Intelligence (i.e., g, general mental ability) is an individual difference that is arguably more important than ever for success in the constantly changing, ever more complex world of business (Boal, 2004; Gatewood, Field, & Barrick, 2011). Although the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology initially made substantial contributions to the study of intelligence and its use in applied settings (e.g., Hunter, 1980; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981), we have done relatively little in recent times about studying the nature of the intelligence construct and its measurement. Instead, we have focused predominately on using intelligence to predict performance outcomes and examine racial subgroup differences on intelligence test scores. Although the field of I–O psychology continues to approach intelligence at a surface level, other fields (e.g., clinical psychology, developmental and educational research, and neuropsychology) have continued to study this construct with greater depth and have consequently made more substantial progress in understanding this critical and complex construct. The purpose of this article is to note this lack of progress in I–O psychology and to challenge our field to mount new research initiatives on this critical construct.

We introduce the notion of “we” or collectivistic leadership. A general collectivistic approach to leadership is developed and contrasted with traditional and contemporary approaches to leadership. An overview of five collectivistic leadership approaches—team, network, shared, complexity, and collective leadership—is then presented. Key notions, constructs, and levels of analysis; the role of a focal leader; operationalizations and empirical results; and implications for leadership development, assessment, and practice of each approach are summarized. Common themes across, and our perspective on, the approaches and future directions for collectivistic leadership science and practice are discussed.

As organizations become more complex and dynamic, individuals' ability to learn from experience becomes more important. Recently, the concept of learning agility has attracted considerable attention from human resource professionals and consultants interested in selecting on and developing employees' ability to learn from experience. However, the academic community has been largely absent from this discussion of learning agility, and the concept remains ill defined and poorly measured. This article presents a constructive critique of the existing literature on learning agility, seeks to clarify the definition and conceptualization of the construct, and situates learning agility within a broader nomological network of related constructs. We conclude by discussing several important directions for future research on learning agility.

In the past, there was a fairly strong alignment between what teams experienced, the topics that team researchers were studying, and the practices that organizations used to manage their teams. However, the nature of teams and the environment in which they operate has changed, and as a result, new needs have emerged. Although there have been some innovative advancements, research and practice have not always adjusted to remain aligned with emerging needs. We highlight 3 significant change themes that are affecting teams: (a) dynamic composition, (b) technology and distance, and (c) empowerment and delayering. For each theme, we share our observations, review the related science and identify future research needs, and specify challenges and recommendations for employing effective team-based practices in applied settings. We conclude with thoughts about the future and suggest that new theories, research methods, and analyses may be needed to study the new team dynamics.