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.

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provided an excellent and much-needed analysis of the status of women in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Although others have produced overall assessments of the status of women in psychology (Eagly & Riger, 2014; Kite et al., 2001), these are not sufficient to identify conditions within the subfields of psychology. As shown by statistics on the divisions of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/services/profiles.aspx), the subfields differ greatly in their gender balance, with some being male dominated (e.g., experimental and cognitive science), others female dominated (e.g., developmental psychology), and still others representing women and men more equally (e.g., social and personality psychology). I-O psychology is among the more gender-balanced fields, with an increasing proportion of women over time. It would seem that I-O's gradual inclusion of more women should have changed aspects of research and discourse in this field. In this comment, we argue that these women have produced impressive changes.

Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) recommend that our understanding of resilience would be advanced by making its temporal nature explicit. As a dynamic process, resilience is historical and temporal. The animating adverse event(s) and the resilient response(s) are dynamic and unfold over time; they often unfold as trajectories. This notion of trajectories implies a dynamic process, one progressing from one response or adaptation to another. These “temporal processes are a bit of a black box in I-O research” (Britt et al., p. 394). What would an extension of Britt et al.’s recommendation that researchers explicitly integrate time or temporality look like? Fully acknowledging the importance of time in this model may suggest worthwhile future research and potential interventions.

In their focal article “Gone fishing,” Ruggs et al. (2013) suggest that members of marginalized groups, such as ethnic/racial minorities other than Blacks, receive too little attention in top-tier industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology journals. Although we acknowledge the particularities each stigmatized group must face in the workplace and society, our commentary pleads for a better understanding of (a) general, underlying processes of discrimination across stigmatized groups while taking (b) complexity of discrimination into consideration. Whereas we concur with the authors regarding the need for more research, relevant studies on employment discrimination—even on the marginalized groups mentioned in the focal article—have been published, albeit many of them outside the focal I–O psychology journals mentioned and even outside the I–O psychology field. We believe that employment discrimination research might further benefit from (c) triangulation and (d) cross-cultural validation to advance insights, two other aspects that the focal article only slightly touched upon. We will illustrate these four challenges for future research on employment discrimination in I–O psychology with findings on hiring discrimination of Arab ethnics, one of the marginalized groups in the focal article, and one to which we have devoted considerable research effort.

This response summarizes commentaries on the M. A. McDaniel, S. Kepes, and G. C. Banks (2011) article, which argued that the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Several themes were present in the commentaries. No compelling arguments were presented to dispute the assertion that mean racial differences in job-related attributes will be with us for a long time. However, compelling arguments were made that the disparate impact theory of discrimination is a more central issue for personnel selection than the Uniform Guidelines. Similarly, arguments were presented that the assessment of adverse impact is problematic and that expert witness testimony needs improvement. Areas in need of further investigation were also identified. Finally, the role of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in guiding regulatory, legislative, and court actions was considered.

In their focal article, Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) raise an important and timely issue, but go too far in arguing that practitioners should abandon survey key driver analysis (SKDA) altogether. There are many valuable benefits to using SKDA, and rather than discontinuing the practice entirely, we suggest that a better approach is to focus on ways to make it even more valuable to organizations. It is true that this area is in need of further research, but instead of asking whether we are driving down the right road, perhaps the right question is, “Are we there yet?”