r Academy of Management Annals

2025, Vol. 00, No. 00, 1–28.

https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0051

WHAT MAKES A GOOD REVIEW ARTICLE? EMPIRICAL

EVIDENCE FROM MANAGEMENT AND
ORGANIZATION RESEARCH
GORGI KRLEV
ESCP Business School

TIM HANNIGAN
University of Ottawa

ANDRÉ SPICER
City St. George’s, University of London

There is a long tradition of literature review articles in management. Despite attempts to

establish consensus around what constitutes a high-quality literature review, there
remains significant dissensus. To explore conflicting views empirically, we draw on a
mixture of topic modeling and abductive qualitative analysis to conduct an extensive
meta-level review of literature reviews. We find 10 different kinds of literature reviews
in practice, each of which has a different purpose. This makes management different
from other disciplines that have been subject to more standardization. Further, we note
that our findings largely do not overlap with existing classifications of literature reviews.
The key distinction we propose is identifying a review article’s purpose, as determined
by differences in reflexivity and substantive focus. We use these two dimensions to
develop a directional space that will help authors fit their articles to the status of the field
they are reviewing, instead of blindly following a single idealized model or procedure.
Looking into the future, we argue that as advances in artificial intelligence will likely
make some review purposes redundant, scholars should develop new reviewing prac-
tices. Technologically infused and collective ways of reviewing the literature could help
make researchers’ engagement more reflexive, dynamic, and impactful.

Review articles in management research have

This article aims to better understand how past and pre- increased in prominence over the past two decades.
sent practices have shaped literature review articles in Some scholars claim that the standalone literature
management and organization research. However, perhaps review is not an auxiliary activity. Rather, they see
more importantly, it seeks to show how such articles could
it as a new genre of research that is equally important
improve in the future. We are indebted to Associate Editor
Marya Besharov for her patience, constructive support,
as theory building and empirical research (Kraus et al.,
and excellent guidance in a very long, as well as very pro- 2022; Kunisch, Denyer, Bartunek, Menz & Cardinal,
ductive and appreciative, editorial process. We also want 2023; Rousseau, 2024). However, there is substantial
to thank the current editors-in-chief of the Academy of disagreement about what constitutes a “good review”
Management Annals, Matthew Cronin and Elizabeth (Patriotta, 2020). Some argue that review articles
George, as well as Carrie Leana before them, for making should be integrative and bring together all we know
space for such a process—and managing editor Stacey about a subject area (Elsbach & van Knippenberg,
Victor for supporting it. We are grateful for rich comments 2020). Others point out that review articles should
we received during the presentation of this work at the be more focused and advance a critical approach
2022 Alberta Institutions Conference. We want to explic-
that attempts to problematize previous research
itly thank Sven Kunisch, Nuno Oliveira, Xavier Casta~ ner,
(Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020). A further perspec-
Michael Lounsbury, P. Devereaux Jennings, and Renate
Meyer for their valuable comments on previous versions of tive suggests that literature reviews should be stan-
the paper. Finally, we also thank Samuel Richter, Sina dardized through the methods of systematic literature
Sauer, and Tina Leitgeb for their assistance in conducting reviewing (e.g., Briner & Walshe, 2014; Simsek, Fox &
the research. Heavey, 2021). Management scholars have imported
Accepted by Marya Besharov this practice directly from medical science and
1
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
2 Academy of Management Annals Month

evidence-based healthcare (Tranfield, Denyer & Smart, We contribute to the current debates surrounding
2003), where reviewing knowledge has recently what makes a high-quality literature review in impor-
become automated—so it is possible to produce tant ways. First, recent work in management has
“evidence maps” summarizing all available research begun to frame standalone review articles with a
concerning the treatment of a specific condition by focus on the purpose of a review. This has opened
means of a click (Krlev, 2019). Recognizing these new categories of literature reviewing with a classifi-
coinciding and contradictory trends, we ask: What is cation logic based on goals (Durand & Paolella, 2013;
the basis for a high-quality literature review article Glaser, Krikorian Atkinson & Fiss, 2020) rather than
in management and organization research? based on procedures. By asking why reviews are con-
Given the different arguments about what makes a ducted, scholars have started charting the broader
high-quality literature review, it is worth examining landscape of reviewing practices based on conceptual
empirically the state and trajectory of practice in reasoning (Kunisch, Denyer, et al., 2023). We extend
management. We use a combination of topic modeling this work by empirically developing an abductive
and interpretive analysis to study literature reviewing classification system (Hannigan et al., 2019) that cen-
in management (Hannigan et al., 2019). Our analysis ters on purpose and should help management scho-
draws upon an extensive dataset of 1,441 standalone lars pick the appropriate review for the status of their
literature reviews going back to the 1980s, across five field. Second, we uncover how reviewing practice is
leading journals. We note that the stream of work determined by social categories with a range of associ-
discussing standalone literature reviews has tradi- ated meanings and practices that seem broadly agreed
tionally been very technical in nature (Gond, Mena upon (Navis & Glynn, 2010). However, our analysis
& Mosonyi, 2020), where different forms of reviews points at ambiguity around the connotations (implicit
serve as disciplining prototypical categories (Hannan, meanings and practices) and denotations (literal
meanings and practices) (Granqvist, Grodal & Woolley,
2010). These categories are often presented as proce-
2013). Rather than collectively representing a classi-
dures and processes, with best-practice guidance for
fication system with a clean cognitive schema, we
how to conduct such a study (e.g., in a systematic
find overlaps and crossings between categories. For
way, in a narrative way, in a meta-analytic way etc.;
example, the label “systematic literature review” is
Paul & Criado, 2020; Sauer & Seuring, 2023; Snyder,
associated with many different, often contradictory,
2019). These have been written about extensively and
meanings and practices, and can refer to how a
are often presented as guides with associated proto-
review is executed (i.e., review style), or why a
cols and general principles (Lim, Kumar & Ali, 2022).
review is performed (i.e., review purpose).
For this reason, we refer to these categories of review-
Our findings suggest that scholars should not
ing as review styles. blindly follow a single idealized model of literature
Our analysis finds some support for such proto- reviewing. Instead, we advocate for a contingency-
typical categories of reviewing, but we also find that based approach. We argue that a high-quality review
literature reviews tend to be written in more diverse is one that builds on the current state of a field and
ways and with changes over time. This helps us charts a new direction (Cronin & George, 2023). In
uncover deeper meanings (see Pierce, 2024). We find this way, a literature review is a type of research that
the presence of 10 different review purposes that assembles, synthesizes, and organizes the knowledge
focus on why a review is conducted. We argue that for a field (Kunisch, Denyer, et al., 2023; McMahan &
collectively we can distinguish articles by the social McFarland, 2021; Rousseau, 2024), but does so in
function they serve—that is, their purpose for a field: different ways. This requires reflexive attention to
substantively reviewing a subject area or helping to the way knowledge claims are generated. To exam-
reflexively develop a field as a knowledge commu- ine reflexivity in literature reviews, we draw upon
nity (Cronin & George, 2023). Review articles can work from science and technology studies. We show
thus be sorted along two dimensions: their degree of that the kind of review scholars choose to conduct
reflexivity (dominant in seven review purposes) and should depend on the “knowledge work” (Bowker
their degree of substantiveness (three review pur- et al., 2019) that they aim to perform relative to the
poses). Combining these two dimensions leads to state of the “knowledge infrastructure” of their field
four broad review directions. The review directions (Edwards, 2010). Cronin and George (2023) develop
we conceptualize move beyond the how and the a similar “community of practice” view, arguing that
why of reviews and specify where a review article review articles engage with a neighborhood of knowl-
takes a reviewed management field. These directions edge, and this affects the neighborhood’s infrastructure
are reshaping, renovating, expanding, and ordering. in different ways. Taking inspiration from a common
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 3

feature of editorial guidance in the Academy of Man- reading. This enables us to understand the micro-
agement Annals, we prompt management researchers level labels, meanings, and practices used to construct
to develop what we call reviews with attitudes [sic]— literature reviews. Our methodological approach fol-
that is, reviews that have a varied but clear purpose lows recent works that blend topic modeling with
and direction relative to the field they review. grounded theory and abductive analysis (Croidieu &
Reflexivity means that producing a review is not Kim, 2018).
simply a mechanical process of gap-finding and gap- Table 1 provides a detailed presentation of the
filling, but one of active construction (Hibbert & analytic steps we performed, including how we
Cunliffe, 2015). With a view to the future, generative moved from methods to a focus on empirics to theo-
artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT will rizing, a process which we describe briefly in the
have a massive influence on standalone reviewing. following (see the Additional Materials for more
While such tools lack reflexivity (Lindebaum & methodological notes). We began with a topic model-
Fleming, 2024), they are very capable of generating ing procedure that yielded 35 topics representing
substantive surveys that describe what we know structures of meaning that were present across
about a subject. This will make more substantive papers. Using these computationally derived content-
reviews increasingly redundant and reflexive knowl- based codes, a key characteristic of our process was
edge work more important. We therefore suggest that moving from topics as empirically derived to our clas-
management scholars consider how to combine such sification of topics as higher-order clusters. In our
new tools to leverage human capacities as a form of abductive process, we examined the clusters of topics
conjoined agency (Murray, Rhymer & Sirmon, 2021). with the orienting question, “What is this a case of?”
First, we call for experimentation with technologi- Moving between topics as methodological outputs
cally infused reviewing practices, of which our own and then clusters yielded an important finding,
effort is a good example (see also Antons, Breidbach, namely that it was possible to identify different
Joshi & Salge, 2021). This can enable researchers to review purposes. The purposes we found had the
develop a more comprehensive grasp on the status character of being substantively oriented (i.e., review-
of knowledge faster and more effectively. Second, ing a subject area such as leadership) or being reflex-
leveraging the human factor by engaging in collective ive (i.e., focusing on what the review was doing
and distributed forms of reviewing might help bridge relative to the subject area). By decoupling review
the science–practice gap (Sharma & Bansal, 2023) and purposes from more traditional ways in which
make literature reviewing more relevant and impact- reviews in management have been classified (what
ful (Kunisch, Knyphausen-Aufsess, et al., 2023; Post, we call review styles), we were able to see differ-
Sarala, Gatrell & Prescott, 2020). ences between the two.
For example, we found that it was common to
METHODS: REVIEW SCOPE, RELEVANCE, invoke systematic reviewing as a label, but the mean-
AND PROCESS ings and practices associated with this label varied.
This lack of coherence around the category of the
To study literature reviewing in practice, we look at systematic review reflects the different associated
standalone review articles from five leading manage- connotations and denotations of this label. Rather
ment journals since their foundation. Our approach than see review categories as pure and disciplining
explores literature reviewing both in a top-down way, prototypes (Hannan, 2010), our analysis points to
through examining common patterns of text in arti- categories being stretched to include purposes and
cles; and in a bottom-up way, by observing micro-level directions, as well as family resemblances based on
practices of how reviews are written. This approach common features surrounding these two new aspects
follows a reflexive form of constructivist grounded (Durand & Paolella, 2013). Table 2 visually depicts the
theory (Charmaz, 2006) with a strong focus on abduc- relations between review styles, purposes, and direc-
tive analysis (Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021; Timmermans tions. By relating back to our initial arguments about
& Tavory, 2012) that is done in conjunction with existing literature that engages with literature reviews,
computational tools used in an interpretive manner it shows where our contributions lie and how they
(Hannigan et al., 2019). We employ topic modeling help management research continue to develop.
to render a high-level map of the varieties of litera-
ture reviewing (Hannigan, Pak & Jennings, 2022).
Data: Building the Corpus
This form of distant reading (Moretti, 2013) enables
us to see broad groups of papers. We then use these Our goal in this analysis was to distill a high-level
groups as a guide for conducting more in-depth close overview of developments of literature reviews.
 4

