In our focal article, we contended that overqualified employees may present unique advantages to hiring organizations and that decisions regarding overqualified employees should be made considering the strengths as well as potential limitations of employing overqualified employees. In this response to commentaries on our original article, we identify distinctions researchers should pay attention to. Specifically, measurement of overqualification (whether objective or subjective measures are used), dimension of overqualification in question (overeducation, being overskilled, overintelligence, or overexperience), when and from whose perspective overqualification is assessed (before or after employment), whether overqualification occurs within the context of other overqualified employees, the degree of choice available to the job applicant in becoming overqualified, as well as the specific nature of the population being affected by overqualification are important issues that affect the theory as well as management of overqualification.

This response summarizes commentaries on the M. A. McDaniel, S. Kepes, and G. C. Banks (2011) article, which argued that the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Several themes were present in the commentaries. No compelling arguments were presented to dispute the assertion that mean racial differences in job-related attributes will be with us for a long time. However, compelling arguments were made that the disparate impact theory of discrimination is a more central issue for personnel selection than the Uniform Guidelines. Similarly, arguments were presented that the assessment of adverse impact is problematic and that expert witness testimony needs improvement. Areas in need of further investigation were also identified. Finally, the role of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in guiding regulatory, legislative, and court actions was considered.

The commentaries on our focal article agreed with its main premise that work–family research should follow new strategies to improve its practical impact, and made suggestions clustering into three main themes. The first theme built on our suggestion to improve the research focus, terminology, and framing of work-family research. These essays offered additional ideas such as decoupling work-family from work-life research, and examining contextual factors more deeply. The second theme focused on how to better apply the findings from work family research. These commentaries provided social change approaches for making work-family issues more central to key stakeholders and to organizations. The third theme focused on broadening our scope to the societal level. These editorials advocated tactics supporting the development of basic rights of work–life balance within and across nations.

We have structured our response around 3 rough categories of commentary themes: those that provided illustrations of existing person-centric research, those that provided novel ideas about extending the viewpoint to traditional research areas, and those that criticized our neglect of issues of morality and power differences. In our response, we clarify and reiterate our position as advocating a science of first-person work experience. In doing so, we differentiate our agenda from others labeled person-centric but not first-person experiential in the way we describe it. We also differentiate our position from a primary interest in worker treatment and well-being, except as part of work experience, and defend that difference.