Miner et al. (2018) have steered the trajectory of gender and STEM research in a new direction.

The evolution of organizational working relationships is always a timely discussion, especially in an age where globalization, remote workforces, and most recently artificial intelligence, to name just three, hold great promise but also concern for organizations’ capabilities to build on the strengths of traditional relationship theories while looking forward to and blazing paths toward future relationship theories. We appreciate Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (2018) questioning of the “old” social exchange theory (SET) as a relevant organizing framework and their proposition of a “new” or hybrid workplace relationship theory to reflect today's workforce. In short, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu practice good science by not throwing out what does not seem to fit but rather helping science evolve into what it needs to become (see Gergen's [2001] great commentary on ill-advised practices of ending traditions when criticisms are levied). We also admire Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's willingness to invite “additional organizational behavior [OB] theories” (p. 476) to join the conversation in defining what the new era workplace relationship might look like. With that invitation and a little latitude in what could be defined as “an OB theory,” we propose that the working alliance (WA; Bordin, 1979) be given space in that narrative. The substance of our commentary will describe the WA connection with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's new or hybrid theory, principally as it relates to issues regarding (a) tension toward equality and fairness and (b) mutual reciprocity in exchange relationships.

A paradigm shift toward a social-structural perspective may provide a better understanding of the gender inequity in STEM fields than its predecessor, but this perspective falls prey to the focal article authors’ (Miner et al., 2018) own criticisms: It offers an incomplete account of the phenomenon of interest. We argue that a multilevel systems perspective is the most appropriate approach when trying to understand any issue, especially an issue as dense as gender inequity in STEM. A deliberate effort to understand this phenomenon dynamically across levels and time can expand the scope of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists’ influence and can better protect us against interventions that result in unintended, adverse outcomes. Below, we discuss the importance of looking across multiple levels simultaneously to understand the temporal and interactional nature of individual and social-structural constructs. Without this depth of understanding, a disruption of the current structure may lead to an unstable, or unanticipated, new structure.

As I write this essay in mid-September 2017, the news is reporting yet another tragic police shooting that led to the death of a US resident. This time, it was a deaf, nonverbal, Hispanic man in Oklahoma City, Magdiel Sanchez, who happened to be carrying a pipe that he used to fend off stray dogs when he went for walks at night (NewsOK, 2017). To the members of Mr. Sanchez's family and community, his name is the most important part of the previous sentence, but the most terrifying part for the rest of us is the first two words: this time.

In their focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that the foundational assumptions of social exchange theory (SET) should be revisited and revised because of recent changes in the workplace and the workforce. Using employee engagement data from recent research projects conducted in applied settings, we investigated a series of questions based on Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's working hypotheses.

The focal article authors have done the field a welcome service by alerting us to some of the forthcoming changes in the world of the knowledge worker. We agree that emerging changes in the structure and processes of work will need to be accommodated by new design of work—a new millennial workforce, new definitions of work, innovative practice, and the transition from a concentration on improved quality of manufacturing to a primary drive toward high technology driven innovation. The most radical adaptation may be the change from organizations designed for stability to those designed for flexibility (Chernyak-Hai & Rabenu, 2018; Grace & Graen, 2014).

Los Angeles County's civil service rule specifies a 70% cutoff score regardless of the situation (type of job, type of assessment, or outcome of interest). This civil service rule would be difficult to defend if it were challenged in court, and the rule places the county at increased risk in the event of employment litigation, particularly with public safety jobs (police, fire, sheriff, etc.). Additionally, it is unlikely that this cutoff would optimally balance the county's interests in fair employment practices and expected job performance (SIOP, 2003). Given the propensity for public safety candidates and employees to file lawsuits related to hiring and promotions, and given the fact that public safety agencies in this county have been subjected to a number of employment-related lawsuits in the past, the current rule is problematic. Prior to this rule's development, as well as after its implementation in 1988, there has been substantial litigation related to cutoff scores, and courts have identified what they consider to be more and less appropriate methods for setting cutoff scores.

Miner et al. (2018) call for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to examine the societal structures that influence women's underrepresentation in STEM. Here we extend their ideas and suggest that diversity in STEM would benefit from considering how people develop within the context of their environment. Educational researchers refer to the knowledge people develop through daily experiences with their cultural milieu as funds of knowledge. Funds of knowledge essentially represent a person's expertise, and educational researchers have recognized that designing environments that draw from expertise facilitates success for students, including women and underrepresented minorities in STEM.

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).

Let's look at two solutions that should be effective in addressing the gender issue in STEM. First, early intervention works. Scientific and mathematical learning can, and should, be integrated into early childhood learning and development. Miner et al. (2018) mention the potential of nurturing a child's interest in STEM through early education. The challenge is that it is segregated by gender biases (“early schooling differences, parental choices in encouraging child interests and hobbies, and other early reinforcement differences that are societally based”; Miner et al., 2018, p. 270). According to Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, and Beilock (2012) parents tend to expect that their boys are more gifted in STEM than their girls, even when their achievement levels do not differ objectively. The focus needs to shift from moving along with this gender bias to constructively using the gender difference.

Miner et al. (2018) make a compelling argument for the need to examine gender inequity in STEM from a social-structural lens. We completely agree. We also commend the authors for including practical recommendations for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, as such implementation plans are vital if we are to move this issue from theory to practice. However, while the recommendations put forth by the authors are needed, we believe additional approaches are necessary to create marked change in gender parity in STEM. In particular, we propose that I-O psychologists (along with human resource [HR] professionals) need to actively engage organizational leaders if we want to successfully advance more women in STEM fields.

The persistently changing landscape of cyberspace and cybersecurity has led to a call for organizations’ increased attention toward securing information and systems. Rapid change in the cyber environment puts it on a scale unlike any other performance environment typically of interest to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists and related disciplines. In this article, we reflect on the idea of keeping pace with cyber, with a particular focus on the role of practicing I-O psychologists in assisting individuals, teams, and organizations. We focus on the unique roles of I-O psychologists in relation to the cyber realm and discuss the ways in which they can contribute to organizational cybersecurity efforts. As highlighted throughout this article, we assert that the mounting threats within cyberspace amount to a “looming crisis.” Thus, we view assisting organizations and their employees with becoming resilient and adaptive to cyber threats as an imperative, and practicing I-O psychologists should be at the forefront of these efforts.