Resilience has become a popular buzzword in society today, both inside and outside academia. If you look at the mission statement of most companies nowadays, you are likely to come across some form of the term resilience. The United States Army has adopted The Ready and Resilient Campaign, which seeks to build and maintain resilience across all forces and integrate resilience into the culture of the U.S. Army so that improvements can be made in soldier resilience and unit readiness.

In this commentary, we build on Bracken, Rose, and Church's (2016) definition stating that 360° feedback should involve “the analysis of meaningful comparisons of rater perceptions across multiple ratees, between specific groups of raters” (p. 764). Bracken et al. expand on this component of the definition later by stressing that “the ability to conduct meaningful comparisons of rater perceptions both between (inter) and within (intra) groups is central and, indeed, unique to any true 360° feedback process” (p. 767; italicized in their focal article). Bracken et al. stress that “This element of our definition acknowledges that 360° feedback data represent rater perceptions that may contradict each other while each being true and valid observations” (p. 767).

Pratt and Bonaccio's (2016) focal article properly reviews and identifies the need for qualitative research methods in our field. However, they overlooked one important benefit—team science—that is crucial to current organizations. Despite the fact that qualitative research in team science is lacking, we suggest that with qualitative research we can gain more insight into what teams need in order to be effective. According to Kozlowski and Bell (2003), team dynamics are historically looked at in a static way in teams research, solely focusing on individuals’ perceptions of the team at a given time as opposed to multilevels over time. In an attempt to further expand on how qualitative research can examine constructs that purely quantitative methods may not, the purpose of this commentary is to highlight importance of qualitative research regarding its ability to capture team dynamics as they occur in the real world. The need for qualitative methods exists across various components (i.e., inputs, team emergent states, processes, outputs) when it comes to teams. We argue that how these components appear, happen, and, more importantly, evolve over time should be taken into consideration. The current commentary highlights how qualitative research can start to fill the gap of understanding team dynamics and how to improve team practices by taking time into consideration.

The focal article authors have done the field a welcome service by alerting us to some of the forthcoming changes in the world of the knowledge worker. We agree that emerging changes in the structure and processes of work will need to be accommodated by new design of work—a new millennial workforce, new definitions of work, innovative practice, and the transition from a concentration on improved quality of manufacturing to a primary drive toward high technology driven innovation. The most radical adaptation may be the change from organizations designed for stability to those designed for flexibility (Chernyak-Hai & Rabenu, 2018; Grace & Graen, 2014).

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland's (2018) perspective on studying victimization in organizations is a welcome contribution to workplace aggression research. We share their believe that considering a perpetrator predation paradigm may advance and proliferate research on issues related to gender harassment, bullying, mobbing, and other explicitly overt forms of victimization where the intent to harm is supposedly clear. However, we propose that, if blindly adopted, neither the dominant victim precipitation paradigm nor the suggested perpetrator predation paradigm will improve research on incivility or other more covert and indirect forms of victimization. In fact, we suggest in our commentary that both models may be counterproductive for understanding and remedying incivility in organizations.

Miner et al. (2018) claim that focusing on individual factors to understand gender inequity in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) provides an incomplete explanation of the phenomenon. They challenge the appropriateness of individual-level explanations that hold women responsible for the injustices they experience, suggesting that this perspective fails to consider larger social-contextual influences. Instead, to explain gender disparity in the STEM fields, Miner et al. offer a social-structural lens through which to view the situation that relies on commonly held beliefs about women in society. The inequality that characterizes these fields, however, is a worldwide phenomenon that spans societal boundaries. Therefore, understanding the social-contextual factors that contribute to gender inequality in the STEM fields requires a cross-cultural examination of norms and values. In this commentary, I first outline a program of research aimed at developing an empirically supported theoretical framework that explains gender inequity in the STEM fields from a cross-cultural perspective. Then, I review the ways in which cultural beliefs influence education and careers in the STEM fields. Finally, I provide some practical suggestions of ways to promote gender equality in STEM fields. As such, this commentary serves as a call to integrate concepts from vocational, educational, and cross-cultural psychology to address an issue of upmost importance: equal representation.

Performance evaluation has long been a source of dissatisfaction for practitioners and a focus of research for scholars. The current call for the elimination of performance ratings is not new. This commentary considers the quality perspective as a historical context in which performance ratings were, at best, considered a misguided management tool. Although the current debate doesn't seem to be philosophically based, it may be useful to recognize that serious questions regarding performance ratings have come up before. Potential measurement problems with performance ratings are considered. It is concluded that performance ratings are not the major problem for performance management. Possible sources of problems with performance management are considered. Directions for improvement are discussed.

In their focal article, Adler and his colleagues (2016) elaborate on the pros and cons of abolishing the performance appraisal process in organizations. Sherman-Garr (2014) contends that this trend is on the rise because both managers—the raters—and their subordinates—the ratees—disdain performance scores. Employees feel that performance ratings do not reflect their actual performance, and therefore they do not gain the rewards they merit. Conversely, their supervisors/managers experience a great deal of frustration because the improvement of employee performance does not match up to the excessive time and effort invested in the appraisal process, making the whole process ineffective and inefficient. We agree that performance appraisals, specifically the practice of assigning performance ratings, appear to be a disliked and ineffective human resource function. However, we do not agree that goal attainment should be used in place of performance ratings; rating format and rater training represent “disappointing interventions” and, most of all, only “weak” criteria exist for performance ratings.