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.

This is the first issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (IOP) under a new editorial team. In light of this, now is a good opportunity to recognize the work of those who have helped build the journal into its current state and to describe the goals for the next few years.

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) is pleased to offer the fifth edition of the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures, which was approved by the APA Council of Representatives in August 2018 as an authoritative guidelines document for employee selection testing and an official statement of the APA. Over a three-year period, the Principles Revision Committee updated this document from the fourth edition to be consistent with the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, invited commentary from SIOP and APA that informed subsequent revisions, and solicited a thorough legal review.

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.

Although academics can receive considerable training in selecting appropriate research designs, types of data to collect, and methods for analyzing data, as well as guidance on preparing scholarly manuscripts, there is a dearth of information on how to initiate and manage partnerships with organizations in order to conduct high-quality applied research, particularly when the research is quantitative in nature. In this article, we provide our own experience-based insights and recommendations to help academics more easily (a) initiate a research relationship with senior organizational leadership, (b) decide early whether to pursue or end a research collaboration with an organization, (c) keep the organization engaged during the study, and (d) maintain the relationship with the organization after data collection is complete. This information is proposed as a complement to traditional organizational research methods and as instrumental in the pursuit of research salient to the interests of organizational practitioners.

The focal article (Lapierre et al., 2018) highlights many good suggestions but only briefly mentions partnering with an academically trained internal industrial and organizational (I-O) practitioner. We believe beginning a partnership with a similarly trained ally well-versed through training in academic language and through experience in “business speak” will yield a stronger end result. The appreciation for an internal I-O practitioner should not go overlooked; when an academic partners with the right practitioner in the right environment, the partnership can be mutually beneficial and more rewarding than other options. For instance, recently we collaborated to set up a partnership for scientific discovery and mutual interest that involved 12 teams representing 14 different institutions spanning academe and practice to conduct a machine learning competition. This partnership enabled many academics and practitioners access to a complex organizational dataset in order to contribute to both an organization and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) community (see Putka et al., 2018).

Organizations are undergoing unprecedented transformation in the area of talent management (TM). Companies are rapidly adopting new tools and approaches in a variety of what has traditionally been core areas of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology such as performance management, employee attitudes, recruiting, testing and assessment, and career development. Increasingly, however, these new approaches have little to no research backing behind them, and they do not tend to be the focus of I-O psychology theory and research. We call this trend anti-industrial and organizational psychology (AIO), as we believe these forces to do not advance the field for long-term strategic impact. We present a framework that describes how AIO practices are adopted by organizations, and how I-O psychologists often gravitate away from these practices rather than actively help to separate the wheat from the chaff. We found support for our hypothesis through a brief analysis of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In this analysis, we found that only 10% of the focal articles from 2008 to 2016 represented topics that we call frontier—emerging areas in organizations but where there is no research support for them. We propose a set of recommendations for the field of I-O psychology and call for a more strategic approach to identifying and vetting new TM trends in order to increase the relevancy and impact of I-O psychology for our key stakeholders.

Credibility and trustworthiness are the bedrock upon which any science is built. The strength of these foundations has been increasingly questioned across the sciences as instances of research misconduct and mounting concerns over the prevalence of detrimental research practices have been identified. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to encourage our scientific community to positively and proactively engage in efforts that foster a healthy and robust industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We begin by advancing six defining principles that we believe reflect the values of robust science and offer criteria for evaluating proposed efforts to change scientific practices. Recognizing that the contemporary scientific enterprise is a complex and diverse network of actors and institutions, we then conclude by identifying 12 stakeholders who play important roles in achieving a culture of robust science in I-O psychology and offer recommendations for actions we can take as members of these groups to strengthen our science.

There has been an explosion of within-profession studies examining standings on gender representation in advancement, publication patterns, and conference presentations. However, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has yet to take such an introspective look and fully join these conversations. This manuscript aims to initiate and encourage such discussion. Through a brief review of relevant background information and the collection and analysis of recent archival data, we seek to examine where we have been with regard to gender representation, where we currently stand, and what steps are needed moving forward. We aim to stimulate continued examinations on this topic while recommending appropriate action items relevant to achieving equity in representation in our field.

During our tenure on Google's People Analytics team, we have participated in dozens of research partnerships. Some have been wildly successful, resulting in changes to our own organizational practices or policies as well as academic publications. Other partnerships have been less fruitful, largely because both science and organizations are messy and unpredictable. But no matter the outcome, nearly all of our partnerships have come about in the same way—a way overlooked by the authors in their article (Lapierre et al., 2018).

As Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) state, their findings on gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology indicate that “the profession as a whole falls into the category of ‘not walking the talk’” (p. 385). We agree that it is imperative to understand the current state of gender inequity in our field while also actively working toward achieving gender equity. This article attempts to inspire each and every individual in I-O psychology to feel a personal responsibility to engage in behaviors that reduce gender disparities in our field. Although women are normatively the focus in fights for gender equity, men should be equal partners in these efforts. In this commentary, we focus on the contributions that male allies in I-O psychology can make in fostering gender equity. To be clear, we are not claiming that women need to be rescued by men; however, we do believe that I-O psychology can achieve the greatest progress toward gender equity when both women and men engage in supportive efforts. As Emma Watson said in her 2014 United Nations speech, “How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?” (UN Women, 2014). In times when political leaders and national laws may fail women, it is crucial that local communities—like the I-O community—adopt a clear stance in promoting gender equity. In this commentary, we define allyship, discuss the importance of male allies, suggest ways in which male allies can help promote gender equity in I-O psychology, and consider potential barriers to male allyship and ways to overcome them. The strategies that we propose are by no means exhaustive; rather, they are suggestions for how to initiate a larger movement.

