Broadening our horizons in 2020!

Abstract

One of the most challenging decisions an individual can make is to disclose a concealable stigmatized identity to others. While various scholars have proposed theoretical frameworks for understanding this type of decision, the empirical literature supporting these frameworks is unclear. To address this gap, Follmer, Sabat, and Siuta (2020) draw upon multiple fields of study, including applied psychology, social psychology, management, and occupational health, to systematically synthesize the existing empirical research. This review will not only serve to advance scholarship on stigmatized identities but also offer practical value to organizations seeking to become more inclusive.In the next article, Razinskas and Hoegl (2020) review the stressor research in teams, broadening our horizons by deviating from the dominant focus on individual level stressors, to instead highlight a multi-level perspective. Given the prevalence of teams in workplaces today, and the increasing levels of stress in the workplace (see Pfeffer, 2018), this is a most timely and relevant review. This article offers an important conceptual grounding for how and why stimuli in this social environment influence both the team as a collective, and individual members within the team. The goal of this offering is to help spark a lively conversation about stressors in team contexts. The final article in this issue, by Tang, Richter, and Nadkarni (2020), is on subjective time in organizations. This article broadens our horizons by synthesizing temporal research from organizational behavior and related disciplines, such as strategy, entrepreneurship, and organizational theory. Based on their literature review, the authors introduce a framework that allocates temporal constructs according to their basic conceptual nature (trait-state) and level of analysis. The authors use Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) text analysis to determine the trait/state property of the constructs and a coding method to determine their level of analysis. Their framework categorizes four archetypes of subjective time (individual temporal disposition, individual temporal state, collective temporal state, and collective temporal disposition), each of which can be used to guide future research.These six articles offer excellent examples of review articles, with each one meeting (and exceeding) the previously outlined criteria for the Annual Review. I have enjoyed seeing each one of these papers progress from the proposal stage through to the final accepted manuscript stage, with the guidance of our excellent reviewers at JOB. As you will see when you read them, each of these articles broadens our horizons, offering new lenses-sometimes from different disciplinesto view the topic of interest. Next year, with the broadening of our horizons at the JOB Annual Review, I hope our vision will be expended even further.

Well—That was a surprise!

“…First, they define what integrative reviews are, and then they carefully outline the steps in detail. Given that the JOB Annual Review has now become the JOB‐ARCDI (see Dasborough, 2020), this article is a most fitting way to begin the initial issue under this banner. While we welcome integrative reviews, it should also be noted that we also welcome systematic reviews (Paul & Criado, in press), problematizing reviews (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020), and meta‐analyses (Pigott & Polanin, 2020).…”

“…In last year's editorial, I announced that we were broadening our horizons, by becoming the “Annual Review and Conceptual Development Issue”—JOB‐ARCDI (Dasborough, 2020). With the call for papers being expanded to include conceptual development papers, I was pleasantly surprised by both the broad range of topics being covered and by the increase in submissions.…”

Review Research as Scientific Inquiry

“…An analysis of the Web of Science database in the categories “business” and “management” reveals a substantial growth of review articles per year over time, as displayed in Figure 1. The importance and growing popularity of review articles have been recognized in multiple subfields in business and management, including accounting (Massaro et al, 2016), entrepreneurship (Combs et al, 2021; Kraus et al, 2020; Kraus et al, in press), human resource management (Callahan, 2014; Torraco, 2005), international business (Paul & Criado, 2020), organizational behavior and organization theory (Dasborough, 2020), marketing (Hulland & Houston, 2020; Palmatier et al, 2018), strategy (Durand et al, 2017; Ethiraj et al, 2017), and supply chain management (Durach et al, 2017; Seuring & Gold, 2012).…”

Capturing the state of the science to change the state of the science: A categorization approach to integrative reviews

“…Organization and management research increasingly relies on review articles to organize and synthesize the ever‐growing research output in the field (Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008). Not only the Journal of Organizational Behavior , which published an annual review issue since 2013 that evolves into the Annual Review and Conceptual Development Issue from 2021 forward (Dasborough, 2020), but also other high‐quality outlets publish review articles. Academy of Management Annals , Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , and International Journal of Management Reviews are relatively new journals dedicated to publishing review articles; Journal of Applied Psychology and Organizational Psychology Review recently explicitly invited integrative reviews; and journals such as Journal of Management, Journal of International Business Studies , Journal of World Business , and Leadership Quarterly have adopted the approach of publishing annual or biannual review issues.…”