The IRIOP Annual Review Issue

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 35, S1S5 (2014)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1918

Narrative, meta-analytic, and systematic reviews:

What are the differences and why do they matter?
GERARD P. HODGKINSON1* AND J. KEVIN FORD2
1
Warwick, Business School, University of Warwick, UK
2
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, USA

Summary This issue comprises the second IRIOP Annual Review Issue, following the incorporation of the International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (IRIOP) into the Journal of Organizational Behavior
(JOB). In this editorial, we highlight important differences between narrative, meta-analytic, and systematic
review techniques and explain how each of these approaches to the reviewing of scholarly work has the po-
tential to contribute to the continuing development of the IRIOP Annual Review Issue, as the leading outlet
for the publication of critical, state-of-the-art overviews and commentary on established knowledge and de-
velopments at the forefront of the eld. In so doing, we clarify further the sorts of contributions we are
looking to publish, exemplied by the seven papers appearing in this second issue. Copyright 2014 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The publication of this, the second issue of the IRIOP Annual Review Issue of the JOB constitutes a further important
development in the evolution of both the International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the
Journal of Organizational Behavior. Under the stewardship of its founding editors, the IRIOP book series, the forerunner
of the IRIOP Annual Review Issue of the JOB, established itself rapidly as the most authoritative and current guide to new
developments and established knowledge in the eld of industrial and organizational psychology/organizational
behavior. Continuing the tradition of the rst 19 volumes of the series, over the next eight volumes of our editorship
(Hodgkinson & Ford, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012), we commissioned purposefully a judicious
mix of chapters from some of the worlds leading contributors to scholarly research across full spectrum of established
and emerging topics that compose the diverse and eclectic I-O Psychology/OB eld. However, amid growing competi-
tion from a diversity of outlets, in 2013 we incorporated IRIOP into the JOB to ensure that, going forward, the reviews we
publish benet from the full rigors of the double-blind peer review system. As explained in our previous editorial:

Against a backdrop of growing competition from a variety of rival publications, each of which is seeking to
provide state-of-the-art reviews and commentary on major developments at the forefront of the eld, the changes
we have introduced are designed to strengthen further the position of IRIOP as the premier outlet for review
articles in I-O psychology/organizational behavior. Subjecting the most promising manuscript proposals and
manuscripts to the full rigors of the JOB double-blind peer review process, our aim is to ensure that The IRIOP
Annual Review Issue remains the most authoritative and current guide to accumulated knowledge and new
developments at the frontiers of the organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology elds.
(Hodgkinson & Ford, 2013: S4)

As explained in the calls for papers, in a marked departure from the previous IRIOP book series, manuscripts
submitted for possible publication in the IRIOP Annual Review Issue are subjected to a two-stage double-blind peer
review process. First, potential authors must submit an extended abstract, incorporating a clear statement of the
intended contribution of the proposed article, together with an indicative bibliography. The most promising of these

*Correspondence to: Gerard P. Hodgkinson, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. E-mail: Gerard.
Hodgkinson@wbs.ac.uk

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

S2 G. P. HODGKINSON AND J. K. FORD

proposals are sent out to anonymous expert reviewers for independent scrutiny, in order to identify which ones
should go forward to the next stage of being developed into full length articles. Manuscripts thus developed are then
returned to the same team of independent reviewers for further evaluation, on an iterative basis, until such time we
are able to reach a rm editorial decision as to whether or not they are to be accepted for publication. The
manuscripts we publish typically undergo at least two-three rounds of revision prior to acceptance. Guidelines for
intending contributors are contained in the formal calls for papers posted on the JOB website, which also appear
from time-to-time in selected issues of the journal.

