Important changes in how personality is conceptualized and measured are occurring in clinical psychology. We focus on 1 aspect of this work that industrial psychologists have been slow to embrace, namely, a new trait model that can be viewed as a maladaptive counterpart to the Big 5. There is a conspicuous absence of work psychology research emerging on this trait model despite important implications for how we understand personality at work. We discuss objections to the trait model in a work context and offer rejoinders that might make researchers and practitioners consider applying this model in their work. We hope to stimulate discussion of this topic to avoid an unnecessary bifurcation in the conceptualization of maladaptive personality between industrial and clinical settings.

Intelligence (i.e., g, general mental ability) is an individual difference that is arguably more important than ever for success in the constantly changing, ever more complex world of business (Boal, 2004; Gatewood, Field, & Barrick, 2011). Although the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology initially made substantial contributions to the study of intelligence and its use in applied settings (e.g., Hunter, 1980; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981), we have done relatively little in recent times about studying the nature of the intelligence construct and its measurement. Instead, we have focused predominately on using intelligence to predict performance outcomes and examine racial subgroup differences on intelligence test scores. Although the field of I–O psychology continues to approach intelligence at a surface level, other fields (e.g., clinical psychology, developmental and educational research, and neuropsychology) have continued to study this construct with greater depth and have consequently made more substantial progress in understanding this critical and complex construct. The purpose of this article is to note this lack of progress in I–O psychology and to challenge our field to mount new research initiatives on this critical construct.

Workplace diversity and inclusion (D & I) practices today are based to a great extent on unevaluated experience and intuition rather than empirical evidence. Would voluntary professional practice standards in this field help to raise the level of current and future practice? Or would they be premature? If developed under 4 principles we describe, we predict the former. However, this positive outcome will also require industrial and organizational (I–O) psychologists to join their D & I colleagues in expanding research on D & I practices, strengthening the skills of D & I practitioners, assisting employers to avoid self-incrimination, and enhancing employer commitment to D & I itself. I–O psychologists should also be aware of other implications of D & I practice standards for their work.

Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, and Greiff (2015) plea to integrate the 21st century skills of complex problem solving (CPS) and collaborative problem solving (ColPS) in the assessment and development suite of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, given the expected increase in nonroutine and interactive tasks in the new workplace. At the same time, they promote new ways of assessing these skills using computer-based microworlds, enabling the systematic variation of problem features in assessment. Neubert and colleagues’ (2015) suggestions are a valuable step in connecting differential psychologists’ models of human differences and functioning with human resources professionals’ interest in understanding and predicting behavior at work. We concur that CPS and ColPS are important transversal skills, useful for I-O psychologists, but these are only two babies of a single family, and the domain of 21st century skills includes other families of a different kind that are also with utility for I-O psychologists. The current contribution is meant to broaden this interesting discussion in two important ways. We clarify that CPS and ColPS need to be considered in the context of a wider set of 21st century skills with an origin in the education domain, and we highlight a number of crucial steps that still need to be taken before “getting started” (Neubert et al., 2015, p. last page of the discussion) with this taxonomic framework. But first, we feel the need to slightly reframe the relevance of considering 21st century skills in I-O psychology by shifting the attention from narrow task-related skills to the broader domain of career management competencies.

Antinepotism policies are common in work organizations. Although cronyism appears to be commonplace as well, official policing of cronyism is less common. We argue that social connections in some crony relationships and apparently nepotic ones may add considerable value to organizations. We also argue that policing of nepotic relationships can be a form of unfair discrimination when the perception of inequity, rather than its reality, is being policed. Finally we consider effective approaches that simultaneously preserve the value of social connection, avoid the actual ethical breaches associated with some social connections, and avoid any unfair discrimination on the basis of group memberships (in this case, family and friends).

Increasing the representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is one of our nation's most pressing imperatives. As such, there has been increased lay and scholarly attention given to understanding the causes of women's underrepresentation in such fields. These explanations tend to fall into two main groupings: individual-level (i.e., her) explanations and social-structural (i.e., our) explanations. These two perspectives offer different lenses for illuminating the causes of gender inequity in STEM and point to different mechanisms by which to gain gender parity in STEM fields. In this article, we describe these two lenses and provide three examples of how each lens may differentially explain gender inequity in STEM. We argue that the social-structural lens provides a clearer picture of the causes of gender inequity in STEM, including how gaining gender equity in STEM may best be achieved. We then make a call to industrial/organizational psychologists to take a lead in addressing the societal-level causes of gender inequality in STEM.

