Theories of human aggression can inform research, policy, and practice in organizations. One such theory, victim precipitation, originated in the field of criminology. According to this perspective, some victims invite abuse through their personalities, styles of speech or dress, actions, and even their inactions. That is, they are partly at fault for the wrongdoing of others. This notion is gaining purchase in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as an explanation for workplace mistreatment. The first half of our article provides an overview and critique of the victim precipitation hypothesis. After tracing its history, we review the flaws of victim precipitation as catalogued by scientists and practitioners over several decades. We also consider real-world implications of victim precipitation thinking, such as the exoneration of violent criminals. Confident that I-O can do better, the second half of this article highlights alternative frameworks for researching and redressing hostile work behavior. In addition, we discuss a broad analytic paradigm—perpetrator predation—as a way to understand workplace abuse without blaming the abused. We take the position that these alternative perspectives offer stronger, more practical, and more progressive explanations for workplace mistreatment. Victim precipitation, we conclude, is an archaic ideology. Criminologists have long since abandoned it, and so should we.

Perspectives from 22 countries on aspects of the legal environment for selection are presented in this article. Issues addressed include (a) whether there are racial/ethnic/religious subgroups viewed as “disadvantaged,” (b) whether research documents mean differences between groups on individual difference measures relevant to job performance, (c) whether there are laws prohibiting discrimination against specific groups, (d) the evidence required to make and refute a claim of discrimination, (e) the consequences of violation of the laws, (f) whether particular selection methods are limited or banned, (g) whether preferential treatment of members of disadvantaged groups is permitted, and (h) whether the practice of industrial and organizational psychology has been affected by the legal environment.

This article focuses attention on research examining workplace discrimination against employees from marginalized groups. We particularly consider the experiences of seven different groups of marginalized individuals, some of which have legal protection and some of which do not but all of whom we feel have been overlooked by the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. We briefly describe the importance of studying each group and then delineate the brief amount of research that has been conducted. Finally, we make recommendations for I–O psychologists in terms of research and advocacy. Overall, we argue that I–O psychologists are missing an opportunity to be at the forefront of understanding and instigating changes that would result in maximizing the fairness and optimization of these often forgotten employees and their experiences in the workplace.

In an attempt to distill what we know about the effects of workplace mindfulness-based training, Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) cast a wide net with regard to the array of studies included in their review. For example, they include studies that investigate the benefits associated with workplace mindfulness training (e.g., Wolever et al., 2012) as well as training conducted for patients within primary care settings (e.g., Allen, Bromley, Kuyken, & Sonnenberg, 2009). In addition, their review includes studies based on self-reports of individual differences in mindfulness traits/skills (e.g., Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2014). Reviewing a broad cross-section of research is helpful to illustrate the wide-ranging nature of mindfulness research but also has the potential to obfuscate what we know about mindfulness as it pertains to workers and workplaces.

According to the focal article by Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016), it seems conclusive that all definitions of resilience involve an experience of significant adversity, regardless of whether it is examined as a trait or an outcome. This experience of adversity is inherently emotional. When considering the ability or outcome of “bouncing back” from a stressful or chronic event, one must recognize the emotional experience and consider how individuals may cope with their emotions. This said, there is a clear connection between resilience and emotion regulation. The focal article presents a descriptive model of resilience for employees, which includes mention of energy and affect as individual resources but does not acknowledge the connection between resilience and emotion regulation. In this commentary I argue that these two research areas are related but largely neglected in the current literature. I will discuss the (a) process model of emotion regulation, (b) points of connection with resilience, and (c) empirical research suggesting the importance of positive emotion.

The topic of generational differences in the workplace has been immensely popular over the past decade, spawning a large number of academic publications and a far greater number of consulting reports, popular press books, magazine articles, media reports, blogs, and infographics. Indeed, a new industry of consultants and public speakers seems to have emerged primarily to capitalize on the popularity of this topic. As Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) note, the research on this “hot topic” has often seemed opportunistic, lacking rigor and depth. The relative ease of cutting existing cross-sectional data by age and calling it a generation study has tempted researchers to hop on the bandwagon, resulting in a large number of empirical studies with nearly identical literature reviews that overrely on popular press and opinion-based literature. There has been a lamentable tendency toward blind empiricism with little or no connection to theory, as has been stated elsewhere (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011).

