It is necessary for personnel selection systems to be effective, fair, and legally appropriate. Sometimes these goals are complementary, whereas other times they conflict (leading to the so-called “validity-diversity dilemma”). In this practice forum, we trace the history and legality of proposed approaches for simultaneously maximizing job performance and diversity through personnel selection, leading to a review of a more recent method, the Pareto-optimization approach. We first describe the method at various levels of complexity and provide guidance (with examples) for implementing the technique in practice. Then, we review the potential points at which the method might be challenged legally and present defenses against those challenges. Finally, we conclude with practical tips for implementing Pareto-optimization within personnel selection.

The term nepotism (and even worse, cronyism) carries a negative connotation: favoring a relative (or friend) in an employment situation without considering the individual's suitability for the job. Although there can be obvious benefits associated with hiring kin (e.g., a sense of trust, swift learning of job-relevant content, loyalty, etc.; Bellow, 2003; Jones & Stout, 2015), the term itself implies that nepotism is a bad thing, and organizations often take steps to keep bad things from happening. Jones and Stout (2015) have argued that sweeping antinepotism policies in organizations eliminate the positives associated with hiring via a social connection preference, and such policies can lead to unfair discrimination. As industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, however, if we do our job—and by that I mean exemplary and objective screening, hiring, and performance assessment—and if we adequately manage the negative impressions that may reside in the minds of employees regarding nepotism, nobody gets hurt.

We share Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger's (2016) concern over the confusion of the conceptual definition of resilience and believe that this thorny issue should be solved. Hence, our objective in this commentary is to dispel to some extent the fuzzy state of the resilience construct content, building on the extant resilience literature. This will help to enhance resilience construct validity.

In their focal article, Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) consider procedural knowledge about effective actions in work situations as the key component of their theory of situational judgment tests (SJTs). In our commentary we want to suggest that situational judgment should nevertheless not be neglected in such a theory.

The persistently changing landscape of cyberspace and cybersecurity has led to a call for organizations’ increased attention toward securing information and systems. Rapid change in the cyber environment puts it on a scale unlike any other performance environment typically of interest to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists and related disciplines. In this article, we reflect on the idea of keeping pace with cyber, with a particular focus on the role of practicing I-O psychologists in assisting individuals, teams, and organizations. We focus on the unique roles of I-O psychologists in relation to the cyber realm and discuss the ways in which they can contribute to organizational cybersecurity efforts. As highlighted throughout this article, we assert that the mounting threats within cyberspace amount to a “looming crisis.” Thus, we view assisting organizations and their employees with becoming resilient and adaptive to cyber threats as an imperative, and practicing I-O psychologists should be at the forefront of these efforts.

Landers and Behrend (2015) call for editors and reviewers to resist using heuristics when evaluating samples in research as well as for researchers to cautiously consider choosing the samples appropriate for their research questions. Whereas we fully agree with the former conclusion, we believe the latter can be extended even further to encourage researchers to embrace the strengths of their samples for understanding their research rather than simply defending their samples. We believe that samples are not inherently better or worse but rather better suited for different research objectives. In this commentary, we identify three continua on which research goals can differ to demonstrate that all samples can inform science. Depending on the position of one's research on these continua, different samples exhibit different strengths; the continua described below can be used to anchor one's sample to demonstrate how it can benefit, rather than limit, research conclusions. As discussed in the focal article, researchers will often apologize for their convenience samples as one of a litany of limitations; we hope that researchers will move sampling issues out of the limitations section and into the main discussion.

The focal article “How Much Do We Really Know About Employee Resilience?” by Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) is an informative work concerning the paucity of resilience research in organizational science. This commentary serves two purposes: (a) to provide specific recommendations relevant to the aims of the focal article and (b) to present additional unexplored areas that would contribute to what we “really know about employee resilience.” First, I offer suggestions concerning two fundamental issues within resilience research mentioned by Britt et al.: the lack of conceptual clarity and the lack of agreement concerning the characterization of significant adversity. Second, I present three directions for future research: incorporating levels of analysis, developing resilience typologies, and deepening theoretical representations. This commentary complements the focal article by highlighting both specific recommendations and novel areas deserving of exploration.

Bergman and Jean (2016) have contributed an important essay to the continuing self-reflection and maturation of the field of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology—or as it is known in much of the world outside the United States, work psychology.1 They clearly and adequately document that the field has relatively neglected to study the world of (largely lower-level) workers who are not managers, executives, professionals, or students and that this has affected adversely the validity of our science and the relevance of our professional practice in a number of not-so-intuitively obvious ways. But as critical as those observations are, I believe the most important aspect of their piece has to do with the inferences they offer as to why our published literature is so skewed. They suggest six potential, not mutually exclusive, explanations, including the possibility of personal biases among I-O psychologists. However, before focusing on those explanations, it should be informative to place the Bergman/Jean thesis in context. There is a growing, recent body of critical evidence and/or commentary concerning this and similar issues—although less consideration generally has been given to their likely causes.

The Licensure of Consulting and Industrial–Organizational (I-O) Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force has been examining the controversial issue of licensing I-O and consulting psychologists since 2014. We argue that constructive engagement with licensure is important for setting the future direction of the laws and regulations that govern professional psychology. We review relevant background information, current pressures on regulators, and recent developments in this area. We outline recommendations for jurisdictions’ regulators as well the I-O and consulting psychology communities to consider, discuss, and possibly act on. Others are invited to join the constructive, sometimes vigorous discussions we have enjoyed within the LCIOP Joint Task Force.

We agree with Ruggs and colleagues (2013) that age discrimination has been studied less in industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology in comparison to gender and race. We can, in fact, recall a number of articles on either age discrimination or age diversity that state that very fact in their introductory paragraphs. Age was for many years relegated to demographic control variable status. However, there has been an increase in research attention in I–O to age discrimination and diversity issues in the last couple of decades, even if it doesn't happen to appear with much regularity in the specific selection of reputable journals highlighted in this focal piece.