In the focal article, Ruggs et al. (2016) outline the ways in which psychological theory and research can provide insight into the potential underlying processes behind recent conflict between law enforcement officials and the community. These incidents have led to national questions regarding the training and standard operating procedure of police, as well as society's beliefs about the prevalence of stereotyping. The authors identify how psychological research, and social psychological and industrial–organizational research in particular, can play a role in shaping these issues for organizational practices moving forward.

In their focal article, Lapierre et al. (2018) draw attention to several key unanswered concerns academics face in establishing, developing, and maintaining research partnerships with organizations. Though mentioned briefly in the article's introduction, one potential concern that would benefit from further attention is selling a potential research topic to organizations. Many academics find themselves with research interests that organizations would prefer to avoid shedding light on (e.g., workplace mistreatment, sexual harassment, hiring practices, diversity and inclusion practices, etc.). In these instances, it may be particularly difficult to convince key stakeholders within organizations to partner on research projects, especially in situations that might raise organizational fears of negative publicity. In their introduction, Lapierre et al. (2018) state that “middle or frontline managers may be reluctant to facilitate a study out of fear of what the research could reveal in terms of problems in their units, particularly if such problems might be perceived as reflecting poorly upon them (e.g., poor leadership skills)” (p. 545). Further, “managers may fear raising employees’ expectations or highlighting particular problems by involving them in research projects” (Lapierre et al., 2018, p. 544). In the following several paragraphs, I address how academics may proactively address and minimize these potential concerns. Although not meant to be an exhaustive set of recommendations, the goal is to provide several potential avenues for “selling” industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research to potential organizational stakeholders.

Tett, Hundley, and Christiansen (2017) raise an important issue related to meta-analysis and our frequent overinterpretation of point estimates to the diminishment of variability of the estimate. We view this as analogous to the situation in which weather forecasters communicate the likely track of hurricanes. Such predictions involve point estimates of where the center of the storm is likely to be at some future time. These point estimates can be connected to identify the most likely path of the storm. In addition to these point estimates, however, forecasters caution that we should also attend to the “cone of uncertainty.” That is, we should not focus exclusively on the point estimate to the exclusion of the errors of prediction.

The purpose of this comment is to advocate for the development of a synthetic validity database along the lines described by Johnson et al. (2010), not only because of its practical utility but also because of its potential contribution to the science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology generally. Specifically, one of the core scientific pursuits of psychology is the understanding of individual differences (IDs). Knowledge of the context in which specific IDs matter (i.e., in terms of level of behaviors exhibited) can provide information about the nature of those IDs. For example, if the degree to which a job requires continuous learning of symbolic material is related to the predictive validity of general cognitive ability (g; i.e., learning context moderates the g–performance relationship), it is likely that g has something to do with the acquisition of new knowledge. Alternatively, or additionally, if the degree to which a job requires making decisions among large numbers of multi-attribute options is related to the validity of g as a predictor of job performance, it implies that g involves information processing capacity (and perhaps it is via this mechanism that g is related to learning). That is, evidence of the moderator effects of context (i.e., conditions on which jobs or tasks vary) on ID–performance relationships provides information about the nature of the ID construct, as well as whether the ID construct is likely to be predictive of performance in any particular context. This is another reason to develop a database that indicates what context variables predict the validities of ID constructs.

Morelli, Potosky, Arthur, and Tippins (2017) are correct in calling for more conceptual models explicitly linking technology to industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. As these authors note, in the absence of models and theories of technology to guide the research and practice of I-O psychology, the field runs the risk of chasing the impacts of specific technological innovations and devices rather than guiding organizations on best practices regarding the use of technology. Building theories and models that directly involve technology and placing them within individual psychological and larger organizational processes provides researchers with a way to stay ahead of the fast pace of technological innovation and anticipate its effects on measurement and prediction. Moreover, there are aspects to the use of technology that I-O psychologists are uniquely qualified to consider, including legal considerations (e.g., accessibility concerns), ethical questions (e.g., access in disadvantaged communities), practical concerns (e.g., user and target reactions), and measurement issues (e.g., construct irrelevant variance). In this commentary, we present two main points of consideration that demonstrate how I-O psychologists might use and create technology to improve assessment. First, we argue that technology can improve the measurement of psychological variables if we critically consider how technology can positively influence various parts of response behavior. Additionally, we encourage future research to consider the effects of technology in I-O psychology more comprehensively by extending the emphasis on psychological processes beyond cognition and behavior to include affect and motivation.

The article on subtle discrimination by Jones and colleagues (K. P. Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, 2017) describes in detail and enriches the knowledge on this undesirable yet quite common phenomenon in organizations. In this comment, we argue that subtle discrimination behaviors are natural and predictable in view of organizational actions taken to increase diversity on one hand and prevent overt discrimination on the other hand. Also, practical ways to reduce the phenomenon are suggested.

We wonder whether theory alone can solve problems and answer questions faced by practitioners working on the front lines of assessment innovation. Stated another way, to what degree can current theories influence the application of our work to new technology when it comes available? We are speaking as practitioners working in selection, the area in which technology has been studied most commonly in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology (e.g., King, Ryan, Kantrowitz, Grelle, & Dainis, 2015). More specifically, we focus on the impact of mobile technology on our selection systems. We are excited for the focal article (Morelli, Potosky, Arthur, & Tippins, 2017) on theory development relative to technological advancement because much of the work we do in this area has not been discussed significantly in the literature. Our goal in this commentary is to review what we have learned about the implications of technology from our experience building and validating innovative prehire assessments.

In our focal article (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012), we suggested that increased dialogue and connection between researchers and practitioners focused on diversity in organizations and those focused on cross-cultural work psychology could be beneficial to growth and advancement in both fields. The thoughtful and intriguing commentaries to the article are heterogeneous both in the topics they focus on and in their relative emphasis on theory versus practice, and in our view support our call for more dialogue. In this response, we address some of the key issues the commentaries stimulated for us, including the notion of integration versus homogenization and the differential role of values in research in each field. We summarize by highlighting, as did many of the commentaries, the importance of multiple and diverse approaches and perspectives, a value consistent with both fields.

We applaud the efforts of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) in launching much-needed dialogue on gender representation within the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that it is imperative to address inequity in our profession, beginning with an informed assessment of accurate information. However, the focal article did not offer any information on the representation of a group that too often goes unnoticed: women of color.