129. Ehrnrooth, M., Björkman, I., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., Sumelius, J., & Taimitarha, S. (2018). Talent responses to talent status awareness-Not a question of simple reciprocation. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12190
128. Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45(2), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.019
127. Lee, G. J. (2018). Talent measurement: A holistic model and routes forward. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 1-11.
126. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization science, 2(1), 88-115.
125. Dixon, N. (1992). Organizational learning: A review of the literature with implications for HRD professionals. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 3, 29-49.
124. Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Nijs, S., Dries, N., & Gallo, P. (2015). Towards an understanding of talent management as a phenomenon-driven field using bibliometric and content analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 264–279.
123. Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 326-357.
122. Ghosh, S., & Swamy, D. R. (2014). A Literature review on organizational commitment-A comprehensive summary. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 4(12): 4-14.
121. Thomas, G. (1997). What ’ s the use of theory ? Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 75–104.
120. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
119. Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789
118. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. ttps://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308371
117. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “what theory is not .” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393790
116. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “what theory is not .” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393790
115. Cockrell, C., Lunn, M. L., Maffei, S., Resendez, E., Mcwhorter, R., & Ellinger, A. D. (n.d.). Exploring scholar’s insights about theory.
114. Christensen, C. M., & Raynore, M. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 67–74.
113. Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043002
112. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386.
111. Yücel, İ. (2012). Examining the relationships among job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention: An empirical study. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(20), 44.
110.Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and psychological measurement, 73(6), 913-934.
109. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of applied psychology, 78(4), 538.
108. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural equation modeling, 9(4), 599-620.
107. Other, S. M. G. (2018). Near-winners in status competitions: Neglected sources of dynamism in the Matthew effect. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27: 374-377.
106. Other, S. M. G. (2018). Older, but wiser? “The Matthew effect” at 50: Introduction to the dialog. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27: 359-361.
105. Reschke, B. P., & Stuart, T. E. (2018). The Matthew effect and the Lucan lawyer: The ecological consequences of status shocks. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27: 371-373.
104. Köhler, T., Landis, R. S., Cortina, J. M. (2017). From the editors: Establishing methodological rigor in quantitative management learning and education research: The role of design, statistical methods, and reporting standards. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16: 173-192.
103. White, G. E. (2017). Some Writing Advice In The dissertation warrior: The ultimate guide to being the kind of person who finishes a doctoral dissertation or thesis (pp. 211-222). Happy Valley, OR: Triumphant Heart International.
102. White, G. E. (2017). Dissertation Chairs, Committee Members, and Getting Across the Finish Line In The dissertation warrior: The ultimate guide to being the kind of person who finishes a doctoral dissertation or thesis (pp. 223-260). Happy Valley, OR: Triumphant Heart International.
101. White, G. E. (2017). When Things Fall Apart In The dissertation warrior: The ultimate guide to being the kind of person who finishes a doctoral dissertation or thesis (pp. 261-290). Happy Valley, OR: Triumphant Heart International.
100. Blind review of conference paper submission
99. Blind review of conference paper submission
98. Blind review of conference paper submission
97. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of applied psychology, 74(2), 293.
96. Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. (2010). Global talent management: Literature review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of world business, 45(2), 122-133.
95. Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2003). Handbook of social psychology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
94. Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human resource management review, 16(2), 139-154.
93. Blind review of conference paper submission
92. Blind review of conference paper submission
91. Blind review of conference paper submission
90. Barton, L. C., & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of organizational change cynicism on middle manager strategy commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 721-746. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.697481
89. Bernerth, J. B., Walker, H. J., Walter, F., & Hirschfeld, R. R. (2011). A study of workplace justice differences during times of change: It’s not all about me. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 336-359. doi:10.1177/0021886311404929
88. Bouckenooghe, D., De Clercq, D., & Deprez, J. (2014). Interpersonal justice, relational conflict, and commitment to change: The moderating role of social interaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63, 509-540. doi:10.1111/apps.12006
87. Brennan, A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Personality and perceived justice as predictors of survivors’ reactions following downsizing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1306-1328.
86. Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). The role of fairness in mediating the effects of voice and justification on stress and other outcomes in a climate of organizational change. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 253-268.
