We discuss how organizations can evaluate psychological science for its potential usefulness to their own purposes. Common sense is often the default but inadequate alternative, and bench-marking supplies only collective hunches instead of validated principles. External validity is an empirical process of identifying moderator variables, not a simple yes-no judgment about whether lab results replicate in the field. Hence, convincing criteria must specify what constitutes high-quality empirical evidence for organizational use. First, we illustrate some theories and science that have potential use. Then we describe generally accepted criteria for scientific quality and consensus, starting with peer review for quality, and scientific agreement in forms ranging from surveys of experts to meta-analyses to National Research Council consensus reports. Linkages of basic science to organizations entail communicating expert scientific consensus, motivating managerial interest, and translating broad principles to specific contexts. We close with parting advice to both sides of the researcher-practitioner divide.