03_READ_developing Novel theoretical insight_AMR_2010_

஽ Academy of Management Review 2010, Vol. 35, No. 4, 506–509. EDITORS’ COMMENTS: DEVELOPING NOVEL THEORETICAL INSIGHT FROM REVIEWS OF EXISTING THEORY AND RESEARCH The mission of AMR is to publish new theoret- THEORETICAL INSIGHT FROM A REVIEW? ical insights that advance our understanding of management and organizations. This mission In a thought-provoking commentary, Martin sounds straightforward enough, but as anyone Kilduff presented the key reasons for desk- who is reading this piece is likely to know, rejects at AMR (Kilduff, 2007). For those of you authors, reviewers, and editors often struggle who are lucky enough not to have firsthand ex- with the question “What exactly constitutes a perience with a desk-reject, it is what happens sufficiently novel theoretical insight?” Provid- when an editor makes a judgment that your pa- ing an answer to this question is further per is outside the purview of the journal’s mis- complicated because researchers can follow sion and, as a consequence, rather than sending several different approaches in crafting theo- your paper out for review, sends you a letter retical manuscripts, and the use of some of explaining the reasons for the lack of fit and, if these approaches may result in manuscripts possible, suggestions for how the paper would where it is more difficult to ascertain whether need to be changed in order to be considered sufficiently novel insights are advanced. again. The first type of paper on Kilduff’s list for desk-rejections are those that “simply review In our experience, scholars find it particu- the existing literature, sometimes summarizing larly vexing to assess the potential for theo- the literature in propositions but failing to offer retical contributions of review-centric manu- distinctive contributions to theory beyond what scripts—those manuscripts that provide has already been written by others” (2007: 700). extensive reviews of the existing theoretical and empirical literature relevant to a given On the one hand, we wholeheartedly agree with topic or content area and where the intended Kilduff’s position on this type of review paper. contribution of the manuscript is grounded pri- After all, a manuscript clearly does not fit with marily against the backdrop of this review AMR’s mission if it fails to offer theoretical ideas material. The purpose of these comments is to beyond those that already exist in the literature. In discuss these types of manuscripts and to offer fact, Kilduff echoes the sentiments of his predeces- guidance for developing their potential so that sors at AMR, who, in the earliest issues of the the promise for novel theoretical insight and journal, asserted that “manuscripts which are re- the implications for advancing theoretical un- statements of present knowledge and do not pro- derstanding become clearer. We should em- vide a new conceptual or theoretical position phasize here at the outset that our goal is not should not be submitted” (from the 1976 Sugges- to advance a general strategy for writing a tions for Contributors). On the other hand, review- theoretical article or to delineate a broadly centric manuscripts come in a variety of forms, applicable set of elements of good theory, nor and, therefore, it may be worthwhile to explore the are we trying to argue that AMR’s portfolio potential of some of these forms as vehicles for should shift toward a greater number of re- theory development. In essence, we feel it may be view-centric manuscripts. Rather, our narrow useful to consider how review-centric manuscripts goal is to increase transparency—for authors, could be developed so that they convey the type of reviewers, and readers of AMR—regarding theoretical contributions that are reflected in the characteristics that review-centric manu- mission of AMR. scripts should possess in order to make the type of novel theoretical insight necessary for General Forms of Review-Centric Research publication in this journal. There is great value in research intended pri- marily to review and summarize the theoretical 506 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

