In recent years, various I-O psychologists have raised concerns about the state of the field, with some arguing that we are experiencing a collective identity crisis and have lost our way. In this article, I explore why these concerns have emerged by reviewing the development of our field from a philosophy of science perspective. Then I discuss how the concepts of reflection and reflexivity can help us clarify our professional worldviews and find a way forward. I conclude by suggesting ways to incorporate reflection and reflexivity into I-O research and practice. My hope is to spark a conversation about the role that reflection and reflexivity could play in our field.

Organizations are becoming increasingly likely to incorporate measures of trait resilience into their selection batteries despite the challenges and validity questions described by Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016). Organizations can overcome some of the challenges of selecting high resilience workers by improving attraction and recruitment methods. In the following commentary, we describe common organization efforts to attract high resilience workers for occupations with risk of psychological trauma. We integrate research on organizational attraction and trait resilience to predict which of these approaches are likely to have the desired (attract high resilient workers) or undesired (attract low resilient workers) effect.

Recent commentary has suggested that performance management (PM) is fundamentally “broken,” with negative feelings from managers and employees toward the process at an all-time high (Pulakos, Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015; Pulakos & O'Leary, 2011). In response, some high-profile organizations have decided to eliminate performance ratings altogether as a solution to the growing disenchantment. Adler et al. (2016) offer arguments both in support of and against eliminating performance ratings in organizations. Although both sides of the debate in the focal article make some strong arguments both for and against utilizing performance ratings in organizations, we believe there continue to be misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and misinformation with respect to some of the measurement issues in PM. We offer the following commentary not to persuade readers to adopt one particular side over another but as a call to critically reconsider and reevaluate some of the assumptions underlying measurement issues in PM and to dispel some of the pervasive beliefs throughout the performance rating literature.

The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.