Organizations that are becoming more diverse and relying on teams to achieve performance outcomes often employ organizational interventions to deliver these outcomes. Although some negative or null side effects have been demonstrated related to these interventions, we argue that many positive side effects are often not captured or are disregarded and warrant further attention. Using examples from the training literature, we provide evidence for positive side effects of organizational interventions. We also identify lapses in the field’s approach to the measurement of the effects of organizational interventions and how this prevents our attempts to improve these interventions to create better and more holistic outcomes for employees and organizations. We suggest opportunities to improve interventions that can be applied in our diverse workplaces.

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.

Despite the growing popularity and marketing of pulse surveys, there is little research concerning this practice. To this end, this practice forum reports the results of a four-wave pulse survey that was conducted in a health care organization. Pulse surveys provided reliable estimates of overall engagement, but scores remained stable across 8 months. Practically no differences in group scores or trends could be found despite high participation (≍ 50%). Item responses displayed little differences between groups, ICC(1) ranging from .03 to .18, and poor discriminant validity. Based on these results, pulse surveys may be adequate for estimating overall employee sentiment but not useful for detecting change over time or differences between groups. These limitations should be considered when designing or implementing pulse surveys.