647102

research-article2016
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206316647102Journal of ManagementShepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building

Journal of Management
Vol. 43 No. 1, January 2017 59­–86
DOI: 10.1177/0149206316647102
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
[Link]/[Link]

Theory Building: A Review and Integration

Dean A. Shepherd
Indiana University
Roy Suddaby
University of Victoria
Newcastle University

Building theories is important for advancing knowledge of management. But it is also a highly
challenging task. Although there is a burgeoning literature that offers many theorizing tools, we
lack a coherent understanding of how these tools fit together—when to use a particular tool and
which combination of tools can be used in the theorizing process. In this article, we organize a
systematic review of the literature on theory building in management around the five key ele-
ments of a good story: conflict, character, setting, sequence, and plot and arc. In doing so, we
hope to provide a richer understanding of how specific theorizing tools facilitate aspects of the
theorizing process and offer a clearer big picture of the process of building important theories.
We also offer pragmatic empirical theorizing as an approach that uses quantitative empirical
findings to stimulate theorizing.

Keywords: creativity; grounded theory; philosophy of science; entrepreneurship theory

Management scholars have been highly attentive to the role of theory. A prerequisite for
publication in elite management journals is that papers make a contribution to theory (Colquitt
& Zapata-Phelan, 2007; Hambrick, 2007; Rynes, 2005; Sutton & Staw, 1995). While some
scholars question the extent of this preeminence of theory (Hambrick, 2007; Pfeffer, 2014),
there is little argument about the importance of building theories for advancing knowledge of
management (Suddaby, 2014a). For example, business scholars have called for new theories
of organization (Suddaby, Hardy, & Huy, 2011), entrepreneurship (Shepherd, 2015),

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge, for comments on the previous versions of the article,
J. Craig Wallace (action editor), two anonymous reviewers, and the participants of both the Australian Centre for
Entrepreneurship Research Exchange and the QUT boot camp.

Corresponding author: Dean A. Shepherd, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, 1309 E. Tenth St.,
Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.

E-mail: shepherd@[Link]

59
60   Journal of Management / January 2017

management (Barkema, Chen, George, Luo, & Tsui, 2015), work (Okhuysen et al., 2013),
compassion (Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, & Margolis, 2012), and so on. Despite the widespread
recognition of the importance of building theory, doing so is a highly challenging task (Weick,
1995). As a result, there is a growing literature in management on the process of theorizing—
that is, how to build theories. This burgeoning literature offers many tools and approaches to
theorizing, for example, engaged scholarship (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006), metaphor
(Cornelissen, 2005), and finding the balance between novelty and continuity (Locke &
Golden-Biddle, 1997). These papers have made important contributions by offering different
insights into select aspects of the theorizing process—that is, different ways to stimulate the
creation of a new theory, different ways to build new explanations of management phenom-
ena, and different notions of what represents a theoretical contribution, respectively.
But where does this leave budding theorists? It seems to leave them with an array of poten-
tial tools for theorizing without a coherent understanding of how these “theorizing tools” fit
together; there is little information about when to use a particular theorizing tool vis-à-vis a
different theorizing tool (i.e., substitutes) and which combination of tools can be used in the
theorizing process (i.e., complements). Therefore, while these approaches address discrete
and often isolated questions about “how” to construct specific aspects of theory, they fail to
offer a coherent explanation for how and when to engage the various tools that facilitate theo-
rizing. Thus, our intent is to integrate the various threads of how to build theory. We then
extend that integration to a specific theorizing approach—pragmatic empirical theorizing.
Our systematic review of the literature on theory building in management integrates the vari-
ous individual components of theory building into a coherent whole. Our reading of this growing
literature reveals the distinct importance of narrative or storytelling in theorizing (Pollock &
Bono, 2013; Van Maanen, 1995)—that is, compelling theories are at their core compelling sto-
ries. Compelling stories are built around main characters who engage in a struggle with a pow-
erful entity (narrative conflict) within a narrative setting. The story is held together by the
sequence of events and made comprehensible by the plot. The narrative arc concludes with a
resolution of the problem of the story and/or the problem faced by the main character(s) of the
story. Accordingly, we organize our review of theory building around the five key elements that
inform every great story: conflict, character, setting, sequence, and plot and arc.
By reviewing and organizing the literature on theory building, we hope to make three
primary contributions. First, organizing the literature on theory building provides the oppor-
tunity to integrate “like tools” to provide a richer understanding of how these like tools facili-
tate a specific aspect of the theorizing process. Second, organizing the literature provides the
opportunity to connect different aspects of the theorizing process. With a deeper understand-
ing within and across theorizing aspects, we gain a clearer “big picture” of the process of
building interesting theories. Finally, we offer a theorizing tool—pragmatic empirical theo-
rizing—that we believe has potential for advancing theories of management. In short, prag-
matic empirical theorizing uses quantitative empirical findings to stimulate theorizing as part
of an abductive process of inquiry.

Method
To select the articles for review, we used keyword searches in general management jour-
nals (consistent with other recent review articles; Shepherd, Williams, & Patzelt 2015; Surdu
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   61

& Mellahi, in press; Wang & Rajagopalan, 2015) publishing work on theory building. These
journals include the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review,
Academy of Management Annals, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Management,
Journal of Management Studies, Organization Science, Management Science, and Strategic
Management Journal. We choose these journals because, according to the Web of Knowledge,
they are the highest impact general management journals in the category of “Management”
that are not journals focused on psychology, operations management, research methods, or
international business (Thomson Reuters), with the exception of Management Science, which
has the reputation as a top journal (despite a lower impact factor). To provide an initial list of
papers on theory building, we searched for papers that included in their title the word(s)
theory or theorizing or theories. Not surprisingly, this generated a large number of
papers—973. We further refined this list by reading the abstract of each of these papers (and
when necessary the full paper) to determine their appropriateness given the purpose of the
review. Specifically, we excluded papers that did not have theory building at their core (788
papers) and excluded papers that were commentaries, research notes, and book reviews (127
papers). Furthermore, in the process, we necessarily considered some contributions in books.
The remaining 58 papers (marked with an asterisks in the reference section) were categorized
into theory-building topics arranged based on the key elements that inform every great story:
conflict, character, setting, sequence, plot, and arc.

1. Theorizing Trigger—the Narrative Conflict

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of theorizing is identifying an anomaly or tension to
motivate and guide the process. Doing so is a creative process that requires both considerable
imagination (Mills, 1959) and acute powers of observation, skills that, according to March
(1970), can be best learned by attending to the observational habits of outstanding
storytellers.
In stories, narrative conflict represents the struggle between two powerful entities—
human versus human, human versus nature, or human versus god. In theory, narrative con-
flict reflects a struggle between two realms of knowing—the empirical world of phenomena,
on one hand, and the scholarly world of theoretical literature that attempts to describe the
empirical world, on the other. Conflict can arise from within either of these worlds and, per-
haps more typically, can arise from gaps that occur between them. We examine each in turn
to identify the various techniques used by management scholars to “trigger” the theorization
process. In Table 1 we detail each form of narrative conflict, its function, the key cites, and
an example.

