Broadening our horizons in 2020!

• Author: Marie T. Dasborough
• Date: 01 February 2020
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2429

EDITORIAL

Broadening our horizons in 2020!

As scholars, we are often rewarded for having a narrow focus,

targeting a particular topic of study and/or expertize in a specific

methodology, upon which we build our scholarly reputations. Yet, this

narrow focus can limit us from reaching our full potential, preventing

us from growing and adapting to changing environments. As a result,

the theme for the upcoming 2020 Academy of Management confer-

ence is 20/20 Broadening our Sight. This year, the AOM Vice Presi-

dent and Program Chair, Herman Aguinis, called for scholars to think

outside of the box and to use our capabilities to broaden our vision

and to see beyond dichotomies. It is also important for journals to

periodically step back and take stock of where they are at, and iden-

tify how they can improve (e.g., Aguinis, Ramani, & Villamor, 2019;

Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2018). In line with the call by Herman

Aguinis, moving forward, I would like to broaden the horizons of our

JOB Annual Review and our JOB audience.

1|BROADENING THE ANNUAL REVIEW

ISSUE

In my 2019 editorial (Dasborough, 2019), 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. We lost many golden opportunities to publish articles that

would make a unique contribution to the field, and would likely be

highly cited in the future.

After lengthy discussions with the team at JOB, we have decided

to become more inclusive, and to expand the scope of the Annual

Review issue to include integrative reviews and conceptual develop-

ment papers within the scope of our mission. In the coming year, we

will evolve to include diversetypes of theory building papers, including

proposition-basedpapers, process models, and typologies (Cornelissen,

2017), in addition to the comprehensive reviews and meta-analyses

that we are already known for. Such papers are likely to spark new

research; as Davis and Gilson (2017) stated, such conceptual develop-

ment papers are “no longer a first date, but rather the start of a rela-

tionship”(p. 595). These papers are likely to initiate new intellectual

discoveries and invigorateongoing debates between scholars.

To reflect this shift in scope,moving forward we will be re-naming

the Annual Review issue to be The JOB “Annual Review and Concep-

tual Development Issue”(ARCDI). Our broader scope will come to light

in 2021, as we begin to roll out our first submissions under this new

banner. Until then, I willnow present the six review articles in our cur-

rent Annual Review Issue. Eachone makes a significant contribution in

terms of critically reviewing the literature and outlining excitingfuture

research directions.As you will see, they cover a broad range of topics,

which is always, and will be, one of our goals for this issue.

2|PREVIEW OF ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE

The first article is a review of moral emotions by Greenbaum, Bonner,

Gray, and Mawritz (2020). It has been 17 years since Haidt published

his seminal review of moral emotions, where he classified moral emo-

tions into four families: other-praising, other-suffering, other-con-

demning, and self-condemning (see Haidt, 2003). Since then, there

has been considerable scholarly progress examining moral emotions in

the field of organizational behavior. In their review article, Greenbaum

and colleagues critically examine each of the moral emotions families,

providing an updated review on each moral emotion and how they

have been examined in the workplace to date. Of particular value is

their critical discussion of key controversies and debates in the field,

particularly in terms of defining moral emotions and construct overlap.

This article will hopefully be a starting point for any scholar wishing to

study moral emotions at work.

The second article, by Murnieks, Klotz, and Shepherd (2020),

reviews the literature on entrepreneurial motivation. Murnieks and

colleagues organize their review of entrepreneurial motives based on

the phases of the new venture process. In doing so, this article

develops a roadmap of the current state of entrepreneurial motivation

research and its nomological network. The authors provide intriguing

suggestions to guide future research; for me, the most interesting

areas for future research include physiological factors, sleep, and team

level factors in driving entrepreneurship. This review clearly broadens

our horizons, by making a compelling contribution to both fields of

organizational behavior and entrepreneurship.

Next, Ocampo, Wang, Kiazad, Restubog, and Ashkanasy (2020)

present a review of perfectionism at work. Thus far, this literature has

been fragmented across disciplines and multiple conceptualizations

have been put forward by a range of scholars. In their review, Ocampo

and colleagues introduce and discuss a future research agenda that

addresses not only the need to broaden our understanding of perfec-

tionism's antecedents, processes, and boundary conditions but also its

multilevel applications and methodological limitations. It is anticipated

that this review will motivate more studies of perfectionism within

organizational contexts in the future.

Received: 10 January 2020 Accepted: 13 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2429

J Organ Behav. 2020;41:93–94. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 93