In their focal article, Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) discuss several potential areas in which mindfulness interventions may improve work performance. Some of these include creativity and sales performance (Chaskalson, 2011; Seligman, 2006). We agree that future research should continue to examine the potential benefits of mindfulness and propose an additional domain in which mindfulness interventions may be particularly beneficial: safety performance.

Ruggs et al. (2013) have argued compellingly that industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists have missed opportunities to understand the experiences of marginalized groups in the workplace, particularly in generating research that will be relevant in the formation of social policies. We fully agree with Ruggs et al.'s assessment of the literature and highlight three important extensions that should be considered when conducting research with marginalized groups: the social construction of identities, the intersection of multiple identities, and the experience of exclusion.

Policing in United States has been under media and public scrutiny for a while now. The focal article “Baltimore Is Burning: Can I-O Psychologists Help Extinguish the Flames?” (Ruggs et al., 2016) is a critical piece of work that not only sheds light on how racial bias may impact police–citizen interactions but also outlines possible ways in which industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists can intervene to remedy the situation. Although the call to use evidence-based I-O interventions as levers to facilitate a more effective and unbiased police force is timely, it is critical to acknowledge that the charged environment and the controversial nature of this issue imply that some members of the police force might not accept the suggested interventions at face value. Many police officers are upstanding and hard-working individuals and may see the change interventions as an attack. Thus, before attempting to execute any strategies offered in the focal article, I-O psychologists will have to do significant groundwork from a change management perspective: The current crisis needs to be approached from a whole systems change perspective so that we can (a) understand the factors causing the “flames” and define the problem space comprehensively; (b) understand the type of change we need to effect in response to the crisis, stay closely attuned to the system's readiness for change, and also anticipate resistance to change from different levels of the system; and (c) chart a clear outline of what our role should entail as change agents in helping resolve this crisis. Thus, this commentary complements the focal article by juxtaposing authors’ recommendations against a whole systems change paradigm, questions their implicit assumptions, and recommends that I-O psychologists act as change agents to help police forces define the problem, find solutions, anticipate resistance, and execute interventions at different levels of the policing system.

Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) addressed three of the most important unanswered questions regarding situational judgment tests (SJTs): (a) Should we view them as tests that can assess relatively generic constructs that predict performance across settings, (b) what constructs can they assess, and (c) how should they be scored? They suggested fundamentally changing the SJT development process by targeting the specific constructs we measure, using scoring systems that address both the targeted traits and their situational effectiveness, examining construct validity, and evaluating the criterion-related validity of SJT traits (Lievens & Motowidlo, pp. 11–12). These recommendations are highly significant on both practical and conceptual grounds.

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.

Conclusions about the effectiveness of selection systems require gathering, evaluating, weighting, and interpreting validity data, but these conclusions are obviously challenged to the extent that this process is suspect. Local validity information within the organization may be desirable but not available, and conducting a local validity study may be practically infeasible because of limited time, resources, and small sample sizes. Specific validity studies outside the organization may also be problematic if they are based on jobs or settings of questionable relevance, small sample sizes, range-restricted incumbent samples, and unreliable or content-deficient predictor and criterion measures. It is usually an understatement to say that sifting through a pile of such studies to make educated guesses about the validity of selection measures within of a specific organizational setting could be an idiosyncratic, time-consuming, and frustrating process, resulting in little confidence in any summary conclusions.

Miner et al. (2018) do an excellent job of bringing the issue of gender disparity within STEM to the forefront of I-O psychology. However, we believe the focus on STEM is woefully inadequate and urge I-O psychologists to think bigger, better, and broader. There are clear problems with the way women are viewed and treated within the workforce, within the United States, and globally. In narrowing the discussion of the problem to target only STEM, we dramatically limit our understanding of and potential impact on the multifaceted and complex gender disparity problem in the world of work. Furthermore, we assert there are additional legitimizing myths that must be addressed in order to yield a more complete picture of the dilemma and allow us to move forward to make an impact.