According to Costanza and Finkelstein (2015), the definition and measurement of generational membership could be two major problems inherent in the literature on generational differences. So far, researchers have defined generation in terms of groups of people belonging to the same cohorts, age groups, and experience of certain common events (Joshi, Dencker, & Franz, 2011). In this vein, generational difference is operationalized mostly as a categorical variable, and most researchers assign participants into generational categories based on date of birth. For instance, people born in 1958–1959 and 1973–1974 are typically divided into Boomers and Gen X, respectively (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010).

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.

Mindfulness—present moment attention and awareness (Brown & Ryan, 2003)—is commonly proposed as a productive state of consciousness in the workplace. Unfortunately, being mindful at every moment of the workday is fairly uncommon. Research suggests that people engage in mind wandering—a lack of attention to and awareness of the present (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006)—for the majority of their day (in every task except making love; Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). Further, there is another state of consciousness called flow—an intense sense of concentration and control over activities—that has also been linked to workplace performance (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Interestingly, whereas mindfulness facilitates higher performance by being aware of external stimuli, flow enables higher performance by doing the opposite—blocking out external stimuli. These findings suggest that mindfulness is neither the most common psychological state nor the only productive psychological state for the workplace.

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).

The purpose of this rebuttal to Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) is (a) to examine the findings surrounding the new generations at work, (b) to suggest the risks of not responding to change in generations with new talent strategies, and (c) to propose a new theory about the development of a new millennial culture and how practitioners and researchers may capitalize on the promise of a more positive and joyful workplace culture. We propose to accomplish these points by (a) citing recent global findings showing that Millennials (born after 1980) are turning away from companies with cultures that were designed for 20th century workers, (b) presenting a theory on the development of an emerging millennial culture that is based on positive industrial and organizational psychology, and (c) recommending that the method of innovation design teams be used to render workplaces compatible with the emerging culture.

Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, and Greiff (2015) plea to integrate the 21st century skills of complex problem solving (CPS) and collaborative problem solving (ColPS) in the assessment and development suite of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, given the expected increase in nonroutine and interactive tasks in the new workplace. At the same time, they promote new ways of assessing these skills using computer-based microworlds, enabling the systematic variation of problem features in assessment. Neubert and colleagues’ (2015) suggestions are a valuable step in connecting differential psychologists’ models of human differences and functioning with human resources professionals’ interest in understanding and predicting behavior at work. We concur that CPS and ColPS are important transversal skills, useful for I-O psychologists, but these are only two babies of a single family, and the domain of 21st century skills includes other families of a different kind that are also with utility for I-O psychologists. The current contribution is meant to broaden this interesting discussion in two important ways. We clarify that CPS and ColPS need to be considered in the context of a wider set of 21st century skills with an origin in the education domain, and we highlight a number of crucial steps that still need to be taken before “getting started” (Neubert et al., 2015, p. last page of the discussion) with this taxonomic framework. But first, we feel the need to slightly reframe the relevance of considering 21st century skills in I-O psychology by shifting the attention from narrow task-related skills to the broader domain of career management competencies.

The focal article by Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) ends with several important questions and suggestions for future research. Although the review opens new avenues of investigation for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, the treatment of two questions may leave readers with the impression that research in these areas is nonexistent. Specifically, the authors posed the following inquiries: (a) Is mindfulness good for everyone (across personality and culture), and (b) is it appropriate to introduce mindfulness into the workplace? As a result, our commentary delves deeper into the current literature to investigate these questions, examining who is best served by mindfulness interventions (i.e., the relationship between personality traits and outcomes) and how cultural factors can facilitate success—or failure—of mindfulness programs. Following this examination, we address the question of whether mindfulness is a suitable workplace intervention and caution against a one-size-fits-all approach that may fail to target specific organizational and employee needs. In so doing, this commentary furthers the goal of the focal article, in which the authors expressed a hope for the I-O community to develop “a more comprehensive understanding of what we know—and what we still need to learn—about mindfulness at work” (Hyland et al., 2015, p. 578).

Various solutions have been proposed to “fix” performance management (PM) over the last several decades. Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have presented a holistic approach to improving PM in organizations. Although this approach addresses several key elements related to the social context of PM, namely the buy-in of organizational stakeholders, timely and regular feedback, and future-directed feedback, we believe that several robust findings from the PM research literature could further improve this process. Are Pulakos et al. looking at the forest but missing the trees? In the following commentary, we offer several reasons that performance judgments and perhaps even informal ratings are still operating and occurring in the proposed holistic system. Therefore, advancements in other areas of PM research may offer additional ways to fix PM.

Dissatisfaction with performance management (PM) has had a long history. Managers and employees alike have frustrations with the system, and numerous calls for the elimination of performance appraisal have been made over the years (e.g., Scholtes, 1999). The dissatisfaction and calls for elimination have created pressure for change in the practice of PM, and I applaud the focus on feedback and coaching that Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have proposed. Providing feedback and being actively involved in the PM process would seem to be a key part of the job of managers, yet many managers are uncomfortable addressing this central task. Focusing efforts in our field on improving the skills of managers and helping managers become effective coaches can play a key role in improving PM. The need for improvement in the informal process, however, does not mean that the formal process is not needed. Pulakos et al. have suggested streamlining the formal PM system as much as possible, with particular emphasis on the possibility of eliminating performance ratings. It is argued here that the formal PM system still serves important purposes. It is also argued that a balance between the informal and formal aspects of the PM system needs to be maintained. These two issues are addressed below.

