FAQs

About the Field of I-O

What is industrial-organizational psychology?

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is officially defined as "the scientific study of human behavior in organizations and the workplace”. Simply put, I-O psychologists seek to understand how people think, feel, and behave at work, with the goal of helping everyone involved—from the organization as a whole to the individuals within it.

What distinguishes it from other branches of psychology?

I-O psychology takes a holistic approach by drawing on core principles from cognitive, social, and developmental psychology and applying them to the workplace. It examines how people process information and make decisions, interact and function in groups, and grow and develop within the context of work, organizations, and careers.  

Is I-O psychology "applied psychology"?

It's often labeled that way, and there's a long-standing tension in psychology between "applied" and "basic" science. Applied science generally means solving specific, real-world problems, while basic science means building general knowledge about how people work. I think calling I-O psychology purely "applied," though, is a misconception. Yes, we apply what we know about human psychology to the workplace. But because people spend such a significant portion of their lives at work, studying psychology in that context also generates new knowledge about human psychology in general. It's not just applied science; it is also valuable basic science.

Who benefits from I-O research?

Everyone! We are all connected to work and/or workplaces one way or another. Experiences of individual workers are shaped by the organizational environment we study (e.g., physical/psychological working conditions, leader behaviors, interpersonal relationships). Managers and organizations rely on this research to build healthier, more effective workplaces. Society more broadly benefits from having positive and healthy workers and organizations. 

Most people associate psychology with therapy and counseling—how does I-O psychology differ?

Both clinical and I-O psychologists are driven by a passion for helping people, but I-O psychologists primarily work with individuals within the typical range of personality and cognitive functioning, rather than treating clinical conditions. Also, I-O psychology addresses multilevel phenomena, including intrapersonal functioning, interpersonal relationships, team and group dynamics, organizational culture and climate, and national-level comparisons.

In my coaching work, I use reflective listening and other evidence-based techniques commonly practiced in counseling and therapeutic settings. The difference is that coaching focuses on helping clients look forward rather than working through what happened in the past, setting goals that align with their core values and reflecting on their lives to gain greater clarity about what’s happening now and will happen in the future. In my consulting work with business organizations, I focus on addressing HR challenges. In doing so, I also draw on coaching techniques to help individuals and teams navigate challenges and achieve their goals.

About My Research

What are your research concentrations?

That is a good question. I often tell my I-O colleagues that my research interests are “psychology”. When I meet someone from a broader psychology background, I often say my interests are primarily I-O and individual differences. To the rest of the world, I give a slightly longer answer: I study how people are uniquely made to make a difference in their own lives and in organizational settings. Some of the individual differences come from life experiences, and some from genetic predispositions. The way we make sense of our life experiences can also tell us something meaningful about who we are.  

Openness is a particular focus of mine. I'm drawn to this personality trait because I think it connects meaningfully to maturity: being open means being willing to be corrected and willing to embrace new experiences even when they're uncomfortable. I want to explore that connection between openness, character, and maturity within the broader study of personality and individual differences.

More broadly, I have examined how personality can predict and/or explain people’s work experiences and behaviors across a variety of contexts. Examples include changing or quitting jobs (‘voluntary turnover’), professional and social networking in the workplace, working in culturally diverse teams, and, most recently, working with AI. I will continue to find this line of research absolutely fascinating, and will look for new opportunities and contexts to tackle the overarching question: when and how does personality make a difference?

Why focus on individual characteristics? Wouldn’t it be more helpful to consider what organizations can do to improve people’s lives?

Absolutely. Understanding how situational factors, such as organizational culture and climate, leader behavior, and coworker support, shape individual and organizational functioning is tremendously valuable. What particularly fascinates me, however, is that these situational influences often interact with personal characteristics. The same environmental cue can trigger a powerful emotional or cognitive response in one person while barely affecting another.

Why do some people thrive while others suffer under the same boss? Why do some leave after being passed over for a promotion, while others quietly wait for their moment? Why do some stay up until midnight to finish a project due the next morning, while others call their manager to renegotiate the deadline? Why do some thrive with structure and deadlines, while others feel constrained and stifled by the same conditions?