Further Remarks on the Features that Contribute to Excellence in Scholarly

Review Articles
In our previous editorial, we highlighted seven criteria (well-written, targeted focus, conceptually clear, an articu-
lated contribution, based on sources appropriate to the task of scholarly advancement, organized, and offering a
holistic and critical perspective) which, in our view, set apart excellent scholarly review articles of the sort we are
looking to publish from the many manuscript proposals and full-length manuscripts that we ultimately reject. As
in the case of the papers published in the previous IRIOP Annual Review Issue, all seven of the papers appearing
in the present issue meet all seven of the foregoing criteria. Before introducing them, however, we would rst like
to clarify an important distinction between narrative, meta-analytic, and systematic review techniques and consider
the potential contribution of each approach to the crafting of articles for potential publication in future issues of the
JOB IRIOP Annual Review Issue.
As we explained in our previous editorial: we are seeking to attract well-conceived proposals that can be
developed into timely and insightful papers that review the very best scholarship addressing up to the minute issues,
as well as issues of enduring concern to I-O psychology/OB scholars, offering incisive critiques that will simulate
further progress in theory building and theory testing, fresh waves of empirical work, and/or methodological
advances, by mapping out future directions coupled tightly to the accompanying critiques of the work surveyed,
thereby ensuring that the articles we publish are both novel and wide-ranging in their signicance and reach for
the research domain in question (Hodgkinson & Ford, 2013: S3). Over the course of the past nine years of our
editorship of IRIOP/The IRIOP Annual Review Issue of JOB we have been surprised how all-too frequently authors
have misunderstood the nature and purpose of meta-analytic and systematic review techniques in the furtherance of
this, our core mission.
The narrative review technique is still by far the most popular approach to developing scholarly reviews of the
literature. Adopting this approach, authors straightforwardly offer critical overviews of the literature in the form
of written narrative assessments. Although it remains the most popular approach, as has been well documented else-
where (e.g. Rousseau, 2012; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008), the principal drawback of the narrative review is
its inherent subjectivity. All-too-often, upon closer inspection, the evaluative comments offered by the author(s) of
narrative reviews turn out to be highly problematic when the evidence upon which they are based is subjected to
closer scrutiny. The term systematic review refers to a body of approaches that address this concern by assembling
the full weight of evidence available pertaining to a given research question, which is then evaluated on a systematic
basis in terms of its scientic excellence, prior to incorporation for further consideration or exclusion from a more
formal review process, often involving the judgments of multiple assessors. Meta-analysis techniques are sometimes
adopted as part of the process of a wider systematic review; however, they are only applicable in cases where the
evidence pertaining to the problem at hand is strictly quantitative in nature. Qualitative studies, too, can be incorpo-
rated in systematic reviews, providing, of course, that they meet whatever criteria of scientic excellence have been
stipulated by the reviewer(s) for inclusion. In such cases, the results of the individual studies are assembled into
tables displaying on a systematic basis the principal features of the individual studies contributing to the overall con-
clusions derived from the systematic review. A major advantage of this approach is that, much like in a more con-
ventional meta-analysis, the criteria thus adopted for inclusion and exclusion are rendered explicit, thus enabling

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, S1S5 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EDITORIAL S3

future scholars to challenge the underlying basis and conclusions of the review in question. A more detailed
consideration of systematic review techniques lies beyond the scope of this editorial. For further details see the
recent overviews by Rousseau and colleagues (e.g. Rousseau, 2012; Rousseau et al., 2008). Sufce it to say that
it is wholly inappropriate for the authors of conventional narrative reviews to claim, as they all-too-frequently do,
that because they have attempted to survey comprehensively a given body of work, their review necessarily consti-
tutes a systematic review of the evidence.
Going forward, we expect all contributors and potential contributors to the IRIOP Annual Review Issue to be clear
regarding what form(s) their reviews take. Narrative reviews are ne as a basis for generating new research questions
and identifying future research directions, as well as summarizing the limitations of past work, with the proviso that
authors are vigilant to the potential dangers of bias in their coverage and evaluation of the literature at hand. Given
our overarching goal for The IRIOP Annual Review Issue, it is unlikely that articles that merely report the outcomes
of systematic review techniques per se will provide an adequate contribution. However, when preceded by a
carefully crafted narrative review element that places the contents of the systematic review in context and followed
by a concluding section that draws out its implications for future theory-building, empirical research, and, where
appropriate, the development of new methods and/or the implications for practice, it is clear that the incorporation
of systematic review techniques can only enhance the quality of manuscripts and manuscript proposals. As such,
wherever appropriate, we welcome proposals to conduct systematic reviews. Meta-analytic surveys of a given body
of literature are also welcome, again with the proviso that they are appropriate to the problem at hand and
accompanied by narrative sections at the front and back end of the manuscript that respectively contextualize the
meta-analytic component(s) of the review and draw out as appropriate the implications of the work for future the-
ory-building, methodological advances, empirical research, and practice.

Overview of the Papers in this Issue

We now turn to introduce each of the seven papers in the present issue, which provide reviews across a variety of
research domains and illustrate a range of different review approaches.
Horton, Bayerl, and Jacobs (2014) review workplace identity conicts at work between the values, beliefs, and
demands of individual and group identities. They provide a multi-level and cross-level analysis for understanding
the dynamics of intra-unit identify conicts and inter-unit identify conicts. Based on this analysis, new directions
for research are offered.
Gubler, Arnold, and Coombs (2014) reassess the concept of the protean career. They focus on two protean meta-
competencies of adaptability and identity and describe methodological shortcomings in covering the full range of the
protean career concept. The utility of the protean career concept in relation to other similar constructs is described to
develop suggestions for future research.
The review by Spain, Harms, and Lebreton (2014) focuses on what we know and do not know about constructs
beyond the normal range personality characteristics; that is, constructs pertaining to what has been called the dark
side of personality. The review develops a taxonomy of dark side characteristics and address measurement issues
in order to highlight areas for future research.
Allen, Hancock, Vardaman, and McKee (2014) provide an expanded idea of how a review paper can contribute to
moving a given research domain forward. They examine research on employee turnover and content analyze the
methods and theory behind such research to nd evidence supporting the dominant analytical mindset of this partic-
ular research domain. They identify how the dominant analytical mindset can slow progress in the focal eld and
provide specic recommendations for shifting mindsets to facilitate new perspectives on employee turnover
research.
The paper by Podsakoff, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Maynes, and Spoelma (2014) provides an overview of the liter-
ature on the outcomes of group and unit level organizational citizenship behaviors and the mediating mechanisms