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) asserted that the many benefits of mindfulness practices have been underutilized and understudied at work. We agree with the focal article's stance that more research is needed on mindfulness at work. We extend this argument to include a request that future research pays attention to the mechanisms responsible for the effects of mindfulness at work. In this commentary, we (a) briefly discuss the practical importance of understanding the mechanisms by which mindfulness practices lead to positive outcomes, (b) outline the mediating mechanisms proposed by the leading theoretical model of mindfulness effects and how those mediators apply to work, and (c) argue that more rigorous, empirical research is needed to understand the mechanisms through which mindfulness practices lead to positive work outcomes.

General factors are found in the measurement of many human traits. The concept of dominant general factors (DGFs) is introduced to represent the magnitude of general factors within numerous content domains. DGFs are defined as coming from the largest sources of reliable variance and influencing every variable measuring the construct. Although these factors are most frequently found in measures of cognitive ability, they are not limited to cognitive abilities. Examples are provided for a variety of construct and content domains along with estimates of their DGF percentages, ranging from 38% to 92%. Several reasons for these results are offered, and a call for concerted research is made. Research that ignores DGFs by treating specific factors or constructs within a domain as if they were distinct and uncorrelated can lead to errors in interpretation.

In only a very few places, Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, & Greiff (2015) mention the role of communication and coordination among team members in collaborative problem solving. Although complex and collaborative problem solving is indeed an imperative for team and organizational success in the 21st century, it is easier said than done. Collaborative problem solving is critically dependent on the communication and interaction skills of the team members and of the team leader. The intent of this commentary is to shine a light on the critical role of interpersonal and communication skills in complex and collaborative problem solving.

It is safe to assume that an accurate performance appraisal (PA) is an important prerequisite to an effective performance management (PM) system, because with accurate PA information, management, teams, and employees can engage in the process of identifying and developing a wide range of job-relevant knowledge or skills to improve job performance. However, researchers and practitioners alike must continue to push for PA to be something other an administrative ritual; the ideal goal for PA is for it to contribute to a reliable process that can offer practical help to organizational operations, including PM. As Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have pointed out, supervisors are concerned about demotivating or disengaging employees by providing PA ratings that are too much lower than the highest rating or ranking that is available, so having ratings that are clustered at the high end of the rating scale is quite common across organizations (Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992).

Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, and Greiff (2015) rightly argue that today's business world requires employees to frequently engage in nonroutine, creative, and interactive tasks. The authors go further to describe two potentially important skills—complex problem solving and collaborative problem solving—which they believe can address gaps in our current understanding of employee skill assessment. I contend however that the authors might be reinventing the wheel with this framework, given that the already popular practice of competency modeling satisfies the very deficiencies that the authors argue exist. To expand on this argument, I will first provide a brief history and discussion of what competency modeling is, followed by an explanation of several key benefits of this approach in terms of addressing the authors’ concerns. Then, on the basis of my applied experience as an external consultant, I will discuss how I might use competency modeling to address one of the authors’ own example scenarios, which should help identify ways in which competency modeling subsumes Neubert and colleagues’ approach.

The concept of mindfulness has become the topic of heated debates among scholars and practitioners alike. Hyland, Lee, and Mills's (2015) focal article has an ambitious goal: distilling how mindfulness fits into workplace research and practice. This is laudable, and we are pleased that the authors are providing a review of the many ways in which mindfulness may benefit employees and organizations. Unfortunately, the authors fall short of their aspiration to produce a comprehensive overview of the link between workplace mindfulness and performance. We outline three points that we find may have helped the authors achieve their main objective.

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.

In their focal article, Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) have presented a helpful five-step plan for improving the use of performance management (PM) within organizations. As they have pointed out, it is important that an organization's PM system match the organization's values and culture. At the same time, one cannot forget that an organization's PM system should also align with the organization's other human resource (HR) practices. Thus, I suggest that taking time to make sure this alignment happens should be included as a substep under the first step (i.e., plan change) of the model.

In the past few years, the term “21st century skills” has gained increasing popularity in educational research and business practice. Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, and Greiff (2015) advocated for the utility of assessing 21st century skills in industrial–organizational psychology (I-O psychology) and its superiority over assessing basic psychological constructs, using application-oriented constructs, or conducting job analysis to determine relevant skills for individual work settings. We argue, however, that the issues identified and discussed in the focal article are rather threefold and that, to integrate 21st century skills into I-O psychology and to bridge organizational science and practice, we need to have (a) a standard framework of clearly defined constructs, (b) innovative assessments, and (c) evidence for validity generalization. We elaborate below.

A common theme throughout the focal article (Hyland, Lee, & Mills, 2015) suggests that mindfulness is associated with a range of benefits, but the phenomenon itself is not well defined and conceptualized. Throughout the research area, mindfulness has been defined as a trait, as a skill, and, most commonly, as a state. In order to advance a productive research area, conceptual clarity is needed to further distinguish between these aspects of mindfulness. In this commentary, I will (a) provide a distinction between mindfulness as a state and the skill of entering a mindful state, (b) outline the implications of skillful mindfulness for working memory capacity (WMC) and job performance, and (c) discuss the conflicting hypotheses of state mindfulness and self-regulation.

Relying on work described by Jackson (2003), Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) recommended researchers use the first unrotated principal component associated with a principal components analysis (PCA) to estimate the strength of a general factor. Arguably, such a recommendation is based on rather old work. Furthermore, it is not a method that can be relied on to yield an accurate solution. For example, it is well known that the first component extracted from a correlation matrix of the Wechsler intelligence subtests is biased toward the verbal comprehension subtests (Ashton, Lee, & Vernon, 2001).