Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants (2018) present outcomes of the 2-day Jeanneret Symposium describing the state of the science and practice related to the assessment and development of senior leaders. They call for cross-disciplinary and/or organization-level research that examines “how organizations mature their assessment and development practices toward an integrated system embedded in a development culture” (p. 646). The purpose of this commentary is to answer this call and add to their work by proposing a systems thinking framework of organizational development where a corporate university plays a pivotal role.

To critically evaluate the relevance of social exchange theory (SET) to the contemporary workplace, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) point out a number of factors that reshape work relationships and suggest how to apply and extend social exchange theory to understand the new era work relationships. However, in their discussion, they focus mainly on reciprocal exchange (RE) in dyadic relationships. The discussion completely overlooks another important form of social exchange, namely, generalized exchange (GE), which is increasingly relevant to contemporary organizations exactly because of the changes indicated by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu. In this commentary, we briefly review prior investigations into GE across various social science disciplines and then point out its increasing relevance to organizations. Finally, we will discuss implications for future research in the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature.

To understand gender inequality in STEM, Miner et al. (2018) illustrate how an individual lens and a social-structural lens provide complementary perspectives. They indicate that gender inequality in STEM should not be simply understood from an individual lens concerning individual choices and responsibilities but also a social-structural lens concerning societal structures, processes, and meanings associated with gender. In this commentary, we would like to bring a cultural perspective to the consideration of the STEM field. Specifically, we focus on gender inequity in STEM in Japan and elaborate how Japanese culture, which emphasizes masculinity, collectivism, and a tight culture, imposes a stronger social-structural influence on gender inequality in STEM and at the same time strengthens the use of the individual lens to explain the phenomena, making the issue of gender inequality more prominent.

We unequivocally agree with the root of Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland's (2018) argument about the danger in focusing mostly on the victim in situations of workplace aggression. Workplace aggression is indeed initiated by the perpetrator (or perpetrators if there are two equally responsible parties in enacting the aggression). Where we believe Cortina et al.’s arguments are lacking is the hard-drawn line that the perpetrator should be the only subject of study. No, the victim should not hold any blame nor insinuations of blame. However, we hold the premise that both sides (i.e., perpetrator and victim) must be considered, and thus both are inherently subjects of interest in order to thoroughly capture the essence of these scenarios. Therefore, our position is that a focus on the victim is not only important, but it is actually an essential component when contemplating workplace aggression. Furthering research in this area will only be successful if we have candid conversations around the inappropriate nature of a solely victim-focused approach to workplace aggression and discuss the explicit differences (or nuanced ones) that may exist across varying perspectives on workplace aggression in order to more fully understand it. Therefore Cortina et al. have rightly initiated an important conversation within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology.

Miner et al. (2018) claim that focusing on individual factors to understand gender inequity in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) provides an incomplete explanation of the phenomenon. They challenge the appropriateness of individual-level explanations that hold women responsible for the injustices they experience, suggesting that this perspective fails to consider larger social-contextual influences. Instead, to explain gender disparity in the STEM fields, Miner et al. offer a social-structural lens through which to view the situation that relies on commonly held beliefs about women in society. The inequality that characterizes these fields, however, is a worldwide phenomenon that spans societal boundaries. Therefore, understanding the social-contextual factors that contribute to gender inequality in the STEM fields requires a cross-cultural examination of norms and values. In this commentary, I first outline a program of research aimed at developing an empirically supported theoretical framework that explains gender inequity in the STEM fields from a cross-cultural perspective. Then, I review the ways in which cultural beliefs influence education and careers in the STEM fields. Finally, I provide some practical suggestions of ways to promote gender equality in STEM fields. As such, this commentary serves as a call to integrate concepts from vocational, educational, and cross-cultural psychology to address an issue of upmost importance: equal representation.

