Skim01_Building_theory_Corley_Gioia

஽ Academy of Management Review 2011, Vol. 36, No. 1, 12–32. BUILDING THEORY ABOUT THEORY BUILDING: WHAT CONSTITUTES A THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION? KEVIN G. CORLEY Arizona State University DENNIS A. GIOIA The Pennsylvania State University We distill existing literature on theoretical contribution into two dimensions, origi- nality (incremental or revelatory) and utility (scientific or practical). We argue for a revision in the way scholars approach the utility dimension by calling for a view of theorizing that would enable theories with more “scope” (both scientific and practical utility). We also argue for an orientation toward “prescience” as a way of achieving scope and fulfilling our scholarly role of facilitating organizational and societal adaptiveness. Theory is the currency of our scholarly resolution to the crucial question of what realm, even if there are some misgivings makes for a theoretical contribution. Thus, about a possible overemphasis on theory scholars are still trying to articulate what it building in organization and management means to make a theoretical contribution (Bar- studies (Hambrick, 2007). Every top-tier man- tunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006; Kilduff, 2006; agement journal requires a “theoretical contri- Rindova, 2008; Smith & Hitt, 2005). bution” before a manuscript will be consid- ered for publication. This tenet is perhaps A question that typically arises at this point is most strongly felt in this journal, the Academy “What is theory?” Although there are many an- of Management’s premier conceptual journal swers to this question, there is little agreement (and also, not inconsequentially, the most on a universal definition—to wit, “Lack of con- cited journal in organization studies [based on sensus on exactly what theory is may explain Web of Scienceா Journal Citation Reportsா why it is so difficult to develop strong theory in data for 2009]). Consistent with this concern, the behavioral sciences” (Sutton & Staw, 1995: the Academy of Management Review (AMR) 372). For our purposes we use a simple, general has published two special issues dedicated to definition: theory is a statement of concepts and theory building (1989, issue 4, and 1999, issue their interrelationships that shows how and/or 4) and numerous “Editor’s Comments” dedi- why a phenomenon occurs (cf. Gioia & Pitre, cated to trying to articulate what constitutes 1990). We believe, however, that a more pro- either theory (e.g., Brief, 2003; Conlon, 2002) or ductive question to ask, and for us to address, a theoretical contribution (e.g., Kilduff, 2006; is “What is a theoretical contribution?” That is, Whetten, 1990). These writings, however, de- what signifies a significant theoretical (as op- spite their thoughtfulness, do not represent posed to an empirical or a methodological) comprehensive treatments, especially of the advancement in our understanding of a latter issue, and do not seem to have hit the phenomenon? mark in a way that provides a satisfactory Part of the difficulty in delineating the elusive We offer a heartfelt thanks to Blake Ashforth, Don Ham- concept of theoretical contribution is that orga- brick, Trevis Certo, Don Lange, Glen Kreiner, and our anon- nization and management studies is an eclectic ymous reviewers for their helpful comments and critiques on field—and one with multiple stakeholders as earlier versions of this paper. We especially acknowledge well. Not only do we self-identify as “borrowers” Amy Hillman for her encouragement, commentary, and ex- from many other scientific disciplines (e.g., psy- cellent guidance throughout the revision process. chology, sociology, economics, etc.) but we also claim to speak to both academics and practition- ers. This medley of foundations, voices, and au- 12 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.

2011 Corley and Gioia 13 diences often creates confusion when discuss- a point of departure for outlining the need for a ing contributions. What exactly is the renewed and reframed emphasis on practice- consensual basis for claiming and assessing oriented utility as a focus for future theorizing. theoretical contribution? More pointedly, is In addition, we call for and encourage organiza- there a consensual basis for declaring whether tion scholars to adopt an orientation toward pre- a theoretical contribution exists? One basis for science in their theorizing. We define prescience arguing that our field has vague or inadequate as the process of discerning or anticipating standards for assessing theoretical contribution what we need to know and, equally important, arises from comparing the list of AMR’s Best of influencing the intellectual framing and dia- Articles (awarded one year after publication) logue about what we need to know. An orienta- with the list of each year’s most cited AMR paper tion toward prescience holds some promise for over the same years (based on Web of Scienceா advancing our craft of theory development, as Social Sciences Citation Indexா and/or Google well as enhancing the receptivity of the audi- Scholar counts). In only four of the last eighteen ences for our developing theories beyond the years does the paper currently most cited also academy and, therefore, conferring a greater po- turn out to be the one chosen as the AMR Best tential for influencing the organizations and so- Article for its year of publication (see Table 1), cieties we study. despite the “competitive advantage” in citations such articles have from their publicity for win- We structure the rest of the article around ning the award in the first place. This somewhat these two issues. We begin with a synthesis of disconcerting statistic seems to imply some dis- the theoretical contribution literature as it per- crepancy in assessing a paper’s value right af- tains to the field of management and organiza- ter publication and its value in the future. tion studies, highlighting the current state of the art for making a contribution to theory in our As scholars familiar with the practice of de- top-tier management journals. Building on this veloping theoretical contributions, we believe synthesis, we then argue that a practice per- the time is right for our field to turn a reflective spective on theory building would lead to our lens on itself and try to establish more clearly theories having greater scope and, furthermore, not only what currently constitutes a theoretical that an orientation toward prescience would en- contribution but also, and perhaps more impor- hance the value and impact of our theoretical tant, what should constitute a theoretical contri- contributions. Finally, we discuss implications bution in the future. To help accomplish the first of our proposals for the field. and set the stage for the second, we established two goals for this paper. First, we hope to con- SYNTHESIZING CURRENT VIEWS tribute to the practice of making a contribution ON “WHAT CONSTITUTES A to theory as it currently stands. Toward this end, we provide a synthesis of the dimensions cur- THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION” rently used to justify the existence of a theoret- ical contribution and provide some perspective Despite the relatively short time that organi- on the usefulness of these dimensions. Our syn- zation and management studies has existed as thesis reveals two dimensions—originality and a field, there is actually quite a collection of utility—that currently dominate considerations writings on the notion of theoretical contribu- of theoretical contribution. We also note two tion. We use the term writings because much of subcategories underlying each of these main this literature is found in editorial statements dimensions, which provide a more nuanced de- published in AMR and AMJ. Although there are a scription of the current craft of contributing to number of other sources outside AMR that pro- theory. vide opinion and insight, because AMR is our field’s premier theory journal, much of what fol- Second, we hope to contribute to what we lows stems from these writings about making a might call the theory of theoretical contribu- contribution to theory. In its inaugural (1976) is- tion—to build theory about theory building, if sue, for instance, AMR’s “Suggestions for Con- you will. Thus, we use our synthesis of the liter- tributors” provided a vision for the types of pa- ature, as well as our reading of AMR’s Best Ar- pers the Academy of Management’s leadership ticles and most cited papers listed in Table 1, as saw as most appealing for the new journal:

14 Academy of Management Review January TABLE 1 AMR Best Articles and Most Cited Papers: 1990 –2008 (Citation Counts As of April 2010) Year Props Volume Author(s) Google SSCI Rank (Issue) 1990 Best Article 15(2) Dollinger 79 16 23rd 1991 Most cited 15(1) Reed & DeFillippi 1424 455 1992 16(1) 1993 Best Article Oliver 2213 650 1st Most cited 17(4) Same 1994 17(2) 113 70 19th 1995 Best Article 18(4) Trevin˜ o 1030 255 1996 Most cited 18(2) Gist & Mitchell 1997 18(4) 604 305 4th 1998 Best Article Pfeffer 920 311 1999 Most cited (Google) 19(1) Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin 866 343 2000 Most cited (Social Sciences 19(1) Cordes & Dougherty 2001 20(3) 2002 Citation Index) 20(3) Kahn & Kram 49 20 23rd 2003 21(1) Ring & Van de Ven 2247 636 4th 2004 Best Article 21(1) 10th 2005 Most cited 22(2) Van de Ven & Poole 1132 308 20th 2006 22(4) Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman 4014 1234 1st 2007 Best Article 23(2) 2008 Most cited Chen 468 161 24(1) Lumpkin & Dess 1662 407 Best Article 24(3) Most cited 25(4) Gresov & Drazin 172 54 25(1) Mitchell, Agle, & Wood 2152 499 Best Article 26(4) Most cited 26(1) Nahapiet & Ghoshal 4106 1080 27(1) Same Best Article 462 151 8th Most cited 28(2) McGrath 1272 306 Crossan, Lane, & White Best Article 29(1) 317 86 7th Most cited 29(4) Lewis 897 266 30(1) Hogg & Terry Best Article 30(1) 147 88 13th Most cited 31(2) Mitchell & James 992 264 31(2) Priem & Butler Best Article 32(1) 1916 450 1st Most cited 32(1) Adler & Kwon 33(4) Same 555 180 1st Best Article 33(2) Most cited Benner & Tushman 77 30 12th Same 291 96 Best Article Most cited Biggart & Delbridge 300 100 2nd Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy 459 143 Best Article Most cited Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton 44 21 25th Inkpen & Tsang 244 116 Best Article Most cited George, Chattopadhyay, Sitkin, & Barden 103 36 7th Johns 197 57 Best Article Most cited Dane & Pratt 41 7 5th Sirmon, Hitt, & Ireland 93 25 Best Article Most cited Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol Matten & Moon Best Article Most cited The Review publishes distinguished original have rich potential for theory and research in manuscripts which (a) move theoretical concep- management, and (c) provide clear implications tualization forward in the field of management, of theory for problem-solving in administrative and/or (b) indicate new theoretical linkages that and organizational situations.

