Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) make a number of important observations in their exploration of how generation-based differences are understood by academics and practitioners. The absence of a unifying theory, the lack of a clear pattern of findings, and the conceptual ambiguity about generational membership have all limited the utility of generational membership to researchers, while the practice of describing large groups of individuals in generational terms has become enormously popular outside of academia. Certainly, there are several topics that are popular among the public and widely used by businesses despite being viewed negatively by academics; however, there is some danger in the widespread perception that group differences between individuals of different ages can be explained by generational membership. Although it might be tempting to consider these generational stereotypes as simply innocuous misperceptions supervisors may hold, they may, in fact, be quite harmful. The purpose of this article is to further expand on the potential for these stereotypes to be harmful for older and younger employees.

In 1985, the U.S. Army commissioned prominent psychologists to investigate the possibility of extending human capabilities using parapsychological techniques (Swets & Bjork, 1990). Influential members of the army were frustrated by the slow pace of advancements in human performance and believed that large gains could be made using methods outside of the mainstream. They believed that things like mental concentration and guided imagery could allow soldiers to walk through walls, view things remotely, and even kill adversaries by staring at them (Ronson, 2005). Not surprisingly, the panel of psychologists concluded that these ideas were without merit. In reviewing the psychologists’ work, Morrison (1988) observed, “Among the most difficult lessons in science is how not to deceive yourself” (p. 109).

Resilience research has primarily focused on occupations that undergo a significant amount of stress, such as the military or trauma teams. In response, Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) call for “future work on resilience to expand to include a wider cross section of workers and occupations” (p. 397). We suggest that viewing resilience through a personality strength lens will facilitate this expansion. Adopting a personality strength approach to resilience will more clearly (a) link the capacity for resilience to positive adaptation in the face of a broader range of stressors beyond objectively significant adversity and (b) open up new methods of investigating the demonstration of resilience.

Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) present compelling arguments on a moral/humanistic need for I-O psychologists to consider workers that are living and working in deep poverty. Their case nicely shifts focus to large percentages of global workers who heretofore have only been represented minimally in the scholarly discourse in our field. I would like to accomplish two goals in this commentary. First, I would like to present a brief historical perspective on why industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology's focus has been on POSH workers. Second, I will provide conceptual extensions to Gloss et al.’s (2017) focal article by presenting some insights into the world of informal workers.

The tragic failure of Penn State University to effectively respond to years of child sex abuse perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky was both a breakdown of leaders and of leadership systems. Numerous individual leaders at Penn State had the knowledge, power, and interpersonal influence to effectively intervene in support of Jerry Sandusky's victims. However, fully understanding how this tragedy occurred also requires an examination of the organizational system of leadership that enabled each leader to rationalize the cover up of the sexual abuse of children. Alderfer's (2011) laws of embedded intergroup relations are useful for understanding the organizational dysfunction at Penn State; especially when those laws are integrated with other theories of organizational psychology, including the social identity maintenance theory of groupthink, the romance of leadership, and authentic leadership. The integration of these theories suggests specific strategies and tactics for preventing similar lapses of ethical behavior in the future through the development of leaders and leadership systems.

Dr. Russell (2013) provocatively critiqued turnover research, expressing a sentiment that we share—namely, the lamentable modest predictability of turnover. All the same, we disagree with certain criticisms of turnover theory, methodology, and practicality. We organize our reactions into sections: predictive validity for the standard turnover criterion; other criteria for model evaluation; incremental validity controlling quit intentions; Russell's proposed methodology, the potential biases of the Russell and Van Sell (2012) test; and an alternate approach by Hom, Mitchell, Lee, and Griffeth (2012).

In the current focal article, Lindsey, King, Dunleavy, McCausland, & Jones (2013) discuss how organizational scholars and practitioners can help eradicate employment discrimination across the employment cycle, focusing primarily on factors directly linked to organizational outcomes. In addition to facing discrimination that is linked to organizational outcomes, marginalized individuals often face subtle forms of discrimination, which may not directly affect organizational decisions and outcomes but instead may impact one's workplace experiences (e.g., social networking situations). Such negative experiences may indirectly influence organizational decisions and outcomes. Thus, in this commentary we argue that we should not only encourage evidence-based research on eradicating discrimination at the organizational level but ensure that such efforts also examine the social, individual level as well. We discuss manifestations of subtle discrimination that occur within the social aspects of each of the four cycles discussed in the focal article, paying particular attention to social networking situations, and examine steps organizational researchers can take to help reduce discrimination at a more social level as well.