In contrast to the view that survey key driver analysis (SKDA) is a misused and blind empirical process, we suggest it is a reasonable, hypothesis-driven approach that builds on cumulative knowledge drawn from both the literature and practice, and requires reasoned judgment about the relationships of individual items to the constructs they represent and the criteria of interest. The logic of key driver analysis in applied settings is no different than the logic of its application in fundamental research regarding employee attitudes (e.g., Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, 2012). However, there are important survey design and analysis issues with respect to how key driver analyses are best conducted. Just some of these are discussed below.

The growth in the popularity of social networking websites (SNSs) has resulted in many organizations using such platforms for organizational activities, including recruitment, employee selection, employee monitoring, and termination. However, the legality of organizations using social networking for these purposes is unclear. Although many researchers have touched on the potential legal implications of organizations using these tools (see e.g., Brown & Vaughn, 2011), no empirical studies have examined how the court system views their use in organizational settings. Thus, the current study examined federal court cases related to the use of SNSs in various employment practices.

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is indeed moving forward in its involvement in humanitarian concerns (Berry et al., 2011), but as Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) point out, I-O psychologists tend to focus less on those of low income and the informal economy and more on working professionals in the formal economy (POSH). We propose (a) additional reasons for why the POSH bias may undermine science, (b) more solutions to benefit the impoverished, and (c) a broader conceptualization of humanitarian work psychology (HWP).

This practice forum explores how the “quantified self movement” can contribute to developing leaders by offering new approaches to assessment and feedback. Often associated with wearable technologies (digital technologies worn on the body), self-tracking sensors and feedback systems help individuals assess how they interface with the world, automatically capturing and monitoring data for learning, growth, and change. The authors make the case that such tools can create ongoing opportunities for learning intrapersonal qualities relevant to leadership. In particular, they offer insights about using self-tracking to manage responses to stress and fatigue and for the delivery of verbal presentations. The exploration also notes concerns about the use of technological devices for development purposes. The authors conclude by offering a summary of six factors to consider before using self-tracking tools for leadership development, and by identifying four aspects of self-tracking approaches that would benefit from more I-O psychologist involvement.

Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants (2018) present outcomes of the 2-day Jeanneret Symposium describing the state of the science and practice related to the assessment and development of senior leaders. They call for cross-disciplinary and/or organization-level research that examines “how organizations mature their assessment and development practices toward an integrated system embedded in a development culture” (p. 646). The purpose of this commentary is to answer this call and add to their work by proposing a systems thinking framework of organizational development where a corporate university plays a pivotal role.

The focal article (Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants, 2018) reviewed and discussed the challenges, practices, and opportunities for the assessment and development for senior leaders. They summarized a set of accepted wisdom for assessing senior leaders in the areas of assessment criteria, contexts, and implementation, and meanwhile, pointed out what should be explored and done in the future. One of the central premises of the focal article seems to be built on the assumption that organizations may have sufficient resources to follow the accepted wisdom to ensure the quality and effectiveness of assessment and development for senior leaders. In addition, most, if not all, of the research findings summarized and discussed in the focal article may be based on the studies under the context of established companies. Hence, whether the implications and suggestions from the focal article can generalize to small enterprises remain an open question. For example, a typical small enterprise in the United States is a company capitalized with about $25,000 (Shane, 2009). Most of these enterprises are highly centralized, have negative cash flow, and have troubles in securing cash and in obtaining customer acceptance (Rutherford & Buller, 2007). Thus, these companies may not be able to follow the accepted wisdom as recommended in the focal article. We realize that some small businesses and start-ups are extremely well funded, so our following comments apply only to those small enterprises with scarce resources.

Bergman and Jean's (2016) focal article decries the limited research attention of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists on “workers”—that is, employees such as wage earners, frontline workers, and contractors, who do not fill professional, managerial, or executive positions. We agree. In addition to the scientific and moral benefits of studying workers, there is a practical imperative. An academic discipline that comes across as being disinterested in workers may leave itself open to charges of being the “handmaiden” of management (Hulin, 2002, p. 12). Moreover, such an academic discipline may be ill prepared to provide evidence-based contributions to important societal debates on topics such as income inequality and immigration.

