How does the author describe organizational behavior?

Q Academy of Management Review 2018, Vol. 43, No. 4, 541–545. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0233

EDITORS’ COMMENTS: IS ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR OVERTHEORIZED?

but it falls short on the characteristic of accuracy (i.e., by relying on assumptions about rationality that have long been disproven). The field of OB, in contrast, can seem disorganized because it pri- oritizes theory about human nature that is both general and accurate, but it does so at the cost of simplicity (i.e., based on the recognition that greater accuracy in such theorizing entails a deeper understanding of what makes us tick).

We can furthermore observe how the trade-offs one might make with regard to the characteristics of simplicity and accuracy in our theorizing can reflect underlying views about what is important. For example, if one is interested in economies, industries, or organizations, then it is easy to justify giving them more attention at the expense of understanding people more accurately (for a critique of this perspective, see Felin, Foss, & Ployhart, 2015). Yet how would those interested in understanding how organizations can leverage their strategic capabilities respond if we were to treat these strategic differences with the same levels of simplicity as they might apply to people (e.g., based on the presumption that organizations cannot change; Hannan & Freeman, 1977)? We anticipate that they would view this as an oversimplification.

OB scholars tend to believe that an accurate understanding of people is vitally important for explaining myriad phenomena that can be criti- cal for organizations. Hence, we emphasize the need to consider the complexities underlying human nature that shape how people navigate the world more thoroughly, even at the expense of simplicity, if we are ever to truly understand the nature of organizations, industries, and econo- mies that people inevitably shape. This orienta- tion is also reflected by scholars interested in the microfoundations of business strategy who seek to identify the lower-level origins of firm perfor- mance and competitive advantage. From this perspective we contend that calls for the OB lit- erature to develop a central unifying theory to guide our account of human nature largely miss the point of what the field seeks to do.

Yet such criticisms do not miss the point en- tirely. Although focused theoretical accounts of

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.

One of the most common criticisms we have encountered regarding the domain of organi- zational behavior (OB) is that our field lacks a central unifying theory from which it can build. Critics argue that OB scholarship too often amounts to a disorganized hodgepodge of find- ings and that this potential disarray makes it difficult for the literature to advance. Their view is that rather than presenting a cohesive framework that can orient and guide OB research as a field, we instead have created a litany of constructs, models, and theories that remain disconnected from one another. Moreover, ongoing efforts in this domain seem to exacerbate this issue by proposing additional constructs, models, and theoretical perspectives that purport to differ so markedly from past work they should be consid- ered on their own terms. Such tendencies, in turn, often prompt criticisms that these constructs, models, and theories are too narrow (and, thus, fail to capture anything meaningful); that the field spends too much time proposing new theories relative to empirically testing the theories we al- ready have; and that these problems ultimately impede the extent to which our research can in- form practice.

ANALYZING THE CRITIQUE

We believe these concerns are both right and wrong. With respect to why such concerns may be wrong, we would first note that it is much easier to offer a central unifying theory when one is willing to gloss over reality. This can be understood by considering the “impostulate of theoretical sim- plicity,” formulated by Thorngate (1976) and elaborated by Weick (1979), which contends that it is impossible for a theory of social behavior to be simultaneously general, simple, and accurate. Weick (1979) conveyed this point by spacing these three characteristics equally around the face of a clock (see Figure 1) to underscore how any ex- planation that satisfies two of these characteris- tics is ultimately least able to satisfy the third. For example, one might consider theory in economics unified because it is grounded on assumptions about human nature that are general and simple,

541

542

Academy of Management Review October

FIGURE 1 Trade-offs Inherent in Theory

empirical findings and theoretical claims that are posited over time are ultimately consolidated into a broader and more cohesive theoretical argument (e.g., Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Nemeth, 1986; Trope & Liberman, 2010).

We can likewise identify many areas in OB that are ripe for this kind of theoretical consolidation. For example, one of the major topics in our field concerns the role of power in organizations. Yet a major gulf has emerged between management scholars who study power from a psychological perspective and those who study it from a socio- logical perspective. Thus, to the extent that the insights from a psychological perspective (pri- marily focused on individual cognitions and be- havior; e.g., Keltner et al., 2003) can differ from insights from a sociological perspective (focused on the implications of relational dependence; e.g., Kim, Pinkley, & Fragale, 2005), theoretical efforts to compare, contrast, and ultimately re- solve discrepancies between these views seem warranted.

