Although intentionality may be a valuable spectrum on which to categorically distinguish instances of discrimination, we consider whether or not differences on this construct actually reveal differing impacts for targets. Specifically, we wonder whether intentionality is very relevant to the experiences of targets of discrimination or whether the negative consequences stemming from the discriminatory interactions occur regardless of the perpetrator's intent. Further, we explore the potential consequences related to a target attempting to confront discrimination of ambiguous intent. Finally, we discuss discrimination of ambiguous intent from the perspective of the perpetrator, outlining theories related to intentional versus unintentional subtle discrimination.

Recently, mindfulness research has grown quickly, particularly as an avenue to increase productivity and alleviate modern workers' growing stress levels (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015). In a parallel but largely separate literature, work–family1 conflict has received expansive research attention in the last several decades as an important modern stressor. Work–family researchers have repeatedly called for practical interventions and individual strategies such as coping (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011). As a potential remedy for modern stress with demonstrated utility in the workplace, mindfulness is ideally suited to facilitate workers' efforts to balance their work and personal life domains. The purpose of this commentary is to explore numerous ways through which bridging mindfulness and work–family literatures will advance organizational science and practice.

Belief in generational differences is nothing new. In ancient times, generational differences were seen as a threat to productivity, and efforts were made to change them. Bertman (1976) writes, “as early as the twenty-fifth century BC, the older generation in authoritarian Egypt had to ‘work at it’ to mold the younger generation in its own image.” Yet, Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) point out that “there is minimal empirical evidence actually supporting generationally based differences” and “no sufficient explanation for why such differences should even exist.” One explanation for the prevailing belief in generation-based differences is systematic biases in social perception.

The focal article by Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) ends with several important questions and suggestions for future research. Although the review opens new avenues of investigation for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, the treatment of two questions may leave readers with the impression that research in these areas is nonexistent. Specifically, the authors posed the following inquiries: (a) Is mindfulness good for everyone (across personality and culture), and (b) is it appropriate to introduce mindfulness into the workplace? As a result, our commentary delves deeper into the current literature to investigate these questions, examining who is best served by mindfulness interventions (i.e., the relationship between personality traits and outcomes) and how cultural factors can facilitate success—or failure—of mindfulness programs. Following this examination, we address the question of whether mindfulness is a suitable workplace intervention and caution against a one-size-fits-all approach that may fail to target specific organizational and employee needs. In so doing, this commentary furthers the goal of the focal article, in which the authors expressed a hope for the I-O community to develop “a more comprehensive understanding of what we know—and what we still need to learn—about mindfulness at work” (Hyland et al., 2015, p. 578).

The central question posed by Schiemann and Ulrich (2017) focuses on what human resources (HR) leaders need to know or do to deliver business results in the new work environment. Although understanding the knowledge and capabilities that successful HR professionals need is critical, the focal article places an overemphasis on the characteristics of individual HR leaders alone, without fully exploring the environmental inhibitors of their strategic effectiveness. In this commentary, we argue that competencies and the environment must be given equal attention to maximize impact on business and talent outcomes. We first describe the strategic competency gap among HR professionals and discuss four key organizational barriers that impede the strategic impact of HR on the business. We then offer recommendations for how industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists and HR leaders can help remove these barriers to maximize strategic effectiveness.

Johnson et al. (2010) note the need for a vector defining the relationships between job components and overall job performance (OJP) in the job requirements matrix approach to synthetic validation. This need is also implicit in the job components validity approach that they discuss. In our view, relationships between job components and overall criteria such as OJP are central to synthetic validation, as the effectiveness of this approach depends on the generalizability of relationships between job and criterion components across jobs, organizations, and (of increasing importance) countries.

Despite the growing popularity and marketing of pulse surveys, there is little research concerning this practice. To this end, this practice forum reports the results of a four-wave pulse survey that was conducted in a health care organization. Pulse surveys provided reliable estimates of overall engagement, but scores remained stable across 8 months. Practically no differences in group scores or trends could be found despite high participation (≍ 50%). Item responses displayed little differences between groups, ICC(1) ranging from .03 to .18, and poor discriminant validity. Based on these results, pulse surveys may be adequate for estimating overall employee sentiment but not useful for detecting change over time or differences between groups. These limitations should be considered when designing or implementing pulse surveys.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) have provided a thorough and much needed overview of the construct of mindfulness within the context of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and have offered several reasons why mindfulness programs should be considered in the workplace. In this commentary, we focus on their suggestion that mindfulness may improve the development of high potentials through enhanced self-awareness. We agree that mindfulness is likely an effective tool to help high potentials succeed in an increasingly complex world. We come to this conclusion after conducting a rigorous review of the literature and talking to experts (Ruderman, Clerkin, & Connolly, 2014), learning various forms of mindfulness including completing the mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, and our experiences conducting applied leadership research at the Center for Creative Leadership—a 45-year-old organization devoted exclusively to leadership development.