1Over a decade of research attests to the importance of resilience in the workplace for 2 employee well-being and performance. Yet, surprisingly, there has been no attempt to resilience training can improve personal resilience, and is a useful means of developing 10 mental health and subjective well-being in employees. We also found that resilience training 11 has a number of wider benefits that include enhanced psychosocial functioning and improved 12 performance. Due to the lack of coherence in design and implementation, we cannot draw 13 any firm conclusions about the most effective content and format of resilience training. 14 Therefore, going forward, it is vital that future research uses comparative designs to assess 15 the utility of different training regimes, explores whether some people might benefit 16 more/less from resilience training, and demonstrates consistency in terms of how resilience is 17 defined, conceptualized, developed, and assessed.

Although a number of studies have examined individual personality traits and their influence on accident involvement, consistent evidence of a predictive relationship is lacking due to contradictory findings. The current study reports a meta‐analysis of the relationship between accident involvement and the Big Five personality dimensions (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness). Low conscientiousness and low agreeableness were found to be valid and generalizable predictors of accident involvement, with corrected mean validities of .27 and .26, respectively. The context of the accident acts as a moderator in the personality–accident relationship, with different personality dimensions associated with occupational and non‐occupational accidents. Extraversion was found to be a valid and generalizable predictor of traffic accidents, but not occupational accidents. Avenues for further research are highlighted and discussed.

The main elements in the design and validation of personnel selection procedures have been in place for many years. The role of job analysis, contemporary models of work performance and criteria are reviewed critically. After identifying some important issues and reviewing research work on attracting applicants, including applicant perceptions of personnel selection processes, the research on major personnel selection methods is reviewed. Recent work on cognitive ability has confirmed the good criterion‐related validity, but problems of adverse impact remain. Work on personality is progressing beyond studies designed simply to explore the criterion‐related validity of personality. Interview and assessment centre research is reviewed, and recent studies indicating the key constructs measured by both are discussed. In both cases, one of the key constructs measured seems to be generally cognitive ability. Biodata validity and the processes used to develop biodata instruments are also critically reviewed. The article concludes with a critical evaluation of the processes for obtaining validity evidence (primarily from meta‐analyses) and the limitations of the current state of the art. Speculative future prospects are briefly reviewed.

PurposeBy introducing the concept of “full engagement,” this article aims to propose that employee engagement is more likely to be sustainable when employee well‐being is also high.Design/methodology/approachResearch evidence covering the separate concepts is reviewed and evidence of the benefits that both engagement and well‐being confer on organizations is presented.FindingsMost current perspectives on employee engagement include little of direct relevance to well‐being and reflect a narrow, commitment‐based view of engagement. This view focuses too heavily on benefits to organizations. A broader conception of engagement (referred to as “full engagement”), which includes employee well‐being, is a better basis for building sustainable benefits for individuals and organizations.Research limitations/implicationsResearch exploring the links between employee engagement and well‐being is needed to validate and develop the propositions put forward in this article.Practical implicationsA model for improving full engagement in organizations is presented and brief; case study illustrations are also given.Originality/valueThe integration of well‐being and commitment‐based engagement into the single construct of full engagement provides a novel perspective.