The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

Recent media coverage has called attention to what some see as an unreasonable use of force by law enforcement officers against unarmed Black citizens. Many of these incidents have stirred widespread concern, as there has been a large public outcry indicating that the incidents appear to have racial undertones, which is particularly pronounced given the fatal consequences that are too frequent. This article focuses on how psychological research on racial bias can explain some of the cognitive and affective processes that could be influencing law enforcement officer behavior in at least some of these incidents. Further, we discuss how industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists can use this research and leverage current practices within the field to develop solutions and effectively deal with individual racial biases among officers within the law enforcement community. We also discuss avenues of future research within I-O psychology and hope to spark a conversation within the I-O community about additional ways the field can address tensions that have arisen between law enforcement and different communities regarding perceptions of excessive use of force by officers.

Much of police psychology over the past 50 years or so has been clinically focused. The role and function of the industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologist within the context of law enforcement was highlighted by Lefkowitz (1977), and in the years since, the contributions of I-O psychology applied to law enforcement issues have become increasingly valued. It is, therefore, appreciated that Ruggs et al. (2016) offer suggestions for how I-O psychologists might get involved in addressing some of the current hot spots in police work.

In the focal article, Ruggs et al. (2016) outline the ways in which psychological theory and research can provide insight into the potential underlying processes behind recent conflict between law enforcement officials and the community. These incidents have led to national questions regarding the training and standard operating procedure of police, as well as society's beliefs about the prevalence of stereotyping. The authors identify how psychological research, and social psychological and industrial–organizational research in particular, can play a role in shaping these issues for organizational practices moving forward.

I would be remiss if I did not begin by admitting my sheer delight to see organizational scientists (e.g., Hall, Hall, & Perry, 2016; Ruggs et al., 2016) taking a greater interest in broader societal social issues like these. In 2007, when I was the chair of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology's (SIOP's) Committee for Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA), I devoted part of a column in The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist to discussing what I perceived to be a law enforcement racial injustice perpetrated against several adolescents in Louisiana known as the “Jena Six” (Avery, 2007). The issue at hand in that case was the impact of race after an arrest was made. The media reports of the case at that time compelled many to believe that its handling by law enforcement and the criminal justice system had been influenced adversely by the racial composition of the White plaintiff and Black defendants. Like Ruggs et al., I felt then and continue to believe that we, as industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists, could be doing more to redress societal injustice. I also commend them on the multifaceted nature of their discussion and appreciate that they highlighted a number of ways in which our existing knowledge base is, and future research products could be, pertinent to what's happening all too often between police and the minority communities they are intended to serve and protect.

To enhance interactions between police officers and citizens, industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists will have to utilize a systems thinking approach to understand the multifaceted challenges facing Baltimore and other cities across the nation and develop holistic solutions that include the whole community. Ruggs et al. (2016) overlooked the systems view of Baltimore's challenges by focusing solely on isolated incidents of racial bias and proposing solutions predominantly inside the police station. To develop a comprehensive solution that has the potential to truly extinguish Baltimore's flames, we must also account for the interplay of police bias where it exists in the community; otherwise, we risk simply fanning the flames and escalating the challenges further with linear solutions.

Policing in United States has been under media and public scrutiny for a while now. The focal article “Baltimore Is Burning: Can I-O Psychologists Help Extinguish the Flames?” (Ruggs et al., 2016) is a critical piece of work that not only sheds light on how racial bias may impact police–citizen interactions but also outlines possible ways in which industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists can intervene to remedy the situation. Although the call to use evidence-based I-O interventions as levers to facilitate a more effective and unbiased police force is timely, it is critical to acknowledge that the charged environment and the controversial nature of this issue imply that some members of the police force might not accept the suggested interventions at face value. Many police officers are upstanding and hard-working individuals and may see the change interventions as an attack. Thus, before attempting to execute any strategies offered in the focal article, I-O psychologists will have to do significant groundwork from a change management perspective: The current crisis needs to be approached from a whole systems change perspective so that we can (a) understand the factors causing the “flames” and define the problem space comprehensively; (b) understand the type of change we need to effect in response to the crisis, stay closely attuned to the system's readiness for change, and also anticipate resistance to change from different levels of the system; and (c) chart a clear outline of what our role should entail as change agents in helping resolve this crisis. Thus, this commentary complements the focal article by juxtaposing authors’ recommendations against a whole systems change paradigm, questions their implicit assumptions, and recommends that I-O psychologists act as change agents to help police forces define the problem, find solutions, anticipate resistance, and execute interventions at different levels of the policing system.

