Rachel Sisu Rauvola

Gender inequity is an ongoing issue that organizations and society have failed to address fully. The (stalled) gender revolution is multidimensional and complex, and the “ideal worker myth” -- the outdated belief that the “ideal worker” can put work above all else in their life – is one such factor that perpetuates gender inequity at work. We use this article as a space to contribute to the conversation around gender equity and the myth of the ideal worker, especially in response to challenges highlighted during and since the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a crucial time at which the ideal worker should be subverted, as women’s participation in the paid workforce wasundermined by pandemic-related issues, perhaps even moving the gender revolution backward. Here, we provide an overview of these topics to orient our readers, and we recommend remedying these issues using an intersectional feminist approach in both research and practice. Our actionable recommendations are the crux of this article and are designed to promote gender equity and end the myth of the ideal worker once and for all.

Psychological research has been criticized for its lack of methodological transparency and representativeness. However, the interrelated nature of reporting and representation issues, and their manifestation in occupational health research specifically, remains undocumented. In this review, we coded sample characteristic- and reporting-related information from all occupational health-relevant studies published between 2010 and 2025 in four leading occupational health journals: the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Occupational Health Science, Stress & Health, and Work & Stress. We sought to answer two research questions: 1) how representative are samples of global and/or national population characteristics; and 2) how well do researchers adhere to the American Psychological Association’s (APA) reporting standards when writing about these samples and their research therewith? Informed by 28 sample- and sampling-relevant APA Journal Article Reporting Standards for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies, we coded information from included articles (Nmanuscripts = 1,296; Nstudies = 1,607; Nparticipants = 1,630,146) regarding whether certain sample or study attributes (e.g., demographics, contextual setting) and methodological or analytical decisions (e.g., sampling, missing data procedures) were reported, as well as what was reported and in what format. Results empirically document many forms of underreporting (e.g., participant race, socioeconomic status), underrepresentation (e.g., gender minorities, non-Western nations), and overrepresentation or selection bias (i.e., the “privileged worker effect”), as well as areas for standardization, modernization, and clarification to improve occupational health science and its applications. Recommendations for researchers and editors/reviewers, as well as considerations for theory, research, training, measurement, practice, and policy, are presented.

As of May 12, 2025, President Donald J. Trump had signed 152 executive orders (EOs)-a record for any U.S. president during their first 112 days in office (Peters & Woolley, 2025). These federallevel policy shifts have prompted various cascading effects and responses at state and local levels (e.g., John, 2025; Mahtesian, 2025). Many EOs and proposed policy changes across levels have direct implications for labor and employment in the United States, and the frenetic release and implementation of these policies has prompted new uncertainties and questions for the science and practice of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Whether reshaping workplace diversity initiatives and employment protections to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) and modifying labor standards, these policy changes have the potential to redefine how organizations function and how I-O psychologists conduct research, advise organizational stakeholders, and implement interventions. This special issue aimed to document a range of these potential policy implications for the field of I-O. Moreover, I-O psychologists are not only parties affected by these policy changes but also leading experts on work and workers. This issue is aimed, accordingly, to present various I-O analyses of and proposed responses to the current landscape of relevant U.S. policy changes. Through these accounts and their recommendations, we hope I-O psychologists, trainees, and organizations can orient to, understand, and adapt to policy change in an empirically and ethically sound manner. In the following sections of this editorial, we first discuss the topics covered in this issue's policy brief commentaries in greater detail, synthesizing key themes and perspectives on various interrelated policy changes. We organize the policy briefs into four areas, including those discussing policy related to (a) workplace settings and environments, (b) human resource management (HRM) processes, (c) worker perceptions and identities, and (d) higher education and training. Then, we explore additional considerations for I-O psychologists reading this special issue, highlighting the ongoing and dynamic nature of this turbulent political climate as well as its wide-reaching effects. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for I-O psychologists in supporting themselves, their colleagues, and the organizations and systems in which they workin the coming months and years of this administration and beyond.

