eclectic predilections, which include American, French, and Vietnamese foods.
When the two return home around 8:30 p.m., Sirius takes them out for a walk.
Then, it's back in time for the newspaper, a book, and bed.
The weekend schedule looks a bit different. The whole alarm clock thing goes
out the window, and Nancy sleeps "as long as the dog will let me."
She, Mac, and Sirius then go out for a weekend walk, which is different from a
weekday walk in that it's usually 5 or 6 miles long, and it involves a stop at
Starbucks. "The dog likes to get his latt," Nancy points out.
(Though he is named after the Dog Star, we have our own private suspicion
that Starbucks is not actually Sirius's idea. However, in an attempt to
let sleeping dogs lie, we didn't press the issue.) Once home, Nancy lets her
fingers do the walking. She telephones various loved ones, including "Mama,
Aunt, Sister, a few brothers (she's got 4 of 'em), and a friend or two."
Then, it's off to work for a few hours before returning home around 5:30 p.m. On
Saturday night, you'll often find Nancy and Mac at the symphony.
Finally, Sunday begins with one of those Sirius weekend walks. Afterwards,
Nancy checks her own panic level and uses this self-assessment to decide whether
to go to church or work. If Mac's in town, the two fetch lunch mid-day, then
it's off to work until 5:00 p.m. or so, followed by dinner.
What factor(s) contributed significantly to your success? Qualified by
a modest "I'm not sure I'm successful, but assuming that I have managed to
keep body and soul together most of the time...," Nancy attributes her
success to hard work, a good education, her friendsmany of whom are I-O
psychologists, and luck (i.e., being in the right place at the right time).
"But a lot of luck is dependent on being prepared."
What factor(s) do you think might be critical to the success of others, in
general? "Hard work, a good educational foundation, a great support
system, and luck are factors in many people's success," says Nancy. She
also notes the impact of a few other factors. "Being involved in the
field," is one important factor. "It's a great way to stay connected
and keep up to date." Nancy remarks that it's often easy for I-O
practitioners to identify more with their companies than with their profession.
Staying involved in SIOP is a good way for practitioners to prevent a drift from
our profession. On a related note, it's important to "expand your network
of people, both within and outside of your organization. Throughout my career,
friends have provided me opportunities, advice, and support." Nancy also
recommends, "Try lots of things. A diversity of interests introduces new
ideas and ways of thinking about things, and brings freshness to the way you
work."
Nancy believes that continuous learning also has a lot to do with success.
"Take the concept of continuous learning very seriously. Make sure your
skills and knowledge don't get out of date... the world moves on and you need to
move with it." As a final success factor, she emphasizes the importance of
enjoying what you're doing. If you don't, you're probably barking up the wrong
tree, and "you'd better change something," Nancy advises.
If you were to choose a topic for our column's Career Gear segment,
what would it be? In response to this query, Nancy suggested we focus on the
notion that I-O psychologists in industry often feel pressure from the
organization to move into a more general HR role.
Career Gear
Upon receiving the response to our final interview question, we
enthusiastically concluded that Nancy's suggestion provides an ideal topic for
the Career Gear segment of this column, particularly because many EC
readers don't have a clue that the issue even is an issue. This, we
decided, is a prime opportunity to provide our readers with an Early Career
"heads-up." Of course, our initial excitement was replaced by the
grave realization that, as card-carrying members of the "without a
clue" club, we had no idea where to begin. After further reflection and a
few phone calls to our esteemed mentors, we decided to begin by nailing down the
difference between the terms "I-O psychologist" and "HR
practitioner." We subsequently turned to some experienced folks (including Rogers
Taylor of State Farm, Jerry Kehoe of AT&T, and others who
preferred to remain anonymous), for a Q&A session addressing the magnitude,
manifestation, causes, and consequences of the pressure to turn generalist. The
results of our research follow.
