Peer review is part of the bedrock of science. In recent years the focus of peer review has shifted toward developmental reviewing, an approach intended to focus on the author’s growth and development. Yet, does the focus on developing the author have unintended consequences for the development of science? In this paper, we critique the developmental approach to peer review and contrast it with the constructive approach, which focuses on improvement of the research. We suggest the developmental approach, although with laudable aims, has also produced unintended consequences that negatively impact authors’ experiences as well as the quality and meaningfulness of the science published. We identify problems and discuss potential solutions that can strengthen peer review and contribute to science for a smarter workplace.

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology has largely ignored organized labor, both in terms of our research interests and as a potential domain of professional practice. Historically, some I-O psychologists have even engaged in antilabor activities. This article aims to make that history more salient to current members of the profession, help us better understand how and why that schism came about, note the adverse effects on our understanding of organizations and contributing to employee well-being and organizational effectiveness, and highlight associated ethical issues. We offer suggestions on how to address the situation, drawing on examples from the field of industrial relations. We also consider the impact of the current antilabor, antidemocratic US government administration. We conclude by offering some suggested prompts for commentaries to the article.

Recent corporate scandals and excessively egotistical behavior on the part of organizational leaders underscore the need for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and human resource (HR) scholars and practitioners to critically examine how organizational systems and practices can stimulate leader narcissism. Whereas most organizational scholarship considers leader narcissism to be a stable input that influences important organizational outcomes, we challenge organizational scholars and practitioners to further inspect how organizational practices may either stimulate or suppress leader narcissism. We focus on HR practices as one specific set of organizational practices within the area of expertise of I-O psychologists and HR professionals. Drawing on self-categorization theory, we argue that highly personalizing HR practices (e.g., hypercompetitive leader selection, high-potential programs, elevated leader pay) can encourage leaders to define themselves in terms of a “special” personal identity in ways that set them apart from the broader collective within organizations and in turn facilitate leader narcissism. In contrast, we argue that depersonalizing HR practices (e.g., rotational leader selection, inclusive developmental programs, interdependent rewards) can encourage leaders to act in group-oriented ways that benefit the interests of others in an organization—and beyond. We call on organizational scholars and practitioners to consider more carefully how HR practices—often designed with the goal of cultivating leadership potential—may unintentionally reinforce leader narcissism. With this analysis, we hope to stimulate research in this area and offer insights to shape HR policies and practices in ways that discourage destructive forms of leader narcissism.