Summary Both leader–member exchange (LMX) and team–member exchange (TMX) measure the quality of reciprocal exchange among employees in the workplace. Although LMX focuses on supervisor–subordinate relationships while TMX examines the relationships among team members, both have theory‐based and empirically proven relations with workplace outcomes such as job performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. However, it is not yet known which has more of an impact on such workplace outcomes—specifically, it is not clear if an employee's time is best spent developing vertical relationships among supervisors and subordinates (LMX) or on the horizontal relationships among team members (TMX). Accordingly, this meta‐analysis explores the incremental validity and relative importance of these two social exchange‐based constructs. The theoretical logic underlying LMX and TMX is clarified, and the parameter estimates between LMX, TMX, and work outcomes are reported. Results demonstrate that TMX shows incremental validity above and beyond LMX for some outcomes (organizational commitment and job satisfaction), but not others (job performance and turnover intentions). Also, LMX shows greater relative importance across all four outcomes. In sum, the clarification of the theoretical and empirical landscape lays a foundation for recommendations for future research. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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...

Experiential learning activities have been used for over 40 years with the hope that they increase students learning. However, a definitive study that showed their overall effectiveness has not been produced. The purpose of this study is to address this gap in the literature. This meta‐analysis examined a 43‐year span and identified 13,626 journal articles, dissertations, thesis articles, and conference proceedings written about experiential learning and found only 89 of these studies contained empirical data with both a treatment and control group. Meta‐analysis of these studies show that students experienced superior learning outcomes when experiential pedagogies were employed. Further, learning outcomes were almost a half standard deviation higher (d = .43) in classes employing experiential learning pedagogies versus traditional learning environments. This review definitively, and quantitatively, shows the importance of experiential learning activities. We use these results to discuss future research areas that need to be addressed based on our analysis of potential moderators and provide recommendations on how to best employ experiential learning pedagogies.

No abstract

No abstract