Original Research

Industrial-organisational psychologists’ evolving role in workplace counselling: A cross-temporal qualitative study in South Africa (2023–2024)

Marieta Du Plessis, Lené I. Graupner

Received: 26 Feb. 2026; Accepted: 06 May 2026; Published: 09 July 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Orientation: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic reshaped workplace dynamics, intensifying employee mental health needs and expanding the counselling-related responsibilities of industrial-organisational psychologists (IOPs) in South Africa, despite evidence of limited preparedness.

Research purpose: This study explored how IOP professional practice in workplace counselling shifted during the post-acute and later post-pandemic periods, examining role evolution through the job demands–resources (JD-R) framework and a capability lens.

Motivation for the study: Prior research found that IOPs were underprepared for heightened counselling demands during COVID-19. This study investigated how counselling practices, boundaries and training needs evolved between 2023 and 2024.

Research approach/design and method: A cross-temporal qualitative design with phenomenological elements was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 registered South African IOPs (n = 10 in 2023; n = 14 in 2024), recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. Data were analysed thematically and compared across cohorts.

Main findings: Four themes emerged: sustained counselling demand with expanded expectations and ongoing role ambiguity; a shift from acute pandemic distress to chronic strain (e.g. burnout, digital fatigue, adjustment challenges); integration of counselling into organisational practices through culture-building and hybrid modalities and continued development needs, particularly supervised exposure and clearer ethical boundaries. Comparison indicated greater normalisation of counselling work in 2024 alongside persistent competence concerns.

Practical/managerial implications: Findings indicate sustained expansion of IOP counselling work, underscoring the need for curriculum reform, supervised training pathways, stronger referral networks and clearer professional guidance to ensure ethically bounded, adaptable counselling capability.

Contribution/value-add: This study offers novel cross-temporal evidence of how IOPs’ workplace counselling role shifted and normalised between 2023 and 2024, and advances theory by combining the job demands–resources model with a capability lens to distinguish demand–resource imbalance from the institutional conditions that constrain ethical, competent practice.

Keywords: industrial psychology; workplace counselling; COVID-19; professional practice; crisis intervention; remote counselling; professional development; curriculum development.

Introduction

Orientation

Industrial-Organisational Psychologists (IOPs) are professionals who specialise in the psychology of work and human behaviour in organisations (Van Vuuren, 2010). The Health Professions Act 56 of 1974 provides the statutory framework for the regulation of health professions in South Africa. The main tasks of IOPs are to:

[P]lan, develop and apply paradigms, theories, models, constructs and principles of psychology to issues related to the world of work in order to understand, modify and enhance individual, group and organisational behaviour, well-being and effectiveness. (Health Professions Council of South Africa [HPCSA], 2011, p. 9)

As workplace first responders, IOPs often serve as the initial psychological support for employees experiencing job-related distress and trauma (Barkhuizen et al., 2015; Kock et al., 2025). Industrial-organisational psychologists’ dual expertise in psychology and workplace systems enables them to design and implement targeted interventions (HPCSA, 2011). Industrial-organisational psychologists also work at the organisational level to improve job design, enhance social support systems, facilitate healthy work–life boundaries and guide leaders in adopting supportive management practices (Kock et al., 2025).

The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally transformed workplace dynamics and increased mental health-related strain among employees, including heightened emotional exhaustion, withdrawal and broader psychological distress (Hill, 2022; Moralo & Graupner, 2022a). Rapid shifts such as remote work, blurred work-home boundaries and sustained uncertainty contributed to intensified job demands and well-being challenges (Moralo & Graupner, 2022a). These changes placed IOPs at the intersection of organisational strategy and employee mental health support, accelerating expectations to incorporate counselling-related responsibilities. However, there remains a limited empirical understanding of how IOPs have managed these demands and adapted their skills and interventions over time. Against this backdrop, the present study explores the evolving role of IOPs as workplace counsellors through the lens of the job demands–resources (JD-R) framework within post-pandemic workplace transformations.

Research purpose and objectives

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the evolving role of IOPs as workplace counsellors within the context of post-pandemic workplace transformations. Specifically, the research aimed to:

• Explore IOPs’ experiences of their workplace counselling role during and after COVID-19 across two cohorts.
• Explore the counselling-related situations IOPs encountered during and after COVID-19.
• Examine the intervention strategies IOPs used to manage counselling demands across two cohorts.
• Provide recommendations for future IOP curriculum development regarding counselling exposure and skills.

Literature review

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, research consistently indicated that IOPs did not feel adequately prepared for their role as workplace counsellors (Barnard & Fourie, 2007; Du Plessis & Thomas, 2021; Jorgensen-Graupner & Van Zyl, 2019). This feeling was attributed to the lack of structured guidelines, models, frameworks or meta-theories to inform workplace counselling (Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Graupner, 2025; Kock et al., 2025). Many IOPs felt uncomfortable with their level of competence in counselling and preferred not to counsel employees, perceiving such roles as falling outside their scope of practice (Jorgensen-Graupner & Van Zyl, 2019).

