This article responds to and extends the commentaries offered in response to our focal article on learning agility. After summarizing the basic themes in the commentaries, we use this response to clarify points that were unclear in our original article and push back on certain points raised in a few of the responses. In particular, we reframe the rigor–relevance debate from an “either–or” to a “both–and” discussion, clarify the relationship between learning agility and ability to learn, explain how learning agility in organizations moves beyond cognition, and describe how exchanges such as the one we have collectively engaged in here are central to progressing the scientific study on learning agility and its effective use in practice.

This article addresses the insightful and diverse commentaries received regarding our focal article examining collectivistic leadership approaches from both a scientific and practical perspective. In our response, we attend to four emergent themes: the interdisciplinary and historic nature of collectivistic approaches to leadership, the need for studying the nature of collectivistic leadership as a unique phenomenon, the benefits and vulnerabilities associated with this leadership perspective, and the importance of understanding from a holistic perspective what influences collectivistic leadership and how to develop it. For each theme, we integrate feedback from the commentaries and provide our perspective in terms of how to continue the dialogue on collectivistic leadership for scientific and practical advancement.

The commentaries to our focal article were both interesting and stimulating. As we generally agreed with the major points raised in the commentaries, we use this response to frame an on-going tension point or challenge regarding team definitions, highlight a few unifying themes that weave through our initial article and the commentaries, and discuss the transition from research to informed practice. The past few decades have been exciting times for team researchers and practitioners, and the time is ripe for new energies and approaches.

This article argues that the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology should expand its focus from studying individual and small-group behavior to also studying how psychology contributes to organizational strategy and sustained competitive advantage. The field of strategy has recently sought to understand the microfoundations of competitive advantage, and I–O psychology brings much expertise to inform the study of such microfoundations. However, most I–O research pays little attention to strategic issues. In this article, I provide an introduction to strategic management, focusing primarily on the resource-based determinants of competitive advantage. I then discuss the potential benefits of I–O science and practice tackling important strategic issues yet also note the challenges and likely evolutions that will be necessary in our theory and research. The field of personnel selection is used as an illustration, but other areas of I–O are also considered.

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.

The goal of our focal article was to initiate a conversation on how I–O psychology can reengage in research on intelligence. We are encouraged by the ways in which the commentators have furthered this conversation. We discuss 4 overarching themes in the set of commentaries: the extent that I–O psychology is contributing to the intelligence field, outsiders' impressions of I–O psychology's contributions to intelligence research, ways I–O psychology can contribute to intelligence research, and ideas about what prevents us from doing this research. We hope this collection of articles serves to truly ignite research by our field on this critical construct.

As world economies and organizations transform to minimize, mitigate, and neutralize their environmental impact and adapt for environmental sustainability, industrial and organizational psychologists are uniquely positioned to aid in these efforts. Industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology has a central role to play and a duty to contribute to organizational greening initiatives. In making our case, we first describe how economic activities, organizations, and workplaces of today are in the midst of unprecedented change in terms of their impacts on and relations with the natural environment. To ensure conceptual clarity, we then delineate environmental sustainability constructs that are relevant in work settings and distinguish them from related concepts (e.g., social responsibility). We also provide an overview of psychological contributions to environmental sustainability and note that so far there is limited I–O psychological research and application. We conclude by describing ways in which I–O psychologists can contribute.

Global leaders operate in a context of multicultural, paradoxical complexity in the world—a context that most leaders find themselves facing today. We argue that 4 developmental shifts are required to be effective in this context: developing multicultural effectiveness, becoming adept at managing paradoxes, cultivating the “being” dimension of human experience, and appreciating individual uniqueness in the context of cultural differences. Challenges for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology are identified in each area. The article concludes by inviting I–O psychologists to integrate competing frameworks, explore related disciplines, revamp leadership competency models, create new tools and frameworks for developing global leaders, and step up to become global leaders ourselves.