We agree with Rotolo et al.’s (2018) assertion that talent management is a space where the academic–practice gap in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is quite cavernous and where the vulnerabilities to anti-I-O (AIO) are high. As researchers who began a journey a few years ago to explore the high potential (HiPo) identification process from the science perspective (largely inspired by Silzer & Church, 2009), we echo the frustration that the current focal authors express with the science-side lag in this area. For us, what started as a question from a senior officer in the Army turned into the development of a theoretical model and the start of multilocation research lab designed to further the understanding and success of the HiPo identification process. Our objective is to share a bit of our journey that got us to this point and some lessons for others inspired by this focal article to become anti-anti-I-O (AAIO) warriors.

Theories of human aggression can inform research, policy, and practice in organizations. One such theory, victim precipitation, originated in the field of criminology. According to this perspective, some victims invite abuse through their personalities, styles of speech or dress, actions, and even their inactions. That is, they are partly at fault for the wrongdoing of others. This notion is gaining purchase in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as an explanation for workplace mistreatment. The first half of our article provides an overview and critique of the victim precipitation hypothesis. After tracing its history, we review the flaws of victim precipitation as catalogued by scientists and practitioners over several decades. We also consider real-world implications of victim precipitation thinking, such as the exoneration of violent criminals. Confident that I-O can do better, the second half of this article highlights alternative frameworks for researching and redressing hostile work behavior. In addition, we discuss a broad analytic paradigm—perpetrator predation—as a way to understand workplace abuse without blaming the abused. We take the position that these alternative perspectives offer stronger, more practical, and more progressive explanations for workplace mistreatment. Victim precipitation, we conclude, is an archaic ideology. Criminologists have long since abandoned it, and so should we.

Field-based research allows the domain of organizational research to remain true to its applied roots and conduct research on topics that are timely and relevant within actual organizations. However, anyone who has conducted field research knows that conducting such work is challenging and can be viewed as more of a dance between the scholar and the practitioner, requiring well-timed and coordinated moves. As Lapierre et al. (2018) allude to in the focal article, such projects can turn into a balancing act for researchers as they attempt to conduct publishable research with robust practices and designs while also appeasing the needs and expectations of organizational members and leaders.

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provide illuminating analyses regarding the role of gender in career advancement within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. One of their suggestions for further advancing this area of research is to examine homophily, defined as the tendency for individuals to have social ties with those who are similar to themselves, in the social networks of men and women in the field. Such research is warranted because social networks—in particular, the networks of research collaboration relationships (e.g., publications, grants) scientists develop throughout their careers—are critical to success in academia (e.g., Bozeman & Corley, 2004).

Ralph Waldo Emerson is known to have said, “the greatest wonder is that we can see these trees and not wonder more.” As industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, we often encounter this very dilemma when we examine how numerous professions rise and fall in relevance. More recently, however, we have encountered this dilemma from an existential perspective as we strive to understand the evolution of our own profession and the situational characteristics making change inevitable. We have fallen into a trap—we, too, now look at all of our practices, aiming to reconfigure the makeup of our profession while losing sight of the macrotrends affecting more than just our evolved existence. Rather than focusing on the smaller issue first, we need to start by examining the broader issues affecting it.

Practice and research with senior leaders can be rewarding but also challenging and risky for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists; the fact that much of the work with these populations is difficult to access elevates these concerns. In this article we summarize work presented by prominent researchers and practitioners at a symposium organized to share common practices and challenges associated with work at higher levels of organizational management. We review implications for research and practice with senior leaders by examining how assessments are applied at senior levels, how assessments and development practices can be linked, and the challenges associated with research and evaluation conducted with these leaders. Also, we offer suggestions for advancing research and practice at senior levels.

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) have cogently suggested that workplace mistreatment should be viewed through a “lens” that squarely implicates the perpetrator (i.e., the perpetrator predation framework) rather than through a lens that at least partially absolves the perpetrator while blaming the victim for inviting, or not actively resisting, the mistreatment (i.e., the victim precipitation framework). We agree that the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for policy, practice, and law. Furthermore, however, the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for science. Whereas Cortina et al. allude briefly to the scientific benefits of a perpetrator-focused framework, the current commentary fleshes out these benefits and outlines an agenda for future perpetrator-focused research on workplace mistreatment.