There are also cases in which lines of research that purport to examine different topics—and thus largely ignore one another—ultimately inform similar phenomena and, hence, could benefit from some form of integration. A salient example of this situation can be found by comparing the conclusions from the large body of literature on task and relational conflict with the literature on employee voice. Specifically, the conflict litera- ture focusing on the implications of task and re- lationship conflict concludes that both types of conflict are detrimental to collective performance and should therefore be avoided. However, the literature on employee voice, which has been defined as “the discretionary provision of in- formation intended to improve organizational functioning to someone inside an organization with the perceived authority to act, even though such information may challenge and upset the status quo of the organization and its power holders” (Detert & Burris, 2007: 869), focuses on how such voice can be beneficial and suggests that it be promoted. Yet if employee voice does risk challenging and upsetting the status quo, it also seems likely to foster the kinds of conflict that have been found in the conflict literature to be detrimental. This kind of discrepancy regarding the potential benefits and costs of employee voice has been largely overlooked, in large part be- cause of the lack of theoretical dialogue between the conflict literature and voice literature, and it

General

93

12 11

1 10 2

Simple

84

75 6

Accurate

new phenomena that provide deep insights into what makes them novel and important are cer- tainly still valuable in OB, the field seems under- represented by efforts to integrate these theories into a cohesive whole. Far too often, scholars in our field seem preoccupied with making a case for why a phenomenon is completely different, and thereby in need of entirely new theory, rather than focusing on how the phenomenon might be in- tegrated with prior concepts, insights, theories, and applications. Thus, opportunities to identify commonalities, complementarities, and dispar- ities across theories in OB, management, and the social sciences are often neglected. And this lack of theoretical integration can result not only in an unnecessary bloat of theoretical arguments relative to the substantive insights they actually provide but also in greater difficulty identifying critical outcomes, as well as theories and frame- works that might most directly contribute to our understanding of those outcomes.

OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE THE FIELD

We believe there are opportunities to address these concerns. A general theme in science is that research-based knowledge grows until it reaches a level of great complexity at which point the po- larity shifts when a more cohesive, simpler ex- planation is provided that encompasses these fragmented findings and theories. From this per- spective it is possible that the current state of “overtheorization” in OB is simply a necessary step on the way to an eventual theoretical con- solidation. Indeed, we can see this ebb and flow occur in many areas of psychology, where myriad

2018 Editors’ Comments 543

illustrates the kind of opportunities that exist to make substantive theoretical contributions through more integrative efforts.

Moreover, some topics in the OB literature re- main surprisingly devoid of integrative theory, particularly in relation to the number of empirical papers and theoretical claims that have been published. A case in point can be found in the burgeoning literature on behavioral ethics, in which scholars have sought to move beyond classic philosophical views about how people should behave (e.g., Bentham, 1781; Kant, 1785) to investigate how people actually make ethical judgments. This shift is based on the recognition that people do not make ethical decisions ratio- nally based on abstract philosophical principles, and it has led to a range of notable findings. However, the specific theoretical perspectives underlying such findings are often quite different, with one set focusing on people’s efforts to ratio- nalize their intuitive gut reactions (Haidt, 2001), another set focusing on ethical appraisals (not of the act but) of what that act tells us about the ac- tor’s moral character (e.g., Uhlmann, Pizarro, & Diermeier, 2015), a third set focusing on ethical evaluations across multiple rather than single acts (Monin & Miller, 2001), and myriad other studies highlighting how ethical judgments can arise from factors ranging from moral disengage- ment (Bandura, 1990) to self-serving appraisals (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008) to lack of awareness (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011). Needless to say, readers of this literature would certainly benefit from more integrative theories that can help them make sense of these disparate ideas, consolidate these notions in a more cohesive whole, and thereby establish a broader and more robust foundation for subsequent empirical research.

A FEW RECOMMENDATIONS

Of course, addressing this call for more co- hesive theoretical explanations is not a simple task. It is easy to get overwhelmed by the litany of theoretical arguments that can pervade a given scholarly domain and by the task of reconciling their myriad idiosyncrasies. However, it is also the case that a handful of relatively straightfor- ward steps can be taken to facilitate this goal.

One step that we believe will help foster greater theoretical consolidation is for the field to heighten its focus on outcomes that clearly matter. This recommendation arises from the

observation that many theory paper submissions we have encountered at AMR seem driven by the effort to fill “gaps” in the literature. Such attempts can represent tempting opportunities to lay un- rivaled claim to a new line of inquiry and avoid the challenges of navigating more crowded scholarly discourse about phenomena that have received more scholarly attention. Yet the mere presence of a gap does not mean that filling it is necessarily important. Indeed, gaps sometimes exist precisely because there is little to be gained from filling them. Moreover, the fact that a phe- nomenon has received ample attention may ac- tually increase rather than decrease the need for integrative theory (as the aforementioned exam- ples we have offered can illustrate). Thus, we en- courage theorists to start from the premise that not all outcomes are equally important, and, like others before us (Lewin, 1951; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006), we urge theory development with a view to confronting problems that matter. By doing so we hope scholars in the field will shift more of their attention toward addressing sub- stantive questions and anomalies that persist in reality, particularly when prior theoretical ac- counts of such issues remain fragmented and in- consistent, rather than simply adding to the field’s already substantial list of purportedly “new” con- structs, additive models, and lines of inquiry.