TABLE 1
Analytic Steps
Table or
Stage Step(s) Focus Selection Method Figure

1 Building the corpus Full papers 1,441 review articles (16 Keyword search, review issues, all Table 3
papers from before 1986 papers from review journals.
excluded).
Distant reading
Method: topic 2 Sorting of corpus Paper 35 topics with top Topic modeling (R stm software Appendix 1 in
modeling abstracts 10 keyword lists. package, FREX weighting approach). Additional
outputs Materials
3 Systemization of topics Topic list Appendix 2 in
Additional
Materials
a) Axial coding of topics Labels for substantive topic Coding based on keyword lists, word
area. clouds, artifacts of abstracts, reading
Labels for categories of of abstracts.
knowledge work performed
in review.
Empirically b) Sorting of topics Allocation of 35 topics into Grouping based on commonalities
led analysis empirical clusters I–VIII. between categories of knowledge
work.
4 Preparation of Topic list Appendix 3 in

Transition zone
interpretative analysis Additional
Materials
a) Selection for main Seven reflexive review Qualitative interpretation of topics
Academy of Management Annals

coding purposes. (main criterion). Quantitative

measure of prevalence (for
corroboration).
b) Selection for contrast- Three substantive review Prevalence in corpus.
coding purposes.
Close reading
Theoretically 5 Interpretative analysis Full papers
led analysis a) In-depth analysis Top 20 papers in each of Coding with Atlas.ti, Table 4
seven reflexive and three conceptualization of review Table 5
substantive review purposes, exemplification and
purposes. comparison of knowledge work
(200 papers overall). across purposes.
b) Charting of review Reflexive review purposes. Time-based analysis of prevalence of Figure 3
purposes over time reflexive review purposes.
Generalized 6 Conceptualization of four Full papers Four review directions: one Paper vignettes of knowledge work per Figure 1
theorizing directions of reviewing representative paper for direction. Locating purposes within Figure 2
each direction. the directional space.
Month
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 5

TABLE 2
Relations between Review Styles, Purposes, and Directions
Guiding
Positioning Focus Question Status Focus Examples

Review How? Well-established Best-practice guides specifying Lim et al., 2022; Paul
styles the process or procedure of & Criado, 2020;
conducting a literature Sauer & Seuring,
review. 2023; Snyder, 2019
Review Why? Emergent Portraits of selected purposes Alvesson & Sandberg,
purposes of literature review articles. 2020; Elsbach & van
Review styles Knippenberg, 2020
How? Broad representation of Kunisch, Denyer, et al.
Review purposes purposes (conceptually 2023
Why? driven, focused on the
present).
Review directions Broad analysis of purposes Our contribution
Where?
(empirically driven, over (building on the
time). above)
Review Where? Recent Stressing the situatedness, Our contribution
directions goals, and destination of (extending Cronin &
enhancing a field’s George, 2023)
knowledge infrastructure.

To do so, we focused on five leading management the abstracts of the 1,441 review articles. We chose
outlets. These not only have high standing in the to focus on the abstracts and not full texts because
management research community but also have a rea- abstracts represent an important signal by paper
sonably long history, which enables us to chart the authors. Abstracts condense a review article’s contri-
evolution of literature reviewing in our discipline. butions, but they also highlight important cues for
To account for potential variation in scholarly tra- positioning the article and how it should be consid-
ditions, we analyzed literature reviews published in ered legitimate. The approach of using distant read-
the Journal of Management (which is mainly U.S. ing of abstracts enabled us to map out the full variety
focused) and Organization Studies (which is mainly of reviewing (Hannigan et al., 2022).
European focused). In addition, we looked at standa- Our procedures followed current structural topic
lone review articles published in dedicated, more modeling standards in social science (Aranda, Sele,
recently established review journals. For these, we Etchanchu, Guyt & Vaara, 2021; Hannigan et al.,
considered two general review outlets covering all 2019; Schmiedel, M€ uller & Vom Brocke, 2019). Using
kinds of subjects (Academy of Management Annals, the stm software package in R, we used structural
International Journal of Management Reviews) and topic modeling to find statistical evidence for an opti-
one more specialized journal (Annual Review of mal model specification (i.e., determining the number
Organizational Behavior and Organizational Psy- of topics) using the “semantic-coherence-exclusivity
chology). Table 3 provides an overview of the actual frontier” (Roberts et al., 2014). We then validated this
number of review articles we found. It also includes manually by reading the content of topics and paper
selective highlights of the editorial mission state-
abstracts that were part of each topic. The specifica-
ments of the journals to outline that while these jour-
tion that was most interpretably useful was based on
nals have common denominators, there are also
35 topics. Using this model and the frequency and
important differences in their objectives. Because
exclusivity (FREX) weighting approach, we compiled
there were very few review articles in the initial
a table with lists containing the 10 highest probability
years of our sample, we decided to exclude all
sample words for each of the topics. We then scruti-
papers published before 1986, resulting in an overall
corpus of 1,441 articles. nized those 10 highest probability words in conjunction
with a reading of the abstracts of top-loading papers per
topic, as well as word clouds and artifacts of those top-
Analysis: Distant and Close Reading
loading papers produced in the topic modeling.
Topic modeling. To engage in distant reading, we Axial coding to characterize and sort topics. The
first conducted a topic modeling analysis based on methodological approach described above helped us
 6
TABLE 3
Review Articles per Journal
Issues per Articles Total Review Percentage
Journal Orientation Mission (with Highlights) Periods Years Year per Issue Articles Articles of Reviews

JOM Empirical U.S. “Review Issues are published biannually Since 1975 46 8 8 2,944 490 17
[and] include widely read and widely
cited collections of articles in the field of
management and have become a major
resource for management scholars.”
OS Empirical “Welcomes innovative, high-quality Total 41 2,052 102 5
European research from all paradigms and 1980–2005 25 6 6 900
disciplines that advance organization 2005–2021 16 12 6 1,152
research. It promotes multidisciplinarity
through research that engages across
disciplinary boundaries.”
IJMR General review “Seek[s] to make significant conceptual Since 1999 22 4 4 352 455 100
European contributions, offering a strategic
platform for new directions in research
and making a difference to how OMS
scholars might conceptualize research.”
“The state of knowledge [ … ] is critically
evaluated, and conceptual
underpinnings of competing paradigms
critically appraised.”
Annals General review “Publish[es] up-to-date, in-depth and Total 14 234 258 100
U.S. integrative reviews of research 2007–2017 10 1 13 130
advances.” 2017–2021 4 2 13 104
“Often called ‘reviews with an attitude.’”
“Summarize and/or challenge established
Academy of Management Annals

assumptions and concepts, pinpoint

problems and factual errors, inspire
discussions, and illuminate possible
avenues for further study.”
“Motivate conceptual integration and set
agendas for future research.”
AROB Specialized “Capture[s] current understanding of a Since 2014 7 1 20 140 152 100
review U.S. topic, including what is well supported
and what is controversial; set the work
in historical context; highlight the major
questions that remain to be addressed
and the likely course of research in
upcoming years; and outline the
practical applications and general
significance of research to society.”
Total 5,722 1,457

Note: Approximate numbers on issues, articles per issue and total articles. Actual numbers of review articles found and included. Annals 5 Academy of Management
Annals, AROB 5 Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Behavior, IJMR 5 International Journal of Management Reviews, JOM 5 Journal of Management, OS 5
Month

Organization Studies.
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 7

categorize the 35 topics from the topic modeling in they deal with the future, highlight theoretical or
two ways. First, through independent axial coding empirical puzzles, advance concepts, develop models,
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) by two researchers, we gauge effects, focus on the role of scholars in shaping
focused on categorizing topics by subject area—or, research in particular ways, or advocate for innova-
in other words, substantive content (e.g., organiza- tive research agendas, as opposed to agendas that
tional learning, leadership, or innovation). It was merely list issues that remain unaddressed. Reflex-
striking to observe that the substantive subject areas ive reviews were identified through a combination of
provided a comprehensive overview of all divisions qualitative interpretation with a quantitative assess-
of the Academy of Management (see content codes ment of the dominance some topics had relative to
in Appendix 1 in Additional Materials). This added others (Roberts et al., 2014) (see Appendix 1 and 2).
confidence to our work in rendering the corpus, par- Coding top-loading papers in reflexive versus
ticularly around the selection decision of five outlets substantive reviews. Based on the identification of
in providing a profound representation of the diver- seven reflexive review purposes that resulted from
sity of management research. the procedure above, we identified the top 20 papers
Second, we focused on categorizing signs of dis- that were most representative of each purpose. This
tinct reviewing practices and meanings. What became was judged by individual articles’ loadings in the
apparent through our coding procedure was that topic modeling (see Appendix 3 for the full list of
reviewing practices were being used as part of papers). For these 140 papers, we built on the distant
a knowledge infrastructure (Edwards, 2010). The reading work and conducted a deeper analysis of the
knowledge infrastructure concept was initially defined full papers. Here, we were interested in examining
around sociotechnical forms of support. This points practices and forms of knowledge work in more
at the fact that knowledge is advanced by technology
detail. We analyzed the papers using Atlas.ti coding
and techniques (e.g., procedures for literature review-
software. The coding process was guided by some
ing), but also that it is socially embedded. These ideas
pre-conceptualized ideas about different kinds of
were later refined into a definition of knowledge
knowledge work, which stemmed from our axial
infrastructures as “robust networks of people, arti-
coding based on the topic modeling. At the same
facts, and institutions that generate, share, and main-
time, the analysis was held open to generate new
tain specific knowledge about the human and natural
worlds” (Edwards, 2010: 19; also Edwards et al., 2013). codes as the analysis progressed.
When researchers systematically invoke such practices With the aim of contrast-coding and to increase our
in the process of conducting a literature review, they evidence base, we held our seven reflexive review
perform different kinds of knowledge work (Bowker purposes against three substantive review purposes.
et al., 2019), which give rise to different purposes of a Interpreted qualitatively, reviews with a substantive
review. purpose are very subject-oriented and less concerned
Our approach entailed generating first-order codes, with outlining what function the review has or what
which distinguish topics by the different purposes goal it aims to achieve. This is not to say substantive
the knowledge work performed in the reviews papers do not contribute to a field. Rather, their main
seemed to serve. We then aggregated those to clusters, aim is to inform scholars about the state of a subject
which helped us group topics and then identify seven area to later allow for the development of new knowl-
topics that were marked by high reflexivity. Hence- edge (Lim et al., 2022). In the extreme case, what we
forth, we refer to these as our seven reflexive review refer to as the “content-dominant review,” review
purposes. We also identified three substantive review articles showed few signs of discerning knowledge
purposes (see the Additional Materials for details). work at all. We selected exemplars of substantive
Identifying reflexive review purposes. We define reviews based on their prevalence in the overall cor-
a review’s purpose as reflexive when it exhibits pus. We did so because while clustering around differ-
strong signals of extending or reshaping a field rather ent groups of words, there was no meaningful way of
than capturing it descriptively. Thus, signs of reflex- further distinguishing between topics within these
ivity are when scholars specify in their abstracts three review purposes. Including the three substantive
what they do with existing knowledge instead of review purposes resulted in another 60 articles to code
only outlining what knowledge they review, how (top-20 papers). We thus coded 200 articles in total,
their review contributes to changing the course of a which represents around 14% of our entire corpus.
field, how the review opens new avenues, or how it Conceptualizing a reflexive–substantive matrix
critically assesses previous malpractice or shortcom- and representative vignettes. Two observations
ings. Articles signal reflexive knowledge work when led us to develop our analysis further: First, topic
8 Academy of Management Annals Month

