Scientific fields benefit when their researchers engage in self-reflection. Accordingly, we welcome the evidence gathered by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) on gender differences in our field, the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. In this commentary, we argue that such self-reflection processes can be further enhanced by taking advantage of the wealth and breadth of scientometrics, the quantitative study of science.

I have three issues I would like to add to Rotolo et al.’s (2018) arguments for research foci and with which academics must be concerned as we move forward. We must pay attention to all of what Rotolo et al. said plus at least my three additions if we are to compete with other fields playing in the talent management (TM) space. First, I will argue we have become overly concerned in our refereed outlets with theory to the detriment of validity against important organizational outcomes. Second, I will note that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has become fixated on individuals and their differences to the almost literal exclusion of research on the psychology of organizational phenomena. Third, I will present an argument for research on reciprocal relationships—on organizations as real systems—in an attempt to counter the left-to-right thinking in all of our research models.

In addition to the suggestions made by the authors of the focal article (Lapierre et al., 2018), it is also important for academics to market themselves and keep their information up to date. As a practitioner, I sometimes end up working with interesting data sets worth publishing but lack the time and resources to complete the entire publication progress. There are also times when I am in need of a targeted intervention and would be willing to work with academic researchers in a mutually beneficial arrangement. As such, I need to be able to find you. This commentary expands on the focal article by providing some tips on how to be found by practitioners and increase the likelihood that a practitioner will contact you. Though networking is also of vital importance in this area, the authors of the focal article covered that well; as such, no further discussion of it will take place here.

One of the key characteristics of a rigorous and robust science is that it has the ability to self-correct when mistakes are made. The focal article by Grand et al. (2018) has plenty to say about what faithful actors can do to ensure a more robust industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature, but we were surprised at how little attention the issue of correcting the research record was given. To be clear, the target article mentions the issue of research misconduct and even cites an article from Leadership Quarterly (Atwater, Mumford, Schriesheim, & Yammarino, 2014) that deals specifically with the issue, but it does not include guidance on this issue for editors or publishers. This is not surprising. The issue of misconduct is one that produces a great deal of discomfort in academic circles (Wager, 2015), and when it is discussed, it is usually only in the vaguest terms (e.g., Banks et al., 2016). Moreover, as Grand and colleagues point out, it could be argued that the “gathering storm” of questionable research that has enveloped other fields such as social psychology seems distant. Perhaps to reassure us, the authors point to several articles showing that results of our field seem to be replicable, robust, and relevant. But are they?

The focal article (LaPierre et al., 2018) proposes several steps in developing a research partnership with organizations. We commend LaPierre and colleagues for bringing to light these recommendations. We agree that research partnerships may prove valuable for the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. For I-O psychology to grow as a science, more appropriate sampling and more relevant data sources are necessary (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Although I-O psychology master's and PhD programs continue to grow and produce more I-O psychology graduates that enter the applied marketplace, there remains a paucity of applied research partnerships between academics and organizations. Research partnerships are often established in other disciplines (i.e., computer science, public health, biochemistry) and have resulted in fruitful relationships for both parties (D'Este & Iammarino, 2010; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998; Santoro & Betts, 2002), but similar partnerships have not become the norm in I-O psychology. Despite a growing number of I-O psychology graduates and programs (Shellenbarger, 2010), I-O psychology academics have not leveraged those relationships to create research partnerships between universities and business. We would argue that this lack of research partnerships is due to the difficulty of navigating and negotiating with the multiple stakeholders involved in the process of developing a research partnership.

Rotolo et al. (2018) identify a number of reasons why the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is losing relevancy, including a lack of focus on frontier topics, which may be most relevant to talent management practitioners. As someone who subscribes to the benefits of the scientist–practitioner approach to talent management, there is nothing I hold more precious than a healthy partnership between the I-O psychology academic community and talent management practitioners.

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) emphasize the need to assess human capital and market factors that may contribute to gender differences in income and suggest that such data are not readily available. As members of the Institutional Research Committee, we thought it important to provide some evidence addressing the focal article's main points using what data are available. Specifically, we conducted ad hoc analyses using data from the 2016 SIOP Income and Employment Survey, with the intent of providing additional context related to employment and compensation for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists. Our sample included only respondents who indicated that they worked full time and who provided their gender (n = 1,069). These analyses answer Gardner et al.’s call to examine factors that explain the income gap between men and women within the field.

As faculty in master's industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology graduate programs, we read with great interest the focal article on initiating and maintaining partnerships with organizations (Lapierre et al., 2018). We applaud the efforts of the authors to present guidelines and recommendations for successful applied research in organizations. Although Lapierre et al. directed their recommendations primarily to doctoral faculty and their students, there currently are 159 I-O psychology master's programs listed on the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) webpage (http://my.siop.org/GTP). Because of the applied nature of most master's programs, by necessity we work continuously to gain entry into and partner with organizations for internship placements, applied course projects, and applied service opportunities. We, along with other master's faculty colleagues, have published and presented on the topic of partnering with organizations (e.g., Shoenfelt, 2003; Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone, 2012; Shoenfelt et al., 2015; Shoenfelt, Stone, & Kottke, 2013; Shoenfelt, Walker, Long, Smith, & Whelan, 2012; Stone, Shoenfelt, Huffcut, Morganson, & Frame, 2018; Stone, Shoenfelt, Morganson, Moffett, & Van Hein, 2017). In this response, we offer an analogous perspective from the master's level based on tacit knowledge garnered from more than a century of combined experience. We note that many of the recommendations in this focal article likewise surfaced in our work. Here we highlight the challenges unique to master's-level and teaching-intensive faculty in implementing these recommendations. In our response, we embrace Lewin's (1946) definition of action research that there is no action without research and no research without action. Thus, we broadly define applied research as asking an important applied question and systematically collecting data to answer that question in a manner in which the results inform organizational action (whether or not it results in a peer-reviewed publication).

