The focal article by Köhler et al. (2020) is an excellent start to a discussion about how we prepare reviewers for peer review in our journals and beyond. Our response has little disagreement with what is present in the focal article. Instead, we focus on what is omitted: a competency regarding diversity and inclusion (D&I). To that end, we describe a proposed competency, explain why it is important, and provide several examples regarding how this competency might play out in review of manuscripts and in other review settings. Why is a competency for diversity and inclusion necessary? Research in the industrial and organizational (I-O) domain is not representative of the labor market (Bergman & Jean, 2016) and tends to focus on the experiences of workers in the U.S. workforce, overlooking experiences from around the world (Myers, 2016). Despite the fact that many of our samples are college-educated individuals (e.g., undergraduates, professionals, managers, executives; Bergman & Jean, 2016), 38.6% of the U.S. workforce did not have any education beyond high school in 2018 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). In order to remain relevant, interesting, more generalizable, and more applicable, work in the field of I-O psychology needs to consider issues related to class, job type, educational level, international status, and beyond. A competency in diversity (i.e., ways that individuals are different and unique, including the constructs of race, gender, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, ability status, parental status, class, education, and beyond; Jordan, 2011) and inclusion (i.e., fostering a climate that allows for diverse individuals to collaborate and connect; Jordan, 2011) would help I-O psychology research become more representative of the labor force, which should in turn make I-O psychology research more applicable and useful to organizations. Notably, we are arguing for competency in D&I issues in all I-O psychology research, not just in the D&I subfield. As scientists, we need to consider whether our research is responsive and responsible to issues of D&I in the domains of interest. Additionally, we need to address the issue of our own privilege (in terms of level of education, access to resources, etc.) and bias, as well as the privilege of those who have been included in I-O research (white collar, educated, White workers) and the biases that exist in our knowledge base. Confronting this privilege is uncomfortable and can be an area of uncertainty for individuals who are unfamiliar with issues related to D&I. The establishment of a formalized competency related to D&I helps alleviate some of this discomfort. The proposed competency for diversity and inclusion A competency for D&I belongs in the foundational knowledge area of the framework and would read something like this:

Industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists love proposing training-if only we could get the right training!-to solve problems of harassment and discrimination (Hayes et al., 2020; Medeiros & Griffith, 2019). In their focal article, Hayes et al. call training a "natural starting point" (2020, 120). However, we contend here-as we have before (Bergman, 2018, 2019; Bergman et al., 2016)-that training will not solve the problem. It might contribute to a reduction in the problem, but it is not the panacea that I-O psychologists believe it would be. The suggestion that even the ideal antiharassment and antidiscrimination training is effective for everyone is questionable. The reality is that people are shaped to a large degree by the society in which they live, and some cannot simply be trained out of their biases and behaviors. Organizations can minimize the necessity for such training by reconceptualizing the minimum qualifications for adequate job performance to include the interpersonal skills that support an inclusive environment in which everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Many of these knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) would likely be applicable across positions, as certain attitudes and behaviors are generalizable. Therefore, this commentary provides an alternative view to Hayes et al. (2020), arguing that we should consider the many other tools that I-O psychologists have that could help reduce harassment and discrimination in organizations, specifically (a) competency modeling, (b) selection, (c) recruitment, (d) performance management and appraisal, and (e) policy analysis. No one tool will be the magic wand that ends harassment and discrimination (Bergman, 2019; Sackett & Shewach, 2017). Rather, we contend that using all of our tools, rather than just training, is more likely to bring about change. Note that herein we refer to harassment and discrimination and not just sexual harassment and racial discrimination, as did Hayes et al. (2020). Understandably, Hayes et al. narrowed their topics in order to provide a comprehensive literature review and focused on the specific forms of harassment and discrimination for which there is more training research. However, because we are writing about general processes, this was not necessary for us to do. Further, because intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Settles, 2006) indicates that systems of oppression are linked, singling out specific kinds of harassment and discrimination as being in need of reduction-and remaining silent in the face of others-is less effective than addressing any and all harassment and discrimination. Finally, in some places we will discuss reducing harassment and discrimination, whereas in others we will discuss increasing diversity and inclusion (D&I); we consider the former to be an important subset of the latter.

“What if gender mattered less? Pigs might actually fly before that happens,” said Dr. Mikki Hebl at the Shaken & Stirred event at the 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference (I-O Shaken & Stirred, 2017). If gender mattered less, “SIOP itself would see differences. Women comprised only six out of the 21 SIOP fellows this year, and five of the 25 major award recipients yesterday . . . were women.” With that, she dropped the microphone and walked off the stage. This video has been viewed on YouTube more than twice as many times as most of the other Shaken & Stirred videos that are available, and it is this boldness that is needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology if we expect to see changes.