Recent proposed and enacted policy changes across levels of the U.S. government stand to significantly affect industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology across science, practice, and training spheres. This special issue documents the nature of many work-relevant policy shifts, their implications for the field of I-O, and the ways I-O psychologists can continue to support rigorous research, education, and evidence-based practice in this new legal and political landscape. Topics covered include policy change related to where work takes place (e.g., return-to-office mandates), how human resource functions are managed and implemented (e.g., selection, benefits), whose work experiences are affected (e.g., transgender employees, minors), and impacts on higher education and academia (e.g., academic freedom, funding disruptions). This editorial summarizes these perspectives, presents additional considerations regarding the dynamic and ongoing nature of discussed policy shifts, and concludes with recommendations for I-O psychologists navigating this turbulent time.

Objective: Trauma can have a range of effects on individuals over time, including the potential for positive changes in favorable outcomes commonly referred to as posttraumatic growth. The posttraumatic growth literature has been criticized for various methodological limitations and has largely neglected the exploration of factors that may strengthen or weaken posttraumatic growth trajectories. The present study contributes to this literature by investigating trajectories of five dimensions of posttraumatic growth during the COVID‐19 pandemic and the moderating effects of health and financial difficulties on these trajectories.Method: Longitudinal data were collected monthly between July 2020 and December 2022 from a sample of employed adults in Germany, involving N = 1678 participants over 30 time points (N_observations = 29,552).Results: Results suggest that certain dimensions of posttraumatic growth showed significant increases (i.e., relationships) or decreases (i.e., spirituality and possibilities) over time and that trajectories of three dimensions (i.e., relationships, appreciation, and strength) demonstrated distinctive patterns of interaction with health and financial difficulties.Conclusions: Findings are discussed in the context of the pandemic as well as dynamic theories of personality and identity, with implications for advancing posttraumatic growth theory and research.

Objective. Trauma can have a range of effects on individuals over time, including the potential for positive changes in favorable outcomes commonly referred to as posttraumatic growth. The posttraumatic growth literature has been criticized for various methodological limitations and has largely neglected the exploration of factors that may strengthen or weaken posttraumatic growth trajectories. The present study contributes to this literature by investigating trajectories of five dimensions of posttraumatic growth during the COVID-19 pandemic and the moderating effects of health and financial difficulties on these trajectories. Method. Longitudinal data were collected monthly between July 2020 and December 2022 from a sample of employed adults in Germany, involving N = 1,678 participants over 30 time points (Nobservations = 29,552). Results. Results suggest that certain dimensions of posttraumatic growth showed significant increases (i.e., relationships) or decreases (i.e., spirituality, possibilities) over time, and that trajectories of three dimensions (i.e., relationships, appreciation, and strength) demonstrated distinctive patterns of interaction with health and financial difficulties. Conclusions. Findings are discussed in the context of the pandemic as well as dynamic theories of personality and identity, with implications for advancing posttraumatic growth theory and research.

Dual-income couples, where both partners in a romantic couple are employed, comprise a considerable portion of the workforce. Both partners can carry strain from paid work into the home, and the spillover-crossover model posits that individuals carry strain from one domain into another, affecting their well-being (i.e., spillover) and their partner’s well-being (i.e., crossover). Here, we present a meta-analysis examining the influence of actor’s and partner’s work-family conflict on their own and their partner’s marital satisfaction. We apply the actor-partner interdependence model to meta-analysis, demonstrating a methodologically robust synthesis of dyadic data. This novel approach allows us to rigorously test spillover-crossover theory and contribute to the scholarship on dual-income couples by providing a more holistic, field-wide summary of the relationships between work-family conflict and marital satisfaction. Results suggest that dual-income couples’ work-family conflict has a significant impact on their own and their partner’s marital satisfaction; spillover and crossover occurring between actor and partner work-family conflict explains variance in both actor and partner marital satisfaction. Our study provides methodological evidence to support the inclusion of dyadic data in meta-analysis, as well as expands our understanding of spillover and crossover in dual-income couples. Suggestions for future research and practice are presented.