85. Cho, I., Park, H., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2017). The impacts of organisational justice and psychological resilience on employee commitment to change in an M&A context. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28, 989-1002. doi:10.1080/14783363.2017.1303890
84. De Ruiter, M., Schalk, R., Schaveling, J., & Van Gelder, D. (2017). Psychological contract breach in the anticipatory stage of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53, 66-88. doi:10.1177/0021886316672724
83. Dyck, B. (1997). Understanding configuration and transformation through a multiple rationalities approach. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 793-823.
82. Foster, R. D. (2010). Resistance, justice, and commitment to change. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 3-39. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20035
81. Georgalis, J., Samaratunge, R., Kimberley, N., & Lu, Y. (2015). Change process characteristics and resistance to organisational change: The role of employee perceptions of justice. Australian Journal of Management, 40, 89-113. doi:10.1177/0312896214526212
80. Ismail, M., & Umar, N. B. (2017). Organizational factors of justice and culture leading to organizational identification in merger and acquisition. European Journal of Training & Development, 41, 687-704. doi:10.1108/EJTD-04-2017-0030
79. Kaltiainen, J., Lipponen, J., & Holtz, B. C. (2017). Dynamic interplay between merger process justice and cognitive trust in top management: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 636-647. doi:10.1037/apl0000180
78. Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. (2002). Promise breaking during radical organizational change: Do justice interventions make a difference?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 469-488. doi:10.1002/job.151
77. Koivisto, S., Lipponen, J., & Platow, M. J. (2013). Organizational and supervisory justice effects on experienced threat during change: The moderating role of leader in-group representativeness. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 595-607. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.04.002
76. Kool, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2012). Servant leadership and commitment to change, the mediating role of justice and optimism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25, 422-433. doi:10.1108/09534811211228139
75. Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten before begun: The role of procedural justice in planning change. Journal of Management, 28, 497-516.
74. Lee, K., Sharif, M., Scandura, T., & Kim, J. (2017). Procedural justice as a moderator of the relationship between organizational change intensity and commitment to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30, 501-524. doi:10.1108/JOCM-08-2015-0139
73. Melkonian, T., Soenen, G., & Ambrose, M. (2016). Will I cooperate? The moderating role of informational distance on justice reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 663-675. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2744-8
72. Michel, A., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). I scratch your back – you scratch mine. Do procedural justice and organizational identification matter for employees’ cooperation during change?. Journal of Change Management, 10, 41-59. doi:10.1080/14697010903549432
71. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461-524. doi: 10.1177/0021886310396550
70. Paterson, J. M., & Cary, J. (2002). Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model. Motivation & Emotion, 26, 83-103.
69. Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2006). Impact of fairness, leadership, and coping on strain, burnout, and turnover in organizational change. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 351-377. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.13.3.351
68. Rodell, J. B., & Colquitt, J. A. (2009). Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: The role of anticipatory justice in an organizational change context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 989-1002.
67. Sanoubar, N., & Bajestani, M. F. (2015). Organizational change cynicism: Does it hinder change commitment?. Change Management: An International Journal, 15(2), 19-33.
66. Sindhu, M. I., Ahmad, H. M., & Hashmi, S. H. (2017). Leader-member exchange relationship and organizational justice: Moderating role of organizational change. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6, 276-282.
65. Soenen, G., Melkonian, T., & Ambrose, M. L. (2017). To shift or not to shift? Determinants and consequences of phase shifting on justice judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 798-817. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0181
64. Sousa, F. H., & Vala, J. (2002). Relational justice in organizations: The group-value model and support for change. Social Justice Research, 15, 99-121.
63. Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organizational change. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 529-545. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.001
62. Wu, C., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2007). Transformational leadership, cohesion perceptions, and employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 327-351. doi:10.1177/00218863
61. Swailes, S. (2013). Troubling some assumptions: A response to “The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of talent management: a research agenda”. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 354-356.
60. Al Ariss, A., & Cascio, W. F. (2014). Talent management: Current theories and future research directions. Journal of World Business, 49, 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.001
59. Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. (2013). Talent management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.004
58. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research results through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330882
57. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
56. Gersick, C. J. G., Academy, T., & Journal, M. (1988). Time and transition in work teams : Toward a new model. Academy of Management, 31, 9–41.
55. Gallardo-Gallardo, E., & Thunnissen, M. (2016). Standing on the shoulders of giants? A critical review of empirical talent management research. Employee Relations, 38, 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2015-0194
54. Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2014). The influence of underlying philosophies on talent management: Theory, implications for practice, and research agenda. Journal of World Business, 49, 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.003
53. Dries, N. (2013). Talent management, from phenomenon to theory. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 267-271.
52. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands – resources theory: Taking stock and looking Forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
51. Rocco, T. S. (2011). Reasons to write, writing opportunities, and other considerations. In Rocco, T. S., Hatcher, T. G. (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
50. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-537.
49. Wang, Y., & Ellinger, A. D. (2010). The development of a measure to assess information acquisition activities: Implications for workplace and organizational learning. In M. Van Woerkom & R. Poell, (Eds.), Workplace learning: Concepts, measurement and application (pp. 88-110). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
48. Fenwick, T. (2006). Toward Enriched Conceptions of Work Learning: Participation, Expansion, and Translation Among Individuals With/In Activity. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484306290105
47. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496-515.
46. London, M., Sobel-Lojeski, K. A., & Reilly, R. R. (2012). Leading generative groups: A conceptual model. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311430628
45. Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). From the editors. Publishing in AMJ – Part 4: Grounding hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1098–1102. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64869103
44. Rezaei, F., & Beyerlein, M. (2018). Talent development: A systematic literature review of empirical studies. European Journal of Training and Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-09-2016-0047
43. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
42. Madsen, S. R. (2003). A model for individual change: Exploring its application to human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303256199
41. De Boeck, G., Meyers, M. C., & Dries, N. (2017). Employee reactions to talent management: Assumptions versus evidence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2254
40. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
39. Charmaz, K. (2014). Memo-writing. Constructing Grounded Theory (pp. 162-191). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
38. Zientek, L. R., Werner, J. M., Campuzano, M. V. and Nimon, K. (2018), The use of google scholar for research and research dissemination. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 30, 39–46. https://doi.org10.1002/nha3.20209
37. Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845
36. Cobb, A. T., & Wooten, K. (1995). The role justice plays in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 19, 135-151.
35. Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Justice, cynicism, and commitment: A study of important organizational change variables. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306296602
34. Shuck, B. (2018), Being invited in and the principle of the cumulative effect. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 30, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20204
33. Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the procesesses of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330932
32. Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. (2009). The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35(3), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330556
31. Swanson, R. A. (2008). Economic foundation of human resource development: Advancing the theory and practice of the discipline. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 763–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308324425
30. Suddaby, R., Hardy, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2011). Introduction to special topic forum: Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330875
29. Nair, K. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196
28. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385
23-27. Waddell, K. (2016). Examining the relationship between procedural justice, perceived organizational support, organizational trust, organizational commitment, and intent to leave among temporary employees (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Scholar Works.
22. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M, J., Poter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
21. Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
20. Gilley, A., Godek, M. L., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). The university immune system: Overcoming resistance to change. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 2(3), 1–6.
19. Fulmer, I. S. (2012). Editor’s comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, 37, 327-331. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0026
18. Storberg-Walker, J. (2003). Comparison of the Dubin, Lynham, and Van de Ven theory building research methods and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review. 2, 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303002002007
17. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 4, 75-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132558
16. Belcher, W. L. (2009). Designing your plan for writing. In Belcher, W. L. (Ed.), Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success (pp. 1-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Gilley, A. (2005). Overview of change. In Gilley, A. (ed.), The manager as change leader (pp. 3-16). Westport, CT: Praeger.
14. Turnbull, S. (2002). Social construction research and theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043006
13. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346-1352. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166119
12. Suddaby, R. (2015). Editor’s comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 4015(1), 1-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0252
11.Gilley, A., Godek, M. L., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). The university immune system: Overcoming resistance to change. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 2(3), 1-6.
10. Meritan, C. A., & Lee, G. K. (2017). Resource allocation and strategy. Journal of Management, 43, 2411-2420.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729738
9. Thomas, G. (1997). What’s the use of theory ? Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 75–104.
8. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
7. Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789
6. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308371
5. Shapira, Z. (2011). “I’ve Got a Theory Paper—Do You?”: Conceptual, empirical, and theoretical contributions to knowledge in the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 22, 1312–1321. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0636
4. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “what theory is not .” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393790
3. Cockrell, C., Lunn, M. L., Maffei, S., Resendez, E., Mcwhorter, R., & Ellinger, A. D. (n.d.). Exploring scholar’s insights about theory.
2. Christensen, C. M., & Raynore, M. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 67–74.
1. Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043002