In this article, we discuss how the fields of diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work psychology can benefit from greater attention to and integration with each other as well as more clarity regarding the distinctions between them. We first present—each in our own voice and from our individual perspective—past and current issues in the two respective areas. We then jointly identify and discuss key areas of commonality and difference between diversity and cross-cultural work psychology in theory, research, and practice. Subsequently, we point to ways the two fields might learn and benefit from each other's approaches and perspectives. We consider issues such as the interplay between culture and diversity, the dual impact of individuals on groups and vice versa, and the role of identity as an organizing principle in group diversity. Overall, this article provides illustrative examples of the benefits of more exchange and dialogue between the fields.

Employment discrimination against immigrants—the unfair behavioral biases against residents of a country who were born abroad, do not possess the local citizenship, and yet live there permanently—remains a vastly understudied topic in industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology, despite several calls over the past 30 years for such research (Bell, Kwesiga, & Berry, 2010; Dietz, 2010; Hirschman, 1982; Pettigrew, 1998). A search for articles published in the same seven top journals selected by Ruggs et al. (2013) in their timely article did not yield a single article that focused on discrimination against immigrants. Recent reviews of employment discrimination (Dipboye & Colella, 2005; Goldman, Gutek, Stein, & Lewis, 2006) also did not mention immigrants and neither did Ruggs et al.

Although recent reviews of executive selection have catalogued much that we as industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists are doing right in our research and practice, we are confronted with the facts that executive selection decisions are often, if not usually, wrong and that I–O psychologists seldom have a place at the table when these decisions are made. This article suggests that in our thinking we have failed to differentiate executive selection from selection at lower levels and that we have applied the wrong models. Our hope for the future lies not in job analyses, developing new tests, meta-analyses, or seeking psychometric validity, but in viewing executive selection as a judgment and decision-making problem. With the right focus, applying our considerable methodological skills should enable us to contribute toward making better judgments. When we have a better mousetrap, organizations (if not the world) will beat a path to our door.

We conducted a quantitative and a qualitative study to assess the extent to which industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology has moved to business schools, understand the nature of this move, and offer a balanced discussion of positive and negative consequences of this phenomenon. In quantitative Study 1, we provide evidence that I–O psychologists affiliated with business schools currently constitute a majority of editorial board members and authors of articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology but that I–O psychology, as a field, is growing. These results suggest that it is not the field of I–O psychology but some of the most active and influential I–O psychology researchers who are moving to business schools. In qualitative Study 2, we gathered perspectives from 144 SIOP Fellows and 27 SIOP presidents suggesting different views on Study 1's results ranging from very negative (i.e., “brain drain”) to very positive (i.e., “eye opener”) depending on the affiliation of the respondent. On the basis of these results, we offer 10 admittedly provocative predictions to stimulate follow-up research and serve as a catalyst for an important conversation, as well as the development of action plans, regarding the future of I–O psychology as a field.

The major premise of this article is that increased exposure to—and increased application of—theories, methods, and findings from the judgment and decision-making (JDM) field will aid industrial–organizational psychology and organizational behavior (IOOB) researchers and practitioners in studying workplace decisions. To this end, we first provide evidence of the lack of cross-fertilization between JDM and IOOB and then provide an overview of the JDM research literature. Next, with the aid of a panel of prominent IOOB scholars who share JDM interests, we discuss the philosophical and methodological traditions in IOOB and JDM, the areas in which IOOB has already been enriched by JDM as well as the areas in which it might be further enriched in the future, ways of increasing cross-fertilization from JDM to IOOB, and ways in which IOOB can in turn contribute to JDM. Through this focal article, we hope to spark conversation and ultimately engender more cross-fertilization between JDM and IOOB.

In our focal article, we contended that overqualified employees may present unique advantages to hiring organizations and that decisions regarding overqualified employees should be made considering the strengths as well as potential limitations of employing overqualified employees. In this response to commentaries on our original article, we identify distinctions researchers should pay attention to. Specifically, measurement of overqualification (whether objective or subjective measures are used), dimension of overqualification in question (overeducation, being overskilled, overintelligence, or overexperience), when and from whose perspective overqualification is assessed (before or after employment), whether overqualification occurs within the context of other overqualified employees, the degree of choice available to the job applicant in becoming overqualified, as well as the specific nature of the population being affected by overqualification are important issues that affect the theory as well as management of overqualification.

Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

Kanfer (2009) argues that “context” is an important consideration in the study of motivated behavior, but our knowledge of contextual constructs is immature and in need of considerable development. We agree and build on her position by proposing that situational strength (Hough & Oswald, 2008; Mischel, 1977) has the potential to help conceptualize what Johns (2006) calls “discrete context” (i.e., the particular task, social, and physical variables that influence motivation, attitudes, and behavior). The present article briefly describes situational strength, discusses its operationalization and measurement, explores its implications for practice, and describes two research questions that fall within Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 1997).