We propose a new conceptualization to make sense of the vast and diverse body of work regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR): (a) embedded CSR and (b) peripheral CSR. This distinction relies on psychological foundations originating primarily in industrial–organizational psychology and related fields (i.e., organizational behavior, human resource management) and allows for a better understanding of when and why CSR is likely to lead to positive outcomes for employees, organizations, and society. Embedded CSR involves an organization's core competencies and integrates CSR within a firm's strategy, routines, and operations, and therefore affects all employees. In contrast, peripheral CSR focuses on activities that are not integrated into an organization's strategy, routines, and operations (e.g., philanthropy, volunteering). We use our conceptualization to explain the success of CSR initiatives at GE, IBM, and Intel, and to reinterpret the scholarly CSR literature in the fields of marketing, corporate governance and legal studies, and economics. We also describe how our conceptualization can help bridge the much lamented micro–macro and science–practice gaps and helps guide future CSR research as well as organizational interventions.

When the Penn State football scandal exploded in 2012, observers tended to frame events in terms of individuals behaving badly or irresponsibly. The perpetrator of child abuse was convicted and sent to prison; the head football coach was fired; the president of the University and several senior administrators were terminated; and the former head of the Board of Trustees was forced to resign. Certainly, these actions were understandable under the circumstances. Terrible crimes had been committed and covered up for over a decade. Nevertheless, an exclusively individual focus overlooks the roles of 9 groups whose collective behavior first allowed the criminal acts to occur and then put an end to them. The groups included the children's families and high school coaches, the Penn State football coaching staff, the Penn State senior administration, the Penn State Board of Trustees, the Second Mile charitable organization, the Centre County Pennsylvania criminal justice system, Penn State students, the Big 10 athletic conference, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. This article employs a group and intergroup perspective to analyze key events and to explain both the dysfunctional systemic behavior and the corrective actions.

Employability is defined as the capacity to gain and retain formal employment, or find new employment if necessary. Reasons for unemployment are often attributed to economic factors, but psychological factors associated with employability also contribute to the problem. Consequently, industrial-organizational psychologists should be uniquely suited to contribute to policy solutions for enhancing employability. This review begins by surveying the most common research approach to employability—the study of career success—which psychologists believe is determined by cognitive abilities, personality, and educational achievement. Next, we review the literature concerning what employers actually want. This section highlights the importance of social skills (being rewarding to deal with) as a key determinant of employability. We conclude by proposing a model for understanding the psychological determinants of employability and for bridging the gap between what psychologists prescribe and what employers want.

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.

For many, Penn State is synonymous with football and Coach Joe Paterno, an association that has been a source of pride for many alumni, staff, and students for years. As Alderfer's (2013) article summarizes, that overlap has now made the horrific behaviors of the former football coach Sandusky indelibly connected to Penn State. Alderfer argues that the scandal can be explained by the actions or inactions of nine Penn State groups “whose collective behavior first allowed the criminal acts to occur and then put an end to them” (p. 117).

In their focal article, Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Kaiser (2013) define career success objectively “in terms of occupational prestige and financial attainment.” However, it is clear from the careers literature that workers in early, mid, and late career are likely to define both subjective and objective career success differently (Wang, Olson, & Shultz, 2013). Therefore, we recommend an expanded definition of career success that includes both subjective and objective measures when exploring the relationship between employability and career success across individuals' careers.

The focal article by Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Kaiser is timely. With persistently high unemployment levels in the United States and across the globe it is clear that we need not only an understanding of what makes people successful in the jobs that they have but also an understanding of how to get them into the workforce and keep them there. To make the problem even clearer, consider the fact that despite the high unemployment rates and increasing numbers of students attending college, there are an estimated 3.5 million unfilled job openings (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm) at this very moment. Industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists need to come to a better understanding of the nature of this problem and the potential solutions. The focal article represents an important first step in this process, but we believe that there are some areas of neglect in the model presented. In particular, we would like to focus our commentary on the development of both character and knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for employment.

The tragic failure of Penn State University to effectively respond to years of child sex abuse perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky was both a breakdown of leaders and of leadership systems. Numerous individual leaders at Penn State had the knowledge, power, and interpersonal influence to effectively intervene in support of Jerry Sandusky's victims. However, fully understanding how this tragedy occurred also requires an examination of the organizational system of leadership that enabled each leader to rationalize the cover up of the sexual abuse of children. Alderfer's (2011) laws of embedded intergroup relations are useful for understanding the organizational dysfunction at Penn State; especially when those laws are integrated with other theories of organizational psychology, including the social identity maintenance theory of groupthink, the romance of leadership, and authentic leadership. The integration of these theories suggests specific strategies and tactics for preventing similar lapses of ethical behavior in the future through the development of leaders and leadership systems.

In their lead article, Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Kaiser (2013) suggested that the topic of employability has been below the radar of most, if not all, industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists' research activities. Although we agree that research addressing employability is scarce in the mainstream I–O journals, we argue that I–O psychologists involved in the training of future I–O psychologists have addressed the employability of their graduates as a sustainability factor for I–O graduate programs (Munson, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, 2004). In addition, those who teach undergraduates, including undergraduates with an interest in the I–O area, also establish internships to enhance the employability of their graduates (e.g., Bott, Stuhlmacher, & Powaser, 2006; Carducci et al., 1987).

This response is being written primarily from the perspective of the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and insights derived from extensive interactions with its members. This enables a different perspective on the focal article by Aguinis and Glavas (2013) than one primarily based on macro/micro distinctions in academic scholarship.

Alderfer's (2013) piece on the Sandusky/Penn State tragedy reminds us that leader-centric analyses, the norm in leadership studies, often miss the mark. Alderfer joins a growing list of writers who increasingly recognize that leadership consists of three key elements in a triangle: leaders, followers, and environments. The Penn State scandal highlights how a conducive environment, typified by centralized power and an absence of checks and balances, coupled with flawed leaders and the actual assistance or quiet submission of certain followers, can lead to disastrous outcomes. As Alderfer observes, leadership is a social, or group, process. Leadership success or failure depends on group results, and group results involve more than just leaders and their characteristics and actions. Yet, over three-quarters of articles in scholarly journals consistently overlook the role of organizational environments and followers (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006), focusing instead on leader traits and behaviors (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008; Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter, & Tate, 2012).