Conflict in the Literature

Immersion in the literature can reveal paradoxes, problems, challenges, and puzzles. A
paradox involves “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and per-
sist over time” (Smith & Lewis, 2011: 382). Recognizing the underlying tension between two
sets of relationships that appear to make sense when considered independently but contradic-
tory when considered simultaneously can trigger theorizing as an attempt to resolve the para-
dox. Paradoxes arise from changes in system(s), differences in individual and collective
62
Table 1
Narrative Conflict as a Trigger for Theorizing
Narrative Conflict Function Key Cites Example

Paradox Recognizing the tension between two sets Poole & Van de Ven, “ ‘[O]n the one hand, conflict improves decision quality; on the other, it may
of statements that on their own make 1989; Smith & weaken the ability of the group to work together.’ … How can top management
sense but together are contradictory Lewis, 2011 teams use conflict to enhance the quality of their decisions, without sacrificing
triggers theorizing to resolve the paradox. consensus and affective acceptance among their members?” (Amason, 1996: 123).
Problematization Challenging the value of a theory and/or Alvesson & Karreman, “An idea from an ethic of care perspective that is important to the construction of
focusing on its weaknesses highlights the 2007; Locke & people’s struggles is the problematization of the division between public and
need for new thinking on the topic. Golden-Biddle, private spheres (Held, 2005; Tronto, 1993). An ethic of care draws attention to
1997; Shepherd & the ways in which ostensibly private problems and issues are the result of public,
Sutcliffe, 2011 political processes” (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012: 646).
Empirical surprise Observing through the senses can reveal Locke, 2007; Shah “This study of the complete life-spans of eight naturally-occurring teams began with
data and findings that would not & Corley, 2006; the unexpected finding that several project groups, studied for another purpose,
otherwise be expected, which requires Turner, 1983 did not accomplish their work by progressing gradually through a universal series
theorizing for an explanation. of stages, as traditional group development models would predict. Instead, teams
progressed in a pattern of ‘punctuated equilibrium,’ through alternating inertia and
revolution in the behaviors and themes through which they approached their work.
The findings also suggested that …” (Gersick, 1988: 9).
Practice logic Following an actor’s activities can reveal Feldman & A nine-year ethnography is used to show how two investment banks’ controls,
relationships across practices, the Orlikowski, 2011; including socialization, targeted bankers’ bodies, how the bankers’ relations
connections between people and tools, Sandberg & to their bodies evolved, and what the organizational consequences were. The
and events that disconnect individuals Tsoukas, 2011 banks’ espoused and therefore visible values emphasized autonomy and work-
from their activities, all of which may life balance; their less visible embodied controls caused habitual overwork that
highlight paradoxes and problems of bankers experienced as self-chosen. This paradoxical control caused conflict
practical importance. between bankers and their bodies, which bankers treated as unproblematic objects.
Everyday Searching, observing, and questioning Weick, 1974 “If one watches people ride on escalators, he will observe that there are times when
or absurd everyday events provides abundant they walk on the escalator in order to speed up their ride. Now the question is, is
occurrences opportunities to theorize and searching, there any regularity to this pattern of walking? Informal observation suggests that
observing, and questioning absurd events … the closer they are to where they want to get, the stronger is their tendency to
challenges conventional wisdom. approach it” (Weick, 1974: 488).
Engaged Collaborating with practitioners provides Van de Ven & “To explore change and managerial sensemaking, we conducted action research
scholarship the academic access to a different Johnson, 2006 at the Danish Lego Company. … Through collaborative intervention and
perspective as a basis for identifying reflection, we sought to help managers make sense of issues surfaced by a major
complex real-world problems. restructuring. Results … a process for working through paradox and explicating
three organizational change aspects—paradoxes of performing, belonging, and
organizing” (Luscher & Lewis, 2008: 221 [Note: Luscher is a practitioner]).
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   63

identity, competing organizing modes/designs, and different stakeholder goals (Smith &
Lewis, 2011). Paradoxes also exist across the categories of learning, belonging, organizing,
and performing and represent (or create) a tension that can stimulate theorizing that is more
encompassing as an attempt to reconcile the apparent paradox (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989).
Problematization is another way to engage the literature to stimulate theorizing. To prob-
lematize means to “challenge the value of a theory and to explore its weaknesses and prob-
lems in relation to the phenomena it is supposed to explicate” (Alvesson & Karreman, 2007:
1265-1266). This problematization highlights the need for rethinking existing theory and
perhaps the need to head in a new direction. To problematize requires an understanding of the
literature. However, it also requires an open-minded approach to that literature. Theorists can
approach the literature with an open mind to allow the literature (as data consistent with a
grounded theory approach) to “speak to them” to reveal (in a bottom-up way) problems in or
across literatures (Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011). Problematizing also involves considerable
rhetorical skill in constructing the “gap” between the literature and the real world or describ-
ing a logical flaw in existing theory (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997) because it is likely
(hopefully) not a simple case of incremental gap-spotting but a substantial gap that chal-
lenges important assumptions (Sandberg & Alleveson, 2011). Contrastive questions can help
problematize a situation or explanation by referring to different aspects of the event (i.e., an
allomorph) or highlighting the fact to be explained and contrasting it with an alternative(s)
(i.e., fact and foil) (Tsang & Ellsaesser, 2011). The notion underlying contrastive explanation
is that by asking better questions the theorist can begin the process towards offering better
explanations (Tsang & Ellsaesser, 2011). Indeed, Abbot (2004) proposes a number of heuris-
tics that can facilitate discovery by changing the way the budding theorist conceptualizes a
problem or solution. For example, problematization can be stimulated through reversing a
well-known proposition, switching figure and ground, using emotional language, and as we
elaborate on below, “putting things in motion” (Abbot, 2004).

