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.

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.

Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) present a compelling argument (or rallying call) for there being a “moral imperative for I-O psychology to overrepresent people living in the deepest forms of poverty in both science and practice” (p. 330). We agree. Our research has been dominated by a POSH perspective, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that our science benefits those who are most affected by poverty. We believe the interest in engaging in humanitarian work psychology is growing among industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, yet many of us may not feel prepared to conduct such research and/or we may feel that we lack the skills to do so. Further, as Gloss et al. (2017) note, to the extent that we are unprepared to engage in research that benefits those living in poverty, in particular, we run the added risk of harming the very populations we are wanting to help. As such, the interest is there, but we may be daunted by the method. We argue that in order to heed that rallying call, without harm, we need to develop our own capabilities to engage in this important work.

We think that before reading our reactions to the focal article, readers should be aware of the history of the Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force. The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) initiated the LCIOP, and the objectives of the task force were developed without input from Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In June 2013, Don Crowder informed Mark Nagy (SIOP Chair of State Affairs) that the ASPPB approved the establishment of a joint task force related to licensure of consulting and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists. The membership composition of the task force was determined by ASPPB, and SIOP was allotted one member. By including a member of SIOP, ASPPB can describe the task force as a cooperative effort and SIOP ostensibly has the opportunity to help shape recommendations made with regard to the licensure of I-O psychologists. Don Crowder now serves as the president of ASPPB. In Crowder's October 2016 ASPPB meeting address, he encouraged jurisdictions to review their statutes, and, if permitted, require licensure for both health service providers (HSPs) and general applied psychologists (GAPs).

In an attempt to distill what we know about the effects of workplace mindfulness-based training, Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) cast a wide net with regard to the array of studies included in their review. For example, they include studies that investigate the benefits associated with workplace mindfulness training (e.g., Wolever et al., 2012) as well as training conducted for patients within primary care settings (e.g., Allen, Bromley, Kuyken, & Sonnenberg, 2009). In addition, their review includes studies based on self-reports of individual differences in mindfulness traits/skills (e.g., Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2014). Reviewing a broad cross-section of research is helpful to illustrate the wide-ranging nature of mindfulness research but also has the potential to obfuscate what we know about mindfulness as it pertains to workers and workplaces.