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.

Qualitative methods are gaining prominence in psychology, as well as related fields such as organizational behavior. Yet, we can find little evidence of qualitative research in our top industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology journals. We argue that the lack of research employing qualitative methods is a loss for the field, and we explore the reasons why few scholars adopt this approach. We then explore where this type of research is published and where it is not. Finally, we discuss and debunk several myths that continue to characterize qualitative methods with an eye toward encouraging a greater appreciation and acceptance of this research tradition.

A persistent lament by qualitative organizational researchers is that qualitative research is not published, published enough, cited enough, or valued by industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists. Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) present convincing data that there has been an increase in the visibility of qualitative studies throughout many organizational research journals, though some of the flagship journals in I-O psychology are less receptive. Also, they present a series of suggestions that largely entail ways that journal editors and nonqualitative researchers can adapt their attitudes and behaviors to help qualitative research have more of an impact. I agree with those suggestions and think that they should be pursued. On the other hand, I was disappointed that none of the suggestions presented by Pratt and Bonaccio offered things that qualitative researchers might do to make their research more impactful to I-O psychologists. For qualitative research to have a bigger impact in the organizational literature, qualitative researchers need to make changes as well. In this short commentary, I propose three things that qualitative researchers might do to improve their impact within the field of I-O psychology.

Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) ask why there is very little qualitative research published in “top [industrial–organizational] I-O” journals, such as the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), Personnel Psychology (PP), or Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (OBHDP). They propose better training, placing skilled qualitative researchers on editorial boards, and “dispelling” myths related to qualitative research as a way to begin changing this situation. Even if these I-O journals explicitly invite qualitative work for its own sake, I do not think the steps Pratt and Bonaccio propose will have the intended effect, however valuable they may be in other respects.

I agree with and expand on Pratt and Bonaccio's (2016) view that in order to facilitate the use of qualitative research in our field, we need more guidance for industrial–organizational (I-O) researchers in terms of training, best practice articles, and criteria for evaluating research quality. Fortunately, the interest in and openness to qualitative research is slowly but steadily growing in our field, something that is reflected in small but increasing numbers of publications and best practice articles (Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011; Smith, Madden, & Ashmos Plowman, 2015). To give an example, the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), a journal not well known for publishing qualitative research, has recently published a qualitative article written by my colleagues and me (Wilhelmy, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & Truxillo, 2016).

In their focal article, Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) describe the potential value that qualitative research can bring to the field of industrial–organizational psychology (I-O) and also highlight several challenges (and myths) that must be overcome for this value to be fully realized. We agree with these authors, particularly with regard to the barriers that appear to stand in the way of fully integrating qualitative approaches with the science and practice of our field. Our purpose in this commentary is to build on the ideas of Pratt and Bonaccio by expanding the discussion of barriers against qualitative research. It is our view that further highlighting such barriers will illuminate several paths forward toward the increased adoption of qualitative methods, ideas, and approaches. More specifically, we focus on the following three barriers: (a) categorical thinking, (b) the uncertainty of that which is unknown, and (c) an overemphasis on generalizability in psychological research. We discuss each of these in turn below.

As someone trained exclusively as a quantitative researcher, who recently became a semi-autodidactic qualitative researcher (see Rothausen, Henderson, Arnold, & Malshe, in press; “semi” in part because I am still learning and in part because my coauthors have taught me), I would like to extend the argument made by Pratt and Bonaccio (2016) for increasing qualitative research in the domains of industrial–organizational psychology (IOP), organizational behavior (OB), and human resources (HR), and I would also add industrial relations (IR), which was my doctoral field of study and “where workers went” within business and management studies as HR became more aligned with organizational interests (see Lefkowitz, 2016, from this journal). I extend their argument by deepening one of their reasons, understanding the “why” of work, and adding another potential use, understanding the “what could be” of work.

Pratt and Bonaccio's (2016) focal article properly reviews and identifies the need for qualitative research methods in our field. However, they overlooked one important benefit—team science—that is crucial to current organizations. Despite the fact that qualitative research in team science is lacking, we suggest that with qualitative research we can gain more insight into what teams need in order to be effective. According to Kozlowski and Bell (2003), team dynamics are historically looked at in a static way in teams research, solely focusing on individuals’ perceptions of the team at a given time as opposed to multilevels over time. In an attempt to further expand on how qualitative research can examine constructs that purely quantitative methods may not, the purpose of this commentary is to highlight importance of qualitative research regarding its ability to capture team dynamics as they occur in the real world. The need for qualitative methods exists across various components (i.e., inputs, team emergent states, processes, outputs) when it comes to teams. We argue that how these components appear, happen, and, more importantly, evolve over time should be taken into consideration. The current commentary highlights how qualitative research can start to fill the gap of understanding team dynamics and how to improve team practices by taking time into consideration.

Pratt and Bonaccio's (2016) article is oriented to the position of qualitative research in U.S. industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, although brief reference is made to innovations in the UK psychology field. As European work and organizational (W/O) psychologists who have championed the use of qualitative research in our field for the last 25 years, we share Pratt and Bonaccio's concerns about the lack of qualitative research in what are described as the “top” I-O psychology journals, and we agree that this situation is detrimental to the development of the discipline in many ways (see Cassell & Symon, 2006, for further discussion). Here we want to present a European perspective on this issue, which sheds some light on why qualitative research may be more accepted in European W/O psychology but also highlights the power relations that tend, even in Europe, to maintain it in a rather second rate position. Our intention is to engage in a process of mutual learning across the American and European situations.

