Skim02_Challenges_building_Okhuysen_Bonardi

஽ Academy of Management Review 2011, Vol. 36, No. 1, 6–11. EDITORS’ COMMENTS: THE CHALLENGES OF BUILDING THEORY BY COMBINING LENSES The Academy of Management Review pub- indeed true that using multiple perspectives to lishes novel theories providing explanations for examine organizations allows us to sustain a phenomena for which no good models exist. And healthy critique on the world and practice of management is a rich context in which to de- management (Currie, Knights, & Starkey, velop theory—a subject whose dimensions are 2010), the need to develop theoretical perspec- amenable to examination through a variety of tives combining multiple lenses has become perspectives. As a field, we routinely use in- pressing. sights from sociology, psychology, economics, law, political science, communication, and A second reason multiple-lens explanations many other disciplines to develop explanations are increasing in importance is that they can that help us understand specific aspects of man- respond to the tendency to create isolated silos agerial issues. But we also regularly combine of knowledge that reflect specialization. Schol- lenses, from within and outside the manage- ars have drawn increasing attention to the dan- ment discipline, to further our understanding. In ger, calling for an end to this “Tower of Babel” these comments we highlight some of the great (Burrell, 1996), which may limit the development benefits and some of the challenges that stem of management as a field (Pfeffer, 1993). Multi- from developing theories building on multiple ple-lens perspectives can help bridge silos lenses. within and across disciplines: by highlighting areas of overlap or complementarity, as well as More than other “classical” disciplines in so- sites of contradiction, a multiple-lens perspec- cial science, management research uses combi- tive can lead to their theoretical integration or nations of ideas or blends of theories to advance resolution. Clearly, from this perspective theory new insights and develop novel hypotheses that development that builds on multiple lenses has can ultimately be tested empirically. As a prac- an important role to play (Gioa & Pitre, 1990). tical field, management deserves attention from a multiple-lens perspective because the phe- The results of approaches that combine mul- nomena within it can often be explained using tiple lenses within our field are also impressive: different theoretical approaches. And it is per- many rich and useful theories in our discipline haps obvious to note that the complexity of account for multiple perspectives simulta- management as a setting often requires expla- neously. As an example, consider transaction nations that are matched in complexity— cost explanations of vertical integration, strate- explanations that can be built from combina- gic alliances, or firms’ internal organization. As tions of perspectives to provide answers that are described by Williamson (1985), transaction cost uniquely suited to management. economics draws on various lenses, such as those developed by economists like Hayek (1945) In our opinion, the need to develop multiple- interested in economic changes, on governance lens explanations in the field of management as described by theorists like Barnard (1938), on continues to increase. One reason is that the bounded rationality as defined and developed ability to reflect the reality of management in by Simon (1957), or on the institutionalist per- our theorizing is important as we endeavor to spective of Commons (1932). become a more relevant field. Calls for “schol- arship that matters” (Ozbilgin, 2010) and rele- Areas of new relevance in management can vance to our field (Cummings, 2008) seem more also benefit from explanations that combine important today as we witness how manage- theoretical lenses. For instance, to understand ment decisions in private companies and gov- how moral judgments can form or shift in orga- ernment agencies have negatively affected nizations, researchers are combining knowl- millions of people around the world. If it is edge from diverse areas like philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and sociology. 6 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 Editors’ Comments 7 Knowledge from these disciplines on the role of instance, microeconomics and psychology are emotion in cognition and reasoning, and social both partly concerned with explaining how and influences on emotion, is essential to under- why individuals act in particular ways. Their stand moral judgment development (Warren & combination, then, might help enrich our under- Smith-Crowe, 2008). The result is that our under- standing of individual behavior by increasing standing of a problem that has not traditionally the complexity of our theories to match the em- received attention within management can be pirical challenge. In another example, leader- enhanced through the inclusion of these per- member exchange (LMX) and resource theories spectives in our thinking. of social exchange are typically used to explain more distant phenomena—namely, the impact Similarly, important areas of research inquiry of leadership on the members of an organization have been opened by bridging different theoret- and outcomes such as business friendships ical lenses. Behavioral