2010 Editors’ Comments 507 and empirical knowledge existing in a given manuscripts where the author might be inter- literature or content domain, especially when ested in publishing the work in AMR. the review is relevant, comprehensive, and co- herent as a compelling narrative that partitions One type of contribution encouraged by AMR and puts in order essential past accomplish- involves significantly challenging or clarifying ments while identifying important challenges existing theory or concepts. Articles that make and future opportunities. The value of published this type of contribution are often grounded in reviews that accomplish these ends is sup- reviews of the relevant literature that reveal sig- ported indirectly by citation counts that can be nificant inconsistencies in a particular theory or quite remarkable, and also in the Academy of theories that have been used to explain a phe- Management’s recent decision to publish yearly nomenon. These articles may also illuminate reviews of advances in research in the Academy assumptions that may not be acknowledged and of Management Annals. In fact, the mission cause confusion in the way a concept is inter- statement of the Annals explains why reviews of preted and applied. Although manuscripts with this type are important and valuable to scholars: this focus do not have to identify altogether new the “Annals summarize previously established theory, they should clearly have the potential to studies and concepts, pinpoint potential prob- motivate management scholars to engage with lems (such as factual errors), and inspire new the topic in different ways than they have in the discussions and directions for further research past. In essence, the work should have a high activity.” From this statement it is easy to ap- probability of launching new ways of thinking preciate that these types of reviews not only in an existing theoretical conversation. As an provide for synthesis and a convenient reposi- example of this type of contribution, in their tory for existing knowledge in a given area but review of the literature on organizational diver- can also impart the motivation for theoretical sity, Harrison and Klein (2007) suggested that research that can advance our understanding of diversity is not a unitary concept but is com- a concept or process relevant to management posed of three distinct types, and they presented and organization. a convincing case that through the recognition of these three types of diversity, it is possible not Although a review of this type may contribute only to gain a better appreciation of the mixed to theory by providing scholars with the prob- findings from the previous research but also to lems and puzzles by which the seeds of new make meaningful advances in our theoretical theory are sown, the nature of this specific type understanding of diversity and related phenom- of contribution, in and of itself, is qualitatively ena. different from the type of contribution that most scholars believe AMR desires—that is, manu- A second type of contribution encouraged by scripts that present completely new theories of AMR for which reviews might be well-suited management and organization. However, a involves the initiation and search for new theory closer examination of the AMR mission state- by identifying and delineating novel theoretical ment reveals that the journal is open to a some- problems. Reviews that make this type of contri- what wider variety of forms of theoretical con- bution often do so by providing evidence that tribution than most scholars may realize, and existing theories are significantly deficient in some of these forms of contribution are consis- their ability to explain a particular phenomenon tent with what is possible in review-centric re- and that a fundamental shift in thinking is search. Specifically, AMR seeks to publish not needed to advance our understanding. Reviews only articles that develop completely new theo- can also make this type of contribution by re- ries of management and organization but, in vealing new learning that challenges estab- addition, articles that (1) challenge or clarify lished theory, boundaries, and assumptions in a existing theory, (2) initiate a search for new the- way that suggests the need for a punctuated ory by identifying and delineating a novel the- shift in the way a problem is approached. As an oretical problem, and (3) synthesize recent ad- example, Sitkin and Pablo (1992) argued that vances and ideas into fresh new theory. It is contradictions in research predicting risky be- instructive to consider these forms of contribu- havior could be attributed to the practice of tion and how they can be developed in review considering the direct effect of a variety of idio- syncratic individual, organizational, and prob- lem-focused factors and that these contradic-