modeling is a mixed-membership approach. This space that enables us to map out four directions
means that each paper is not solely represented by reviewing can take. These should help authors situ-
exactly one topic but is represented by all of the ate and orient their reviews in the future. As will
topics. Each paper has some loading on each topic, become clear, in the future, a vital first step for
which, taken together, add up to 100%. Most papers authors will be to start by thinking deeply about the
in our analysis exhibited strong dual membership, state of the field they are reviewing, so as to then
with high weightings on two different topics. Mem- choose an appropriate review purpose and direction.
bership on other topics was low and often resembled There is no clear sequence on whether to decide first
a long tail distribution. This means that even though on the purpose or the direction. What matters is that
a paper is in a reflexive group, it may share commonal- the review purpose and direction are well-aligned
ities with other papers in a substantive group. Second, in the way they are conceptualized and related, as
in our analysis we also saw that the two dimensions, detailed below.
reflexive and substantive, were not sufficient to fully
capture the character of papers, but that this required The Directional Space for Reviewing: Where to
potential combinations of the two. This helped us get for Field Infrastructure?
a clearer sense of a review’s goal: Where would a
review direct a field and change the outfit of the exist- Figure 1 offers a conceptualization based on varia-
ing knowledge infrastructure? tions along reflexivity and substantiveness. The logic
Through a comparison of reflexive and substantive behind developing this matrix is similar to Locke and
knowledge work, we identified four primary review Golden-Biddle’s (1997) efforts of categorizing articles’
directions: two reflexive dimensions—assembling theoretical contributions based on different ways
(i.e., metaphorically building, recomposing, merging of structuring a field and problematizing a field.
[etc.] infrastructure) and disassembling (i.e., destroy- Our conceptualization resonates with those who
ing, undermining, replacing [etc.] infrastructure); see knowledge as a built environment that review
and two substantive dimensions—representational articles engage with (Cronin & George, 2023). We
(i.e., sketching, displaying, demonstrating [etc.] infra- also extend previous arguments about a spectrum of
structure) and generative (i.e., connecting, relating, reviewing located between mining and prospecting
bridging [etc.] infrastructure). Based on these insights, knowledge (Breslin & Gatrell, 2020), or a duality of
we developed a matrix with four quadrants. We then representing and intervening in knowledge through
selected one paper from each quadrant to serve as an review articles (Gond et al., 2020).
in-depth vignette to better understand the four direc- Regarding reflexivity, we noticed that papers can
tions that reviews can take. In the presentation of be critical and confrontational, with a main aim of
our findings, we first identify the four directions of turning previous research inside out or upside down
reviewing and then discuss the 10 empirically derived in the search for potential flaws, limited viewpoints,
review purposes and locate them. fragmented understandings, or contradictory expla-
nations. Speaking in terms of contributions to the
knowledge infrastructure of a field, review papers
FINDINGS: UNDERSTANDING REVIEW
can engage in disassembling existing research. On
DIRECTIONS AND REVIEW PURPOSES
the other hand, review papers can be more aligned
A key aspect of our analysis is that we moved from with previous research and seek to build on existing
primary empirical research based on data from our knowledge by making innovative additions, shed-
body of review articles to conceptualizing deeper ding new light on existing findings or theories, or
meaning structures (Mohr, 1998; Pierce, 2024). Our opening new space. This means that review papers
conceptualization rested on the realization that review can also engage in assembling existing knowledge.
articles could be more reflexive or more substantive Regarding substantiveness, some papers seek to
in nature, which gave rise to our typology of reviews provide an overview of the field, identify communi-
centered on their purposes. However, we also learned ties of scholars that engage with certain issues, group
that within groups of similar reviews, there was some research streams along differences or commonalities
variation in how reflexivity manifested across papers, between them, or provide summaries of main find-
and of course each review has at least some substan- ings. These review papers are what we call represen-
tive character to it. The key issue then became how tational relative to the reviewed research. On the
these two dimensions were mixed and related. When other hand, review papers can explicitly search for
combined, the two dimensions create a directional gaps and holes in research fields, identify missing
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 9

FIGURE 1
Directional Space for Reviewing
Reflexive
Disassembling

Renovating Reshaping
(Calls into question, (Changes existing course
provokes, and renews within or opens new path in and
subject area) beyond subject area)

Substantive
Representational Generative

Ordering Expanding
(Organizes subject area) (Pushes subject area past
narrow boundaries or
sheds light on blind spots)

Assembling

links between different levels of analysis, or derive identify exemplary paper vignettes associated with
novel questions by pulling together research on the each direction.1
same subject but from different disciplines. This is Direction 1: Reshaping knowledge infrastructure.
what we refer to as review papers being generative The quadrant in the upper-right portion illustrates a
relative to the existing knowledge infrastructure. direction in which review articles take on a reshap-
Combining the two dimensions, each with their ing character (disassembling and generative). This
respective extreme poles, gives rise to four different direction seeks to drastically alter the knowledge
directions a review can take relative to a field. infrastructure of a field. This can happen through
We distinguish between reviewing that focuses on redirecting the entire course of research in a field,
reshaping, renovating, expanding, or ordering a opening radically new avenues, or extending the
field. We first seek to conceptualize and exemplify significance of research beyond the original knowl-
each direction through vignettes and provide scho- edge infrastructure. The reshaping direction is
lars with guidance as to when which approach is well-exemplified by an “envisioning review” that
more appropriate. We then link the directional scrutinizes factors that drive executive behavior
space with the review purposes that we found. We (Wowak, Gomez-Mejia & Steinbach, 2017; see below
do so by aligning the core features of each of the for details on the different purposes). This review
purposes—as well as the internal variation we starts by examining the subject from a multidisciplin-
found in the group of papers that we derived the ary stance. It argues that the field has become disorga-
respective purpose from—with the characterization nized, not because of empirical disintegration or lack
of the directions above.
1
Papers were chosen based on three rationales. First,
Four Directions of Reviewing the respective paper had to be particularly representative
We want to clarify that the two extremes in each of its primary review purpose, less in terms of loadings
from the topic modeling and more in terms of our interpre-
dimension are not to be seen as equivalents of high
tative analysis. Second, the paper had to represent the
and low, or better and worse, approaches to review- respective outer edge of the directional space well—that is,
ing. Instead, our framework suggests that certain be particularly generative and engaged in disassembling
purposes of reviews are more, or less, useful based for the reshaping quadrant, for example. Third, we chose
on the state of evolution of the field they review. recent rather than older papers to show how the direction
Our in-depth analysis and comparison enable us to materializes at present.
10 Academy of Management Annals Month

of theory, but instead because the multiplicity of dedicated to engaging with critiques of evidence-
existing theories has led researchers to view execu- based management voiced by some scholars and
tive behavior through a single motivational lens— responses given by others. This is done to not only
supposedly as a means for coping with the complexity arrive at a balanced view of the pros and cons of
of the field. The authors then develop a counterpoint evidence-based management but also to derive con-
by establishing a bidirectional foundation for better crete recommendations of “future research and other
understanding the role of motives (rewards and ref- actions to enhance the reach and credibility of EBMgt”
erence frames) in driving executive behavior. They (Rynes & Bartunek, 2017: 252).
argue that this not only helps in arriving at a more The renovating direction is useful for assessing
holistic understanding but also establishes “executive mature fields, which suffer from inertia or lack of
motives as the [new] lynchpin for organizing, inte- innovation. The knowledge infrastructure in such
grating, and advancing theoretical perspectives on fields may be well-established and settled but lack
executive behavior” (Wowak et al., 2017: 670), even sources of revitalization, or may be caught in struggles
including the capacity to improve corporate gover- between two or more dominant schools of thought
nance in view of societal debates about CEOs’ over- that crowd out room for novelty. Authors of review
pay, narcissism, hubris, or political activism. articles should look out for prominent areas of dis-
The reshaping direction should be followed in agreement that have persisted over a long time, or for
mature or even declining fields where research on the failure of subjects or theoretical propositions to
certain puzzles or research questions remains incon- develop despite being considered important. When
clusive. This points to situations in which either this is the case, it can be very helpful for authors to
overly broad or overly narrow lenses have been introduce contestation, critically weigh up positions
applied within a field, or where research has missed and take a stand on which existing or new ones are to
some latent empirical fact or failed to incorporate be supported. This can aid in promoting innovation
a theoretical lens that could help make sense of and new directions in otherwise stagnating fields.
the persistent confusion. Authors of review articles Direction 3: Expanding knowledge infrastruc-
should look for inconsistent research findings across ture. The quadrant in the lower right designates a
studies, a high share of empirically refuted theoreti- direction in which review articles take on an expand-
cal predictions, or the dominance of one approach ing character (assembling and generative). The pri-
whose explanatory capacity remains limited in cer- mary function is to move a research field beyond
tain areas. In such cases, it can be very helpful for established boundaries. The expanding direction
scholars to test the foundations of the field, seek to is well-exemplified by a “synthesis review” that
revoke basic convictions, or work toward alternative addresses social entrepreneurship research as a
analytic approaches with greater promise for making “rather fragmented literature without dominant
sense of the field’s contradictions. frameworks” (Saebi, Foss & Linder, 2018; see dif-
Direction 2: Renovating knowledge infrastructure. ferent purposes below). In diagnosing this situation,
The quadrant in the upper left identifies a direction these authors are engaging with the knowledge infra-
in which review articles take on a renovating charac- structure of the field. This article type highlights a
ter. These reviews stay within their subject area yet possible threat to knowledge accumulation, and works
seek to call into question existing research in that toward establishing a multistage and multilevel model.
area (disassembling and representational). The pri- The authors do not stop at developing the model but
mary aim is to revitalize a field through contestation. focus on conceptualizing mechanisms for moving the
The renovating direction is well-exemplified by fragmented research landscape toward more integra-
a “debate review” that assesses the status of the tion. Part of an explicit prompt for action that fol-
evidence-based management literature (Rynes & Bar- lows from the model is a call for scholars to restrict
tunek, 2017; see different purposes below). This research that is focused on one level of analysis and
review departs by arguing that the rise of evidence- instead engage in studies that span several relevant
based research was grounded in the failure of empiri- levels. The review also calls for more procedural
cal research to produce consistent results on various research to better connect social entrepreneurial
research questions. It selectively draws on four foun- action to its preconditions and potential outcomes.
dational articles to then engage in a more structured The expanding direction should be chosen in rela-
review, if a brief one. The paper sweepingly covers tively developed fields that are increasingly saturated
advocacy articles, teaching-related articles, empirical but also fragmented. This typically occurs when
articles, and essays on the subject. However, it is most fields already have many well-established building
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 11

blocks of knowledge, but the field is in part discon- picture to delineate different streams of literature or
nected, with different scholarly communities that to mark areas that might have been entirely ignored.
have unique discussions about the same issue.
Authors of review articles should look out for Locating Review Purposes on the Directional
whether there is, for instance, a micro–macro divide Space: Differentiating the Whys
in the field, or for a lack of insights into either mech-
anisms or mediating variables, or on processes and Counter to our initial conjectures, as well as in
multilevel dynamics. They may also check whether contrast to the perceived increasing dominance of
a terrain is well-charted within certain boundaries systematic reviewing, management has not been sub-
but not beyond those. In such cases, reviews that ject to standardization of one best way of conducting
seek to expand the field can help build bridges reviews. Instead, it appears that literature reviews in
between bodies of knowledge, levels of analysis, or management are marked by “varieties of review”
theoretical lenses in a way that opens new avenues comprising seven review purposes that we consider
or uncovers missing links. reflexive: (1) envisioning, (2) conceptual, (3) model-
Direction 4: Ordering knowledge infrastructure. ing, (4) debate, (5) evidence-oriented, (6) synthesis,
The quadrant in the lower left represents a direction and (7) systematic reviews. In addition, we find three
in which review articles take on the character of a review purposes that we consider substantive: (8) per-
summary (assembling and representational). Their spectives, (9) taking stock, and (10) content-dominant
primary function is to organize a research field. The reviews.
ordering direction is well-exemplified by a “taking The review purposes we found represent an as-yet
stock review,” in which the authors assess the family largely ignored nexus of practices. This spans decades
business field because “an assessment of the current of reviewing as well as many scholarly communities.
state of the literature is called for” (Williams, Pieper, The purposes are determined by the different ways in
Kellermanns & Astrachan, 2018: S63; see different which scholars engage in knowledge work. Conse-
purposes below). While the authors zoom in on the quently, the different reviews will have different func-
role of goals in family business, they are not guided tions based on what they mean for advancing (or
by a controversy or supposition of what they will failing to advance) the knowledge infrastructure of a
find but “take stock of what they know about goals field. A key insight from our analysis is that the 10
in family business” (Williams et al., 2018: S63). As a review purposes we identified should not be allocated
result, they engage in classification to provide a neatly to one of the review directions we discussed.
broad overview of the field that spans from antece- Instead, the internal variation of each purpose makes
dents to goals of family business, to the role of indi- them span a certain area on the directional space. We
vidual family members, to the use of the balanced map this out on the directional space in Figure 2.2
scorecard to manage goals. This review paper closes In this section, we also engage in a comparative
with a rather loose list of research questions, whereby discussion of all the purposes we found and hold
“the scope of this paper does not allow for the discus- them explicitly against each other. Table 4 helps us
sion of these additional topics in detail” (Williams outline their primary placement on the directional
et al., 2018: S73). space (second column and in brackets in each sub-
The ordering direction should be chosen when section covering the 10 different reviews), and also
looking at growing research fields. These are fields to better specify the respective purpose as well as to
that have just moved beyond an early state of emer- provide further traits of the knowledge work per-
gence and exhibit a growing yet still relatively formed in the reviews (third and fourth columns).
unstructured body of knowledge. In these develop- Table 4 also helps us illustrate our previous argu-
ing fields, scholars will have had no difficulties in ment about the conflation of meanings in categories
spotting research gaps. This means the variety of and how our results move beyond existing classifica-
theoretical and empirical approaches is going to be tions of review articles (Paul & Criado, 2020). Prac-
very high and scholars will have been very selective tices such as critical reviewing (Wright & Michailova,
in the research questions they address. Authors of 2022), inductive reviewing (Suddaby, Israelsen,
review articles should look out for signals that a
field’s knowledge infrastructure is very diverse, scat- 2
We leave out content-dominant reviews in the map-
tered, or ambiguous. This may be visible in compet- ping, since they represent the most diverse group and
ing definitions, or few studies that directly build on could be characterized as a mixed category, designating
each other. If that is the case, it can be very helpful cases when papers do not signal clear messages of reflexive
for review authors to zoom out and provide a bigger or substantive knowledge work.
12 Academy of Management Annals Month

