Ethical leaders are those who exemplify moral behavior personally, as well as those who facilitate follower ethical behavior. Although recent attention has been given to the ethical leadership construct, there remains a lack of innovation regarding the assessment and development of ethical leaders in organizations. To address these issues, a pilot study was conducted to examine the convergent validity of an ethical leadership assessment center, as well as the efficacy of using assessment center feedback to foster ethical leadership. Assessees completed a battery of pre tests, a virtual business simulation with a novel exercise, and a set of post tests. Half of the assessees were randomly assigned to a feedback condition, whereas the other half did not receive feedback until after the post tests were completed. Due to low statistical power, quantitative results were inconclusive. Nevertheless, qualitative insights were gained that point to implications for validating assessment center methodologies when assessing and developing ethical leadership.

Preliminary research has demonstrated that not all assessment center (AC) exercises are viewed as equally just or motivating. The current research builds upon this research and investigates the relationships between six AC exercises and perceptions of self-efficacy, motivation, assessor bias, and fairness. Using a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design (two informational justice interventions and one rating timing intervention), 286 working adults completed a survey designed to investigate differences between AC exercises and to investigate interventions designed to influence AC exercise perceptions. The results show not only significant perceptual differences between assessor-rated exercises and an ability test but also differences among the rated exercises. The results suggest that an ability test can be perceived as both among the most just and motivating exercises. Lastly, even though the experimental interventions did not have their anticipated effects, the results suggest benefits to having assessors rate recorded participant behaviors versus rating “live” behaviors, benefits that to a certain extent depend on whether participants had previously attended an assessment center.

A paradigm shift toward a social-structural perspective may provide a better understanding of the gender inequity in STEM fields than its predecessor, but this perspective falls prey to the focal article authors’ (Miner et al., 2018) own criticisms: It offers an incomplete account of the phenomenon of interest. We argue that a multilevel systems perspective is the most appropriate approach when trying to understand any issue, especially an issue as dense as gender inequity in STEM. A deliberate effort to understand this phenomenon dynamically across levels and time can expand the scope of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists’ influence and can better protect us against interventions that result in unintended, adverse outcomes. Below, we discuss the importance of looking across multiple levels simultaneously to understand the temporal and interactional nature of individual and social-structural constructs. Without this depth of understanding, a disruption of the current structure may lead to an unstable, or unanticipated, new structure.