However, one of the contemporary roles of the IOP is that of wellness facilitator (Van Zyl et al., 2016) and mental health advocate (Moralo & Graupner, 2025), which includes enhancing the overall level of personal well-being of employees to prevent workplace problems (Barkhuizen et al., 2015; Van Zyl et al., 2020). This role naturally extends to providing counselling to address the personal and professional developmental needs of individual employees. Du Plessis and Thomas (2021) investigated how prepared IOPs were to react to employees’ mental health needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their findings indicated that while some participants engaged in more counselling sessions than before, most IOPs did not opt for counselling as a first response to employee mental health needs. Instead, they defaulted to familiar responses such as referrals, equipping managers and change management processes. This lack of preparation was brought into sharp relief by the increased need for mental health counselling during the pandemic. Moreover, in their study, Moralo and Graupner (2022b) mirror the increased need during the COVID-19 pandemic for counselling. What was evident was that while the demand for mental health support increased, the infrastructure, skills and preparedness of IOPs to deliver these services at scale during the pandemic were still evolving. Following the publication of these findings, the current study sought to understand what shifts occurred in the perception of the IOP as a counsellor and how IOPs incorporated counselling into their current roles.

Theoretical framework

The JD-R model provides a comprehensive theoretical lens through which to understand the evolving counselling role of IOPs in the post-pandemic workplace. Developed by Bakker and Demerouti (2007, 2017), the JD-R model proposes that working conditions can be categorised into two broad dimensions: job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs (Demerouti et al., 2001). Conversely, job resources are those physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work goals, reducing job demands and associated costs or stimulating personal growth, learning and development (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The model is relevant to understanding how IOPs navigate their dual role as organisational strategists and mental health practitioners, as it illuminates both the demands placed upon them and the resources available to manage these demands effectively. The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented job demands for IOPs that fundamentally altered their professional landscape. These demands manifested on multiple levels: increased expectations to provide direct psychological support to distressed employees, pressure to rapidly upskill in counselling competencies outside traditional IOP training and the burden of designing organisational interventions while simultaneously managing their own pandemic-related stress (Du Plessis & Thomas, 2021; Moralo & Graupner, 2022b). According to the JD-R model, when job demands are high and resources are insufficient, employees experience strain through a health impairment process characterised by exhaustion and burnout (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). This theoretical prediction aligns with Hill’s (2022) findings that emotional exhaustion and withdrawal were prevalent during the pandemic. For IOPs specifically, the gap between their perceived counselling competence (Jorgensen-Graupner & Van Zyl, 2019) and the escalating mental health needs of employees represents a demand-resource imbalance that may have contributed to professional strain and reluctance to engage in counselling work. However, the JD-R model also emphasises a motivational process whereby job resources buffer against demands and foster work engagement, organisational commitment and performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Within the context of IOPs’ counselling role, relevant resources might include formal training opportunities, access to supervision and peer consultation, organisational support for professional development and the establishment of structured frameworks or guidelines for workplace counselling (Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Kock et al., 2025). The model suggests that when IOPs possess adequate personal resources – such as self-efficacy, resilience and professional competence – alongside organisational resources, they are better positioned to meet counselling demands without experiencing burnout. This resource perspective provides a theoretical foundation for understanding why some IOPs engaged more actively in counselling during the pandemic while others defaulted to familiar responses such as referrals and managerial support (Du Plessis & Thomas, 2021). The extent to which IOPs engaged in upskilling and adapted their interventions may therefore reflect attempts to build personal resources to meet emerging job demands. The JD-R model’s emphasis on the dynamic interplay between demands and resources offers a useful lens for examining post-pandemic workplace transformations and the IOP’s evolving role as workplace counsellor. Bakker and Demerouti (2017) propose that individuals can proactively shape their work environment through job crafting – increasing resources or challenging demands while decreasing hindering demands. This concept is relevant for understanding how IOPs might have redefined their professional boundaries and scope of work in response to pandemic pressures. Furthermore, the model acknowledges that demands are not inherently negative; challenging demands can promote growth and learning when adequate resources are available (Crawford et al., 2010). The current study also draws on the capability approach as a complementary perspective. The capability approach focuses on what individuals are effectively able to do in practice, such as the real opportunities to achieve valued outcomes. The capability approach addresses both the resources available and the contextual conditions that enable or constrain their use (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1999). Within professional contexts, this means that resources become practically meaningful only when they can be translated into safe and ethical action through conversion factors. The current study, therefore, employs the JD-R model as its primary theoretical framework for several reasons. Firstly, it is well suited to professional practice contexts where individuals navigate expanding role demands alongside variable organisational support (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Secondly, its dual-process structure that captures strain (health impairment) and growth (motivational) pathways aligns with the cross-temporal nature of this study, enabling examination of both pressures IOPs faced and their adaptive processes over time. Alternative frameworks were considered: Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) focuses primarily on resource loss and protection, which does not adequately capture the dynamic interplay between demands and resources that characterises IOP’s evolving counselling role. Person-Environment Fit theory, similarly, emphasises static alignment between individual and context rather than dynamic adaptation. The JD-R model’s flexibility across occupational contexts, its attention to both organisational and personal resources and its established application in health and helping professions make it the most appropriate lens for the study. The model is therefore employed to explore the demands IOPs faced in their counselling role, the resources they mobilised, the upskilling strategies they employed and the resultant shifts in their professional practice, thereby informing future curriculum development and professional support structures. Additionally, the capability approach, as a theoretical lens, provides an understanding of how institutional and organisational conditions shape IOPs’ ability to deliver workplace counselling responsibly under intensified demand. While the JD-R model provides a useful lens for understanding how increased counselling demands may create strain when resources are insufficient, it does not fully address whether practitioners have the substantive opportunity to translate those resources into competent and ethical action. The capability approach complements JD-R by shifting attention from the presence of demands and resources to the conditions that enable or constrain their effective use. Within the context of IOP workplace counselling, this includes factors such as structured training, supervised exposure, organisational support and clear professional guidelines. By incorporating a capability perspective, the study moves beyond demand-resource balance to consider whether IOPs are institutionally and professionally enabled to practise counselling safely within their scope.