FIGURE 2
Locating Review Purposes on the Directional Space
Reflexive

Disassembling

Debate

Envisioning
Renovating Reshaping
Systematic

Modeling

Substantive
Conceptual
Representational Generative

Evidence-
oriented

Ordering Expanding

Taking stock Perspectives Synthesis

Assembling

Bastien, Saylors & Coraiola, 2023), theory-led review- provide excessive analytic content in the original
ing (Kunisch, Denyer, et al., 2023), narrative reviewing table, we decided to provide this information in a
(Novicevic et al., 2008), or meta-analysis (Hodgkinson separate table. This helps us to further flesh out and
& Ford, 2014) did not emerge as distinct purposes in underpin our typology.
our analysis. Instead, they represent review styles—
that is, processes or procedures concerned with the
Ten Different Review Purposes
“how” of reviewing (fifth column), which are used in
various ways and in different compositions across sev- The envisioning review (reshaping, and also
eral of our review purposes. Only in the case of the renovating). The envisioning review has a strong
systematic review (Tranfield et al., 2003) do we treat theoretical character and centers on confrontational
the review type as a style and a purpose at the same analysis. Its purpose focuses on turning tensions
time. Finally, the table also includes some indication into productive, alternative paths. Critical concerns
of the prevalence of the review purposes across the about the status quo of knowledge on a subject are
different journals, the number of papers after which not only unearthed but serve as the central hook of
we reached data saturation for each group, as well as articles. Authors engage with a conceptual probing
references to exemplary papers. to better understand the root causes of present short-
An important concern for us is not only to portray comings. Envisioning review authors, for example,
the varieties of review in management but also to aim to test the “basic tenets of fit theory” within
explain and illustrate the differences between engag- person–environment research (van Vianen, 2018:
ing in more reflexive knowledge work on the one 76), or they work toward the aggregation of individual
hand, and more substantive knowledge work on the contingency variables to a more coherent contingency
other. Therefore, in Table 5, we present exemplar theory of organizational environments (Bluedorn,
quotes that capture these differences. In order not to 1993). By digging deeper into the origins of what
 2025
TABLE 4
Typology of Reviews
Review Styles Used to Data Journal
Direction Specification of Further Traits of Perform the Review Saturation Focus (Top
No. Review (Where?) Purpose (Why?) Knowledge Work (How?) After 20 Papers) Exemplary Papers

1 Envisioning Reshaping Providing normative Confrontation  Critical reviewing 12 papers Mainly Bluedorn, 1993; van
review (also advice on direction Critical stance (Wright & Michailova, JOM, Vianen, 2018;
renovating) of a field Conceptual probing 2022) AROB Wowak et al.,
Overcoming disconnects to better understand  Theory-led reviewing 2017
(theory-empirics etc.) the root causes of (Kunisch, Denyer
Improvement of problems et al., 2023)
managerial practice  Inductive reviewing
(Suddaby et al., 2023)
 Systematic reviewing
(Tranfield et al., 2003)
 Meta-analysis
(Hodgkinson & Ford,
2014)
2 Conceptual Reshaping Connecting other fields Mobilizing grand theory  Selective or 10 papers OS, IJMR, Clegg, 1987;
review (also other to management Examining ontology discursive reviewing Annals Fairhurst et al.,
directions) Highlighting patterns and epistemology or commentary 2016; Meyer &
of domination versus Examining institutional (Spence & Keeping, Boxenbaum, 2010;
marginalized issues bases of knowledge 2011) Phillips &
Fostering pluralism Historical  Narrative reviewing Oswick, 2012
contextualization (Novicevic, Harvey,
Buckley & Adams,
2008)
Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer

 Critical reviewing
 Theory-led reviewing
3 Modeling Reshaping Underpinning how Methodological  Narrative reviewing Nine Mainly Hannigan et al.,
review (also methodological gaps innovations  Theory-led reviewing papers JOM, 2019; Ployhart &
expanding) hamper theoretical Charting the evolution AROB Vandenberg, 2009;
progress of methods Wolfe, Gephart &
Demonstrating How-to guides or Johnson, 1993
opportunity space checklists
(not normative advice)
Advancing multilevel
research
4 Debate Renovating Providing a balanced Personal commentary  Selective or Seven All Banks et al., 2015;
review (also view (pros–cons etc.) on the status of discursive reviewing papers Harris &
reshaping) Promoting new a field or commentary Schaubroeck,
alternatives Identifying contested  Narrative reviewing 1990; Rojon,
issues and developing  Systematic reviewing Okupe &
problem–solution  Expert consultation McDowall, 2021;
pairs Rynes & Bartunek,
2017
13
 TABLE 4
14
(Continued)
Review Styles Used to Data Journal
Direction Specification of Further Traits of Perform the Review Saturation Focus (Top
No. Review (Where?) Purpose (Why?) Knowledge Work (How?) After 20 Papers) Exemplary Papers

5 Evidence- Expanding (also Overcoming contradictory Orientation at evidence-  Meta-analysis 15 papers Mainly Aguinis, Dalton,
oriented reshaping) evidence based disciplines  Systematic reviewing JOM Bosco, Pierce &
review Finding new (moderator) Generalization of  Simulations Dalton, 2010;
variables findings in a subject Alliger, 1995;
area Russell &
Gilliland, 1995;
Steel, Kammeyer-
Mueller &
Paterson, 2014
6 Synthesis Expanding Addressing fragmentation Multidisciplinary  Systematic reviewing Nine papers JOM, H€allgren, Rouleau &
review Broadening perspectives approach  Narrative reviewing Annals, de Rond, 2018;
(multidisciplinarity) New definitions IJMR Mainela et al.,
Illustrating logical next Pushing neglected issues 2014; Saebi et al.,
steps for research field and reining in 2018; Wortman,
excessively studied 1987
ones
7 Systematic — Dealing with bias Systematic three-step  Systematic reviewing 10 papers IJMR Typical:
review Increasing rigor approach (to including  Non-systematic Linnenluecke,
and excluding articles reviewing (in part) 2017
and journals) Atypical: Athwal,
Shared structure that Wells, Carrigan &
makes review Henninger, 2019;
reproducible and Quinton &
transparent Simkin, 2017
Academy of Management Annals

Sorting (themes,
perspectives, streams)
8 Perspectives Ordering (also Offering alternative Recounting of evolution  Narrative reviewing 13 papers All Bedeian, 1986; Chiva,
review expanding) interpretations in field  Systematic reviewing Grandıo & Alegre,
Shedding light from Rather loose and 2010; Rashman
multiple angles selective approach et al., 2009
Delineation and
typologies
9 Taking Ordering Consolidating and Capturing diversity in a  Narrative reviewing 14 papers IJMR, JOM, Gomez-Meja, Cruz,
stock summarizing field  Systematic reviewing Annals Berrone & Castro,
review Turning out unaddressed  Meta-analysis or other 2011; Pindado &
issues or new general evidence reviews Requejo, 2015;
opportunities Williams et al.,
2018
10 Content- — Too heterogeneous to Thick description of a  Varied Eight papers All Aguinis, Ramani &
dominant characterize subject area Alabduljader, 2018;
review Pun & White,
2005; Woehr &
Arthur, 2003
Month
 TABLE 5
Illustrations of Knowledge Work in Reflexive and Substantive Review Purposes 2025

No. Review Quotes Typical Features Article

1 Reflexive—envisioning “First, I show that the fit measures used in fit research vary greatly, impact Contestation as a van Vianen, 2018
the fit–outcome relationship differently, and are mostly inadequate to test starting point
fit theory. Then, I focus on research that uses a more adequate technique to
establish fit effects.”
“Further, it identifies and suggests convergence and possibilities for Actively working toward Bluedorn, 1993
convergence between the two research domains and between the two convergence
domains and other major variables.”
“Our final point concerns the link between research and practice, and Contribution to societal Wowak et al., 2017
specifically the overlap (or lack thereof) between the questions that debates
researchers ask in their studies and the questions asked by society about
the behaviors of top executives.”
2 Reflexive—conceptual “We argue that both of these approaches are inherently problematic and Criticism and high-level Phillipps & Oswick,
present an alternative way to understand the varieties of approaches to the alternative view 2012
analysis of organizational discourse based on within domain and across
domain characterizations.”
“Our first question is whether articles in European journals are more likely Distinguishing traditions Meyer & Boxenbaum,
than North American journals to build on the work of ‘grand’ theorists. It 2010
seems that they are.”
3 Reflexive—modeling “Topic modeling’s attractive features and ease of use are generating increased Challenging gaps and Hannigan et al., 2019
interest across the social sciences—raising the disconcerting possibility that ways to meet them
the method will become a technical “black box” without an appropriate
appreciation of topic modeling’s statistical and theoretical underpinnings
and implications.
“Table 1 Guidelines for developing and evaluating longitudinal research Methodological Ployhart & Vandenberg,
[followed by 14 theoretical, methodological and analytical issues].” instructions 2009
4 Reflexive—debate “Firstly, we determined the scope and review questions of the SR [systematic Authoritative knowledge Rojon et al., 2021
Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer

review] (see previous section), based on an initial non-systematic literature required

review and expert consultation of eight management scholars with
expertise and experience in conducting SRs, using a series of standardized
questions pertaining to literature review methodology generally and SRm
[systematic review methodology] specifically.”
“Articles critiquing EBMgt (19%) came in the form of either stand-alone Probing identified Rynes & Bartunek, 2017
essays or responses to focal articles [ … ] These critiques and responses clusters
comprise a particularly complex category. Some of them introduce issues
particularly pertinent to the evidence-based approach. Others, however,
raise questions about the scholarly foundations of virtually all social
science research, a topic that is much broader than EBMgt itself.”
5 Reflexive—evidence- “While numerous empirical studies have examined the relationship between Making sense of Lee & Madhavan, 2010
oriented corporate divestiture and subsequent firm performance, inconsistent inconsistent findings
findings persist, suggesting the need for a quantitative synthesis and an
examination of potential moderating effects.”
“Goal incongruency between owners and managers is the focus of two Testing hypotheses Tosi, Werner, Katz &
control-oriented theories that have guided most of the CEO compensation Gomez-Mejia, 2000
research in this century: managerialism and agency theory. Each of these is
discussed in turn, leading to the hypotheses to be tested in this study.”
15
 TABLE 5
(Continued) 16

No. Review Quotes Typical Features Article

6 Reflexive—synthesis “We offer a framework that is multistage and multilevel and indicates how Addressing Saebi et al., 2018
research efforts within the SE [social entrepreneurship] field can be linked fragmentation
and what insights about SE on one analytical level imply for the other
levels. We use our framework to identify missing research links across
levels of analysis.”
“Table 6. Suggested [alternative] approaches for future research on Alternative approaches Mainela, Puhakka &
international opportunities in IE [international entrepreneurship].” Servais, 2014
7 Reflexive—systematic “This paper is the first comprehensive review of online consumer behavior Comprehensiveness and Nguyen, Leeuw &
that takes aspects of order-fulfillment operations into account from both focus Dullaert, 2018
marketing and operations perspectives.”
“Table 1. Manual additions to the data set [ … ] Reason for manual adding Exhaustive evidence Linnenluecke, 2017
[ … ] Book (not indexed) [ … ] The publication does not refer to ‘resilience’ base
but addresses aspects of reliability which formed the basis for future work
on resilience.”
8 Substantive– “Argyris and Sch€ on (1974, 1978) appear to have introduced the distinction Delineating arguments Chiva et al., 2010
perspectives between adaptive and generative learning [ … ] Fiol and Lyles (1985, 807)
differentiate between lower-level and higher-level learning. [ … ] Senge
(1990) distinguishes between adaptive and generative learning.”
“Suggests various areas which might be fruitfully investigated [ … ]. Taking Selective presentation of Bedeian, 1986
an eclectic approach, four areas of research interest are discussed.” approaches
“The review has identified a number of knowledge gaps on which further Gap spotting Rashman et al., 2009
research into organizational learning and knowledge should be focused.
[Followed by list of general subject areas].”
9 Substantive—taking “In this paper, we summarize this increasing body of knowledge; but it is Summary, initial Gomez-Meija et al., 2011
stock difficult, if not impossible, to examine every scholarly study. We organized categorizing
the pertinent literature along decisional categories that represent most of
Academy of Management Annals

the major management areas that have been addressed.”