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, S1S5 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job
S4 G. P. HODGKINSON AND J. K. FORD

and boundary conditions of those outcomes. Based on this review, Podsakoff et al. provide a series of conceptual
and methodological recommendations regarding future research on the consequences of unit-level organizational
citizenship behaviors.
The review by Newman, Ucbasaran, Zhu, and Hirst (2014) adds to our understanding of the concept of psycho-
logical capital by focusing on how the concept has been linked to employee attitudes, behavior and performance
across different levels of analysis. The mediating role of psychological capital is also highlighted. Based on this
review, the authors identify factors that can moderate the relationship between psychological capital and outcomes
and provide a roadmap for further development of the research domain.
Finally, Lyons and Kuron (2014) review the evidence for generational differences pertaining to a range of work
related variables such as work values, attitudes, personality, leadership preferences and behaviors. Substantial gaps
in the existing empirical research are identied and recommendations regarding how to build in more consideration
of context and greater methodological rigor are provided.

Conclusion
In seeking to ensure that The IRIOP Annual Review Issue remains the most authoritative and current guide to
accumulated knowledge and new developments at the frontiers of the organizational behavior and industrial and
organizational psychology elds, we welcome new proposals that adopt the full spectrum of review techniques
discussed above. For the foreseeable future we envisage that narrative reviews will likely continue as the dominant
approach. However, wherever appropriate, we encourage contributors to embark upon more imaginative approaches
to the reviewing of the evidence-based underpinning our science and practice, ones that incorporate more rigorous
procedures, alongside more traditional, narrative approaches.

Author biographies
Gerard P. Hodgkinson is Professor of Strategic Management and Behavioural Science at Warwick Business
School, the University of Warwick, UK. The (co-) author of three books and over 70 scholarly journal articles
and chapters, his work, which has appeared in the Annual Review of Psychology, Journal of Occupational & Orga-
nizational Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Organizational Research Methods, and Strategic Management Jour-
nal, among other outlets, centers on the analysis of cognitive processes in organizations and the psychology of
strategic management. A Fellow of both the British Psychological Society and the British Academy of Management,
and an Academician of the Academy of Social Sciences, From 1999 2006 he was the Editor-in-Chief of the British
Journal of Management and currently serves on the Editorial Boards of several major journals including the Acad-
emy of Management Review, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal. With J. Kevin Ford he co-
edits the IRIOP Annual Review Issue of the Journal of Organizational Behavior.
J. Kevin Ford is a Professor of Psychology at Michigan State University. His major research interests involve im-
proving training effectiveness through efforts to advance our understanding of training needs assessment, design,
evaluation and transfer. Dr. Ford also concentrates on understanding change dynamics in organizational develop-
ment efforts and building continuous learning and improvement orientations within organizations. He has published
over 60 scholarly journal articles, chapters and books relevant to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Cur-
rently, he serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology and Human Performance. He is an
active consultant with private industry and the public sector on training, leadership, and organizational change is-
sues. Kevin is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. He received his BS in psychology from the University of Maryland and his MA and Ph.D. in Psychol-
ogy from The Ohio State University.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, S1S5 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EDITORIAL S5

References
Allen, D. G., Hancock, J. I., Vardaman, J. M., & McKee, D. N. (2014). Analytical mindsets in turnover research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S61S86. DOI: 10.1002/job.1912
Gubler, M., Arnold, J., & Coombs, C. (2014). Reassessing the protean career concept: Empirical ndings, conceptual compo-
nents, and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S23S40. DOI: 10.1002/job.1908
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2005). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 20.
Chichester: Wiley.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2006). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 21.
Chichester: Wiley.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2007). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 22.
Chichester: Wiley.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2008). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 23.
Chichester: Wiley.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2009). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 24.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2010). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 25.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2011). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 26.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodgkinson, G.P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.) (2012). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 27.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (2013). Change and continuity in the advancement of (scholarly) knowledge and its dissemi-
nation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(SI), S1S6. DOI: 10.1002/job.1895
Horton, K. E., Bayerl, P. S., & Jacobs, G. (2014). Identity conicts at work: An integrative framework. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35(S1), S6S22. DOI: 10.1002/job.1893
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future re-
search. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139S157. DOI: 10.1002/job.1913
Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F., & Hirst, G. (2014). Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 35(S1), S120S138. DOI: 10.1002/job.1916
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level
organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
35(S1), S87S119. DOI: 10.1002/job.1911
Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the elds
full weight of scientic knowledge through reective reviews. Annals of the Academy of Management, 2, 475515.
Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & Lebreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35
(S1), S41S60. DOI: 10.1002/job.1894

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, S1S5 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.