Diversity in organizations is a recurring and increasing reality of vast importance. The diversity management literature describes different types of organizations based on their treatment and management of diversity, including plural and multicultural organizations. However, recent research suggests the added value of considering polycultural organizations in diversity management. Based on a polycultural ideology that sees values, traditions, and norms inherently and dynamically intertwined and mixed, polycultural organizations emphasize the value for and “connectedness” to diversity among organizational members. Contributing to the diversity management literature, this paper conceptually describes and compares polycultural organizations with other types of organizations in the diversity management literature. It argues the potential benefit of including a polycultural ideology to current perspectives in diversity management to further advance our understanding of how diversity can be effectively managed in organizations. Additionally, practice implications and strategies to foster polycultural organizations are provided.

I have three issues I would like to add to Rotolo et al.’s (2018) arguments for research foci and with which academics must be concerned as we move forward. We must pay attention to all of what Rotolo et al. said plus at least my three additions if we are to compete with other fields playing in the talent management (TM) space. First, I will argue we have become overly concerned in our refereed outlets with theory to the detriment of validity against important organizational outcomes. Second, I will note that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has become fixated on individuals and their differences to the almost literal exclusion of research on the psychology of organizational phenomena. Third, I will present an argument for research on reciprocal relationships—on organizations as real systems—in an attempt to counter the left-to-right thinking in all of our research models.

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.

A major goal of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) was to determine what steps are needed moving forward in examining gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Specifically, on the topic of pay differences, we highlight that gender differences in pay are in part due to differences in negotiation behaviors and/or experiences. Prior research demonstrates that female negotiators receive greater backlash than male negotiators—a possible explanation to why men tend to negotiate more often and more successfully than women (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007). Based on this evidence, one next step in moving forward should involve providing resources and knowledge to improve negotiation skills and practices specifically aimed at eliminating differences between women and men in both propensity to negotiate and the evaluation/consequences of negotiating.

In their focal article, Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) based their definition of a dominant general factor (DGF) on two criteria: (a) A DGF should be the largest source of reliable variance; (b) it is influencing every variable measuring the construct. Although detailed attention has been paid to the statistical properties of a DGF, I believe another criterion of equal if not greater importance is the theoretical justification to expect a DGF in the measurement of a construct. In the following commentary, I will highlight the importance of theory as another important criterion when determining the meaningfulness and usefulness of DGFs, discuss the risks of creating a DGF without any theoretical guidance, and elaborate on the complexities surrounding job performance as a detailed example to illustrate why theory is important before extracting a DGF from performance ratings.

Rotolo et al. (2018) decry the rise in use of trendy, simplistic human resource management (HRM) procedures and practices such as talent management, regardless of any solid scientific basis culled from relevant disciplines such as industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Furthermore, they observe a propagating spirit of anti-I-O psychology that has recently emerged and that should provoke our concern. What has ignited and fueled this reality? Correctly noted, Rotolo et al. indicate that I-O psychology academics have, over the years, lost touch with the actual preoccupying needs of managers in organizations. Instead of promoting novel fields of exploration and devising innovative tools and procedures, I-O scientists overly invest their time, energy, and ingenuity in methodological minutiae and theorizing.

Cortina, Robello, and Holland (2018) advance a case for the danger of using the victim precipitation model in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology—a model that is interpreted as suggesting that characteristics and behaviors of victims may influence criminals to select them as targets, in effect blaming victims for crimes committed against them. This “victim blaming” found its way into criminology, criminal justice, sociology, and other disciplines, resulting in revictimization and in the exoneration of violent criminals, among other undesirable outcomes. We agree with Cortina and colleagues that these outcomes, then and now, are unacceptable: Victims cannot and should not be blamed for their aggressors’ actions, and aggressors should unequivocally be held accountable for their crimes. This extends to workplace mistreatment. Using the operationalizations of generalized workplace harassment, workplace incivility, sexual harassment, and abusive supervision as guides (Rospenda & Richman, 2004, as cited by Cortina et al., 2018; Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Tepper, 2000; Walsh & Magley, 2014), we define workplace mistreatment as any interpersonal interaction in the workplace that creates an oppressively intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment that extends beyond acceptable evaluative and professional actions given situational demands (e.g., poor performance reviews, layoffs during downsizing/mergers/acquisitions, discipline, etc.). Although an unpopular point of view, we maintain that whether or not victims influence the contexts that facilitate victimization in the workplace is an empirical question. This research continues to be scientifically valuable, relevant, and practical, and it is necessary to more fully understand workplace mistreatment (Barling, 1996; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Two principal reasons drive this position: (a) the lack of scientific, data-driven evidence to support the exclusion of the victim precipitation model and (b) the potential harmful premise of its replacement, the perpetrator predation model. Elucidating our thoughts on these reasons will occupy our commentary.