Well—That was a surprise!

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2504
• Date: 01 February 2021
• Published date: 01 February 2021

EDITORIAL

Well—That was a surprise!

Looking back at the start of my classes in January 2020, I told my

students that I would have a theme for our upcoming semester—

surprise. I told my students that I would try to surprise them during

each class with unique activities, unknown facts or statistics,

unexpected field trips, or unconventional guest speakers. Being an

organizational behavior scholar with an interest in emotions, I had

purposely chosen the theme of “surprise”knowing that surprises

facilitate learning and agility. Although surprises can be positive or

negative in valence, all surprises—even ones we view positively, such

as a surprise party—evoke immediate negative affect because they are

cognitive interruptions that need to be processed (Noordewier &

Breugelmans, 2013; Topolinski & Strack, 2015). It is this initial

negative affect that makes us pay attention to the surprising stimulus.

Due to this cognitive process, both positive and negative surprises

help us to learn new things and to grow as individuals (see

Louis, 1980). They help us to make-sense of things that we do not

know, they keep us on our toes, and they help us adapt to new

unexpected situations (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011).

Little did I know that half-way into the semester, I (along with the

rest of the world), would be surprised by a once-in-a-lifetime experi-

ence of a global pandemic that would dramatically change how we live

our lives. Surprise! You now need to (learn to) teach online. Surprise!

Those cool conferences in Austin, Vancouver, St Pete's Beach, …, they

are now online too. Surprise! Your children will be at home learning

online in 2020 as well. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! There was a lot of

learning and adaptation to be done very quickly for organizations and

the individuals within them to sustain themselves (e.g., Chong,

Huang, & Chang, 2020). While this may have been the “most surpris-

ing”and disruptive event in the lives of many people, on a positive

note, it also sparked courageous and compassionate leadership, rapid

learning and adaptation, acts of compassion and selflessness, and built

our resilience and patience. Although many authors, reviewers, and

editors needed extensions this year due to the challenges of

COVID-19 (myself included), I was not surprised that our JOB team

managed to keep the ball rolling; and, as a result, we have an excellent

selection of articles in this inaugural issue of the JOB Annul Review

and Conceptual Development Issue (ARCDI).

1|PREVIEW OF ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE

Due to the number of strong submissions over the last couple of

years, we have decided to accept nine articles for publication in this

issue (that number was a pleasant surprise!). These articles cover a

range of organizational behavior topics that are highly relevant to

organizations and employees today, although some may to be viewed

slightly differently in a post pandemic world. From a quick glance at

the titles of the articles in this issue, it may appear that this first issue

of ARCDI is lacking conceptual development papers. However, there

are some integrative review articles that present new conceptual

frameworks and typologies to guide future research. This brings me to

introducing the first article, which is about how to conduct integrative

reviews.

In the first article “Capturing the state of the science to change

the state of the science: A categorization approach to integrative

reviews”, Dwertmann & van Knippenberg (2021) present a virtual

“how to”conduct a high-quality integrative review. 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). We do not discriminate; all types of reviews and con-

ceptual development papers are welcome for consideration if they are

making a unique and valuable contribution to our field. The next two

articles in this issue focus on the work-home interface, which has

been blurred for many of us over the last year during COVID-19. In

“The value of 21st century work–family supports: Review and cross-

level path forward”Masterson, Sugiyama, & Ladge (2021) review the

use of organizational policies, services, and benefits aimed at reducing

work–family conflict experienced by employees, and/or supporting

their family roles outside of the workplace. Following their critical

review of this literature, they offer novel directions for future

research. Next, Murphy, Thomas, Cobb, & Hartman (2021) also exam-

ine work-family issues in their article “A review of LGBTQ+ work-

family interface: What do we know and where do we go from here?”.

Highlighting the research that demonstrates that work–family conflict

affects others beyond those in traditional couples and hetero-

normative individuals, this article aims to stimulate further research in

this area, and to help organizations become more inclusive.

During COVID-19, many employees are working from home

(no longer commuting to work), they are working longer, working

nonstandard hours (DeFilippis, Impink, Singell, Polzer, & Sadun, 2020),

and in some front-line occupations such as nursing, employee

pressures are leading to higher turnover intent (Labrague & de Los

Santos, in press). The next three articles focus on reviewing related

topics—commuting spillover, nonstandard working schedules, and

turnover contagion. In their article “Commuting spillover: A systematic

DOI: 10.1002/job.2504

J Organ Behav. 2021;42:101–103. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 101