Human Relations has long welcomed different types of reviews – systematic reviews, meta-analyses, conceptual reviews, narrative reviews, historical reviews – and critical essays that are original, innovative, of high-quality and contribute to theory building in the social sciences. The main purpose of this essay is to sketch out our current broad expectations for reviews and essays as a guide for authors and reviewers. As Editors of the journal, we do not wish to be overly prescriptive. After all, reviews may be integrative and focus on synthesis and integration to generate new concepts, frameworks and perspectives, or they may be more problematizing and contribute by identifying problematics, tensions and contradictions in a literature. Furthermore, consonant with its heritage, Human Relations invites scholarship from all research traditions across the social sciences that focus on social relations at work. It is a pluralistic, heterodox journal that will continue to publish a range of reviews and critical essays so long as authors have clear objectives and contribute meaningfully to the field. This will generally involve writing reviews and essays that seek to maximize what we see and are sufficiently complex to deal adequately with the richness and variety of the literatures and ideas considered.
AdornoTWHullot-KentorBWillF (1984) The essay as form. New German Critique 32(Spring/Summer): 151–171.
2.
AhonenPTienariJMeriläinenS, et al. (2014) Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: A Foucauldian reading of diversity research. Human Relations67(3): 263–286.
3.
AlvessonMSandbergJ (2020) The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of Management Studies57(6): 1290–1304.
AlvessonMSpicerA (2012) Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations65(3): 367–390.
6.
AlvessonMHardyCHarleyB (2008) Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies45(3): 480–501.
7.
Aristotle (1941) Rhetoric. New York: Random House.
8.
AshbyWR (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.
9.
AshfordSJ (2013) Having scholarly impact: The art of hitting academic home runs. Academy of Management Learning & Education12(4): 623–633.
10.
AshforthBHumphreyRH (2022) Institutionalized affect in organizations: Not an oxymoron. Human Relations75(8): 1483–1517.
11.
AtwanR (2012) Notes towards the definition of an essay. River Teeth: A Journal of Nonfiction Narrative14(1): 109–117.
12.
BacqSDroverWKimPH (2021) Writing bold, broad, and rigorous review articles in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing36(6): 106147.
13.
BanerjeeSB (2018) Transnational power and translocal governance: The politics of corporate responsibility. Human Relations71(6): 796–821.
14.
BarghJAChartrandTL (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist54(7): 462–479.
15.
BarnardCI (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
BarryDElmesM (1997) Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review22(2): 429–452.
17.
BartunekJMRynesSLIrelandRD (2006) What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter?Academy of Management Journal49(1): 9–15.
18.
BaumeisterRFLearyMR (1997) Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology1(3): 311–320.
19.
BeerS (1985) Diagnosing the System for Organizations. Chichester: Wiley.
BernerthJBWalkerHJHarrisG (2016) Rethinking the benefits and pitfalls of leader–member exchange: A reciprocity versus self-protection perspective. Human Relations69(3): 661–684.
22.
BlakeW (1975 [1790]) The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
BowersKSRegehrGBalthazardC, et al. (1990) Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology22(1): 72–110.
24.
BoydBKSolarinoAM (2016) Ownership of corporations: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management42(5): 1282–1314.
25.
BrannanMJFleetwoodSO’MahoneyJ, et al. (2017) Critical essay: Meta-analysis: A critical realist critique and alternative. Human Relations70(1): 11–39.
26.
BreslinDGatrellC (2020) Theorizing through literature reviews: The miner–prospector continuum. Organizational Research Methods. Epub 6August2020 [open access]. DOI: 1094428120943288.
BrownAD (2022) Identities in and around organizations: Towards an identity work perspective. Human Relations75(7): 1205–1237.
29.
BrownADStarkeyK (2000) Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review25(1): 102–120.
30.
BurkeCMMorleyMJ (2016) On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Human Relations69(6): 1235–1258.
31.
BurnesBCookeB (2012) The past, present and future of organization development: Taking the long view. Human Relations65(11): 1395–1429.
32.
BurrellGMorganG (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Routledge.
