The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

These are exciting and changing times in the world of business overall and for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists in particular. To anticipate where human capital professionals may add the most value to organizations in the future, we asked 73 leading academics, consultants, association leaders, and senior human resources (HR) leaders to articulate what HR professionals need to know and do to be successful in the future. The responses create unique insights on challenges and opportunities for I-O psychologists who want to have impact from their work. We summarize these insights into 7 themes and discuss their implications for an emerging I-O mandate.

In their focal article, Schiemann and Ulrich (2017) provide a broad overview of thoughts and insights by 73 of today's human resources/industrial–organizational (HR/I-O) leaders. It was both interesting and valuable to hear from those “in the trenches” every day and to learn what they considered to be the key recommendations, cautions, and needs central to the HR/I-O practice of today—and tomorrow. That said, we were surprised that, considering the zeitgeist of the current workscape, work–family considerations did not make more of an appearance in these reports of leaders’ values and priorities for their organizations and for the field as a whole.

For years now, the call for human resources’ (HR's) head has been ringing through the halls of academic institutions and organizations throughout the globe. Whether it is Buckingham and Goodall (2015) calling for the total overhaul of performance management or Ram Charan (2014) asking us to split HR into the sum of its responsibilities, people have opinions of HR and the way it is practiced today and how it should be practiced in the future. The cavalcade of thought leaders, futurists, and soothsayers calling for the rethinking of HR seems longer than the procession at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Schiemann and Ulrich's (2017) discussion of opportunities for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology speaks directly to the growing movement of companies eliminating their performance ratings. One of the main issues that the focal article highlights is the need for strong analytics and measurement. A core domain of industrial psychology historically has been employee performance measurement. However, by some accounts, as of September 2015, at least 51 large companies were in the process of eliminating their performance ratings (Rock & Jones, 2015). Whether eliminating performance ratings is a good idea is a subject of debate in the I-O psychology community. In addition to a focal article in the summer of 2016 edition of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Adler, Campion, et al., 2016), several sessions addressed this topic at the 2016 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology convention (e.g., Adler, Colquitt, et al., 2016; Hettal, Garza, Levy, & Cleveland, 2016; Hunt et al., 2016; Roch & Gorman, 2016). The I-O psychology community appears to be divided on the value of performance ratings. In my opinion, the recent drive to abandon rigorous performance measurement appears to be a step backward rather than a step forward.

The central question posed by Schiemann and Ulrich (2017) focuses on what human resources (HR) leaders need to know or do to deliver business results in the new work environment. Although understanding the knowledge and capabilities that successful HR professionals need is critical, the focal article places an overemphasis on the characteristics of individual HR leaders alone, without fully exploring the environmental inhibitors of their strategic effectiveness. In this commentary, we argue that competencies and the environment must be given equal attention to maximize impact on business and talent outcomes. We first describe the strategic competency gap among HR professionals and discuss four key organizational barriers that impede the strategic impact of HR on the business. We then offer recommendations for how industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists and HR leaders can help remove these barriers to maximize strategic effectiveness.

Due to rising pressure to appear egalitarian, subtle discrimination pervades today's workplace. Although its ambiguous nature may make it seem innocuous on the surface, an abundance of empirical evidence suggests subtle discrimination undermines employee and organizational functioning, perhaps even more so than its overt counterpart. In the following article, we argue for a multidimensional and continuous, rather than categorical, framework for discrimination. In doing so, we propose that there exist several related but distinct continuums on which instances of discrimination vary, including subtlety, formality, and intentionality. Next, we argue for organizational scholarship to migrate toward a more developmental, dynamic perspective of subtle discrimination in order to build a more comprehensive understanding of its antecedents, underlying mechanisms, and outcomes. We further contend that everyone plays a part in the process of subtle discrimination at work and, as a result, bears some responsibility in addressing and remediating it. We conclude with a brief overview of research on subtle discrimination in the workplace from each of four stakeholder perspectives—targets, perpetrators, bystanders, and allies—and review promising strategies that can be implemented by each of these stakeholders to remediate subtle discrimination in the workplace.

Although intentionality may be a valuable spectrum on which to categorically distinguish instances of discrimination, we consider whether or not differences on this construct actually reveal differing impacts for targets. Specifically, we wonder whether intentionality is very relevant to the experiences of targets of discrimination or whether the negative consequences stemming from the discriminatory interactions occur regardless of the perpetrator's intent. Further, we explore the potential consequences related to a target attempting to confront discrimination of ambiguous intent. Finally, we discuss discrimination of ambiguous intent from the perspective of the perpetrator, outlining theories related to intentional versus unintentional subtle discrimination.

The focal article on subtle discrimination provided by Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, and Lindsey (2017) examines questions about the difference between overt and subtle discrimination and the conditions under which discrimination might vary by subtlety, formality, and intentionality. The authors suggest that a dynamic perspective of subtle discrimination would provide a more comprehensive understanding of its correlates. This article addresses two concerns regarding the authors’ proposition to move toward a dynamic model of subtle discrimination. The first concerns definitional issues and overlapping continuums that need to be more clearly distinguished in the model. The second addresses the lack of a theoretically derived process model.

In their target article, Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, and Lindsey (2017) make a compelling argument that discrimination may be best conceptualized continuously rather than categorically with respect to dimensions of subtlety, formality, and intentionality. We agree that such a framework can help capture the multifaceted nature of discrimination. The authors note that subtle and interpersonal discrimination, in particular, are difficult to address through formal organizational policy. In the workplace, subtle and often interpersonal discrimination can be overlooked or attributed to misunderstanding and, thus, may go unpunished (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004).

Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, and Lindsey (2017) present an expansive overview of microaggressive behaviors, with specific emphasis on the work place. Their overview includes the dimensionality of microaggressions (subtlety, formality, and intentionality), the dynamic and cyclical nature of a microaggressive culture, and the multitude of perspectives from which to view microaggressions (target, perpetrator, bystander, and ally). For any empirical study, researchers are faced with the challenge that microaggressions are subtle forms of discrimination often motivated by unconscious biases. As a result of this lack of personal insight, perpetrators and bystanders are likely to attribute microaggressive behaviors to nondiscriminatory reasons (i.e., defensive rationalizations). Furthermore, even if perpetrators and bystanders have insights into their bigotry, they are most likely socially astute enough to deny their bigotry through defensive rationalizations. Jones et al. (2017) provided many examples of microaggression research but did not directly address the methodological challenges. The purpose of the current commentary is to argue that situational judgment tests (SJTs) have great potential for the study of microaggressions within the Jones et al. (2017) framework.

We agree that the impact of subtle discrimination spawns from a dynamic process containing inherent cyclical elements, and we applaud the focal article's effort to provide clarity to a murky arena. More nefarious than the cycle, however, is the continued and typically unchecked presence of subtle discrimination in the workplace, which affords a clear path for prolonged and compounding negative effects. Although Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, and Lindsey (2017) touch on the potential for cumulative effects of subtle discrimination, we believe they missed an opportunity. The potential for cumulative effects of subtle discrimination to severely limit the career success of women and minorities is substantial and not well diagnosed (Agars, 2004). Building on their point, we wish to draw greater attention to this concern and articulate how the cumulative effects of subtle discrimination undermine the impact of performance management and limit the development and advancement of individuals from stigmatized groups.

A hotel concierge notices that her White female coworker earns higher tips from guests and wonders whether this disparity is attributable to race. A financial service specialist working at a bank considers whether his age is the reason why customers in need of consultation approach his younger coworkers more often. As these examples indicate, Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, and Lindsey's (2017) multidimensional framework extends to customer service contexts. In the sections that follow, we contextualize and extend many of Jones et al.’s arguments to the customer service industry, providing implications for both research and practice.

In the focal article, Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, and Lindsey (2017) provide a review and a conceptual framework for examining subtle discrimination in the workplace. The focal article, however, mainly focuses on subtle discrimination that occurs among coworkers and only mentions customers once. The current commentary delves deeper into this notion and extends their framework by focusing on customer-based subtle discrimination. We mainly focus on research from the service industry, in part because the service industry is the largest industry in the United States, employing more than half of all employees in the United States (Lopez, 2010), and because the service industry involves frequent customer interactions. Whether it is a server in a restaurant, a front-desk clerk at a hotel, a flight attendant on a plane, or an attendant in a retail store, stigmatized service employees often face subtle discrimination. Consistent with the focal article, we argue that the subtle discrimination faced by service employees can be both interpersonal (e.g., rudeness directed toward a stigmatized service employee) and formal (e.g., a lower tip for a stigmatized service employee). The purpose of this commentary is to highlight the research on subtle discrimination by customers, focusing on a discussion of the reasons why stigmatized service employees are particularly vulnerable to subtle discrimination from customers during service encounters.

The article on subtle discrimination by Jones and colleagues (K. P. Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, 2017) describes in detail and enriches the knowledge on this undesirable yet quite common phenomenon in organizations. In this comment, we argue that subtle discrimination behaviors are natural and predictable in view of organizational actions taken to increase diversity on one hand and prevent overt discrimination on the other hand. Also, practical ways to reduce the phenomenon are suggested.

Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, and Lindsey (2017) make the case that discrimination is multifaceted and can be identified along several continua. They also emphasize the role that every individual may play in the propagation of discrimination. As such, they make note of several interventions from bystanders and allies to combat subtle discrimination. Although we agree that subtle discrimination causes harm and that interventions targeted at such discrimination are necessary, we propose some additional considerations for the science and practice of subtle discrimination reduction. Specifically, we discuss the limitations of focusing on subtle discrimination at the individual level, the ambiguous nature of intentionality, the view of subtle discrimination as a manifestation of a hostile environment that falls under the broader umbrella of negative interpersonal treatment, and the emphasis placed by Jones et al. on the potential for organizational level interventions by proposing several considerations for tackling a climate of negative interpersonal treatment.

Compared with more turbulent times in history, some might argue workplace discrimination has seen a downward trend. Others would contend that workplace discrimination has “just gone underground” and become more covert (Herring, 2002, p. 13). Either way, not-so-distant historical events such as the landmark Texaco case in 1996 and the Ford Motor case in 2000 remind us that discrimination demands our attention. Calls for research on interventions have surfaced (Becker, Zawadzki, & Shields, 2014), and proposals such as legal reforms, implicit bias training (Bartlett, 2009), and experiential learning workshops have answered (Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube, & Shields, 2014). The focal article (Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, 2017) contributes to this discussion as it turns our attention to the construct space of discrimination and presents a framework for organizing its facets and forms. Without a doubt, a framework that lends itself to the integration of the many forms of discrimination is long overdue.

Employee engagement has long been an instrumental component of human capital strategies and continues to dominate the conversation about how high-performing organizations attract and retain their best talent. Engagement is a construct of component parts, however, and we believe there is still much to be learned about engagement by taking an in-depth look at those components. This article examines employee motivation as a core element of engagement, including its antecedents and outcomes, the types of motivation and the dynamics between them, and the ways organizations can foster and harness motivation for improved engagement. Our research identifies a large and consistent motivation gap, such that employee intrinsic motivation is consistently higher than extrinsic motivation. This gap signals that investments in engagement can yield a higher return if strategically focused on motivation, and so we offer recommendations regarding how to close this gap via intrinsically and extrinsically motivating work structures and environments. The goal is to create a new dialogue around engagement and encourage organizations to break it down in order to understand it more fully.