Despite becoming increasingly represented in academic departments, women scholars face a critical lack of support as they navigate demands pertaining to pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving. In addition, cultural norms surrounding how faculty and academic leaders discuss and talk about tenure, promotion, and career success have created pressure for women who wish to grow their family and care for their children, leading to questions about whether it is possible for these women to have a family and an academic career. This paper is a call to action for academia to build structures that support professors who are women as they navigate the complexities of pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the caregiving demands of their children. We specifically call on those of us in I-O psychology, management, and related departments to lead the way. In making this call, we first present the realistic, moral, and financial cases for why this issue needs to be at the forefront of discussions surrounding success in the academy. We then discuss how, in the U.S. and elsewhere, an absence of policies supporting women places two groups of academics—department heads (as the leaders of departments who have discretion outside of formal policies to make work better for women) and other faculty members (as potential allies both in the department and within our professional organizations)—in a critical position to enact support and change. We conclude with our boldest call—to make a cultural shift that shatters the assumption that having a family is not compatible with academic success. Combined, we seek to launch a discussion that leads directly to necessary and overdue changes in how women scholars are supported in academia.

It is our contention that industrial-organizational (I-O) science can do many great things for the world of work, but we must first get it out there more readily and fully into the hands of decision makers, policy makers, and the public. This focal article addresses the following topics: (a) Why isn’t I-O science reaching the public? (b) What are good mechanisms to bring I-O science to the public? (c) What are some keys to translation and public consumption? Specific public-facing activities discussed include writing a trade book, writing for trade magazines (e.g., Harvard Business Review [HBR]) and online blogs (e.g., Fortune), leveraging social media (e.g., LinkedIn), submitting op-eds, doing podcasts as a producer and/or guest, and joining a speakers bureau. We also discuss barriers to these activities such as time, reward structures, and skill deficits.

The central premise of this article is that organizations have social and economic interests in building policies and practices that support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) workers. This argument is based on empirical evidence that (a) LGBT workers continue to face discrimination at work from which they are not protected under federal law, and (b) discrimination has negative consequences for individual's mental and physical health, and on reasoning that (c) organizations share responsibility for the social good of the communities in which they operate. We offer practical suggestions for creating LGBT-supportive organizations and propose that industrial–organizational psychologists have an ethical obligation to support such efforts.

This response highlights the common themes across the commentaries that reflect both opportunities and barriers to the successful creation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered supportive organizations. In addition, in the interest of comprehensiveness, we describe additional perspectives and points that were not offered in the dialogue. Finally, in line with the evidence presented in the focal paper, we urge readers to consider their own roles in advocating for equity.

The photochemical growth of polycrystalline and amorphous Ge films on SiO2, GaAs and NaCl by photodissociating GeH4 with excimer laser radiation in parallel geometry is reported. For substrate temperatures (TS) below the pyrolytic threshold for GeH4 (553 K), two distinct regions of film growth are observed. In the 425< TS < 553 K range, the ultraviolet (UV) laser “seeds” the reactor with Ge2H6 which readily pyrolyzes at the surface, forming several monolayers of Ge which subsequently catalyze the pyrolysis of GeH4. The activation energy (Ea) in this region is the same as that for the normal CVD growth of Ge from GeH4 (Ea = 0.9 eV). If, however, the laser is pulsed throughout the film growth run, Ea falls by a factor of at least 2 and growth is observed for TS as low as 300 K. In this laser sustained region, film growth ceases in the absence of UV laser radiation. These results clearly demonstrate the ability of a UV laser to alter the reactor chemistry and dictate the species responsible for film growth.