Research design

Research approach

A phenomenological approach was followed, as the nature of the research was qualitative. This approach helps researchers understand and interpret the meanings that participants attach to everyday life as they experience it (Fouché et al., 2022). This approach aligned with the study’s aim of gathering data about practising IOPs’ experiences in their work settings during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research strategy

The research employed a cross-temporal, descriptive qualitative design with phenomenological elements. Cross-temporal descriptive qualitative design studies are often used in health sciences and focus on how phenomena develop, transition or persist over time, rather than describing a single moment (Audulv et al., 2022). Audulv et al. (2022) report that this design is often used to explore topics such as intervention experiences, implementation of practices and professional development, making the design ideal for this study. Phenomenology explores participants’ lived experiences to uncover the core meanings and shared essence of a specific phenomenon, as perceived from their own perspectives (Fouché et al., 2022). Therefore, this research strategy was selected to capture the evolving nature of IOP practice across two distinct time periods, with independent samples of different participants recruited at each phase: 2023 (representing the post-acute pandemic phase) and 2024 (representing further adaptation and integration of new practices).

Research method

Semi-structured, one-on-one interviews were conducted to collect data for the study. The phenomenological method was applied by engaging with participants in a naturalistic manner through individual discussions. This strategy allowed the exploration of experiences from participants working in different organisations across South Africa.

Research setting

The study was conducted across South Africa, with participants drawn from various organisational contexts and geographical regions. All interviews were conducted online using digital platforms to accommodate participants’ locations and scheduling preferences.

Entrée and establishing researcher roles

Access to participants was facilitated through trained fieldworkers who were master’s students in Industrial Psychology at the main author’s institution. Fieldworkers received training prior to data collection covering qualitative interviewing, informed consent, confidentiality and ethical conduct. Participants were approached through the fieldworkers’ professional networks and through publicly available professional platforms such as LinkedIn, and invitations were issued through email or online messaging. The fieldworkers’ dual role as student researchers and learners was disclosed during the consent process. After interviews were completed, fieldworkers conducted an educational analysis of their own interview data for coursework purposes. The principal researchers then conducted a separate, comprehensive analysis of the full set of de-identified transcripts for the present study. This approach ensured educational value for students while maintaining rigorous research standards through expert analysis.

Research participants and sampling methods

The population comprised registered IOPs in South Africa. Convenience sampling and snowball sampling were used to identify and invite participants. The final sample consisted of 24 registered IOPs: 10 participants interviewed in 2023 and 14 participants interviewed in 2024. The 2023 cohort (n = 10) comprised nine females and one male participant, with a mean age of 37.7 years (SD = 4.8) and a mean of 6.5 years registered as an IOP (SD = 4.8). The 2024 cohort (n = 14) comprised eleven female and three male participants, with a mean age of 39.8 years (SD = 10.1; n = 13, one missing value) and a mean of 6.2 years registered as an IOP (SD = 5.1). Across both cohorts participants were predominantly female and employed in medium to very large organisations. All participants were registered with the HPCSA as Psychologists: Industrial. The two cohorts consisted of entirely different participants, making this a cross-sectional comparison across two independent samples rather than a longitudinal repeated-measures design. The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Given that recruitment was partly network based, the sample may reflect IOPs who were more accessible to emerging professionals or more willing to engage in mentorship and research participation. This sampling approach was communicated during consent. Participants were assigned pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.

Data collection methods

Semi-structured interviews of approximately 30–60 min were conducted with each participant. An interview guide included questions relating to: current workplace counselling practices, changes in professional practice since COVID-19, counselling and mental health situations encountered, professional development and training needs and recommendations for curriculum development. Interviews were conducted by the trained, master’s student fieldworkers and participants consented to both participation and the educational use of anonymised interview material.

Data recording

Interviews were digitally recorded using the recording function of the online meeting platforms. Recordings were saved electronically, with backup copies stored on a password-protected cloud-based drive. Audio files were transcribed into Microsoft Word documents, and transcripts were checked against the recordings to ensure accuracy.

Strategies employed to ensure data quality and integrity

Trustworthiness was enhanced through member checking, triangulation, peer debriefing and independent analysis. Follow-up communication with selected participants was conducted to verify interpretations. Cross-temporal comparisons of 2023 and 2024 data enabled cross-cohort thematic comparison and strengthened the credibility of emerging themes. Peer debriefing sessions were held among the research team to refine coding and minimise bias. Although interviews were conducted by trained master’s students, all transcripts were analysed independently by the authors using an inductive thematic approach. An audit trail documenting coding decisions and theme development was maintained. Fieldworkers received structured training in qualitative interviewing, informed consent and confidentiality procedures prior to data collection. Initial transcripts were reviewed to ensure consistency and adherence to the interview guide.

