We wish to express our gratitude to Fred Oswald and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Work on the article was supported by the University of Melbourne's Faculty of Business and Economics.

This article adopts a cognitive neuroscience perspective to develop theory about the consequences of foreign language use in organizational settings. In contrast to previous work that has focused on the interpersonal effects of foreign language use, we focus on intra-personal, cognitive processes that affect employee performance. Our model delineates how foreign language processing depletes cognitive resources, which can ultimately result in biased decisionmaking and reduced self-regulation. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our model for international business research in the context of an increasing number of organizations that have adopted a common corporate language.

In this feature topic, we explore the burgeoning trend to employ templates in qualitative research. To understand authors’ motivations to use templates and perceptions regarding template use in the scholarly community, we conducted an interview study with 21 interviewees who had published qualitative research in one of nine premier management journals between 2014 and 2018. Our analysis identified four key tensions in template use: structure versus restriction, convention versus innovativeness, legitimization versus obscuration, and instrumentality versus craft. We discuss these tensions and their implications for the practice and evaluation of qualitative research. We then introduce the eight empirical papers included in this feature topic. Each of them addresses and explores specific aspects of the origins and limitations of template use, whilst providing insights and guidance for future qualitative research. We envisage this feature topic to be a catalyst for discourse amongst scholars, engaging with contemporary trends and tensions to pave new pathways that embrace the diversity and plurality of qualitative approaches.

Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

A recent Journal of International Business Studies editorial on interaction effects within and across levels highlighted the importance of and difficulty associated with justifying and reporting of such interaction effects. The purpose of this editorial is to describe a type of interaction hypothesis that is very common in international business (IB) research: the restricted variance (RV) hypothesis. Specifically, we describe the nature of an RV interaction and its evidentiary requirements. We also offer several IB examples involving interactions that could have been supported with RV arguments. Our hope is that IB researchers can use this paper to bolster their arguments for interaction hypotheses by explaining them in terms of RV.

for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this editorial. I would further like to thank Thomas Sasso and Maria Gloria Gonzalez-Morales for providing feedback after using the content of this editorial in their own work.

The current study examines cross-cultural differences in norms for meetings. Following Eisenhardt, we used a broad set of conceptual dimensions for analyzing meetings as a genre of organizational communication (Yates & Orlikowski) to guide a within-and cross-case analysis of meetings in two cultures. Our goal was to discover the possible existence of patterns and interpretations within cultures, and contrasts and explanations across cultures. Data from three different data sets were analyzed encompassing a total of 10 teams each with German and U.S. American subgroups. Findings show that Germans and U.S. Americans have different expectations and practices concerning the purpose, content, structure, and timing of meetings, and the roles of participants. The underlying meaning of these differences is explored. Theoretical and practical contributions of the work are discussed.Meetings fulfill multiple purposes in organizations. For example, meetings are used to provide team members with an opportunity to communicate about and to coordinate their respective tasks (Sonnentag, 2001;Volkema & Niederman, 1995). Communication and coordination behaviors are embodied in specific meeting activities such as information sharing, decision making, assignments of responsibility, negotiation about the task, and progress reporting. Recent research has found, however, expectations for appropriate communication and coordination behaviors differ across cultures; these culture-driven communication and coordination norms affect team processes in multicultural teams (e.g., Friday, 1989;Köhler, 2009).Although previous studies highlight the effect of cultural differences in communication and coordination norms on specific aspects of meetings (such as meeting styles or participation), a systematic evaluation of cultural differences in meeting norms is still missing. We examine the extent to which the behavioral norms that constitute a workplace meeting-and even the implicitly understood purpose of a meeting-differ between Germans and U.S. Americans (referred to as Americans throughout the article).Köhler and Berry (2008) found, for example, that culture-driven norms concerning preferred amounts and forms of autonomy strongly affected the amount of collaboration and the timing and frequency of communication in Finnish-American teams. Köhler (2009) found that differences in culturedriven communication expectations, such as norms for the exchange of personal versus task information or the meaning of quietude in conversations, affected communication frequency, information sharing, and team building in German-American and Finnish-American teams. Similarly, Millhous (1999) concluded that cultural preferences for relationship versus task-related communication created tensions in Russian-American teams. Millhous also found that context cultural norms of businesses influence the format of meetings as well as the timing and format of information sharing. Going one step further, Szabo (2007) showed how cultural differences in the meaning of and ne...

This paper evaluates how researchers are currently citing meta-analytic results and provides specific recommendations for interpreting the information provided by meta-analysis (MA). The past four decades have seen a proliferation of MA research across the organizational sciences and myriad improvements to how MA is conducted. MAs are cited more frequently than individual primary studies and have a substantial influence on subsequent research and theorizing. Yet the consumption of meta-analytic results in organizational scholarship remains superficial. We evaluate citation practices for four seminal MAs and find that authors predominantly interpret meta-analytic findings in the simplest way possible: as evidence of the existence of a relationship between variables. In focusing only on this basic finding, citing authors neglect the complexity and rich detail provided by MA. We offer advice for how researchers can more effectively leverage the strengths of meta-analytic findings to inform subsequent research by taking advantage of the benefits that meta-analytic methodology can provide for the explanation of organizational phenomena.