In their focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that social exchange theory (SET) needs an update, and in this they are aligned with Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, and Hall's (2017) recent critical review of SET. Drawing on Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's research, we explore two issues in more depth: first, that work relationships are becoming more complex than can be represented by simple dyadic reciprocity; and second, that the context of work is changing rapidly, with implications for workplace relationships. In exploring the ideas put forward by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu, we draw on Cropanzano et al.’s two-dimensional model of social exchange, with the first dimension being desirable (positive) resources contrasted with undesirable (negative) ones, and the additional dimension being active (exhibit) behavior versus passive (withdraw) behavior. The first valence-oriented dimension fits clearly with the four foci of Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's research, which cover both positive constructs, namely leader–member exchange (LMX), perceived organizational support and loyalty, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), as well as negative constructs of perceived organizational politics and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). The second, behavioral dimension proposed by Cropanzano et al. adds useful theoretical specificity that may address Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's contention that SET needs updating to account for changes in how employees work and how organizations function.

A critical evaluation of the state of assessment and development for senior leaders raises several important questions and identifies knowledge gaps that can be used as a framework for establishing future research programs. Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium participants (2018) present a great starting point for questioning the practices in executive assessment, particularly surrounding the use and impact of executive assessment for selection and/or development. Our commentary is focused on expanding the dialogue on executive assessment and development, providing insight into this question based on our executive assessment experience within a variety of organizations, ranging from financial services to healthcare to retail.

Recent discussions have focused on the special circumstances surrounding assessment and development for senior leadership (Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants, 2018). The fundamental assertion is that different challenges are inherent in working with senior leadership, as compared to lower levels of leadership. We suggest that, although the focal article presents a useful synthesis of research and practice, many of the points made are applicable to leaders at all levels. In other words, by looking at senior leaders, we gain an increased appreciation for issues that are in fact relevant to all leaders.

We wholeheartedly agree with Miner et al. (2018) that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists should take a lead in addressing gender inequity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The focal article is particularly timely in light of the recent controversial “Google memo” (Damore, 2017), in which a senior software engineer endorsed the same individual-level myths regarding the gender gap in STEM that were critiqued by Miner et al. (2018). However, we caution against painting all STEM fields with the same broad brush. We argue that it is critical for I-O psychologists to be aware of important differences between STEM subfields, as these distinctions suggest that a “one-size-fits-all” approach may be inadequate for addressing existing gender disparities in STEM. In order to be maximally effective, interventions may need to emphasize distinct issues and target different points in the career pipeline depending on the specific STEM subfield in question.

Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that social exchange theory (SET) should be revised to accommodate work relationships in the “new era” of work, characterized by a more diverse workforce with changing expectations for relationships between themselves and their organizational representatives. To account for the modern workplace, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu introduce “new” or “modern exchange variables” that capture modern workplace conditions and employee characteristics or preferences, which they expect to indirectly influence whether and how employees develop high-quality work relationships with organizational representatives.

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) make a compelling case for shifting away from a victim precipitation perspective in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. In addition to noting that victim precipitation potentially violates ethical principles, the authors suggest that such paradigms shape attributions of blame and implications for practice within organizations. This commentary builds upon the ideas discussed in the focal article by encouraging I-O psychologists to collect data on the extent to which victim precipitation appears in the field and experimentally examine how and why the paradigms we use to explain workplace mistreatment might affect attitudes and behavior.

Cortina, Robello, and Holland (2018) advance a case for the danger of using the victim precipitation model in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology—a model that is interpreted as suggesting that characteristics and behaviors of victims may influence criminals to select them as targets, in effect blaming victims for crimes committed against them. This “victim blaming” found its way into criminology, criminal justice, sociology, and other disciplines, resulting in revictimization and in the exoneration of violent criminals, among other undesirable outcomes. We agree with Cortina and colleagues that these outcomes, then and now, are unacceptable: Victims cannot and should not be blamed for their aggressors’ actions, and aggressors should unequivocally be held accountable for their crimes. This extends to workplace mistreatment. Using the operationalizations of generalized workplace harassment, workplace incivility, sexual harassment, and abusive supervision as guides (Rospenda & Richman, 2004, as cited by Cortina et al., 2018; Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Tepper, 2000; Walsh & Magley, 2014), we define workplace mistreatment as any interpersonal interaction in the workplace that creates an oppressively intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment that extends beyond acceptable evaluative and professional actions given situational demands (e.g., poor performance reviews, layoffs during downsizing/mergers/acquisitions, discipline, etc.). Although an unpopular point of view, we maintain that whether or not victims influence the contexts that facilitate victimization in the workplace is an empirical question. This research continues to be scientifically valuable, relevant, and practical, and it is necessary to more fully understand workplace mistreatment (Barling, 1996; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Two principal reasons drive this position: (a) the lack of scientific, data-driven evidence to support the exclusion of the victim precipitation model and (b) the potential harmful premise of its replacement, the perpetrator predation model. Elucidating our thoughts on these reasons will occupy our commentary.

