Research and practice in performance appraisal and performance management seem to suffer from the same “delusion of absolute performance” that Rosenzweig (2007, p. 112) described with respect to commentators’ evaluations of company performance in a competitive market economy. Commentators on business success factors have tended to speciously neglect or downplay the relative nature of performance (Rosenzweig, 2007). Downplaying the relative nature of performance is apparently the strategy endorsed by most performance appraisal scholars, too. Goffin, Jelley, Powell, and Johnston (2009) estimated that less than 4% of the published performance rating research has involved relative or social-comparative approaches, despite demonstrable advantages for relative over absolute rating formats (discussed below). Similarly, social comparison research and organizational scholarship have not traditionally been closely integrated (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Greenberg, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2007).

Ryan and Ford (2010) have argued that organizational psychology is at a tipping point in terms of its distinctiveness from other fields. Although the four scenarios they propose for organizational psychology's future cover a wide range of potential outcomes, we propose that there is another, more expansive, more optimistic scenario for our field: our identity needs to continue to evolve, expand, and extend itself to accommodate the evolving and expanding nature of the modern organizations we study. We suggest that the way forward for organizational psychology is to continue what we have done in the past: integrate theories from multiple disciplines, adopt multiple perspectives to the questions we face, and embrace the ambiguity inherent in the organizations we study. This additional scenario, which we term identity expansion, follows both from the history of the field and from research on professional identity. Below, we argue that both historically and theoretically such a future for our professional identity makes the most sense. Furthermore, we believe that organizational psychologists are in an excellent position to both shape and benefit from this expansion in identity.

Research collaborations are two-way streets. To obtain support from organizations, academics must communicate the value of their research projects to the stakeholders. In their focal article, Lapierre et al., (2018) described this process as the academic “sales pitch”, one that must be “short yet attention grabbing” (p.20). Academic research in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, however, is rooted in esoteric jargon (e.g., validity and reliability) and unconvincing evidence (e.g., r and r2) (Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol, & Sim, 2017; Rynes, 2009). These concepts are difficult for non-academics to understand and may even undermine the value of our work (Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, 2014; Kuncel & Rigdon, 2012; Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, & Camara, 2009). CEOs and other senior leaders often have limited time, attention, and expertise to process your pitch: A bad one could effectively derail the collaboration before it even began.

Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) end their focal article with a quote worth remembering from Immanuel Kant: “Theory without data is groundless, but data without theory is just uninterpretable.” We begin with a quote even better known to industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists in part because it has served for over 65 years as a foundational principle of our field: “There is nothing as practical as a good theory” (Lewin, 1951, p. 169).

We commend Rotolo et al. (2018) for introducing a new lens for viewing the well-known gap between industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research and human resource (HR) practices in organizations. However, Rotolo et al.’s characterization of practitioner behavior as “anti I-O” suggests a particularly negative view of scientific research among some HR practitioners. The label implies that some HR practitioners are intentionally ignoring or actively resisting academic research. More likely, the behavior stems from a passive indifference to academia, which may be the appropriate attitude for some practitioners to adopt when a great deal of academic research is too slow, too theoretical, and too cryptically communicated to be useful in applied settings. We agree with Rotolo et al. when they say, “we are a discipline that is not geared for being cutting edge” (p. 182), and we appreciate their recommendations for addressing this lack of relevance. However, most recommendations in this broader discussion do not address the foundational problem within our field: a systemic mismatch between the incentives of practitioners and academics. To support this point, we briefly describe a typology of I-O psychologists as well as the varying contexts and incentives that drive their behavior. We then close with our own recommendations for how academia can improve its relevance to practitioners and close the gap. These changes are not easy, but we agree with Rotolo and colleagues that if any field can address such foundational problems, it is ours.

Victim precipitation is embedded deeply within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) are right to challenge the assumptions that have perpetuated victim blaming in our discipline (consciously and unconsciously); however, a significant source of victim precipitation discourse within our field was strikingly absent in their discussion: construct measurement. The nature of how we measure most of our workplace aggression and mistreatment constructs (e.g., incivility, abusive supervision, bullying) have potential to negate the experiences of targeted employees as well as the unique impact of various perpetrator behaviors. Furthermore, how we interpret these measures can result in researchers and practitioners privileging the experiences of some individuals and dismissing the experiences of others. How can we hope to achieve a progressive approach to mistreatment in our disciplines if our measures do not keep pace?

Even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and especially since, I-O psychology has demonstrated its ability to adapt and to make meaningful contributions to how work is accomplished in tumultuous environments. Such contributions reflect the ongoing evolution of the field and an increased awareness of the potential for I-O psychologists to effect meaningful societal change. We believe that I-O psychology must embrace this evolution and, using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to help us target our efforts, become a resource and a voice for workers and organizations around the world, and a force for the greater good.

For years now, the call for human resources’ (HR's) head has been ringing through the halls of academic institutions and organizations throughout the globe. Whether it is Buckingham and Goodall (2015) calling for the total overhaul of performance management or Ram Charan (2014) asking us to split HR into the sum of its responsibilities, people have opinions of HR and the way it is practiced today and how it should be practiced in the future. The cavalcade of thought leaders, futurists, and soothsayers calling for the rethinking of HR seems longer than the procession at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.