The authors of the focal article ask a very important question: “Baltimore Is Burning: Can I-O Psychologists Help Extinguish the Flames?” (Ruggs et al., 2016). The answer is yes, emphatically, yes. The applied science of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology knows a great deal that can be brought to bear to help solve this real-world problem. As the title of this commentary indicates, personnel selection is one area that is highly relevant to this issue. Personnel selection is one of I-O psychology's specialty areas and is thought of by many around the world, including those in the U.S. legal system, as “owned” by I-O psychology. Other I-O specialty areas such as recruitment, training and development, onboarding/socialization, performance management, leadership, culture/climate, and culture/climate change also clearly have much to offer to help solve the problem. Others can address relevant research and practice in those areas; this commentary, however, is devoted to personnel selection. Revising a police department's hiring strategy is not a quick fix, nor is it, by itself, sufficient. Nonetheless, it is an important part of the package that I-O psychology has to offer.

We applaud the authors for tackling the important issue of policing and race from the unique perspective of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology. Here, we propose a framework by which to examine the authors’ recommended interventions along the same implicit–explicit dimension employed in the focal article's conceptualization of racial bias. Mirroring current thinking within the diversity literature, the focal article notes that racial bias is “often very subtle” (Ruggs et al., 2016, p. 531) and can include “unconscious and implicit” aspects (p. 531). Extending this notion of implicit versus explicit bias to interventions themselves, we advocate for increased attention toward more implicitly focused interventions, as opposed to some of the more explicitly focused interventions suggested in the focal article. We conceptualize explicitly focused interventions as those that deal directly and openly with race, diversity, or demographic differences. Below, we discuss three potential advantages of implicitly focused interventions.

Ruggs et al. (2016) describe paths through which industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology can make a dent in the ongoing policing problems in the United States. These paths include traditional I-O areas such as improved selection models, increased training, and changed organizational climates. However, there might be one fairly straightforward way in which police organizations can quickly reduce use-of-force problems: women. Because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents selection based on sex, police departments obviously cannot hire women just because they are women. But police departments can and, we argue, should recruit more women to apply for police officer positions, create work practices and experiences that are attractive to and supportive of women (Hassell & Brandl, 2009), and make efforts to retain female officers because of the evidence that female officers use less force when policing (Bolger, 2015). Additionally, police organizations and I-O psychologists should also work together to discover why women are less likely to use force and, subsequently, determine whether these characteristics can be selected or trained for in either sex.

This commentary elaborates on the position taken in the focal article, “Baltimore Is Burning” (Ruggs et al., 2016), that partnerships between industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists and law enforcement agencies could offer valuable insight and practical tools that help to alleviate long-standing and ongoing conflict between police officers and communities of color. I fully support this stance as well as many of the recommendations proposed within the focal article. I-O psychologists indeed have knowledge and resources that could prove useful for supporting police reform efforts. However, although I-O psychologists have much to contribute to the conversation, a recent review by Hall, Hall, and Perry (2016) draws attention to several ways in which law enforcement as a context and police officers as a population are distinct from many of the workplace environments and civilian employee populations that have informed current I-O knowledge and best practices. As such, our traditional methods may be wrought with unique challenges when implemented in law enforcement contexts. If we fail to give serious consideration to this, the role of I-O psychologists in preventing future fires in Baltimore and throughout the United States may be accompanied by unintended consequences. As I-O psychologists prepare to help law enforcement extinguish the flames between police and communities of color, we must anticipate and prepare to safely combat these dangers so we do not add fuel to the fire or get burned in the process of rendering aid.

As discussed in the focal article, numerous research studies have supported the existence of automatic or implicit racial bias (Ruggs et al., 2016). In this commentary, we argue that examining implicit bias through the perspective of the motivation and opportunity as determinants (MODE) model (see Fazio & Olson, 2014, for a review) offers a framework for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists to design and implement strategies that reduce the number of violent interactions between police and communities. The MODE model has been applied to areas such as interpersonal relationships (McNulty, Olson, Meltzer, & Shaffer, 2013), effective treatment of mental disorders (Vasey, Harbaugh, Buffington, Jones, & Fazio, 2012), and crafting of media messages (Ewoldsen, Rhodes, & Fazio, 2015), as well as racial prejudice (Olson & Fazio, 2004). Below, we elaborate on how the I-O-related strategies and interventions described in the focal article can be captured by the components of the MODE model and highlight which interventions may be most efficacious in reducing discriminatory police officer behavior.