Data analysis

While the students analysed the transcripts for educational purposes, the authors analysed all transcripts afresh, creating new codes and themes independently. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts to identify patterns and themes. The analysis followed an inductive approach, allowing themes to emerge from the data. A cross-temporal comparison was conducted to identify changes in participants’ experiences between 2023 and 2024.

Reporting style

The findings are reported using a narrative approach with participant quotations selected asillustrative exemplars of patterns observed across multiple participants within each subtheme. themes. Quotes were selected as illustrative exemplars of patterns observed across multiple participants within each subtheme. Quotes were purposively chosen to best capture the essence of each theme, with frequency endorsement reflected in the narrative framing rather than through exhaustive quotation. Participants are identified using coded identifiers to maintain anonymity while enabling cross-temporal comparisons.

Ethical considerations

Ethics clearance was obtained from the relevant Human and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committees of both authors’ institutions (Clearance numbers: HS22_8_43; NWU-01939-23-A4). Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent. Participants received detailed information regarding the purpose of the study, procedures, confidentiality measures and the educational use of anonymised transcripts. They were informed of their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Anonymity was ensured through the use of coded identifiers, and care was taken to avoid reporting potentially identifying contextual details. Digital recordings and transcripts were stored on password-protected systems accessible only to the research team and will be retained in accordance with institutional policy. The dual role of students as fieldworkers and learners was transparently disclosed, and no participants were in direct supervisory relationships with student interviewers.

Results

This section presents the findings from the thematic analysis. Figure 1 shows an overview of the themes and subthemes.

FIGURE 1: Overview of the themes and subthemes.

Next, each theme and subtheme is described and illustrated with direct participant responses referenced from the 2023 and 2024 cohorts.

Theme 1: Shifts in professional practice

The first theme reflects how workplace counselling evolved from being peripheral to becoming a more visible feature of IOP work in the post-COVID workplace. Across both cohorts, participants described an apparent intensification of mental health-related needs, which led to IOPs being included in the support they were expected to provide in the workplace. This shift exposed tensions in professional identity, prompting participants to reflect on their professional boundaries.

Subtheme 1: Increased demand for workplace counselling

Participants across both cohorts described a marked rise in the need for workplace counselling within the post-COVID context, linking this to the normalisation of mental health conversations and greater openness among employees to disclose distress and request support. Participants highlighted that access to counselling resources was not always available, and concerns were shared about how counselling services are coordinated across organisational structures, as reflected by the responses:

Rochelle:

‘… the focus shifted to the well-being of people and mental health. We also partnered with service providers like Discovery, Wellness, and others that could add value to the business. The focus of industrial psychologists shifted from development and team dynamics to being there for people in a counselling way.’ (2024, IOP 10 years, large organisation)

Subtheme 2: Industrial-organisational psychologist professional practice

This subtheme reflects participants’ ongoing negotiation of what it means to be an IOP when counselling-related needs intensify. For some, particularly in the 2023 cohort, counselling was positioned as potentially outside their role and framed through a strong emphasis on role boundaries, as seen from the following excerpts:

Annelie:

‘… with the counselling from an IOP perspective, it’s that very fine line, taking into consideration the scope of practice. To what extent can you provide counselling to your team or to an employee, and at what stage is it now beyond your scope of practice, and you now need to refer this person to, for instance, a clinical psychologist …’ (2023, IOP 5 years, medium organisation)

In the 2024 cohort, participants more often described counselling-adjacent work as implicit in day-to-day interactions and crisis responses, as seen in the following response:

Rochelle:

‘… after that course, I understood the big role industrial psychologists should play in counselling and that we shouldn’t shy away from it but embrace it in the workplace. That was a very important lesson for me. Our studies should include this, and organisations should realise the importance of having IOPs focus on counselling as part of their role.’ (2024, IOP 10 years, large organisation)

Subtheme 3: Role mandate in trauma

This subtheme captures how participants framed trauma-related support. This subtheme places a stronger emphasis on ensuring people are doing well and with IOPs implicitly required to step into counselling-adjacent modes. The participants naturally reflected on their role as trauma counsellors in the workplace, as seen from the following excerpts: Taryn:

‘… it’s a combination of dealing with trauma and having to kind of hold them and understand what it is that they were going through often you do an intervention … you’ll find the trauma is so significant then you find yourself by default going into a counselling therapist mode to contain the situation.’ (2024, IOP 10 years, multinational/enterprise)

Subtheme 4: Role ambiguity

Participants described persistent role ambiguity in practice boundaries, especially in distinguishing counselling from related activities such as coaching, trauma debriefing and short-term supportive interventions. It also seemed that the participants themselves still struggled to establish boundaries within their roles as psychologists. It seemed that the boundary between the IOPs’ coaching and counselling roles remained blurred for some participants in the 2023 cohort, as seen from the following excerpt: Nomsa:

‘… I think the boundaries of what we can do is to unclear to us IOPs. It’s also still very unclear to organisations, and because it’s so, so unclear to us as IOPS, we can’t drive it in organisations …’ (2023, IOP 6 years, very large organisation)

