In the 25+ years that the practice of 360° Feedback has been formally labeled and implemented, it has undergone many changes. Some of these have been positive (evolution) in advancing theory, research, and practice, and others less so (devolution). In this article we offer a new definition of 360° Feedback, summarize its history, discuss significant research and practice trends, and offer suggestions for all user communities (i.e., researchers, practitioners, and end users in organizations) moving forward. Our purpose is to bring new structure, discussion, and some degree of closure to key open issues in this important and enduring area of practice.

Recent events in the workplace, government, and college campuses in the US have brought the issues of sexual harassment and assault to the forefront of media and public discussion. Industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists are uniquely suited to help address these issues by aiding in intervention development. Specifically, I-O psychologists can provide key insight regarding the context, design, development, and evaluation of sexual harassment and assault training efforts. Although some empirical evidence suggests that trainings are effective in the short term, there is little evidence to suggest long-term attitudinal or behavioral change outside of the training environment. Much of the research in this area, however, has focused solely on the training intervention, excluding the pre- and post-training environment. Thus, the present effort focuses on designing trainings that promote transfer, as well as improving measurement of desired outcomes, to provide a framework for improving sexual harassment and assault training. This framework addresses how individual differences, needs analysis, training design, evaluation, and post-training support contribute to lasting change while addressing the unique challenges associated with sexual harassment and assault. Last, this framework provides guidance for improving research in this area as well as practical suggestions for improving training programs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Estimates suggest as much as 17% of the US workforce may be neuroatypical, a term used to describe individuals whose neurological functioning is at the tail ends of the distribution of naturally occurring variation. Although the neuroatypical population has a history of under- and unemployment, their inclusion in the modern workplace (i.e., promotion of neurodiversity within organizations) is gaining recognition by scholars and organizations as an important dimension of organizational diversity. Despite this burgeoning interest in examining neuroatypicality in the context of organizational diversity, surprisingly little research has been conducted that bridges these two research areas. The literature that does exist is scattered across several different academic disciplines, largely outside of industrial-organizational psychology, and rarely examines the employment of neuroatypical workers explicitly from a diversity perspective. In this article we argue that as the nature of work evolves and jobs continue to become more specialized, neurodiversity will become an increasingly relevant dimension of organizational diversity and is likely to play a key role both in terms of individual employees’ well-being and performance outcomes, as well as organizational success.

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.

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology has begun to shed its reputation as a handmaiden to corporate and managerial interests, in part, through its engagement with humanitarian concerns. However, as highlighted by recent commentary, I-O psychology still has a decidedly POSH perspective on the world; that is, it has focused on Professionals who hold Official jobs in a formal economy and who enjoy relative Safety from discrimination while also living in High-income countries. This POSH perspective reflects an underlying bias away from people living in multidimensional poverty. We empirically illustrate some of the connections between a POSH perspective and poverty by reviewing 100 years of research in I-O psychology, and then we make a case for why a neglect of people living in poverty undermines the discipline's science, its practice, and its humanist charge. As moral justification for greater engagement with humanitarian concerns and as a guide to navigate the difficult ethical quandaries involved in doing so, we suggest that I-O psychologists should consider the capability approach. We discuss the concept of human capabilities, relate it to I-O psychology, and demonstrate its utility in the form of three hypothetical scenarios. Perhaps our most controversial claim is that there is a moral imperative for I-O psychology to overrepresent people living in the deepest forms of poverty in both its science and practice.

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.

Employee engagement has long been an instrumental component of human capital strategies and continues to dominate the conversation about how high-performing organizations attract and retain their best talent. Engagement is a construct of component parts, however, and we believe there is still much to be learned about engagement by taking an in-depth look at those components. This article examines employee motivation as a core element of engagement, including its antecedents and outcomes, the types of motivation and the dynamics between them, and the ways organizations can foster and harness motivation for improved engagement. Our research identifies a large and consistent motivation gap, such that employee intrinsic motivation is consistently higher than extrinsic motivation. This gap signals that investments in engagement can yield a higher return if strategically focused on motivation, and so we offer recommendations regarding how to close this gap via intrinsically and extrinsically motivating work structures and environments. The goal is to create a new dialogue around engagement and encourage organizations to break it down in order to understand it more fully.

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.