We concur with Bergman and Jean (2016) that worker samples tend to be underrepresented in organizational research, which could have deleterious effects on the conclusions and practices derived from this research. However, we argue that the effects of underrepresentation could vary considerably by organizational domain (e.g., selection vs. leadership vs. satisfaction). Our focus with this commentary is to address its effects on organizational selection, particularly with employment interviews, including issues such as criterion-related validity, prevalence of student samples, and the four criteria outlined by the focal authors (overlooked phenomena, differences in construct meaning, worker status, and human capital patterns).

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provide illuminating analyses regarding the role of gender in career advancement within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. One of their suggestions for further advancing this area of research is to examine homophily, defined as the tendency for individuals to have social ties with those who are similar to themselves, in the social networks of men and women in the field. Such research is warranted because social networks—in particular, the networks of research collaboration relationships (e.g., publications, grants) scientists develop throughout their careers—are critical to success in academia (e.g., Bozeman & Corley, 2004).

Among many salient shifts in international development research over the last few decades has been growing legitimacy in recognition/documentation of the “rise of the South” as noted in the UNDP Human Development Report (2013). This has redirected both research and practice beyond just Northern (read “Western”) approaches, opened up new resource flows for “Southern” institutions, and initiated a whole new set of initiatives around “South–South” cooperation (Malik, 2014). To Mahbub ul Haq's original theme of “enlarging people's choices” were added new dimensions of looking beyond just western economies (and solely “economistic” analysis and prescriptions) for solutions to existential threats to sustainable development among the world's poorer nations (UNDP, 1990, p. 9). Fundamental shifts such as these, epitomized in Mahbub's well-known statement on human capacity, provide the basis for the focal article by Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) that builds skillfully on a framework, which of course also calls on Amartya Sen's work (so closely aligned with and influential in the Human Development Report series). The result is an original, carefully argued, and, perhaps some will agree, long overdue article synching the broad discipline of modern industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology into a more realistic awareness of how the majority of the world's populations sustain their livelihoods. However, there is a crucial “space” that I-O psychology seems to be still missing, and one barely touched on by this article, and that is the macropolicy environment that brings institutions in government and civil society together in more strategic approaches to developing human “resourcefulness.”

Ree, Carretta, and Teachout's (2015) arguments for recognizing the importance of general factors are mostly on point, but they neglect two broad issues: (a) an important theoretical problem introduced by the presence of multiple factors (general, group, specific) and (b) the criterion validity of group factors in certain settings.