The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

Despite years of research and practice, dissatisfaction with performance appraisal is at an all-time high. Organizations are contemplating changes to their performance management systems, the most controversial of which is whether to eliminate performance ratings. The pros and cons of retaining performance ratings were the subject of a lively, standing-room-only debate at the 2015 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference in Philadelphia (Adler, 2015). Given the high interest in this topic, this article recaps the points made by the panelists who participated in the debate. The arguments for eliminating ratings include these: (a) the disappointing interventions, (b) the disagreement when multiple raters evaluate the same performance, (c) the failure to develop adequate criteria for evaluating ratings, (d) the weak relationship between the performance of ratees and the ratings they receive, (e) the conflicting purposes of performance ratings in organizations, (f) the inconsistent effects of performance feedback on subsequent performance, and (g) the weak relationship between performance rating research and practice in organizations. The arguments for retaining ratings include (a) the recognition that changing the rating process is likely to have minimal effect on the performance management process as a whole, (b) performance is always evaluated in some manner, (c) “too hard” is no excuse for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, (d) ratings and differentiated evaluations have many merits for improving organizations, (e) artificial tradeoffs are driving organizations to inappropriately abandon ratings, (f) the alternatives to ratings may be worse, and (g) the better questions are these: How could performance ratings be improved, and are we conducting the entire performance management process properly? The article closes with questions organizational members have found useful for driving effective performance management reform.

Recent media coverage has called attention to what some see as an unreasonable use of force by law enforcement officers against unarmed Black citizens. Many of these incidents have stirred widespread concern, as there has been a large public outcry indicating that the incidents appear to have racial undertones, which is particularly pronounced given the fatal consequences that are too frequent. This article focuses on how psychological research on racial bias can explain some of the cognitive and affective processes that could be influencing law enforcement officer behavior in at least some of these incidents. Further, we discuss how industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists can use this research and leverage current practices within the field to develop solutions and effectively deal with individual racial biases among officers within the law enforcement community. We also discuss avenues of future research within I-O psychology and hope to spark a conversation within the I-O community about additional ways the field can address tensions that have arisen between law enforcement and different communities regarding perceptions of excessive use of force by officers.

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are typically conceptualized as contextualized selection procedures that capture candidate responses to a set of relevant job situations as a basis for prediction. SJTs share their sample-based and contextualized approach with work samples and assessment center exercises, although they differ from these other simulations by presenting the situations in a low-fidelity (e.g., written) format. In addition, SJTs do not require candidates to respond through actual behavior because they capture candidates’ situational judgment via a multiple-choice response format. Accordingly, SJTs have also been labeled low-fidelity simulations. This SJT paradigm has been very successful: In the last 2 decades, scientific interest in SJTs has grown, and they have made rapid inroads in practice as attractive, versatile, and valid selection procedures. Contrary to their popularity and the voluminous research on their criterion-related validity, however, there has been little attention to developing a theory of why SJTs work. Similarly, in SJT development, often little emphasis is placed on measuring clear and explicit constructs. Therefore, Landy (2007) referred to SJTs as “psychometric alchemy” (p. 418).

Qualitative methods are gaining prominence in psychology, as well as related fields such as organizational behavior. Yet, we can find little evidence of qualitative research in our top industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology journals. We argue that the lack of research employing qualitative methods is a loss for the field, and we explore the reasons why few scholars adopt this approach. We then explore where this type of research is published and where it is not. Finally, we discuss and debunk several myths that continue to characterize qualitative methods with an eye toward encouraging a greater appreciation and acceptance of this research tradition.

The debate over eliminating performance ratings addresses many important theoretical and practical issues. However, the academic debate on the topic is disconnected from the concerns of practitioners. Knowledge gained from theory-driven research is not leading practice on the use of performance ratings, despite the large volume of potentially relevant research findings. Many organizations are charging ahead with performance management solutions that seem sensible to them. They may be interested in academic research, but they are not waiting for it. We will argue that academic researchers who hope to influence practice need to better understand the concerns of practitioners and the research opportunities that are presented by contemporary practice.

Much of police psychology over the past 50 years or so has been clinically focused. The role and function of the industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologist within the context of law enforcement was highlighted by Lefkowitz (1977), and in the years since, the contributions of I-O psychology applied to law enforcement issues have become increasingly valued. It is, therefore, appreciated that Ruggs et al. (2016) offer suggestions for how I-O psychologists might get involved in addressing some of the current hot spots in police work.

Whereas Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) propose a model of situational judgment test (SJT) performance that removes the “situation” in favor of conceptualizing SJTs as a measure of general domain knowledge, we argue that the expression of general domain knowledge is in fact contingent on situational judgment. As we explain, the evidence cited by Lievens and Motowidlo against a situational component does not inherently exclude the importance of situations from SJTs and does overlook the strong support for a person–situation interaction explanation of behavior. Based on the interactionist literature—in particular, the trait activation theory (TAT) and situational strength literatures—we propose a model that both maintains the key pathways and definitions posited by Lievens and Motowidlo and integrates the situational component of SJTs.