The Difference Between an I-O Psychologist
and a General HR Practitioner
We begin with a primer on the I-O versus HR distinction, which was culled
from a previous TIP Practice Network article written by Michael Harris
and entitled "I-O, I-OOh, No!! It's Off to HR I Go!" (See Harris's
April 2000 TIP column for more detail.) Following are the four main
distinctions that Harris discusses. (a.) Breadth versus depthHR types
generally offer a broader range of employee services at the line level, while
I-O types provide fewer but more sophisticated corporate-wide services. (b.) Transactional
versus project basedHRM is transactional in that decisions are made and
actions taken on a regular basis. Conversely, I-O is more project based with
discrete design and implementation stages. (c.) Fire-fighting versus
strategicDue to the day-to-day nature of transactional work, HRM is more
likely to involve fire-fighting, while the project nature of I-O enables a more
strategic approach. 4) Training HR and I-O folks generally possess
different educational backgrounds. HR types often come from various fields, and
few have PhDs. Alternatively, I-O psychologists generally have master's or
doctoral degrees and a more homogenous educational background.
Now that we've got this distinction squared away, it's time to get to the
nitty gritty. The following pages offer a Q&A, which addresses the
"pressure to turn generalist" issue. Although it only scratches the
surface of the topic, it is intended to raise the awareness that, for better or
worse, this is a force to be reckoned with. The specific questions we pose are
listed in italics, followed by the "Short Answer," which provides a
synopsis of our respondents' remarks.
Afterwards, we present our contributors' comments in detail.
Do you feel it is common for organizations to put pressure on I-O
psychologists to move into general HR roles?
Short Answer: Yes. (And as you'll see, the very first response
underscores the importance of presenting this issue to an Early Career
audience.)
Taylor: "First, it's my observation that I-O psychologists who
are seen as being valuable to their companies (which most are, I'm happy to say)
invariably reach a choice point in their careers where they must give serious
consideration to leaving I-O psychology and becoming managers of other kinds of
business functions. At some point it becomes apparent that if I-O psychologists
want to take advantage of opportunities to become executives, they must manage
areas different from, or in addition to, areas related to their graduate
training. The successful I-O psychologist is likely to be called into his or her
boss's office, offered an opportunity to manage a broader or different function,
and have to make the decision either at the moment or within 24 hours, at most.
Executives who don't have the professional ties and identifications of I-O
psychologists expect the person being given such an opportunity to accept it
unhesitatingly and are likely not to understand why a person would need to think
over such an offer. It is impossible to tell precisely when an individual will
face the career choice point I'm talking about, so a person needs to be thinking
about what decision he or she will make well in advance of the `opportunity'
presenting itself."
Pretty heavy stuff, huh? You're just beginning your career as an I-O
psychologist and already someone's suggesting you need to be prepared to decide
whether you're willing to give it up! Well, it's not as gloomy as all that. Keep
reading.
How is pressure to move from traditional I-O roles to HR roles
demonstrated?
Short Answer: Via career "advice" to move into HR, and
constrained organizational rewards.
Kehoe: "Perhaps the most direct form of `pressure' is career
advice from the I-O psychologist's boss that HR generalist experience is
important for significant career progression. There are at least two scenarios
where an I-O psychologist is likely to get this advice. One scenario is that HR
generalist experience is [touted as] an important developmental assignment even
if the long term career plan remains within the scope of I-O work. The usual
argument is that HR generalist experience is important to gain a fuller
understanding of the operational requirements for successful HR strategies such
as performance management, and so forth. [Hence, the notion is for the
psychologist] to go out and get some HR generalist experience to bring back to a
broadened/deepened I-O role that would have more value to the organization.
The second scenario is quite different. Its basic premise is that long term
career progression is most promising as an HR generalistthat career
progression is limited if one identifies oneself as an I-O psychologist. In this
scenario, the advice to get HR generalist experience is really advice to change
career paths in return for better career prospects.
