The rapid pace at which technology changes creates a challenge for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists, who often conduct hypothetico-deductive research. In this article, we examine technology research in the I-O psychology community by asking three questions: Why should I-O psychologists study new technologies? How timely is I-O psychologists’ technology research? How can I-O psychologists produce timelier technology research? Using archival data from 23 years of SIOP conferences and a historical timeline of technology innovations, we find that I-O psychologists study technology milestones an average of 6.10 years after they first enter widespread awareness and adoption. We discuss the implications of this lag and conclude by urging I-O psychologists to study technology with an eye toward action, exploration, collaboration, dissemination, and creation.

Drawing on examples from published research, the authors offer a perspective on the side effects that are associated with organizational interventions. This perspective is framed in the context of the many hard-won positive influences that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists have had on individuals, groups, organizations, and social institutions over the last century. With a few exceptions, we argue that side effects tend to receive less attention from I-O psychology researchers and practitioners than they deserve. A systematic approach to studying, monitoring, and advertising side effects is needed to better understand their causes, consequences, and the contexts in which they are most likely to emerge. The purpose of this piece is to stimulate conversations within the field about the phenomenon of side effects as well as what might be done to improve our science and practice in this domain.

There has been an explosion of within-profession studies examining standings on gender representation in advancement, publication patterns, and conference presentations. However, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has yet to take such an introspective look and fully join these conversations. This manuscript aims to initiate and encourage such discussion. Through a brief review of relevant background information and the collection and analysis of recent archival data, we seek to examine where we have been with regard to gender representation, where we currently stand, and what steps are needed moving forward. We aim to stimulate continued examinations on this topic while recommending appropriate action items relevant to achieving equity in representation in our field.

Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that social exchange theory (SET) should be revised to accommodate work relationships in the “new era” of work, characterized by a more diverse workforce with changing expectations for relationships between themselves and their organizational representatives. To account for the modern workplace, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu introduce “new” or “modern exchange variables” that capture modern workplace conditions and employee characteristics or preferences, which they expect to indirectly influence whether and how employees develop high-quality work relationships with organizational representatives.

Applied psychologists commonly use personality tests in employee selection systems because of their advantages regarding incremental criterion-related validity and less adverse impact relative to cognitive ability tests. Although personality tests have seen limited legal challenges in the past, we posit that the use of personality tests might see increased challenges under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) due to emerging evidence that normative personality and personality disorders belong to common continua. This article aims to begin a discussion and offer initial insight regarding the possible implications of this research for personality testing under the ADA. We review past case law, scholarship in employment law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance regarding “medical examinations,” and recent literature from various psychology disciplines—including clinical, neuropsychology, and applied personality psychology—regarding the relationship between normative personality and personality disorders. More importantly, we review suggestions proposing the five-factor model (FFM) be used to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) and recent changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Our review suggests that as scientific understanding of personality progresses, practitioners will need to exercise evermore caution when choosing personality measures for use in selection systems. We conclude with six recommendations for applied psychologists when developing or choosing personality measures.

These are exciting and changing times in the world of business overall and for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists in particular. To anticipate where human capital professionals may add the most value to organizations in the future, we asked 73 leading academics, consultants, association leaders, and senior human resources (HR) leaders to articulate what HR professionals need to know and do to be successful in the future. The responses create unique insights on challenges and opportunities for I-O psychologists who want to have impact from their work. We summarize these insights into 7 themes and discuss their implications for an emerging I-O mandate.

We agree with and expand on the points made by Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) regarding the definition of “generation” and its measurement, the lack of theory in this area; the harmful effects of propagating generationally based differences to organizations, society, and individuals; and the future directions to make this line of research more applicable to organizations and the workplace. Examining age differences at work through the lens of well-established within-person changes in physical ability (e.g., Maertens, Putter, Chen, Diehl, & Huang, 2012), cognition (e.g., Schaie, 1994), motivation (e.g., Kooij, De Lange, Jansen, Kanfer, & Dikkers, 2011), personality (e.g., Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006), and lifespan development theories (e.g., Baltes & Baltes, 1990; Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999) would likely be more productive than using loose, relatively atheoretical generational stereotypes to understand age differences at work.