The title of this focal article (unashamedly paraphrased from Edwin Starr’s classic 1970 antiwar song) is only partly intended to be tongue in cheek; work is a strange thing with a very checkered history. For the most part, it is something we take for granted. Most able-bodied adults work. Working hard is taken as a sign of being an upstanding citizen. Right wing politicians even insist that “government handouts” only be made available in exchange for participation in “workfare” programs. Moreover, work is not just something we do; over the last 100 years or so, it has become a defining, constitutive feature of who we are as human beings. Our very sense of identity and well-being is tied up with our relationship to work. It is no accident, after all, that the first question we ask a stranger is, “What do you do?” (and we are not asking about their hobbies); we see this question as a way of taking the measure of that person.

Building on the focal article by Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015), we propose conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a framework that may explain why mindfulness contributes to work motivation and performance in an organizational context. We argue that mindfulness is especially beneficial in dynamic work contexts because it provides employees with a personal resource that makes them more resilient to the loss of job resources and more aware of alternative job resources in their changed work environment.

Prestigious journals are widely admired for publishing quality scholarship, yet the primary indicators of journal prestige (i.e., impact factors) do not directly assess audience admiration. Moreover, the publication landscape has changed substantially in the last 20 years, with electronic publishing changing the way we consume scientific research. Given that it has been 18 years since the publication of the last journal prestige survey of SIOP members, the authors conducted a new survey and used these results to reflect on changing practices within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. SIOP members (n = 557) rated the prestige and relevance of I-O and management journals. Responses were analyzed according to job setting, and were compared to a survey conducted by Zickar and Highhouse (2001) in 2000. There was considerable consistency in prestige ratings across settings (i.e., management department vs. psychology department; academic vs. applied), especially among the top journals. There was considerable variance, however, in the perceived usefulness of different journals. Results also suggested considerable consistency across the two time periods, but with some increases in prestige among OB-oriented journals. Changes in the journal landscape are discussed, including the rise of OHP as a topic of concentration in I-O. We suggest that I-O programs will continue to attract the top researchers in talent management and OHP, which should result in the use of a broader set of journals for judging I-O program impact.

The field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology has and will continue to experience periods of growth and change. Our field has shifted and transformed along with society, through the industrial revolution, the human relations movement, the globalization of business, and the information age. And here we are, in 2013, at the cusp of what seems to be the beginning of a new stage in our development, this time evidenced by the marked attention that both the science and practice arms of I–O psychology are placing on issues of corporate social responsibility (CSR, Aguinis, 2011; Cruse, 2010; Scott et al. 2013)

As data analytic methods in the managerial sciences become more sophisticated, the gap between the descriptive data typically presented in Table 1 and the analyses used to test the principal hypotheses advanced has become increasingly large. This contributes to several problems including: (1) the increasing likelihood that analyses presented in published research will be performed and/or interpreted incorrectly, (2) an increasing reliance on statistical significance as the principal criterion for evaluating results, and (3) the increasing difficulty of describing our research and explaining our findings to non-specialists. A set of simple methods for assessing whether hypotheses about interventions, moderator relationships and mediation, are plausible that are based on the simplest possible examination of descriptive statistics are proposed.

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) is pleased to offer the fifth edition of the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures, which was approved by the APA Council of Representatives in August 2018 as an authoritative guidelines document for employee selection testing and an official statement of the APA. Over a three-year period, the Principles Revision Committee updated this document from the fourth edition to be consistent with the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, invited commentary from SIOP and APA that informed subsequent revisions, and solicited a thorough legal review.

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).

During the past 30 years, individual psychological assessment (IPA) has gained in use and in value to organizations in the management of human resources. However, even though IPA is considered a core competency for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology, its practice is not without critics. This article is written not only to address several criticisms of IPA but also to discuss a variety of issues that must be taken into consideration if IPA is to advance as a major component of the I–O scientist–practitioner model. We rely upon a working definition of IPA in general but, when possible, focus on executive assessment in particular, given its high level of complexity and growing popularity. We discuss the effectiveness of assessment practice, including the ongoing statistical versus clinical prediction argument and the difficulties with establishing validity. Although we are confident that IPA has many strong research and practice underpinnings, we also propose some important research questions, training guidelines, and opportunities for assessing psychologists to improve their practices.

