Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2012), 120–126. Copyright  2012 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/12 RESPONSE From Possible to Probable: The Psychology of Competitive Advantage ROBERT E. PLOYHART University of South Carolina Abstract This article responds to and extends the commentaries on the psychology of competitive advantage focal article. In general, the commentaries stressed that (a) the connection between industrial – organizational (I – O) psychology and strategy should go beyond resource-based theory and competitive advantage, (b) there are some existing examples of strategic I–O research, and (c) practitioners are already integrating I–O psychology with strategy. In this article, I use these commentaries as a means of generating actionable steps (e.g., research studies) to make the strategic adjacent possibility a reality. I conclude by arguing that understanding the psychology underlying firm competitiveness is the defining question of our time, and perhaps even the future of I–O psychology. I greatly appreciate the time and thought the commentators provided to the focal article on the psychology of competitive advantage (Ployhart, 2012). I found the commentaries to be interesting and provocative, and per- haps most importantly, expand an idea from an adjacent possibility into one with many possibilities. In fact, the commentaries leave me more encouraged than ever that an I – O strategic possibility is becoming a reality. But there are certainly differences of opin- ion on the roads we should travel that will get us there—and in my opinion, that is a good thing. There was not much debate about whether I–O psychology should expand its focus to consider issues of strategic importance and competitive advantage. I suppose it would be crazy to argue I–O psychology should not take such a view. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert E. Ployhart. E-mail: ployhart@moore.sc.edu Address: Department of Management, Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29212 This is itself interesting because most I–O published research and doctoral training gives little to no attention to strategic topics or issues. But I am a bit surprised that there wasn’t more push-back on the idea that individual differences may not always contribute to the competitive advantage of firms. I suspect the lack of response signifies an openness to consider other ways of looking at how our science and practice contribute to competitive advantage. I believe this is also a very good thing. There are three major themes raised in the commentaries. First, many viewed my emphasis on resource-based theory (RBT) and competitive advantage as too adjacent, and these authors suggested other ways that I–O psychology can contribute to strategy and competitive advantage. This theme has two parts: too much emphasis on RBT (e.g., Boudreau, 2012; Cawley & Snyder, 2012; Curtis, 2012; Noe & Tews, 2012; Rauch & Frese, 2012; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2012) and too much emphasis on competitive advantage (Boudreau, 2012; Cawley & Snyder, 2012; 120