Next, upon selecting this topic, we encourage theorists to take a broader view by exploring how a wide range of theoretical explanations might help inform it, even if those theories come from different bodies of literature (for a discussion of this process, see McDaniel & Gibson, 2012). By doing so scholars may discover that some of these theories only differ in appearance because they were developed within different contexts. And, through this recognition, scholars may ultimately consolidate these different theories into a more cohesive account of the phenomenon under in- vestigation. Alternatively, in cases where an evaluation of these theories reveals that they meaningfully differ and even provide the basis for contradictory predictions, such occasions provide natural opportunities for substantive theoretical resolution. Whether that is accomplished by making the case that one theory is simply more valid than the other, by identifying key modera- tors that can affect when each of these theoretical explanations is more likely to hold, or by ad- dressing their differences through some other means, such efforts can ultimately help reduce

544 Academy of Management Review October

the range of seemingly disparate theoretical ex- planations by addressing why such theoretical accounts might differ.

Finally, in the course of developing theory, we underscore the importance of doing so with an appropriate level of granularity—one that will best illuminate its intended contributions. Spe- cifically, we recommend avoiding elaborate con- structions (especially in a paper’s introduction) that involve an array of choppy references to theories that are cobbled together primarily for the sake of demonstrating one’s knowledge of the field, rather than because those theories sub- stantively inform the phenomenon under inves- tigation. If such theoretical arguments do not substantively inform the intended contribution of the paper, attempts to discuss them should be limited to explaining why they are inadequate or beyond one’s own theory’s scope so they are less likely to distract from the paper’s contributions.

Likewise, we note that not all elaborations of a model are equally likely to make that model more insightful. Greater elaboration can, in some cases, certainly make a substantive difference, such as by explaining theoretical inconsistencies or contradictions. However, there are also cases where such elaborations (e.g., those motivated by efforts to add finer-grained detail for the sake of thoroughness) may do relatively little to increase insight into causal relationships that manage- ment scholars and practitioners may care about, and this may even hinder their ability to see the bigger picture or derive possible applications. Thus, the challenge is to develop theory with an appropriate degree of parsimony, in a manner that emphasizes the most important elements of the intended contribution without getting lost in unnecessary digression and detail. We believe this will allow better consideration of how theo- retical arguments may be integrated into a more coherent account of the phenomenon under investigation.

In conclusion, our claim that OB is overtheor- ized should not be taken as an endorsement of efforts to force-fit a single theory to explain a phenomenon, especially when that theory does not adequately account for the phenomenon’s complexity or when it stifles the development of other theoretical advances that can provide fur- ther insight. Instead, our intent is to highlight the need to consolidate the abundant and ever- growing range of theories in our field into broader and more coherent accounts of the important

phenomena we wish to explain. Such efforts not only will help OB scholars take better stock of where they stand with regard to their knowledge of a given phenomenon but also will help guide their subsequent theoretical and empirical in- vestigations of the topic. In contrast, neglecting this kind of theoretical integration poses the risk of increasingly overwhelming these areas of in- quiry with an ever-growing theoretical disarray that will deter scholars in our field from engag- ing with that literature. Thus, we raise this call for action to address these concerns in the hope that these kinds of efforts will ultimately help our field to better flourish.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. 1990. Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46: 27–46.

Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. 2011. Blind spots. Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bentham, J. 1781. The principles of morals and legislation. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 869–884.

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. 2015. The micro- foundations movement in strategy and organization the- ory. Academy of Management Annals, 9: 575–632.

Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108: 814–834.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929–964.

Kant, I. 1785. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. (Translated by J. W. Ellington.) Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, ap- proach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110: 265– 284.

Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Fragale, A. R. 2005. Power dynamics in negotiation. Academy of Management Review, 30: 799–822.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social sciences. New York: Harper & Row.

Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. 2008. The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45: 633–644.

McDaniel, D., & Gibson, C. B. 2012. Emergent ideas in emerging markets: The process of discovery in organi- zational research. In C. L. Wang, D. J. Ketchen, Jr., & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), West meets East: Building theoretical bridges, vol. 8: 39–59. Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.

Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. 2001. Moral credentials and the ex- pression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 33–43.

2018 Editors’ Comments 545

Nemeth, C. J. 1986. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93: 23–32.

Thorngate, W. 1976. “In general” vs. “it depends”: Some com- ments of the Gergen-Schlenker debate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2: 404–410.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. 2010. Construal-level theory of psy- chological distance. Psychological Review, 117: 440–463.

Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. 2015. A person- centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10: 72–81.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31: 802– 821.

Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Peter H. Kim Robert E. Ployhart Cristina B. Gibson 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.