Focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 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 focal articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

Antinepotism policies are common in work organizations. Although cronyism appears to be commonplace as well, official policing of cronyism is less common. We argue that social connections in some crony relationships and apparently nepotic ones may add considerable value to organizations. We also argue that policing of nepotic relationships can be a form of unfair discrimination when the perception of inequity, rather than its reality, is being policed. Finally we consider effective approaches that simultaneously preserve the value of social connection, avoid the actual ethical breaches associated with some social connections, and avoid any unfair discrimination on the basis of group memberships (in this case, family and friends).

The focal article has given examples of children, other relatives, and friends as potential beneficiaries of preferential treatment and has discussed the counterbalancing likelihood of organizational gain from (properly) employing individuals who already share social connections. Surprisingly, there is minimal mention of spouses or domestic partners. From the 1970s through the 1990s, a number of articles were published on the legal and practical issues of applying antinepotism policies to spouses, but since 2000, the literature has been almost entirely silent. This is surprising given that, in 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 47.4% of U.S. families involve husbands and wives who both work.

The term nepotism (and even worse, cronyism) carries a negative connotation: favoring a relative (or friend) in an employment situation without considering the individual's suitability for the job. Although there can be obvious benefits associated with hiring kin (e.g., a sense of trust, swift learning of job-relevant content, loyalty, etc.; Bellow, 2003; Jones & Stout, 2015), the term itself implies that nepotism is a bad thing, and organizations often take steps to keep bad things from happening. Jones and Stout (2015) have argued that sweeping antinepotism policies in organizations eliminate the positives associated with hiring via a social connection preference, and such policies can lead to unfair discrimination. As industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, however, if we do our job—and by that I mean exemplary and objective screening, hiring, and performance assessment—and if we adequately manage the negative impressions that may reside in the minds of employees regarding nepotism, nobody gets hurt.

Jones and Stout (2015) have recommended that industrial and organizational (I-O) researchers and practitioners take a more nuanced perspective with respect to nepotism and cronyism—recast as social connection preference (SCP)—when relevant I-O decisions (e.g., hiring) are made on the basis of kin or affiliation considerations. Jones and Stout's (2015) arguments have challenged the reflexive view that SCP is always negative and thus the prudent approach is to restrict and, if possible, prohibit it. They call for further research to flesh out our understanding of SCP in organizations, and we suggest that one way to do that is to explicitly incorporate trust theory, that is, the components of trustworthiness, which represent antecedents of trust.

To date, empirical investigations into whether nepotism, specifically, or social connection preference (SCP), generally, is positive or negative within the realm of organizational scholarship has been limited. Indeed, most of the early discussions in this field on the subject have focused on previous work done outside the organizational area (i.e., Bellow, 2003). A recent Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Organizational Frontier Series book on the subject has brought some initial attention to the subject by approaching it from multiple domains within the organizational literature (Jones, 2012). Jones and Stout (2015) have highlighted the possible advantages and disadvantages of SCPs and have taken the stand that SCPs might in fact provide more benefits than drawbacks, particularly given that formalized policies may lead to unfair discrimination.

The focal article by Jones and Stout (2015) has revealed just how much there is for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to try to unpack in the implications of nepotism for organizations and employees, particularly in relation to selection and development practices. In this brief commentary, we try to make two contributions to this state of affairs. First, we discuss the importance of disentangling different types of nepotistic and social connection preference (SCP) effects in context because these differences may in turn implicate distinct processes and effects that shape employee outcomes. We do this in part by drawing on findings from some of our own data on nepotistic hiring within a Caribbean coast guard organization (Rajpaul-Baptiste & Calvard, 2012). Second, we argue that for nepotism and SCP to be considered more fully and fruitfully as topics for I-O research and practice, these topics need to be integrated and consolidated more thoroughly along with existing work on diversity management, cross-cultural psychology, organizational discourses, organizational contexts, institutional logics, and social network approaches. We believe this is likely to produce more theoretical, methodological, empirical, and practical coherence across emerging I-O research in this area, without leading researchers and practitioners to reinvent the wheel or misguidedly rely on cultural stereotypes about nepotism and cronyism.