Content-oriented validation strategies establish the validity of selection tests as predictors of performance by comparing the content of the tests with the content of the job. These comparisons turn out to have little if any bearing on the predictive validity of selection tests. There is little empirical support for the hypothesis that the match between job content and test content influences validity, and there are often structural factors in selection (e.g., positive correlations among selection tests) that strongly limit the possible influence of test content on validity. Comparisons between test content and job content have important implications for the acceptability of testing, the defensibility of tests in legal proceedings, and the transparency of test development and validation, but these comparisons have little if any bearing on validity.

We have proposed that a dialectic perspective on innovation may serve well as a first step of an integrative framework for research on innovation and for effective practice. We would like to thank all commentators for their stimulating and challenging ideas and SIOP for enabling this dialog. In keeping with the process view inherent to dialectic thinking, we would like to use this reply to refine and extend the core ideas presented in the focal article by means of integrating explanatory concepts, by critically examining the add-on value of a dialectic perspective, and by pointing out future research needs and ideas for management.

As industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists, we have expertise in applying psychological and/or organizational science to the workplace. However, many of us haven’t taken the time to think about how our I-O psychology knowledge can apply to our teaching practice. We walk through some examples of how I-O psychology research can help us be better teachers, and the goal of our paper is to encourage readers to make evidence-based changes to their teaching based on I-O psychology research. We organize our discussion around four areas: training and development, diversity and inclusion, groups and teams, and leadership. Within each, we offer small, medium, and large changes that could be incorporated into classrooms. We hope that readers will be inspired to build on what they do in their classrooms to help students learn about (and be inspired by) our field.

Describing the current state of gamification, Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) provide a troubling contradiction: They offer examples of a broad spectrum of gamification interventions, but they then summarize the entirety of gamification as “the digital equivalent of situational judgment tests.” This mischaracterization grossly oversimplifies a rapidly growing area of research and practice both within and outside of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that situational judgment tests (SJTs) can be considered a type of gamified assessment, and gamification provides a toolkit to make SJTs even more gameful. However, the term gamification refers to a much broader and potentially more impactful set of tools than just SJTs, which are incremental, versatile, and especially valuable to practitioners in an era moving toward business-to-consumer (B2C) assessment models. In this commentary, we contend that gamification is commonly misunderstood and misapplied by I-O psychologists, and our goals are to remedy such misconceptions and to provide a research agenda designed to improve both the science and the practice surrounding gamification of human resource processes.

Training has shown little effectiveness in altering harassing or discriminatory behavior. Limitations of prior intervention efforts may reflect poor conceptualization of the problems involved, poor training intervention design, approaches that engender cynicism, or misunderstanding psychological principles of attitude and behavior change. Interventions should capitalize on behavioral science models and tools at multiple levels from a broad array of disciplines to explain harassment and bias, and then to defeat these behaviors. Measures to ensure fair treatment should focus on leadership socialization, organizational culture and climate, increased professional competence, and integration with organizational approaches to corporate social responsibility and performance.

Jones and Stout (2015) have made one claim that I would like to correct: There is substantial quantitative (and observational) research on the workplace and organizational performance effects of nepotism and cronyism. That these authors have missed this research is understandable; the research is not in traditional industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology publications (although some of it does appear in journals from the related field of organizational behavior). Nevertheless, this work is systematic and rigorous, and the work provides strong evidence to support the experience-based perceptions of practitioners that nepotism and cronyism damage employees and their supervisors and produces poorer organizational performance. I welcome the opportunity that Jones and Stout (2015) have provided to briefly introduce my colleagues in I-O psychology to this literature.