We commend Rotolo et al. (2018) for introducing a new lens for viewing the well-known gap between industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology research and human resource (HR) practices in organizations. However, Rotolo et al.’s characterization of practitioner behavior as “anti I-O” suggests a particularly negative view of scientific research among some HR practitioners. The label implies that some HR practitioners are intentionally ignoring or actively resisting academic research. More likely, the behavior stems from a passive indifference to academia, which may be the appropriate attitude for some practitioners to adopt when a great deal of academic research is too slow, too theoretical, and too cryptically communicated to be useful in applied settings. We agree with Rotolo et al. when they say, “we are a discipline that is not geared for being cutting edge” (p. 182), and we appreciate their recommendations for addressing this lack of relevance. However, most recommendations in this broader discussion do not address the foundational problem within our field: a systemic mismatch between the incentives of practitioners and academics. To support this point, we briefly describe a typology of I-O psychologists as well as the varying contexts and incentives that drive their behavior. We then close with our own recommendations for how academia can improve its relevance to practitioners and close the gap. These changes are not easy, but we agree with Rotolo and colleagues that if any field can address such foundational problems, it is ours.

The focal article (Grand et al., 2018) addresses one of the most important issues across virtually all areas of science (Goldstein, 2010): the trustworthiness and credibility of a scientific discipline. Once these attributes are lost, it is difficult to regain them within a reasonable time frame, if ever. In contrast to previous articles on this topic (e.g., Kepes & McDaniel, 2013), the authors of the focal article provide a detailed review of the stakeholders surrounding industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, including their potential effect on the robustness and trustworthiness of our scientific discipline. In essence, the focal article describes I-O psychology's ecosystem responsible for fostering robust and credible science. The authors should be commended for their comprehensive undertaking, and we have no substantive disagreements. However, implicitly, as with most articles on this vital topic, the focal article tends to take a bottom-up approach to decision making and change. The bottom-up approach is an emergent process where the individuals involved in the day-to-day activities are primarily responsible for the decision-making process and resulting change (Kindler, 1979). Thus, changes resulting from this process are incremental and typically involve making minor adjustments to existing processes (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

Research collaborations are two-way streets. To obtain support from organizations, academics must communicate the value of their research projects to the stakeholders. In their focal article, Lapierre et al., (2018) described this process as the academic “sales pitch”, one that must be “short yet attention grabbing” (p.20). Academic research in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, however, is rooted in esoteric jargon (e.g., validity and reliability) and unconvincing evidence (e.g., r and r2) (Highhouse, Brooks, Nesnidol, & Sim, 2017; Rynes, 2009). These concepts are difficult for non-academics to understand and may even undermine the value of our work (Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, 2014; Kuncel & Rigdon, 2012; Mattern, Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, & Camara, 2009). CEOs and other senior leaders often have limited time, attention, and expertise to process your pitch: A bad one could effectively derail the collaboration before it even began.

Rotolo et al. (2018) decry the rise in use of trendy, simplistic human resource management (HRM) procedures and practices such as talent management, regardless of any solid scientific basis culled from relevant disciplines such as industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Furthermore, they observe a propagating spirit of anti-I-O psychology that has recently emerged and that should provoke our concern. What has ignited and fueled this reality? Correctly noted, Rotolo et al. indicate that I-O psychology academics have, over the years, lost touch with the actual preoccupying needs of managers in organizations. Instead of promoting novel fields of exploration and devising innovative tools and procedures, I-O scientists overly invest their time, energy, and ingenuity in methodological minutiae and theorizing.

A major goal of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) was to determine what steps are needed moving forward in examining gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Specifically, on the topic of pay differences, we highlight that gender differences in pay are in part due to differences in negotiation behaviors and/or experiences. Prior research demonstrates that female negotiators receive greater backlash than male negotiators—a possible explanation to why men tend to negotiate more often and more successfully than women (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007). Based on this evidence, one next step in moving forward should involve providing resources and knowledge to improve negotiation skills and practices specifically aimed at eliminating differences between women and men in both propensity to negotiate and the evaluation/consequences of negotiating.

The focal article (Grand et al., 2018) provides an exemplary roadmap for improving the practice of robust science in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology, which includes recommendations for authors such as practicing robust science, even in the absence of reward. However, authors are faced with practical constraints; to succeed in our field, we must publish, at least occasionally, in prestigious journals to secure scholarships, awards, employment, grants, and tenure. We can practice robust science (commonly referred to as “open science” or “reproducible research”) without reward—but only to some extent, if there is no support from our gatekeepers. After all, it is difficult to influence the field without a job and research funding.

Grand et al. (2018) provide a critical treatment of the need for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to take active steps to ensure that ours is a robust and reliable science of organizations, the spirit of which the present authors wholeheartedly agree. One path toward ensuring that I-O psychology is rightly recognized as a robust science is by embracing the principles of Open Science. We argue that the move toward Open Science is beneficial for all six of the defining principles outlined by Grand et al. Open Science increases transparency, facilitates replication, and contributes to the accumulation and integration of research by increasing accessibility. Each of these factors helps to foster systematic, rigorous scientific practices, which, in turn, can lead to greater insights and understanding of organizational phenomenon through deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches to theory generation and refinement, ensuring that our field remains relevant for the foreseeable future. In this commentary, we highlight several initiatives that already exist to promote Open Science and explore others only alluded to by Grand et al.