“The main goal of this paper is to provide a broad overview of the growing Broad overview Pindado & Requejo,
body of empirical research on family business from the point of view of 2015
corporate governance to explain the mixed empirical findings on the
different performance of family firms (O’Boyle et al., 2012).”
“Table 1 highlights additional future research ideas organized by the topic Outlining possibilities Williams et al., 2018
areas reviewed here. The scope of this paper does not allow for the
discussion of these additional topics in detail.”
10 Substantive—content “This paper discusses the strategy/measurement initiatives and compares ten Dense subject treatment Pun & White, 2005
dominant emerging performance measurement systems with respect to a list of
performance dimensions, the characteristics of performance measures, and
the requirements of development process.”
“Table 8 Evidence-Based Best-Practice Recommendations for Journals and Hands-on Aguinis et al., 2018
Publishers, Editors, and Reviewers to Motivate Authors to Enhance recommendations
Methodological Transparency.”
“Our findings question the prevailing view that assessment center ratings do Contestation as a Woehr & Arthur, 2003
not demonstrate construct-related validity, and instead they lead us to conclusion (instead of
conclude that as measurement tools, assessment centers are probably only as starting point)
as good as their development, design, and implementation.”
Month
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 17

others have only described, authors aim to achieve (Wolfe et al., 1993). Its purpose is to enable sophisti-
theoretical convergence or to provide integrative fra- cated or new kinds of analysis. Modeling reviews
meworks. These articles often share an overarching typically do not choose entry into the review via
aim of overcoming theory–empirics divides or dis- engaging with a methodology upfront. Instead,
connected research strands. Envisioning reviews, authors recapitulate historical phases that contextu-
instead of simply pointing out gaps in the literature, alize the new method and serve to substantiate its
show why and how neglecting a substantive theoreti- importance. A key feature is the explicit underpinning
cal or methodological aspect has severe consequences of how persistent methodological gaps, limitations, or
for the progress in knowledge. They provide strong malpractices may hamper theoretical progress. The
and explicitly normative advice on where an area modeling review works toward delineating new meth-
must be moving, and prescribe how researchers should ods through an effort of typifying previous and related
do so. Another essential part is that some papers dis- methodological practices. Papers in this approach use
cuss how enhancing research concepts would improve extensive exemplification of the opportunities and
managerial practice (Wowak et al., 2017). limitations of applying new methods and demon-
The conceptual review (reshaping, and also other strated applications. A common feature is that model-
directions). The conceptual review engages with ing review papers take on the style of how-to guides
grand theories, which have wider relevance in the and provide extensive checklists of where and when
social sciences and then seeks to apply these to to apply a methodology (e.g., longitudinal research;
understanding organizations (often in abstract ways). Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2009). Modeling reviews typi-
Its purpose is to better understand hard-to-grasp con- cally demonstrate opportunity spaces for future
cepts, including, for example, power (e.g., Clegg, research rather than providing normative advice
1987), postmodernism (e.g., Hassard, 1999; Parker, on the course future research should take. Another
1992), discourse (Phillips & Oswick, 2012), or para- common feature is that modeling reviews seek to pro-
doxes (Fairhurst et al., 2016). Conceptual reviews mote research that spans multiple levels and is com-
frequently refer to iconic social theorists such as prehensive rather than specific in scope.
Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault, Giddens, or Zizek. The debate review (renovating, and also reshap-
They seek to contextualize knowledge claims with ing). The debate review strongly focuses on agenda
broad coverage of intellectual (and, to some extent, setting. Its purpose is to assume an authoritative
social and economic) history. For instance, a group position, often expressed in a very selective and dis-
of reviews of postmodernism connect changes in cursive way, so that scholars essentially provide a
organizational processes to wider shifts in aesthetics personal commentary on the status of a field (e.g.,
and economic history (e.g., Hassard, 1999; Parker, Spence & Keeping, 2011). One of the articles we
1992). In addition, conceptual reviews often engage included was transformed from a regular submission
in a discussion about underlying ontological and (we assume a review submission) to an editorial
epistemological issues. Linguistic concepts such as commentary based on an invitation by the general
narrative and metaphor feature prominently. A fur- editors of the journal (Banks et al., 2015). Other arti-
ther trait is that they are often highly attuned to the cles are led by consultations of scholars the authors
social infrastructure of knowledge production and considered leading experts in a field (Rojon et al.,
potential imbalances of power and patterns of domi- 2021). The primary aim of debate reviews is to con-
nation this creates. One group of articles, for example, textualize a research field—that is, to point out major
charts out the geographical distribution of editorial streams of conversation, lines of argumentation, or
board membership and speculates about how this schools of thought. They do not stop at laying out the
impacts knowledge production in management (e.g., issues, but mostly aim to provide a balanced view of
Grey, 2010; Hinings, 2010; Meyer & Boxenbaum, the debates that are going on in a research field, chart
2010). In some cases, there are calls for greater intel- the advantages and disadvantages of a particular
lectual diversity to enable intellectual progress. approach, and identify new ways of doing research.
The modeling review (reshaping, and also One article, for example, promotes advances in causal
expanding). The modeling review engages with modeling (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1990), another high-
methodological innovations and improvements, such lights innovations in evidence-based management
as the current use of topic modeling in analyzing (Rynes & Bartunek, 2017). The articles do not exam-
textual data (Hannigan et al., 2019) or, from a his- ine more specific and narrow methods or concepts
torical perspective, computer-facilitated qualitative but operate at a higher level of abstraction. Debate
data analysis—that is, the use of coding software reviews not only identify contested issues but in part
18 Academy of Management Annals Month

try to work out problem–solution pairs to correct the The systematic review (spread across directions).
current course of a research field. The systematic review exhibits a pattern of connec-
The evidence-oriented review (expanding, and tion to the classic Tranfield et al. (2003) piece that
also reshaping). The evidence-oriented review is explicitly adapted the systematic reviewing method-
strongly interested in solidifying knowledge claims ology from the health sciences. This methodology
across a range of studies. It is closest of all the emphasizes rigor in reviewing through the exhaus-
reviews to practices commonly found in evidence- tive use of literature databases in gathering, and a
based disciplines such as the health sciences. Its pur- standardized procedure in selecting, articles, but
pose is to aggregate the results of otherwise separate also other scholarly outputs such as books and book
and unrelated quantitative analyses. The evidence- chapters (e.g., Linnenluecke, 2017). The systematic
based review engages in comparing studies where the review, rather than assuming a specific position on
main technique is subtracting the variance in expected the directional space, spreads across all of them, with
sampling error from observed variance (Steel et al., the primary purpose of decreasing bias in selecting
2014). It enables authors to evaluate the generalization reviewed sources to increase transparency in con-
of findings in a subject area. This convergent approach ducting a review. However, it is notable how many
entails using literature search databases extensively, papers that claim to have conducted a systematic
but also the performance of simulations like Monte review do not directly apply the methodology. For
Carlo (Alliger, 1995). A few evidence-oriented reviews example, one set of authors claims to have conducted
we examined reflect upon the practice of meta-analysis a systematic review but do not follow the standard
(Aguinis et al., 2010; Russell & Gilliland, 1995). They procedure, and instead blend selective and structured
also engage in performing meta-analysis themselves analysis (Athwal et al., 2019). Another paper, while
to enable new research through extensive use of data, explicitly relating to systematic reviewing, eventually
where these data have been generated or analyzed by states that its own review is non-systematic and
prior research. This approach is mostly based on gath- “rather a judicious collation of influential papers
ering a wide range of studies, evaluating evidence leading to a critical reflection” (Quinton & Simkin,
and knowledge claims, and either overcoming contra- 2017). Within this diversity, three social practices
dictory results or finding new moderator variables. really stand out. First, the description of how the
This is often done in service of resolving contested authors work together to make decisions and adjudi-
issues and setting up new studies using the identi- cate inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample.
fied moderators. Second, the degree to which systemization is done, as
The synthesis review (expanding). The synthesis themes, perspectives, and streams. Third, the use of
review mainly aims at addressing fragmentation and tables as artifacts documenting papers highlighting
working toward integration. Its purpose is to build key concepts and dimensions. We learn that system-
a foundation based directly on previous insights, atic review could mean different things, and the
rather than spotting gaps in existing knowledge. term is often used as a rhetorical device for dealing
Within our sample, this approach was applied early with bias.
to entrepreneurship as a general field (Wortman, The perspectives review (ordering, and also
1987), whereas more recently it has been applied to expanding). The perspectives review’s purpose is
social entrepreneurship (Saebi et al., 2018) or to to shed light on different arguments, viewpoints, or
research on extreme contexts (H€ allgren et al., 2018). angles. Papers frequently do this in a sequential fash-
Instead of more narrowly focusing on evidence, syn- ion by having paragraph after paragraph stating what
thesis reviews provide an overview of a field by certain scholars have added to a subject area (e.g.,
describing major trends and sorting them. New defi- Chiva et al., 2010). Relative to these past contribu-
nitions or graphic models are offered to highlight tions, perspectives reviews typically engage in gap
missing links or mechanisms and fortify them against spotting. They do this by turning out research terrain
issues that may have received too much attention. that has been neglected and requires further investi-
These practices serve to lay out logical next steps of gation, without necessarily offering pointers for the
where a research field should be heading, or the prop- course of the investigation (e.g., Rashman, Withers &
osition of different general approaches (i.e., alterna- Hartley, 2009). Instead of being exhaustive or norma-
tive interpretations of entrepreneurial opportunities; tive, perspectives reviews tend to apply a loose, some-
see Mainela et al., 2014). To achieve this, synthesis what ad hoc approach to reviewing. This results in
reviews often establish new, multidisciplinary access laying out “various areas which might be fruitfully
to the subject area right from the start. investigated” (Bedeian, 1986), simply because there is
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 19

