In their focal article, Lapierre et al. (2018) draw attention to several key unanswered concerns academics face in establishing, developing, and maintaining research partnerships with organizations. Though mentioned briefly in the article's introduction, one potential concern that would benefit from further attention is selling a potential research topic to organizations. Many academics find themselves with research interests that organizations would prefer to avoid shedding light on (e.g., workplace mistreatment, sexual harassment, hiring practices, diversity and inclusion practices, etc.). In these instances, it may be particularly difficult to convince key stakeholders within organizations to partner on research projects, especially in situations that might raise organizational fears of negative publicity. In their introduction, Lapierre et al. (2018) state that “middle or frontline managers may be reluctant to facilitate a study out of fear of what the research could reveal in terms of problems in their units, particularly if such problems might be perceived as reflecting poorly upon them (e.g., poor leadership skills)” (p. 545). Further, “managers may fear raising employees’ expectations or highlighting particular problems by involving them in research projects” (Lapierre et al., 2018, p. 544). In the following several paragraphs, I address how academics may proactively address and minimize these potential concerns. Although not meant to be an exhaustive set of recommendations, the goal is to provide several potential avenues for “selling” industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research to potential organizational stakeholders.

In their focal article, Aguinis et al. (2017) categorized the 6,654 unique citations, summed across the six introductory industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology texts, in various ways. They then suggested how such data could be used to (a) infer the “state” of the scientist–practitioner divide; (b) document the extent of the movement of I-O psychologists to management schools; (c) evaluate the future prospects of I-O psychology as a field; and (d) provide guidance in how to define, measure, and reward “scholarly impact” (quotation marks added). This crosses the line from interesting to very counterproductive.

In our focal article (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012), we suggested that increased dialogue and connection between researchers and practitioners focused on diversity in organizations and those focused on cross-cultural work psychology could be beneficial to growth and advancement in both fields. The thoughtful and intriguing commentaries to the article are heterogeneous both in the topics they focus on and in their relative emphasis on theory versus practice, and in our view support our call for more dialogue. In this response, we address some of the key issues the commentaries stimulated for us, including the notion of integration versus homogenization and the differential role of values in research in each field. We summarize by highlighting, as did many of the commentaries, the importance of multiple and diverse approaches and perspectives, a value consistent with both fields.

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.

Many of the larger employers in this country and abroad have benefited from industrial-organizational (I/O) psychologists’ evidence-based practice. However, charitable and not-for-profit organizations have not always been aware of our services or able to afford them when cognizant of them. Volunteering professional services to charitable organizations provides an opportunity to extend these benefits. In addition, volunteers reap the intrinsic rewards of service, acquire opportunities to hone their skills, and learn from others, and pro bono work has the potential of informing our understanding of the science and practice of I/O psychology. This paper provides five case studies from five I/O psychologists who share their volunteer experiences in their own words. Each case study describes what the I/O psychologist did for the organization, how he or she became involved, and what he or she got out of the experience and learned. The paper offers ways SIOP and the SIOP Foundation might facilitate volunteer activities and concludes by inviting readers to share their own volunteer experiences and suggestions for encouraging volunteer work.

We wonder whether theory alone can solve problems and answer questions faced by practitioners working on the front lines of assessment innovation. Stated another way, to what degree can current theories influence the application of our work to new technology when it comes available? We are speaking as practitioners working in selection, the area in which technology has been studied most commonly in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology (e.g., King, Ryan, Kantrowitz, Grelle, & Dainis, 2015). More specifically, we focus on the impact of mobile technology on our selection systems. We are excited for the focal article (Morelli, Potosky, Arthur, & Tippins, 2017) on theory development relative to technological advancement because much of the work we do in this area has not been discussed significantly in the literature. Our goal in this commentary is to review what we have learned about the implications of technology from our experience building and validating innovative prehire assessments.

Tett, Hundley, and Christiansen (2017) raise an important issue related to meta-analysis and our frequent overinterpretation of point estimates to the diminishment of variability of the estimate. We view this as analogous to the situation in which weather forecasters communicate the likely track of hurricanes. Such predictions involve point estimates of where the center of the storm is likely to be at some future time. These point estimates can be connected to identify the most likely path of the storm. In addition to these point estimates, however, forecasters caution that we should also attend to the “cone of uncertainty.” That is, we should not focus exclusively on the point estimate to the exclusion of the errors of prediction.

Los Angeles County's civil service rule specifies a 70% cutoff score regardless of the situation (type of job, type of assessment, or outcome of interest). This civil service rule would be difficult to defend if it were challenged in court, and the rule places the county at increased risk in the event of employment litigation, particularly with public safety jobs (police, fire, sheriff, etc.). Additionally, it is unlikely that this cutoff would optimally balance the county's interests in fair employment practices and expected job performance (SIOP, 2003). Given the propensity for public safety candidates and employees to file lawsuits related to hiring and promotions, and given the fact that public safety agencies in this county have been subjected to a number of employment-related lawsuits in the past, the current rule is problematic. Prior to this rule's development, as well as after its implementation in 1988, there has been substantial litigation related to cutoff scores, and courts have identified what they consider to be more and less appropriate methods for setting cutoff scores.

Modern technology and technological advances offer a variety of benefits and challenges for assessment, data collection, communication, and other research- and practice-related endeavors. The focal article written by Morelli, Potosky, Arthur, and Tippins (2017) offers a segue into discussions about some of these issues. Although the authors offer some unique insights, we believe their view is incomplete, as it is potentially limited by their focus on testing and assessment. Below, we outline a few key points we hope will advance the conversation. Our commentary is largely grounded in the field of human–computer interaction (HCI), which is an interdisciplinary field that integrates expertise from computer science, psychology (and other behavioral sciences), and many other fields. Whereas psychology tends to place the human user at the forefront of discussions concerning technology, HCI expands beyond just the user's psychology, focusing on the design of interfaces that allow users to interact with computing technology in new ways (Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983).