My research examines not only how personality predicts individual and organizational outcomes, but also how personal characteristics interact with features of the work environment. Understanding these interactions can help organizations move beyond one-size-fits-all practices and create conditions in which a wider range of people can thrive.

How do you see your research as valuable or relevant to our communities, culture, and the world?

I see my research as valuable because many of the challenges facing our communities and society today are not simply problems of information, but of how we interpret information, interact with one another, and respond to uncertainty and disagreement. Openness is a good example. How we interpret a given event or situation strongly shapes its outcome. Multiple people can experience the exact same objectively difficult circumstance and respond in entirely different ways, depending on their personality and mindset.

My research on openness seeks to better understand this process. I want to help people understand what it means to be intellectually and relationally open, and to cultivate the humility to recognize the limits of their own perspectives. Openness is not about abandoning convictions or accepting every idea as equally valid. Rather, it involves being willing to consider alternative viewpoints, revise one's thinking in light of new evidence, and approach others with curiosity rather than defensiveness.

I believe these capacities have broad implications for society. In an increasingly polarized world, many conflicts are intensified by rigid thinking, lack of perspective-taking, and assumptions about the motives of others. Greater openness can help people engage more constructively across differences, whether those differences are political, cultural, religious, or interpersonal. It can foster healthier relationships, more productive workplaces, stronger communities, and a greater willingness to collaborate in addressing shared challenges.

Openness may also help individuals navigate adversity more effectively. Difficult life circumstances are often unavoidable, but the way people make sense of those experiences can significantly influence their well-being, resilience, and ability to move forward. By developing a more nuanced understanding of openness and its role in human flourishing, I hope my research contributes to a more science-informed understanding of how people can respond to challenges with greater flexibility, wisdom, and compassion.

Ultimately, my goal is for this work to generate insights that are not only academically meaningful but also practically useful, helping individuals, organizations, and communities build healthier ways of thinking, relating, and living together.

What is your research methodology?

I am open to and have used a variety of methods for data collection and analysis. They include large-scale surveys, policy-capturing studies, lab and online experiments, written and oral interviews, video and text analyses, AI/ML techniques, LLMs, Bayesian, person-centered modeling, latent growth modeling, longitudinal archival datasets, and more. I am comfortable trying new methods to best answer the question at hand and am not afraid to ask for help when I know I lack the technical knowledge to execute the project myself. 

My Path

How did you personally get into I-O Psychology?

People fascinate me. I haven’t met a single individual who is not interesting. When I was growing up, my parents would joke that I'd make a good psychologist. I was always curious about how and why people think and feel the way they do, and I would often ask people to talk about their thoughts and feelings. 

[I have a few stories to share about the growth I experienced during my formative years, including high school and university. Those stories are for another time and setting, as they are quite personal. If you know me personally, please feel free to ask. I would be happy to share them with you. And if we have not met yet, perhaps we could become friends. Feel free to send me a message and connect!] 

When I began applying to graduate programs, I initially considered neuroscience, which fascinated me at that time. But I realized I was more of a "big-picture" thinker. I-O psychology, with its broad view of how psychology applies across the full spectrum of work-related phenomena, was where I found my passion. After 20+ years of studying and practicing I-O psychology, I am returning to the root of my curiosity about why and how people can think, feel, and act differently, even in the same situation. Now I am realizing it comes from my desire to understand people and connect with them on a deeper level. 

What components of your job are you most passionate about?

Two things stand out. First, intellectual nourishment and a joy of discovery: I feel real delight and excitement when I find something new in my data and can build an argument or theory about how the mind works and why it matters. You can read about my interest in advancing inductive (and abductive) approaches to organizational science here. Second, the relational side of academia. I'm naturally relationship-oriented, and I believe kindness matters more than intelligence (and love more than knowledge). Being a professor is a privilege because it lets me walk alongside students – supporting not just their academic growth, but their growth as people. A few years ago, I took a part-time job at Purdue to work on leadership and mentoring programs (for university faculty and staff) as an I-O psychology practitioner (consulting, coaching, and speaking), which feels both incredibly challenging and profoundly meaningful. You can read more about it here.