2011 Corley and Gioia 15 This statement emphasizes notions of advanc- science, and so on. The product of this inter- ing knowledge and moving the field’s thinking section represented an attempt not only to as- forward, providing new connections among pre- semble insightful thinking to develop a more vious concepts, and exploring the practical im- systematic approach to knowledge about man- plications of these connections. Interestingly, agement (an attempt that some claim failed; see some thirty-five years later, a review of writings Pfeffer, 1993) but also to develop some distinc- on theoretical contribution in AMR paints a pic- tive domains of theorizing (e.g., decision mak- ture fairly consistent with this initial vision. Our ing, leadership, institutional theory). synthesis of the literature indicated two key di- mensions along which the notion of “value- Since the 1970s, the field of organization and added contribution” is typically defined, as cap- management studies has achieved some nota- tured succinctly by Kilduff: “Theory papers ble and laudable accomplishments. We have, succeed if they offer important [read useful] and for instance, become much more conceptually original ideas” (2006: 252). Our assessment of the and empirically rigorous (such that the nature of current state of the art for publishing theory, management theorizing is much stronger, in perhaps especially in AMR, indicates that the scholarly terms, than it was only a generation idea of contribution rests largely on the ability ago), which has helped allay concerns that our to provide original insight into a phenomenon knowledge base is too anecdotal. We have also by advancing knowledge in a way that is begun to develop an institutional field identity deemed to have utility or usefulness for some that is no longer based mainly on the notion of purpose. eclecticism; that is, the top management jour- nals are now seeing work that constitutes orig- Given the historical progression of our field, inal organizational theorizing (not merely recy- the prominence of these two criteria (originality cled and dressed up psychology or economics), and utility) is perhaps not that surprising. Orga- which, in a recursive fashion, is now beginning nization and management studies started out to influence the very fields from which we once with a couple of distinctive attributes: reliance borrowed (Agarwal & Hoetker, 2007). on anecdotal evidence from business practice (there was little “scientifically” codified knowl- To better understand what the dimensions of edge) and eclecticism (we borrowed from every- originality and utility mean for those attempting body). Before we could establish ourselves as a to publish in the top management journals, it is distinctive, scientifically rigorous field, we had necessary to explicate each notion in more to deal with both of these “shortcomings.” First, depth. Interestingly, our synthesis of the litera- beginning in the 1960s and as a result of two ture indicates that both dimensions further di- reports critical of business education at the time vide into two subcategories (see Figure 1). Orig- (Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959), business inality can be categorized as either (1) schools (including management departments) advancing understanding incrementally or (2) began to emphasize more rigorous, quantitative orientations in an attempt to gain legitimacy FIGURE 1 within the larger academic community. By as- Current Dimensions for Theoretical similating traditional academic standards and norms of knowledge generation and dissemina- Contribution tion from the physical and social sciences, this transformation helped move our field away from the criticism that management and organization- al knowledge was mainly a collection of anec- dotes and case studies. Second, at about the time of the founding of AMR in 1976, manage- ment departments began to pride themselves on having become the academic repository of mul- tidisciplinary knowledge oriented toward man- agerial practice—management study became a focal point for the intersection of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, political

16 Academy of Management Review January advancing understanding in a way that pro- our theoretical understanding” (Smith, 1997: 7). vides some form of revelation, whereas the util- In perhaps one of the most recognized articles ity dimension parses into (1) practically useful on theory, Van de Ven reiterates Lewin’s (1951: and (2) scientifically useful. Our following dis- 486) assertion that “nothing is quite so practical cussion of these two main dimensions and their as a good theory” in this way: “Good theory is two subcategories is quite consistent with a practical precisely because it advances knowl- common characteristic of many theoretical pa- edge in a scientific discipline, guides research pers—the ubiquitous 2 ϫ 2 matrix. toward crucial questions, and enlightens the profession of management” (1989: 486). Based on Originality the (then) groundbreaking work of Dubin (1978), this perspective is rooted in the belief that what Perhaps more than any other criterion, origi- makes one theory preferred over another is ad- nality stands out as the “dimension de rigueur” vancement toward “what is believed to be true” for AMR reviewers and editors. This is clearly (1978: 13) or a state where “a group of people seen in the first line of the current AMR mission sharing an interest in some set of observations statement—“The mission of the Academy of come to agree that one theoretical model best Management Review (AMR) is to publish new provides understanding or permits accurate pre- theoretical insights that advance our under- dictions about the observational set” (1978: 13). standing of management and organiza- In practice, this is often reflected in the idea that tions”—as well as in editorial statements de- “theoretical insights come from demonstrating scribing preferences for submissions: “The how the addition of a new variable significantly mission of a theory-development journal is to alters our understanding of the phenomena by challenge and extend existing knowledge” reorganizing our causal maps” (Whetten, 1989: (Whetten, 1989: 491); “We judge the value-added 493). contribution of each and every article based on the potential contribution of the articulated new The key to connecting this notion of advanc- insights” (Smith, 1997: 8); and “[All AMR papers ing understanding with the editor’s/reviewers’ should] improve our understanding of manage- crucial task of determining value-added contri- ment and organizations, whether by offering a bution arises in how one defines “significantly” critical redirection of existing views or by offer- in the above statement— how much additional ing an entirely new point of view on phenom- understanding must be provided to meet the ena” (Conlon, 2002: 489). Conlon’s distinction be- significance criterion? Obviously, this is not an tween extending current understanding and easy question to answer, which may help ex- offering “entirely new points of view” is similar plain why the incremental perspective on in- to Huff’s (1999) distinction between contributing sight seems to have fallen out of favor with to a current conversation and starting a new reviewers and editors of many top journals over conversation. Accordingly, it provides the basis the past ten to fifteen years. In fact, reading for discussing originality as representing either more recent editorial statements on theory de- an incremental or a more revelatory or surpris- velopment from a spectrum of management ing advance in understanding—a subdivision journals conveys the sense that the advancing that offers a more nuanced grasp of what re- incremental understanding perspective has be- viewers and editors currently consider to be a come rather too closely associated with the no- theoretical contribution worthy of publication. tion of minor, marginal, or even trivial improve- ments, where small advances in our thinking Incremental insight. The notion that theoreti- about a phenomenon provide the means to cal contributions should progressively advance progress through “normal science” (Kuhn, 1962). our understanding is a long-venerated one Although incremental improvement is arguably (Kaplan, 1964) and is well-represented in AMR’s a necessary aspect of organizational research, (1976) initial statement of purpose (reread the especially in service to the contextualization of original “Suggestions for Contributors” above). theory (cf. Johns, 2001; Rousseau & Fried, 2001; This orientation has been consistently and re- Tsui, 2006), current thinking at AMR and other peatedly invoked over the years—for example, top theory and research outlets seems to have “The ultimate value-added test of an article is shifted to a focus on theoretical contributions that it has moved scholars in a field or advanced

2011 Corley and Gioia 17 deemed to be more revelatory and nonobvious against prior literature, but rather against com- to organizational scholars. mon sense or the likely reactions of the ‘person in the street.’ . . . ‘Is this really surprising?’” Revelatory insight. An alternative to the diffi- (2002: 312) and Bergh’s likening of theory contri- cult-to-answer question “How significant an ad- bution to the rareness criterion of competitive vance in knowledge is needed to constitute a advantage: “[Is] a contribution . . . surprising contribution?” rests in the idea that contribution and unexpected? Is the contribution more of a arises when theory reveals what we otherwise common sense derivation, or does it represent a had not seen, known, or conceived. In other novel and unique insight? Originality is a criti- words, new theory “allows us to see profoundly, cal concern” (2003: 136). imaginatively, unconventionally into phenom- ena we thought we understood. . . . theory is of Our synthesis of the existing literature thus no use unless it initially surprises—that is, points to insight based in original, especially changes perceptions” (Mintzberg, 2005: 361). Of- revelatory, surprising, or even transformative ten cited in advocacy for this perspective is thinking as a key factor affecting the attribution Davis’s (1971) “That’s Interesting!” article, in of a theoretical contribution at many of the em- which he argues that research that is novel or inent journals in organization study, and per- counterintuitive or that questions assumptions haps particularly at AMR. Therefore, our point in underlying the prevailing theory (as well as highlighting this shift is not that incremental those of the reader) will generally be seen as advancements cannot provide a theoretical con- more interesting and, thus, more likely to make tribution, but simply that many editorial teams an impact on the reader (and hence make an and reviewers at our top journals now prefer impact on the field through increased citations): insights that reveal a new way of understanding “The best way to make a name for oneself in an as the basis for determining theoretical contri- intellectual discipline is to be interesting— butions, and thus as a preference for assessing denying the assumed, while affirming the unan- publication potential. Importantly, however, the ticipated” (1971: 343). The key distinction here capacity for revelation is not the only criterion; from the advancing understanding incremen- also widely accepted is the sense that to be tally perspective (rooted in Dubin’s views on deemed a contribution, theory must be useful or truth) is that “a theorist is considered great, not somehow have utility in its application, either because his/her theories are [necessarily] true, for other organizational researchers or for prac- but because they are interesting” (Davis, 1971: ticing managers. 309). Utility Beginning in the 1990s and rapidly ascending to prominence since, this idea that “all contribu- Although most contemporary editors see reve- tions to AMR should be ‘novel, insightful, and latory insight that discloses a new way of see- carefully crafted’” (Brief, 2003: 7) has become a ing as necessary for a value-added contribution, staple for editorial descriptions of desired AMR it is rarely sufficient; the insight must be seen as papers—“The challenge then for authors pub- useful as well. That is, it must have the potential lished in AMR will be to convince AMR readers to either “improve the current research practice ‘to see nature in a different way,’ even to violate of informed scholars” (Whetten, 1990: 581) or paradigm-induced expectations” (Smith, 1997: 8; improve the current managerial practice of or- see also Gioia & Pitre, 1990, and Morgan & Smir- ganizational practitioners. Or, as Van de Ven cich, 1980)—and is even boldly proclaimed on argues: the current AMR website (“AMR publishes novel, insightful and carefully crafted conceptual arti- A central mission of scholars and educators in cles that challenge conventional wisdom con- professional schools of management . . . is to con- cerning all aspects of organizations and their duct research that contributes knowledge to a role in society”). This refocusing on surprise has scientific discipline, on the one hand, and to ap- transcended AMR and is now touted as the basis ply that knowledge to the practice of manage- for contribution at the other top organization ment as a profession, on the other (1989: 486). and management journals, including AMJ, as seen in Rynes’ articulation of reasons for paper In general, scientific utility is perceived as an rejection: “Reviewers are judging the results not advance that improves conceptual rigor or the

