In Search of Evidence

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
The Research Question
Although never explicitly stated, the review seems to be based on the
following research question: What are the features of an organization that
achieves long-term growth and demonstrates better financial and non-financial
performances than competitors or comparable organizations over five years? A
noticeable factor is that the PICOC elements are broadly formulated in this
question. For instance, ‘an organization’ (P) is mentioned, and the context (C) is
not specified in greater detail. The author therefore assumes that the features
of a successful carmaker could be the same as those of a successful hospital.
The same applies to the outcome, i.e. long-term growth and better financial
and non-financial performance over five years’. Exactly what sort of growth
(sales?, profit?, market share?) and what performances (staff satisfaction?,
quality of service provision?, shareholder value?) is not specified. Such a broadly
formulated question has consequences for the applicability of the outcome: it is
unclear whether this review gives an answer to more specific questions from
management practice. It is also important to state that the study does not look
into success factors involving a cause-effect relationship but into ‘features’. This
is, therefore, exploratory research rather than explanatory. This means that no
far-reaching conclusions can be associated with the outcome of the review.
Search Action
Because no indication is given in the original study of where the search was
carried out, the author was consulted directly. It turned out that the search
concentrated on Business Source Premier and ScienceDirect. Because there is no
generally accepted definition of an HPO, the search used terms such as high
performance’, high-performance work organizations’, high results’ and flexible
organizations’. To avoid selection bias, the search was carried out as broadly as
possible, from books to journals (peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed) and in
English, Dutch and German. The author then searched via Google and asked
Dutch and foreign colleagues for details of studies, including unpublished ones.
It appears from this that the search for studies for this review was thorough and
systematic. It must be said, however, that the shortage of information makes
the author's search strategy difficult to reproduce. Another point is that no
search of ABI/INFORM or PsycINFO was conducted, which means there is a
chance that studies have been missed.