508 Academy of Management Review October tions could be resolved by positioning risk and management research for over two decades perceptions and propensity as mechanisms that now. So, although we certainly recognize that explain why these factors influence risky behav- our categorization scheme may be imperfect in ior. This reconceptualization provided the spark that it does not completely account for every for research focused on understanding these type of contribution that may be valued at AMR, more direct determinants of risky behavior, and, we believe it does help illuminate various paths by virtue of this research, a much more cohesive that scholars can take in developing review- understanding of this important behavior has centric research. emerged. Maximizing Theoretical Impact in A third type of contribution encouraged by Review-Centric Research AMR involves synthesizing recent advances and ideas into fresh new theory. Manuscripts that Review-centric manuscripts of the forms de- make this type of contribution often integrate scribed above have the potential to contribute to theories or theoretical perspectives to provide a theory primarily because they provide impor- theoretical structure that was not there before. tant springboards for future research that ap- This often occurs though clarification of a cen- proaches the topic in new and interesting ways. tral construct and the positioning of the con- To maximize this potential and to increase the struct within a constellation of antecedents and chances that a review-centric manuscript will outcomes in ways that not only generate com- be viewed favorably at AMR, authors can incor- munication among scholars but also spark re- porate several different but interrelated ele- search aimed at resolving the theoretical puz- ments. zles and empirical questions illuminated in the effort. As an example of this type of contribution, First, the challenges and problems identified Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) reviewed in a review manuscript targeted for AMR should the diverse literature on trust and used common- relate to issues that are fundamental to our the- alities to derive a definition for the concept. oretical understanding of a phenomenon. The They also distinguished trust from the domain of manuscript should clearly convey the signifi- closely related concepts discussed in the litera- cance of the shortcomings and challenges in a ture, which they subsequently positioned as an- given theory or theories that explain a phenom- tecedents (e.g., trustworthiness), moderators enon, and it should provide a convincing case (e.g., trust propensity, risk taking), and conse- that it is necessary to account for these issues in quences (risk taking) of trust in their theoretical future research that approaches the problem in model. This model has served as the foundation a way that is fundamentally different. Generally for almost all research on trust over the past speaking, review manuscripts that merely con- fifteen years, and its use has resulted in a very clude with a call for future research on the topic large and coherent body of knowledge. or for research on additional explanatory mech- anisms (mediators) or limiting conditions (mod- Before moving on, we should note that we do erators) would fall short of this goal. Although not mean to imply that these three categories research on these issues might provide for a constitute the complete domain of theoretical more nuanced explanation of the topic of inter- contributions that AMR would welcome in a re- est, such research generally would not funda- view-centric manuscript. In fact, there are many mentally change the way scholars would ap- examples of impactful review-centric articles proach the topic in the future. published in AMR that do not fit so neatly into this scheme. For instance, Eisenhardt (1989) re- Second, review manuscripts targeted for AMR viewed the research on agency theory from sev- should present a convincing case that the chal- eral different disciplines to answer questions lenges and gaps in our understanding are related to the usefulness of the theory to organi- rooted in theoretical shortcomings, rather than zational scholars. Her conclusion that agency such issues as incorrect interpretations of the theory is very applicable to understanding or- underlying theory, measurement, or sampling ganizational problems involving cooperative ef- error. Although these latter issues are certainly fort and her specific recommendations regard- important to identify and address in future re- ing the use of agency theory in future research search, they do not suggest the type of insight have had a significant impact on organizational that would motivate scholars to invest energy in

2010 Editors’ Comments 509 developing and advancing altogether new the- suggest that these manuscripts lack scholarly ory. In other words, it is our view that a key value; rather, we only mean to point out that the take-away from a review written for AMR should nature of the contribution is simply different be an interesting and important theoretical puz- from the type of contribution that AMR seeks to zle that requires a novel theoretical resolution. If publish. In fact, the same general principle a review merely identifies a question that can applies to situations where scholars submit be resolved with a well-designed empirical empirical papers to AMR. Regardless of how study, then the theoretical contribution probably good an empirical paper might be, it is outside does not meet the bar. the scope of our mission, and we therefore cannot publish it. Third, reviews that synthesize theory and re- search to produce integrative theories may be We do, however, believe there are ways that worthwhile in helping readers develop a broad review-centric research can be developed to understanding of a concept or process. However, make the types of theoretical contributions re- the integration should provide more than just a flected in AMR’s mission statement. Accord- framework or heuristic to organize the variables ingly, we have identified forms of review-centric that have been researched in a particular area. research that can work at AMR, and we have Rather, the theoretical integration should reflect also discussed factors that authors, reviewers, an elaborated system of relationships among and editors can take into consideration when specific concepts that is theoretically grounded writing papers and making judgments about the and internally consistent. In addition, inte- theoretical contributions of manuscripts that grated theories targeted for AMR should gener- consist of a lot of review material. ate insight into the phenomenon beyond the mere aggregate of the underlying knowledge. REFERENCES That is, authors should seek to create synergies from the research being integrated such that Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and insight from the integration comes across as review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57–74. being novel and important, even to those who might be quite familiar with the relevant bodies Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? of literature. Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 1199 –1228. We wrote this essay to share our thoughts Kilduff, M. 2007. Editor’s comments: The top ten reasons why regarding review-centric manuscripts at AMR. your paper might not be sent out for review. Academy of Strictly speaking, we agree with the point made Management Review, 32: 700 –702. by Kilduff in his 2007 comments. Manuscripts that summarize the existing literature without Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An inte- making the types of distinctive theoretical in- grative model of organizational trust. Academy of Man- sights noted in this essay are outside the scope agement Review, 20: 709 –734. of our mission, and, as a consequence, they will not likely be reviewed favorably and may Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the deter- even be desk-rejected. We in no way intend to minants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Re- view, 17: 9 –38. Jeffery A. LePine Adelaide Wilcox King Associate Editors

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.