Hardie (1997) purportedly examined the effects of menstrual cycle status and perceived (i.e., self-diagnosed) premenstrual syndrome on work performance. Although research to fill the numerous gaps in our understanding of PMS is encouraged, methodologic imprecision compromises Hardie's findings. Hardie (1997), in an article titled "PMS in the Workplace: Dispelling the Myth of Cyclic Dysfunction," claimed to provide evidence that menstrual cycle status has no effect on female employees' work performance. In doing so, she opened and closed her presentation by referencing our earlier work, published in this journal, in which we (Phillips & Bedeian, 1989) offered that there was yet clear-cut scientific evidence that premenstrual syndrome (PMS) adversely affects workplace behavior. She further stated that we nonetheless held that because most people believe the opposite, "employers should acknowledge PMS as a workplace problem" (p. 97). The purpose of this brief commentary is to (a) correct Hardie's misinterpretation of our work and (b) proffer that, despite Hardie's findings, the question of whether PMS influences job performance remains unanswered. Our aim is not to defend one position or another. Rather, it is to consider methodological inadequacies in Hardie's study design that render her findings problematic. It is our belief that dialogues of this nature are useful for highlighting methodological concerns that have characterized research in this area and, thus, for advancing our knowledge base. ____________