a lack of knowledge on them rather than because they purpose over time, adding to our surprising empirical
would provide answers to a certain puzzle or short- and conceptual characterization of the discipline.
coming in the literature. The comparative analysis demonstrates several
The taking stock review (ordering). The taking insights. First, the debate review, which denotes argu-
stock review is of a summative character and has the ments among scholars, was the most prevalent in the
purpose of bringing order to scattered bodies of 1990s, but reduced significantly by 2010. Similarly,
knowledge by means of initial categorization, which the envisioning review, which refers to reviews that
is conceptually or empirically grounded. Besides, it provide direction and have a normative character,
often divides a reviewed subject area into different also went from being quite prominent in the 1990s to
levels of analysis or subfields discussed in separate declining significantly. It is worth noting nonetheless
conversations (e.g., Gomez-Meija et al., 2011). The that, especially in recent years, both have entered a
aim of taking stock reviews is mostly to provide a steep upward trajectory, which might make them gain
general overview of a field, rather than zooming in significant influence in the future. In contrast, the syn-
on specific issues. This is, for instance, done to make thesis review, which seeks to overcome fragmentation
sense of mixed empirical findings, which, rather than in a field, rose in 2010 to become the most dominant
based on flaws or problematic assumptions, may sim- purpose by 2020. We interpret this as an attempt to
ply arise due to heterogeneity of approaches in a field connect past, present, and future insights in the field,
(e.g., Pindado & Requejo, 2015). A typical consequence and, in conjunction with our previous interpretations,
maybe as a signal that management has moved from
of this approach is that taking stock reviews outline
being more confrontational to less confrontational.
generic possibilities for future research, with a range of
Another finding from this analysis is that several pur-
interesting questions that are nevertheless only weakly
poses remain rather stable over time, and do not, as in
related to each other (e.g., Williams et al., 2018).
other fields, skyrocket and become dominant in man-
The content-dominant review (unspecific in
agement. The evidence-oriented review and the sys-
directions). The content-dominant review is char-
tematic review have only minor fluctuations, but
acterized by dense subject treatment, which is often systematic reviewing in particular was never domi-
already visible in the abstract in that it shows fre- nant in management, and, if anything, both seem to
quent repetitions of words or word stems that circle have taken on a downward slope that may continue,
around a specific subject. It is difficult to character- leading to a decline. The overall insight from this anal-
ize in terms of purpose, and rather represents a resid- ysis is that we see a great deal of jostling between the
ual category than a distinct one. This means it reflexive reviews. This is not a picture of a stable field,
becomes immediately clear what the review is about, and underpins our qualitative interpretation that man-
but less so why the review is being performed or agement is best characterized by referring to varieties
where it is taking a field (e.g., Pun & White, 2005). of review.
Such content-dominant reviews, as they become
immersed in the treatment of specific issues within DISCUSSION: MOVING REVIEW
an area, often come with hands-on recommenda- ARTICLES FORWARD
tions as to how other scholars should act as authors
or reviewers (on increasing evidence-based practices Our focus on reviewing as knowledge work that
in research, see, e.g., Aguinis et al., 2018). The engages with existing knowledge infrastructures reso-
content-dominant reviews we assessed also contain nates with others who have argued that reviewing
some contestation of previous research, but, rather metaphorically shapes the built environment of a
than taking this as a starting point, contestation is knowledge neighborhood (Cronin & George, 2023).
established toward the end as a result of the review This reflects a recent strand of thinking about goals as
effort (e.g., Woehr & Arthur, 2003). part of an expanded view of literature reviewing (e.g.,
Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020; Elsbach & van Knippen-
berg, 2020). These scholars suggest that authors of
Charting the Reflexive Review Purposes
reviews should consider problematization or integra-
over Time
tion as high-level concerns. Building on these rather
Because of their particular significance for our abstract concerns, we offer a typology (Pierce, 2024),
findings and the discussion to follow, in Figure 3 we based on empirical analysis, that provides specific
plot the prevalence by year of the seven review pur- labels, practices, and associated meanings that are
poses that best exemplify reflexive knowledge work. connected to various review purposes or directions.
This figure shows the relative rise and fall of each Our empirically grounded picture of the landscape
20 Academy of Management Annals Month

FIGURE 3
Mapping the Prevalence of Reflexive Reviews over Time

DEBATE REVIEW SYNTHESIS REVIEW

0.15

0.10

EVIDENCE-ORIENTED REVIEW
Topic Prevalence

ENVISIONING REVIEW

0.05

MODELING REVIEW

0.00
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

of literature reviews in the management discipline infrastructure resembles a sort of scaffolding that
shows the preservation and cultivation of varieties grants stability as configurations are worked out
of review over time. A key analytical move in this (Ansell, 2011). Our analysis reveals these as more
paper was to consider the situatedness of reviewing substantive categories of knowledge work. This
practices as they pertain to the evolution of the means that reviewing is performed with a simple
field’s knowledge infrastructure that each literature function—namely, learning what has been said
review contributes to through reflexive or substan- about a subject. The evolution of a field follows its
tive practices. changing knowledge infrastructure as knowledge
By definition, every standalone literature review work becomes more reflexive. This kind of review-
needs to cover a subject area in a substantive man- ing foregrounds the purpose and directions of a
ner. In contrast, there is more leeway when it comes review relative to a reviewed field, where a critique
to the degree to which it should engage in reflexive of prior research (and other reviews) could help
practices of reviewing that may alter a field. Signals overcome inertia or open new opportunities.
of reflexivity may include contemplating previous
reviewing practices in the field and developing new The High-Quality Review Article: How to
ones, carefully weighing the appropriate methodol-
Develop Reviews with Attitudes
ogy to be applied, or demonstrating how a review
challenges existing knowledge. When a field is in an The Academy of Management Annals seeks to pub-
emerging state, collective learning and knowledge lish “reviews with an attitude” (see Table 3). In this
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 21

article we go one step further and call on authors to value of the knowledge work scholars eventually per-
develop reviews with attitudes. This impetus goes form. To select the most appropriate direction and
beyond assuming an authoritative position. Instead, it purpose, researchers need to ask themselves some key
focuses on producing review articles that have a clear questions, such as: What does the knowledge infra-
purpose and direction, which are related to a field’s structure in a field look like? Why is a review needed,
current knowledge infrastructure—much in the same given this infrastructure? Where does a review lead a
way as scholars should calibrate their method accord- field (i.e., in which ways does the review contribute to
ing to the research question they seek to answer the knowledge infrastructure, not only what does it
(Edmondson & McManus, 2007). contribute)? We argue that a high-quality review is
A surprising finding of our work was that there is characterized by finding a healthy balance between
little standardization of literature reviewing in man- being substantive and reflexive. We also highlight that
agement and organization research. In addition, we understanding and finding this balance, and thereby
found that the vocabulary around systematic review- developing reviews with attitudes, may take time.
ing in management is ambiguous. In our analysis we This means that reviews produced at the end of a
found it was often not used with a clear idea of its research process (e.g., a doctoral dissertation) are
purpose; rather, it was used as a rhetorical device to likely to be more powerful than reviews produced at
a certain procedure that signals legitimacy. Over the beginning of that process.
time, this risks that the label will be perceived as an
empty shell. On the one hand, the term cannot Improving the Present: Balancing Benefits and
develop as an unequivocal practice. On the other Costs of Varieties of Review
hand, our findings make us aware that standardiza-
tion, which allows scholars to arrive at an exhaustive The varieties we find in review articles are akin to
assessment of the evidence using a specific proce- a diversity of approaches to theorizing in manage-
dure, may not be as important in management as in ment. On the one hand, diversity leads to a richness
the health sciences. Management reviews need to in epistemological and ontological approaches and
improve on methodology (Jones & Gatrell, 2014). produces many unique contributions to knowledge
However, failing to include all available studies in a (van Maanen, 1995). Sustained diversity may also
management review will not have the same conse- make management more resilient than other, adjacent
quences as in healthcare (where missing rare evi- social sciences, such as social psychology, which
dence about lethal side effects of a treatment could have suffered significant fluctuations in epistemic
literally be fatal). Besides, healthcare scholars them- confidence. Diversity prevents entire subject areas
selves have pushed back on excessive standardization, from crumbling when some of their building blocks
especially with regard to the assessment of complex are challenged. Take a recent challenge of a central
health interventions. In these contexts, realist review- paper in category theory as an example: Goldfarb
ing has been promoted to allow for more nuance and and Yan’s (2021) failure to replicate Zuckerman’s
novel ways of capturing contextual complexity (Paw- (1999) work.
son, Greenhalgh, Harvey & Walshe, 2005). This move While scholars have taken note of this counterevi-
may be representative of a wider realization about the dence, Zuckerman’s (1999) paper is only one of the
benefits that lie in shifting from prototypes (following many building blocks of category theory. The subject
a certain protocol) to goal-based categorization, which area has not been centralized by standardized reviews.
understands practices in relation to their context (Dur- This means a healthy diversity of other pillars
and & Paolella, 2013; Glaser et al., 2020). increases the resilience of the field in the face of new
Generating progress in the social sciences is a and contradictory evidence. The diversity of review-
complex endeavor that is difficult to achieve. We ing purposes and practices also makes management
therefore suggest that scholars stop using the term much harder to manipulate, either by powerful scho-
“systematic” as a coded word signaling a trustwor- lars or by those applying undue scientific practice or
thy review. Instead, management researchers must false findings. This is likely to have saved manage-
become more reflexive about (a) which review direc- ment scholarship to date from a replication crisis
tion they want to assume, and (b) which review pur- that currently plagues social psychology (Bardi &
pose within the four general directions would be Zentner, 2017). The website https://retractionwatch.
most appropriate relative to the status of their field. com/ documents retracted papers. Management
The actual tools and procedures (styles and check- research has seen retractions, but not to the degree
lists) are important, but they are secondary to the that it could be called a crisis. We believe that many
22 Academy of Management Annals Month

of the projects in other disciplines followed unethical sophisticated technology such as databases, machine
research practices and are rightfully being retracted, learning, or automation. This restricts the contribu-
but the fact that certain standardized procedures or tions review articles can make (Antons et al., 2021).
social practices may have wiped out alternative The pressing issue that results from all these findings
ways of assessing and appreciating knowledge is that new technologies that will dominate the future,
would clearly accelerate the fragility of a body of such as generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT), are going to
knowledge. make some established ways of reviewing redundant
On the flip side, the varieties in management will soon.
continue to undermine paradigm development and After recent demonstrations of what these technol-
therefore slow progress; in the worst case this can ogies can do, it is evident that AI tools will be able
result in a high degree of self-referential work (for to structure and summarize entire bodies of knowl-
this argument on management theory, see Pfeffer, edge, and perhaps, as some argue, even aid in the
1993). Although management reviews have become social construction of new categories (Phillips,
more comprehensive over time by connecting bodies Kalvapalle & Kennedy, 2024). This will mean that
of knowledge, in our analysis we have seen many taking stock of the knowledge infrastructure in a
that are still focused on neutrally taking stock, or field through a laborious process of manually gather-
on gap spotting to identify underexplored territory. ing and analyzing articles is likely to become obso-
They are less likely to appreciate or critically weigh lete. The more substantive purposes of reviews will
the evidence we have available to push the bound- come under pressure very soon, and gradually lose
aries of knowledge. Varieties of review may serve to their value. Such a narrative resembles a classic case
enhance the general level of problematization in of technology-based disruption. As an analogy, con-
review articles, and thereby give some an interesting, sider how realistic paintings lost some of their value
innovative edge (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020) insofar following the rise of photography in the 19th cen-
as diversity of thought helps a critical discourse tury. When this happened, artists started experi-
unfold. However, a lack of strategic approaches to menting with new representational strategies, such
promoting knowledge claims, and of a way to sys- as impressionism, and later surrealism or cubism. In
tematically harness new insights, may hamper the a similar way, we suggest two strategies to deal with
evolution of new knowledge areas. When the aim of the disruption that technological advancements will
review practices is to advance a field, but the prac- cause: developing technologically infused reviewing
tices meant to achieve this advancement lack align- practices and developing new collective and distrib-
ment and systemization, major knowledge leaps are uted practices of reviewing knowledge.
less likely. In the following, we discuss how, in the Developing technologically infused practices.
future, new reviewing practices may preserve the Coming to terms with the technology-based disrup-
varieties of review while enhancing scholarly knowl- tion will probably take time, but management scho-
edge contributions. lars up until now have only taken limited notice of
other ways in which technology could help—for
The Future of Reviewing: How to Better Leverage example, how computationally augmented review-
Human Capacities ing can provide an overview of large and diverse lit-
eratures (Antons et al., 2021). Along these lines, our
Our goals in answering the question of what makes own review efforts would have been very difficult
a high-quality review were not only to chart the past to manage without using topic modeling as a tool to
and improve the present of literature reviewing, but map our data initially. However, this map only
also to develop a vision for the future. To do this, it is guided where deeper work might be conducted. The
important to hold our empirical findings against the topic modeling was an integral part of our grounded
changing societal context in which literature review- theory efforts. The rendering process (Hannigan et al.,
ing will be conducted. At present, literature reviews 2019) helped us abductively revisit our conjectures
in management research often focus on the procedure and inductive groupings (Timmermans & Tavory,
of the review rather than its purpose or directions. A 2012). Seeing the bottom-up, computationally gener-
significant share of reviews tends to lean on the sub- ated patterns also compelled a revisiting of our initial
stantive dimension of reviewing rather than engage interpretations. For example, we saw when and why
with the reflexive dimension of reviews. Unlike other mimicking practices of systemization and standardi-
fields (Krlev, 2019), reviews in management not only zation that are essential in healthcare might be of lim-
refuse standardization but also neglect the use of ited use in management.
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 23