Conflict Revealed Through Empirical Phenomena and Practice

Although the data stimulating theorizing can come from the literature (as detailed above),
it can also come from the phenomena of interest: knowledge discovery starting with “obser-
vation by the senses” (Locke, 2007: 888). Again, however, the theorist needs to approach the
phenomena and the associated data with a somewhat open mind; otherwise, the data and/or
its interpretation will simply be forced to fit existing theories. With an open mind (i.e., with-
holding as best one can prior expectations), collecting and analyzing data can reveal interest-
ing research problems—namely, “the high potential for an empirical response and a novel
insight that adds significantly to—or against—previous understandings” (Alveson &
Karreman, 2007: 1268) and, in the case of grounded theory, can “elicit fresh understandings
about patterned relationships” and social interactions (Shah & Corley, 2006; see also Glaser
& Strauss, 1967; Turner, 1983).
One important source of empirical material for stimulating theorizing on management
phenomena can come from an orientation toward practice—how organizational activities are
constituted and enacted by actors (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011: 339). Because recurrent
actions represent the building blocks of a social understanding for those in or affected by
organizations (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011), theorizing triggered by practice helps reveal
paradoxes and problems of practical value to managers. To do so might require the theorist
64   Journal of Management / January 2017

to zoom in on the specific activities in context or zoom out to attend to the relationships
across practices to gain a deeper understanding of the connections and possibilities of activi-
ties, tools and interactions (Bechky, 2011; Nicolini, 2009; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011).
Indeed, in performing organizational activities, managers and/or employees are often one
with the task (Dreyfus, 1995) but it is when they experience a temporary breakdown in the
effectiveness of the activity—a momentary disconnection of the individual from others and/
or things—that they detach from the task and engage in deliberate reflection (Sandberg &
Tsoukas, 2011). These temporary breakdowns reveal problems for the manager and by exten-
sion an opportunity to theorize to gain a deeper, richer, and practically useful understanding
of the situation and/or task. Such theorizing helps to “explore new terrain and develop novel
ideas, thus potentially overcoming the inherent conservatism in well-established frame-
works” (Alvesson & Karreman, 2007: 1267).
Indeed, Weick (1974) suggests a theorist focus on everyday events, everyday places,
everyday questions, micro-organizations, and absurd organizations. By searching, observing,
and/or questioning everyday events in everyday places, theorizing itself can become more
commonplace rather than tied to Fortune 500 companies or the “armchair.” It starts by
observing a pattern and building more and more robust explanations for the pattern of the
focal task (and organizing tasks more generally). Similarly, a focus on micro-organizations
reduces the emphasis on the centrality of the thing—the organization—and more on the pro-
cess—the organizing. Studying the absurd organizations—almost by definition (of absurd)—
challenges the theorist’s fundamental assumptions, which is an important step toward
theorizing to open up new terrain (Weick, 1974) and generate contributions to knowledge.
Using engaged scholarship can also stimulate new theorizing. Engaged scholarship is “a
collaborative form of inquiry in which academics and practitioners leverage their different
perspectives and competences to co-produce knowledge about a complex problem or phe-
nomenon that exists under conditions found in the world” (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006:
803). Engaged scholarship is likely to be most useful when the associated projects are
designed to address complex real-world problems, to be a collaborative learning environ-
ment, to operate for an extended duration, and to employ multiple frames of reference (Van
de Ven & Johnson, 2006). This problem-driven research requires the researcher to be at least
somewhat engaged with the practitioner performing his or her activities, to be open to new
(vis-à-vis existing theories) experiences, and to be self-reflective of his or her engaged schol-
arship role (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). In doing so, the researcher is taking a step toward
addressing what has been argued as a large gap between theory and practice (Anderson,
Herriot, & Hodgkinson 2001; Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft 2001). By collaborating with practi-
tioners throughout the process, the theorist is able to formulate a problem grounded in the
experiences of those engaged in the task (Van de Ven, 2007)—a real-world problem, whose
solution can make a contribution to academic and practitioner knowledge.

Conflict Between Literature and Phenomena

We have described how a trigger for theorizing arises when the researcher encounters an
unexplained puzzle resulting from an unexplained phenomenon that defies extant knowl-
edge. Considerable effort has been devoted in management theory to debating the relative
importance of phenomenal gaps over gaps in the literature. Advocates of the former tend to
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   65

grant primacy to empirical facts (Hambrick, 2007; Pfeffer, 2014). They are supported by
intellectual giants in social theory, such as Durkheim (1895/1964: 15), who argues that
researchers should move from “things to ideas” not from ideas to things. However, the prag-
matic consensus—supported by a long procession of writers beginning with Peirce (1934),
extending to Merton (1967), and advancing today with Weick (2014)—is that effective theo-
rizing is a process in which the researcher moves iteratively between the gaps observed in the
phenomenal world and those observed in the extant literature. Indeed, it is often the tension
created by a gap between the literature and the phenomenal world that ultimately triggers the
need for new theory.
Having triggered the theorizing process by discovering or generating a conflict—a para-
dox, problem, or challenge—the theorist conceives of a research idea, perhaps first as a
simple construct or guess, that is then constructed into a theory.

2. Conceiving and Constructing Theories—Building Stories

We use a narrative framework to organize research on conceiving and constructing theo-
ries because it reinforces the notion that powerful theorizing involves skillfully weaving
together prior knowledge (i.e., existing literature) and emerging knowledge (i.e., new empiri-
cal observations). As illustrated in Table 2 and detailed below, building stories is facilitated
by storytelling that involves main characters, a narrative setting, an event sequence, and a
plot/theme.

Identifying Core Constructs: The Main Characters

Effective stories are built around main characters (Pentland, 1999)—actors whose behavior
best captures the narrative of interest. In storytelling, a character is an actor—a person, animal,
or entity—whose experience is the focal point of the story. Just as stories are built around main
actors, so too are theories built around core constructs (Pentland, 1999). The act of naming a
core construct early in the process of theorizing is a critically important step because even
though the theoretical narrative is not yet clear and the construct itself is still somewhat fuzzy,
the act of putting a formal name to the phenomenon of interest is an essential step in conceptu-
ally separating one’s phenomenon from the mass “noise” of our everyday empirical experience
and/or separating one’s core construct from the mass “noise” of prior research.
Theorists have adopted a range of different strategies for naming constructs. The most
common strategy, perhaps, is to simply use a common everyday word that most closely cap-
tures the phenomenon of interest. So, for example, the somewhat generic word performance
has been used to describe the range of activities by which we evaluate organizations. Noted
sociologist Max Weber (2001: 63) endorsed this approach, advocating the use of “the nearest
and most descriptive words” from common language to name constructs. However, there are
clear risks to using dictionary definitions. Foremost is the risk that adopting a term in com-
mon everyday use will burden the construct with too much “surplus meaning” (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955). Thus, the use of the term performance invites theorists to infer, consciously or
otherwise, a range of meanings of performance drawn from individuals, machines, sports
teams, and a range of other entities and activities, which substantially reduces the analytic
precision of the construct.
 Table 2

