Schiemann and Ulrich's (2017) discussion of opportunities for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology speaks directly to the growing movement of companies eliminating their performance ratings. One of the main issues that the focal article highlights is the need for strong analytics and measurement. A core domain of industrial psychology historically has been employee performance measurement. However, by some accounts, as of September 2015, at least 51 large companies were in the process of eliminating their performance ratings (Rock & Jones, 2015). Whether eliminating performance ratings is a good idea is a subject of debate in the I-O psychology community. In addition to a focal article in the summer of 2016 edition of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Adler, Campion, et al., 2016), several sessions addressed this topic at the 2016 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology convention (e.g., Adler, Colquitt, et al., 2016; Hettal, Garza, Levy, & Cleveland, 2016; Hunt et al., 2016; Roch & Gorman, 2016). The I-O psychology community appears to be divided on the value of performance ratings. In my opinion, the recent drive to abandon rigorous performance measurement appears to be a step backward rather than a step forward.

Ethical leaders are those who exemplify moral behavior personally, as well as those who facilitate follower ethical behavior. Although recent attention has been given to the ethical leadership construct, there remains a lack of innovation regarding the assessment and development of ethical leaders in organizations. To address these issues, a pilot study was conducted to examine the convergent validity of an ethical leadership assessment center, as well as the efficacy of using assessment center feedback to foster ethical leadership. Assessees completed a battery of pre tests, a virtual business simulation with a novel exercise, and a set of post tests. Half of the assessees were randomly assigned to a feedback condition, whereas the other half did not receive feedback until after the post tests were completed. Due to low statistical power, quantitative results were inconclusive. Nevertheless, qualitative insights were gained that point to implications for validating assessment center methodologies when assessing and developing ethical leadership.

To make informed decisions, assessment theorists, researchers, and practitioners can evaluate the overlap among (1) relevant theories, (2) empirical contributions, and (3) best practices. Unfortunately, such a task may seem daunting due to the so-called science-practice gap, which can thwart collaboration among these parties. This paper presents an epistemology for delineating the importance of integrating these three sources of knowledge. We then apply this epistemology to show that our current knowledge of assessment and development topics are well integrated in some places, but still quite lacking in others.

Preliminary research has demonstrated that not all assessment center (AC) exercises are viewed as equally just or motivating. The current research builds upon this research and investigates the relationships between six AC exercises and perceptions of self-efficacy, motivation, assessor bias, and fairness. Using a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design (two informational justice interventions and one rating timing intervention), 286 working adults completed a survey designed to investigate differences between AC exercises and to investigate interventions designed to influence AC exercise perceptions. The results show not only significant perceptual differences between assessor-rated exercises and an ability test but also differences among the rated exercises. The results suggest that an ability test can be perceived as both among the most just and motivating exercises. Lastly, even though the experimental interventions did not have their anticipated effects, the results suggest benefits to having assessors rate recorded participant behaviors versus rating “live” behaviors, benefits that to a certain extent depend on whether participants had previously attended an assessment center.

We comment on the focal article (LCIOP Joint Task Force, 2017) from the perspective of practitioners and academics in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, who have been involved for some years in debates about the regulation of psychology in Australia.