Jones and Stout (2015) have shed much needed light on an organizational reality that industrial and organizational psychologists have unfortunately not paid much attention to: nepotism and cronyism (or what Jones and Stout have called social connection preference; SCP). Jones and Stout (2015) have made a good case (a) that SCP is pervasive, (b) that there are good reasons to believe that policies (and beliefs) against SCP are frequently counterproductive, (c) that SCP involves compelling moral dilemmas, and (d) that there are workable solutions to dealing with these moral dilemmas. I would like to offer a few observations about some additional issues involved in SCP: bias against SCP; SCP and cooperation; and nepotism, altruism, and personnel decisions criteria.

Jones and Stout (2015) have made one claim that I would like to correct: There is substantial quantitative (and observational) research on the workplace and organizational performance effects of nepotism and cronyism. That these authors have missed this research is understandable; the research is not in traditional industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology publications (although some of it does appear in journals from the related field of organizational behavior). Nevertheless, this work is systematic and rigorous, and the work provides strong evidence to support the experience-based perceptions of practitioners that nepotism and cronyism damage employees and their supervisors and produces poorer organizational performance. I welcome the opportunity that Jones and Stout (2015) have provided to briefly introduce my colleagues in I-O psychology to this literature.

It is often said that the federal government needs to be more like the private sector (Brooks, 2013; Campbell, 2011; Harvey, 2012; Miller, 2013; Neal, 2013; Schnurer, 2013). However, after reading Jones and Stout's (2015) summary of private-sector antinepotism policies, we wonder whether the opposite is true when it comes to nepotism and cronyism: Should the private sector be more like the federal government? According to Jones and Stout, many organizations have antinepotism policies that prohibit the employment of the friends and family of current employees. We believe that these policies might go too far, and we propose that the policies used by the federal government could serve as a model for private-sector organizations. We also think that the federal government can shed some light on why organizations want to prohibit nepotism and cronyism.

In spite of numerous attempts over decades to improve performance management (PM) systems, PM is viewed as more broken than ever, with managers and employees seeing it as a burdensome activity that is of little value. Yet, the behaviors that PM is meant to achieve are in fact important drivers of engagement and performance. So where is the disconnect? The problem is that formal PM systems have reduced PM to intermittent steps and processes that are disconnected from day-to-day work and behaviors that actually drive performance: communicating ongoing expectations, providing informal feedback in real time, and developing employees through experience. To deliver on its promise, PM needs to shift from focusing on the formal system to focusing on the PM behaviors that matter every day. We describe a 5-step PM reform process that helps organizations achieve this change and that shows promise for increasing satisfaction and positive outcomes from PM processes. Central to the intervention is that organizational members need to intentionally practice and solidify effective PM behavior through a structured, on-the-job, experiential learning intervention that yields meaningful behavior change. The change-management and training interventions discussed here provide a model for organizational culture and behavior change efforts beyond PM.

In the focal article, Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have noted that performance management (PM) too often consists of intermittent steps (e.g., end-of-year performance review ratings and meetings) that are not connected to day-to-day work. With regard to performance ratings, Pulakos et al. (2015) have pointed out that it can be “demotivating and disengaging for employees to have their performance boiled down to a single number, with which they are then labeled, unless it is the highest rating or ranking that is available” (p. xx). The authors have also noted that managers sometimes retrofit their ratings to justify the pay increases that managers want to give employees (sometimes for reasons unrelated to the employee's level of performance). Pulakos et al. have also offered a case study of one organization, Cargill, which has abandoned ratings. Although Pulakos and colleagues have pointed out that not all organizations should eliminate ratings, the authors have argued that when there are small differences in pay increases across employees, ratings can be removed with relative ease and little consequence. Pulakos and colleagues have therefore suggested that organizations should consider the impact that ratings have on decision making (and have suggested that this impact is often smaller than one might think).

The scientist–practitioner model of training in industrial and organizational psychology provides the foundation for the education of industrial and organizational psychologists across the world. This approach is important because, as industrial and organizational psychologists, we are responsible for both the creation and discovery of knowledge and the use or application of that knowledge. In multiple articles recently published in this journal, Pulakos and her colleagues (Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011) have argued that performance management (PM), as applied and implemented in organizations, is broken. This is not a unique take on the state of PM in organizations, as others have been arguing for many years that PM is no longer working in organizations the way that we would like it to work (Banks & Murphy, 1985; Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992). Further, for many years and in many Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference panels and debates in the literature, we have been inundated with discussions and conversations around the science–practice gap and around the gap being especially evident in PM.