From the 2024 cohort, the scope of practice and ambiguity became more explicit and operational, and the coaching vs counselling distinction became a repeated organising concern:

Lauren:

‘… there’s still a lot of grey area as to where we fit into the picture, how far does our expectation go in terms of helping the person and when do we hand it over to perhaps a counselling psychologist, or even a counsellor so the consensus at this stage is a short-term interventions, you are supposed to be able to do so you need to have counselling skills …’ (2024, IOP < 1 year, small organisation)

Theme 2: Content of mental health and counselling situations

Theme 2 captures the typical content of counselling-related work that IOPs were drawn into across the pandemic and post-pandemic period. Across both cohorts, acute distress, well-being demands, trauma-related work such as debriefing, grief and loss emerged strongly as a recurring theme. Digital fatigue and digitally mediated work pressures became more visible in the 2024 accounts.

Subtheme 1: Acute distress and crisis containment during COVID-19

This subtheme reflects how participants were drawn into crisis-linked mental health support during COVID-19, as employees and organisations grappled with uncertainty. Across both cohorts, participants described roles that required psychological containment and practical support as employees coped with the disruption and adapted to changed work and life demands. Within this crisis context, participants from the 2024 cohort markedly noted emerging pressures tied to remote and technology-mediated work:

Monique:

‘You also saw people that spoke a lot about digital fatigue and that was a new phenomenon that people did not know how to relate with it, and how to handle it, or how to manage it. So there as well, the IOP became very, very relevant.’ (2024, IOP < 1 year, large organisation)

Subtheme 2: Grief and critical-incident debriefing

Participants described trauma counselling and debriefing as a prominent and recurring workplace need across the pandemic. The excerpts point to both structured and informal forms of debriefing following critical incidents, as well as grief and bereavement support following personal losses. In several accounts, trauma was framed as something employees carry into the workplace, requiring opportunities for debriefing and containment, as seen from the following response: Ayesha:

‘During year one there were a lot of trauma debriefing counselling. Where teams either lost a team member or someone became infected … there were quite a few trauma debriefing sessions held … you’ll find that people are traumatised in the workplace, people come to work with unprocessed trauma, or trauma that hasn’t been dealt with for years, and sometimes they just need a quick ventilation session.’ (2023, IOP 6 years, very large organisation)

Subtheme 3: Post-pandemic chronic strain and adjustment

This subtheme captures participants’ accounts of long-term strain in the post-pandemic workplace. Participants described ongoing stress reactions, burnout and difficulties re-establishing boundaries as organisations shifted into hybrid work, as seen from the following responses: Janine:

‘… People are stuck in a pandemic trauma state. We’re almost sitting with a little bit of a type of a PTSD … people are still shocked, and they get very nervous very quickly … But on the other hand, what’s happening is that businesses and leaders who are under so much stress to make things happen, to make things change …’ (2023, IOP 15 years, multinational/enterprise)

From the 2024 cohort, the participants specifically reflected on the chronic strain and fatigue relating to digital fatigue, as reflected by the following excerpt: Monique:

‘… digital burnout because there was that over-reliance on technology, people were not coming into the office, as such, people were having extended meetings online, and you saw a spike as well.’ (2024, IOP< 1 year, large organisation)

Theme 3: Interventions offered

The third theme reflects workplace interventions offered to employees during and after the pandemic. The participants report efforts to address stigma and cultural views on mental health. Interventions were delivered digitally via online counselling and virtual assessments and systemically enabled through outsourced services.

Subtheme 1: Building a counselling-supportive culture

Participants, mainly from the 2024 cohort, highlighted that interventions only work if employees are willing and able to use them, which depends heavily on workplace culture and beliefs about mental health, as seen from the following example: Matthew:

‘I think IOPS need to focus more on changing the culture of mental health, people’s approach to mental health in organisations … there’s a lot of work to do there in order for organisations to justify the interventions … that’s the key focus I believe we need to play a role in, which is how do we change that narrative, or how do you bridge people’s cultural views on mental health so that they will be encouraged to take on the services that are available.’ (2024, IOP < 1 year, very large organisation)

Subtheme 2: Modality and delivery changes

The responses described a clear shift in the delivery of counselling and support. Initially, face-to-face sessions were provided pre-COVID; however, this shifted to online and telephonic modalities during COVID and to hybrid reality afterwards. Participants from both cohorts reported ongoing tensions that required new competencies: Ayesha:

‘… before COVID, traditionally people wanted to go and have face-to-face counselling. During COVID, there was a strong switch over to online counselling … And I think after COVID, people still, to some extent, want face-to-face counselling. They … find the Zoom … impersonal.’ (2023, IOP 6 years, very large organisation)

Subtheme 3: Embedded counselling

Participants described counselling as increasingly integrated into routine workplace interactions rather than a separate service. Counselling skills were applied in one-on-one discussions, manager support, high-risk consultations, retrenchment processes and group preparation. Counselling is embedded across individual, team and organisational interventions rather than isolated to discrete counselling sessions, as reflected in the following response: Cathy:

‘… you will be inculcating counselling, coaching facilitation, to help enhance performance and thinking and mindsets, but there’s always facets of it and everything that you’re doing.’ (2023, IOP 14 years, multinational/enterprise)

