Despite multiple high-profile calls-across decades and from multiple stakeholders-to address the widening gap between science and practice, the relevance of research conducted in the management domain remains in question. To once again highlight this issue and, more importantly, identify solutions, we explore the grand challenge of the science-practice gap by applying stakeholder theory. Using a grounded theory approach, we conducted a series of interviews (n = 38) and a focus group with academics and practitioners (e.g., executives, entrepreneurs, government officials) in order to develop a set of theoretical models and propositions that extend stakeholder theory. We supplemented our inductive theory building approach with a survey of academics (n = 828) and practitioners (n = 939) and a qualitative content analysis to identify 22 grand challenges (i.e., eight shared, eight uniquely academic, and six uniquely practitioner). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings and illustrate multiple directions for future research to build permanent bonds-not just temporary links-between science and practice.

The discussion regarding questionable research practices (QRPs) A recent spate of high profile scandals in the social sciences, some of which occurred within management, has shaken the confidence of those within and outside of the profession, leading to calls for greater transparency and oversight into the research process (Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2015;Matlack, 2013;Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). Adding to concerns about the veracity of management research is evidence that our field and closely related fields may be susceptible to questionable research practices (QRPs; Bosco, Aguinis, Field, Pierce, & Dalton, in press;Francis, Tanzman, & Matthews, 2014;Franco, Malhotra, & Simonovits, 2014; O'Boyle, Banks, & Gonzalez-Mule, in press; Open Science Collaboration, 2015).QRPs operate in the ambiguous space between what one might consider best practices and academic misconduct. Some examples of QRPs can include presenting post hoc findings as a priori, "cherry picking" fit indices, and selectively deleting outliers for the purpose of achieving statistical significance. The occurrence of these practices is not always questionable; in fact, some of these approaches are beneficial to management research under the right circumstances. For instance, exploratory data analysis has led to numerous discoveries in both the physical and social sciences (for a review, see Locke, 2007). Furthermore, certain fit indices are objectively better than others, and outliers should be examined and, at times, dropped from further analysis (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013). However, those who see QRPs as a problem point to when the practices are either misreported or not reported rather than the practices themselves (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011).The purpose of this commentary is to highlight the wide-ranging perspectives about QRPs in terms of their possible causes, their prevalence, and journal policies that may prevent them.Editors' Note: This paper was originally submitted as a regular submission. However, the JOM editorial team thought the overall theme and set of issues were better addressed via an editorial commentary aimed at spurring dialogue concerning ethical research practices in our field. We are pleased that the authors have included the full write-up of the five studies that inform this work (downloadable as Supplemental Material; please have a look). As with all journals' editorial policies, JOM's own editorial policy on data transparency, reporting, and other practices discussed in this piece continues to evolve. We have signed on to the Editor's Code of Ethics (https://editorethics.uncc. edu/), are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/), have recently made changes to our review policy in ways that increase reviewer accountability to professional standards, and are considering adopting additional practices and/or partnering with other groups that focus on developing high standards for science and ethics. The current commentary is not an official reflection of JOM's officia...

No abstract

Previous research has not considered potential mediating mechanisms (e.g., employee attitudes) through which emotional exhaustion influences counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) targeted at individual stakeholders (CWB-I) and the organization (CWB-O). Drawing upon the stressor-emotion model of CWB and social exchange theory, we examine organizational commitment as a mediator between emotional exhaustion and CWB. One-hundred and 13 general employees in a large, South Korean banking company, completed surveys along with their supervisors. Results show that organizational commitment fully mediates the relation between emotional exhaustion and both CWB-I and CWB-O; the 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effect through organizational commitment do not include zero for both CWB-I (.02, .21) and CWB-O (.01, .22). These empirical findings indicate that emotional exhaustion leads to CWB through a decline in the commitment of an employee, which consequently makes the occurrence of CWB more likely. We discuss the implications for the function of organizational commitment in the stressor-emotion model of CWB and implications for reducing stress in the workplace.

Purpose-Consistency theory and ego-defense theory have been used to examine the relationship between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and self-esteem; however, these two theoretical approaches pose different directions for the expected relation. In line with this, previous research concerning the relationship between self-esteem and CWB has found inconsistent empirical results. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the relation between self-esteem and counterproductive behavior at work and draw conclusions about the merit of the competing theories. This study also examines the type of self-esteem as a potential moderator to this relationship. Design/methodology/approach-The authors performed a psychometric meta-analysis of the relation between self-esteem and CWB using 21 correlations with a total n of 5,135. Findings-The estimated population correlation was −0.26. The moderator analyses showed that global self-esteem had a stronger relation with CWB than organization-based self-esteem. Practical implications-The relation between self-esteem and counterproductive behavior at work is important to organizations for two reasons. First, CWBs are very costly at all levels of the organization. Second, organizations and managers have some control over the level of their employee's self-esteem. Originality/value-Previous research has used both consistency theory and ego-defense theory to make predictions concerning the self-esteem and CWB relationship. This paper provides support for examining this relation using consistency theory due to the negative correlation the authors found between CWB and self-esteem.