Miner et al. (2018) do an excellent job of bringing the issue of gender disparity within STEM to the forefront of I-O psychology. However, we believe the focus on STEM is woefully inadequate and urge I-O psychologists to think bigger, better, and broader. There are clear problems with the way women are viewed and treated within the workforce, within the United States, and globally. In narrowing the discussion of the problem to target only STEM, we dramatically limit our understanding of and potential impact on the multifaceted and complex gender disparity problem in the world of work. Furthermore, we assert there are additional legitimizing myths that must be addressed in order to yield a more complete picture of the dilemma and allow us to move forward to make an impact.

Social exchange theory (SET) is an important foundation of social sciences from which many workplace theories have emerged. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) contend that social exchange is at the heart of workplace relationships. Although SET is a complex framework, in essence, it views workplace interactions as exchanges of resources broadly construed, ranging from tangible resources such as money, goods, and services to intangible ones such as information, support, and trust (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Foa & Foa, 1980). Governed by the rule of reciprocity, parties involved in social exchanges use rational deliberation to gauge how much they need to repay for others’ actions. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu posit that workplace theories rooted in SET should be modified to accommodate the new realities in modern organizations. Although we concur with their observations about new characteristics of work, we are not as optimistic as Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu about SET's capacity to guide our understanding and actions to improve workplace relationships. We argue that positive interventions are important complements to the social exchange process, thereby promoting the quality of work relationships.

As researchers who have advanced victim precipitation arguments in our own work on victimization and job performance (Jensen, Patel, & Raver, 2014), we agree fully with this statement made by Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018): “A victim's traits or behaviors might help us understand why the instigator chose that particular person for abuse, but we must always emphasize that it was the instigator, not the victim, who did the choosing and abusing” (p. 93). An overemphasis on victim characteristics does deflect attention away from wrongdoers, and theory that encourages us to consider perpetrator motivation and the social environment is needed.

As described in Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's (2018) focal article, the workplace has changed tremendously over the past few decades. These changes, undoubtedly, have affected how individuals interact and build relationships in the workplace. We live in a “networked society,” where the advances in technology and subsequent spread of communication and information have reorganized the way individuals are connected to one another (Castells, 2004; Wellman, 1999). In other words, we exist in complex networks, where underlying interconnections and interdependencies are the keys to scientific understanding. In their focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu highlight the need to adapt social exchange theories and research to incorporate the change in workplace relationships resulting from advances in technology and changes in the global market and workforce (e.g., freelancers, contract workers).

Although Miner et al. (2018) effectively argue that there is a need for greater efforts on the part of I-O psychologists to confront gender inequity in the STEM fields, we feel that the preoccupation with STEM may blind us to other domains where similar issues not only exist but may be even more prevalent and problematic. Specifically, we would argue that more attention needs to be paid to skilled trades, transportation-related jobs, and other so-called “dirty work.”

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) accurately cite the general public's overuse of victim precipitation ideologies, or the notion that victims engage in actions that directly bring about their unfortunate circumstances. These ideologies also have permeated industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and the study of people in the workplace (e.g., women's choice in clothing leads to sexual harassment, certain target characteristics and actions incite workplace bullying). We agree with Cortina et al. that this ideology unintentionally benefits the perpetrator by placing blame and responsibility for nonoptimal workplace situations directly on the target. The field of I-O psychology needs to move away from this model of victim blaming as a remediation for workplace disparities.