One of the typical roles of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists working as practitioners is administering employee surveys measuring job satisfaction/engagement. Traditionally, this work has involved developing (or choosing) the items for the survey, administering the items to employees, analyzing the data, and providing stakeholders with summary results (e.g., percentages of positive responses, item means). In recent years, I-O psychologists moved into uncharted territory via the use of survey key driver analysis (SKDA), which aims to identify the most critical items in a survey for action planning purposes. Typically, this analysis involves correlating (or regressing) a self-report criterion item (e.g., “considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job”) with (or on) each of the remaining survey items in an attempt to identify which items are “driving” job satisfaction/engagement. It is also possible to use an index score (i.e., a scale score formed from several items) as the criterion instead of a single item. That the criterion measure (regardless of being a single item or an index) is internal to the survey from which predictors are drawn distinguishes this practice from linkage research. This methodology is not widely covered in survey methodology coursework, and there are few peer-reviewed articles on it. Yet, a number of practitioners are marketing this service to their clients. In this focal article, a group of practitioners with extensive applied survey research experience uncovers several methodological issues with SKDA. Data from a large multiorganizational survey are used to back up claims about these issues. One issue is that SKDA ignores the psychometric reality that item standard deviations impact which items are chosen as drivers. Another issue is that the analysis ignores the factor structure of survey item responses. Furthermore, conducting this analysis each time a survey is administered conflicts with the lack of situational and temporal specificity. Additionally, it is problematic to imply causal relationships from the correlational data seen in most surveys. Most surprisingly, randomly choosing items out of a hat yields validities similar to those from conducting the analysis. Thus, we recommend that survey providers stop conducting SKDA until they can produce science that backs up this practice. These issues, in concert with the lack of literature examining the practice, make rigorous evaluations of SKDA a timely inquiry.

Practice and research with senior leaders can be rewarding but also challenging and risky for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists; the fact that much of the work with these populations is difficult to access elevates these concerns. In this article we summarize work presented by prominent researchers and practitioners at a symposium organized to share common practices and challenges associated with work at higher levels of organizational management. We review implications for research and practice with senior leaders by examining how assessments are applied at senior levels, how assessments and development practices can be linked, and the challenges associated with research and evaluation conducted with these leaders. Also, we offer suggestions for advancing research and practice at senior levels.

It is not often that one gets the opportunity to engage other scholars in lively written dialogue on a topic close to his/her professional heart. So I felt honored to provide the target article on work motivation (Kanfer, 2009), and I looked forward to reading my colleagues’ commentaries. As I had hoped, each commentary was quite stimulating. Some commentaries were also provocative, whereas others were more instructive. Regardless of orientation and issue, however, each commentary reflected a positive, forward-looking tone. That is, from a Reichenbach (1951) perspective, the commentaries seem to emphasize discovery (e.g., building new perspectives and approaches) over justification (e.g., extending, refining, and reconciling extant theories that dominated much of the late 20th century). Although paradigmatic work remains important, its role is cast more in the service of new advances rather than the other way around. As the commentaries also demonstrate, many new ideas and research directions are emerging. Their traction and utility for work motivation scientists and organizational personnel raise exciting, empirical questions.

Commentators expressed a wide variety of views on my evaluation of the state of assessment center (AC) research and practice. In this response, I first trace the evolution of the construct validity paradox “urban legend.” Next, I consider the commentators’ comments as they relate to (a) my recommendation to abandon dimension-based ACs in lieu of task- or role-based structures (b) my recommendation to discontinue design fix attempts toward making ACs conform to multitrait–multimethod construct validity criteria, and (c) considerations of construct validity and validation evidence. Finally, I offer some directions for future AC research and practice.

Adler et al. (2016) present a comprehensive review of the fundamental and painful problems of performance appraisal in organizations, from which it appears that we cannot do without performance appraisal because of its benefits, and we cannot do with it because of its flaws. If so, how can organizations make a decision on this issue? Mend them or end them? (See also Culbertson, Krome, McHenry, Stetzer, & van Ittersum, 2013.)

There is understandable concern by LeBreton, Scherer, and James (2014) that psychometric corrections in organizational research are nothing more than a form of statistical hydraulics. Statistical corrections for measurement error variance and range restriction might inappropriately ratchet observed effects upward into regions of practical significance and publication glory—at the expense of highly questionable results.

The focal article written by Bergman and Jean (2016) draws attention to a critical void in the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology domain: the study of low- and medium-skill workers. Although segmenting employees based on their job status may provide new conceptualizations of employee work experiences, this approach may not provide the nuanced view necessary to fully comprehend the many ways in which employees differentially experience the workplace. Within this category of workers, experiences may vary based on employees’ race, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), or other identity-defining characteristics, and these person-specific identities may interact with one another. An intersectional research approach provides a foundation on which researchers can more fully understand how individuals’ multiple social identities interact to affect their workplace experiences. In the commentary that follows, we provide an overview of intersectional research and describe how such a perspective would lead to meaningful developments within I-O psychology.

Ruggs et al. (2016) describe paths through which industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology can make a dent in the ongoing policing problems in the United States. These paths include traditional I-O areas such as improved selection models, increased training, and changed organizational climates. However, there might be one fairly straightforward way in which police organizations can quickly reduce use-of-force problems: women. Because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents selection based on sex, police departments obviously cannot hire women just because they are women. But police departments can and, we argue, should recruit more women to apply for police officer positions, create work practices and experiences that are attractive to and supportive of women (Hassell & Brandl, 2009), and make efforts to retain female officers because of the evidence that female officers use less force when policing (Bolger, 2015). Additionally, police organizations and I-O psychologists should also work together to discover why women are less likely to use force and, subsequently, determine whether these characteristics can be selected or trained for in either sex.

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) have cogently suggested that workplace mistreatment should be viewed through a “lens” that squarely implicates the perpetrator (i.e., the perpetrator predation framework) rather than through a lens that at least partially absolves the perpetrator while blaming the victim for inviting, or not actively resisting, the mistreatment (i.e., the victim precipitation framework). We agree that the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for policy, practice, and law. Furthermore, however, the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for science. Whereas Cortina et al. allude briefly to the scientific benefits of a perpetrator-focused framework, the current commentary fleshes out these benefits and outlines an agenda for future perpetrator-focused research on workplace mistreatment.

As noted in the focal article (Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, & Hogan, 2016), recent advances in technology have provided new tools for talent identification; however, identification alone is not enough to win the war for talent (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michael, 1998). Big data, social media, and mobile apps provide access to previously untapped information about individuals; unfortunately, that information has limited value if it cannot be used to attract and retain the top talent it identifies. Therefore, new tools for talent identification must also be vetted for how well they provide human resource (HR) practitioners a means for attracting top talent and retaining that talent. Although far from a silver bullet, gamification opens the door for collecting information on an individual's talent potential while also fostering organizational attraction and employee retention.