18 Academy of Management Review January specificity of an idea and/or enhances its poten- 2000), practical utility’s role in theoretical contri- tial to be operationalized and tested: bution seems to receive mainly lip service (e.g., several paragraphs on “practical implications” Theory can advance science by providing cohe- in the discussion section; see Bartunek & Rynes, sion, efficiency, and structure to our research 2010, for insight into the utility of these sections), questions and design (Kerlinger, 1973; Van de especially in recent times. Most of the editorial Ven, 1989). In a very practical sense, good theory statements advocating the practical utility of helps identify what factors should be studied and organization and management theories occur how and why they are related. A high quality earlier in our field’s history, with more recent theory also states the conditions and boundaries editorial statements virtually ignoring this as- of relationships (Hitt & Smith, 2005: 2). pect of the utility dimension. Alternatively, practical utility is seen as aris- Implications of the Originality and ing when theory can be directly applied to the Utility Dimensions problems practicing managers and other orga- nizational practitioners face, or as Hambrick The upshot of our synthesis of the literature, suggests, through “the observation of real-life then, is the recognition that the current state of phenomena, not from ‘scholars struggling to find the art for developing conceptual papers that holes in the literature’” (2005: 124). Hambrick’s are deemed to provide a theoretical contribution larger point, however, is that such a practical rests in a scholar’s ability to produce thinking problem focus is a good way to develop theory that is original (and especially revelatory or sur- per se. Thus, theory directed at practical impor- prising) in its insight and useful (preferably in a tance would focus on prescriptions for structur- scientific manner) in its application. In our view, ing and organizing around a phenomenon and the originality and utility dimensions usually less on how science can further delineate or are treated as working together to produce vary- understand the phenomenon. ing levels of theoretical contribution. Modeling their interaction in a 2 ϫ 2 matrix (Figure 1) This bifurcated view on the usefulness of the- produces a basic insight about which papers ory arises directly from the trajectory of our ultimately succeed at the top management jour- field’s history; traditionally pushed to produce nals (and, by implication, at AMR). Papers that insight for both the professional and academic display both original, revelatory insight and sci- realms, management scholars experience pres- entific usefulness (Quadrant 1) clearly stand out sures to enact the norms of a bona fide scientific as most likely to pass muster with editors and discipline (again, originating from the 1959 Pier- reviewers (assuming they also satisfy other de- son and Gordon and Howell reports) while sirable criteria1). Papers that only fit one of the also—at least ostensibly—speaking to and dimensions well—scientifically useful but with- helping improve the organizations we study. We out adequate originality (Quadrant 2) or revela- say “ostensibly” because our review of the liter- tory insight without adequate scientific useful- ature reveals a very strong bias toward scien- ness (Quadrant 4)—present a challenge to both tific usefulness as the driving factor in editorial author and editor and usually must undergo sig- thinking about theoretical contribution. Interest- nificant revision, at minimum, if they are to be ingly, however, these two “discrete” categories seen as making a significant theoretical contri- of utility are not necessarily mutually exclusive; bution and, thus, become acceptable for publi- there are examples of theoretical advancements cation. Finally, papers that score low on both that have the requisite capacity to improve both dimensions (Quadrant 3) are likely to be desk- the practice of research and the practice of man- rejected or receive a firm rejection decision after agement, with a necessary “translation” from the first round of reviews (and occasionally the scientific to the professional (as evident in the original mission of the journal Academy of 1 As Whetten outlines, “Is the paper well written? Does it Management Executive—“to provide a bridge or flow logically? Are the central ideas easily accessed? Is it a link among theory, research and practice”— enjoyable to read? Is the paper long enough to cover the and the research-oriented subsections of vari- subject but short enough to be interesting?” (1989: 495). ous practitioner-oriented journals). Yet the real- ity is that, excepting some passionate calls for change during Academy of Management presi- dential addresses (e.g., Hambrick, 1994; Huff,

2011 Corley and Gioia 19 what one of the authors calls an “RWS”—a “Re- important, we also began to notice a subtle jection With Scorn”). theme distinguishing the most cited papers from the Best Articles: although both sets of papers Ultimately, our synthesis of the theoretical could be considered high in scientific utility, the contribution literature and its representation in most cited papers could more often also be char- our simple 2 ϫ 2 model lead to several observa- acterized as higher in utility for practice. If arti- tions about the current practice of making a cles receiving the most citations do a better job contribution to theory. First, the dimension of of bridging scientific and practical usefulness, original insight with the power to reveal a new this suggests the possibility of a unifying di- way of seeing is likely to remain a perennial mension that can account theoretically for both norm at all elite, theory-driven management scientific and pragmatic value (i.e., a notion we journals, including AMR. We feel confident in would label scope). This also suggests the pos- making this less-than-bold prediction because, sibility of expanding our conceptualization of by its very nature, theorizing depends on new what constitutes a theoretical contribution if we concepts to maintain idea vitality in the field. can identify ways of enhancing our ability to Incremental advances in theory simply cannot achieve more scope in our theorizing. produce this energy and, although necessary in their own right, are unlikely ever to become the CONTRIBUTING TO THEORY ABOUT MAKING foundation on which a high-impact theory- A THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION building journal rests. Second, utility in the form of scientific usefulness also is likely to remain Adhering to the same standards for consider- an important aspect of the norms for theoretical ation we just reviewed, we believe there is room contribution for the foreseeable future, simply for a contribution in the process of building because scientifically useful ideas are critical to some new theory about the work of theory build- the larger project of establishing theory that is ing itself—an unaddressed opportunity for our conceptually rigorous and internally consistent field to take the next step forward in maturity by and, thus, the surest path to building and main- extending our conceptions of what makes for a taining academic legitimacy. Additionally, sci- theoretical contribution. There are two consider- entifically useful ideas do a better job of contrib- ations that suggest a strong need to move from uting to the theoretical developments of other where we are now to a more advanced plane of scholars who are also working to further legiti- thought and wider influence. First, Katz and mize the scholarly field of organization and Kahn (1966) observed that organizations and in- management studies. stitutions can (and often do) have multiple, dis- parate roles in society. Academia as an institu- That said, after our attempt to synthesize the tion—and perhaps especially in the form of a existing literature about attributes that consti- professional academic institution like a school tute a contribution to theory, we were uneasy of management— has a dual and somewhat par- with simply accepting what the (mostly edito- adoxical role: we are the “keepers of the flame” rial) literature portrayed as a theoretical contri- in disseminating tried-and-true ideas and prac- bution. Part of this unease arose from our read- tices (usually via teaching but also via consult- ing of both the AMR Best Articles and most cited ing), which Katz and Kahn term a maintenance papers listed in Table 1, which revealed that role—a role that has the effect of structuring, although the majority of these papers could be stabilizing, and institutionalizing knowledge classified as being original in their ideas, those that provided revelatory insights did so not so sion because we were trying to summarize and synthesize much by introducing new concepts (as the typi- the content of prior writings by scholars discussing “What is cal editorial depiction would have it) but much a contribution?” Instead, after reading the Best Articles and more often by offering a novel approach to inte- most cited AMR papers, what we actually saw in practice grating prior thought and research into some was a dimension that is better categorized as incremental or model or framework that constituted a different revelatory, because relatively few of even these stellar pa- way of understanding some phenomenon.2 More pers could be labeled as transformative in the literal sense. On balance, most of these AMR articles are original in the 2 In fact, we initially used the categories “incremental” way they integrate, rather than in the way they create, new and “transformative” to characterize the originality dimen- concepts.