We were honored and flattered to be recognized in the feature article for our commitment to qualitative methods training. As an interdisciplinary program focused on organizational science, we strive not to privilege one form of training, thought, or inquiry over another. We recognize that a number of the problems and questions faced by organizational scholars and practitioners cannot adequately be addressed solely by a single discipline or method. Instead, we emphasize the synergy between different methods and modes of thought. Ultimately, our philosophy is that organizational phenomena are inherently interdisciplinary, thus training should reflect that. Our students are trained in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, management, organizational sociology, and organizational communication. We use this commentary as an opportunity to explain why our program values qualitative methods equally with quantitative methods, describe how we integrate that training, highlight a few success stories resulting from qualitative projects in our program, and then share some advice to other programs considering additional qualitative training.

Through learning about and doing job analysis, industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists likely already possess skills and knowledge relevant to doing and understanding qualitative research. We'll illustrate this by showing similarities between common job analysis practices and one particular qualitative research approach likely to be relevant to organizational research: grounded theory. Grounded theory was “discovered” in 1967 by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Though Glaser and Strauss later split in their methodologies (an occurrence not unlike the varied approaches to job analysis), the core idea of grounded theory is to develop a new theory of some process or phenomenon from the “ground” up. In the grounded theory approach, researchers typically collect mostly qualitative data—often including interviews (Creswell, 2007)—and simultaneously develop increasingly abstract codes, concepts, and categories from the data. In the final step of analysis, researchers develop a theory that subsumes all categories from the data. If researchers follow the Straussian tradition, categories can be fit into a theoretical framework that details a central phenomenon underlying the process of interest and the conditions that precede it, result from it, and shape the resulting categories (Creswell, 2007). We illustrate this framework in Figure 1. Grounded theory is particularly useful for developing an accurate understanding of many organizational processes and phenomena that I-O psychologists study.

In the 25+ years that the practice of 360° Feedback has been formally labeled and implemented, it has undergone many changes. Some of these have been positive (evolution) in advancing theory, research, and practice, and others less so (devolution). In this article we offer a new definition of 360° Feedback, summarize its history, discuss significant research and practice trends, and offer suggestions for all user communities (i.e., researchers, practitioners, and end users in organizations) moving forward. Our purpose is to bring new structure, discussion, and some degree of closure to key open issues in this important and enduring area of practice.

Bracken, Rose, and Church (2016) call for less self- versus other research. They say that self-ratings versus non-self-ratings research (often referred to as self–other agreement research, or SOA) is not particularly helpful and that self-ratings’ primary purpose is to serve as a “reflection point for individuals receiving feedback” (Bracken, Rose, & Church, p. 785). It is true that SOA research has played a dominant role with 360° feedback for many years (for a review, see Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010), but the value we can draw from the self through 360° feedback remains terrain largely unexplored.

In this commentary, we build on Bracken, Rose, and Church's (2016) definition stating that 360° feedback should involve “the analysis of meaningful comparisons of rater perceptions across multiple ratees, between specific groups of raters” (p. 764). Bracken et al. expand on this component of the definition later by stressing that “the ability to conduct meaningful comparisons of rater perceptions both between (inter) and within (intra) groups is central and, indeed, unique to any true 360° feedback process” (p. 767; italicized in their focal article). Bracken et al. stress that “This element of our definition acknowledges that 360° feedback data represent rater perceptions that may contradict each other while each being true and valid observations” (p. 767).

Although the authors of the focal article provide a comprehensive definition of 360° feedback, one exclusionary criterion results in an overly narrow definition of 360° feedback. Specifically, Point 3 in their definition described the criticality of strictly using quantitative methods in collecting 360° feedback. The authors provided a brief rationale by stating, “Data generated from truly qualitative interviews would not allow comparisons between rater groups on the same set of behaviors” (Bracken, Rose, & Church, 2016, p. 765). Although there is little doubt about the value in taking a quantitative approach for gathering 360° feedback, it is not clear why this has to be the sole approach. Below, I outline three issues with taking this constricted methodology. That is, first, excluding qualitative methods is not in line with the purpose of 360° feedback, which is directed at minimizing criterion deficiency. Second, qualitative methodologies (in conjunction with quantitative methodologies) are more equipped to provide and inspire a call to action (supporting the change component addressed by the authors). Finally, there are qualitative methods that allow for rigorous quantitative analysis and can provide an additional source of macro organizational-level data.

We agree with Bracken, Rose, and Church (2016) and others that a critical design feature of any 360° feedback process is accountability, where the goal is “creation of sustainable individual, group, and/or organizational change in behaviors valued by the organization” (p. 764). Though we acknowledge the important roles that the organization and raters play in holding leaders accountable for their development, the goal of our commentary is to expand on how the leader's boss and other key individuals can serve as powerful sources of accountability in the 360° feedback process and throughout a leader's development journey. We also want to note that although the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) encourages leaders to share what they have learned from their 360° feedback with their bosses and other accountability partners (e.g., peers), it is the leader's choice as to whether he or she shares key feedback with others. This practice ensures confidentiality of the data, helping leaders trust the process and increasing the likelihood that individuals accept difficult feedback and use it for performance improvement (Fleenor, Taylor, & Chappelow, 2008; King & Santana, 2010).

In 2008, we saw an emerging business need to accurately identify and develop individuals early in their careers who have the potential to be effective leaders in later organizational positions. We decided early on to take a comprehensive and systematic approach to the challenge in order to build effective solutions with real organizational impact that are sustainable over time. We knew that this was a complex problem and that there was little agreement in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology on how to approach this critical business need and what approaches would be most effective. Since then, we moved through the following process stages to arrive at effective solutions that are now being used in numerous organizations.