Other possible forms of `pressure' may be more subtle. The simplest subtle
form would occur if I-O psychologists simply don't get promoted very often while
remaining in an I-O role. Or, even more subtle, that I-O psychologists tend to
get smaller variable compensation (e.g., bonuses) or smaller raises possibly
because the outputs of I-O psychologists tend to be more difficult to relate to
bottom-line business value."
What forces cause the pressure to turn generalist?
Short Answer: The structure of the organization and the fact that I-O
psychology "don't get no respect."
Kehoe: "Perhaps the most explicit force occurs where the job
structure of an organization does not provide a model of [I-O] career
progression. For example, if an organization's job model associates typical I-O
psychologist roles with middle management levels but does not associate typical
I-O psych roles with upper management or executive roles, then there are likely
to be institutionalized barriers to career progression as an I-O psychologist.
On the other hand, if an organization's job model includes different levels of
professional work such as, for example, "Associate,"
"Expert," "Master," and "Senior Master," then
there is an infrastructure that enables progression as a professional I-O
psychologist. (In my experience, organizations frequently have such a
professional progression model for attorneys and technical R&D professions
but usually do not apply such a model to HR work or, more specifically, to I-O
psychology work.)
This relates to a second type of cause that is more subtle. Many
organizations do not represent Human Resources work as a `profession.' HR is
frequently a brief stopover developmental assignment for `high potential'
managers who are rising up through the ranks to a business leadership position.
Frequently, HR is where some of these people stop progressing and remain.
It's a virtual certainty that all attorneys and physicians in organizations
have specialized training, degrees, and certificates associated with their
particular professional discipline. Although I haven't seen the statistics on
this, I would expect that far fewer than 50% of middle and upper level managers
in HR have any specialized training or degree in any subdiscipline of HR. Where
HR is not managed as a profession, it is very unlikely that progression as an
I-O psychologist will be possible above middle management.
An observation is that our current model of the I-O psychology profession
does not embrace any progression model of I-O work other than the Assistant,
Associate, and Full Professor model. The underlying problem that this Career
Gear segment addresses is, in some part, a problem with our own profession's
lack of acknowledgment of professional I-O progression that culminates in roles
that are not organized around research functions. I would assert that there is a
progression model of I-O work in organizations in which the entry level(s) is
focused on product development and the technical work associated with
development such as research, analysis, validation, and so forth. The
intermediate level would focus on consulting roles and higher stakes processes
and systems such as leadership development or processes that span the entire
organization such as employee surveys. The high level would be an executive
leadership role focusing on broader, deeper strategic organizational issues such
as culture, the complementarity of HR processes and systems such as
compensation, performance management and management development, officer
succession planning and selection, and the like. There is nothing about the
highest level as described that requires the person to have migrated away from a
professional I-O orientation to that work. Yet many would refer to the high
level as HR generalist work (albeit at a high level). My point is that such work
does not represent a departure from an I-O professional orientation."
How do organizations benefit when I-O psychologists become HR
generalists?
Short Answer: Damn, we're good! (Oops, that was a reaction to, rather
than a summary of, our contributors' comments. How about thisthe organization
gains an effective manager with in-depth job knowledge and strong
problem-solving and analytical skills.)
Taylor: "Organizations who promote an I-O psychologist into
middle or higher management stand to gain an effective manager by such a move.
In all likelihood, the psychologist will have been performing very effectively
in a supervisory capacity before being singled out for advancement."
Kehoe: "I-O psychologists are bright, resourceful people for the
most part. They had to be to earn the PhD. So, when I-O psychologists become HR
generalists, they usually bring with them high levels of thinking skills,
problem solving, and an analytical perspective (those research methodology and,
yes, even statistics courses have many secondary benefits!) that is invaluable
to an organization. Second, the content of I-O psychology is directly applicable
to most aspects of HR generalist work and is likely to represent a significantly
more advanced level of job knowledge relating to HR processes than the typical
HR generalist."
