Our focal article sought to promote discussion of evidence-based approaches to practice in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. It did so by describing the meanings and origins of evidence-based practice, evaluating the extent to which I–O psychology practice is currently evidence-based, and considering the role of systematic reviews in promoting evidence-based practice. The commentaries on our focal article raised many interesting and important points. In our response, we divide them into two broad categories. The first category consists of comments and objections that arise from what we believe to be misinterpretations of evidence-based practice and our focal article. The second category contains those comments that in various ways extend and elaborate the issues raised in our focal article. Although we are not there yet, we hope that these commentaries will take us a little nearer to an evidence-based approach to I–O psychology.

In our recent focal article, we proposed that a fundamental change is needed in how performance management is implemented and viewed. Rather than attempting to improve the effectiveness of performance management by changing features of the formal system (e.g., steps, tools, and processes), we recommended increased focus on improving manager–employee communication and aspects of the manager–employee relationship that are foundational for effective performance management. Our article generated a number of thoughtful and engaging commentaries. In this commentary, we respond to several themes raised in the commentaries and relate them to the recommendations we made for improving performance management processes in organizations.

In this essay we argue for a more person-centric direction for research in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. We argue that the prevailing paradigm within I–O treats workers as objects and in so doing limits the ability to develop a deep and continued understanding of the important ways in which humans relate to work. In response, we think there is a need for a more coherent focus on the worker and on the subjective experience of working. After describing the current paradigm we suggest an alternative—a person-centric work psychology that takes the worker as its focus and worker experience as a topic of study.

One of the “truisms” of personnel selection is that overqualified applicants are likely to be a poor fit and thus experience low job satisfaction and performance and higher turnover. Recently, the issue of overqualification has come to the forefront because of the economic downturn, especially in some European Union countries where unemployment rates are extremely high. However, empirical research on overqualification in the industrial–organizational/organizational behavior literature is limited. In this article, we argue that although there may be drawbacks to overqualification for both organizations and employees, overqualification may also provide a number of positive outcomes for workers and employers alike. We review the limited research on overqualification, noting the positive and negative consequences of overqualification and the conditions under which overqualified employees may be a boon to organizations. We conclude by recommending some possible research streams to better understand the overqualification phenomenon and by making recommendations for organizational practices.