66
Building Stories Through Conceiving and Constructing Theories
Main Characters Function Key Cites Example

Labeling constructs Identifying and naming a core construct(s) helps Donaldson et al., Compassion organizing refers to “when individuals in organizations notice, feel,
to separate the phenomenon of interest from the 2013; Pentland, and respond to human pain in a coordinated way” (Dutton et al., 2006: 59).
mass noise of everyday experience and prior 1999; Whetten,
research. et al., 2009
Narrative setting
Ontology Shifting the way a theorist conceptualizes the Kilduff, Mehra, “To label these five as ‘not theory’ makes sense if the problem is laziness and
nature of phenomena (ontology) can provide a & Dunn, 2011; incompetence. But ruling out those same five may slow inquiry if the problem
new perspective from which to theorize but also Thompson, 2011 is theoretical development still in its early stages. Sutton and Staw know
requires a corresponding shift in epistemology. this. But it gets lost in their concern with theory as a product rather than as a
process. To add complication and nuance to their message, I want to focus on
the process of theorizing” (Weick, 1995: 385).
Abstraction/ Moving up the ladder of complexity can provide Gioia & Pitre, “[B]y adopting a multi-paradigm approach that integrates insights from the
complexification abstraction necessary for a meta-paradigm 1990; Lewis & OB and OT literatures to study multiteam systems … we suggest that IFD
perspective, whereas moving down the ladder of Grimes, 1999; and vertical coordinated action are intertwined in a complex manner, with
complexity provides a more concrete perspective Ofori-Dankwa & vertical coordinated action determining whether IFD’s advantages (increased
of the phenomenon. Julian, 2001 horizontal coordination) or disadvantages (decreased aspirational behavior)
will prevail” (de Vries et al., in press).
Back and forth Entering the field with a research question and Dyer & Wilkins, In commenting on the finding of the use of semistructures, Brown and
between data and perhaps focal constructs, selecting cases that 1991; Eisenhardt (1997: 15) engaged the literature to note: “Another reason may
literature are extreme or highly revelatory, and pattern Eisenhardt, be that these limited structures help people to make sense of a fast-changing
matching data and theory enables the theorist 1989; Eisenhardt environment. In such environments, it is easy to become confused, make
build a story that bridges rich qualitative & Graebner, mistakes, and fall behind. Previous research indicates that structure helps
evidence with deductive research. 2007 people to make sense of change. For example, Weick’s (1993) …”
Choice of levels Making explicit the mechanisms by which Klein et al., 1994; “This study focuses on emotional contagion, ‘a process in which a person or
constructs and relationships are influenced by Morgeson & group influences the emotions or behavior of another person or group through
lower and/or upper level constructs can provide Hofman, 1999; the conscious or unconscious induction of emotion states and behavioral
new insights at the focal level or cross-levels Shepherd & attitudes’ (Schoenewolf, 1990: 50), in particular, the contagion of every-day
and a basis for theorizing on the emergence of, Sutcliffe, 2015 moods in work groups. … [which] will lead to greater cooperativeness on both
stability in, and changes to collective constructs. an individual and group level” (Barsade, 2002: 646, 651).
Narrative’s event sequence
Time Considering time from different perspectives—e.g., Corley & Gioia, “‘Team temporal leadership’ orients teams toward managing the time-related
how time is experienced, bracketed, categorized 2011; Dansereau, aspects of their work. We examine how perceived time pressure affects
as periods of stability and change, considered et al., 1999; team processes and subsequent performance under weak versus strong team
in terms of rate, magnitude, and pattern, and George & Jones, temporal leadership” (Maruping et al., 2015: 1313).
the interrelationship between the past, present 2000; Langley,
and future—can allow theorizing to extend the 1999; Zaheer
boundary conditions of existing theories. et al., 1999

(continued)
 Table 2 (continued)
Main Characters Function Key Cites Example

Plot and theme

Thought experiments Posing problem statements, making conjectures on Davis, et al., 2007; “One could imagine a thought experiment in which there are two groups and
solutions to the problem, trialing conjectures, and Folger & Turillo, the average individual attributes conducive to creativity (creative personality,
selecting and retaining those that show promise 1999; Weick, experience in creative work, etc.) of one team is greater than the other; another,
enable the theorist move through disciplined 1989 similar sort of question might concern whether groups starting out with a
imagination to build a theory. more creative initial ‘working idea’ require even more adherence to these
coordinative interactions. We think these differences would matter in our
model, but perhaps in a counterintuitive way” (Harrison & Rouse, 2014: 1278).
Metaphor and Analogically connecting concepts from target Cornelissen, 2005; “The meaning … is that the act of managing is framed as involving
anthropomorphizing and source domains at a structural level, Morgan, 1996; improvisation and as offering considerable degrees of freedom to managers
transferring concept information between Shepherd & within organizations in interpreting, expressing, responding, and performing
domains, and blending the concepts provides for Sutcliffe, 2015 in a given situation. … This image is stretched even further by writers …
an emergent understanding of both domains. For who suggest that managers in fact ‘author’ their own script; they become
anthropomorphizing the source is human and the the writers and play-wrights of their own actions and are fully accountable
target is nonhuman. for them. … This image of organizational life that is evoked through the
‘organization as theatre’ metaphor underlines …” (Cornelissen, 2004: 716).
Blending Provides a basis for transforming constructs and Oswick et al., “That modern work organizations either ‘have’ or might ‘be like’ a culture
relationships in both the target and source to 2011; Zahra & similar to other human groups requires us to draw connections that mirror the
generate new insights for both literatures. Newey, 2009 clan and workgroup. … The modern workgroup and the clan then yield the
richer idea of organizational culture, which can then be tested in relation to
other referents (motivation, morale, performance, etc.)” (Oswick et al., 2011:
331).
Bricolage Flexibly and responsively deploying whatever Boxenbaum & “The building blocks for organizations come to be littered around the societal
research strategies, methods, or empirical Rouleau, 2011; landscape; it takes only a little entrepreneurial energy to assemble them into a
materials at hand and assembling these Denzin & structure. And because these building blocks are considered proper, adequate,
knowledge elements in unique combinations to Lincoln, 1994 rational, and necessary, organizations must incorporate them to avoid
generate fluid constructs for theorizing. illegitimacy. Thus, the myths built into rationalized institutional elements
create the necessity, the opportunity, and the impulse to organize rationally,
over and above pressures in this direction created by the need to manage
proximate relational networks” (Meyer & Rowan, 1977: 345).
Typologies Combining contextual, structural, and strategic Doty & Glick, “On the basis of an interdisciplinary literature review, Part I introduces four
factors to offer ideal types based on the same set 1994; Fiss, 2011; basic types of process theories that explain how and why change unfolds
of dimensions and making explicit the weighting Payne, 2006 in social or biological entities: life-cycle, teleological. dialectical. and
of those dimensions enables theorists to explore evolutionary theories. … [W]e will call them motors— to explain how and
multiple patterns. why changes unfold. Part II arranges these four ideal-type process theories
into a typology by distinguishing the level and mode of change to which each
theory applies. Part III considers how the typology is useful for understanding
a variety of specific theories of change processes in organizations” (Van de

