Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) draw attention to issues in the psychological literature regarding how we define, assess, select for, and build employee resilience. We offer a handful of recommendations for complementing and expanding on these important issues. Specifically, we propose that research should include more common forms of workplace adversity, versus extreme and rare types of adversity; resilience should be assessed via objective multirater methodology rather than subjective self-report; because context is important when studying resilience, researchers should delineate the purposes of the research; resilience should be treated as a malleable rather than a fixed characteristic; and finally, the field would benefit from qualitative research in addition to quantitative research.

We agree with Aguinis and Glavas's (2013) conceptualization of embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility (CSR). Our concern is whether GE, Intel, and IBM are the best examples of companies with embedded CSR. We propose a more systematic identification of companies with embedded company-wide CSR. A source of exemplars may be aided in drawing upon companies that meet the criteria of “B Corps” or organize as “Benefit Corporations.” Patagonia and New Belgium Brewing Company are provided as examples of “B Corp” companies that utilize core competencies to create company-wide embedded CSR.

Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) present a case for situational judgment tests (SJTs) to be conceptualized as measures of general domain knowledge, which the authors define as knowledge of the effectiveness of general domains such as integrity, conscientiousness, and prosocial behaviors in different jobs. This argument comes from work rooted in the use of SJTs as measures of implicit trait policies (Motowidlo & Beier, 2010; Motowidlo, Hooper, & Jackson, 2006), measured with a format described as a “single response SJT” (Kell, Motowidlo, Martin, Stotts, & Moreno, 2014; Motowidlo, Crook, Kell, & Naemi, 2009). Given evidence that SJTs can be used as measures of general domain knowledge, the focal article concludes with a suggestion that general knowledge can be measured not only by traditional text-based or paper-and-pencil SJTs but also through varying alternate formats, including multimedia SJTs and interactive SJTs.

The focal article by Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Kaiser is timely. With persistently high unemployment levels in the United States and across the globe it is clear that we need not only an understanding of what makes people successful in the jobs that they have but also an understanding of how to get them into the workforce and keep them there. To make the problem even clearer, consider the fact that despite the high unemployment rates and increasing numbers of students attending college, there are an estimated 3.5 million unfilled job openings (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm) at this very moment. Industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists need to come to a better understanding of the nature of this problem and the potential solutions. The focal article represents an important first step in this process, but we believe that there are some areas of neglect in the model presented. In particular, we would like to focus our commentary on the development of both character and knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for employment.

The focal article by Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) shed a light on the current status of generational research at work that often treats generation as an age grouping variable. Although the authors primarily focused on the applicability of research findings to the current workforce, I believe the benefits of studying and understanding generations should not be limited to this purpose. The goal of this commentary is twofold. First, I would like to revisit the concept of generation and the purposes of studying generations at work. Second, given the problems with generational research presented by Costanza and Finkelstein, I would like to propose potential actions that we can take.

The purpose of this rebuttal to Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) is (a) to examine the findings surrounding the new generations at work, (b) to suggest the risks of not responding to change in generations with new talent strategies, and (c) to propose a new theory about the development of a new millennial culture and how practitioners and researchers may capitalize on the promise of a more positive and joyful workplace culture. We propose to accomplish these points by (a) citing recent global findings showing that Millennials (born after 1980) are turning away from companies with cultures that were designed for 20th century workers, (b) presenting a theory on the development of an emerging millennial culture that is based on positive industrial and organizational psychology, and (c) recommending that the method of innovation design teams be used to render workplaces compatible with the emerging culture.

The comments and suggestions prompted by K. R. Murphy’s (2008) description of alternate models of the relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance reflect 3 broad themes: (a) the relationship between performance appraisal and performance measurement, (b) the best psychometric models for understanding performance ratings, and (c) the appropriateness of static measures for dynamic phenomena. This paper comments on these 3 themes and suggests directions for future research and practice in performance appraisal that focuses on rater goals, organizational interventions to improve the accuracy and value of ratings, and assessments of the value of performance ratings as criteria.