The commentaries provided an array of perspectives on identity management in our profession. However, there was general agreement on what should be central and distinctive about our field and on the need to cultivate a positive identity for the profession. The commentators also suggested a number of ways to cultivate this identity. For us, the commentaries also stimulated further reflection on our approach to training graduate students. We share our reflections and encourage readers to take the time to reflect on their own efforts to contribute to the profession's management of identity.

Aguinis et al.’s (2017) analysis of the “most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks” is a commendable piece of scholarship. Certainly, they have applied themselves to an important question and articulated a meaningful set of answers. We have no doubt too that for many readers the insights and answers they provide will be informative, compelling, and even reassuring—if only because they reinforce a view of the world with which they are familiar and by which they are comforted, even if that familiarity and comfort are framed in terms of a set of knotty professional concerns (Morton, Haslam, Postmes, & Ryan, 2006).

We are gratified by the large number of commentaries to our focal article (Dalal, Bonaccio, et al., 2010) that advocated greater integration of industrial–organizational psychology and organizational behavior (IOOB) with the field of judgment and decision making (JDM). The commentaries were uniformly constructive and civil. Our disagreements with the commentaries are mild and are limited primarily to the roles of external validity, internal validity, and laboratory experiments in IOOB. For the majority of our response, we attempt to build on the views expressed in the commentaries and to articulate some thoughts regarding the future. We structure our response according to the following themes: barriers to cross-fertilization between IOOB and JDM, areas of existing and potential JDM-to-IOOB cross-fertilization, areas of potential IOOB-to-JDM cross-fertilization, and ways to increase (and ideally institutionalize) cross-fertilization. We hope our focal article and our response to the commentaries will help to ignite exciting basic research and important practical applications associated with decision making in the workplace.

In their comprehensive apologetic treatment of synthetic validity, Johnson et al. (2010) echo Hough (2001), advocating development of a central synthetic validation database, which would serve as a repository of validity information to support future synthetic validation efforts. They offer two potential approaches for developing such a database. The first entails the conduct of “a large-scale study in which tests are administered to and performance ratings gathered on incumbents in a large number of jobs in a variety of organizations.” The authors consider this approach to be “ideal but impractical,” largely because of the scope and cost of the data collection required and the resulting investment required by any sponsoring organization. The second entails the conduct of multiple local studies to generate empirical estimates of relationships between measures of various predictor constructs and a standardized set of job components. Johnson et al. consider this approach more practical, citing Meyer, Dalal, and Bonaccio (2009) as a benchmark example.

Schiemann and Ulrich's (2017) discussion of opportunities for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology speaks directly to the growing movement of companies eliminating their performance ratings. One of the main issues that the focal article highlights is the need for strong analytics and measurement. A core domain of industrial psychology historically has been employee performance measurement. However, by some accounts, as of September 2015, at least 51 large companies were in the process of eliminating their performance ratings (Rock & Jones, 2015). Whether eliminating performance ratings is a good idea is a subject of debate in the I-O psychology community. In addition to a focal article in the summer of 2016 edition of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Adler, Campion, et al., 2016), several sessions addressed this topic at the 2016 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology convention (e.g., Adler, Colquitt, et al., 2016; Hettal, Garza, Levy, & Cleveland, 2016; Hunt et al., 2016; Roch & Gorman, 2016). The I-O psychology community appears to be divided on the value of performance ratings. In my opinion, the recent drive to abandon rigorous performance measurement appears to be a step backward rather than a step forward.

Aguinis and Glavas (2013) provide a framework for understanding corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs and their outcomes. They suggest that embedding CSR within the strategy and everyday practices of an organization will help employees find meaning and purpose in their work. However, successfully implementing a large-scale organizational change—such as embedding CSR in all aspects of strategy and day-to-day business practices—brings many challenges. For example, in order for organizational change initiatives to succeed, organizational members must buy into the change, those at the top must drive the change, organizational members must be held accountable for implementing the change, and rewards should be tied to the behaviors that align with the change (Austin & Bartunek, 2003). In this article, we will expand upon Aguinis and Glavas to provide recommendations of how to uncover a shared purpose to inform CSR initiatives. Herein we provide recommendations for how to increase the likelihood of success when embedding CSR by first achieving the necessary understanding of what drives the organizational members' purpose and meaning before implementing the change.