The purpose of this commentary is to complement the lead article by Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) by proposing the incorporation of 360 feedback as another means of improving performance management (PM). A 360 feedback refers to the practice of soliciting anonymous ratings and narrative comments on the job performance and other behaviors of the focal employee from a wide range of others who have worked with the employee. These sources include peers, subordinates, other managers, and often customers, as well as the immediate supervisor and self-ratings. There is an extensive body of research literature on 360s. Almost 300 articles and books have accumulated on the topic over the past 30 years (Campion, Campion, & Campion, 2014), resulting in substantial knowledge about the usefulness and effectiveness of 360s. Although the primary purpose of 360s has been employee development, 360s are being increasingly used within PM systems.

Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have stated that performance management (PM) best practices have resulted in the dissatisfaction of employees and managers with PM reviews and systems. The authors have suggested that the focus should be on driving critical PM behaviors that have been shown to increase engagement and performance. Corporate Leadership Council (2004) research demonstrated that increased engagement takes place when PM behaviors such as setting clear expectations, providing regular feedback, and helping employees develop and succeed occur. In addition, effective PM happens when employees are contributing to the process as well.

Although the authors of the focal article (Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015) have provided some well-grounded guidelines on how to fix the performance management (PM) dilemma companies are facing today, in this commentary, I seek to extend their thesis to include innovating the process by leveraging new social technologies that have the opportunity to truly change the social dynamics of the entire process. Furthermore, it is critical to also consider how well the PM process is aligned with the company's formal and informal work structures. Traditional work structures were hierarchical, with employees reporting to one manager and having responsibility primarily for their own work product. Today's contemporary work structures often rely on teamwork and/or matrixed work structures in which an employee has two managers.

Various solutions have been proposed to “fix” performance management (PM) over the last several decades. Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have presented a holistic approach to improving PM in organizations. Although this approach addresses several key elements related to the social context of PM, namely the buy-in of organizational stakeholders, timely and regular feedback, and future-directed feedback, we believe that several robust findings from the PM research literature could further improve this process. Are Pulakos et al. looking at the forest but missing the trees? In the following commentary, we offer several reasons that performance judgments and perhaps even informal ratings are still operating and occurring in the proposed holistic system. Therefore, advancements in other areas of PM research may offer additional ways to fix PM.

Dissatisfaction with performance management (PM) has had a long history. Managers and employees alike have frustrations with the system, and numerous calls for the elimination of performance appraisal have been made over the years (e.g., Scholtes, 1999). The dissatisfaction and calls for elimination have created pressure for change in the practice of PM, and I applaud the focus on feedback and coaching that Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have proposed. Providing feedback and being actively involved in the PM process would seem to be a key part of the job of managers, yet many managers are uncomfortable addressing this central task. Focusing efforts in our field on improving the skills of managers and helping managers become effective coaches can play a key role in improving PM. The need for improvement in the informal process, however, does not mean that the formal process is not needed. Pulakos et al. have suggested streamlining the formal PM system as much as possible, with particular emphasis on the possibility of eliminating performance ratings. It is argued here that the formal PM system still serves important purposes. It is also argued that a balance between the informal and formal aspects of the PM system needs to be maintained. These two issues are addressed below.

It is safe to assume that an accurate performance appraisal (PA) is an important prerequisite to an effective performance management (PM) system, because with accurate PA information, management, teams, and employees can engage in the process of identifying and developing a wide range of job-relevant knowledge or skills to improve job performance. However, researchers and practitioners alike must continue to push for PA to be something other an administrative ritual; the ideal goal for PA is for it to contribute to a reliable process that can offer practical help to organizational operations, including PM. As Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have pointed out, supervisors are concerned about demotivating or disengaging employees by providing PA ratings that are too much lower than the highest rating or ranking that is available, so having ratings that are clustered at the high end of the rating scale is quite common across organizations (Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992).

In their focal article, Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have presented a helpful five-step plan for improving the use of performance management (PM) within organizations. As they have pointed out, it is important that an organization's PM system match the organization's values and culture. At the same time, one cannot forget that an organization's PM system should also align with the organization's other human resource (HR) practices. Thus, I suggest that taking time to make sure this alignment happens should be included as a substep under the first step (i.e., plan change) of the model.