20 Academy of Management Review January and action; simultaneously, however, manage- pates societal needs suggests that we have not ment schools are also charged with being in the devoted appropriate attention to the expectation vanguard in generating new knowledge (via that good scholarship should not only have cutting-edge theory and research) that serves to practical relevance but also some degree of fore- question received wisdom and accepted prac- sight in identifying important coming issues tice and, thus, to undermine “the way we do and problems that need to be conceptualized. things around here.” Katz and Kahn (1966) term One source of the problem is that management this an adaptive role in society, and it serves as scholars have, in effect, created a closed indus- a substrate for transforming the social order. try engaged in producing knowledge intended From our perspective, we are currently devoting mainly for other academic knowledge produc- much more energy to our maintenance role (via ers. This outcome is a consequence of overem- teaching,3 if not practice-oriented research) and phasizing scientific importance (in part because underplaying our putative adaptive role. Orga- scientific importance tends to generate special- nization and management science has, there- ized language that only other cognoscenti can fore, come up short in fulfilling the charge of understand; see Bennis & O’Toole, 2005). being on the leading edge of management thinking. Indeed, most of the new ideas in man- Simply put, we believe that theoretical contri- agement that have been put into practice have butions in management and organization stud- come from the world of practice, rather than ies have not done an adequate job of anticipat- from academia (cf. Barley, Meyer, & Gash, 1988). ing the important conceptual, as well as Consequently, society has granted us respect, practical, needs of society’s now most prominent but not much influence (see Mintzberg, 2004, and members— business and social organizations. Pfeffer, 1993). We believe our field has matured As Staw outlined the problem for OB research to a point that the time has come to begin recti- some twenty-five years ago: “The field may not fying that shortcoming. have even served managerial interests well, since research has taken a short-term problem As our retrospective on management and or- focus rather than having formulated new forms ganizational theorizing suggests, the dimension of organization that do not currently exist” (1984: of utility has historically been defined accord- 629)—an orientation that implies that we as a ing to two tracks—scientific usefulness and field are also guilty of employing short-term practical usefulness—with a relative neglect of thinking, which Norman Lear has called “the the latter. This neglect is somewhat understand- social disease of our time” (cited in Bennis, 2003: able because practical utility is most often con- 15) and which undermines our ability to contrib- sidered as addressing specific problems with- ute to organizational and societal adaptiveness. out necessarily tapping general principles, This is a nontrivial shortcoming in our ap- whereas good theory emphasizes generalities proaches to making theoretical contributions (with appropriate boundary conditions identi- that could have a much wider impact—a short- fied). On these grounds we clearly have as- coming we believe could be addressed by en- signed more importance to scientific utility, couraging an orientation toward prescience in which, although understandable, is perhaps trying to anticipate, conceptualize, and influ- something of a misconstrual for a scholarly ence significant future problem domains. We field that is so intimately associated with a next consider these two related deficiencies in professional practice domain (and schools of our theorizing as avenues for better fulfilling our management are arguably more akin to adaptive role in society. schools of law or medicine than those of eco- nomics or sociology). Relevance to Practice As a Prominent Dimension of Theoretical Contribution Second, the fact that rigorous scholarship is not often deemed by outsiders to be relevant As implied above, the maturation of our disci- scholarship that both ministers to and antici- pline has seemingly moved us farther away from the very spheres of society we originally 3 We acknowledge that many instructors work to include set out to influence. Consider the following an- new knowledge into their courses, yet the practical fact is ecdotes, each of which in its own way is quite that the overwhelming content of most courses constitutes telling about the current character of our theo- accepted theory and practice.

2011 Corley and Gioia 21 retical enterprise. The first story goes that in the tive, we academics do indeed “talk funny.” From early 1980s one of the officers of the Academy of our point of view, we do so for good reasons. Management concluded that as one conse- Parsimonious theoretical language saves time quence of the shift toward conceptual and em- and space and (we hope) enhances clarity for pirical rigor then sweeping the field, the rele- other scholars; theoretical notions tend to be vance of our theories to managerial practice specified in abstract terms that capture concep- was waning. As a step toward redressing this tual meaning. Yet we should recognize that our trend, he decided that our field needed to “con- specialized language tends to distance us from nect” better with practicing executives. To that the issues that generated the theories about the end, he hosted a number of high-level managers phenomena we are trying to describe and ex- at the next annual AOM meeting. He shep- plain in the first place. Put differently, our distal herded the entourage around to various ses- language often seems to elide the relevance of sions, symposia, and social events, but they our second-order theoretical constructs from the were not very forthcoming about their impres- proximal parties whose experience we are try- sions of the proceedings. At the end of the day, ing to explicate.4 the hosting professor, who could contain himself no longer, explicitly asked what they thought of Worse, perhaps, the increasing distance be- the work of the academic management profes- tween our theories and their practice referents is sion as manifested by the events of the day. sometimes justified on the grounds that theory Uncomfortable silence. One of the executives and practice are “different worlds” and need not thought it over for a few pregnant seconds, how- have a close relationship (as implied by the ever, and then said simply, “You people talk Ph.D. admissions debate). The difference of funny.” opinion about the worth of a given academic article highlights the common view that the sub- A second anecdote involves one of the au- jects of our theorizing do not seem to attribute thors, who was discussing the criteria for Ph.D. much significance or value to our theorizing—a student selection with his colleagues. There was nontrivial issue if we hope to enact an influen- little debate about the relevance of GMAT/GRE tial stance toward our adaptive role in society. scores, grade point averages, experience with Shapiro, Kirkman, and Courtney (2007) argue the research process, and so forth. Yet when he that there are actually two sources for this “talk- suggested that because it was a professional ing past each other” dynamic between scholars school organizational experience should be con- and practitioners, which they term the lost be- sidered as well, another professor responded fore translation problem (ideas that are essen- that practitioners were “not our audience” and tially irrelevant to practice even before theo- that work experience had not been shown to ries are formulated or studies are conducted) correlate with Ph.D. program success and, there- and the lost in translation problem (difficulty fore, should not be included on the list of desir- in explaining the relevance of theories or find- able criteria. ings to practice). A final example hints at the difficulty of rec- Relevance to practice is actually a long- onciling academic and practitioner assess- standing theme in our writings about theory and ments of theoretical contribution and value. In theoretical contribution (Bergh, 2003; Hambrick, 1985 Cummings and Frost edited a volume enti- 1994; Thomas & Tymon, 1982), especially in terms tled Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, of empirical research (see the rigor versus rele- a compendium of writings, opinions, and advice vance debate in Gulati, 2007; Palmer, Dick, & about what it took to succeed when trying to Freiburger, 2009; Polzer, Gulati, Khurana, & publish in management journals. Early in that Tushman, 2009; and Tushman & O’Reilly, 2007, volume an academic writer touted the marvel- for examples). Yet evidence that we have paid ous contribution offered by Gronn’s (1983) article serious attention to this de facto platitude in our “Talk As Work.” Curiously, later in the same theoretical efforts is woefully lacking. Our rela- volume a practitioner writer independently de- rided the same work as trivial and obvious to 4 Consider the last two sentences. To illustrate our any practicing manager. point, we wrote the first in plain English and the second in academese. The roots of our disconnect from practical util- ity. From a layperson or practitioner perspec-

22 Academy of Management Review January tive inattention to a bona fide concern with the however, that we are not arguing that we should practical applicability of our theories has led to take our lead for new theorizing from practition- a troubling disconnect between management ers’ specifications of mundane managerial theory and practice (Ghoshal, 2005; Mintzberg, problems— unless, of course, they are manifes- 2005; Pfeffer, 1993)—an observation that gives tations of wider or deeper issues. We should rise to a consequential question: How might we instead be aspiring to address significant prob- accomplish a reconciliation of academic and lem domains that either require or will soon practitioner standards for judging contribution? require theorizing. As Mintzberg (2005) points out, methodological (and even theoretical) rigor First, it is important to reiterate that our theo- often interferes with both insight and relevance, ries should be problem driven5—that is, in some perhaps especially when dealing with grand- fashion addressing a problem of direct, indirect, level issues or problems. Bennis and O’Toole or long-linked relevance to practice, rather than (2005) have accused us of delimiting the scope of narrowly addressing the (theoretical) “problem” our studies only to those variables we can easily of finding the next mediator or moderator vari- measure, producing a kind of “methodolatry” able or filling theoretical gaps simply because that harbors the paradoxical possibility of they exist. When we focus mainly on the latter, blinding rather than illuminating things that re- we end up advancing theory for theory’s sake, ally matter. The fact that Bennis and O’Toole’s rather than theory for utility’s sake. Simply put, article appeared in Harvard Business Review, the focal problems in our chosen field of work whose readership is heavily oriented toward re- (organization study) should relate more directly flective practitioners and who on reading the to the wider world’s work (organizational prac- article would further dismiss the relevance of tice) by drawing more from the world of practice the academic study of organizations, only deep- and the experience of real people, rather than ens the hole out of which we must climb. from abstract derivations of hypothetical formu- lations. This, ideally, would lead to an integra- Practical versus practice-oriented theoretical tion of the scientific and practical utility dimen- contribution. In our view, one of the inhibitors of sions and would produce a comprehensive the relevance of our theorizing is that we have utility dimension better aligned with the notion been treating the notion of pragmatic utility as of scope.6 As an example, one of the AMR Best practical utility. Based on conversations with Articles that also was that year’s most cited pa- colleagues who are reticent to formulate practi- per (and, not coincidentally, the most cited pa- cal theory or conduct practical research, we sus- per on Google Scholar of all those in our AMR pect that there simply is not enough profes- sample) provides a good exemplar of theorizing sional “gravitas” associated with theory that that has scope. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) might have obvious practical application. Such provided theorizing having both scientific and ideas are not seen as “big enough” for grand- practical utility that deals with a topic of inter- level theorizing. A small shift in orientation est for a broad audience and integrates existing might make a big difference in the contribution views into a coherent and comprehensive theo- of our theories to addressing important prob- retical model. lems, however. Focusing on the weightier notion of practice (with its pedigree in the deep philo- Second, and as already noted, we should em- sophical traditions of American pragmatism) brace the fact that we are a profession (aca- would not only signal to scholars that we are demia) studying another profession (manage- working on significant issues but would provide ment), so our orientation toward theoretical a firm intellectual basis for theoretical formula- contribution should include an explicit appreci- tions with pragmatic relevance. ation for applicability. We want to be clear, The scholarly roots of a practice approach can 5 Ideally, theories should also be opportunity driven—that be traced to James (1907, 1909) and Dewey (1938; is, anticipating opportunities for enlightened practice, in a Dewey & Bentley, 1949), who viewed theoretical fashion perhaps best exemplified by the positive organiza- knowledge not as an “object” to be possessed tion studies (POS) movement (e.g., Cameron, Dutton, & but as a dynamic phenomenon that manifests in Quinn, 2003). the act of knowing something. The move from objectified, static knowledge to dynamic pro- 6 Thanks to both Don Hambrick and one of our reviewers cesses of knowing shifts the focus of theorizing for discussions relevant to the notion of scope.

