Solo I-O: How Lone I-Os in Organizations Move the Needle

For much of the field’s history, I-O psychology has faced branding challenges (Nolan et al., 2014). The lack of awareness about I-O psychology can prove to be a challenge for many I-Os working as individual I-Os in organizations. Based on the results of the annual membership survey (Griswold et al., 2023), one key desire of SIOP members is a connection to a larger community. SIOP members find benefit in the annual conference and some of the resources provided by the organization but are still looking for additional ways to be a part of the community.

Rarely do I-O psychology practitioners have the title of I-O psychologist or I-O psychology practitioner, even at the doctoral level (SIOP, 2022). This indicates that many I-O psychology practitioners work within a variety of industry silos, such as human resources, talent development, consulting, and coaching (SEBOC, 2023). Human resources professionals and talent development practitioners have a much larger population of practitioners than the field of I-O psychology. Relative to about 340,000 members across 180 countries at SHRM (2025) and 30,000 members across 120 countries at Association for Talent Development (ATD), as of January 2025, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology had a paid membership of just under 7,000 (6,919 exactly) and a similar number (n = 6575) of recent lapsed memberships (members from 2022 who were unpaid in 2023 or 2024; Chetta, 2025). This distinction often exacerbates the lack of connection highlighted by the SIOP membership survey, when our I-O practitioners are frequently surrounded by HR or talent development practitioners who might not even be aware of what I-O psychology is. A study of HR practitioners in 2023 revealed that only 38% were familiar with I-O psychology (Smith et al., 2023).

Results from the practitioner survey (Solberg & Porr, 2019) indicate that practitioners are looking for regional resources and methods for connecting with other I-Os. This finding indicates that many I-Os wish to feel connected to others in the field. The desire for connecting with others in their organization is an indication that I-O psychology practitioners wish to promote the best science possible within their workplaces but are often unable to do so because they are the only I-Os in their organization (Rotolo & Church, 2012). This lack of impact is exacerbated by the scientist–practitioner gap and the limited ability of many I-O psychology practitioners to communicate the science of I-O effectively.

Schiemann and Ulrich (2017) highlighted the desire of I-O psychology practitioners to have an impact on the field and the world in which they work. Many I-O psychology practitioners work in unique industries and are striving to make an impact on their organizations. Hyland (2023) suggested that in response to concerns that I-O psychology as a field has lost its way, I-O psychology practitioners engage in self-reflection. Further, HR and talent management areas of organizations often adopt new approaches or tools/technologies without deliberate evaluation of their scientific foundations and true return on investment; many lone I-Os frequently face the challenges of managing the pressure of senior leadership’s expectations and applying I-O best practices that would best guide decision making (Rotolo et al., 2018). We wish to help what we refer to as lone I-Os or I-O psychology practitioners who are the only ones in their organization, job title, or industry with I-O psychology training. These lone I-Os require additional skills (i.e., political, communication, stakeholder management, business acumen) to implement their knowledge within organizations. The proposed alternative session will allow attendees to (a) develop a sense of what an I-O psychology practitioner can do within an organization on their own, (b) help attendees understand their ability to communicate science, and (c) explore nontraditional I-O psychology career paths. Our panelists have unique expertise in each area. We believe that this format will allow students, practitioners, and academics in career transition to ask specific questions and learn techniques to manage their careers while still delivering impact as a lone I-O.

Overall Session Description

We successfully delivered a 50-minute interactive session designed to support attendees navigating their careers as lone I-Os. Each facilitator was stationed at a designated table to share insights from their unique professional experiences and guide participants through common challenges faced when working without a community of I-O peers. The session began with an 8-minute overview of the format and the introduction of the facilitators. The approximately 50 attendees were divided across three tables, rotating every 10 minutes to engage with each facilitator group. Attendees were encouraged to rotate but were welcome to stay at any particular table. The facilitators and participants were tasked to write valuable pointers on the provided sticky notes. Emily Liner served as the session timekeeper and notetaker, documenting key insights for later analysis.

The first table was led by Lauren Haber and Anthony Mallardi and focused on lone I-Os working in human resources (HR). The facilitators opened up the discussion by asking participants to describe their current role (student, HR professional, aspiring to break into the HR field, etc.) to gauge what the demographic majority of the group was. The facilitators used this information to guide the discussion and keep responses relevant. Following this, the facilitators opened the table up to participant questions to generate talking points on particular concerns, experiences, or insights that ignited topics for discussion with participants. If participants did not have specific questions or topics that they wanted to discuss, the facilitators were prepared with sample discussion topics to initiate the conversation. The facilitators took turns writing summarized points from participants on sticky notes, highlighting skills, knowledge, and competencies for successfully navigating and moving the needle as a lone I-O.

The second table, facilitated by Jason Guttadauria and Nathan Price, focused on the experiences of lone I-Os navigating nontraditional and unique career paths. The facilitators were intentional in framing the conversation through participant-driven questions, allowing the discussion to evolve in response to the group’s interests and lived realities. This created a dynamic space where the diverse professional backgrounds of attendees could meaningfully shape the dialogue. The facilitation flowed organically: One facilitator would share insight from their experience, which the other would build upon, inviting layered reflections from the participants. By intentionally alternating between leadership and team member perspectives, the facilitators cultivated a synergistic atmosphere grounded in communal exploration and shared learning.

Michael Chetta and Sy Islam led the third table. They concentrated on consulting practices that support lone I-Os within various organizations. The facilitators opened up the discussion by explaining how they have supported lone I-Os in organizations. The facilitators then elicited challenges that the lone I-Os felt within their organizations and how working with a consulting organization might mitigate these challenges. The discussion eventually came to focus on how lone I-Os could build community and how having support from other I-Os or a consulting team would be helpful in accomplishing their goals.