economics and behav- (Ingram & Zou, 2008). For us this reflects a larger ioral finance are a case in point. By using cog- distance between these two lenses. A recent nitive and emotional factors to understand piece in AMR, however, has shown how they can individual decisions, these new fields combine be integrated to explain what leaders can ob- theoretical insights from both economics and tain from their subordinates (Wilson, Sin, & Con- psychology to advance our understanding of in- lon, 2010). dividuals and collectives (Rabin, 1998). The de- velopment of these approaches has been ex- A second dimension is the degree of compat- tremely rapid over the last decade and has ibility between the underlying assumptions of generated many new insights and new research the lenses being combined. By “compatibility of projects (Subrahmanyam, 2007). assumptions” we mean the degree to which the- ories that are brought together rely on similar or However, developing theories that build on dissimilar individual decision-making pro- multiple overarching approaches also presents cesses, organizational mechanisms, or other some clear challenges, which we see repeatedly properties in the development of their explana- in submissions to AMR. In the remainder of this tions. We consider this compatibility a contin- piece we address some of the common develop- uum rather than a categorical statement. If two mental challenges we see in manuscripts seek- overarching theoretical lenses have common ing to combine theoretical lenses. As we ad- underlying assumptions, we consider them here dress these, we consider the simplest case: as compatible; however, when assumptions are combining two perspectives to build theory. very different between the theoretical lenses, Moreover, we organize our thinking on the basis we consider them as rather incompatible. From of two dimensions that describe the relationship the examples above, for instance, LMX and re- between the lenses that are combined: their source theories of social exchange share similar proximity in terms of the phenomena they ad- assumptions about individuals’ behavior. In dress and the congruence of their underlying contrast, the underlying assumptions about the assumptions. behavior of individuals are quite different be- tween microeconomics and psychology: one TWO DIMENSIONS OF RELEVANCE FOR THE generally builds on assumptions of rationality COMBINATION OF THEORETICAL LENSES whereas the other stresses the role of behavioral and cognitive explanations, indicating a more In preparing these comments, we examined challenging task for researchers trying to bring successful manuscripts that combine different them together (Caplan, 2003). theoretical lenses, seeking to identify some of their common characteristics. In our discussions In manuscripts that we receive, these two un- we identified two dimensions underlying the re- derlying dimensions are typically elaborated lationship between theories that are central in with different depth. Authors occasionally have the development of these manuscripts. One di- difficulty establishing the proximity or distance mension we found is the proximity of the theo- of the phenomena that the lenses explain. How- retical lenses that authors seek to combine. By ever, many of the papers we review do not go as “proximity” we mean the conceptual distance far as necessary in stating the assumptions be- that exists between the phenomena that the hind the different approaches or discussing the lenses address in their original conception. For compatibility or incompatibility of these as-

8 Academy of Management Review January sumptions. But deepening the discussion of as- by explicating combinations of variables or pro- sumptions is important because it can be the cesses that have not been examined before. starting point of new conversations by making However, they face a particular type of chal- them more precise and searching for differences lenge in the review process: articulating suffi- or compatibilities. cient novelty and depth to constitute a signifi- cant theoretical contribution. Because of the FOUR MANUSCRIPT TYPES closeness of the phenomena and underlying as- sumptions, we have seen that authors need to go It is appropriate to explicitly note that proxim- “the extra mile” and be convincing about why ity between the phenomena explained and com- combining the two theories is valuable. For in- patibility in underlying assumptions are not re- stance, a manuscript that combines two theories quirements for the successful combination of that are already part of our canon into a new theoretical lenses. Instead, these two dimen- framework may be novel if the combination sions define four different types of manuscripts, yields insights that each perspective alone can- each of which presents particular types of chal- not provide. However, if the manuscript is only lenges for authors in their development and the result of a straightforward combination, generation of new theory. We examine each of such as the prediction of simple interaction these four types of manuscripts, highlighting terms or the addition of one more variable to an critical aspects and articulating some of the already robust explanatory model, the theoreti- challenges we have noted in our experience cal advance may be more appropriate for empir- handling