Virtual work is becoming the new normal, with employees working from dispersed locations and interacting using computer-mediated communication. Despite the growth in virtual work research, it has tended to occur in siloes focused on different types of virtual work (e.g., virtual teams, telecommuting) that are grounded in different research traditions. This limits opportunities to leverage research across these different domains. We use a co-citation analysis to examine the degree of segmentation in the field of virtual work into disparate research clusters. We find the emergence of three major research clusters: telecommuting, virtual teams, and computer-mediated work. Motivated by this finding, we carry out a comparative review of the literature in each cluster with the objective of seeking ways to exploit opportunities that cut across them. Based on our review, we first develop a conceptual model using the dispersion and technology dependence dimensions of virtuality to compare different approaches to studying virtuality-related issues across clusters. Next, we use our comparative review to propose a systematic approach for developing research questions that bridge research across the clusters by considering how different approaches to studying virtuality and the ensuing problem domains addressed in one cluster might help to advance research in another. To illustrate this approach, we discuss 12 research questions for bridging across the three virtual work clusters. Finally, we discuss the research implications of our conceptual model and bridging approach. Our review and conceptual model along with proposed bridging approach help to facilitate a forwardlooking agenda for accelerating and enriching virtual work research.

In this article, the authors identify six theories (anxiety theory, social identity theory, acculturation theory, role conflict theory, job characteristics theory, and organizational justice theory) to explain problems in managing the merger and acquisition (M&A) organizational change process. These theories have implicitly or explicitly formed the basis for the past M&A literature. The authors integrate these theories into one conceptual framework that clearly delineates unique sources of problems that can emerge in different stages of M&A integration, their psychological and behavioral effects on employees, and prescriptions to address the problems. The framework can be used as a guide for M&A integration leaders to systematically plan interventions to smooth the human integration process. It also provides a foundation for future theoretical and empirical M&A integration research.

Research has shown that employees' affective and normative commitment to change (ACC and NCC, respectively) positively influence their behaviors supporting change; however, organizations are frequently unsuccessful in motivating appropriate levels of employee commitment to change. Using longitudinal, multilevel data collected from a large federal government agency implementing radical organizational change, we extend extant research related to antecedents of commitment to change by examining how employees' hierarchical distance (the number of reporting levels between an employee and the top management team) and the transformational leadership of their direct (immediate) manager both relate to their ACC and NCC. We also shed light on important mechanisms that explain these two relationships by examining the mediating role of employees' perceived effectiveness of top management's change-related communications (TMCs), including the top-down and bottom-up components of TMC. Taking advantage of a longitudinal field design, we tested these antecedents of commitment to change at Time 1 and the longitudinal effects of the Time 1 predictors on commitment to change 12 months later (Time 2). At Time 1, findings supported both the predicted direct and mediated effects. Hierarchical distance and perceived TMC remained significant predictors of ACC and NCC over a one-year follow-up period; however, direct managers' transformational leadership behaviors did not. The study extends previous findings related to antecedents of employee commitment to change and also shows the interplay between different levels of leadership in shaping employee affective and normative commitment to radical organizational change.

Based on multilevel data collected at 2 points in time, we examine the role of employees’ affective experiences in shaping their commitment and behavioral responses to both the initial (Time 1) and later (Time 2) phases of organizational change (12 months later). We also test the cross‐level effect of workgroup managers’ transformational leadership on their employees’ responses to change. We find strong support for predicted longitudinal relationships between employees’ affective experiences and their commitment and behavioral responses to change. In particular, employees’ positive and negative affect (NA) at Time 1 significantly predict both their commitment to change and the 3 dimensions (supportive, resistant, and creative) of behavioral responses at Time 2. Further, the effects of NA directly influence employee change commitment and behaviors at Time 2, whereas the long‐term effects of positive affect occur both directly and indirectly through commitment to change at Time 1. Finally, our results support the hypothesized role of workgroup managers’ transformational leadership in shaping employees’ affective reactions and commitment to change at the initial phase of change and thereby, their subsequent behavioral responses in the later phase. We discuss the implications for theory and practice in organizational change.

We offer best-practice recommendations for journal reviewers, editors, and authors regarding data collection and preparation. Our recommendations are applicable to research adopting different epistemological and ontological perspectives—including both quantitative and qualitative approaches—as well as research addressing micro (i.e., individuals, teams) and macro (i.e., organizations, industries) levels of analysis. Our recommendations regarding data collection address (a) type of research design, (b) control variables, (c) sampling procedures, and (d) missing data management. Our recommendations regarding data preparation address (e) outlier management, (f) use of corrections for statistical and methodological artifacts, and (g) data transformations. Our recommendations address best practices as well as transparency issues. The formal implementation of our recommendations in the manuscript review process will likely motivate authors to increase transparency because failure to disclose necessary information may lead to a manuscript rejection decision. Also, reviewers can use our recommendations for developmental purposes to highlight which particular issues should be improved in a revised version of a manuscript and in future research. Taken together, the implementation of our recommendations in the form of checklists can help address current challenges regarding results and inferential reproducibility as well as enhance the credibility, trustworthiness, and usefulness of the scholarly knowledge that is produced.