After the three rounds of discussions, the final 10 minutes were reserved for reporting a summary and important themes from each table as a closing reflection.

Learnings

I-O practitioners often find themselves as the sole expert in their organization—navigating the complexities of applying psychological principles to workplace challenges without the support of a dedicated I-O team. These individuals face unique hurdles, such as educating colleagues about the field, advocating for evidence-based practices, and influencing organizational decisions. During the table discussions, key themes emerged to help lone I-Os operate in and influence their organization.

1. Communication and Relationship Building

• Adapting communication: All tables emphasized the importance of tailoring communication to the audience. This means avoiding jargon, using language that is easily understood by non-I-O professionals (like business leaders), and being able to explain complex concepts in simple terms.
• Building trust and credibility: Establishing trust and rapport with clients or colleagues is crucial. This involves being authentic, transparent, and relatable.
• Stakeholder management: Effectively managing relationships with various stakeholders, including leaders and other professionals, is key to getting I-O ideas implemented. This often includes educating stakeholders about the value of I-O psychology and building alliances to support initiatives.

2. Applying I-O Psychology in Practice

• Practical application: There’s a strong focus on translating I-O principles and research into practical solutions that address real-world organizational problems. It’s important for practitioners to be particularly resourceful in adapting these principles to their organization’s specific context or terminology.
• Data-driven decision making: Using data to inform recommendations and demonstrate the value of I-O interventions. This includes presenting data in a way that resonates with business leaders, such as demonstrating the ROI. Furthermore, by collecting data before and after an intervention, practitioners can provide deeper data insights for future initiatives.
• Navigating organizational constraints: I-O professionals, especially those working alone, often work in environments with limited resources, tight deadlines, or organizational politics. In order to navigate these challenges and deliver valuable results, practitioners are encouraged to identify allies, be prepared to compromise, and consider pilot projects wherein small wins can be celebrated.
• Focus on business goals: Connecting I-O work to the overall business strategy and demonstrating how it can contribute to organizational success is essential. Although I-O psychology may be a lesser known field, it can be the bridge between science and business.

3. Professional Development and Expertise

• Continuous learning and networking: For lone I-Os, it is especially important to maintain their expertise without the support of in-house colleagues. This includes staying up to date with the latest research, trends, and best practices in the field. Consider seeking out new knowledge, connecting with professional networks (like SIOP) and learning from other organization’s initiatives.
• Confidence and expertise: Lone I-Os should be confident in their knowledge and abilities. Avoid language like “it depends,” particularly for lone I-Os in HR, and other language that may not instill confidence in stakeholders.
• Defining your role: Setting clear boundaries about your expertise and what you can offer is important for managing expectations and ensuring that you are used effectively within an organization. Lone I-Os often need to advocate for the appropriate use of their skills.

4. Change Management and Influence

• Driving change: I-O professionals, particularly lone I-Os, often act as agents of change within organizations. This involves challenging outdated ideas, introducing new perspectives, and helping organizations adopt evidence-based practices.
• Gaining buy-in: Effectively communicating the value of I-O psychology and presenting data in a compelling way is essential for getting stakeholders to support I-O initiatives. This includes reframing the work you’re doing in a way that gets people thinking, translating statistical information into something practical such as ROI, and linking it with business strategy, giving the organization good advice based on the expertise we have.
• Strategic thinking: I-O professionals need to be able to think strategically about how their work can contribute to the long-term success of the organization. Lone I-Os often have a broad view of the organization, which can facilitate strategic thinking.

Conclusions

Overall, the feedback we received about this session was positive and the learnings indicated that lone I-Os may need more attention from the larger SIOP community. Additional resources around communicating and navigating organizational constraints may be useful for lone I-Os. It may be advisable for SIOP to invest in resources for this group as a way to retain membership and help the field thrive.

References

Griswold, K., Klein, C., Hendrickson, V., Kohn, H., Byerly, K., Guidry, B., Defilippi, K., Zito, E., Wester, A., & Thai, W. (2023). Membership survey summary of results. https://www.siop.org/tip-article/2023-membership-survey/

Hyland, P. (2023). All we like sheep: The need for reflection and reflexivity in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 77–95. doi:10.1017/iop.2022.87

Nolan, K. P., Islam, S., & Quartarone, M. (2014). The influence of vocational training on the brand images of organizational consultants. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(4), 245–278.

Ones, D. S., Kaiser, R. B., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Svensson, C. (2017). Has industrial-organizational psychology lost its way? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 54(4), 66–74. https://archive.org/details/461_20231114/544/page/66/mode/2up

Rotolo, C. T., & Church, A. H. (2012). Answering the call: A framework for advancing the practice of industrial–organizational psychology to drive environmental sustainability efforts. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 473–476.

Rotolo, C. T., Church, A. H., Adler, S., Smither, J. W., Colquitt, A. L., Shull, A. C., Paul, K. B., & Foster, G. (2018). Putting an end to bad talent management: A call to action for the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 176–219.

Schiemann, W. A., & Ulrich, D. (2017). Rise of HR—New mandates for I-O. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(1), 3–25.

Smith, M., Decker, R., Merlini, K., & Alonso, A. (2023). I-O and HR: Does HR know about us? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 60(4), 47–56.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2022). Exit survey. https://www.siop.org/tip-article/2022-exit-survey/

Solberg, E., & Porr, B. (2019). What do practitioners want? Practitioner Survey results revealed! The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 57(3), 55–62.