During the past 30 years, individual psychological assessment (IPA) has gained in use and in value to organizations in the management of human resources. However, even though IPA is considered a core competency for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology, its practice is not without critics. This article is written not only to address several criticisms of IPA but also to discuss a variety of issues that must be taken into consideration if IPA is to advance as a major component of the I–O scientist–practitioner model. We rely upon a working definition of IPA in general but, when possible, focus on executive assessment in particular, given its high level of complexity and growing popularity. We discuss the effectiveness of assessment practice, including the ongoing statistical versus clinical prediction argument and the difficulties with establishing validity. Although we are confident that IPA has many strong research and practice underpinnings, we also propose some important research questions, training guidelines, and opportunities for assessing psychologists to improve their practices.

Although extensive research and practice have focused on understanding and improving performance management systems in organizations, the formula for effective performance management remains elusive. We propose that a significant part of the problem is that performance management has been reduced to prescribed steps within formal administrative systems that are disconnected from the day-to-day activities that determine performance management effectiveness (e.g., communicating clear work expectations, setting short-term objectives and deadlines, and providing continual guidance). We argue that interventions to improve performance management should cease their exclusive focus on reinventing formal system features. Although well-developed tools and systems can facilitate performance management, these alone do not yield effective performance management. In lieu of making further changes to formal performance management systems, we argue for devoting more attention to improving manager–employee communication and aspects of the manager–employee relationship and propose an approach we believe holds promise for improving performance management processes in organizations.

Over the years, employee opinion surveys have evolved in their use and how they are conducted. A major advancement has been the use of linkage analyses, whereby employee attitudes at a unit level are statistically related to other important organizational outcomes. A more recent development has been linkage analyses at the individual level and over time. In order to carry out these types of analyses, “identified surveys” must be used—surveys that retain identifying information on each survey respondent in order to link with other individual-level variables over time. The purpose of this article is to open up a discussion on identified surveys, describe under what circumstances they may be uniquely beneficial, and highlight potential concerns with them. We close with proposed guidelines for professional practice and recommend that our profession have a point of view on identified surveys for ourselves and to advise others.

Evidence-based practice is now well established in several fields including medicine, nursing, and social policy. This article seeks to promote discussion of whether the practice of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists is evidence based and what is needed to make I–O psychology an evidence-based discipline. It first reviews the emergence of the concept of evidence-based practice. Second, it considers the definitions and features of evidence-based practice, including evidence-based management. It then assesses whether I–O psychology is itself an evidence-based discipline by identifying key characteristics of evidence-based practice and judging the extent these characterize I–O psychology. Fourth, some key strategies for promoting the use of evidence in I–O psychology are considered: practice-oriented research and systematic reviews. Fifth, barriers to practicing evidence-based I–O psychology are identified along with suggestions for overcoming them. Last is a look to the future of an evidence-based I–O psychology that plays an important role in helping consultants, in-house I–O psychologists, managers, and organizations become more evidence based.