In their focal article, Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) argue that a large general factor (DGF), defined as the first component of an unrotated principal components solution, is characteristic of many different domains. In their view, ignoring the DGF in assessment and prediction in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is counterproductive. They readily acknowledge that the existence of a DGF does not preclude the existence of distinguishable specific factors. Their message is simply that the general factor (unrotated) frequently accounts for over half the reliable variance, and rather than ignore it, the reasons for it and the usefulness of it should be investigated. Further, the general factor is a construct, and all constructs must be supported by the various kinds of evidence that demonstrate construct validity. The DGF is no exception.

We commend Rotolo et al. (2018) for introducing a new lens for viewing the well-known gap between industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research and human resource (HR) practices in organizations. However, Rotolo et al.’s characterization of practitioner behavior as “anti I-O” suggests a particularly negative view of scientific research among some HR practitioners. The label implies that some HR practitioners are intentionally ignoring or actively resisting academic research. More likely, the behavior stems from a passive indifference to academia, which may be the appropriate attitude for some practitioners to adopt when a great deal of academic research is too slow, too theoretical, and too cryptically communicated to be useful in applied settings. We agree with Rotolo et al. when they say, “we are a discipline that is not geared for being cutting edge” (p. 182), and we appreciate their recommendations for addressing this lack of relevance. However, most recommendations in this broader discussion do not address the foundational problem within our field: a systemic mismatch between the incentives of practitioners and academics. To support this point, we briefly describe a typology of I-O psychologists as well as the varying contexts and incentives that drive their behavior. We then close with our own recommendations for how academia can improve its relevance to practitioners and close the gap. These changes are not easy, but we agree with Rotolo and colleagues that if any field can address such foundational problems, it is ours.

This article addresses the insightful and diverse commentaries received regarding our focal article examining collectivistic leadership approaches from both a scientific and practical perspective. In our response, we attend to four emergent themes: the interdisciplinary and historic nature of collectivistic approaches to leadership, the need for studying the nature of collectivistic leadership as a unique phenomenon, the benefits and vulnerabilities associated with this leadership perspective, and the importance of understanding from a holistic perspective what influences collectivistic leadership and how to develop it. For each theme, we integrate feedback from the commentaries and provide our perspective in terms of how to continue the dialogue on collectivistic leadership for scientific and practical advancement.

Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) raise the need for further investigation into dominant general factors (DGFs) and their prevalence in measures used for the purposes of employee selection, development, and performance measurement. They imply that a method of choice for estimating the contribution of DGFs is principal components analysis (PCA), and they interpret the variance accounted for by the first component of the PCA solution as indicative of the contribution of a general factor. In this response, we illustrate the hazard of equating the first component of a PCA with a general factor, and we illustrate how this becomes particularly problematic when applying PCA to multifaceted variables. Rather than simply critique this use of PCA, we offer an alternative approach that helps to address and illustrate the problem that we raise.

Our focus is on the difficulties that synthetic validity encounters in attempting to achieve discriminant validity and the implications of these difficulties. Johnson et al. (2010) acknowledge the potential problems involved in attaining discriminant validity in synthetic validity. For example, they report that Peterson et al. (2001), Johnson (2007), and other synthetic validity studies report failure to achieve discriminant validity. What this failure means is that a synthetic validity equation developed to predict validity for Job A does as well in predicting validity for Jobs B, C, D, and so forth as it does for Job A. Johnson et al. then go on to propose that this problem might be overcome by careful attention to both the criterion and predictor sides of synthetic validity. We question whether their proposals can be made to work.

Synthetic validity is very much like monogamy. It is an idea that is universally admired but not widely practiced. The concept of synthetic validity has been around for almost 60 years (Lawshe, 1952) and it is described in virtually every testing and measurement book and every industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology textbook I have ever read. I still vividly remember my undergraduate Psychological Testing professor dismissing synthetic validity as “made-up validity.” I thought he was wrong then, and I still do. Nevertheless, it is worth asking why synthetic validity studies are so rare.

Victim precipitation is embedded deeply within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) are right to challenge the assumptions that have perpetuated victim blaming in our discipline (consciously and unconsciously); however, a significant source of victim precipitation discourse within our field was strikingly absent in their discussion: construct measurement. The nature of how we measure most of our workplace aggression and mistreatment constructs (e.g., incivility, abusive supervision, bullying) have potential to negate the experiences of targeted employees as well as the unique impact of various perpetrator behaviors. Furthermore, how we interpret these measures can result in researchers and practitioners privileging the experiences of some individuals and dismissing the experiences of others. How can we hope to achieve a progressive approach to mistreatment in our disciplines if our measures do not keep pace?

We find Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, and Greiff's (2015) article to be worth discussing and embracing because it represents not only a pragmatic offering of two important constructs for 21st century work but also an important opportunity for industrial–organizational (I-O) scholars and practitioners to consider several questions related to the future of I-O psychology. Neubert et al. correctly identified the broad trends that are influencing the economic environment that we live in and made a compelling argument that I-O psychologists should join other researchers and policymakers from ancillary fields to identify and measure the unique competencies and skills that will determine success in the future of work. In our own research on new technologies and their use in talent assessment and selection (e.g., mobile device testing), we have often considered other future-related research questions, and we would like to offer them here as a supplement to this discussion in the hopes that it might spur further forward-thinking conversation, research, and practice. Below we offer five additional themes to organize the questions that we believe are important to consider as I-O psychologists evaluate the merits and uses of 21st century skills such as complex problem solving and collaborative problem solving (CPS and ColPS).

For years now, the call for human resources’ (HR's) head has been ringing through the halls of academic institutions and organizations throughout the globe. Whether it is Buckingham and Goodall (2015) calling for the total overhaul of performance management or Ram Charan (2014) asking us to split HR into the sum of its responsibilities, people have opinions of HR and the way it is practiced today and how it should be practiced in the future. The cavalcade of thought leaders, futurists, and soothsayers calling for the rethinking of HR seems longer than the procession at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.