Advancing I-O’s engagement with labor through institutionally supported interdisciplinarity

Lefkowitz and colleagues' (2026) central critique is that, despite ethical imperatives foundational to the field of applied psychology, research and practice of I-O have prioritized management perspectives and led some to ultimately fulfill roles as "servants of power" (Baritz, 1960).Although we contend this problematization does not capture the entirety of the field and its sustained prosocial aims (e.g., humanitarian work psychology and positive organizational scholarship; Carr, 2025; Tay et al., 2023), we affirm there are opportunities to reinforce the field's dual commitment to "enhance human well-being and performance" (SIOP, 2026).In this commentary, we argue: (a) I-O psychology has a strong, growing history of emphasizing human well-being, which naturally extends to labor union research; (b) I-O and industrial relations (IR) converge on some fundamental values despite distinct frames of reference, and both fields have sought to adapt to shifting contexts while maintaining proworker orientations; and (c) meaningful engagement with unions requires deep, sustained interdisciplinary collaboration supported by structural mechanisms that prioritize workercentered research and practice.