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.

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.

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).

The purpose of this comment is to advocate for the development of a synthetic validity database along the lines described by Johnson et al. (2010), not only because of its practical utility but also because of its potential contribution to the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology generally. Specifically, one of the core scientific pursuits of psychology is the understanding of individual differences (IDs). Knowledge of the context in which specific IDs matter (i.e., in terms of level of behaviors exhibited) can provide information about the nature of those IDs. For example, if the degree to which a job requires continuous learning of symbolic material is related to the predictive validity of general cognitive ability (g; i.e., learning context moderates the g–performance relationship), it is likely that g has something to do with the acquisition of new knowledge. Alternatively, or additionally, if the degree to which a job requires making decisions among large numbers of multi-attribute options is related to the validity of g as a predictor of job performance, it implies that g involves information processing capacity (and perhaps it is via this mechanism that g is related to learning). That is, evidence of the moderator effects of context (i.e., conditions on which jobs or tasks vary) on ID–performance relationships provides information about the nature of the ID construct, as well as whether the ID construct is likely to be predictive of performance in any particular context. This is another reason to develop a database that indicates what context variables predict the validities of ID constructs.

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.

Viewing production-line workers from a historical standpoint, the attention on manufacturing in the 19th and into the 20th centuries was on production (Fifelski, 2014) and production-oriented leadership style, in contrast to employee-oriented leadership style (Likert, 1961; see also Kosicek, Soni, Sandbothe, & Slack, 2012). Around the turn of the 20th century, changes took place, and it appears as if two different approaches were taken in manufacturing environments: research–practitioner-based leadership approaches and management-based leadership approaches; the latter approach is less a leadership style and more a social management philosophy em+phasizing business operation (Vitolla, Rubino, & Garzoni, 2017). This review should bring awareness that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists once took on the lead to major successes that arose from work in manufacturing companies; however, today there is hardly any contribution by I-O psychologists to the manufacturing sector.

Better focus on the frontier of talent management (TM), the thesis of the focal article by Rotolo et al. (2018), is necessary but not by itself a sufficient condition for I-O psychologists (IOP) to influence organizational decision makers. Although I agree with the substance of their perspective, as professional psychologists we also need to communicate in a manner that decision makers recognize as worthy of their time and attention. We should pay greater attention to how, why, and when organizational stakeholders embrace, reject, or overlook our insights and recommendations.

Opinions have been divided regarding the relevance of the APA Ethics Code to non-mental health specialties and even whether the code should attempt to encompass all psychology specializations. However, these opinions have crystallized without the benefit of any appreciable empirical data, until now. This study investigates the applicability of the ethical principles and standards of the code to 398 first-person narratives of ethical incidents reported by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists. On average, 2.8 (of the 5) principles enumerated in the code were deemed applicable to each incident, and each principle was applicable to more than half the incidents provided. Of the code’s 89 ethical standards, 75 (84.3%) were applicable to at least one incident. Among the 10 categories of standards, resolving ethical issues and human relations were the most frequently applicable, whereas therapy standards were virtually never applicable. However, for 42.7% of the incidents, trained judges identified a substantive deficiency or ambiguity for I-O psychologists in the code. These deficiencies were subsequently grouped into seven higher order categories (assessments in organizations; research practices; data management; professional interactions; business practices; student ethics; and proactive ethical behavior). Recommendations are offered for improving those putative deficiencies, and implications are discussed for I-O psychologists, the APA’s Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF), and other nonclinical domains of psychology.

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.