It is hard to argue with the central thesis of the focal article (Ruggs et al., 2016) that industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology has much to offer police departments in helping them meet their mission. As an example, the Los Angeles Police Department provides a clear statement that is representative of most police agencies:

Almost 20 years after McKinsey introduced the idea of a war for talent, technology is disrupting the talent identification industry. From smartphone profiling apps to workplace big data, the digital revolution has produced a wide range of new tools for making quick and cheap inferences about human potential and predicting future work performance. However, academic industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists appear to be mostly spectators. Indeed, there is little scientific research on innovative assessment methods, leaving human resources (HR) practitioners with no credible evidence to evaluate the utility of such tools. To this end, this article provides an overview of new talent identification tools, using traditional workplace assessment methods as the organizing framework for classifying and evaluating new tools, which are largely technologically enhanced versions of traditional methods. We highlight some opportunities and challenges for I-O psychology practitioners interested in exploring and improving these innovations.

Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) end their focal article with a quote worth remembering from Immanuel Kant: “Theory without data is groundless, but data without theory is just uninterpretable.” We begin with a quote even better known to industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists in part because it has served for over 65 years as a foundational principle of our field: “There is nothing as practical as a good theory” (Lewin, 1951, p. 169).

In their focal article, Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) provide an overview of a number of new technologies with potentially significant implications for talent management related practices of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology (both challenges and opportunities) that they label as “new talent signals.” These signals, they argue, are part of a revolution, due to increasing levels of social activity online as well as data-collection and mining techniques that have overtaken the conventional practice of talent identification in organizations. Their position is that these trends are leaving I-O psychologists in the dust in terms of our existing traditional theory, research, and methodologies. Their optimistic tone, however, also seems to suggest that while these approaches “have not yet demonstrated validity comparable with old school methods, they tend to disregard theory, and they pay little attention to the constructs being assessed (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., p. 634)” they may, in fact, have some legitimate basis in the identification of talent. Their point, of course, is that momentum in this area has surpassed human resources (HR), let alone I-O psychology, so that any concerns one might have about these trends are essentially “irrelevant.” This reminds us of a reference to lemmings going off a cliff together.

Science and technology often work hand in hand to drive innovations in the practice of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology. Historically, psychological science applied to workforce management allowed us to weather the storm of human resource trends and technological advances that attracted organizations to new tools and methods. But what happens when the lure of technology trumps the science? The rise of technological advances challenges our thinking and leads to psychological research and theory designed to keep pace with these advances. But in some instances, the adoption of new technology has outpaced scientific best practices. Organizations will adopt new technology in the absence of best practices if there are perceived benefits. Has the array of new talent identification tools described by Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) presented a tipping point for I-O in terms of how we approach our science, research, tools, and methods?

Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) describe a variety of new selection approaches (e.g., “scraping” of social media information, gamified assessments) in the staffing domain that might provide new sources of information about people. The authors also mention advantages and downsides of these potentially “new talent signals.”

Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) note that new talent signals recently adopted by organizations are related to older selection and assessment methods. Drawing this connection between old and new technologies is helpful; however, viewing new technology as either shiny new objects or a brave new world creates a false dichotomy. Recent technology-enhanced human resources (HR) processes like the widespread use of gamified practices and video-recorded interviewing are not just fads or the beginning of a transformation in HR but rather natural evolutions of methods that differ across specific dimensions that can be identified and measured. It is important to view these recent advances as extensions of the existing methods. That is, we need to focus on how these new methods are different and not on that they are different.

Describing the current state of gamification, Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, and Hogan (2016) provide a troubling contradiction: They offer examples of a broad spectrum of gamification interventions, but they then summarize the entirety of gamification as “the digital equivalent of situational judgment tests.” This mischaracterization grossly oversimplifies a rapidly growing area of research and practice both within and outside of industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that situational judgment tests (SJTs) can be considered a type of gamified assessment, and gamification provides a toolkit to make SJTs even more gameful. However, the term gamification refers to a much broader and potentially more impactful set of tools than just SJTs, which are incremental, versatile, and especially valuable to practitioners in an era moving toward business-to-consumer (B2C) assessment models. In this commentary, we contend that gamification is commonly misunderstood and misapplied by I-O psychologists, and our goals are to remedy such misconceptions and to provide a research agenda designed to improve both the science and the practice surrounding gamification of human resource processes.