Professional ethics has not been a major focus in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology—in comparison with our study of unethical behavior in organizations. Consequently, we know very little about ethical situations actually faced by I-O psychologists. This article presents and tests a structural perspective on understanding the nature of ethical dilemmas that can facilitate such study. A taxonomy of five paradigmatic forms of ethical dilemmas is defined and placed in a theoretical context. Narrative descriptions of 292 ethical situations were obtained from a sample of 228 professional members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in the United States and were used to empirically test the taxonomy. The narratives were content analyzed for form of dilemma, work domain of occurrence, relevance to human resource administration concerns, and favorability of the situation’s resolution. The work domains that were most problematic were academic research/publication activities, individual assessment/assessment centers, consulting issues regarding the client, and academic supervising/mentoring. There were no significant differences as a function of respondents’ sex, seniority, or professional membership status (member/fellow). This relatively “content free” structural aspect of ethical dilemmas enables comparisons across different domains (of professions, organizations, demographic groups, age cohorts, etc.) in which the overt idiosyncratic ethical problems experienced are not commensurable. Similarly, it can yield interpretable longitudinal comparisons despite changes in the manifestations of ethical problems encountered over time.

In their focal article, Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Kaiser (2013) define career success objectively “in terms of occupational prestige and financial attainment.” However, it is clear from the careers literature that workers in early, mid, and late career are likely to define both subjective and objective career success differently (Wang, Olson, & Shultz, 2013). Therefore, we recommend an expanded definition of career success that includes both subjective and objective measures when exploring the relationship between employability and career success across individuals' careers.

Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) provide a summary of the conceptual confusion surrounding the construct of resilience as well as several key recommendations for spurring future organizational research on resilience. However, we feel that two key points were not adequately addressed in the focal article. First, we argue that we cannot fully understand the concept of resilience or apply it in our field of organizational studies without first understanding its fundamental theoretical groundings. Many of these underlying theoretical foundations on resilience were founded in and advanced through 50+ years of theory and research on family resilience literature; however, many of these perspectives were not addressed in the focal article. In this commentary, we outline and provide contextualized examples of how to apply one of the most widely used and empirically supported theoretical models of resilience—the ABC-X model (Hill, 1958)—to the work domain. Using the ABC-X model as a starting framework, we then highlight several additional theoretical perspectives that can inform research on employee resilience: Masten's (2001) ordinary magic, Antonovsky's (1979) sense of coherence, and Walsh's (2003) focus on strengths.

We applaud the efforts of Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) in their development of perpetrator predation as a sensitizing concept (see also Cortina, 2017) for future work in workplace aggression and mistreatment (hereafter workplace mistreatment). The importance of being mindful of the manner in which we frame our arguments is both highly relevant and well-articulated by the authors. We further believe that the transfer of focus from that of blaming victims to placing the onus for workplace mistreatment on the actor him/herself is an important idea as our field continues to develop into the 21st century.

It is very encouraging to see the stimulating commentaries in response to our article on identifying potential. These essays and the numerous recent published articles and conference presentations on potential reflect the widespread interest, as well as the challenges, of managing high-potential individuals in organizations. Based on our experience, and apparently also on the experience of commentary authors, many organizations and consulting firms are giving significant attention to this component of strategy-driven talent management (see also Oliver, Church, Lewis, & Desrosiers, 2009; Silzer & Church, in press; Silzer & Dowell, in press). Based on their insightful comments, it is clear that many of the commentary authors have been thinking about and working in the area of potential for a while.

This paper advocates for the value of open science in many areas of research. However, after briefly reviewing the fundamental principles underlying open science practices and their use and justification, the paper identifies four incompatibilities between those principles and scientific progress through applied research. The incompatibilities concern barriers to sharing and disclosure, limitations and deficiencies of overidentifying with hypothetico-deductive methods of inference, the paradox of replication efforts resulting in less robust findings, and changes to the professional research and publication culture such that it will narrow in favor of a specific style of research. Seven recommendations are presented to maximize the value of open science while minimizing its adverse effects on the advancement of science in practice.

As online graduate programs in psychology continue to proliferate, it is important to understand the research addressing the effectiveness of online graduate education so as to advise stakeholders in these programs: applicants, students, faculty, and institutions. In this article, we examine the effectiveness of online education in psychology at two levels of analysis. First, we examine empirical evidence at the course level: Do online, hybrid, and face-to-face instruction lead to different effects at the level of course outcomes? Second, we examine empirical evidence at the program level: Do online and face-to-face graduate programs provide different academic experiences for their respective students, and how does program type influence the employability of graduates? We supplement these discussions with results from a survey of faculty who converted graduate courses to online delivery methods during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring of 2020. Finally, we provide practical considerations for administrators, educators, students, and applicant stakeholders of online programs. We also offer suggestions for optimizing learning and development in online environments. Our intent is to stimulate discussion on building effective learning environments and continuing to educate optimally effective industrial-organizational psychologists, regardless of delivery modality.

Whereas Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) propose a model of situational judgment test (SJT) performance that removes the “situation” in favor of conceptualizing SJTs as a measure of general domain knowledge, we argue that the expression of general domain knowledge is in fact contingent on situational judgment. As we explain, the evidence cited by Lievens and Motowidlo against a situational component does not inherently exclude the importance of situations from SJTs and does overlook the strong support for a person–situation interaction explanation of behavior. Based on the interactionist literature—in particular, the trait activation theory (TAT) and situational strength literatures—we propose a model that both maintains the key pathways and definitions posited by Lievens and Motowidlo and integrates the situational component of SJTs.

One important issue not highlighted by Guzzo, Fink, King, Tonidandel, and Landis (2015) is that simply establishing construct validity will be significantly more challenging with big data than ever before. One needs to only look as far as the other social sciences analyzing big data (e.g., communications, economics, industrial engineering) to observe the difficulty of making valid claims as to what measured variables substantively “mean.” This presents a significant hurdle in the application of big data to organizational research questions because of the critical importance of demonstrating validity in the organizational sciences as highlighted by Guzzo et al.

Landers and Behrend (2015) question organizational researchers’ stubborn reliance on sample source to infer the validity of research findings, and they challenge the arbitrary distinctions researchers often make between sample sources. Unconditional favoritism toward particular sampling strategies (e.g., organizational samples) can restrict choices in methodology, which in turn may limit opportunities to answer certain research questions. Landers and Behrend (2015) contend that no sampling strategy is inherently superior (or inferior), and therefore, all types of samples warrant careful consideration before any validity-related conclusions can be made. Despite sound arguments, the focal article focuses its consideration on external validity and deemphasizes the potential influence of sample source on internal validity. Agreeing with the position that no samples are the “gold standard” in organizational research and practice, we focus on insufficient effort responding (IER; Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012) as a threat to internal validity across sample sources.