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?”

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.

As discussed in the focal article, numerous research studies have supported the existence of automatic or implicit racial bias (Ruggs et al., 2016). In this commentary, we argue that examining implicit bias through the perspective of the motivation and opportunity as determinants (MODE) model (see Fazio & Olson, 2014, for a review) offers a framework for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists to design and implement strategies that reduce the number of violent interactions between police and communities. The MODE model has been applied to areas such as interpersonal relationships (McNulty, Olson, Meltzer, & Shaffer, 2013), effective treatment of mental disorders (Vasey, Harbaugh, Buffington, Jones, & Fazio, 2012), and crafting of media messages (Ewoldsen, Rhodes, & Fazio, 2015), as well as racial prejudice (Olson & Fazio, 2004). Below, we elaborate on how the I-O-related strategies and interventions described in the focal article can be captured by the components of the MODE model and highlight which interventions may be most efficacious in reducing discriminatory police officer behavior.

In contrast to the view that survey key driver analysis (SKDA) is a misused and blind empirical process, we suggest it is a reasonable, hypothesis-driven approach that builds on cumulative knowledge drawn from both the literature and practice, and requires reasoned judgment about the relationships of individual items to the constructs they represent and the criteria of interest. The logic of key driver analysis in applied settings is no different than the logic of its application in fundamental research regarding employee attitudes (e.g., Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, 2012). However, there are important survey design and analysis issues with respect to how key driver analyses are best conducted. Just some of these are discussed below.

Bergman and Jean's (2016) focal article decries the limited research attention of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists on “workers”—that is, employees such as wage earners, frontline workers, and contractors, who do not fill professional, managerial, or executive positions. We agree. In addition to the scientific and moral benefits of studying workers, there is a practical imperative. An academic discipline that comes across as being disinterested in workers may leave itself open to charges of being the “handmaiden” of management (Hulin, 2002, p. 12). Moreover, such an academic discipline may be ill prepared to provide evidence-based contributions to important societal debates on topics such as income inequality and immigration.

Global leadership is sorely needed to transform the world, given trends such as climate change, water scarcity, and social unrest. We need leaders with multicultural sensitivity who will face paradoxes head on, invite new voices into the dialogue, and collaborate across sector and national boundaries to find more sustainable solutions. This response addresses 3 areas that garnered the most commentaries: competency models, paradoxes, and developing global leaders. We point out several neglected perspectives, including “being” and “individual uniqueness,” along with the absence of non-Western voices in the commentary dialogue. We challenge readers to raise their consciousness and shift from enabling status quo leadership to becoming change agents.

Compared with more turbulent times in history, some might argue workplace discrimination has seen a downward trend. Others would contend that workplace discrimination has “just gone underground” and become more covert (Herring, 2002, p. 13). Either way, not-so-distant historical events such as the landmark Texaco case in 1996 and the Ford Motor case in 2000 remind us that discrimination demands our attention. Calls for research on interventions have surfaced (Becker, Zawadzki, & Shields, 2014), and proposals such as legal reforms, implicit bias training (Bartlett, 2009), and experiential learning workshops have answered (Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube, & Shields, 2014). The focal article (Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, 2017) contributes to this discussion as it turns our attention to the construct space of discrimination and presents a framework for organizing its facets and forms. Without a doubt, a framework that lends itself to the integration of the many forms of discrimination is long overdue.

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is indeed moving forward in its involvement in humanitarian concerns (Berry et al., 2011), but as Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) point out, I-O psychologists tend to focus less on those of low income and the informal economy and more on working professionals in the formal economy (POSH). We propose (a) additional reasons for why the POSH bias may undermine science, (b) more solutions to benefit the impoverished, and (c) a broader conceptualization of humanitarian work psychology (HWP).

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.