The presence of outliers, which are data points that deviate markedly from others, is one of the most enduring and pervasive methodological challenges in organizational science research. We provide evidence that different ways of defining, identifying, and handling outliers alter substantive research conclusions. Then, we report results of a literature review of 46 methodological sources (i.e., journal articles, book chapters, and books) addressing the topic of outliers, as well as 232 organizational science journal articles mentioning issues about outliers. Our literature review uncovered (a) 14 unique and mutually exclusive outlier definitions, 39 outlier identification techniques, and 20 different ways of handling outliers; (b) inconsistencies in how outliers are defined, identified, and handled in various methodological sources; and (c) confusion and lack of transparency in how outliers are addressed by substantive researchers. We offer guidelines, including decision-making trees, that researchers can follow to define, identify, and handle error, interesting, and influential (i.e., model fit and prediction) outliers. Although our emphasis is on regression, structural equation modeling, and multilevel modeling, our general framework forms the basis for a research agenda regarding outliers in the context of other data-analytic approaches. Our recommendations can be used by authors as well as journal editors and reviewers to improve the consistency and transparency of practices regarding the treatment of outliers in organizational science research.

This paper demonstrates how meta-analysis can be combined with structural equation modeling (MASEM) to address new questions in strategic management research. We review this integration, describe its implementation, and compare findings from bivariate meta-analyses, a direct-effect structural equations model, and two mediating frameworks using data on the strategic leadership and performance relationship. Results drawn from 208 articles that collectively included data on 495,638 observations demonstrate the new insights available from MASEM while also suggesting a revision to conventional thinking on strategic leadership. Whereas some theories posit that boards of directors influence firm performance through monitoring and disciplining the top management team, MASEM provides more support for the view that boards mediate the top management teams' decisions. Implications for applying MASEM in strategic management are offered.As the strategic management field matures, scholars are increasingly using meta-analysis to synthesize prior work on many topics, including the perfor-

The use of Bayesian methods for data analysis is creating a revolution in fields ranging from genetics to marketing. Yet, results of our literature review, including more than 10,000 articles published in 15 journals from January 2001 and December 2010, indicate that Bayesian approaches are essentially absent from the organizational sciences. Our article introduces organizational science researchers to Bayesian methods and describes why and how they should be used. We use multiple linear regression as the framework to offer a step-by-step demonstration, including the use of software, regarding how to implement Bayesian methods. We explain and illustrate how to determine the prior distribution, compute the posterior distribution, possibly accept the null value, and produce a write-up describing the entire Bayesian process, including graphs, results, and their interpretation. We also offer a summary of the advantages of using Bayesian analysis and examples of how specific published research based on frequentist analysis-based approaches failed to benefit from the advantages offered by a Bayesian approach and how using Bayesian analyses would have led to richer and, in some cases, different substantive conclusions. We hope that our article will serve as a catalyst for the adoption of Bayesian methods in organizational science research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We examined the gender productivity gap in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and other scientific fields (i.e., applied psychology, mathematical psychology), specifically among star performers. Study 1 included 3,853 researchers who published 3,161 articles in mathematics. Study 2 included 45,007 researchers who published 7,746 articles in genetics. Study 3 included 4,081 researchers who published 2,807 articles in applied psychology and 6,337 researchers who published 3,796 articles in mathematical psychology. Results showed that (a) the power law with exponential cutoff is the best-fitting distribution of research productivity across fields and gender groups and (b) there is a considerable gender productivity gap among stars in favor of men across fields. Specifically, the underrepresentation of women is more extreme as we consider more elite ranges of performance (i.e., top 10%, 5%, and 1% of performers). Conceptually, results suggest that individuals vary in research productivity predominantly because of the generative mechanism of incremental differentiation, which is the mechanism that produces power laws with exponential cutoffs. Also, results suggest that incremental differentiation occurs to a greater degree among men and certain forms of discrimination may disproportionately constrain women's output increments. Practically, results suggest that women may have to accumulate more scientific knowledge, resources, and social capital to achieve the same level of increase in total outputs as their male counterparts. Finally, we offer recommendations on interventions aimed at reducing constraints for incremental differentiation among women that could be useful for narrowing the gender productivity gap specifically among star performers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

No abstract