It is important for the research produced by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists to be rigorous, relevant, and useful to organizations. However, I-O psychology research is often not used in practice. In this paper, we (both practitioners and academics) argue that engaged scholarship—a particular method of inclusive, collaborative research that incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives throughout the research process—can help reduce this academic–practice gap and advance the impact of I-O psychology. To examine the current state of the field, we reviewed empirical evidence of the current prevalence of collaborative research by examining the number of articles that contain nonacademic authors across 14 key I-O psychology journals from 2018 to 2023. We then build on these findings by describing how engaged scholarship can be integrated throughout the research process and conclude with a call to action for I-O psychologists to conduct more collaborative research. Overall, our goal is to facilitate a fruitful conversation about the value of collaborative research that incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives throughout the research process in hopes of reducing the academic–practice gap. We also aim to inspire action in the field to maintain and enhance the impact of I-O psychology on the future world of work.

In this article, we call for a more inclusive field of I-O psychology that extends its consideration toward all workers—including nonhuman animal workers—as worthy of study and advocacy. Although many fields in psychology already incorporate nonhuman animals in their theories and implications, I-O has largely overlooked the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of these individuals, who engage in tasks that contribute to society. To demonstrate the intertwined nature of animal and human work, we summarize the variety of occupations and tasks that nonhuman animals have had within the history of humans. These animals have worked alongside humans for millennia, filling similar or complementary jobs that human workers perform. Although the nature of animal works varies, spanning different work dimensions, I-O psychology content areas address challenges found within each of the dimensions. We present a “work dimensions” framework that helps identify when an individual is a “worker” from the lens of I-O psychology. This framework highlights how the same critical work constructs considered for humans can likewise be considered for nonhuman labor. We describe several ways that a nonhuman animal-inclusive I-O can benefit the field along research, educational, and policy dimensions. By considering work along its fundamental characteristics and workers along their mental properties, I-O psychology can become more inclusive of a wide range of individuals at the margins of society.

Nearly 100 years ago, economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by today, technological advancements would allow the workweek to dwindle to just 15 hours, or 3 hours per day, and that the real problem of humanity would be filling their time with leisure. Although much has changed in the world of work since this prediction, such a drastic change has not taken place. In this article, several industrial-organizational psychology scholars discuss why this is the case. Why do we continue to work as much as we do, and how might that change? More fundamentally, what do these trends, contra Keynes’ prediction, tell us about the nature of work itself? We use this discussion to propose several research directions regarding the nature of work and how it might change in the future. We depict the phenomenon of working hours as multilevel in nature, and we consider both the positive and negative possible implications of working less than we do now.

This paper explores the impact of return-to-office (RTO) mandates on workplace inequality, particularly within the context of recent shifts in federal policies. The rapid adoption of remote and hybrid work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, offered significant benefits in terms of flexibility and work-life balance. However, recent regulatory changes, including RTO mandates, threaten to reverse these gains, disproportionately affecting women, caregivers, employees with disabilities, and low-wage workers. This paper critically examines the equity implications of RTO mandates and offers recommendations for industrial-organizational psychologists, organizational leaders, and policymakers to develop equitable, evidence-based approaches to remote and hybrid work that promote employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum that mandated all federal employees return to in-person work full time. Implementation guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) required rapid policy revisions. The order marks a sharp departure from prior federal telework policies, including longstanding efforts to expand flexible work as a tool for recruitment, retention, productivity, and inclusion. Contrary to claims that in-person work boosts efficiency, research shows remote work generally has no adverse impact on productivity and supports performance in both public and private sectors. The return-to-office mandate is likely to lead to turnover, particularly among highly skilled workers, creating risks of brain drain and diminished capacity to compete with the private sector for talent. It also threatens diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts by disproportionately burdening women, caregivers, individuals with disabilities, workers of color, and LGBTQ+ employees. These changes, alongside parallel executive actions undermining DEI programs, reflect a broader return to traditional, centralized models of work built on outdated “ideal worker” norms. These changes have the potential to negatively reshape federal employment for years to come.

Over the past decade, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has spurred a wave of ambitious initiatives from leading technology giants, as well as significant policy responses from governments worldwide (Taeihagh, 2021). Companies such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and OpenAI have invested heavily in AI research and development, aiming to push the boundaries of machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and other AI-driven innovations (Odhabi & Abi-Raad, 2024; van der Vlist et al., 2024). These advancements are not only transforming industries but are also reshaping workplace dynamics such as talent management (Vaiman et al., 2021) and organizational behavior (Mudunuri et al., 2025), creating new challenges and opportunities for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology (see Asfahani, 2022 for a review). As AI technologies become increasingly integrated into various human resource (HR) practices and decision-making processes (Vrontis et al., 2022), I-O psychologists are uniquely positioned to address the implications of these changes for workforce development and organizational effectiveness.

As part of a larger campaign to end diversity, equity, and inclusion, President Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order 14173 eliminated EO 11246 “Equal Employment Opportunity.” In this brief, we provided background on the often-misunderstood EO 11246 and discuss the potential implications of its reversal considering previous state legislation banning affirmative action and the current political context.