67
Ven & Poole, 1995: 511).
68   Journal of Management / January 2017

A related strategy is to borrow a construct from a related discipline. Thus, in organiza-

tional theory, population ecologists borrowed words like niche and species from the adjacent
field of evolutionary biology (Freeman & Hunnan, 1989; Hannan & Freeman, 1977). While
a term from a related scientific discipline partially addresses the issue of a lack of definitional
precision associated with using everyday language, it does not completely resolve the prob-
lem of surplus meaning. Population ecology, thus, has been soundly criticized for using terms
like species, which has a much more precise meaning when applied to living organisms (i.e.,
capable of interbreeding and producing a viable offspring) than it does when applied to orga-
nizations. As Whetten, Fellin, and King (2009) observe, borrowing terms from other disci-
plines often introduces more confusion (in levels of analysis, boundary conditions, etc.) in
understanding a phenomenon than clarity. An alternative approach is to create a completely
new term to describe the phenomenon of interest. A useful example of this in management
theory is Weick’s use of the term sensemaking, which is a portmanteau of preexisting com-
mon terms but, as a result of Weick’s theorizing, has acquired a unique and highly specific
meaning.
Regardless of the technique used, identifying and naming constructs is an essential part of
theorizing because constructs are a source of agency or causality. That is, greater clarity in
describing constructs and their relationship to the phenomenon of interest helps to clarify the
motivations or causal relationships in the theoretical argument (Suddaby, 2010; for other
aspects of rigor on theory building, see Donaldson, Qiu, & Luo, 2013). Clearly defined con-
structs in theory require precise definitions and specific boundary conditions or contexts in
which they do or do not apply. Constructs help the reader understand a theoretical argument
because if they are accurately captured, the reader can quickly grasp their history, their moti-
vation, and the implications of their role in the causal relationships that the theorist is pre-
senting. We note, however, that there are limits to construct clarity. As Kaplan observes, the
process of enhancing definitional clarity inevitably produces even finer-grained distinctions
that fall outside our understanding. The “more discriminations we make, the more opportuni-
ties we create for classification errors between borderlines” (Kaplan, 1964: 65).

Choosing a Perspective for Theorizing: Determining the Narrative Setting

All stories occur in a narrative setting—namely, a time and place within which events
occur. In a way, the setting becomes as important in explaining causality as the broad conflict
that defines the story and the motivations of the central characters. Skilled storytellers under-
stand that context is not merely a backdrop but can also play a determinative role in their
argument; it is essential both to the credibility of the theoretical argument and to the reader’s
appreciation of the causal logic of the theory, and by shifting the context, the theorist may
open up new conceptual terrain. In this section, we review a range of strategies used by theo-
rists to adopt new perspectives by adjusting the philosophical setting within which the theory
is presented, namely, shifting ontology, shifting the position on the ladder of theory complex-
ity, shifting back and forth between data and theory, and shifting level of analysis.
First, shifting ontology can provide a new perspective. Scholars often adopt a specific theo-
retical lens such that one philosophical perspective dominates a particular research topic, or
the research topic is bifurcated by streams of research that progress in parallel based on their
different philosophical underpinnings (e.g., research anchored in either a structural realist or a
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   69

social constructivist perspective; Hassard, 1993). Importantly, rather than a theorist choosing
one philosophical approach to use consistently, he or she can use an ontological shift to gener-
ate creative insights for the development of midrange theories. An ontological shift refers to
“changes in the ontological emphasis that maintain epistemic-ontological alignment”
(Thompson, 2011: 755), with ontology referring to the nature of phenomena and epistemology
referring to the nature of knowledge about the phenomena (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). It is impor-
tant when engaging an ontological shift to also change the epistemology; otherwise, it can lead
to ontological drift, in which the construct is compromised (Thompson, 2011).
One example of shifting ontology for theorizing is shifting from an entity-based ontology
to a process-based ontology (or vice versa). Theories in management have focused more on
entities (e.g., organizations, entrepreneurs, and institutions) than processes (e.g., organizing).
For example, take the notions of entrepreneur and institution (i.e., entities) and start to think
about them in terms of processes, such as entrepreneuring and institutionalizing, respec-
tively. Such a theorizing approach does not replace the entity construct but involves a com-
plexification of the established construct and can lead to different research logics of action
that are reflective of different assumptions and orientations, which tackle different research
questions (Kilduff, Mehra, & Dunn, 2011; Morgan, 1980).
Second, conceiving and constructing theory can also be facilitated by moving up and/or
down the ladder of theory complexity. Ofori-Dankwa and Julian (2001) emphasize two
dimensions in establishing the level of theory complexity: (1) relative endurance, which
captures the extent to which the core concepts of the (proposed) theory are represented as
relatively stable (high endurance) or unstable (low endurance); and (2) relative exclusivity,
which captures the extent to which a single core concept (high exclusivity) or several core
concepts (low exclusivity) form the model. As a 2 × 2, this sets up four levels of theoretical
complexity: Level 1 (simple complexity) involves high endurance and high exclusivity to
offer theories of contingency, Level 2 (medium complexity) involves low endurance and high
exclusivity to offer theories of cycles, Level 3 (high complexity) involves high endurance and
low exclusivity to offer theories of competing values, and Level 4 (very high complexity)
involves low endurance and low exclusivity to offer theories of chaos.
Indeed, abstracting one’s theorizing (by moving up the ladder of theory complexity) can
provide the basis for a meta-paradigm perspective that allows disparate approaches to theory
building to be considered together as a way to bridge across paradigm boundaries (Gioia &
Pitre, 1990; for an epistemological approach [evolutionary naturalist] to unify diverse per-
spectives, see Azevedo, 2002). As Kaplan (1964) observes, theorists move from observable
indicators (i.e., the “individual”) to higher levels of abstraction that involve unobservable
categories or concepts (i.e., “social classes” or “society”). The process of building theories,
as Stinchcombe (1968) notes, requires skillful abstraction, or selectively moving up or down
the ladder of abstraction to create propositions (generated at higher levels of abstraction) or
operationalize hypotheses (generated at observable levels of abstraction).
The abstraction is needed for the theorist to broaden her or his view (from one anchored in
the assumptions of one paradigm) to juxtapose, and perhaps link, previously different views
to provide a broader perspective of organizational phenomena (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lewis &
Grimes, 1999). Theorizing across paradigms may appear difficult given that each paradigm
has a different set of assumptions, but the boundaries between these paradigms are often
blurred (Bochner, 1985; Geertz, 1980) and can be usefully conceived as “transition zones”
70   Journal of Management / January 2017

(Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Through abstraction, the theorist can generate second-order concepts
(Van Maanen, 1979). Second-order concepts describe scientific understanding as opposed to
first-order concepts, which describe how people experience the phenomena. Second-order
concepts, as an abstraction of first-order concepts, facilitate the recognition of related or anal-
ogous concepts as the basis for a bridge across the transition zones of two or more paradigms
(Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). A meta-paradigm perspective moves beyond
the “agree to disagree” approach of disparate paradigms to gain an understanding of why dis-
agreement exists and to theorize on similarities and interrelationships to understand manage-
ment phenomena, which broadens the “conception of theory and the theory-building process
itself” (Gioia & Pitre, 1990: 600; Lewis & Grimes, 1999). For example, Pfeffer and Fong
(2005) argue for theorizing that uncovers core, fundamental constructs and linking them to
build a broad understanding that explains a range of behaviors. Therefore, both abstraction
and complexification can serve as a basis for new theories (Thompson, 2011).
Third, moving back and forth between the empirical evidence and the literature helps to
build a theoretical story. Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that a theoretical narrative is best con-
structed through comparisons between multiple case studies. The theorist enters the field
with a clear research question (possibly one drawn from the literature or focused on elaborat-
ing specific constructs), carefully selects cases that build tension or contrast around the focal
research question (“theoretical sampling”), and identifies key patterns that match data with
theory to build “bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research”
(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007: 25; see also Eisenhardt, 1989; Hallier & Forbes, 2004). An
alternative approach, suggested by Dyer and Wilkins (1991) places even greater emphasis on
the narrative elements of a single case study in which the researcher constructs theory by
moving between the thick description of data and the extant literature. In both approaches,
however, the theoretical narrative emerges as the result of abductive iteration between theory
and literature in an effort to address an “unmet expectation.” As Van Maanen, Sorenson, and
Mitchell (2007: 1149) observe, an unmet expectation is a mystery or a clue that, “like the dog
that did not bark in the fictional world of Sherlock Holmes,” motivates theorizing by requir-
ing the research to construct a robust explanatory narrative by giving “primacy to the empiri-
cal world, but in the service of theorizing.”
Finally, building a story can be facilitated by changing assumptions through crossing lev-
els of analysis. Klein, Dansereau, and Hall (1994) highlight three key assumptions underly-
ing multilevel theorizing that should be made explicit—namely, (1) homogeneity, which
refers to group members’ being sufficiently similar on the focal construct such that they can
be categorized as a whole (i.e., the “group as a whole”); (2) independence, which refers to
group members’ being independent of the group’s influence and others in the group (between
individual variance); and (3) heterogeneity, which refers to individuals’ being nested within
the group such that the “group context is not only informative but necessary to interpret an
individual’s placement or standing in the group” (Klein et al., 1994: 202). Indeed, by theoriz-
ing across levels of analysis, we can gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms at levels
of analysis different from those used in the initial theories or topics that explain the “why” of
existing relationships (and theories) (see also Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2015).
In particular, Morgeson and Hofmann (1999: 251) highlight the multilevel nature of con-
structs in a collective context where collective refers to “any interdependent and goal directed
combination of individuals, groups, departments, organizations, or institutions.” Under such
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   71

collective contexts, constructs can exist at both the individual and group level and can be
explored in terms of their function—the causal output of the system (or component of the
system)—and/or in terms of their structure—the system of interaction among members of the
collective. Exploring the function and structure of collective constructs can facilitate theoriz-
ing on the emergence of, stability of, and changes in collective constructs. Emergence, stabil-
ity, and change involve notions of time to which we now turn.

Set Time to Establish Boundary Conditions: The Story’s Event Sequence

The event sequence is the order in which events occur and brings together the different
components of the story. Although time is implicitly or explicitly a boundary condition of
most theories, theorizing can involve shifting the perspective on time to change the ontologi-
cal nature of constructs and the relationships between constructs (George & Jones, 2000;
Zaheer, Albert, & Zaheer, 1999). Indeed, in Whetten’s (1989; see also Dubin, 1978) descrip-
tion of the criteria of theory—“what,” “how,” “why,” “who,” “where,” and “when”—the
“when” is a direct reflection of the importance of time in theory. Specifically, George and
Jones (2000) highlight how time can be used in theorizing by considering (1) how the past
and future can impact the present and how time can be experienced differently (i.e., subjec-
tive time) within or across individuals; (2) how time is aggregated into chunks, such as with
defined episodes (for different time scales see Zaheer et al., 1999); (3) how the duration of
periods can be categorized as periods of stability and of change, (4) how the nature of change
can be considered in terms of its rate (over time), its magnitude (e.g., incremental or discon-
tinuous), and its pattern (e.g., frequency, rhythm, and cycles); and (5) how the interplay
between constructs over time can be reflected in mutual causation (e.g., positive or negative
spirals) and change intensity (Dansereau, Yammarion, & Kohles, 1999; Mitchell & James,
2001). For example, Corley and Gioia (2011) suggest theorists direct attention to future prob-
lems in order to anticipate problems and thereby inform future thought and action, generate
vibrancy, and ensure usefulness in a rapidly changing external environment. Such theorizing
(labeled prescient theorizing) is informed by either projective futurism—a sound theoretical
basis for arguing and predicting—or prospection—the use of informed projections into the
future to anticipate issues, act as if those issues are manifest, and then infer domains requir-
ing attention or invention (Corley & Gioia, 2011: 25).
For theorists who consider time to develop process theories (as opposed to theories of
variance; Mohr, 1982), Langley (1999) offers different theory construction strategies, that is,
by (1) constructing a detailed story anchored through time (narrative strategy); (2) coding
qualitative incidents into predetermined categories for statistical analysis (quantification
strategy); (3) proposing and assessing alternate theoretical templates of the same events
using different theoretical premises (alternate templates strategy); (4) constantly comparing
sets of data to gradually build a system of categories that can be linked to explain the process
(grounded theory strategy); (5) graphically or otherwise visually displaying multiple repre-
sentations of “precedence, parallel processes, and the passage of time” (Langley, 1999: 700)
(visual mapping strategy); (6) bracketing and labeling periods of an event and detailing the
continuities within that period and the discontinuities at or outside its borders (temporal
bracketing strategy); and (7) constructing global measures of a process as a whole to com-
pare different processes (synthetic strategy).
72   Journal of Management / January 2017

