The meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners who use it in conversations with clients. We show that the term is used at different times to refer to psychological states, traits, and behaviors as well as their antecedents and outcomes. Drawing on diverse relevant literatures, we offer a series of propositions about (a) psychological state engagement; (b) behavioral engagement; and (c) trait engagement. In addition, we offer propositions regarding the effects of job attributes and leadership as main effects on state and behavioral engagement and as moderators of the relationships among the 3 facets of engagement. We conclude with thoughts about the measurement of the 3 facets of engagement and potential antecedents, especially measurement via employee surveys.

Research on stereotyping as related to workplace evaluations and decisions has been going on for more than 30 years. Recently, implicit association theory has emerged as a less conscious manifestation of stereotyping mechanisms. In this article, I review the relevance of research on both stereotyping and one of the more popular tests of implicit associations, the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Claims have been made that both stereotyping research and, more recently, IAT research provide theoretical and empirical support for the argument that protected demographic groups (e.g., ethnic minorities, women) are the victims of biased personnel decisions and evaluations. My review of the literature suggests that both stereotyping and IAT research study designs are sufficiently far removed from real work settings as to render them largely useless for drawing inferences about most, but not all, forms of employment discrimination.

Ratings of job performance are widely viewed as poor measures of job performance. Three models of the performance–performance rating relationship offer very different explanations and solutions for this seemingly weak relationship. One-factor models suggest that measurement error is the main difference between performance and performance ratings and they offer a simple solution—that is, the correction for attenuation. Multifactor models suggest that the effects of job performance on performance ratings are often masked by a range of systematic nonperformance factors that also influence these ratings. These models suggest isolating and dampening the effects of these nonperformance factors. Mediated models suggest that intentional distortions are a key reason that ratings often fail to reflect ratee performance. These models suggest that raters must be given both the tools and the incentive to perform well as measurement instruments and that systematic efforts to remove the negative consequences of giving honest performance ratings are needed if we hope to use performance ratings as serious measures of job performance.

As the title suggests, this article takes a broad perspective on personality as it is conceptualized and measured in organizational research, and in the spirit of this Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology journal, we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five-factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.