Summary of almost all the mandatory papers for the course Organization Theory. Only two articles are missing: the last two of Goal-Setting Theory. The other 16 papers are summarized in this document.
Organization Theory Literature
What is Organization Theory?
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490–495.
I tried to find a simple way to communicate the necessary ingredients of a theoretical contribution.
This article is an effort to fill this gap, for proposing a concept for discussing the theory-development
process. The article is organized around three key questions:
1. What are the building blocks of theory development?
2. What is a legitimate value-added contribution to theory development?
3. What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?
What are the building blocks of theory development?
According to theory-development authorities a complete theory must contain four essential
elements:
- What: which factors logically should be considered as part of the explanation of the
phenomena of interest? Two criteria exist for judging the extent to which we have included
the ‘right’ factors: comprehensiveness (relevance) and parsimony (should factors be deleted
because of little additional value to our understanding).
- How: how are the factors related? This typically introduces causality.
- Why: what are the underlying psychological, economic or social dynamics that justify the
selection of factors and the proposed causal relationships? During theory-development, logic
replaces data as the basis for evaluation.
Combining the hows and the whats produces the typical model, from which testable propositions can
be derived. To summarize: what and how describe, only why explains. Together they provide the
essential ingredients of a simple theory: description and explanation.
- Who, Where, When: these conditions place limitations on the propositions generated from a
theoretical model. These factors set boundaries of generalizability.
It is unfair to expect that theorists should be sensitive to all four elements, but there is value in
conducting these tests to the generalizability. Sensitivity to context is especially important for
theories based on experience. Observations are embedded and must be understood within a
context. Although it is important for theorists to be sensitive to context, the Who, Where, and When
of a theory are typically discovered through sub- sequent tests of the initial, rudimentary theoretical
statement (What, How, Why).
What is a legitimate value-added contribution to theory development?
New theory is not generated from scratch, organizational scholars usually work on improving what
already exists.
- What and How: it is possible to make an important theoretical contribution by adding whats
from an existing model. The value is in accepting relationships between the variables (Hows).
Relationships are the domain of theory. Theoretical insights come from demonstrating how
the additions of a new variable significantly alters our understanding of the phenomena by
reorganizing our causal maps. Important changes in a theory’s what and how are frequently
stimulated by surprising research results.
, - Why: the most fruitful and also the most difficult avenue of theory development. It involves
borrowing a perspective from other fields. Theories are often challenged because their
assumptions have been proven unrealistic.
- Who, When, Where: generally, it is insufficient to point out limitations in current conceptions
of a theory’s range of application. Theorists need to understand why phenomena exist, so
that they can revise the How and What of the model to accommodate this new information.
Conversely, applying an old model to a new setting and showing that it works is not
instructive by itself. The conclusions has only theoretical merit if something about the new
setting suggests the theory shouldn’t work under those conditions. In other words, it is
preferable to investigate qualitative changes, rather than mere quantitative expansions. New
applications should improve the tool. To make it work it should focus on multiple elements of
the theory. Second, it should gather compelling evidence: logical, empirical or
epistemological. Third, theoretical critiques should propose remedies or alternatives.
What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?
Reviewers consider other factors, including clarity of expression, impact on research, timeliness and
relevance. The following list of seven key questions summarise an answer to the questions: what
constitutes a publishable theory paper?
1. What’s new? Does the paper make a significant, value-added contribution to current
thinking.
2. So what? Will the theory likely change the practice of organizational science in this area?
3. Why so? Are the underlying logic and supporting evidence compelling? Are the author’s
assumptions explicit?
4. Well done? Does the paper reflect seasoned thinking, conveying completeness and
thoroughness? Are multiple theoretical elements (what, how, why, when-where-who)
covered?
5. Done well? Is the paper well written? Does it flow logically?
6. Why now? Is this topic of contemporary interest to scholars in this area? Will it likely
advance current discussions, stimulate new discussion or revitalize old discussions?
7. Who cares? What percentage of academic readers are interested in this topic?
In conclusion, the theory-development process and criteria for judging theoretical contributions need
to be broadly understood and accepted so that editors and contributors can communicate
effectively.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–
384.
This essay describes differences between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory.
There is more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams and hypotheses are not theory,
but authors routinely use these five elements. We explain how these can be confused with theory
and how to avoid such confusion.
For example, in ASQ all articles need to contain strong organizational theory. There are a lot of
detailed descriptions in papers that define theory and literature that seeks to distinguish weak from
strong theory. However, these papers are quite confusing. There is a lack of agreement about
whether a model and a theory can be distinguished, whether a typology is properly labelled a theory
or not, whether the strength of a theory depends on how interesting it is, and whether falsifiability is
a prerequisite for the very existence of a theory.
,The lack of consensus on exactly what theory is may explain why it is so difficult to develop strong
theory in the behavioural sciences. Thereby is that there is little consensus about which theoretical
perspective are best suited for describing organizations and their members. The process of theory
building itself has a lot of conflicts: trade-offs need to be made between generality, simplicity, and
accuracy. In combination with writing logically consistent and integrated arguments. These
difficulties could explain why organizational research journals have such high rejection rates. Though
there is conflict about what theory is and should be, there is more consensus about what theory is
not. There are five features, while important in their own right, do not constitute theory.
