A strong preference for field research exists in the organisational sciences. However, it is unclear whether or under what conditions this is warranted. To examine this issue we conducted a second‐order meta‐analysis of 203 lab‐field pairs of meta‐analytic effects representing a diverse range of work‐related relationships. As expected, results showed a larger effect for lab (r = .25) than for field research (r = .14). However, the correspondence between the rank‐order of effect sizes for relationships assessed in lab settings and matched effects assessed in field settings was weaker (r = .61) than previous estimates from related areas of research. Moderators of lab‐field effect size magnitude and rank‐order correspondence were tested. Effect size magnitudes from the lab and field were most similar when lab studies used correlational designs, when using psychological state and trait (as opposed to demographic or workplace characteristic) variables as predictors, and when assessing attitudinal outcomes. Lab–field rank‐order correspondence was strongest when testing psychological state and workplace characteristic predictors and when assessing attitudinal and decisional outcomes. Findings offer recommendations for interpreting primary lab and field effects and inform evaluations of “when” findings from lab and field studies are likely to align.