Disciplined Imagination: Plot and Theme

The plot is what holds a story together (Jameson, 2001), makes it comprehensible (Garud
& Giuliani, 2013), and, along with the main character, provides coherence (Ibarra &
Barbulescu, 2010); the plot provides the discipline for the imaginative aspects of the story. In
a similar way, theorizing to create something new—a new explanation, new insights, and a
new story—not only requires imagination, but it also requires discipline. Theorizing as dis-
ciplined imagination can involve thought experiments—abstract hypothetical scenarios
(Folger & Turilo, 1999) or simulations—“a method for using computer software to model the
operation of real world processes, systems, or events” (Davis, Eisenhardt, & Bingham, 2007:
481)—as part of a process of artificial selection (Weick, 1989). Indeed, Weick (1989) notes
that when theorists build theory through imaginary experiments, their activities resemble an
evolutionary model of variation, (artificial) selection, and retention.
These processes of disciplined imagination begin with the creation of a research question
in the form of problem statements. Problem statements specify a need that requires a solution
and are formulated and posed by the theorist. The theorist specifies a problem to be solved
(explained), details assumptions that can be confirmed and disconfirmed, offers a set of con-
cepts that can be connected differently, implies a plot that may be implausible, and asks a
question that has not been asked yet (Weick, 1989: 521; see also Davis et al., 2007). After
constructing problem statements, the theorist engages in thought trials—that is, trialing
(competing) conjectures of a solution to the problem statements (see also Kaplan, 1964;
Stinchcombe, 1968). Theorizing is enhanced by thought trials that are more numerous and
more diverse (heterogeneous thought trials will provide more information to inform the theo-
rizing process) that facilitate progress in refining the conjectures. Finally, the theorist must
choose and use selection criteria for the thought trials. Theorizing is more promising when
the selection process consistently applies a set of criteria (Weick, 1989), when it activates
access to tacit knowledge through embodied or vicarious participation (Folger & Turillo,
1999), and when it invokes the related properties of a system’s interrelated links (Folger &
Turillo, 1999). Although thought trials can be conducted in the theorist’s head (or through
simulation software), knowledge production typically has a social component such that con-
jectures are tested when they are communicated to others (i.e., via stories) and receive feed-
back (Jacques, 1992; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).
The discipline of theorizing can come from metaphors including the specific case of
anthropomorphizing, from other forms of blending, from the knowledge resources at hand,
and from patterns in the form of typologies, to which we now turn.
Theorizing through an interaction metaphor (Cornelissen, 2005, 2006) starts with the
development of a generic structure that connects a source and a target domain such that the
theorist can begin to map the correspondences and transfer “instance-specific” information
about concepts between these domains. This provides the opportunity to elaborate on the
emerging story by blending the concepts of the source and the target, which provides for new
insights not only about the target but also about the source domain (Cornelissen, 2005, 2006)
(more on blending in the sections that follow). Specifically, metaphors can help theorizing by
(1) providing a vocabulary to “express, map, and understand” the complexity of a particu-
larly phenomenon, which provides a more concrete basis for understanding (and discussing)
underlying constructs (Cornelissen, 2005: 753; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Tsoukas, 1991); (2)
encouraging an open-minded approach with “multiple ways of seeing, conceptualizing, and
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   73

understanding” the phenomena of interest (Cornelissen, 2005: 753); and (3) allowing for new
insights that may have previously been inconceivable (Morgan, 1980, 1983, 1996; Oswick,
Keenoy, & Grant, 2002).
Anthropomorphizing represents a special case of theorizing through metaphor.
Anthropomorphizing refers to “imbuing the imagined or real behavior of nonhuman agents
with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions and/or emotions” (Epley, Waytz, &
Cacioppo, 2007: 864). Shepherd and Sutcliffe (2015) highlight how anthropomorphizing has
been critical to the creation and development of many important management theories, includ-
ing those of organizational knowledge and organizational identity. Anthropomorphizing can
be an effective theorizing tool when the theorist uses his or her rich understanding of himself
or herself and other people to (1) take a leap of faith to make a guess at an explanation of an
anomaly, (2) provide insights into the mechanisms underlying the “how” and the “why” of key
relationships and insights into organizing, and (3) facilitate sensemaking as well as tap into the
audiences’ knowledge of themselves and others as a communication strategy for sensegiving
to tell robust stories. Anthropomorphizing, as a tool for theorizing, provides the potential for
theorists to generate, build, and communicate creative theories of organizations and organiz-
ing as well as other nonhuman management entities or processes (and perhaps theories of
themselves). Moreover, it gives junior scholars the confidence to theorize.
Metaphor, at least in the interaction model of metaphor, involves blending but not all
blending involves metaphor. Oswick and colleagues (2011) offer four types of blending: (1)
orthodox domestic theory (i.e., narrow focus in terms of theoretical contribution and con-
sumed largely with the domain of production) provides incremental extensions to a focal
subarea of management; (2) innovative domestic theory (i.e., broad focus in terms of theo-
retical contribution and consumed largely within the domains of production) “challenges
existing knowledge and ways of thinking but does so from an insider’s perspective” (p. 323);
(3) novel traveling theory (i.e., narrow focus in terms of theoretical contribution and con-
sumed across domains) offers “quirky insights into non-management disciplines yet largely
reinforces, builds upon, or resonates with prior knowledge” (p. 324); and (4) radical traveling
theory (i.e., broad focus in terms of theoretical contribution and consumed across domains)
represents a “significant challenge to and departure from the contemporary and conventional
pre-existing insights in a particular discipline” (p. 322) but requires considerable “repackag-
ing, refining, and repositioning” (p. 323) in order for it to be taken up by management schol-
ars. It is important when using blending to theorize about how the generated insights impact
the source discipline (over and above the impact on the target discipline), potentially includ-
ing how existing source theories need to be refined and boundary conditions need to be
reconsidered (see also Zahra & Newey, 2009).
While blending provides a basis for transforming constructs and relationships in both the
target and source literatures (i.e., bidirectional flow of information), bricolage largely com-
bines subelements from a source discipline to application in management to create a unique
combination (i.e., unidirectional flow of information). Bricolage is an important theorizing
tool. Indeed, knowledge production can be conceptualized in terms of evolution, differentia-
tion, and bricolage. Although evolution (i.e., knowledge accumulation through “trial and error
toward an increasingly robust view of the world”) and differentiation (i.e., attempts to “gener-
ate knowledge that is discontinuous with existing knowledge”) predominate in management
(Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011: 279-280), bricolage has considerable potential to be a source
of novel theories. In theorizing, bricolage refers to “the assembly of different knowledge
74   Journal of Management / January 2017