An important caveat to reviewing with AI tools is and push the assessment by a review to a point in
the hallucination effect (Hannigan, McCarthy & Spicer, time long after knowledge production. The upshot is
2024; Xiao & Wang, 2021)—that is, that ChatGPT, for that our understanding of the available evidence
instance, invents truth claims such as facts and cita- often lags drastically behind, and we make poor use
tions. We believe that generative AI can be helpful for of collective intelligence. As simple knowledge sum-
charting field possibilities (Hannigan et al., 2022); mary of the substantive kind will be enhanced through
however, it would be dangerous to conduct knowl- new technologies in the future, there will be new
edge work without a clear understanding of knowl- opportunities for reviews to become more collective or
edge infrastructure. Thus, while we agree that caution distributed. This will allow us to leverage human
is needed in relation to AI tools, we disagree with the capacities in new ways.
claim we should not use AI in management research When it comes to collective and distributed prac-
(Lindebaum & Fleming, 2024). Rather, it is important tices, colleagues have recently pointed out that prac-
to develop a thoughtful assemblage of technologi- titioners such as managers could help sort the
cally infused practices around AI (Glaser, Pollock usefulness or novelty of insights gleaned from litera-
& D’Adderio, 2021). This will enable technology to ture reviews, or be directly involved in conducting
enhance the reflexive dimension of reviews. them. This could help to address the science–
The diversity of theories and methods, as well as practice gap (Sharma & Bansal, 2023). Reviews could
the large share of qualitative research in manage- also be used as an explicit tool for solving practical
ment, make it difficult to merge insights across problems, instead of as a summative exercise. This
empirical work to create automatically generated might make them more current, relevant, and impact-
evidence maps that initially triggered our interest ful (Kunisch, Knyphausen-Aufsess, et al., 2023). The
in understanding the potential evolution of review collective character of knowledge reviews could also
practices in management (Krlev, 2019). However,
be enhanced by making them a community endeavor
there is a large opportunity space between fully auto-
rather than an individual scholarly effort. For exam-
mating reviews using AI and leaving things as they
ple, the management discipline could seek to tap the
are. This is not a question about machines or humans,
knowledge and judgment of journal reviewers, edi-
but one about conjoined agency (Murray et al., 2021).
tors, and authors in improved ways. As part of the
When technology can help speed up the process of
peer review process, these groups could be asked to
reviewing knowledge or increasing a review’s integra-
specify, categorize, and document in which direc-
tive character (Cronin & George, 2023) through tools
tion new articles are leading a field, instead of only
like https://openknowledgemaps.org/, scholars could
employ their capacities to engage more in reflexive approving or rejecting articles as part of the publish-
knowledge work. That is, researchers could spend ing process.
more energy on arguing, contesting, challenging, or To allow for the constant logging of new advances
imagining what the status of knowledge might mean as knowledge evolves, instead of assessing the evolu-
for the future of a field. Through technologically tion of knowledge periodically in an uncoordinated
infused practices such as our own, scholars would way, researchers could create shared yet flexible
open new opportunities to generate empirical find- knowledge infrastructure—for example, by using new
ings about a past status of knowledge, or generate the- techniques based on the social web. There are many
ory from those findings (Post et al., 2020). These cases digital tools that are currently used to spur open inno-
would fortify reviewing as scientific inquiry rather vation processes by firms that could enable knowl-
than as an auxiliary activity (Kunisch, Denyer, et al., edge cocreation (Abbate, Codini & Aquilani, 2019).
2023). Wiki-style platforms, which allow for commentary
Engaging in collective and distributed practices. and exchange on the evolution of knowledge beyond
Our analysis makes us aware that reviewing is fore- papers, could increase the dynamism and community
most a shared social practice rather than a mere character of assessing knowledge (on their use in aca-
intellectual exercise (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012; demic learning environments, see Daspit & D’Souza,
Woolgar, 1991), where creativity stems from actively 2012). Tools such as https://scite.ai/ already help
engaging reflexively with an audience (Collins, 1987). specify whether citations only mention previous
However, at present we are facing two issues. First, research, or dispute or support it. These could be
we largely prevent reviewing from emerging as a enhanced to become more fine-grained and useful in
community-based practice. Second, we disintegrate post-publication assessments of how new research
knowledge production from knowledge assessment extends knowledge infrastructure. They could be
24 Academy of Management Annals Month

used to note how new research reshapes, transfers, REFERENCES

or undermines knowledge. Such platforms could be Abbate, T., Codini, A. P., & Aquilani, B. 2019. Knowledge
hosted by scholarly societies such as the Academy of co-creation in open innovation digital platforms: Pro-
Management, and would ideally span different jour- cesses, tools and services. Journal of Business &
nals or associations. Industrial Marketing, 34: 1434–1447.
Collective efforts aided by new technologies may Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2020. The problematizing
produce similar results to the evidence maps of the review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippen-
health sciences that make retrieving, comparing, and berg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of
assessing the status of knowledge easier and more Management Studies, 57: 1290–1304.
immediate. At the same time, these efforts would Ansell, C. 2011. Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary
remain true to the varieties of reviewing in man- learning as public philosophy. Oxford: Oxford
agement and organization research, which we sus- University Press.
pect also exist in other social sciences. In the Antons, D., Breidbach, C. F., Joshi, A. M., & Salge, T. O.
future, categorizations could include information 2021. Computational literature reviews: Method, algo-
about the practical relevance of the reviewed knowl- rithms, and roadmap. Organizational Research Meth-
edge, or document the application of new participa- ods, 26: 107–138.
tory ways in how the knowledge was reviewed. In Aranda, A. M., Sele, K., Etchanchu, H., Guyt, J. Y., & Vaara,
this way, technology could enable distributed prac- E. 2021. From big data to rich theory: Integrating criti-
tices to make the knowledge work that management cal discourse analysis with structural topic modeling.
European Management Review, 18: 197–214.
scholars perform more dynamic and innovative,
while enhancing its reflexivity. Bardi, A., & Zentner, M. 2017. Grand challenges for per-
sonality and social psychology: Moving beyond the
replication crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 02068.
CONCLUSION
Bowker, G. C., Elyachar, J., Kornberger, M., Mennicken, A.,
In this article, we sought to understand what consti- Miller, P., Nucho, J. R., & Pollock, N. 2019. Introduc-
tutes a high-quality approach to literature reviewing tion to thinking infrastructures. In M. Kornberger,
in management and organization research. Instead of G. C. Bowker, J. Elyachar, A. Mennicken, P. Miller,
J. Randa Nucho, & N. Pollock (Eds.), Thinking infra-
finding increasing standardization like in other dis-
structures. Research in the sociology of organiza-
ciplines, we uncovered 10 different approaches to tions, vol. 62: 1–13. Leeds, U.K.: Emerald.
literature reviewing, each with a distinct purpose.
Breslin, D., & Gatrell, C. 2020. Theorizing through litera-
Furthermore, we argued the different approaches to
ture reviews: The miner-prospector continuum.
literature reviewing vary in terms of reflexivity and Organizational Research Methods, 26: 139–167.
substantiveness. Rather than seeing the variety we
Briner, R. B., & Walshe, N. D. 2014. From passively
find as a hindrance, we think it offers management
received wisdom to actively constructed knowledge:
scholars several options, which can be selected based Teaching systematic review skills as a foundation of
on the status of particular fields. However, we believe evidence-based management. Academy of Manage-
that scholars can make use of the range of purposes in ment Learning & Education, 13: 415–432.
a more conscious way, notably by harnessing new Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A prac-
technologies and collective practices to improve how tical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand
the knowledge infrastructure is shaped through the Oaks, CA: Sage.
reviewing efforts of scholars. Collins, R. 1987. A micro-macro theory of intellectual crea-
Our propositions can only be a first step to establish- tivity: The case of German idealist philosophy. Socio-
ing and maintaining a new culture of critical debate logical Theory, 5: 47–69.
and self-reflection as to what management reviews Croidieu, G., & Kim, P. H. 2018. Labor of love: Amateurs
should or can achieve. To date, scholars often seem to and lay-expertise legitimation in the early U.S. radio
follow established styles or traditions, without think- field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 1–42.
ing about the purpose and directions of a review. We Cronin, M. A., & George, E. 2023. The why and how of the
hope a debate about this issue would allow manage- integrative review. Organizational Research Meth-
ment scholars to mitigate negative effects that might ods, 26: 168–192.
ensue from a particular choice, and thereby to leverage Daspit, J. J., & D’Souza, D. E. 2012. Using the community
the actual contribution to knowledge that management of inquiry framework to introduce wiki environments
reviewing makes. in blended-learning pedagogies: Evidence From a
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 25

business capstone course. Academy of Management Hannigan, T. R., Pak, Y., & Jennings, P. D. 2022. Mapping
Learning & Education, 11: 666–683. the multiverse: A cultural cartographic approach to
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 2011. The SAGE handbook realizing entrepreneurial possibilities. In C. Lockwood
of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. & J.-F. Soubli ere (Eds.), Advances in cultural entre-
preneurship. Research in the sociology of organiza-
Durand, R., & Paolella, L. 2013. Category stretching: Reor- tions, vol. 80: 217–237. Leeds, U.K.: Emerald.
ienting research on categories in strategy, entrepreneur-
ship, and organization theory. Journal of Management Hibbert, P., & Cunliffe, A. 2015. Responsible management:
Studies, 50: 1100–1123. Engaging moral reflexive practice through threshold
concepts. Journal of Business Ethics, 127: 177–188.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodologi-
cal fit in management field research. Academy of Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. 2014. Narrative, meta-
Management Review, 32: 1155–1179. analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the
differences and why do they matter? Journal of
Edwards, P. N. 2010. A vast machine: Computer models,
Organizational Behavior, 35: S1–S5.
climate data, and the politics of global warming.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabi c, M., Kumar, S.,
Kanbach, D., Mukherjee, D., Corvello, V., Pi~ neiro-
Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Chalmers, M. K., Bowker,
Chousa, J., Liguori, E., Marqu es, D. P., Schiavone, F.,
G. C., Borgman, C. L., Ribes, D., Burton, M., & Calvert,
Ferraris, A., Fernandes, C., & Ferreira, J. J. 2022. Litera-
S. 2013. Knowledge infrastructures: Intellectual fra-
meworks and research challenges. Ann Arbor, MI: ture reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for
Deep Blue. academic practice. Review of Managerial Science,
36: 2577–2595.
Elsbach, K. D., & van Knippenberg, D. 2020. Creating high
impact literature reviews: An argument for “integrative Krlev, G. 2019. May 14: The death of the literature review
reviews.” Journal of Management Studies, 57: 1277– and the rise of the dynamic knowledge map. LSE.
1289. Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., &
Glaser, V. L., Krikorian Atkinson, M., & Fiss, P. C. 2020. Cardinal, L. B. 2023. Review research as scientific
Goal-based categorization: Dynamic classification in inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26: 3–45.
the display advertising industry. Organization Stud- Kunisch, S., Knyphausen-Aufsess, D. Z., Bapuji, H., Agui-
ies, 41: 921–943. nis, H., Bansal, T., Tsui, A. S., & Pinto, J. 2023. Using
Glaser, V. L., Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. 2021. The biogra- review articles to address societal grand challenges.
phy of an algorithm: Performing algorithmic technolo- International Journal of Management Reviews, 25:
gies in organizations. Organization Theory, 2. doi:10. 240–250.
1177/26317877211004609. Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. 2022. Advancing knowl-
Goldfarb, B., & Yan, L. 2021. Revisiting Zuckerman’s edge through literature reviews: “What”, “why”, and
(1999) categorical imperative: An application of epi- “how” to contribute. Service Industries Journal, 42:
stemic maps for replication. Strategic Management 481–513.
Journal, 42: 1963–1992. Lindebaum, D., & Fleming, P. 2024. ChatGPT undermines
Gond, J.-P., Mena, S., & Mosonyi, S. 2020. The performativ- human reflexivity, scientific responsibility and respon-
ity of literature reviewing: Constituting the corporate sible management research. British Journal of Man-
social responsibility literature through re-presentation agement, 35: 566–575.
and intervention. Organizational Research Methods, Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportu-
26: 195–228. nities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coher-
Granqvist, N., Grodal, S., & Woolley, J. L. 2013. Hedging your ence and “problematizing” in organizational studies.
bets: Explaining executives’ market labeling strategies in Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1023–1062.
nanotechnology. Organization Science, 24: 395–413.
McMahan, P., & McFarland, D. A. 2021. Creative destruc-
Hannan, M. T. 2010. Partiality of memberships in catego- tion: The structural consequences of scientific cura-
ries and audiences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36: tion. American Sociological Review, 86: 341–376.
159–181.
Mohr, J. W. 1998. Measuring meaning structures. Annual
Hannigan, T. R., McCarthy, I. P., & Spicer, A. 2024. Beware Review of Sociology, 24: 345–370.
of botshit: How to manage the epistemic risks of gener-
Moretti, F. 2013. Distant reading. London: Verso.
ative chatbots. Business Horizons, 67: 471–486.
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. 2021. Humans and
Hannigan, T. R., Haans, R. F. J., Vakili, K., Tchalian, H.,
technology: Forms of conjoined agency in organiza-
Glaser, V. L., Wang, M. S., Kaplan, S., & Jennings, P. D.
tions. Academy of Management Review, 46: 552–571.
2019. Topic modeling in management research: Ren-
dering new theory from textual data. Academy of Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2010. How new market categories
Management Annals, 13: 586–632. emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity,
26 Academy of Management Annals Month

