Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pandemics have historically shaped the world of work in various ways. With COVID-19 presenting as a global pandemic, there is much speculation about the implications of this crisis for the future of work and for people working in organizations. In this article, we discuss 10 of the most relevant research and practice topics in the field of industrial and organizational psychology that will likely be strongly influenced by COVID-19. For each of these topics, the pandemic crisis is creating new work-related challenges, but it is also presenting various opportunities. The topics discussed herein include occupational health and safety, work–family issues, telecommuting, virtual teamwork, job insecurity, precarious work, leadership, human resources policy, the aging workforce, and careers. This article sets the stage for further discussion of various ways in which I-O psychology research and practice can address the issues that COVID-19 creates for work and organizational processes that are affecting workers now and will shape the future of work and organizations in both the short and long term. This article concludes by inviting I-O psychology researchers and practitioners to address the challenges and opportunities of COVID-19 head-on by proactively adapting the work that we do in support of workers, organizations, and society as a whole.

Past research purporting to study employee resilience suffers from a lack of conceptual clarity about both the resilience construct and the methodological designs that examine resilience without ensuring the occurrence of significant adversity. The overall goal of this article is to address our contemporary understanding of employee resilience and identify pathways for the future advancement of resilience research in the workplace. We first address conceptual definitions of resilience both inside and outside of industrial and organizational psychology and make the case that researchers have generally failed to document the experience of significant adversity when studying resilience in working populations. Next, we discuss methods used to examine resilience, with an emphasis on distinguishing the capacity for resilience and the demonstration of resilience. Representative research is then reviewed by examining self-reports of resilience or resilience-related traits along with research on resilient and nonresilient trajectories following significant adversity. We then briefly address the issues involved in selecting resilient employees and building resilience in employees. The article concludes with recommendations for future research studying resilience in the workplace, including documenting significant adversity among employees, assessing multiple outcomes, using longitudinal designs with theoretically supported time lags, broadening the study of resilience to people in occupations outside the military who may face significant adversity, and addressing the potential dark side of an emphasis on resilience.

Sampling strategy has critical implications for the validity of a researcher's conclusions. Despite this, sampling is frequently neglected in research methods textbooks, during the research design process, and in the reporting of our journals. The lack of guidance on this issue often leads reviewers and journal editors to rely on simple rules of thumb, myth, and tradition for judgments about sampling, which promotes the unnecessary and counterproductive characterization of sampling strategies as universally “good” or “bad.” Such oversimplification, especially by journal editors and reviewers, slows the progress of the social sciences by considering legitimate data sources to be categorically unacceptable. Instead, we argue that sampling is better understood in methodological terms of range restriction and omitted variables bias. This considered approach has far-reaching implications because in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, as in most social sciences, virtually all of the samples are convenience samples. Organizational samples are not gold standard research sources; instead, they are merely a specific type of convenience sample with their own positive and negative implications for validity. This fact does not condemn the science of I-O psychology but does highlight the need for more careful consideration of how and when a finding may generalize based on the particular mix of validity-related affordances provided by each sample source that might be used to investigate a particular research question. We call for researchers to explore such considerations cautiously and explicitly both in the publication and in the review of research.

In recent years the concept of mindfulness has become increasingly popular, and with good reason. A growing body of research indicates that mindfulness provides a number of physical, psychological, and even performance benefits. As a result, some organizations have started offering mindfulness programs to their employees. But despite growing interest, mindfulness has received little attention from the industrial–organizational community. In this article, we provide an overview of what mindfulness is, where the concept came from, how it has been utilized and studied to date, and what its application in the work setting is. We also propose new directions for researchers and practitioners.

Estimates suggest as much as 17% of the US workforce may be neuroatypical, a term used to describe individuals whose neurological functioning is at the tail ends of the distribution of naturally occurring variation. Although the neuroatypical population has a history of under- and unemployment, their inclusion in the modern workplace (i.e., promotion of neurodiversity within organizations) is gaining recognition by scholars and organizations as an important dimension of organizational diversity. Despite this burgeoning interest in examining neuroatypicality in the context of organizational diversity, surprisingly little research has been conducted that bridges these two research areas. The literature that does exist is scattered across several different academic disciplines, largely outside of industrial-organizational psychology, and rarely examines the employment of neuroatypical workers explicitly from a diversity perspective. In this article we argue that as the nature of work evolves and jobs continue to become more specialized, neurodiversity will become an increasingly relevant dimension of organizational diversity and is likely to play a key role both in terms of individual employees’ well-being and performance outcomes, as well as organizational success.

