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.

The focal article (Guzzo, Fink, King, Tonidandel, & Landis, 2015) sought to “raise awareness and provide direction with regard to issues and complications uniquely associated with the advent of big data,” (p. 492), and we commend their success in offering Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members a solid foundation and resources on which to draw. Our aim here is to extend their position, particularly to drive the conversation toward concrete recommendations for how industrial and organizational psychologists (I-Os) working in industry can apply the principles set forth in the focal article in our day-to-day work, specifically around the issue of avoiding ethical missteps in this new landscape.

In the focal article, Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have noted that performance management (PM) too often consists of intermittent steps (e.g., end-of-year performance review ratings and meetings) that are not connected to day-to-day work. With regard to performance ratings, Pulakos et al. (2015) have pointed out that it can be “demotivating and disengaging for employees to have their performance boiled down to a single number, with which they are then labeled, unless it is the highest rating or ranking that is available” (p. xx). The authors have also noted that managers sometimes retrofit their ratings to justify the pay increases that managers want to give employees (sometimes for reasons unrelated to the employee's level of performance). Pulakos et al. have also offered a case study of one organization, Cargill, which has abandoned ratings. Although Pulakos and colleagues have pointed out that not all organizations should eliminate ratings, the authors have argued that when there are small differences in pay increases across employees, ratings can be removed with relative ease and little consequence. Pulakos and colleagues have therefore suggested that organizations should consider the impact that ratings have on decision making (and have suggested that this impact is often smaller than one might think).

Although the authors of the focal article (Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, & Moye, 2015) have provided some well-grounded guidelines on how to fix the performance management (PM) dilemma companies are facing today, in this commentary, I seek to extend their thesis to include innovating the process by leveraging new social technologies that have the opportunity to truly change the social dynamics of the entire process. Furthermore, it is critical to also consider how well the PM process is aligned with the company's formal and informal work structures. Traditional work structures were hierarchical, with employees reporting to one manager and having responsibility primarily for their own work product. Today's contemporary work structures often rely on teamwork and/or matrixed work structures in which an employee has two managers.

Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) discuss employee resilience trajectories, noting that only a few studies taking this approach have been conducted in the workplace. They recommend that with such an approach it is essential to assess baseline functioning, document adversity, and gather longitudinal data. They also point out the need to clarify what variables should be measured in the demonstration of resilience and suggest that resilience trajectories across different outcomes may or may not converge. We agree that trajectories are a promising approach to studying employee resilience. However, conceptualizing trajectories as profiles provides additional meaningful concepts for describing the demonstration of resilience. These concepts have the potential for moving theory and research beyond the work on trajectories described by Britt et al.

With an eye toward promoting applications of organizational justice, I respond to commentaries on my focal article (Greenberg, 2009a). Specifically, I challenge questionable claims regarding (a) characterization of applied research, (b) why we don't conduct more applied justice research, (c) moral versus instrumental rationales for promoting justice, (d) the validity of intervention studies, and (e) interpretations of Lewin's classic observation about the practical value of theory. I also identify and comment upon two suggestions for promoting applied justice research: (a) promoting cooperation between researchers and practitioners and (b) conducting comprehensive, integrative interventions.

Aguinis and Glavas (2013) offer a new attempt to explain the consistently weak but consistently inconsistent findings regarding the relationship of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to financial performance. Like many others writing in the field, Aguinis and Glavas appear to believe that further efforts to categorize types of CSR will somehow identify CSR forms that are financially rewarding. In this response, I challenge four assumptions underlying the Aguinis and Glavas manuscript: (a) that CSR has received little attention in the micro literature; (b) that CSR can be meaningfully conceptualized and operationalized; (c) that a continued search for the “holy grail” of a CSR–financial performance link is likely to be fruitful; and (d) that the “peripheral–embedded” distinction is useful and appropriate.