What are the advantages/disadvantages of moving to HR for the I-O
psychologist?
Short Answer: Advantages include money and power, obtaining a
"big picture" perspective of the organization, and gaining credibility
with business partners. Disadvantages include losing your identity as an I-O
psychologist, and/or the opportunities to do what it was you were trained to do.
Taylor: "The psychologist stands to gain money and prestige
within the organization from accepting broader managerial responsibilities.
Ideally, the I-O psychologist may be able to meet his or her needs for money by
remaining in their current position, in which case the temptation to move to
higher management or executive ranks may not be as appealing as it might be
otherwise. If the psychologist is strongly attracted to money and power,
however, accepting a move out of I-O psychology may be very appealing and would
seem to be the right move for that individual."
Kehoe: "The primary benefit is to improve their breadth and depth
of understanding of the operational factors that influence the success/failure
of business/HR practices and processes. Also, like it or not, HR generalist
experience frequently enhances the I-O psychologist's reputation as a
knowledgeable, dependable business partner. (Assuming it was a successful
experience!) Also, such operational experience can significantly broaden the I-O
psychologist's business network that will frequently better position the person
in the whole organization.
My view is that there are no inherent disadvantages. No professional standard
has been violated. There are no necessary risks to happiness or effectiveness.
It is likely that the HR generalist role subjects the person to the vagaries of
day-to-day business operations to a greater extent than in traditional I-O
roles. But this has more to do with the distinctions between line jobs and
`corporate' jobs than between HR generalist and I-O psych distinctions. As a
practical matter, the one risk that seems to occur frequently is that extended
time in an HR generalist role tends to lead one away from a strong orientation
to the I-O psych discipline. But this is a risk only if the individual has
intended to retain an affiliation with the I-O profession."
Anonymous Respondent: "From a positive standpoint, the movement
into HR buys you a higher earning potential, the opportunity to gain a greater
understanding of what's going on in the organization (HR is closer to the
action), and a greater opportunity to be recognized. On the negative side, there
is a potential to lose touch with what you were trained to do. As an HR
generalist, you're rarely solving problems via programmatic, systematic
research. In a sense, you're no longer practicing psychology. You have to ask
yourself whether you spent all of that time in graduate school just to let your
training fall to the wayside."
What are the short- and long-term implications for the field of I-O
psychology when I-O professionals move into HR roles?
Short Answer: PositiveOther I-O psychologists gain an ally in
executive ranks who can influence business decisions impacting the role of I-O
psychology in the company. NegativeThe discipline may lose strong
professional contributors.
Taylor: "There seem to me to be advantages and disadvantages to
the profession of individuals being promoted out of professional jobs and into
executive management. The promoted individuals are likely to have been at least
reasonably good psychologists and the profession loses their professional
contributions. On the other hand the profession gains from having executives who
know first hand the kinds of skills I-O psychologists have and how they can be
used most effectively to further the goals of the work organization. They are
very likely to replace themselves with at least one and usually more than one
I-O psychologist, creating opportunities for those who follow into the
profession."
Conclusion
The "pressure to turn generalist" topic thus appears intensely
salient and highly important for many an I-O practitioner. So, heads up! Or, as
Taylor more eloquently states, "My advice to Early Career
psychologists would be to take a good look at yourself and what you want out of
life and your working career, because if you are viewed as successful by your
organization, you will likely have to make such a career choice [HR versus I-O]
at one or more points in your working career."
A Final Note
After we promised to leave his dog out of it, Kevin Murphy agreed to appear
as our next EC feature. So tune in to the October 2000 issue of Early Careers
to find out more about the personal and professional sides of Dr. Murphy!
As always, please feel free to contact the Early Careers editors with
questions, kudos, and criticisms at:
Lori L. Foster (FosterL@mail.ecu.edu)
and
Dawn L. Riddle (riddle@luna.cas.usf.edu).
July 2000 Table of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home