IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/127151.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The “WEIRDEST” organizations in the world? Assessing the lack of sample diversity in organizational research

Author

Listed:
  • Schimmelpfennig, Robin
  • Elbæk, Christian
  • Mitkidis, Panagiotis
  • Singh, Anisha
  • Roberson, Quinetta

Abstract

Sampling data from organizations and humans associated with those organizations is essential to organizational research. Much of what we know about organizations is based on such work. However, this empirical foundation may be compromised, calling into question the field’s theoretical and empirical findings. Studies often sample data from relatively similar, narrow contexts, so a lack of sample diversity accumulates in the discipline. To conceptualize this lack of sample diversity and examine its prevalence across research publications, we conduct a pre-registered systematic review of articles from 2018 to 2022 in six top management journals and another systematic review of articles from 2013 to 2022 in six additional journals (not pre-registered). Our review assesses sample country diversity while also exploring within-country factors that are relatively under or oversampled, such as the size or industry of the sampled organization. We find a lack of sample diversity, for instance, a strong bias toward WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) samples and an underrepresentation of small and medium-sized enterprises in organizational research. Based on the findings and past work, we introduce a conceptual framework for sample diversity along three dimensions: the sample’s geographical, organizational, and personnel contexts. Additionally, we discuss factors that contribute to a lack of sample diversity and propose guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors to enhance it. Overall, this article seeks to improve the robustness and relevance of theoretical and empirical organizational research, thereby preventing the formulation of misinformed policies and practices in both organizational settings and broader societal contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Schimmelpfennig, Robin & Elbæk, Christian & Mitkidis, Panagiotis & Singh, Anisha & Roberson, Quinetta, 2025. "The “WEIRDEST” organizations in the world? Assessing the lack of sample diversity in organizational research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127151, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:127151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/127151/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Antonakis & Samuel Bendahan & Philippe Jacquart & Rafael Lalive, 2010. "On making causal claims : A review and recommendations," Post-Print hal-02313119, HAL.
    2. Danila Medvedev & Diag Davenport & Thomas Talhelm & Yin Li, 2024. "The motivating effect of monetary over psychological incentives is stronger in WEIRD cultures," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(3), pages 456-470, March.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2016. "The effect of a country’s name in the title of a publication on its visibility and citability," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1895-1909, December.
    4. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    5. Peterson, Robert A. & Merunka, Dwight R., 2014. "Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 1035-1041.
    6. Douglas Medin & Bethany Ojalehto & Ananda Marin & Megan Bang, 2017. "Systems of (non-)diversity," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 1-5, May.
    7. Pascale, Richard Tanner & Athos, Anthony G., 1981. "The art of Japanese management," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 83-85.
    8. Philip M. Rosenzweig, 1994. "When Can Management Science Research Be Generalized Internationally?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 28-39, January.
    9. Dobrow, Shoshana R. & Ganzach, Yoav & Liu, Yihao, 2018. "Time and job satisfaction: a longitudinal study of the differential roles of age and tenure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64664, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicola M. Pless & Atri Sengupta & Melissa A. Wheeler & Thomas Maak, 2022. "Responsible Leadership and the Reflective CEO: Resolving Stakeholder Conflict by Imagining What Could be done," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 313-337, September.
    2. Klaus E Meyer & Arjen Witteloostuijn & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2017. "What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(5), pages 535-551, July.
    3. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    5. Krishnan Nair & Waqas Haque & Steve Sauerwald, 2022. "It’s Not What You Say, But How You Sound: CEO Vocal Masculinity and the Board's Early‐Stage CEO Compensation Decisions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1227-1252, July.
    6. Shvartsman, Elena & Beckmann, Michael, 2015. "Stressed by your job: What is the role of personnel policy?," Working papers 2015/15, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    7. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    8. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    9. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    10. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    11. Cristina Robledo-Ardila & Juan Pablo Román-Calderón, 2022. "Potential: in search for meaning, theory and avenues for future research a systematic review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 149-186, February.
    12. K. Jin & Ronald Drozdenko, 2010. "Relationships among Perceived Organizational Core Values, Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Organizational Performance Outcomes: An Empirical Study of Information Technology Professionals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 341-359, March.
    13. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    14. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    16. Mahadzirah Mohamad & Asyraf Afthanorhan* & Zainudin Awang & Morliyati Mohammad, 2019. "Comparison Between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Testing and Confirming the Maqasid Syariah Quality of Life Measurement Model," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 608-614, 03-2019.
    17. Joanna Tyrowicz & Siri Terjesen & Jakub Mazurek, 2017. "All on board? New evidence on board gender diversity from a large panel of firms," GRAPE Working Papers 5, GRAPE Group for Research in Applied Economics.
    18. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    19. Jenny C Su & Chi-Yue Chiu & Wei-Fang Lin & Shigehiro Oishi, 2016. "Social Monitoring Matters for Deterring Social Deviance in Stable but Not Mobile Socio-Ecological Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    20. Goran Calic & Moren Lévesque & Anton Shevchenko, 2024. "On why women-owned businesses take more time to secure microloans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 917-938, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    theory development; WEIRD; sample diversity; generalizability; systematic review; research methods;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:127151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.