2011 Corley and Gioia 23 to the activities that people engage in while theoretical knowledge contributes little if that dealing with problems. In this view the act of knowledge is not exhibited in organizational knowing influences what is known and how it is practice and does not affect practices other than known (see also Morgan, 1983, and his discus- our own theorizing practices. In addition, how- sion of “research as engagement”). Knowledge, ever, widely influential theorizing should also therefore, inheres in the activities that individ- hold the potential for trying to identify domains uals engage in to deal with their day-to-day that will soon be in need of theorizing (e.g., vir- interactions. This pragmatist philosophical ori- tual societies, sustainability, accelerating glob- entation has had some influence on organiza- alization, new models of management not based tional scholarship. Pentland (1992), Cook and on the preeminence of economic factors). Brown (1999), Brown and Duguid (2001), Or- likowski (2002), and Nag, Corley, and Gioia An Orientation Toward Prescience to Increase (2007), among others, all have studied connec- the Utility of Our Theoretical Contributions tions between the content knowledge of organi- zation members (i.e., what they know) and their On what level might scholars most influence social practices (i.e., what they do). Cook and practice? As noted, because our theoretical work Brown (1999) treat practices as actions informed is aimed at more general formulations, it is often by meanings grounded in specific contexts. In removed from direct application to particular this fashion, knowledge is viewed more as a problems. For that reason our potential for influ- recursive dialogue between practice (action) ence in practical domains is often limited. If we and meanings (cognition). want to have more influence on society’s conver- sations and better fulfill our adaptive role in It is only a small leap from these works, which society, we also should direct our energies and focus on people at work, to treating ourselves (as capabilities at focusing on the future of manag- theorists) in a similar fashion as we examine ing and organizing. Such an observation sug- our theorizing practices and our assumptions gests that we should try to theorize about incip- about what constitutes a contribution. In this ient organizational, managerial, and societal light it becomes apparent that we should con- issues and problems—that is, we should work to duct a more intimate dialogue between practice develop what we term theoretical prescience. (actions of practitioners) and meanings (theoret- Prescience is most often defined in terms of fore- ical contributions that both derive from and in- knowledge, foresight, or forecasting of events. form practice). A practice view of theoretical For the purposes of better executing our adap- knowledge also connotes a significant shift be- tive role, however, prescience involves antici- cause focusing on theoretical knowledge as pating and influencing the type of managerial somehow independent of its pragmatics over- knowledge needed to deal with coming societal looks the processes through which knowledge and organizational concerns. More specifically, use, value, and utility emerge “from the ongoing theoretical prescience can be defined as the pro- and situated actions of organizational members cess of discerning what we need to know and as they engage the world” (Orlikowski, 2002: influencing the intellectual framing of what we 249). need to know to enlighten both academic and reflective practitioner domains. In our view, pre- The most important insight from a practice scient scholarship not only fulfills the usual role orientation concerning the assessment of theo- of supplying conceptual knowledge used almost retical contribution is that theoretical knowl- exclusively in scholar-to-scholar communique´ s edge does not exist as a set of theory-building but also anticipates the conversations both rules independent of actual practice; rather, it scholars and societal leaders should be having becomes inextricably intertwined with the man- and influences the framing of those conversa- ifestations of the theoretical knowledge in prac- tions in conceptual terms. tice (and vice versa). The two key notions arising from adopting a practice view of knowledge, On theoretical prescience. Abraham Lincoln is then, are (1) that knowledge should be treated as often credited with the observation that “the process and (2) that the production of knowledge best way to predict the future is to create it.” should be treated as a recursive dialogue be- Computer scientist Alan Kay famously articu- tween theorists and reflective practitioners. The lated a small adaptation of this pithy statement upshot of this orientation is that merely holding

24 Academy of Management Review January in posing that “the best way to predict the future and leadership issues arising from the eco- is to invent it.” We would suggest a modest nomic shifts accompanying green organizing variation on this theme by noting that perhaps and green firms). Or consider the emergence of the best way to predict the future is to influence do-it-yourself (DIY) manufacturing (Anderson, the conversation about what it could or should 2010), a rising phenomenon involving virtual be. This orientation includes but goes beyond teams that develop open source plans for ob- the notion of detecting “weak signals” (Shoe- jects such as circuit boards, custom tools, furni- maker & Day, 2009) and discerning where trends ture, and even cars, which are then outsourced are likely to lead— or, as Bennis has put it, “It’s to a small batch manufacturer who produces a not as important to know where the puck is now prototype and offers to set up production for a as to know where it will be” (2003: 194; citing set price (if it is not intended to be a one-off hockey star Wayne Gretzky). Prescience, in our project). These small, extremely flexible, and view, involves not only sensitivity toward devel- surprisingly profitable companies represent a oping trends but acting to influence those trends new form of organizing better suited for dealing via prospective sensemaking (Gioia, Corley, & with an era where transaction costs become al- Fabbri, 2002; Weick, 1979, 1995) and sensegiving most nonexistent because of the potential for (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis & Lawrence, distributed innovation in our digitally intercon- 2007)—in other words, giving meaning to ambig- nected society (Lakhani & Panetta, 2007). uous informational cues and articulating viable interpretations and actions to cope with coming Other current examples of nonobvious orga- organizational and environmental demands. nizing (e.g., Linux, Wikipedia, Grameen Bank) suggest that our theorizing has done an inade- In terms of broadening the scope of our theo- quate job of anticipating and accounting for retical contributions, then, we do not view pre- these kinds of organizations, a problem likely to science as a matter of “predicting the future” or be magnified in the future if we do not encour- gazing at a crystal ball. Prescience in our terms age some form of prescience in our theorizing. is a matter of anticipating and, more important, The implications for organizational theories, influencing the definition of significant organi- from the micro (e.g., psychological contracts, zational problem domains to illuminate an im- compensation/motivation, leadership) to the portant area for consideration—that is, drawing macro (e.g., organizing, institutional change) attention to areas we need to understand from a and strategic (competitive dynamics, agency theoretical point of view that have relevance for theory), could be significant. Similarly, one significant organizational and societal issues could imagine prescient management theory and problems—as opposed to trying to predict touching on issues ranging from demographic the next big theory from a purely intellectual shifts in society (affecting our OB and HR do- viewpoint and, thus, increasing the likelihood of mains) to social changes arising from techno- creating the next managerial fad (see Abraha- logical advances (e.g., value of privacy, virtual mson, 1991). An orientation toward prescience societies, artificial intelligence) to strategic/ accentuates the notion that we in academia institutional changes arising from trends in lo- should be leading-edge thinkers—we should be- cal and national governance. come more oriented toward advancing not only the field’s relevance to future scholarship but Because the current view of what constitutes a also the field’s relevance to reflective practice contribution is oriented toward making judg- concerning problems that matter (Pfeffer, 1993; ments mainly on the basis of conceptual origi- Scho¨ n, 1983). nality and utility—where utility is rather nar- rowly defined as useful for further (scientific) For instance, it is apparent that sustainability concept development—we believe our scholarly is an important issue to theorize about for the community needs to try to develop an orienta- foreseeable future. Sustainability is currently tion toward prescience to make informed infer- viewed as “atheoretical,” so it becomes appar- ences about what will be important to know and ent that prescient theoretical work should be to conceptualize. To broaden the scope of our devoted to issues of sustainability and other influence in making theoretical contributions, concepts in its nomological net (e.g., implica- management scholars need to more credibly en- tions of global climate change for organizing act our adaptive role by generating theory that and organization [Gjelten, 2009] and employee anticipates problem domains that will inform

