Ethical decision making has long been recognized as critical for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists in the variety of roles they fill in education, research, and practice. Decisions with ethical implications are not always readily apparent and often require consideration of competing concerns. The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct are the principles and standards to which all Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members are held accountable, and these principles serve to aid in decision making. To this end, the primary focus of this article is the presentation and application of an integrative ethical decision-making framework rooted in and inspired by empirical, philosophical, and practical considerations of professional ethics. The purpose of this framework is to provide a generalizable model that can be used to identify, evaluate, resolve, and engage in discourse about topics involving ethical issues. To demonstrate the efficacy of this general framework to contexts germane to I-O psychologists, we subsequently present and apply this framework to five scenarios, each involving an ethical situation relevant to academia, practice, or graduate education in I-O psychology. With this article, we hope to stimulate the refinement of this ethical decision-making model, illustrate its application in our profession, and, most importantly, advance conversations about ethical decision making in I-O psychology.

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.

Drawing on examples from published research, the authors offer a perspective on the side effects that are associated with organizational interventions. This perspective is framed in the context of the many hard-won positive influences that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists have had on individuals, groups, organizations, and social institutions over the last century. With a few exceptions, we argue that side effects tend to receive less attention from I-O psychology researchers and practitioners than they deserve. A systematic approach to studying, monitoring, and advertising side effects is needed to better understand their causes, consequences, and the contexts in which they are most likely to emerge. The purpose of this piece is to stimulate conversations within the field about the phenomenon of side effects as well as what might be done to improve our science and practice in this domain.

As data analytic methods in the managerial sciences become more sophisticated, the gap between the descriptive data typically presented in Table 1 and the analyses used to test the principal hypotheses advanced has become increasingly large. This contributes to several problems including: (1) the increasing likelihood that analyses presented in published research will be performed and/or interpreted incorrectly, (2) an increasing reliance on statistical significance as the principal criterion for evaluating results, and (3) the increasing difficulty of describing our research and explaining our findings to non-specialists. A set of simple methods for assessing whether hypotheses about interventions, moderator relationships and mediation, are plausible that are based on the simplest possible examination of descriptive statistics are proposed.

The basic income (BI) involves regular and unconditional cash payments to all members of a political community, without the requirement or expectation to work in return. Whereas the BI is increasingly discussed by political parties, organizational practitioners, and in other academic disciplines, the field of industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology has so far remained silent on the concept. In this article, we first explain why there is a growing interest in the BI and outline potential reasons why the BI, despite its topical relevance, has not been discussed by IWO psychologists. Next, to initiate the needed discussion on the BI, we outline the most important background information on the concept, including its definition, history, financial aspects, main criticisms, and potential advantages. We further provide first answers to common questions about the BI from an IWO psychology perspective, such as “(Why) would people still work if they received a BI?” We conclude with a discussion of potential positive and negative consequences of the BI as well implications for future theory development, empirical research, and practical applications.

Lapierre et al. (2018) provide a compelling set of reasons why conducting research in organizational settings should include investing time and energy to foster and promote enhanced relationships with organizational stakeholders. We agree that managing research partnerships carefully is paramount to creating the conditions necessary to implement rigorous methodology and collect the data needed to test theory-based hypotheses. However, we believe that Lapierre et al.’s argument should be taken further.

Practice and research with senior leaders can be rewarding but also challenging and risky for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists; the fact that much of the work with these populations is difficult to access elevates these concerns. In this article we summarize work presented by prominent researchers and practitioners at a symposium organized to share common practices and challenges associated with work at higher levels of organizational management. We review implications for research and practice with senior leaders by examining how assessments are applied at senior levels, how assessments and development practices can be linked, and the challenges associated with research and evaluation conducted with these leaders. Also, we offer suggestions for advancing research and practice at senior levels.

Credibility and trustworthiness are the bedrock upon which any science is built. The strength of these foundations has been increasingly questioned across the sciences as instances of research misconduct and mounting concerns over the prevalence of detrimental research practices have been identified. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to encourage our scientific community to positively and proactively engage in efforts that foster a healthy and robust industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We begin by advancing six defining principles that we believe reflect the values of robust science and offer criteria for evaluating proposed efforts to change scientific practices. Recognizing that the contemporary scientific enterprise is a complex and diverse network of actors and institutions, we then conclude by identifying 12 stakeholders who play important roles in achieving a culture of robust science in I-O psychology and offer recommendations for actions we can take as members of these groups to strengthen our science.