Subtheme 4: Preventive well-being promotion and awareness-based interventions

Participants described a set of proactive health-promotion activities aimed at improving well-being and encouraging self-care through organisational initiatives. COVID-19 was described as intensifying this focus, with organisations adding more measures and creating additional opportunities for staff engagement and well-being-related conversations. Beyond reactive counselling, participants described interventions, seen in both the 2023 and 2024 cohorts, reflected in the excerpt below: Nabeelah:

‘… our institution has put a lot of additional measures in place that wasn’t there before. We always had wellness at work support, but now we’re doing extra things like health checks, health walks, yoga sessions, staff getting people together for engagement sessions, conversations and having people talk more.’ (2024, IOP 6 years, large organisation)

Subtheme 5: Personal resources

This theme captures how participants utilise intrapersonal resources as central to coping with intensified workplace demands. This was observed both among employees navigating stress and among the IOPs providing support. Across the 2023 and 2024 cohorts, resilience was highlighted, and participants also emphasised self-awareness and emotional self-management as practical personal resources that could be actively developed and deployed under pressure. A further strand in this theme is a perceived shift in responsibility, where some participants suggest that the duty for well-being has increasingly shifted to individuals to manage themselves better and take accountability, as seen from the following response: Anriette:

‘I think the responsibility actually has shifted from corporate to individuals. I don’t see it as my employer’s responsibility to look after me, it’s actually my own responsibility … I need to manage myself better …’ (2024, IOP 11 years, micro organisation)

Theme 4: Industrial-organisational psychologist upskilling and training

Theme 4 captures participants’ shared view that the post-COVID workplace has intensified counselling-related expectations of IOPs and exposed a gap between what the role increasingly demands and what many feel they were sufficiently prepared for. Across cohorts, participants described upskilling as necessary and ongoing through CPD, short courses and learning from counselling psychologists or supervisors.

Subtheme 1: Continuous and self-development learning

This subtheme reflects how participants portrayed upskilling as a continuous responsibility, pursued through accredited CPD activities and self-development. Cathy shared:

‘… I think greater investment and upskilling should take place to manage ourselves, to help and support our clients. Continuously learning becomes as important to be able to deal with something …’ (2023, IOP 14 years, multinational/enterprise)

Subtheme 2: Formal counselling training

The participants linked curriculum design directly to the realities of the post-COVID organisational environment and indicated that counselling capability should be treated as a core element of IOP training. The subtheme also reflects differentiation between foundational competence, such as short-term and trauma-informed support and specialist counselling (especially from the 2024 cohort), on recognising workplace psychopathology presentations and improving the precision of detection and referral. Naledi:

‘… it should be included in the curriculum as a proper thing … even if it means you have five classes during the year where you have to do to offer counselling to each other and all of that, or you have a professional coming in helping you with it, or maybe you have clinical psychologists that come and they see how we’re doing counselling and see how we can match some of their techniques.’ (2023, IOP 2 years, large organisation)

Subtheme 3: Practical exposure

This subtheme conveys a clear message relating to the curriculum gap, seen as meaningful exposure and application. Participants advocated for structured, supervised practice hours in order to engage with real-world counselling contexts, as seen from the following response:

Bianca:

‘I would have gotten more hands-on experience with maybe a counselling centre … more practical required hours and experience …’ (2024, IOP 8 years, small organisation)

Subtheme 4: Partnerships

As another focus area in this theme, participants from the 2024 cohort proposed partnerships as a practical mechanism to secure the kinds of exposure and skills transfer they believe are currently missing. This subtheme positions partnerships as a bridge between classroom learning and the realities of practice and more consistent practical training pathways, as seen from the following response: Nabeelah:

‘… practical real life examples … going out to actual organisations, being able to sit in firsthand to get the real life experience and real life examples … and being able to shadow, during your practical model … getting more people from “Industry Inc” to come and talk … what it is, what it means, so that students can see real life …’ (2024, IOP 6 years, large organisation)

Subtheme 5: Ethical containment, scope and referral

This subtheme reflects participants’ emphasis on the ethical demands of counselling and how to hold the space safely. Participants describe the counselling role as emotionally intensive and having to know the limits and referring appropriately, as seen in the following response: Matthew:

‘… you need to know what your ethical boundaries are and what your scope is very important. So you need to know when to refer. I need to be knowledgeable on where my boundaries lie … how do you kind of navigate that?’ (2024, IOP < 1 year, very large organisation)

Discussion

The findings from this cross-temporal qualitative study illuminate significant transformations in how IOPs in South Africa have adapted their professional practice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reveals a profession in transition, grappling with expanded counselling responsibilities while navigating questions of professional identity, scope of practice and competence. Through the lens of the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017), this discussion interprets the four primary themes, shifts in professional practice, mental health situations encountered, interventions offered and professional development, as evidence of IOPs’ efforts to balance intensified job demands with available personal and organisational resources. The findings also focus on competence and therefore the capability approach is useful for clarifying the mismatch where the profession expects certain functioning, such as providing counselling, but the training pipeline has not sufficiently expanded the capability set required to realise them.