manuscripts that are submitted to ical testing and for publication in a journal de- AMR. We hope that identifying these challenges voted to empirical development. will guide authors on how to focus their atten- tion to prevent or avoid missteps in the manu- One way to address this challenge is to ex- script-crafting process. ploit the similarity in phenomena and underly- ing assumptions fully. Taking advantage of the Close Areas of Research, Compatible close fit between theories in this situation may Underlying Assumptions mean, for instance, expanding authors’ area of interest or concern. Enlarging the scope of a In our experience the most common combina- manuscript to encompass a broader slice of the tion in AMR manuscripts is one where the theo- phenomena and their assumptions can allow ries share compatible underlying assumptions authors to more readily articulate a theoretical and address substantially similar (or the same) contribution, because a broadening of the phe- phenomena. The combination of institutional nomena can help identify larger gaps, allowing and resource-dependence theories to advance a for a larger and more compelling question and better understanding of stakeholder manage- contribution. ment is an example of this (Oliver, 1991). Be- cause of the similarities between the theories Far Apart Areas of Research, Compatible being combined—they both build on assump- Underlying Assumptions tions regarding the strong influence of social pressures and power on individual decision A second type of manuscript that combines making—the purpose for their combination is perspectives to articulate new theory brings to- relatively straightforward to articulate. As a gether theories that, while not addressing the consequence, manuscripts of this type can offer same phenomenon, share compatible underly- an elegant approach to the development of orig- ing assumptions, indicating a source of fit be- inal theory, and, perhaps not surprisingly, many tween them. Using resource theories of social of the manuscripts we see at AMR fit into this exchange to enrich our understanding of LMX category. (Wilson et al., 2010), as in our earlier example, is an instance of this type of manuscript because Manuscripts such as these may also be valu- the theories being combined share similar able because they can capitalize strongly on assumptions. existing knowledge, allowing authors to elabo- rate phenomena in greater depth. These combi- One challenge that we note in handling nations typically give greater nuance to theory manuscripts such as these is the difficulty au- thors have in establishing a credible purpose for

2011 Editors’ Comments 9 the combination, leaving it ambiguous and un- critical facets. New attempts to redefine agency certain. In these submissions our impression is theory—particularly by incorporating a legal that authors become seduced by the appeal of perspective—are a good example of this type of the combination and work hard to fully explore theorizing, combining approaches in close areas the joint perspective and its attributes. However, but with many incompatible assumptions (Lan & this exploration can lack a purpose or objective. Heracleous, 2010). Also, explanations of group Without a question to answer or a clear theoret- behavior may typically focus on questions of ical insight to deliver, a manuscript like this temporality, group process, or the nature of the remains unfocused and has limited value. In task. Uniting theoretical streams that may have extreme cases we see authors arguing that the incompatible underlying assumptions but that combination of perspectives is novel on the seek to consolidate our understanding of a com- grounds that such a combination has not been mon phenomenon is valuable to our field (see done before, but this is insufficient motivation. Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001, as an exam- Here we recommend that authors explore differ- ple). These examples show that these manu- ent empirical questions that may be addressed scripts are often motivated by the desire to de- by their approach. An empirical question in this velop more robust and comprehensive case is valuable in two ways, helping authors explanations for empirical questions that have ground their theoretical development while pro- traditionally been addressed from multiple but viding an appropriate justification for it. exclusive lenses. Another challenge we sometimes observe in The challenge that we most commonly see in these submissions, where the underlying as- handling these manuscripts is the difficulty au- sumptions are compatible but the phenomena thors have in bridging the theoretical perspec- that the lenses address are distant, is related to tives in a way that forms a coherent explanation the articulation of a broader theoretical contri- for the phenomenon under consideration. Be- bution, one that goes beyond a motivating em- cause theoretical perspectives that address a pirical question. Here we recommend that au- particular question are sometimes in competi- thors force a more detailed consideration of tion with one another and develop in an isolated these assumptions—that they consider, for in- manner, bridges between them may be espe- stance, the effects of relaxing a key assumption cially hard to craft. But the integration of theo- in the theory, in