In our focal article (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012), we suggested that increased dialogue and connection between researchers and practitioners focused on diversity in organizations and those focused on cross-cultural work psychology could be beneficial to growth and advancement in both fields. The thoughtful and intriguing commentaries to the article are heterogeneous both in the topics they focus on and in their relative emphasis on theory versus practice, and in our view support our call for more dialogue. In this response, we address some of the key issues the commentaries stimulated for us, including the notion of integration versus homogenization and the differential role of values in research in each field. We summarize by highlighting, as did many of the commentaries, the importance of multiple and diverse approaches and perspectives, a value consistent with both fields.

This article responds to and extends the commentaries on the psychology of competitive advantage focal article. In general, the commentaries stressed that (a) the connection between industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology and strategy should go beyond resource-based theory and competitive advantage, (b) there are some existing examples of strategic I–O research, and (c) practitioners are already integrating I–O psychology with strategy. In this article, I use these commentaries as a means of generating actionable steps (e.g., research studies) to make the strategic adjacent possibility a reality. I conclude by arguing that understanding the psychology underlying firm competitiveness is the defining question of our time, and perhaps even the future of I–O psychology.

Global leadership is sorely needed to transform the world, given trends such as climate change, water scarcity, and social unrest. We need leaders with multicultural sensitivity who will face paradoxes head on, invite new voices into the dialogue, and collaborate across sector and national boundaries to find more sustainable solutions. This response addresses 3 areas that garnered the most commentaries: competency models, paradoxes, and developing global leaders. We point out several neglected perspectives, including “being” and “individual uniqueness,” along with the absence of non-Western voices in the commentary dialogue. We challenge readers to raise their consciousness and shift from enabling status quo leadership to becoming change agents.

We note that the current intellectual, social, and economic milieu has led to general acceptance of environmental sustainability as one of the most important issues of our time. Environmental sustainability is a “big idea,” and it is “in the air” (Gladwell, 2008). Few industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists disagree. However, there are many different ideas on the what, where, and how our field can contribute. We review facilitators, drivers, and barriers to environmental sustainability of organizations. We also discuss the ways in which cultural and international research can strengthen sustainability research and practice. In order to make a meaningful difference and positive environmental impact, I–O psychologists and HR practitioners need to focus on their unique skills and influence organizational environmental sustainability by designing and shaping work, workplaces, and workforces.