33.
CabantousLGondJPHardingN, et al. (2016) Critical essay: Reconsidering critical performativity. Human Relations69(2): 197–213.
34.
CallahanJL (2010) Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review9(3): 300–304.
ChowdhuryR (2021) Critical essay: (In) sensitive violence, development, and the smell of the soil: Strategic decision-making of what?Human Relations74(1): 131–152.
37.
ChudzikowskiKMayrhoferW (2011) In search of the blue flower? Grand social theories and career research: The case of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Human Relations64(1): 19–36.
38.
CluleyRParkerM (2022) Critical theory in use: Organizing the Frankfurt School. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 21June2022. DOI: 00187267221111219.
39.
CooperHM (1988) Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society1(1): 104–126.
40.
CorbettACornelissenJDeliosA, et al. (2014) Variety, novelty, and perceptions of scholarship in research on management and organizations: An appeal for ambidextrous scholarship. Journal of Management Studies51(1): 3–18.
41.
CorleyKGGioiaDA (2011) Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review36(1): 12–32.
42.
CroninMAGeorgeE (2020) The why and how of the integrative review. Organizational Research Methods 26(1): 168–192.
43.
DawkinsSMartinAScottJ, et al. (2015) Advancing conceptualization and measurement of psychological capital as a collective construct. Human Relations68(6): 925–949.
44.
DenyerDTranfieldD (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: BuchananDBrymanA (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: SAGE, 671–689.
45.
DesmondJWilsonF (2019) Democracy and worker representation in the management of change: Lessons from Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies. Human Relations72(11): 1805–1830.
46.
DijkersMP (2009) The value of ‘traditional’ reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation88(5): 423–430.
47.
DyerWGWilkinsL (1991) Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review16(3): 613–619.
48.
EcoU (1984) Postscript to the Name of the Rose. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
49.
ElsbachKDBreitsohlH (2016) A dual-mode framework of organizational categorization and momentary perception. Human Relations69(10): 2011–2039.
50.
ElsbachKDVan KnippenbergD (2020) Creating high-impact literature reviews: An argument for ‘integrative reviews’. Journal of Management Studies57(6): 1277–1289.
51.
EpsteinS (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist49(8): 709–724.
52.
FanDBreslinDCallahanJL, et al. (2022) Advancing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency. International Journal of Management Reviews24(2): 171–180.
53.
FisherWR (1984) Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communications Monographs51(1): 1–22.
54.
FlemingPGodfreyRLilleyS (2022) Conceptualizing business logistics as an ‘apparatus of security’ and its implications for management and organizational inquiry. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 19June2022. DOI: 00187267221110458.
55.
FordJHardingNGilmoreS (2022) Re/searching leadership: A critique in two agonies and nine fits. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 27January2022. DOI: 00187267221079167.
56.
FoucaultM (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Random House.
57.
FoucaultM (1977) Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
58.
FoucaultM (1980) Truth and power. In: GordonC (ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon, 109–133.
59.
FournierVGreyC (2000) At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations53(1): 7–32.
60.
FreeseL (1980) The problem of cumulative knowledge. In: FreeseL (ed.) Theoretical Methods in Sociology. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 13–70.
61.
GatrellCBreslinD (2017) Editors’ statement. International Journal of Management Reviews19(1): 1–3.
62.
GraßmannCSchölmerichFSchermulyCC (2020) The relationship between working alliance and client outcomes in coaching: A meta-analysis. Human Relations73(1): 35–58.
63.
GrintK (2022) Critical essay: Wicked problems in the Age of Uncertainty. Human Relations75(8): 1518–1532.
64.
GuestDKnoxAWarhurstC (2022) Humanizing work in the digital age: Lessons from socio-technical systems and quality of working life initiatives. Human Relations75(8): 1461–1482.
65.
GundlachMZivnuskaSStonerJ (2006) Understanding the relationship between individualism–collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations59(12): 1603–1632.
66.
HammersleyM (2001) On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: A ‘narrative’ response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal27(5): 543–554.
67.
