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.

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.