Research questions and subsequent methodology in the field of management continue to evolve, bringing about more complex models and heightened data requirements and considerations. Thus, the difficulties associated with meeting the requirements of growing methodological rigor (e.g., increasing sample size) have influenced scholars to develop procedures aimed at mitigating these challenges. One such practice is parceling or combining subsets of scale items to form composite indicators of latent variables. Since introduced, parceling approaches have proliferated in a piecemeal fashion, leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies regarding how parceling is both conducted and reported. With limited consensus about how to parcel, scholars risk perpetuating disjointed, incomplete, or errant approaches that confound the quality of research, accenting the need for a review that organizes the concept of parceling. In response, we offer an examination of parceling in management research with the aim of offering much-needed insight and instruction. To accomplish this, we provide insights that include an overview of parceling from practical and theoretical standpoints, needed clarification surrounding the importance of construct dimensionality when parceling, and robust, informed insights into best practices to aid future researchers in appropriately crafting and reporting on parceling moving forward.

This review examines the effect of physical work environments—the dedicated, tangible spaces where employees carry out their professional tasks—on organizational processes and outcomes. We synthesize decades of research across various disciplines using a conceptual framework that defines physical work environments along three key dimensions: ambience, spatial configuration, and aesthetics. These dimensions are analyzed for their effects on both internal stakeholders, such as employees, and external stakeholders, including clients, suppliers, and investors. Our analysis reveals two major themes in prior research: (1) task accomplishment, which focuses on how physical work environments influence physical and mental health, motivation and attitudes, as well as work processes; and (2) resource position, which explores how these environments impact a firm’s tangible resource position, its ability to attract and retain human resources, as well as shape intangible assets such as organizational culture and reputation. The study also highlights contradictory findings and methodological limitations in existing research and proposes future research agendas. By providing theoretical insights and practical guidelines, this work seeks to guide both scholars and managers in understanding how physical workspaces can be designed to improve organizational outcomes, particularly as firms adapt to evolving work arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The opaqueness of author naming and ordering, when coupled with power dynamics, can lead to a number of disadvantages in academic careers. In this commentary, we investigate gender differences in authorship experiences in a large prospective meta-analytic study (k = 46; n = 3,565; 12 countries). We find that women’s and men’s authorship experiences differ significantly with women reporting greater prevalence of problematic behaviors. We present seven actionable recommendations for improving the receipt and reporting of intellectual credit. Such actions are needed to ensure fairness in authorship, which is one of the most powerful factors in academics’ career outcomes.

Workplace disability accommodations are intended to help level the playing field and create more accessible, inclusive workplaces. Yet, research shows that people with disabilities often experience insufficient accommodations as a result of both employers’ and employees’ attitudes about accommodations. The current work seeks to shed new light on psychological processes underlying disability accommodation request withholding. To do so, we draw upon a relational framework and use social tuning theory to develop a model examining the relationship between inclusive leadership and accommodation request withholding, as mediated by employees’ perceived disability stigma and moderated by disability severity and relational-interdependent self-construal. We tested our model across two studies with Chinese employees—including a survey study with three waves of data from 290 employees with physical disabilities and an experimental-causal-chain designed vignette study with 526 participants. Our findings indicated that inclusive leadership was associated with employees’ lower perceived disability stigma, and that was related to reduced accommodation request withholding. Furthermore, this relationship was more pronounced in employees with higher disability severity and relational-interdependent self-construal. Our research provides novel insights for disability diversity management, particularly around the role of inclusive leadership in fostering enabling workplace environments.