HarleyBHardyC (2004) Firing blanks? An analysis of discursive struggle in HRM. Journal of Management Studies41(3): 377–400.
68.
HartC (1998) Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
69.
HealeyMPHodgkinsonGP (2014) Rethinking the philosophical and theoretical foundations of organizational neuroscience: A critical realist alternative. Human Relations67(7): 765–792.
70.
HedgesLOlkinI (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
71.
HogarthRM (2001) Educating Intuition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72.
HoltomBBaruchYAguinisH, et al. (2022) Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework. Human Relations75(8): 1560–1584.
73.
HoonCBaluchAM (2020) The role of dialectical interrogation in review studies: Theorizing from what we see rather than what we have already seen. Journal of Management Studies57(6): 1246–1271.
74.
HughesKDSilverWA (2020) Beyond time-binds: Rethinking work–family dynamics for a mobile world. Human Relations73(7): 924–952.
JacquesR (1992) Critique and theory building: Producing knowledge ‘from the kitchen’. Academy of Management Review17(3): 582–606.
77.
JanesickVJ (2001) Intuition and creativity: A pas de deux for qualitative researchers. Qualitative Inquiry7(5): 531–540.
78.
JarzabkowskiPSeidlDBalogunJ (2022) From germination to propagation: Two decades of strategy-as-practice research and potential future directions. Human Relations75(8): 1533–1559.
79.
JonesOGatrellC (2014) The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of Management Reviews16(3): 249–264.
80.
KahnemanD (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist58(9): 697–720.
81.
KearneyR (2002) On Stories. London: Routledge.
82.
KeenoyT (1999) HRM as hologram: A polemic. Journal of Management Studies36(1): 1–23.
83.
KilduffMMehraA (1997) Postmodernism and organizational research. Academy of Management Review22(2): 453–481.
84.
KingWRHeJ (2005) Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems16(1): 665–686.
85.
KleinHJPotoskyD (2019) Making a conceptual contribution atHuman Resource Management Review. Human Resource Management Review29(3): 299–304.
86.
KnightCParkerSK (2021) How work redesign interventions affect performance: An evidence-based model from a systematic review. Human Relations74(1): 69–104.
87.
KuhnT (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
88.
KumpB (2022) No need to hide: Acknowledging the researcher’s intuition in empirical organizational research. Human Relations75(4): 635–654.
89.
LearmonthM (2020) Reading for interest. Human Relations73(5): 627–630.
90.
LearmonthM (2022) Editorial: Introducing the Special Issue to mark the 75th Anniversary ofHuman Relations. Human Relations75(8): 1423–1430.
91.
LearmonthMHardingN (2006) Evidence-based management: The very idea. Public Administration84(2): 245–266.
92.
LewisMWKelemenML (2002) Multiparadigm inquiry: Exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations55(2): 251–275.
93.
McCloskeyDN (1983) The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature21(2): 481–517.
94.
MacIntyreA (1981) After Virtue. London: Duckworth.
95.
MacleanMShawGHarveyC (2022) Business as service? Human Relations and the British interwar management movement. Human Relations75(8): 1585–1614.
96.
MinkLO (1978) Narrative form as a cognitive instrument. In: CanaryRH (ed.) The Writing of History: Literary Form and Historical Understanding. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 129–149.
97.
MorganG (1986) Images of Organization. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
98.
MorinE (2008) On Complexity. Trans. PostelR. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
99.
MorrellK (2008) The narrative of ‘evidence based’ management: A polemic. Journal of Management Studies45(3): 613–635.
100.
NielsenKMiragliaM (2017) What works for whom in which circumstances? On the need to move beyond the ‘what works?’ question in organizational intervention research. Human Relations70(1): 40–62.
101.
PalmatierRWHoustonMBHullandJ (2018) Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science46(2): 1–5.
102.
ParéGTrudelMCJaanaM, et al. (2015) Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information and Management52(2): 183–199.
103.
PatriottaG (2017) Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic writing. Journal of Management Studies54(5): 747–759.
PattonEJohnsG (2012) Context and the social representation of absenteeism: Absence in the popular press and in academic research. Human Relations65(2): 217–240.