and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Simsek, Z., Fox, B., & Heavey, C. 2021. Systematicity in
Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 439–471. organizational research literature reviews: A frame-
Novicevic, M., Harvey, M., Buckley, R., & Adams, G. 2008. work and assessment. Organizational Research Meth-
Historicism in narrative reviews of strategic manage- ods, 26: 292–321.
ment research. Journal of Management History, 14: Snyder, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodol-
334–347. ogy: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business
Patriotta, G. 2020. Writing impactful review articles. Jour- Research, 104: 333–339.
nal of Management Studies, 57: 1272–1276. Spence, J. R., & Keeping, L. 2011. Conscious rating distortion
in performance appraisal: A review, commentary, and
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. 2020. The art of writing literature
proposed framework for research. Human Resource
review: What do we know and what do we need to
Management Review, 21: 85–95.
know? International Business Review, 29: 101717.
Suddaby, R., Israelsen, T., Bastien, F., Saylors, R., &
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. 2005.
Coraiola, D. 2023. Rhetorical history as institutional
Realist review–a new method of systematic review
work. Journal of Management Studies, 60: 242–278.
designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of
Health Services Research & Policy, 10: 21–34. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. 2012. Theory construction in
qualitative research. Sociological Theory, 30: 167–186.
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational
science: Paradigm development as a dependent vari- Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a
able. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599–620. methodology for developing evidence-informed man-
agement knowledge by means of systematic review.
Phillips, N., Kalvapalle, S., & Kennedy, M. 2024. Beyond
British Journal of Management, 14: 207–222.
the Turing test: Exploring the implications of genera-
tive AI for category construction. Organization The- van Maanen, J. 1995. Crossroads: Style as theory. Organi-
ory, 5. doi:10.1177/26317877241275113. zation Science, 6: 133–143.

Pierce, J. R. 2024. Categorizing concepts and phenomena Woolgar S. (Ed.). 1991. Knowledge and reflexivity: New
in management research: A four-phase integrative frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage.
review and recommendations. Academy of Manage- Wright, A., & Michailova, S. 2022. Critical literature reviews:
ment Annals. Forthcoming. A critique and actionable advice. Management Learn-
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. 2020. ing, 54: 177–197.
Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Xiao, Y., & Wang, W. Y. 2021. On hallucination and pre-
Management Studies, 57: 351–376. dictive uncertainty in conditional language genera-
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., tion. arXiv. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2103.15025.
Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., Albertson, B., & Rand, Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Secu-
D. G. 2014. Structural topic models for open-ended rities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Ameri-
survey responses. American Journal of Political Sci- can Journal of Sociology, 104: 1398–1438.
ence, 58: 1064–1082.
Rousseau, D. M. 2024. Reviews as research: Steps in devel-
oping trustworthy synthesis. Academy of Manage-
ment Annals, 18: 395–402.
Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2021. Generating theory REFERENCES TO REVIEW PAPERS FOR
by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46: EXEMPLIFICATION
684–701. Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., &
Sauer, P. C., & Seuring, S. 2023. How to conduct systematic Dalton, C. M. 2010. Meta-analytic choices and judg-
literature reviews in management research: A guide in ment calls: Implications for theory building and testing,
6 steps and 14 decisions. Review of Managerial Sci- obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of
ence, 17: 1899–1933. Management, 37: 5–38.
Schmiedel, T., M€
uller, O., & Vom Brocke, J. 2019. Topic Aguinis, H., Ramani, R., & Alabduljader, N. 2018. What
modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological
research: A tutorial with an application example transparency in management research. Academy of
on organizational culture. Organizational Research Management Annals, 12: 83–110.
Methods, 22: 941–968. Alliger, G. M. 1995. The small sample performance of
Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. 2023. Partnering up: Including four tests of the difference between pairs of meta-
managers as research partners in systematic reviews. analytically derived effect sizes. Journal of Man-
Organizational Research Methods, 26: 262–291. agement, 21: 789–799.
2025 Krlev, Hannigan, and Spicer 27

Athwal, N., Wells, V. K., Carrigan, M., & Henninger, C. E. Linnenluecke, M. 2017. Resilience in business and man-
2019. Sustainable luxury marketing: A synthesis and agement research: A review of influential publications
research agenda. International Journal of Manage- and a research agenda. International Journal of Man-
ment Reviews, 21: 405–426. agement Reviews, 19: 4–30.
Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Mainela, T., Puhakka, V., & Servais, P. 2014. The concept
Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., Abston, K. A., Ben- of international opportunity in international entrepre-
nett, A. A., & Adkins, C. L. 2015. Questions about neurship: A review and a research agenda. Interna-
questionable research practices in the field of manage- tional Journal of Management Reviews, 16: 105–129.
ment: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, Meyer, R. E., & Boxenbaum, E. 2010. Exploring European-
42: 5–20. ness in organization research. Organization Studies,
Bedeian, A. G. 1986. Contemporary challenges in the study 31: 737–755.
of organizations. Journal of Management, 12: 185–201. Nguyen, D. H., Leeuw, S., & Dullaert, W. E. H. 2018. Con-
Bluedorn, A. C. 1993. Pilgrim’s progress: Trends and con- sumer behaviour and order fulfilment in online retail-
vergence in research on organizational size and envir- ing: A systematic review. International Journal of
onments. Journal of Management, 19: 163–191. Management Reviews, 20: 255–276.
Chiva, R., Grandıo, A., & Alegre, J. 2010. Adaptive and gen- Parker, M. 1992. Post-modern organizations or postmodern
erative learning: Implications from complexity theo- organization theory? Organization Studies, 13: 1–17.
ries. International Journal of Management Reviews, Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. 2012. Organizational discourse:
12: 114–129. Domains, debates, and directions. Academy of Man-
Clegg, S. R. 1987. The language of power and the power of agement Annals, 6: 435–481.
language. Organization Studies, 8: 61–70. Pindado, J., & Requejo, I. 2015. Family business perfor-
Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, mance from a governance perspective: A review of
M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., & Schad, J. 2016. empirical research. International Journal of Manage-
Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a ment Reviews, 17: 279–311.
paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2009. Longitudinal
Annals, 10: 173–182.
research: The theory, design, and analysis of change.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & Castro, J. D. Journal of Management, 36: 94–120.
2011. The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth pres-
Pun, K. F., & White, A. S. 2005. A performance measure-
ervation in family firms. Academy of Management
ment paradigm for integrating strategy formulation:
Annals, 5: 653–707.
A review of systems and frameworks. International
Grey, C. 2010. Organizing studies: Publications, politics Journal of Management Reviews, 7: 49–71.
and polemic. Organization Studies, 31: 677–694.
Quinton, S., & Simkin, L. 2017. The digital journey:
H€
allgren, M., Rouleau, L., & de Rond M. 2018. A matter of Reflected learnings and emerging challenges. Interna-
life or death: How extreme context research matters tional Journal of Management Reviews, 19: 455–472.
for management and organization studies. Academy
of Management Annals, 12: 111–153. Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. 2009. Organiza-
tional learning and knowledge in public service
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. 1990. Confirmatory organizations: A systematic review of the literature.
modeling in organizational behavior/human resource International Journal of Management Reviews,
management: Issues and applications. Journal of 11: 463–494.
Management, 16: 337–360.
Rojon, C., Okupe, A., & McDowall, A. 2021. Utilization
Hassard, J. 1999. Postmodernism, philosophy and manage- and development of systematic reviews in manage-
ment: Concepts and controversies. International Jour- ment research: What do we know and where do we go
nal of Management Reviews, 1: 171–195. from here? International Journal of Management
Hinings, C. R. 2010. Thirty years of Organization Studies: Reviews, 23: 191–223.
Enduring themes in a changing institutional field. Russell, C. J., & Gilliland, S. W. 1995. Why meta-analysis
Organization Studies, 31: 659–675. doesn’t tell us what the data really mean: Distinguish-
Jones, O., & Gatrell, C. 2014. Editorial: The future of writ- ing between moderator effects and moderator pro-
ing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of cesses. Journal of Management, 21: 813–831.
Management Reviews, 16: 249–264. Rynes, S. L., & Bartunek, J. M. 2017. Evidence-based man-
Lee, D., & Madhavan, R. 2010. Divestiture and firm perfor- agement: Foundations, development, controversies and
mance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 36: future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
1345–1371. and Organizational Behavior, 4: 235–261.
28 Academy of Management Annals Month

Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. 2018. Social entrepre- contributions to management research. Journal of
neurship research: Past achievements and future pro- Management, 19: 637–660.
mises. Journal of Management, 45: 70–95. Wortman, M. S. 1987. Entrepreneurship: An integrating
Steel, P., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Paterson, T. A. 2014. typology and evaluation of the empirical research in
Improving the meta-analytic assessment of effect size the field. Journal of Management, 13: 259–279.
variance with an informed Bayesian prior. Journal of Wowak, A., Gomez-Mejia, L., & Steinbach, A. 2017. Indu-
Management, 41: 718–743. cements and motives at the top: A holistic perspective
Tosi, H. L., Werner, S., Katz, J. P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. on the drivers of executive behavior. Academy of
2000. How much does performance matter? A meta- Management Annals, 11: 669–702.
analysis of CEO pay studies. Journal of Management,
26: 301–339.
van Vianen, A. E. M. 2018. Person-environment fit: A
review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organi- Gorgi Krlev ([email protected]) is the associate dean and
zational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, professor of sustainability at ESCP Business School as
5: 75–101. well as the director of ESCP’s Research Centre on Envi-
ronmental and Societal Transitions (RESET).
Williams, R. I., Jr., Pieper, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., &
Astrachan, J. H. 2018. Family firm goals and their Timothy R. Hannigan ([email protected])
effects on strategy, family and organization behavior: is associate professor of strategy and organization and the
A review and research agenda. International Journal Father Edgar Thivierge Chair in Canadian Business at the
of Management Reviews, 20: 63–82. Telfer School of Management of the University of Ottawa.
Woehr, D. J., & Arthur, W. 2003. The construct-related Andre Spicer ([email protected]) is executive
validity of assessment center ratings: A review and dean and professor of organizational behavior at Bayes
meta-analysis of the role of methodological factors. Business School, City and St George’s, University of
Journal of Management, 29: 231–258. London.
Wolfe, R. A., Gephart, R. P., & Johnson, T. E. 1993. Com-
puter-facilitated qualitative data analysis: Potential