Bergman and Jean (2016) rightly argue that published research in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology often underrepresents low-wage and frontline employees in favor of professional workers and management. One possible consequence of this bias is that I-O research may unintentionally marginalize workplace phenomena that impact employees professionally and personally. One example offered by Bergman and Jean is economic tenuousness, a work–life stressor that is more likely to be experienced by low-income and frontline employees. The recent growth in the proportion of individuals employed in low-wage jobs (Albelda & Carr, 2012) reinforces the need to explore the impact of the publication rift between the science and practice of I-O psychology.

We acknowledge and agree with Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) that the tendency to focus on victims as precipitators of their own negative workplace experiences (e.g. abusive supervision) presents a problematic theoretical paradigm. Using organizational justice as an illustration, we note that even in fields with an orientation toward victims, similar trends with regard to victim precipitation have still emerged. However, we also argue that although the perpetrator predation approach may help to avoid this tendency and encourage a better understanding of the responsibility for and origins of certain organizational experiences, it may fall short when examining complex phenomena that involve more than the dyad of perpetrator and victim. We suggest that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology scholars might be better served by abandoning the language of victim and perpetrator altogether. Though we invoke these two terms when discussing organizational justice, we ultimately come to argue that researchers should utilize different language that better captures the experience and role of employees in these phenomena.

In their focal article, Cucina, Walmsley, Gast, Martin, and Curtin (2017) raise a number of concerns about survey key driver analysis (SKDA). Although many are valid, we think their critique ultimately goes too far and risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have found that SKDA can be an effective way to generate insight and action when analysis is done correctly and results are used appropriately. In this response article, we first provide data that counters Cucina et al.’s findings. Then we describe the approach we take to survey key driver analytics and application. In doing so, we hope to address some of the core concerns raised in the focal article and identify ways for scientists and practitioners to conduct SKDA in a responsible way.

Businesses, governments, universities, hospitals, law enforcement agencies, and other organizations are increasingly collecting and analyzing data to inform decision making. This “big data” movement has benefited from the contributions of a number of academic disciplines, including mathematics, statistics, and computer science. The technical advances involved in big data have grown exponentially in recent years, thus contributing to its growing use by organizations, the experience of which contributes to further refinements and so forth. This cycle of technical advancement is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

We applaud the authors for tackling the important issue of policing and race from the unique perspective of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology. Here, we propose a framework by which to examine the authors’ recommended interventions along the same implicit–explicit dimension employed in the focal article's conceptualization of racial bias. Mirroring current thinking within the diversity literature, the focal article notes that racial bias is “often very subtle” (Ruggs et al., 2016, p. 531) and can include “unconscious and implicit” aspects (p. 531). Extending this notion of implicit versus explicit bias to interventions themselves, we advocate for increased attention toward more implicitly focused interventions, as opposed to some of the more explicitly focused interventions suggested in the focal article. We conceptualize explicitly focused interventions as those that deal directly and openly with race, diversity, or demographic differences. Below, we discuss three potential advantages of implicitly focused interventions.