2011 Corley and Gioia 25 future thought and action.7 Incorporating a fu- ing attention to popular press and news sources ture orientation can help keep our theories not that report on cutting-edge business can provide only vibrant but also relevant in a constantly early insight into new phenomena (like the DIY changing landscape of organizational realities. manufacturing example) that serve as a harbin- Additionally, we believe that over time, as pre- ger of emerging trends. Similar logic applies to science becomes more prominent in our theoret- our existing theories of organizing and manag- ical formulations, the distinctions between sci- ing; a prescient theorist would ask, “What is it entifically useful and practically useful will about current models that are insufficient to ac- begin to blur. count for likely future trends such that we need different or embellished theories to account for Attributes of prescient scholarship. Although reasonable projections?” we recognize that not all organization- al/managerial scholars will (or should) try to Prescient scholars would, therefore, develop adopt or practice prescient theorizing, we none- an orientation toward prospection—they would theless think it is important for the field to en- assume the role of making informed projections courage those interested in attempting to build about coming issues, act as if those issues have prescient theory. Toward this end, we identify manifested, and then infer what theoretical do- two key attributes that would be hallmarks of mains need attention or invention. The military, prescient scholarship. for instance, has noted that traditional orienta- tions and actions have involved informed retro- First and foremost, prescient theorizing would spection, which has enabled it to better fight the direct attention toward future problem domains. last war. The military’s new orientation is to ask, Prescient scholars would first attend to cues in “In what ways can we prospectively imagine the present in a way that suggests that some how to better fight the next war?” The tradi- consequential issues or problems might need to tional retrospective sensemaking orientation be addressed by management scholars in the (wherein we ask ourselves what consequences future. This orientation does not involve some our actions have had, leading to a better under- sort of academic clairvoyance but, rather, a fo- standing of the past) inevitably produces refine- cus on what we might term projective futurism. ments in current ways of thinking. Organization As an example of such an orientation, climatol- studies have been mostly retrospectively ori- ogy data indicate that global temperatures are ented, which has had the consequence of fulfill- within historical fluctuations, so we cannot ob- ing mainly our “maintenance” role in society. jectively assert that the globe is warming. Yet We would benefit from adopting a notion of pro- because of rising levels of various greenhouse spective sensemaking (Gioia et al., 2002), even if gases and so forth we have sound theoretical it is usually a variation on the theme of retro- bases for arguing and predicting that climate spective sensemaking (Weick, 1979)—that is, change is a threat and will soon be demonstra- casting ourselves figuratively into the future bly out of the envelope of normal fluctuations and acting as if events have already occurred and, therefore, that prudent action is necessary and then making “retrospective” sense of those now. Those actions are likely to have implica- imagined events. tions for organizing differently, and we should try to be anticipating possible theoretical impli- Second, and equally important, prescient the- cations. The same could be said for advances in orizing involves a focus on sensegiving. It is not artificial intelligence and the impact they will enough simply to refine our prospective sense- have on workforce decisions and strategic plan- making abilities. It is also important to articu- ning in organizations of the future, or changes in late the sense made in a way that affects the privacy law following in the wake of popular character of both academic and reflective prac- social networking technologies. Likewise, pay- titioner discussions, as well as the spectrum of possible actions that ensue from exercising in- 7 We are not advocating that all or even most theoretical fluence over the framing and tenor of the discus- efforts should aim for prescience, or that prescience should sions—that is, we need to become more adept at become a key dimension for manuscript evaluation. We are sensegiving (i.e., Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; suggesting, however, that an orientation toward prescience Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). It is in this domain should become a not uncommon hallmark associated with that we can better fulfill our adaptive role in some of our best theorizing. society. Doing so implies more attention not only

26 Academy of Management Review January to new ideas but ideas that have a more proxi- usefulness), with a strong preference in the mal relationship to practice than has been our scholarly community for works that are revela- tradition. This means finding ways to communi- tory/surprising and carry mainly scientific cate our sense made (i.e., our theoretical contri- value. We have summarized the current idiom butions) such that those most likely to find our for declaring a theoretical contribution in Figure work pragmatically useful (i.e., thoughtful prac- 1, which provides a framework for scholars to titioners) understand it and are motivated to ap- assess whether an idea will be seen as making ply it. a theoretical contribution. Consider an endeavor that is parallel to the If we take a more critical and expansive view task of trying to gauge contribution—trying to of our scholarly potential and ask whether it is assess “creativity.” Creativity in business is dif- possible to make the grand notion of “theory” ferent from creativity in the arts. Creativity in more pertinent to solving significant manage- the arts is usually defined mainly in terms of rial and societal problems, we might ask the novelty (Amabile, 1996). In business, however, more pointed question, “What would constitute creativity has two key dimensions: novelty and a theoretical contribution beyond that engen- pragmatic value (Ford & Gioia, 1995). We would dered by the currently accepted criteria—that is, argue that we should be encouraging both of a contribution to theory that is relevant not only these dimensions in trying to formulate contri- for scholar-to-scholar consumption but one with butions to theory that have wider scope; in other greater scope and potential to influence current words, we should be offering not just original or and future organizational practice?” We agree revelatory insights but new insights that are with Whetten’s assertion that “the mission of a valuable for advancing ideas with a praxis di- theory-development journal is to challenge and mension—melding two of Aristotle’s three kinds extend existing knowledge” (1989: 491). Yet we of knowledge, theoria (theory) and praxis (prac- would encourage a conceptualization of an even tice)—in a way that practice informs theory, and more robust theory, one that has greater reach vice versa. As we have noted above, historical and would enable organization studies to real- writings in organization studies have acknowl- ize its potential as both thought leader and prac- edged these orthogonal dimensions implicitly tice leader in the wider society. We take seri- (i.e., in the form of the originality and utility ously Katz and Kahn’s (1966) observation that criteria), but the de facto outcome has been no- organizations and institutions can be viewed as tably more attention to the originality criterion. fulfilling various societal roles, and we hold to We believe an orientation toward prescience the ideal that academia is charged with the would enhance our potential for grander scope responsibility of fulfilling both maintenance in making theoretical contributions. and adaptive roles in society. Our assessment of the current criteria for judging theoretical con- DISCUSSION tribution, however, has led us to conclude that we have not enacted our adaptive role as well Precisely what constitutes a theoretical con- as we could. For that reason our approach to tribution in organization and management stud- making a contribution to theory in a paper about ies is a vexing question that cannot be an- theoretical contribution is to suggest a renewed swered definitively, although it does seem to and recursive consideration of the practice ele- have a conventional answer—for example, “The ment for theory development, in part by suggest- notion of contribution—like many other abstract ing that authors adopt an orientation toward concepts, such as quality or truth—is somewhat prescience as an avenue not only to improve our subjective and can only be assessed in the con- relevance to practice but also to enhance our text of each unique manuscript” (Rynes, 2002: influence in society. 311). Our initial approach to addressing this question was to review the existing literature Huff (1999) memorably characterized research and provide a synthesis of current views. That and writing as a series of multidimensional con- synthesis suggests that theoretical contribution versations. To get the most out of each of these presently has two germane dimensions, origi- conversations, she counseled that we scholars nality (classified as either incremental or reve- consider four guiding questions. Our concern latory) and utility (scientific and/or pragmatic with importance for practice, foresight, and sensegiving has implications for each of these