Global leaders operate in a context of multicultural, paradoxical complexity in the world—a context that most leaders find themselves facing today. We argue that 4 developmental shifts are required to be effective in this context: developing multicultural effectiveness, becoming adept at managing paradoxes, cultivating the “being” dimension of human experience, and appreciating individual uniqueness in the context of cultural differences. Challenges for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology are identified in each area. The article concludes by inviting I–O psychologists to integrate competing frameworks, explore related disciplines, revamp leadership competency models, create new tools and frameworks for developing global leaders, and step up to become global leaders ourselves.

The world is awash in data. Data is being created and stored at ever-increasing rates through a variety of new methods and technologies. Data is accumulating in all sorts of accessible places. Much of that data is of great interest to industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists, often in ways never anticipated by those who develop technologies and processes that generate and store that data. I-O psychologists also generate data in the course of research and practice in ways that, especially if joined with data originating from other sources, create giant datasets. This abundance of data—variables, measurements, observations, facts—can be used to inform a vast number of issues in research and practice. This is the new “big data” world, and beyond opportunities, this new world also presents challenges and potential hazards.

Although nearly 50 years have passed since the Civil Rights Act, employment discrimination persists. Thus, this focal article raises and addresses critical issues regarding a yet unanswered question: how can organizational researchers and practitioners contribute to the ultimate goal of eradicating employment discrimination? This article will push previous work a step forward by considering discrimination reduction tactics spanning the attraction, selection, inclusion, and retention phases of the employment cycle. Additionally, we expand our discussion of strategies to reduce discrimination beyond classically studied racial, ethnic, and gender differences. Our synthesis of this literature will inform organizational psychologists on how to address discrimination, but will also highlight the lack of evidence regarding important aspects of these strategies.

Traditional change management approaches that focus on linear models and top-down control have proved less than adequate in addressing organizational change within the complexity and speed of today's unprecedented change. Researchers have suggested that by developing greater workforce agility, companies may be better positioned to manage or moderate rapid change and use this capability as a competitive advantage. Complementing current strategies with a different approach to managing change focused on individual agility and resilience may be a first step. This article focuses on the development, validation, and practical application of an employee agility and resilience measurement scale as part of a program in support of an alternative approach to managing organizational change. Results indicate that focusing on individual agility and resilience can prepare employees to handle uncertainty more successfully by adapting to change quicker and managing stress more effectively.

We are in almost full agreement with Landers and Behrend's (2015) thoughtful and balanced critiques of various convenience sampling strategies focusing on the four most frequently used data sources in our field. In this commentary, we expand on Landers and Behrend's discussions specifically around Mechanical Turk (MTurk) by providing further supporting voice and/or clarity to the four potential concerns and relative advantages associated with MTurk. We also raise a few additional concerns and challenges to which the current literature does not yet offer definitive answers. We conclude with some practical guidelines summarizing the relative advantages and unique challenges of using MTurk.

Qualitative methods are gaining prominence in psychology, as well as related fields such as organizational behavior. Yet, we can find little evidence of qualitative research in our top industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology journals. We argue that the lack of research employing qualitative methods is a loss for the field, and we explore the reasons why few scholars adopt this approach. We then explore where this type of research is published and where it is not. Finally, we discuss and debunk several myths that continue to characterize qualitative methods with an eye toward encouraging a greater appreciation and acceptance of this research tradition.

This article argues that the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology should expand its focus from studying individual and small-group behavior to also studying how psychology contributes to organizational strategy and sustained competitive advantage. The field of strategy has recently sought to understand the microfoundations of competitive advantage, and I–O psychology brings much expertise to inform the study of such microfoundations. However, most I–O research pays little attention to strategic issues. In this article, I provide an introduction to strategic management, focusing primarily on the resource-based determinants of competitive advantage. I then discuss the potential benefits of I–O science and practice tackling important strategic issues yet also note the challenges and likely evolutions that will be necessary in our theory and research. The field of personnel selection is used as an illustration, but other areas of I–O are also considered.

In the 25+ years that the practice of 360° Feedback has been formally labeled and implemented, it has undergone many changes. Some of these have been positive (evolution) in advancing theory, research, and practice, and others less so (devolution). In this article we offer a new definition of 360° Feedback, summarize its history, discuss significant research and practice trends, and offer suggestions for all user communities (i.e., researchers, practitioners, and end users in organizations) moving forward. Our purpose is to bring new structure, discussion, and some degree of closure to key open issues in this important and enduring area of practice.