106.
PaulJCriadoAR (2020) The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know?International Business Review29(4): 101717.
107.
PerlmanBHartmanEA (1982) Burnout: Summary and future research. Human Relations35(4): 283–305.
108.
PetriglieriGPetriglieriJ (2022) The work is alive! Systems psychodynamics and the pursuit of pluralism without polarization in Human Relations. Human Relations75(8): 1431–1460.
109.
PfefferJ (1995) Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science6(6): 681–686.
110.
PolOBridgmanTCummingsS (2022) The forgotten ‘immortalizer’: Recovering William H Whyte as the founder and future of groupthink research. Human Relations75(8): 1615–1641.
111.
PostCSaralaRGatrellC, et al. (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies57(2): 351–376.
112.
PrattMG (2009) From the Editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal52(5): 856–862.
113.
PutnamLLMyersKKGailliardBM (2014) Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations67(4): 413–440.
114.
RascaroliL (2017) How the Essay Film Thinks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
115.
ReichlCLeiterMPSpinathFM (2014) Work–nonwork conflict and burnout: A meta-analysis. Human Relations67(8): 979–1005.
116.
RodellJBBreitsohlHSchröderM, et al. (2016) Employee volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management42(1): 55–84.
117.
RosenthalRDiMatteoMR (2001) Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology52(1): 59–82.
118.
RousseauDMManningJDenyerD (2008) Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals2(1): 475–515.
119.
RoweF (2014) What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems23(3): 241–255.
120.
SalinD (2003) Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations56(10): 1213–1232.
121.
SchultzMHatchMJ (1996) Living with multiple paradigms the case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review21(2): 529–557.
122.
ShamseerLMoherDClarkeM, et al. (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. British Medical Journal 349(2January): g7647.
123.
ShaoBGuoY (2021) More than just an angry face: A critical review and theoretical expansion of research on leader anger expression. Human Relations74(10): 1661–1687.
124.
ShepherdDASuddabyR (2017) Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management43(1): 59–86.
125.
ShiromAGilboaSSFriedY, et al. (2008) Gender, age and tenure as moderators of work-related stressors’ relationships with job performance: A meta-analysis. Human Relations61(10): 1371–1398.
126.
ShortJ (2009) The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management35(6): 1312–1317.
127.
SlomanSA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin119(1): 3–22.
128.
SnyderH (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research104: 333–339.
129.
StainesGL (1980) Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the relationship between work and nonwork. Human Relations33(2): 111–129.
130.
SteelPSchmidtJBoscoF, et al. (2019) The effects of personality on job satisfaction and life satisfaction: A meta-analytic investigation accounting for bandwidth–fidelity and commensurability. Human Relations72(2): 217–247.
131.
ThatcherSMFisherG (2022) From the Editors – The nuts and bolts of writing a theory paper: A practical guide to getting started. Academy of Management Review47(1): 1–8.
132.
TorracoRJ (2016) Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review15(4): 404–428.
133.
TranfieldDDenyerDSmartP (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management14(3): 207–222.
134.
TsoukasH (2017) Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies54(2): 132–153.
135.
TsoukasHHatchMJ (2001) Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations54(8): 979–1013.
136.
Van BaarleSBobelynASDolmansSA, et al. (2022) Power as an enabling force: An integrative review. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 16September2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221128561.
137.
Van de VenAHJohnsonPE (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review31(4): 802–821.
138.
Van KleefGA (2014) Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it. Human Relations67(9): 1145–1164.
139.
WebsterJWatsonRT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly26(2): xiii–xxiii.
140.
WeickKE (1987) Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review29(2): 112–127.
141.
WeickKE (1995) What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly40(3): 385–390.
142.
WeickKE (2007) The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 14–19.
143.
WilliamsCJ (1998) The pitfalls of narrative reviews in clinical medicine. Annals of Oncology9(6): 601–605.
144.
WillmottH (2022) Critical essay: Blinding faith – Paradoxes and pathologies of opacity in peer review. Human Relations75(9): 1741–1769.