2011 Corley and Gioia 27 questions: (1) “Which conversations should I tended to turn us into a closed community con- participate in?” (those that will make the great- ducting a dialogue with ourselves (Miller, est difference for science and practice); (2) “Who Greenwood, & Prakash, 2009), which implies that are the important ‘conversants’?” (scholars and we have unwittingly focused some of the best practitioners); (3) “What are scholars talking minds in the world on a sphere too small for about now?” (answer this question mainly for their capacity for greater contribution. We can- the purpose of discerning a point of departure not be a closed community if our intent is to for tomorrow’s question); and (4) “What are the influence current and future organization stud- most interesting things I can add to the conver- ies and practice (which should be our intent, sation?” (those that direct conversation toward given our adaptive role in society). what needs to be known for the present and the future). We are a professional field (Adler, 2006; Pfef- fer & Fong, 2002). Rather than downplaying the If we attend to the overarching message con- importance of pragmatic contribution, we veyed by the relevance of practice and pre- should celebrate it by formally bringing that science to our theorizing, it encourages us as dimension more prominently into our judgment theorists to raise our own awareness of the lim- structures and processes. We need to focus more itations of our historical ways of thinking and on contributions of a grander scope by including suggests viable grounds for reconsidering how utility for practice in our assessments of theory. we might think more broadly about our most To date, our most influential (and most highly important activity— generating new theory with cited) theories (e.g., macrolevel theories, such as scope (i.e., theory that contains both scientific new institutional theory, resource dependence and pragmatic usefulness). Thinking in such theory, contingency theory, agency theory, and terms also encourages us to be a bit more intel- transaction cost theory; meso theories, such as lectually adventurous. As Mintzberg has noted, social capital and organizational identity and “If there is no generalizing beyond the data, no organizational learning; and microlevel theo- theory. No theory, no insight. And if no insight, ries, such as equity theory, procedural justice why do research?” (2005: 361). We would add that theory, goal theory, and prospect theory) have if theory does not have the potential for foresight been formulated for scholars but nonetheless and for changing the conversation, why do the- have major pragmatic implications that expand ory building? Our charge, then, is to become their scope (see Adler & Kwon, 2002; Benner & more expansive in our theorizing, to work to Tushman, 2003; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Ol- infuse our theorizing with significance for prac- iver, 1991; Reed & DeFillippi, 1990; and Ring & tice—present and future—and to “give sense” to Van de Ven, 1994, for AMR articles we believe wider communities within society about the rel- exemplify this notion of scope). How do we get evance of our theoretical work. such scope? By thinking in a more encompass- ing fashion about what we ought to be doing as On Practice theorists. One avenue for doing so is to pursue a practice view of knowledge generation (i.e., the- If we embrace the idea that we are scholars ory development) in the venerable philosophical charged with the responsibility of generating tradition of American pragmatism. and disseminating useful knowledge, then the notion of utility simply must extend beyond the Our arguments in this paper resonate with implicitly accepted idea that “useful for theory those in a recent spate of articles focused on the development” is the sole criterion of conse- issue of balancing methodological rigor and quence and begin to account for relevance to practical relevance in empirical management practice in a much more substantive manner. research (see the “Editor’s Forum” in volume 50, Kilduff notes that “the route to good theory leads issue 4, of the Academy of Management Journal not through gaps in the literature but through an and the “Editor’s Choice” section in volume 18, engagement with problems in the world” (2006: issue 4, of the Journal of Management Inquiry). 252). This sort of observation means that we All address the general question of how busi- must begin to “choose our theories according to ness schools can better “pursue fundamental how useful they are, not how true they are” understanding of phenomena with the goal of (Mintzberg, 2005: 356). Our current tradition has tackling major real-world problems” (Tushman & O’Reilly, 2007: 769). Unfortunately, an implicit

28 Academy of Management Review January assumption in much of this debate appears to be proposing that we begin by generating practical that scholarly journals that favor theoretical de- facts “that can inform us as to what we need a velopment eschew pragmatic relevance—a be- theory for” (2007: 1349). Of course, we theorists lief seemingly based in the peculiar assumption are not necessarily attuned to the complex dy- that theoretical contribution and pragmatic rel- namics of the organizational world, and we evance are somehow incompatible (see Tush- could use some help in picking up the weak man & O’Reilly, 2007, for an exception). They are signals (Shoemaker & Day, 2009) that suggest not; theoretical contribution and pragmatic rel- areas ripe for theoretical development. Penn evance clearly can and sometimes do work State’s Smeal College of Business publishes a hand in hand. There is nothing about the nature periodic “Early Indications” electronic newslet- of either theory or practice that prevents them ter written by a practitioner-academic who from being served simultaneously (cf. Gulati, keeps his antennae tuned to the business envi- 2007). Ultimately, we believe the dimensions of ronment. Similarly, the School of Information originality and utility/scope can come together Science and Technology’s “Institute for Global to produce theories that make a difference for Prescience” is run by a “Professor of Practice” science and practice. The question is simply (similar to the thirty-person foresight staff at whether we as an academic discipline can Mercedes-Benz’s Society and Technology Re- change our own practices to better account for search Group). There also are organizations that the issues and problems central to the organi- are attuned to future trends, such as the Institute zations we study. We believe that achieving for the Future (iftf.org), the McKinsey Global In- scope in our theorizing should be an institu- stitute (mckinsey.com/mgi), and Deloitte’s Cen- tional goal for our field. ter for the Edge (Deloitte, 2009). Each of these early-warning systems signals issue and prob- On Prescience lem domains in need of conceptual development and raises the possibility that even the way we Those from outside academia reading our the- structure ourselves to generate and disseminate oretical work might reasonably conclude that theory may need to change. we have a rather impoverished view of what constitutes a contribution if we emphasize Our view of prescience, however, encourages mainly clever insights and intellectual useful- scholars to become not only early sensemakers ness. As Polzer et al. note, “The failure of busi- but also early sensegivers—that is, not only to ness school research to either anticipate or see the coming wave but to attempt to shape the deeply understand some of the most fundamen- conceptual conversation by influencing the pre- tal challenges of our times threatens the legiti- mises on which the conversation is predicated macy of our enterprise” (2009: 280). In a turbulent (Simon, 1959, 1991). Framing matters for creating era of organizational ambiguity and complexity, influence, but we as a field have drawn the a key task is to try to be prescient about what is boundaries of our intended influence so nar- important to theorize about—and such pre- rowly that we have unintentionally abdicated science will undoubtedly lead us to focus on our societal leadership responsibilities. A focus problem domains with significant import for fu- on foresight also represents a way of helping to ture practice. Relatedly, Kilduff, citing Lakatos achieve societal influence without the polemics (1970), notes that one of the “important criteria implied in Pfeffer’s (1993) AMR article (a Best for evaluating theory is the extent to which it Article), which essentially suggests that we runs ahead of existing empirical research in should dispense with multiparadigm ap- terms of alerting us to research opportunities proaches to organization study so that we can hitherto unanticipated” (2006: 252–253). To this achieve the kind of paradigm consensus associ- observation we would add that our theorizing ated with other fields that ostensibly have been should not just be running ahead of empirical more successful at garnering resources. An ori- research but, rather, should be anticipating entation toward prescience implies that regard- coming conceptual domains in need of theory less of theoretical approach, so long as that ap- and research. proach is attuned to identifying or anticipating theoretically and pragmatically relevant future Hambrick, in his critique of our field’s overem- problem domains, the desired societal influence phasis on theory, agrees with Helfat (2007) in is more likely to follow. An orientation toward or

2011 Corley and Gioia 29 at least a sensitivity to prescience as an at- veloping more pragmatically useful (and per- tribute of theoretical contribution does not haps even prescient) theoretical contributions to merely constitute an addition to a “theory of match the shifting expectations of journals. If we theoretical contribution”; it also changes the do not soon change our scholarly traditions in way we think about our traditional notions of ways that enhance theoretical relevance to contribution itself. Admittedly, this orientation practice and our sensegiving potential to the makes the practice of theory generation more wider audiences, then we will continue to un- challenging because it forces us out of our intel- derperform our adaptive role in society and con- lectual comfort zone, but then maturation (even demn ourselves to increasing irrelevance and as a field) is never an easy undertaking. diminishing influence in describing, explaining, understanding, and improving organizations Implications for Our Practice and their management. Miller (2007) refers to the “straightjacket” many REFERENCES top-tier journals put on authors that restricts the notion of contribution to “topics that fit neatly Abrahamson, E. 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: The within today’s popular theories and allow the de- diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Man- velopment and tweaking of those theories” (Miller agement Review, 16: 586 – 612. et al., 2009: 278). DiMaggio (1995) notes the extent to which the “cultural resonance” of theories affects Adler, N. J. 2006. The arts and leadership: Now that we can do their receptivity (i.e., the degree to which a given anything, what will we do? Academy of Management theory aligns with the cultural beliefs of the time Learning & Education, 5: 466 – 499. and of the scholarly audience for the theory). As gatekeepers for the most desired and valued out- Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a come in our academic pursuits (published arti- new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27: cles), journal editors will obviously have decisive 17– 40. influence on the likelihood any change will be implemented. If the editorial teams of our top-tier Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. 2007. A Faustian bargain? The journals continue to reward only those papers growth of management and its relationship with re- demonstrating theoretical contributions that are lated disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, scientifically but not pragmatically useful, little 50: 1304 –1322. will change in the way authors practice the devel- opment of theory. We have experienced this in our Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: West- own attempts to focus our theory development on view Press. the pragmatic aspects of a phenomenon, as evi- denced by the following reviewer comment con- Anderson, C. 2010. In the next Industrial Revolution, atoms cerning one of the authors’ recent manuscripts are the new bits, Wired, 18(2): 59 – 67. that attempted a melding of academic and prac- titioner voices in the paper: “Your narrative at Barley, S. R., Meyer, G. W., & Gash, D. C. 1988. Cultures of times sounded like a practitioner rendition.” Al- culture: Academics, practitioners and the pragmatics of though our author’s reply attempted to explain normative control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: (and perhaps educate) the reviewer on the value of 24 – 60. a pragmatic aspect to theory building, it remains to be seen whether this reviewer will be convinced Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. 2010. The construction and con- of the wisdom of trying to bring convergence to tributions of “implications for practice”: What’s in them academic and practitioner views. and what might they offer? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9: 100 –117. If, however, journal editors become more open to contributions that demonstrate originality Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. What makes and scope (scientific ϩ pragmatic usefulness) management research interesting and why does it mat- and encourage these dimensions in guidelines ter? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 9 –15. to authors and reviewers, then reviewers will begin to shift how they assess theoretical con- Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, explora- tribution. Authors will then be rewarded for de- tion, and process management: The productivity di- lemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28: 238 –256. Bennis, W. 2003. On becoming a leader (revised ed.). Cam- bridge, MA: Perseus. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5): 1–9. Bergh, D. 2003. From the editors: Thinking strategically about contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 135–136.