Gross, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich's (2017) article argues that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has a limited perspective that rarely goes beyond the specific professional populations in formal economies of high-income countries—a perspective they refer to as a POSH perspective. This valuable criticism should also eschew the notion that workers in nonindustrialized countries are necessarily different.

Aguinis et al. (2017) highlighted the gender disparity in authorship of publications within the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree with the authors that this is a troubling finding and think that this gender disparity within our field is the most critical implication of the focal article. I-O psychologists are specifically trained to address employment issues, including gender disparities at work. To see such disconcerting findings in our area of expertise is akin to a sports team losing to a competitor when they have the home court advantage. Namely, we are left feeling deflated and asking ourselves, “What went wrong?”

Compared with more turbulent times in history, some might argue workplace discrimination has seen a downward trend. Others would contend that workplace discrimination has “just gone underground” and become more covert (Herring, 2002, p. 13). Either way, not-so-distant historical events such as the landmark Texaco case in 1996 and the Ford Motor case in 2000 remind us that discrimination demands our attention. Calls for research on interventions have surfaced (Becker, Zawadzki, & Shields, 2014), and proposals such as legal reforms, implicit bias training (Bartlett, 2009), and experiential learning workshops have answered (Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube, & Shields, 2014). The focal article (Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, 2017) contributes to this discussion as it turns our attention to the construct space of discrimination and presents a framework for organizing its facets and forms. Without a doubt, a framework that lends itself to the integration of the many forms of discrimination is long overdue.

There are at least four interrelated reasons why the practice of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology should not require a license that is mandated by the state or province where the I-O psychologist resides. First, there is no subject matter domain unique to the practice of I-O psychology. Second, because there is no subject matter domain unique to I-O psychology, the subject matter is extensively practiced by other unregulated professions. Hence, a law mandating a license to practice I-O psychology, restricted to graduates from a doctoral program in a psychology department, is unlikely to be enforceable. It simply would not stand up to a legal challenge. Third, the espoused benefit of a mandated license, namely, to protect the public, is specious. Finally, a mandated license for the practice of I-O psychology by I-O psychologists could lead to the death of I-O psychology programs. Each of these four concerns is explained below.

Although assessment centers (ACs) are usually designed to measure stable competencies (i.e., dimensions), doubt about whether or not they reliably do so has endured for 70 years. Addressing this issue in a novel way, several published Generalizability (G) theory studies have sought to isolate the multiple sources of variance in AC ratings, including variance specifically concerned with competencies. Unlike previous research, these studies can provide a definitive answer to the AC construct validity issue. In this article, the historical context for the construct validity debate is set out, and the results of four large-scale G-theory studies of ACs are reviewed. It is concluded that these studies demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that ACs do not reliably measure stable competencies, but instead measure general, and exercise-related, performance. The possibility that ACs measure unstable competencies is considered, and it is suggested that evidence that they do so may reflect an artefact of typical AC design rather than a “real” effect. For ethical, individual, and organizational reasons, it is argued that the use of ACs to measure competencies can no longer be justified and should be halted.

Social exchange theory (SET) is one of the most prominent and well-known theories in the organizational sciences literature (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In the focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) asserted that SET needs to be adjusted to account for changes in the nature of work, workers, and workplace characteristics. Specifically, they identify that workplaces are now more volatile, complex, uncertain, and ambiguous (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014), and work itself has become more flexible, virtual, and technology dependent; accordingly, today's workers are sourced from a global talent pool and more frequently occupy nontraditional employment arrangements (e.g., freelancing). It is undisputable that the workplace landscape is vastly different from that of the workplace landscape during which early forms of SET were originally articulated (Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1958).