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provided an excellent and much-needed analysis of the status of women in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Although others have produced overall assessments of the status of women in psychology (Eagly & Riger, 2014; Kite et al., 2001), these are not sufficient to identify conditions within the subfields of psychology. As shown by statistics on the divisions of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/services/profiles.aspx), the subfields differ greatly in their gender balance, with some being male dominated (e.g., experimental and cognitive science), others female dominated (e.g., developmental psychology), and still others representing women and men more equally (e.g., social and personality psychology). I-O psychology is among the more gender-balanced fields, with an increasing proportion of women over time. It would seem that I-O's gradual inclusion of more women should have changed aspects of research and discourse in this field. In this comment, we argue that these women have produced impressive changes.

Increasing the representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is one of our nation's most pressing imperatives. As such, there has been increased lay and scholarly attention given to understanding the causes of women's underrepresentation in such fields. These explanations tend to fall into two main groupings: individual-level (i.e., her) explanations and social-structural (i.e., our) explanations. These two perspectives offer different lenses for illuminating the causes of gender inequity in STEM and point to different mechanisms by which to gain gender parity in STEM fields. In this article, we describe these two lenses and provide three examples of how each lens may differentially explain gender inequity in STEM. We argue that the social-structural lens provides a clearer picture of the causes of gender inequity in STEM, including how gaining gender equity in STEM may best be achieved. We then make a call to industrial/organizational psychologists to take a lead in addressing the societal-level causes of gender inequality in STEM.

The focal article (Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, & the Jeanneret Symposium Participants, 2018) discusses the accepted wisdom and challenges surrounding the assessment and development of senior leaders. Specific to our response, the authors highlight the importance of rigorous assessment and the relevance of accounting for contextual factors. The present response integrates both of these topics by advocating the use of parallel leader and organizational culture assessments to guide continued leader development. By explicitly measuring leadership and contextual factors, we expand on the contextual focus brought up in the focal article while providing guidance to practitioners on how to utilize the framework presented.

Victim precipitation is embedded deeply within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) are right to challenge the assumptions that have perpetuated victim blaming in our discipline (consciously and unconsciously); however, a significant source of victim precipitation discourse within our field was strikingly absent in their discussion: construct measurement. The nature of how we measure most of our workplace aggression and mistreatment constructs (e.g., incivility, abusive supervision, bullying) have potential to negate the experiences of targeted employees as well as the unique impact of various perpetrator behaviors. Furthermore, how we interpret these measures can result in researchers and practitioners privileging the experiences of some individuals and dismissing the experiences of others. How can we hope to achieve a progressive approach to mistreatment in our disciplines if our measures do not keep pace?

In their focal article, Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants (2018) stress the importance of context in leadership assessment. For instance, they argue that senior executives work in a different context compared to lower-level managers and that this should be taken into account. A simple example is that the competency of strategic thinking is critical for executive performance but much less so, if at all, for front-line supervisors. The claim that context matters in leadership and in the assessment of leaders is easy to grasp but difficult to apply in practice.

In this article, we argue that changes in workplace characteristics over the last few decades may affect work relationships and call for adjustments in the traditional theoretical framework used to understand them. Since the last quarter of the 20th century, there have been theories regarding changes in labor relationships following technological, political, globalization, and economical changes. However, we examine the changes in light of psychological theories rather than labor or industrial approaches. We review four main areas where social exchange theory (SET) has been implemented, address recent changes that challenge the traditional SET perspective, and propose alternative models. We refer to these models as “hybrid” as they integrate traditional SET premises with new-era workplace characteristics. First, we describe several changes in workplace characteristics. Next, we review some of the most conventional applications of SET to work relationships. Finally, we critically examine whether this theory meets the requirements of work relationships in the new world of work and conclude by arguing that SET needs to be adjusted to reflect the assumption that frequent changes in employee and organizational characteristics in the new workplaces require similar frequent adjustments in exchange relationships.

The focal article by Miner et al. (2018) convincingly argues that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology professionals share a responsibility to adopt a social-structural perspective in understanding why women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This approach offers the best path forward for explaining the disparity and improving the attraction and retention of women in these fields (Miner et al., 2018). In conjunction with the approach described, a deliberate effort to cast a spotlight on women of color is necessary, as they are the most marginalized, yet are often excluded from conversations about gender equality.