Parts of an article that are not theory
1. References are not theory
References in prior work help set the stage for new conceptual arguments. Authors need to
acknowledge the logic on which they are drawing and contributing. Often existing theories
are listed, but this is not the same as explicating the causal logic they contain. It is important
to provide an explanation of why the theory or approach leads to a new or unanswered
theoretical question. Authors need to explicate which concepts and causal arguments are
adopted from cited sources and how they are linked to the theory being developed or tested.
2. Data are not theory
Much organizational theory is based on data, because empirical evidence plays an important
role in confirming, revising or discrediting existing theory and guiding in the development of
new theories. The data describes which empirical patterns were observed and theory
explains why empirical patterns were observed. The empirical results can provide useful
support for a theory. This counts for quantitative and qualitative data.
3. List of variables or constructs are not theory
Variables are important parts of theory, but do not constitute theory. A theory must explain
why variables or constructs come about or why they are connected.
4. Diagrams are not theory
Diagrams are also a valuable part of a research paper, but rarely constitute theory all by
themselves. There is also a difference between diagrams. Diagrams that show causal
relationships are more helpful than others. Boxes and arrows alone rarely explain why the
proposed connections will be observed. Good theory is often representational and verbal.
5. Hypotheses (or predictions) are not theory
Important for conceptual arguments are hypotheses. They serve as a bridge between theory
and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical
argument will be operationalized. Papers with strong theory start with one or two
conceptual statements and build a logically detailed case: they have both simplicity and
interconnectedness.
Identifying strong theory
It is easier to identify features of what theory is not, than it is to specify exactly what a good theory
is. We agree with other scholars that say: theory is the answer to queries of why. Theory is about the
connections among phenomena, it delves into underlying processes so as to understand the
systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or non-occurrence.
The case against theory
We made the assumption that theory is good, because the paper will have more impact on the
literature and are more informative for the reader. But these may not be universally shared. Other
say it is better to avoid the target and first develop more fundamental knowledge. Different journals
in different industries have other views on theory development. Organizational researchers are
, primarily trained in data collections techniques and the latest analytical tools, not the theory
building.
Are we expecting too much?
Were we naïve? The problem could be structural, or maybe does the field want more practical types.
Contradictory demands for both strong theory and precise measurement are often satisfied only by
hypocritical writing. The theory is crafted around the data.
Some recommendations
When research manuscripts are divided on the dimensions of theory and method, it is easy to see
where the bulk of our contributions lie. Papers with weak theory and method are routinely rejected.
Because so few papers are considered strong in both theory and method, journal are forces to make
implicit trade-offs on these dimensions to fill their pages. Our recommendation is to rebalance the
selections process between theory and method. If a theory is particularly interesting, the standards
used to evaluate how well it is tested or grounded need to be relaxed, not strengthened. We also
think journal need to revise their norms about the linkage between theory and data. Perhaps the
standards used to judge qualitative papers have the opposite drawback of those used for
quantitative papers, with theory empathized too much and data not emphasized enough.
Conclusion
We began with the general complaint that many manuscripts we see as reviewers and editors are
devoid of theory. We hope the guidelines will help authors avoid writing manuscripts that contain
little or no theory.
Mayer, K. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2013). Integrating Theories in AMJ Articles. Academy of Management
Journal, 56(4), 917–922
Theories play an important role in management research, but many research questions can’t be fully
addressed by drawing only upon a single theory. It is the same as with alliances: two form together to
accomplish more than one could by itself. Some level of commonality is necessary for integrating two
theories, it is how researcher handle the differences between the theories and it is needed to
determine what to bring together from the theories. Our goal is to examine different approaches for
integrating theories and discuss how to do it in a way that maximizes the chance that integration
provides insight that will influence future research. We believe there are four approaches to
successfully integrating theory:
1. Single phenomenon, two theoretical perspectives
This approach, sharing a common dependent variable is necessary to operationalize the
integration of the two theories. The example shows the combination of elements from the
resource-based view and the transaction cost economics, which led to a better understanding of
subcontracting than either theory could provide in isolation. One difficulty to successful theory
integration of this type is addressing the assumptions of each theory in a way that enables
scholars in each area to feel comfortable with the integrated outcome. There are different tactics
for addressing the issue of conflicting assumptions, but the key is whether an assumption is
important to the domain of the theory integration. But is may be that the assumption is context
dependent, or a new assumption needs to be added. The key is to pick your battles carefully and
only take issue with an assumption if it is critical to the theory development. Two conditions are
helpful: respect the foundational assumptions of each theory and resolve any disparities as they
apply to the domain of the integration.
2. One phenomenon, seemingly disparate theoretical perspectives
The second way to integrate theory is to bring two seemingly disparate steams of research
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur premaster2000. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €6,53. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