Interpreting professional practice shifts through the job demands–resources model

The first theme, shifts in professional practice, demonstrates the substantial job demands created by the pandemic. The increased demand for workplace counselling, coupled with organisational expectations for IOPs to provide mental health support, represents a significant elevation in psychological and emotional labour requirements. According to the JD-R model, such demands can trigger a health impairment process when resources are insufficient (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). The participants’ accounts of feeling unprepared and uncertain about their counselling role suggest precisely this demand-resource imbalance, particularly evident in the 2023 cohort responses. The capability approach signals constraints on IOPs’ capability; even where expectations to respond existed, the real opportunity to do so was limited when key enabling conditions were absent. The ongoing negotiation of professional identity, captured in Subtheme 2, reflects IOPs’ attempts to manage these demands while maintaining their core expertise in Industrial and Organisational Psychology. In JD-R terms, unclear boundaries are an additional hindrance imposed on practitioners (raising strain and reducing effectiveness), and participants repeatedly cite this as one reason counselling remains informal or uneven. Participants who emphasised scope of practice limitations were effectively managing demands by setting boundaries, while those who embraced counselling as implicit in their role were crafting their position to incorporate the new demands more fully. The JD-R framework explains this as job crafting behaviour – wherein professionals actively reshape their work environment to better align demands with available resources (Tims et al., 2012). Neither approach is inherently superior; rather, each represents a different strategy for managing the tension between traditional role definitions and emerging workplace needs. Additionally, the capability approach implies a form of professional constraint, where IOPs are positioned as responsible agents for counselling outcomes in the workplace while lacking the genuine capability conditions to exercise that agency effectively. The cross-temporal comparison between the 2023 and 2024 cohorts provides evidence of resource development over time. The 2024 participants demonstrated greater integration of counselling into their practice, suggesting that as IOPs gained experience, training and organisational support, they developed personal resources (competence, confidence) that enabled them to meet counselling demands more effectively. This progression aligns with the JD-R model’s motivational process, whereby resources foster engagement and professional growth (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The findings regarding trauma support (Subtheme 3) reveal an area where IOPs appeared more confident in their role, perhaps because crisis intervention and trauma debriefing align more closely with their existing competencies in organisational change management and employee assistance. The participants’ description of trauma support as an ‘increasingly expected mandate’ suggests successful resource mobilisation in this domain, demonstrating that IOPs can expand their practice boundaries when adequate foundational competencies are in place. The finding aligns with the Minimum Standards for the Training of Industrial Psychologists (HPCSA, 2019, pp. 4–5), which state that Industrial Psychologists should be able to provide post-trauma, crisis and job-stress-related counselling.

Contextualising mental health situations within job demands

Theme 2, which classified mental health and counselling situations encountered, illustrates the specific nature of the job demands IOPs faced. The diversity of issues, ranging from work-related stress and interpersonal conflicts to grief, substance abuse and domestic violence, demonstrates that the pandemic did not create entirely new problems but rather intensified existing challenges while adding pandemic-specific stressors such as fear of infection, social isolation and economic uncertainty. From a JD-R perspective, these situations represent both hindering demands (which obstruct goal achievement and drain energy) and challenging demands (which, while difficult, can promote growth when resources are adequate) (Crawford et al., 2010). Work-related stress and change management issues may function as challenging demands for IOPs, as these align with their core competencies. In contrast, situations involving severe mental illness, trauma from abuse or substance dependency are experienced as boundary blurring and likely function as hindering demands, as they exceed typical IOP training and may generate feelings of inadequacy or ethical concern. In such cases, timely and structured referral to clinical or counselling psychologists is not merely a boundary management strategy but an ethical and professional imperative, ensuring that employees receive appropriate care while protecting the integrity of IOP practice. The remote work challenges highlighted by participants represent a novel category of job demands that requires rapid skill development. The JD-R model would classify the shift to virtual counselling as both a demand (requiring new technological competencies and adapted intervention strategies) and a potential resource (enabling greater flexibility, reach and efficiency once mastered). The 2024 cohort’s more sophisticated approach to online delivery suggests the successful transformation of this initial demand into a sustainable resource, illustrating the dynamic nature of the demands-resources balance.

Evaluating interventions through resource mobilisation

Theme 3, interventions offered, demonstrates IOPs’ active efforts to build both personal and organisational resources in response to elevated demands. The focus on building a counselling-supportive culture reflects an organisational-level intervention consistent with IOPs’ systemic expertise. By addressing stigma and promoting mental health literacy, participants were creating an organisational resource, namely a supportive climate, which would facilitate employee help-seeking and reduce the burden of individual counselling demands. These findings align with Kock et al. (2025), who indicate that employees must feel safe to discuss mental health concerns and highlight organisational actions that create such safety. As such, IOPs are well positioned to identify and address systemic drivers within organisational culture, leadership and communication that shape a counselling-supportive climate. The modality and delivery changes captured in Subtheme 2 illustrate job crafting in action. Participants who embraced online counselling were not merely adapting to pandemic restrictions but actively creating new resources (technological platforms, virtual engagement skills) that could serve them beyond the crisis. The detailed accounts of creating inclusive online spaces and managing energy levels demonstrate metacognitive awareness of resource management – participants were not only learning new skills but consciously monitoring their capacity and adjusting their practice accordingly. Interestingly, the participants in this study indicated that, generally, employees still prefer face-to-face counselling despite the availability of online services. This finding correlates with a study from Jonker et al. (2020) indicating that single-session interventions and telephonic counselling were less favoured over in-person counselling, especially within the context of trauma counselling. The embedded counselling approach (Subtheme 3) represents sophisticated resource optimisation. By integrating counselling skills into existing activities, such as psychoeducation workshops, manager coaching and employee engagement initiatives, IOPs were maximising the impact of their interventions while managing counselling demands more sustainably. Outsourcing and partnerships functioned as key organisational resources, allowing IOPs to draw on Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs) and specialists while focusing on areas where their organisational insight added most value. Participants also described partnerships as important for training exposure and noted that limited access to such opportunities weakens skill development. From a capability perspective, counselling expectations increased, but supervised exposure and supported skill conversion did not expand accordingly, leaving trainees with constrained capability in a mandated domain.

