Two tales of rejection: Being rejected and rejecting others' (re)views

Dasborough, Marie T.

doi:10.1002/job.2356

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In my 2019 editorial (Dasborough, ), I wrote about the pain of rejection. When reflecting on the most common reasons for rejecting papers, I realized that many submissions that held great promise in terms of advance theory about interesting and important work‐related issues were subsequently rejected based on the JOB Annual Review criteria of “no theory building allowed.” Some of these rejections were very painful, because I could see great potential in the ideas that were presented.…”

Section: Broadening the Annual Review Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Broadening our horizons in 2020!

Dasborough

2020

J Organ Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Broadening the Annual Review Issuementioning

confidence: 99%