This is the third editorial commentary in a three-part series that addresses introductions, implications, and interestingness. The first, focusing on the introduction design, is about what the beginning of a paper should look like. The second, focusing on practice implications, is about what the end of a paper should look like. The third discusses how to develop and fit attention-grabbing ideas into the academic conversation in the literature. We hope this editorial series provides inspiration and ideas about publishing papers that people want to engage with.
AlvessonM.SandbergJ.2013. Constructing Research Questions: Doing Interesting Research. London: Sage Publications.
2.
BreslinD.GatrellC.2020. Theorizing through literature reviews: The miner-prospector Continuum. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943288
3.
BellmanR.1975. Dynamic programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
ChinM. K.HambrickD. C.TrevinoL. K.2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of Executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 197‐232.
5.
CorleyK. G.GioiaD. A.2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review, 36: 12‐32.
6.
DavisM. S.1971. That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309‐344.
7.
FaulknerG.FaganM. J.LeeJ.2021. Umbrella reviews (systematic review of reviews). International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1934888
8.
Fusar-PoliP.RaduaJ.2018. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 21: 95‐100.
9.
GrantM. J.BoothA.2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26: 91‐108.
10.
GitlinT.1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media and the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
HambrickD. C.1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 171‐213.
12.
HambrickD. C.2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334‐343.
13.
HambrickD. C.MasonP. A.1984. Upper echelons — The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193‐206.
14.
HelfatC. E.2007. Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization, 5: 185‐192.
15.
HuffA. S.1999. Writing for Scholarly Publication. London, UK: Sage.
16.
JudgeT. A.ThoresenC. J.BonoJ. E.PattonG. K.2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 376‐407.
17.
KaldorN.1961. Capital accumulation and economic growth. In LutzF. A.HagueD. C. (Eds.) The Theory of Capital: 177‐222. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
18.
KatzD.KahnR. L.1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.
19.
LawrenceB. S.1997. The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8: 1‐22.
20.
LakoffG.JohnsonM.1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
PostC.SaralaR.GatrellC.PrescottJ. E.2020. Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57: 351‐376.
RosenthalR.1979. File drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 638‐641.
24.
SimsekZ.VeigaJ. F.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N.2005. Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 69‐84.