Understanding professional development as resource building

Theme 4 (professional development and upskilling) reflects the resource side of the JD-R model. Across both cohorts, participants consistently reported training gaps, suggesting that counselling demands escalated rapidly. Especially institutional support, formal education and professional development lagged behind. This aligns with evidence of a theory-practice gap in IOP training (De Greeff & Els, 2024) and represents a capability constraint, namely practitioners were expected to provide expanded support without reliable pathways to build competence. Although some IOPs pursued additional training, such as trauma or crisis intervention, access to quality training was uneven, leaving many to learn on the job, which may increase strain rather than buffer it. These findings support calls for curriculum development and greater systemic investment, consistent with JD-R’s emphasis on organisational-level resources rather than relying on individual coping alone (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

Quality considerations

An important concern emerging from the findings concerns the quality of care and ethical practice. While the JD-R model explains strain from increased demands, it does not address whether counselling delivered under pressure remains competent and appropriate. Several participants reported discomfort with providing counselling beyond their training, raising concerns about potential harm. Industrial-organisational psychologists face an ethical tension where refusing support may leave employees without help, yet offering support beyond competence risks violating professional standards. Health Professions Council of South Africa ethical guidelines emphasise practising within scope boundaries, but IOPs are also expected to promote employee well-being (HPCSA, 2011). From a capability perspective, this tension reflects weak systemic supports, such as clear practice guidance, accessible supervision and referral pathways, which limit practitioners’ real opportunity to practise ethically.

The wide variation in how participants defined their counselling role suggests inconsistent standards across the profession. Strengthening professional frameworks, competency standards, supervision access and referral systems would expand IOPs’ capabilities to provide safe, ethically bounded counselling and improve consistency of care.

Limitations and recommendations

This research, while providing valuable insights into IOPs’ evolving counselling role, has several methodological limitations that warrant acknowledgement.

Sample characteristics

The use of convenience and snowball sampling, while appropriate for exploratory qualitative research, limits generalisability. Participants recruited through student fieldworkers’ professional networks may not represent the full diversity of IOP practice in South Africa.

Cross-temporal design limitations

While the comparison between 2023 and 2024 cohorts illuminates temporal patterns, this design does not follow the same individuals over time. Observed differences might reflect cohort effects (systematic differences between groups interviewed in different years) rather than genuine temporal evolution. Longitudinal research following individual IOPs would provide stronger evidence of professional development trajectories.

Theoretical framework application

While the JD-R model provides a valuable interpretive lens, its application in this study was primarily a post hoc interpretation of findings rather than a priori hypothesis testing. The research did not systematically measure job demands, job resources or their proposed relationships with IOP well-being and performance. More rigorous quantitative research would be needed to test the JD-R model predictions within the IOP context. In addition, future research could develop and validate capability indicators specific to workplace counselling in IOP, and examine how these enable or constrain service delivery across training and practice settings.

Policy and practice implications

It is recommended that guideline components to strengthen IOP workplace counselling training and practice should be identified and included in a policy framework. Table 2 presents a proposed policy framework that summarises the key policy issues as a starting point for discussions on the components of guidelines for IOP workplace counselling.

Conclusion

This cross-temporal qualitative study has illuminated the significant transformation in IOPs’ professional practice following the COVID-19 pandemic, revealing a profession grappling with expanded responsibilities while navigating questions of competence, identity and ethical practice. The research demonstrates that the pandemic functioned as a critical inflexion point, accelerating long-standing tensions between IOPs’ traditional organisational focus and emerging employee mental health needs. Using the JD-R lens, the findings show that IOPs face increased demands, especially expectations to provide psychological support beyond their formal training. Comparing the 2023 and 2024 cohorts suggests a profession shifting from crisis response towards more integrated practice, although gaps in training, unclear role boundaries and uneven access to supervision keep the demands-resources balance fragile. Looking ahead, post-pandemic workplaces continue to strain employee well-being through ongoing mental health needs, hybrid work and economic pressure. Industrial-organisational psychologists are well placed to respond, but doing so will require acknowledging current constraints and strengthening the capabilities needed for safe, sustainable support.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of all participating Industrial-Organisational Psychologists who shared their experiences and insights. The authors also thank the research assistants from the lead authors’ institution who contributed to data collection and transcription.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

CRediT authorship contribution

Marieta Du Plessis: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Lené I. Graupner: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

Funding information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study is available on request from the corresponding author, Marieta Du Plessis. The data are not publicly available because of their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References