Speer and colleagues (2019) provide an excellent overview of key practices on applied attrition modeling. With our commentary, we wish to elaborate on a decision point Speer and colleagues left open in the development of attrition models, namely the decision to examine protected classification information. Our contribution seems particularly relevant given popular press discussions regarding discriminatory employment activities enacted via artificial intelligence. For instance, Amazon developed an algorithm with the purpose of recruiting job candidates with the highest potential. Unfortunately, the process resulted in a bias against female candidates that could not be remedied in a timely fashion resulting in leaders terminating the project (Dastin, 2018). Our concern is that a similar outcome might result here if biases against protected classes are not examined thoroughly. Unfortunately, while there is value in studying protected classes and their relation to turnover, we have observed that legal teams might resist people analytics teams' efforts to examine protected classes in projects such as the development of attrition models, and so we hope to speak to those practitioners who are facing such an obstacle. Therefore, with our commentary, we call attention to what has in our observation been a problem in practice: gaining permission to analyze protected class information on employees in building attrition models. Drawing upon the adverse impact and disparate treatment literature, we highlight how both including and failing to acknowledge the role of protected class information can introduce legal

Providing thoughtful performance feedback in the classroom There is an abundance of research in the I-O psychology literature on providing performance feedback in the workplace that could be implemented in the classroom as well. In the focal article, Kath et al. (2021) address the importance of providing students with individualized feedback on their performance to reduce achievement gaps. They encourage the use of rubrics and providing clear reasons as to why the students received the grades they did. Although their suggestions regarding feedback are valuable, they leave room for elaboration on the specifics of how to provide students with feedback to enhance their motivation and learning. The purpose of this commentary is to provide additional guidance on effective ways to give students feedback, which should not be done without caution. This commentary covers the characteristics of feedback and methods of delivery to consider in providing student feedback. Materializing the benefits of negative and positive feedback The literature holds mixed conclusions regarding the outcomes of both negative and positive feedback. Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) meta-analysis revealed that in over 33% of studies, feedback harmed performance. Both positive and negative feedback messages were capable of decreasing performance levels. In other studies included in their meta-analysis, feedback had no effect on performance whatsoever. This research warranted further investigations into discovering when and why feedback can be detrimental. It is critical that as instructors, we are not providing feedback to our students that harms their motivation, confidence, self-efficacy, or performance. This section briefly describes scenarios when the benefits and detriments of both positive and negative feedback are revealed. Negative feedback can help, whereas positive feedback can hurt According to control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981), reactions to feedback depend on the recipient's desire to reduce a goal-performance discrepancy. When negative feedback is given, a goalperformance discrepancy exists, and therefore the recipient should be motivated to perform at a higher level to reduce the discrepancy. When positive feedback is given, no goal-performance discrepancy exists; therefore, the recipient may be unmotivated to enhance their performance. In an experiment involving 90 college students, Podsakoff and Farh (1989) demonstrated that negative feedback resulted in significantly higher subsequent performance than positive feedback. According to these findings, negative feedback should be given to students to encourage them to work harder and achieve their goals, and positive feedback should be avoided as it may result in students slacking off.

Melson-Silimon, Harris, Shoenfelt, Miller, and Carter (2019) raise an important issue that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists should take seriously: As we integrate normal and abnormal personality models, we may find that personality assessments adversely impact the mentally disabled. Though not mentioned by Melson-Silimon and colleagues, this is a criticism of the personality testing enterprise that has been ongoing since its inception in the early 20th century. We would like to use this commentary as an opportunity to focus on the future of personality assessment in employment selection. We call attention to the relevant history of the personality testing enterprise, discuss whether personality testing adversely affects the mentally disabled, and discuss the strategic role I-O psychologists play in this enterprise. Consider the context surrounding the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 (for details, see Zickar & Kostek, 2013), which outlawed the practice of asking applicants if they would unionize. During this time, organizational sociologist Elton Mayo claimed that irrational thinking and emotional issues explained poor employee performance and union membership (Zickar & Kostek, 2013). Managers, who were eager to prevent unionization, thus saw personality testing as a means of indirectly flouting the law. Catering to these desires, Doncaster Humm and Guy Wadsworth marketed their Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Test for these purposes (see Zickar & Kostek, 2013). Although this test was designed to identify and help employees or job applicants suffering from a mental disorder, it was used by employers to weed out individuals they believed were union sympathizers (antisocial types) or who were communist ideologues (manic-depressive types; see Emre, 2018). The need for personality testing was exacerbated after 1978 when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection. The Uniform Guidelines sparked a search for selection procedures with comparable utility but less adverse impact compared to cognitive ability tests, leading I-O psychologists to personality tests (see Hogan, 2007). We raise this historical perspective to encourage the I-O psychology community to maintain awareness of the historical context within which we operate. Personality testing has long been criticized by academics, politicians, and also in the popular press (e.g., Emre, 2018) for denying mentally disordered individuals a voice in our society (see Zickar & Kostek, 2013). We must recognize that our actions could be interpreted as yet another attempt to help organizations flout the law, which is clearly not our intention. Rather, we suspect that many within our field will ascribe to an ideal in organizational life that most if not all individuals-regardless of class status (e.g., disability)-can compete for and find a valuable place in our society (e.g., Cascio & Aguinis, 2011). As a profession, our research can inform the sorting process by which individuals fi...

Melson-Silimon and colleagues (2018) raise an important issue that IO psychologists should take seriously: as we integrate normal and abnormal personality models, we may find that personality assessments adversely impact the mentally disabled. Though not mentioned by Melson-Silimon and colleagues, this is a criticism of the personality testing enterprise that has been ongoing since its inception in the early 20th century. With our commentary, we call attention to this history, discuss whether personality testing adversely affects the mentally disabled, and discuss the strategic role IO psychologists play in this enterprise.

No abstract