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are typically conceptualized as contextualized selection procedures that capture candidate responses to a set of relevant job situations as a basis for prediction. SJTs share their sample-based and contextualized approach with work samples and assessment center exercises, although they differ from these other simulations by presenting the situations in a low-fidelity (e.g., written) format. In addition, SJTs do not require candidates to respond through actual behavior because they capture candidates’ situational judgment via a multiple-choice response format. Accordingly, SJTs have also been labeled low-fidelity simulations. This SJT paradigm has been very successful: In the last 2 decades, scientific interest in SJTs has grown, and they have made rapid inroads in practice as attractive, versatile, and valid selection procedures. Contrary to their popularity and the voluminous research on their criterion-related validity, however, there has been little attention to developing a theory of why SJTs work. Similarly, in SJT development, often little emphasis is placed on measuring clear and explicit constructs. Therefore, Landy (2007) referred to SJTs as “psychometric alchemy” (p. 418).

Although aging workforces result in numerous practical challenges for organizations and societies, little research has focused on successful aging at work. The limited existent research has generated rather diverse conceptualizations of successful aging at work, which are often broad and difficult to operationalize in practice. Therefore, to advance research and practice, we offer a specific and practical conceptualization of successful aging at work by developing a process model, which identifies relevant antecedents and mechanisms. In particular, we define successful aging at work as the proactive maintenance of, or adaptive recovery (after decline) to, high levels of ability and motivation to continue working among older workers. We also argue that proactive efforts to maintain, or adaptive efforts to recover and restore, high ability and motivation to continue working result from a self-regulation process that involves goal engagement and disengagement strategies to maintain, adjust, and restore person–environment fit. Further, we propose that at various levels (i.e., person, job, work group, organization, and society) more distal factors function as antecedents of this self-regulation process, with age-related bias and discrimination potentially operating at each level. Finally, we offer a roadmap for future research and practical applications.

Due to rising pressure to appear egalitarian, subtle discrimination pervades today's workplace. Although its ambiguous nature may make it seem innocuous on the surface, an abundance of empirical evidence suggests subtle discrimination undermines employee and organizational functioning, perhaps even more so than its overt counterpart. In the following article, we argue for a multidimensional and continuous, rather than categorical, framework for discrimination. In doing so, we propose that there exist several related but distinct continuums on which instances of discrimination vary, including subtlety, formality, and intentionality. Next, we argue for organizational scholarship to migrate toward a more developmental, dynamic perspective of subtle discrimination in order to build a more comprehensive understanding of its antecedents, underlying mechanisms, and outcomes. We further contend that everyone plays a part in the process of subtle discrimination at work and, as a result, bears some responsibility in addressing and remediating it. We conclude with a brief overview of research on subtle discrimination in the workplace from each of four stakeholder perspectives—targets, perpetrators, bystanders, and allies—and review promising strategies that can be implemented by each of these stakeholders to remediate subtle discrimination in the workplace.

Sackett et al. (2022) identified previously unnoticed flaws in the way range restriction corrections have been applied in prior meta-analyses of personnel selection tools. They offered revised estimates of operational validity, which are often quite different from the prior estimates. The present paper attempts to draw out the applied implications of that work. We aim to a) present a conceptual overview of the critique of prior approaches to correction, b) outline the implications of this new perspective for the relative validity of different predictors and for the tradeoff between validity and diversity in selection system design, c) highlight the need to attend to variability in meta-analytic validity estimates, rather than just the mean, d) summarize reactions encountered to date to Sackett et al., and e) offer a series of recommendations regarding how to go about correcting validity estimates for unreliability in the criterion and for range restriction in applied work.

This paper advocates for the value of open science in many areas of research. However, after briefly reviewing the fundamental principles underlying open science practices and their use and justification, the paper identifies four incompatibilities between those principles and scientific progress through applied research. The incompatibilities concern barriers to sharing and disclosure, limitations and deficiencies of overidentifying with hypothetico-deductive methods of inference, the paradox of replication efforts resulting in less robust findings, and changes to the professional research and publication culture such that it will narrow in favor of a specific style of research. Seven recommendations are presented to maximize the value of open science while minimizing its adverse effects on the advancement of science in practice.