We applaud the efforts of Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) in their development of perpetrator predation as a sensitizing concept (see also Cortina, 2017) for future work in workplace aggression and mistreatment (hereafter workplace mistreatment). The importance of being mindful of the manner in which we frame our arguments is both highly relevant and well-articulated by the authors. We further believe that the transfer of focus from that of blaming victims to placing the onus for workplace mistreatment on the actor him/herself is an important idea as our field continues to develop into the 21st century.

The focal article (Reynolds, McCauley, Tsacoumis, and the Jeanneret Symposium Participants, 2018) reviewed and discussed the challenges, practices, and opportunities for the assessment and development for senior leaders. They summarized a set of accepted wisdom for assessing senior leaders in the areas of assessment criteria, contexts, and implementation, and meanwhile, pointed out what should be explored and done in the future. One of the central premises of the focal article seems to be built on the assumption that organizations may have sufficient resources to follow the accepted wisdom to ensure the quality and effectiveness of assessment and development for senior leaders. In addition, most, if not all, of the research findings summarized and discussed in the focal article may be based on the studies under the context of established companies. Hence, whether the implications and suggestions from the focal article can generalize to small enterprises remain an open question. For example, a typical small enterprise in the United States is a company capitalized with about $25,000 (Shane, 2009). Most of these enterprises are highly centralized, have negative cash flow, and have troubles in securing cash and in obtaining customer acceptance (Rutherford & Buller, 2007). Thus, these companies may not be able to follow the accepted wisdom as recommended in the focal article. We realize that some small businesses and start-ups are extremely well funded, so our following comments apply only to those small enterprises with scarce resources.

Miner et al.’s (2018) interpretation of gender inequity in STEM fields as a social-structural problem shifts the onus from “her” as the root of the problem to “us” as a society. However, despite noting the “even bleaker” outlook for women of color early on, the focal article lacks an intersectional focus, ignoring the differential experiences that exist between white women and women of color. Crenshaw's (1991) original work on intersectionality highlighted the fact that the experiences of women of color (WOC) often differ drastically from those of their White counterparts, and the subsequent body of intersectionality literature in a variety of fields reminds us that failing to include an intersectional perspective is an oversight we can no longer afford to make. With this in mind, we highlight the ways in which those at the intersection of both gender and racial minority status face a “double bind” (Malcom & Malcom, 2011), such that they are additionally disadvantaged by society's perceptions and expectations of the behavior of WOC.

Few would argue that the workplace has changed tremendously over a short period of time and will continue to evolve in the years to come. Regardless of whether change is major or minor, lightning fast or painfully slow, change in and of itself may not be sufficient cause for substantial revision of existing theories, such as social exchange theory (SET); the formulation of entirely new theories; or the creation of new constructs. This is for two reasons: (a) the possibility that we overestimate the impact of change on the workplace, and (b) change can be readily incorporated into our existing theories. We expand on each of these points below and describe several possible macrolevel trends that may impact SET in the years to come.

We acknowledge and agree with Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) that the tendency to focus on victims as precipitators of their own negative workplace experiences (e.g. abusive supervision) presents a problematic theoretical paradigm. Using organizational justice as an illustration, we note that even in fields with an orientation toward victims, similar trends with regard to victim precipitation have still emerged. However, we also argue that although the perpetrator predation approach may help to avoid this tendency and encourage a better understanding of the responsibility for and origins of certain organizational experiences, it may fall short when examining complex phenomena that involve more than the dyad of perpetrator and victim. We suggest that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology scholars might be better served by abandoning the language of victim and perpetrator altogether. Though we invoke these two terms when discussing organizational justice, we ultimately come to argue that researchers should utilize different language that better captures the experience and role of employees in these phenomena.

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland's (2018) perspective on studying victimization in organizations is a welcome contribution to workplace aggression research. We share their believe that considering a perpetrator predation paradigm may advance and proliferate research on issues related to gender harassment, bullying, mobbing, and other explicitly overt forms of victimization where the intent to harm is supposedly clear. However, we propose that, if blindly adopted, neither the dominant victim precipitation paradigm nor the suggested perpetrator predation paradigm will improve research on incivility or other more covert and indirect forms of victimization. In fact, we suggest in our commentary that both models may be counterproductive for understanding and remedying incivility in organizations.