effect asking “what if” ques- ries is a central element of these explanations, tions. Similarities across underlying assump- and a deeper understanding of the phenomenon tions can also be useful to develop and articu- relies on the resolution of inconsistencies be- late the theoretical boundary conditions of their tween theoretical approaches. For authors, one ideas. The degree of sharedness of underlying path to take in the elaboration of these argu- assumptions between theories gives guidance ments is to recognize, initially, the strengths and about where some of the limitations of new the- limits of each perspective in isolation, which ory may emerge. For instance, a natural theoret- can depend on the realism of the underlying ical boundary condition occurs as that underly- assumptions. Authors can also then identify ing assumption erodes or disappears, enabling those areas of the phenomenon where the theo- ongoing discussion. In effect, scholarly conver- retical approaches are not incompatible but, sations can emerge from discussing the plausi- rather, support one another. Establishing the bility of common assumptions, the potential re- scope and boundaries of each theory can also laxation of underlying assumptions, the give authors a sense of the places where expla- extension to related phenomena, and so on. nations are lacking—where the development of isolated perspectives on a phenomenon is a par- Close Areas of Research, Incompatible ticular weakness. It is in these places where the Underlying Assumptions greatest theoretical leverage of a new approach can be found—where gaps in our understanding A third type of manuscript that combines the- are filled through the combination of perspec- oretical perspectives brings together explana- tives. These are also the places where a theoret- tions that share phenomena of interest, but the ical contribution is easier to identify, since it is approach uses different underlying assump- possible to expand our understanding through tions regarding the processes, mechanisms, or

10 Academy of Management Review January the combination in a way that each perspective date this type of combination is a prerequisite. alone is unable to do. In the transaction cost example, for instance, what allowed Williamson to later develop what We also feel that this type of combination of he called a “theory of contracts” (which incorpo- theories demands that authors clearly identify rates different perspectives and which he saw and state their own ontological position and use as an alternative to theories of choice, such as it as a driver of the combination of the two the- standard microeconomics) was the framework ories. In other words, combining theories with originally developed by Ronald Coase (1937), in less compatible underlying assumptions im- which markets and firms were seen as alterna- plies that the two approaches will not be placed tive institutional modes of organizing. Without “on equal footing” but, rather, that one will be in this framework, incorporating law and various the foreground and will be enriched by the per- types of contracts in a theory of organizations spective provided by the other. In the example of may not have been possible. The lack of an behavioral economics cited before, for instance, integrative framework can prevent authors from the combination is based on the premise that pushing forward this type of theory develop- economic models can be improved and be made ment, one that incorporates areas of research more realistic by including psychological mech- that are far apart and for which assumptions are anisms and biases. But the overall approach difficult to combine. remains focused on economic modeling. This is an important point because combining theories Of course, the second conversation—on the epis- does not imply that all theoretical approaches temological fit between the different lenses—is still have to be treated equally in the context of the- required in these instances. This requires a ory development. deep discussion of how underlying assumptions can be combined, and especially whether this Far Apart Areas of Research, Incompatible combination can really be achieved without Underlying Assumptions straining against logical impossibilities. More- over, the clear articulation of the fit between The last type of manuscript we consider is theories becomes important because readers that where there is great distance between the and reviewers cannot be expected to draw the phenomena the lenses examine and where the links that authors may observe, as might be the underlying assumptions appear incompatible. case in situations where either the phenomena This is likely the most difficult type of manu- or the underlying assumptions provide such an script to craft. However, such manuscripts are anchor or starting point. In this case the articu- valuable because they deliberately connect un- lation of new theory hinges on the ability of related areas of research through careful elab- authors to explain how seemingly disparate or oration of arguments. They may also be partic- unrelated theories fit together to form a coherent ularly valuable in helping explain areas of whole. management not explored previously, for which close theoretical antecedents may not be avail- CONCLUSION able. As mentioned earlier, transaction cost