Inconsistent findings from prior research on the performance consequences of new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) origin led us to study the moderating effect of managerial discretion on the link between CEO outsiderness and firms’ post-succession performance. Data from 75 CEO succession events from an emerging economy show that new CEO outsiderness, without managerial discretion context influences, has no direct impact on post-succession performance. Further, our findings emphasise the moderating impacts of managerial discretion, stemming from factors in a company’s external and internal contingencies, which either strengthen or weaken the association between new CEO outsiderness and post-succession firm performance. It is found that market complexity, but not munificence, provides CEOs with more discretion in the Turkish context, thus strengthening the positive associations between CEO origin and firm performance. Firms inertia weakens both managerial discretion level and the association between CEO outsiderness and firm performance. The results show that internal corporate governance also matters. Finally, when a CEO assumes the dual role of both the chairman and the CEO, the link between CEO outsiderness and performance of the firm becomes stronger.

While an increasing number of studies focus on the positive effects of Chinese supervisor–subordinate guanxi on its focal parties, little research has examined in what situations guanxi may instead cause negative impacts on these individuals. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, the objectives of this study is to identify how the culturally remarkable aspect of supervisor–subordinate guanxi – personal-life inclusion – may cause ‘burden’ for Chinese employees and to reveal the moderated mediation mechanism between personal-life inclusion and turnover intention by examining the mediating role of work interference with family and the moderating effect of perceived family demands. Data were collected from 182 Chinese employees. The results indicate that personal-life inclusion is positively correlated with turnover intention and work interference with family mediates this relationship. Perceived family demands serves as a moderator on the mediated relationship between personal-life inclusion, work interference with family, and turnover intention. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of our findings.

Perceptions of employee entitlement are reported to be increasing in organizations and have been linked to negative outcomes at work. Employee entitlement is an employee’s belief in deserving preferential treatment or reward without regard to performance. Arguments, however, are emerging that entitlement may also be linked to positive behaviors. In this article, we outline a study that examines the moderating effect of self-monitoring on the relationship between employee entitlement and organizational citizenship behavior and affective organizational commitment. Based on survey data collected from 167 individuals, we found that self-monitoring moderated the relationship between the specific subscales of employee entitlement and organizational citizenship behavior but had no relationship to commitment. Although previous studies have addressed entitlement perceptions as a negative outcome for the organization, in this article we outline the potential for positive outcomes. Limitations and future research directions are outlined.

Miner et al. (2018) make a compelling argument for the need to examine gender inequity in STEM from a social-structural lens. We completely agree. We also commend the authors for including practical recommendations for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, as such implementation plans are vital if we are to move this issue from theory to practice. However, while the recommendations put forth by the authors are needed, we believe additional approaches are necessary to create marked change in gender parity in STEM. In particular, we propose that I-O psychologists (along with human resource [HR] professionals) need to actively engage organizational leaders if we want to successfully advance more women in STEM fields.

Increasing the representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is one of our nation's most pressing imperatives. As such, there has been increased lay and scholarly attention given to understanding the causes of women's underrepresentation in such fields. These explanations tend to fall into two main groupings: individual-level (i.e., her) explanations and social-structural (i.e., our) explanations. These two perspectives offer different lenses for illuminating the causes of gender inequity in STEM and point to different mechanisms by which to gain gender parity in STEM fields. In this article, we describe these two lenses and provide three examples of how each lens may differentially explain gender inequity in STEM. We argue that the social-structural lens provides a clearer picture of the causes of gender inequity in STEM, including how gaining gender equity in STEM may best be achieved. We then make a call to industrial/organizational psychologists to take a lead in addressing the societal-level causes of gender inequality in STEM.

We agree with Rotolo et al.’s (2018) assertion that talent management is a space where the academic–practice gap in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is quite cavernous and where the vulnerabilities to anti-I-O (AIO) are high. As researchers who began a journey a few years ago to explore the high potential (HiPo) identification process from the science perspective (largely inspired by Silzer & Church, 2009), we echo the frustration that the current focal authors express with the science-side lag in this area. For us, what started as a question from a senior officer in the Army turned into the development of a theoretical model and the start of multilocation research lab designed to further the understanding and success of the HiPo identification process. Our objective is to share a bit of our journey that got us to this point and some lessons for others inspired by this focal article to become anti-anti-I-O (AAIO) warriors.

Miner et al. (2018) do an excellent job of bringing the issue of gender disparity within STEM to the forefront of I-O psychology. However, we believe the focus on STEM is woefully inadequate and urge I-O psychologists to think bigger, better, and broader. There are clear problems with the way women are viewed and treated within the workforce, within the United States, and globally. In narrowing the discussion of the problem to target only STEM, we dramatically limit our understanding of and potential impact on the multifaceted and complex gender disparity problem in the world of work. Furthermore, we assert there are additional legitimizing myths that must be addressed in order to yield a more complete picture of the dilemma and allow us to move forward to make an impact.

Rotolo et al. (2018) decry the rise in use of trendy, simplistic human resource management (HRM) procedures and practices such as talent management, regardless of any solid scientific basis culled from relevant disciplines such as industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Furthermore, they observe a propagating spirit of anti-I-O psychology that has recently emerged and that should provoke our concern. What has ignited and fueled this reality? Correctly noted, Rotolo et al. indicate that I-O psychology academics have, over the years, lost touch with the actual preoccupying needs of managers in organizations. Instead of promoting novel fields of exploration and devising innovative tools and procedures, I-O scientists overly invest their time, energy, and ingenuity in methodological minutiae and theorizing.

The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

We commend Rotolo et al. (2018) for introducing a new lens for viewing the well-known gap between industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research and human resource (HR) practices in organizations. However, Rotolo et al.’s characterization of practitioner behavior as “anti I-O” suggests a particularly negative view of scientific research among some HR practitioners. The label implies that some HR practitioners are intentionally ignoring or actively resisting academic research. More likely, the behavior stems from a passive indifference to academia, which may be the appropriate attitude for some practitioners to adopt when a great deal of academic research is too slow, too theoretical, and too cryptically communicated to be useful in applied settings. We agree with Rotolo et al. when they say, “we are a discipline that is not geared for being cutting edge” (p. 182), and we appreciate their recommendations for addressing this lack of relevance. However, most recommendations in this broader discussion do not address the foundational problem within our field: a systemic mismatch between the incentives of practitioners and academics. To support this point, we briefly describe a typology of I-O psychologists as well as the varying contexts and incentives that drive their behavior. We then close with our own recommendations for how academia can improve its relevance to practitioners and close the gap. These changes are not easy, but we agree with Rotolo and colleagues that if any field can address such foundational problems, it is ours.