The series of events in the 2011 Penn State sexual abuse scandal were tumultuous and complex. Alderfer's (2013) focal article on the group-level phenomena surrounding the scandal provides a unique lens to view these events. However, questions remain about how relationships both within and between the groups involved in the scandal resulted in these outcomes. In particular, why did members of groups within Penn State fail to act, whereas people who belonged to other social groups took action? In short, we agree that group and intergroup boundaries were important in this situation, but would like to further elaborate on the underlying mechanisms behind their significance. Beyond the fact that individuals belonged to different groups, what aspects of group dynamics explain the differences in their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in this scandal?

By examining the psychological determinants of employability, Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Kaiser's (2013) model of employability provides a framework for exploring the hurdles that applicants with stigmatizing conditions must overcome in selection contexts. Specifically, the most qualified applicants not only must be willing and able to do the job, but they also must be rewarding to deal with. Reframing selection research in terms of perceptions of employability calls attention to the subjective decisions that continue to disadvantage members of stigmatized groups. Our comments address several issues with respect to the desirability of compensatory selection procedures that emphasize perceptions of social desirability and P–O fit.

Hugo Munsterberg, the father of our field, created the structure of our applied psychology theory in his Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913). His three research questions were (a) “How we can find the men whose mental qualities make them best fitted for work which they do?” (b) “Under what psychological conditions we can secure the greatest and most satisfactory output of work from every man?” (c) “How we can produce most completely the influences of human minds which are desired in the interest of business?”

More than any other man, Mr. Paterno is Penn State – the man who brought the institution national recognition, the man who built a football program based on honor for 46 years, the winningest football coach in Division I history…Paterno is at the core of the university's sense of identity. (Guarino, 2011, November 10)

We believe that Alderfer's (2013) intergroup analysis of the Penn State scandal can be enriched by focusing on the special role that Joe Paterno played in the events leading up to the 2010 grand jury that brought the scandal to light outside the university community. On the basis of the social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001), we argue that the community afforded Paterno the trust that he appears to have abused to suppress the scandal because he embodied the norms, values, and goals of Penn State in a way that made him prototypical of the university. By making the broader group category salient, Paterno was able to shape the behavior of representatives of many sub-groups described by Alderfer within the administration, athletics, and community. Coupled with a high degree of institutional ambiguity, Paterno's prototypicality likely enabled him to suppress the “constructive diversity” (p. 123) of checks and balances that should have operated at Penn State. This disruption to effective intergroup processes prohibited necessary oversight over the PSU athletic program and the Second Mile that otherwise might have uncovered Jerry Sandusky's crimes much earlier.

There has been no more fundamental concept in the field of industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology than “employability,” whereby individuals seek to gain and retain jobs with organizations, and organizations desire to attract and keep quality employees. Indeed, theory, research, and practice in the field continually have sought to identify the best predictors of performance and career success. Expansion of the predictor and criterion domains has been a focus of scholarly and practical concern for at least the past couple of decades, as we have realized that the fundamental nature of work, jobs, and organization have changed considerably in U.S. organizations.

Aguinis and Glavas (2013) ask, “When and why does CSR lead to positive outcomes for employees, organizations, and society?” Although the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is elusive and comprises a wide range of definitions, there is convergence on the voluntary nature of these actions. But who implements these voluntary initiatives? CSR will take effect, as Aguinis and Glavas point out, at micro levels, through the actions of lower-level units and employees. Thus, there is a need to specify mechanisms by which macro-level CSR policies result in microlevel outcomes.

The current research literature on voluntary employee turnover exhibits at least four shortcomings: low predictive validity, excessive exuberance with predictors, low rigor, and little relevance. Existing theories of voluntary employee turnover research are under specified, as none contains the full range of variables originally hypothesized by March and Simon as contributing to individual employees' decisions to quit their jobs. March and Simon (1958) contributed to the current state of affairs by making at least one assumption that subsequent results do not support. Subsequent efforts to expand theory and to detect and integrate new explanatory constructs have led to a much deeper understanding of the same small portion of turnover variance explained in employee decisions to quit. Deficiencies in current approaches and what a nondeficient model of voluntary employee turnover might look like are described. Directions for future voluntary turnover research are identified, as are past trends that need to be discontinued.

We agree with Aguinis and Glavas's (2013) conceptualization of embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility (CSR). Our concern is whether GE, Intel, and IBM are the best examples of companies with embedded CSR. We propose a more systematic identification of companies with embedded company-wide CSR. A source of exemplars may be aided in drawing upon companies that meet the criteria of “B Corps” or organize as “Benefit Corporations.” Patagonia and New Belgium Brewing Company are provided as examples of “B Corp” companies that utilize core competencies to create company-wide embedded CSR.

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).

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.

My purpose here is to suggest that the often-overlooked organizational ombudsman (OO) role can and should become an influential component of embedded corporate social responsibility (CSR) processes as defined by Aguinis and Glavas (2013). An OO is an employee who works with individuals and groups to help resolve conflicts inside or outside of an organization and who brings systemic concerns to the attention of organizational leadership (Howard, 2010). An OO does this while maintaining the confidentiality of office visitors, operating from a stance of neutrality and impartiality, remaining independent of formal organizational structures, and not adjudicating disputes or otherwise making policy recommendations regarding conflicts (International Ombudsman Association, 2013; Ziegenfuss & O'Rourke, 2011).

Professor Russell proposes a decision model of turnover in which the attractiveness of the current job is compared with that of an alternative. In turn, an employee chooses the option with the highest judged attractiveness. For example, “Employees make decisions to quit based on the relative attractiveness of their current job compared to alternative jobs or activities” (2013, p. 163). The attractiveness of one's current job and alternative are estimated by a regression equation assessing various attributes of the two targets (i.e., current job and alternative). Evoking March and Simon (1958) for a theoretical foundation, Professor Russell offers a subjectively “rational model” for the choice to stay or leave based on expectancy and expected value type decision models. In his empirical work, he uses a “policy capturing” simulation to identify how new hires personally weigh various job attributes when deciding whether they would quit hypothetical jobs varying in those attributes (Russell & Van Sell, 2012). When these weights are applied to employees' actual survey perceptions of the levels of job attributes, the resulting “simulated turnover intention” score predicts turnover better than a survey measure of quit intentions or job attributes alone. The inference is that turnover scholars can make substantial progress toward the prediction of actual turnover by using this model.

In their focal article, Ruggs et al. (2013) outline the missed opportunities for researchers within industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology in examining marginalized employees. The authors identify seven groups as having been overlooked by I–O psychologists and thus deserving greater attention in the future. They conclude their focal article by noting that, “Instead of being on the front line serving as scientists and allies for those who are marginalized and treated poorly, we have let these individuals take a backseat while we have gone fishing.” We disagree with this assertion. It is not that we have gone fishing and ignored marginalized employees. Rather, we have gone fishing, in rough waters, to locate hard-to-find fish. We are not purposefully ignoring marginalized employees. On the contrary, we are conducting research while battling numerical representation issues and ethical and administration issues. The focus of our commentary is to highlight these challenges and offer suggestions for addressing them in an effort to assist researchers in actually doing what the authors of the focal article are calling for them to do—to successfully engage in more focused research on these under-represented members of the workforce.