30 Academy of Management Review January Biggart, N. W., & Delbridge, R. 2004. Systems of exchange. George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. 2006. Academy of Management Review, 29: 28 – 49. Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Man- Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. 2008. Management agement Review, 31: 347–365. innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33: 825– 845. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Brief, A. 2003. Editor’s comments: AMR—The often misunder- Learning & Education, 4: 75–91. stood journal. Academy of Management Review, 28: 7– 8. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sense- Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 2001. Knowledge and organization: giving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Manage- A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12: ment Journal, 12: 443– 458. 198 –213. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Fabbri, T. 2002. Revising the past Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). 2003. (while thinking in the future perfect tense). Journal of Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a Organizational Change Management, 16: 622– 634. new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on Chen, M. 1996. Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Manage- 584 – 602. ment Review, 21: 100 –134. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical Conlon, E. 2002. Editor’s comments. Academy of Manage- analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy ment Review, 27: 489 – 492. of Management Review, 17: 183–211. Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: Gjelten, T. 2009. Pentagon, CIA eye new threat: Climate The generative dance between organizational knowl- change. NPR.org. December 14, http://www.npr.org/ edge and organizational knowing. Organization Sci- templates/story/story.php?storyIdϭ121352495. ence, 10: 381– 400. Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. 1959. Higher education in busi- Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. 1993. A review and an ness. New York: Columbia University Press. integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Man- agement Review, 18: 621– 656. Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. 1997. Equifinality: Functional equiv- alence in organization design. Academy of Manage- Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. 1999. An organi- ment Review, 22: 403– 428. zational learning framework: From intuition to institu- tion. Academy of Management Review, 24: 522–537. Gronn, P. C. 1983. Talk as work: The accomplishment of school administration. Administrative Science Quar- Cummings, L. L., & Frost, P. J. (Eds.). 1985. Publishing in the terly, 28: 1–21. organizational sciences. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Gulati, R. 2007. Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary span- Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role ners: The rigor-relevance debate in management re- in managerial decision making. Academy of Manage- search. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 775–782. ment Review, 32: 33–54. Hambrick, D. C. 1994. 1993 Presidential address: What if the Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Philosophy of Social Academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Science, 1: 309 –344. Review, 19: 11–16. Deloitte. 2009. http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/article/ Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists cee9509246d52210VgnVCM200000bb42f00aRCRD.htm. and turns, and lessons learned. In K. G. Smith & M. A. New York: Center for Edge Innovation. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development: 109 –127. New York: Oxford Univer- Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry sity Press. Holt. Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. 1949. Knowing and the known. Bos- theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Manage- ton: Beacon Press. ment Journal, 50: 1346 –1352. DiMaggio, P. J. 1995. Comments on “What theory is not.” Helfat, C. E. 2007. Stylized facts, empirical research and Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 391–396. theory development in management. Strategic Organi- zation, 5: 185–192. Dollinger, M. J. 1990. The evolution of collective strategies in fragmented industries. Academy of Management Re- Hitt, M. A., & Smith, K. G. 2005. Introduction: The process of view, 15: 266 –285. developing management theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of Dubin, R. 1978. Theory building (revised ed.). New York: Free theory development: 1– 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Press. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2005. Economics lan- Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self- guage and assumptions: How theories can become self- categorization processes in organizational contexts. fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30: 8 –24. Academy of Management Review, 25: 121–140. Ford, C. M., & Gioia, D. A. (Eds.). 1995. Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

2011 Corley and Gioia 31 Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Miller, D. 2007. Paradigm prisons, or in praise of atheoretic Oaks, CA: Sage. research. Strategic Organization, 5: 177–184. Huff, A. S. 2000. 1999 Presidential address: Changes in or- Miller, D., Greenwood, R., & Prakash, R. 2009. What hap- ganizational knowledge production. Academy of Man- pened to organization theory? Journal of Management agement Review, 25: 288 –293. Inquiry, 18: 273–279. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2005. Social capital, networks, Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Re- soft practice of managing and management develop- view, 30: 146 –165. ment. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. James, W. 1907. Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways Mintzberg, H. 2005. Developing theory about the develop- of thinking. New York: Longmans, Green, and Company. ment of theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory develop- James, W. 1909. The meaning of truth. New York: Longmans, ment: 355–372. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green, and Company. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the Behavior, 22: 31– 42. principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853– 886. Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organiza- tional behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31: Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better theory: 386 – 408. Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26: 530 –547. Kahn, W. A., & Kram, K. E. 1994. Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational consequences. Acad- Morgan, G. 1983. Beyond method: Strategies for social re- emy of Management Review, 19: 17–50. search. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kaplan, A. 1964. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. 1980. The case for qualitative behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler. research. Academy of Management Review, 5: 491–500. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1966. The social psychology of organiza- Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2007. The intersection of tions. New York: Wiley. organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: At- tempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Kerlinger, F. N. 1973. Foundations of behavioral research. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 821– 847. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual Kilduff, M. 2006. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Acad- capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of emy of Management Review, 31: 252–255. Management Review, 23: 242–266. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chi- Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pro- cago: University of Chicago Press. cesses. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179. Lakatos, I. 1970. Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a col- York: Cambridge University Press. lective capability in distributed organizing. Organiza- tion Science, 13: 249 –273. Lakhani, K. R., & Panetta, J. A. 2007. The principles of distrib- uted innovation. Innovations, 2(3): 97–112. Palmer, D., Dick, B., & Freiburger, N. 2009. Rigor and rele- vance in organization studies. Journal of Management Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theo- Inquiry, 18: 265–272. retical papers. New York: Harper & Row. Pentland, B. T. 1992. Organizing moves in software support Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more com- hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 527–548. prehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25: 760 –776. Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent vari- Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepre- able. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599 – 620. neurial orientation construct and linking it to perfor- mance. Academy of Management Review, 21: 135–172. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Manage- Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. 2007. Triggers and enablers of ment Learning & Education, 1: 78 –95. sensegiving in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 57– 84. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29: 635– Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A 652. conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Manage- Pierson, F. C. 1959. The education of American businessmen. ment Review, 33: 404 – 424. New York: Harper and Row. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An inte- Polzer, J. T., Gulati, R., Khurana, R., & Tushman, M. L. 2009. grative model of organizational trust. Academy of Man- Crossing boundaries to increase relevance in organiza- agement Review, 20: 709 –794. tional research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18: 280 – 286. McGrath, R. G. 1999. Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” Review, 24: 13–30.

32 Academy of Management Review January a useful perspective for strategic management re- agement: The process of theory development. Oxford: search? Academy of Management Review, 26: 22– 40. Oxford University Press. Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers Staw, B. M. 1984. Organizational behavior: A review and to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. reformulation of the field’s outcome variables. Annual Academy of Management Review, 15: 88 –102. Review of Psychology, 35: 627– 666. Rindova, V. P. 2008. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. ASQ forum: What theory is when you are new to the game. Academy of Manage- not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371–384. ment Review, 33: 300 –303. Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G. 1982. Necessary properties of Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental pro- relevant research: Lessons from recent criticisms of the cesses of cooperative interorganizational relationships. organizational sciences. Academy of Management Re- Academy of Management Review, 19: 90 –118. view, 7: 345–352. Rousseau, D., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Trevin˜ o, L. K. 1992. The social effects of punishment in orga- Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Or- nizations: A justice perspective. Academy of Manage- ganizational Behavior, 22: 1–13. ment Review, 17: 647– 676. Rynes, S. 2002. From the editors: Some reflections on contri- Tsui, A. 2006. Contextualization in Chinese management bution. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 311–313. research. Managerial and Organization Review, 2: 1–13. Scho¨ n, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 2007. Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for doc- Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, R. L., & Courtney, H. G. 2007. Per- toral programs and faculty development. Academy of ceived causes and solution of the translation problem in Management Journal, 50: 769 –774. management research. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 50: 249 –266. Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14: Shoemaker, P. J. H., & Day, G. S. 2009. How to make sense of 486 – 489. weak signals. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(3): 81– 89. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining develop- ment and change in organizations. Academy of Manage- Simon, H. A. 1959. Theories of decision-making in economics ment Review, 20: 510 –540. and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49: 253–283. Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Simon, H. A. 1991. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 125–134. Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribu- Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management tion? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490 – 495. Review, 32: 273–292. Whetten, D. A. 1990. Editor’s comments: Personal comments. Smith, K. G. 1997. Editor’s comments. Academy of Manage- Academy of Management Review, 15: 578 –583. ment Review, 22: 7–10. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (Eds.). 2005. Great minds in man- a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Man- agement Review, 18: 293–321. Kevin G. Corley ([email protected]) is an associate professor of management in the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University and an associate editor of the Academy of Management Journal. He received his Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University. His research interests focus on sensemaking and organizing pro- cesses, especially in relation to organizational change and identity, image, identifi- cation, and knowledge. Dennis A. Gioia ([email protected]) is the Klein Professor of Management in the Smeal College of Business at The Pennsylvania State University. His doctoral degree is from Florida State. Previously he worked as an engineer for Boeing Aerospace at Cape Kennedy during the Apollo program and for Ford as corporate recall coordinator. Current theory/research focuses on the ways in which identity and image relate to sensemaking, sensegiving, and organizational change.

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.