ex- planations of make-or-buy, vertical integration, A slow revolution is currently underway in strategic alliances, and other related organiza- social sciences: conceptual boundaries, differ- tional phenomena (Williamson, 1975) are good ences in assumptions, and separations between examples of this type of combination that build conversations, such as the ones between eco- on various lenses, including microeconomics, nomics and psychology, are being questioned. bounded rationality, and law. Because of our focus on exploring real-life prob- lems, we believe that management scholars The main challenge with this type of combi- have a key role to play in these developments. nation is that it requires two simultaneous dis- We have a formidable opportunity in front of us cussions: one occurs on the topic itself, but a to contribute to our field by taking down walls second one is also needed at an epistemological and building bridges between perspectives. level to determine how insights from one lens Many great theoretical developments and many can fit with the other. For the first discussion, new explanations for unexplained phenomena our experience is that developing an overarch- could follow, and we urge management scholars ing conceptual framework that can accommo-

2011 Editors’ Comments 11 to take up this challenge. Combining multiple Currie, G., Knights, D., & Starkey, K. 2010. Introduction: A theoretical lenses to develop new explanations post-crisis critical reflection on business schools. British of management phenomena and solve manage- Journal of Management, 21(Supplement): S1–S5. rial challenges will continue to be a critical as- pect of how research is conducted in our field. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15: However, authors must also make special ef- 584 – 602. forts in their attempts to combine theoretical lenses. The purpose of these comments has been Hayek, F. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American not only to highlight the gains that this type of Economic Review, 35: 519 –530. work has allowed but also to point out some of the common challenges that we observe through Ingram, P., & Zou, X. 2008. Business friendships. Research in our work as editors when authors are trying to Organizational Behavior, 28: 167–184. span the boundaries between different theories. We have stressed two dimensions that help de- Lan, L., & Heracleous, L. 2010. Rethinking agency theory: The fine the relationships between lenses that schol- view from law. Academy of Management Review, 35: ars should keep in mind as they try to combine 294 –314. them: the degree of compatibility of the under- lying assumptions and the distance between Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally phenomena in the original theories. By drawing based framework and taxonomy of team processes. attention to the challenges that particular types Academy of Management Review, 26: 356 –376. of combinations of theories produce, we hope authors can more easily and clearly respond to Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pro- them, enabling and enhancing the theory devel- cesses. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179. opment work they embark on. We urge authors to clearly specify assumptions and discuss their Ozbilgin, M. F. 2010. Scholarship of consequence: New direc- integration as the work advances. tions for the British Journal of Management. British Jour- nal of Management, 21: 1– 6. REFERENCES Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational Barnard, C. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, science: Paradigm development as a dependent vari- MA: Harvard University Press. able. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599 – 620. Burrell, G. 1996. Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, dis- Rabin, M. 1998. Psychology and economics. Journal of Eco- courses and genealogies of analysis. In S. R. Clegg, nomic Literature, 36: 11– 46. C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies: 642– 658. London: Sage. Simon, H. 1957. Administrative behavior. New York: McMillan. Caplan, B. 2003. Stigler-Becker versus Myer-Briggs: Why preference-based explanations are scientifically mean- Subrahmanyam, A. 2007. Behavioral finance: A review and ingful and empirically important. Journal of Economic synthesis. European Financial Management, 14: 12–29. Behavior & Organization, 50: 391– 405. Warren, D. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. Deciding what’s right: Coase, R. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: The role of external sanctions and embarrassment in 386 – 405. shaping moral judgments in the workplace. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 81–105. Commons, J. 1932. The problem of correlating law, economics and ethics. Wisconsin Law Review, 8: 3–26. Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press. Cummings, T. G. 2008. Introduction. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organization development: 1–10. Thousand Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capital- Oaks, CA: Sage. ism. New York: Free Press. Wilson, K., Sin, H., & Conlon, D. 2010. What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35: 358 –372. Gerardo Okhuysen Jean-Philippe Bonardi Associate Editors

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