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.

The field of psychology has a long history of tracing the lineage of modern day psychologists back to their academic roots (Benjamin, Durkin, Link, Vestal, & Accord, 1992), and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is no exception (Culbertson, 2016). Why do we do it? Well, it is intriguing to see how our initial training may be linked back to some of the pioneers of our field. Perhaps it also represents how we are connected with one another—through our extended family relationships. But of course an academic family tree only reflects a portion of how we might be interconnected with one another—certainly our networks go much further than our dissertation chairs. Indeed, they might include our collaborators, coworkers and former coworkers, fellow former graduate students, and a host of people with whom we have connected at conferences or through other professional and personal relationships, and the composition of these networks, arguably, matters.

As a practitioner with 25 years of experience applying industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology concepts to address business challenges, I want to expand upon the point that “robust science is relevant” (Grand et al., 2018, p. 10)—specifically, that making two changes in the field's research direction could greatly increase the impact, value, and credibility of I-O psychology in the broader world of work.

Grand et al. (2018) address an important and timely concern with scientific research with implications well beyond industrial and organizational (I-O) psychological science. As they describe a comprehensive ecosystem responsible for robust science, they have alluded to the notorious scientist–practitioner gap in our field. In this commentary I propose how that gap relates to the various stakeholders in Grand et al.’s ecosystem, and suggest professional associations take on an elevated role in the communication of science.

The future of talent management will always be discovered on the frontier, and the frontier is always messy. There will always be charlatans selling snake oil and the latest personality assessments. What can be done? When operating at the edge of the map, one cannot rely on having the right answers because the challenges and the answers will be novel. However, adventurers can rely on the capabilities and processes that allow them to adapt and figure it out as they go.

Lapierre et al. (2018) provide a compelling set of reasons why conducting research in organizational settings should include investing time and energy to foster and promote enhanced relationships with organizational stakeholders. We agree that managing research partnerships carefully is paramount to creating the conditions necessary to implement rigorous methodology and collect the data needed to test theory-based hypotheses. However, we believe that Lapierre et al.’s argument should be taken further.

“What if gender mattered less? Pigs might actually fly before that happens,” said Dr. Mikki Hebl at the Shaken & Stirred event at the 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference (I-O Shaken & Stirred, 2017). If gender mattered less, “SIOP itself would see differences. Women comprised only six out of the 21 SIOP fellows this year, and five of the 25 major award recipients yesterday . . . were women.” With that, she dropped the microphone and walked off the stage. This video has been viewed on YouTube more than twice as many times as most of the other Shaken & Stirred videos that are available, and it is this boldness that is needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology if we expect to see changes.

Big data and its applicability to talent management (TM) as defined by Rotolo et al. (2018) has already been recognized by many outside the field of I-O psychology. The market is beginning to include offerings from vendors for products that use some combination of big data techniques to process vast amounts of data or previously unanalyzable data, which they claim will improve components of TM for organizations. Unfortunately, as noted in the focal article, this “frontier” issue makes it difficult for organizations to separate the wheat from the chaff. Further, with few exceptions, I-O psychology is just beginning to inform organizations about whether and how big data can be used for the purposes of TM.

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.

Science is a complex task. It involves the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The creation of knowledge requires identifying and abstracting patterns (i.e., identifying phenomena and theorizing about the processes that bring it about), as well as systematically observing to better see and quantify the patterns (e.g., effect size estimating) or assess the validity of the abstractions used to explain the patterns (i.e., theory testing). To help (a) hone in on what observations would be useful and (b) communicate what the patterns mean, we are encouraged to develop and report hypotheses. That is, strategically, hypotheses facilitate the planning of data collection by helping the researcher understand what patterns need to be observed to assess the merit of an explanation. Meanwhile, tactically, hypotheses help focus the audience on the crucial patterns needed to answer a question or test a theory. When the strategic hypotheses are not supported, it raises a question regarding what to do tactically. Depending on the result (i.e., different direction; null), one might construct a hypothesis to facilitate dissemination without reporting this post hoc construction or remove mention of a hypothesis altogether. This practice is called HARKing (i.e., hypothesizing after results are known). HARKing has been so disparaged as to be considered a “detrimental research practice” (Grand et al., 2018, p. 6). As such, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology's (SIOP) Robust and Reliability Science task force appears to be recommending that HARKing not be taught by educators, encouraged by reviewers or editors, or practiced by authors. I do not agree with those recommendations, and I elaborate on my position below.

Research on gender differences in the allocation and evaluation of three main components of academic work (i.e., research, teaching, and service) is very informative, and we argue that it may point to potential sources of the disparity in academic industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists’ experiences. We also propose the addition of a few issues to the research agenda set forth by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) with the belief that attention to these issues will help address the gender disparity.

We applaud the efforts of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) in launching much-needed dialogue on gender representation within the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that it is imperative to address inequity in our profession, beginning with an informed assessment of accurate information. However, the focal article did not offer any information on the representation of a group that too often goes unnoticed: women of color.