Applied psychologists commonly use personality tests in employee selection systems because of their advantages regarding incremental criterion-related validity and less adverse impact relative to cognitive ability tests. Although personality tests have seen limited legal challenges in the past, we posit that the use of personality tests might see increased challenges under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) due to emerging evidence that normative personality and personality disorders belong to common continua. This article aims to begin a discussion and offer initial insight regarding the possible implications of this research for personality testing under the ADA. We review past case law, scholarship in employment law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance regarding “medical examinations,” and recent literature from various psychology disciplines—including clinical, neuropsychology, and applied personality psychology—regarding the relationship between normative personality and personality disorders. More importantly, we review suggestions proposing the five-factor model (FFM) be used to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) and recent changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Our review suggests that as scientific understanding of personality progresses, practitioners will need to exercise evermore caution when choosing personality measures for use in selection systems. We conclude with six recommendations for applied psychologists when developing or choosing personality measures.

Lean management and related ideas have had a significant impact on organizations throughout North America and the world. Despite its popularity and impact, I-O psychologists have largely neglected Lean as a research topic and few I-O psychologists engage in applied practice in the area. In this focal article, we provide a working definition of Lean and present examples of Lean’s influence. Next, we outline possible reasons to explain I-O psychologists’ indifference to Lean. Finally, we provide some topic areas that I-O psychologists can use to contribute to the Lean literature. By using I-O psychologists’ skill in measurement and evaluation, along with our considerable organizational theory, we believe that I-O psychology can improve Lean and broaden their impact. We hope this focal article will inspire I-O psychologists to reconsider a research and practice area that they have previously ignored. In addition, we hope that this article causes I-O psychologists to reflect on their role to play in addressing popular management trends.

This article addresses the tensions between calls for civility and rights to free speech in public academic employment. We begin by summarizing relevant organizational science on workplace incivility. Next come critical perspectives from other fields, asserting that civility appeals infringe on rights to freedom of expression. Following this is a review of key court decisions within the jurisprudence of free speech in the workplace, especially as it applies to academics. We also address the protections afforded by tenure and (at some institutions) unions. Bringing these streams of scholarship together, we expose predicaments faced by public universities seeking to cultivate safe and civil work environments while, at the same time, respecting faculty rights to free speech. We conclude by suggesting compromises between these conflicting aims that would allow organizations (in academia and beyond) to protect workforce dignity without infringing on the rights of reasonable people.

Recent events in the workplace, government, and college campuses in the US have brought the issues of sexual harassment and assault to the forefront of media and public discussion. Industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists are uniquely suited to help address these issues by aiding in intervention development. Specifically, I-O psychologists can provide key insight regarding the context, design, development, and evaluation of sexual harassment and assault training efforts. Although some empirical evidence suggests that trainings are effective in the short term, there is little evidence to suggest long-term attitudinal or behavioral change outside of the training environment. Much of the research in this area, however, has focused solely on the training intervention, excluding the pre- and post-training environment. Thus, the present effort focuses on designing trainings that promote transfer, as well as improving measurement of desired outcomes, to provide a framework for improving sexual harassment and assault training. This framework addresses how individual differences, needs analysis, training design, evaluation, and post-training support contribute to lasting change while addressing the unique challenges associated with sexual harassment and assault. Last, this framework provides guidance for improving research in this area as well as practical suggestions for improving training programs.