It is very encouraging to see the stimulating commentaries in response to our article on identifying potential. These essays and the numerous recent published articles and conference presentations on potential reflect the widespread interest, as well as the challenges, of managing high-potential individuals in organizations. Based on our experience, and apparently also on the experience of commentary authors, many organizations and consulting firms are giving significant attention to this component of strategy-driven talent management (see also Oliver, Church, Lewis, & Desrosiers, 2009; Silzer & Church, in press; Silzer & Dowell, in press). Based on their insightful comments, it is clear that many of the commentary authors have been thinking about and working in the area of potential for a while.

Most organizational justice studies focus primarily on theoretical issues and identify implications for practice only in passing. I advocate moving to the next step by testing such implications in theory-based studies that implement and assess the impact of interventions designed to promote organizational justice. Research that promotes organizational justice promises to benefit both organizations and their employees, and may be considered morally appropriate. Although usually not considered in this connection, theory-based application studies also promise to shed light on the theories from which they are derived. Despite these benefits, there are several reasons why such investigations are conducted only rarely. First, because managers tend to be unaware of justice-related problems, they are unlikely to accede to researchers’ requests to address them in research. Second, many researchers erroneously believe that studies assessing ways of improving conditions in organizations lack scientific objectivity. Third, scholarly values favor research that addresses theoretical issues and that eschew practical applications. Finally, the challenges of conducting intervention studies are inclined to be formidable, and these may deter researchers from undertaking such efforts.

Content-oriented validation strategies establish the validity of selection tests as predictors of performance by comparing the content of the tests with the content of the job. These comparisons turn out to have little if any bearing on the predictive validity of selection tests. There is little empirical support for the hypothesis that the match between job content and test content influences validity, and there are often structural factors in selection (e.g., positive correlations among selection tests) that strongly limit the possible influence of test content on validity. Comparisons between test content and job content have important implications for the acceptability of testing, the defensibility of tests in legal proceedings, and the transparency of test development and validation, but these comparisons have little if any bearing on validity.

In this response, we address commentator concerns about the generalizability of the active ingredients of psychotherapy to the science and practice of executive coaching. We discuss four ingredient that may make a difference: (a) client characteristics, (b) goals or success criteria, (c) role of the organization, and (d) contextual knowledge of the executive coach. We explore how each of these differences is likely to affect the weighting of the four active ingredients in the equation for predicting executive coaching outcomes. From this analysis, we re-affirm our hypotheses that the active ingredients are generalizable to coaching and hold promise for strengthening research and practice. We conclude by highlighting the efforts of several commentators to extend and deepen our hypotheses to other areas of leadership development.

Innovation, the development and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas by individuals, teams, and organizations, lies at the heart of human adaptation. Decades of research in different disciplines and at different organizational levels have produced a wealth of knowledge about how innovation emerges and the factors that facilitate and inhibit innovation. We propose that this knowledge needs integration. In an initial step toward this goal, we apply a dialectic perspective on innovation to overcome limitations of dichotomous reasoning and to gain a more valid account of innovation. We point out that individuals, teams, and organizations need to self-regulate and manage conflicting demands of innovation and that multiple pathways can lead to idea generation and innovation. By scrutinizing the current use of the concept of organizational ambidexterity and extending it to individuals and teams, we develop a framework to help guide and facilitate future research and practice. Readers expecting specific and universal prescriptions of how to innovate will be disappointed as current research does not allow such inferences. Rather, we think innovation research should focus on developing and testing principles of innovation management in addition to developing decision aids for organizational practice. To this end, we put forward key propositions and action principles of innovation management.