A persistent lament by qualitative organizational researchers is that qualitative research is not published, published enough, cited enough, or valued by industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists. Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) present convincing data that there has been an increase in the visibility of qualitative studies throughout many organizational research journals, though some of the flagship journals in I-O psychology are less receptive. Also, they present a series of suggestions that largely entail ways that journal editors and nonqualitative researchers can adapt their attitudes and behaviors to help qualitative research have more of an impact. I agree with those suggestions and think that they should be pursued. On the other hand, I was disappointed that none of the suggestions presented by Pratt and Bonaccio offered things that qualitative researchers might do to make their research more impactful to I-O psychologists. For qualitative research to have a bigger impact in the organizational literature, qualitative researchers need to make changes as well. In this short commentary, I propose three things that qualitative researchers might do to improve their impact within the field of I-O psychology.

In the focal article, Ruggs et al. (2016) outline the ways in which psychological theory and research can provide insight into the potential underlying processes behind recent conflict between law enforcement officials and the community. These incidents have led to national questions regarding the training and standard operating procedure of police, as well as society's beliefs about the prevalence of stereotyping. The authors identify how psychological research, and social psychological and industrial–organizational research in particular, can play a role in shaping these issues for organizational practices moving forward.

Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) ask why there is very little qualitative research published in “top [industrial–organizational] I-O” journals, such as the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), Personnel Psychology (PP), or Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP). They propose better training, placing skilled qualitative researchers on editorial boards, and “dispelling” myths related to qualitative research as a way to begin changing this situation. Even if these I-O journals explicitly invite qualitative work for its own sake, I do not think the steps Pratt and Bonaccio propose will have the intended effect, however valuable they may be in other respects.

In their focal article, Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) consider procedural knowledge about effective actions in work situations as the key component of their theory of situational judgment tests (SJTs). In our commentary we want to suggest that situational judgment should nevertheless not be neglected in such a theory.

Colquitt, Murphy, and Ollander-Krane (Adler et al., 2016) argue that performance ratings are problematic in part because of the problems associated with feedback: Ratees dislike and dismiss performance feedback, raters are reluctant to provide tough feedback, and organizations do not enact research findings about improving feedback processes (Adler et al.). Discarding performance ratings on these grounds is effectively “throwing out the baby with the bath water,” given that we know quite a lot about how to improve the delivery and receptivity of feedback. Our commentary is intended to briefly illustrate ways to leverage research on feedback receptivity to improve performance management systems. Specifically, we focus on (a) cultivating supportive feedback environments, (b) integrating employee coaching into performance management systems, and (c) attending to the characteristics of feedback recipients to understand how they process feedback.

Amid the debate about getting rid of formal performance ratings, the practical implications for managers should be carefully considered. Adler et al. (2016) acknowledged some implications for managers who evaluate their subordinates with the traditional formal review. However, they do not fully explore the implications for managers when organizations trade formal performance reviews for frequent, less-formal performance conversations, which are a very popular alternative (Meinert, 2015; Rock & Jones, 2015; Wilkie, 2015). It is possible that organizations will benefit when formal performance reviews are removed; however, upon discussing this issue with a panel of human resources executives and organizational development practitioners, we were struck by their concern for how abandoning formalized review procedures would affect managers. This panel represented a wide array of industries (healthcare, retail, manufacturing, energy, academia, and the nonprofit sector), and their organizations used a variety of performance procedures, including formalized annual reviews and informal performance conversations. The goal of this commentary is to guide thinking, with the help of our practitioner-oriented panel, toward some of the obstacles managers may face in having to provide more frequent informal performance conversations.

I would be remiss if I did not begin by admitting my sheer delight to see organizational scientists (e.g., Hall, Hall, & Perry, 2016; Ruggs et al., 2016) taking a greater interest in broader societal social issues like these. In 2007, when I was the chair of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology's (SIOP's) Committee for Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA), I devoted part of a column in The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist to discussing what I perceived to be a law enforcement racial injustice perpetrated against several adolescents in Louisiana known as the “Jena Six” (Avery, 2007). The issue at hand in that case was the impact of race after an arrest was made. The media reports of the case at that time compelled many to believe that its handling by law enforcement and the criminal justice system had been influenced adversely by the racial composition of the White plaintiff and Black defendants. Like Ruggs et al., I felt then and continue to believe that we, as industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists, could be doing more to redress societal injustice. I also commend them on the multifaceted nature of their discussion and appreciate that they highlighted a number of ways in which our existing knowledge base is, and future research products could be, pertinent to what's happening all too often between police and the minority communities they are intended to serve and protect.

I agree with and expand on Pratt and Bonaccio's (2016) view that in order to facilitate the use of qualitative research in our field, we need more guidance for industrial–organizational (I-O) researchers in terms of training, best practice articles, and criteria for evaluating research quality. Fortunately, the interest in and openness to qualitative research is slowly but steadily growing in our field, something that is reflected in small but increasing numbers of publications and best practice articles (Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011; Smith, Madden, & Ashmos Plowman, 2015). To give an example, the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), a journal not well known for publishing qualitative research, has recently published a qualitative article written by my colleagues and me (Wilhelmy, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & Truxillo, 2016).

Although we echo Lievens and Motowidlo's (2016) view that situational judgment test (SJT) research should subscribe to the construct-driven approach, we disagree with their argument on two counts. First, we question whether measuring general domain knowledge represents the only way to advance SJT research. Second, we question whether it is appropriate to downplay the importance of situations in SJTs. In this commentary, we first briefly review construct-driven SJT studies and then share our own experience in developing an SJT for integrity in China using the construct-driven approach. Based on the review and reflection, we come to two major conclusions: (a) construct-driven SJT research has progressed well so far without the reconceptualization of SJTs as measures of general domain knowledge, and (b) specific situations are an important feature of SJTs that should not yet be dismissed.