elements that are readily available to the researcher” into fluid knowledge constructs
(Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011: 281). This approach requires the theorist to be “flexible and
responsive … to deploy whatever research strategies, methods, or empirical materials, at
hand, to get the job done” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994: 2). Indeed, perhaps bricolage’s role in
theorizing is more common than it seems because while scholars might use bricolage to theo-
rize, they communicate the outcome of the process in terms of an evolution or differentiation
approach.
Boxenbaum and Rouleau (2011) propose that theorists engage bricolage by (1) focusing
on combining various elements (e.g., ideas, concepts, experiences) they have at hand rather
than engaging in endless search of the literature or creating a theory from “scratch”; (2)
choosing elements that are local (to the theorist) and sufficiently diverse such that their com-
bination can provide novel (and hopefully useful) insights; (3) using common sense in select-
ing the items and combining them such that further theorizing can generate a coherent, broad,
and useful explanation of management phenomena; (4) remaining flexible and responsive to
new combinations by approaching the elements (to be combined) as fluid concepts and their
combinations as potentially transformative (in terms of new insights); and (5) reflecting on
how one is using (and/or has used) bricolage to theorize.1
Finally, typologies are another way of combining constructs; typologies offer a way to
theorize by representing complex explanations of causal relationships involving contextual,
structural, and strategic factors for explaining a focal outcome (Doty & Glick, 1994; Fiss,
2011). These explanations are not classification schemes—“systems that categorize phenom-
ena into mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets with a series of discrete decision rules” (Doty
& Glick, 1994: 232; see also McKelvey, 1982; Pinder & Moore, 1979) for describing phe-
nomena—but are complex theories (Doty & Glick, 1994). Theorizing through typologies
requires the theorist to make explicit her or his grand theoretical assertions (Doty & Glick,
1994: 235), define each ideal type, describe each ideal type using the same set of dimensions,
and make explicit the assumptions underlying the weighting of the dimensions (e.g., core and
peripheral elements; Fiss, 2011) that describe the ideal types (Doty & Glick, 1994). Typologies
can provide important insights for knowledge accumulation because they enable the theorist
to move beyond the linear to explore multiple patterns (Miles, Snow, Meyer, & Coleman,
1978), emphasize the importance of how multiple factors fit together to offer a more holistic
story (Fry & Smith, 1987; McKelvey, 1982), allow for equi-finality (i.e., organizations can
reach the same outcome [e.g., high performance] through alternate paths; Katz & Kahn,
1978; Payne, 2006; Van de Ven & Drazin, 1985), and offer a “form of social scientific short-
hand” (Ragin, 1987: 149) for explaining multiple causal relationships (Fiss, 2011).

3. Evaluating a Theory: The Narrative Arc

Narrative arcs typically conclude with a resolution of the problem of the story and/or the
problem faced by the main actor of the story. Despite the importance of developing theories
and making a theoretical contribution, the resolution of the story (i.e., what constitutes a
theory) varies widely as does the interpretation of what represents a good story (i.e., a theo-
retical contribution). The range of understandings of what constitutes theory is, as Suddaby
(2014b) observes, a reflection of the wide variety of understandings of what theory should be
used for. Some (most perhaps) see theory as a means of accumulating knowledge. Others,
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   75

however, see theory as useful for legitimating some forms of knowledge over others. A third
group sees a powerful normative value in theory, less important in summarizing existing
knowledge than in directing the attention of a research community to explore issues of
importance for the future. In each case, however, some theories seem to be preferred over
others because of their narrative attributes (Van Maanen, 1995). Our interest in this section is
in reviewing the rhetorical attributes of successful theories and, more particularly, identifying
the narrative elements of what constitutes a contribution to theory. These attributes—in terms
of story completion, compelling story, and the next story—are illustrated in Table 3.
A theory can be conceptualized as a statement of concepts and their relationships that
specifies who, how, and/or why a phenomena occurs within a set of boundary assumptions
conditions (see Bacharach, 1989; Gioia & Pitre, 1990). The general purpose of a theory is to
organize (parsimoniously) and communicate (clearly) (Bacharach, 1989), and it does this by
offering a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, making assumptions and building on those
assumptions to logically derive predictions, offering conjectures that allow for refutation or
falsification, and testing (Shapira, 2015).
Although these attributes of the notion of theory are useful, it is not necessarily clear
whether the outcome of a specific piece of a scholar’s work is a theory. Sutton and Staw
(1995) acknowledge the difficulty in specifying an outcome as a theory and approach the
issue by specifying what theory is not: theory is not references to prior work, is not data cap-
turing the phenomenon, is not a list of variables or constructs, is not a diagram with boxes
and arrows, and is not a set of hypotheses. Indeed, Bacharach (1989) also attempts to explain
what is not a theory by detailing how theory is not a description or the what of a relationship
absent the how, why, and when.
Weick (1995) largely agrees with Sutton and Staw (1995), and for that matter Bacharach
(1989), about what theory is not. However, he recognizes that it is rare to offer a full-blown
theory and that what scholars can often hope to do is contribute to knowledge by offering
their work as an interim struggle (Runkel & Runkel, 1984) for which the outcome can be
evaluated in terms of a continuum rather than a dichotomy (a theory or not). There is consid-
erable comfort in thinking about theory as a continuum because it sets more realistic expecta-
tions about what is (or should be considered) a theoretical contribution. Therefore, while the
Sutton and Staw (1995) list of what is not theory is appropriate given the notion of theory as
a dichotomy, theorizing outcomes can be important as part of an emerging story and/or as an
input to further theorizing. That is, to the extent that theorizing as interim struggles informs
subsequent work, it is useful and salutary and perhaps a contribution worthy of publication
(despite not yet having reached the status of full-blown theory).
The question then becomes what represents a theoretical contribution. A theorizing outcome
can be considered to make a contribution to the extent that it bridges a gap between two theories
as a basis for explaining something between two domains (Bacharach, 1989) and generates
new insights that lead to a reevaluation of existing theories (Bacharach, 1989) that are useful
(Corley & Gioia, 2011; Kilduff, 2006; Whetten, 1989). Therefore, to be a contribution, the
theorizing outcome needs to be original and useful. In terms of being original, the theorizing
outcome should reveal something that we previously did not know (Corley & Gioia, 2011),
surprise us by making us reconsider something we thought we knew (Mintzberg, 2005; Rynes,
2002), and be sufficiently novel and/or counterintuitive (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Davis, 1971).
The theorizing outcome is useful to the extent that it offers scientific utility—facilitates
76
Table 3
Narrative Arc to Achieve a Theorizing Outcome
Story Completion Function Main Cites

Theory as Although a theory represents a statement of concepts and relationships that specifies who, how, Bacharach, 1989; Gioia
outcome and/or why a phenomena occurs within a set of boundary conditions (where and when) and while & Pitre, 1990; Sutton &
there are some indications of what a theory is not, there remains debate about the threshold upon Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989
which a work becomes a theory.
Theorizing By focusing on theorizing, rather than theory, research is considered on a continuum of “theory” Langley, 1999; Shepherd
that acknowledges the emerging nature of the story and the interim struggles on the way to & Sutcliffe, 2015; Weick,
advancing knowledge. 1989
Compelling story
Original and To be a contribution, the theorizing outcome needs to reveal something that we previously did Corley & Gioia, 2011;
useful not know, surprise us by making us reconsider something we thought we knew, and/or be Davis, 1971; Pfeffer, 1993
counterintuitive but also advance conceptual rigor and addresses problems facing practitioners.
Coherent A theoretical contribution is greater for those that offer a broader and simpler theory that is explicit Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011;
about the underlying mechanisms and has fewer alternate explanations. Thagard, 1989
Comprehensible While a theory must be sufficiently novel to capture attention, it must be similar enough to what Locke & Golden-Biddle,
is known to be comprehensible and theorists can do this by imbuing novelty with meaning to 1997; McKinley et al.,
provide both novelty and continuity. 1999
The next story
Reflexivity To reflect, to take account of the research process, and to recognize the situated nature of Alvesson et al., 2008;
knowledge and knowledge creation, theorists can use a different perspective, voice, and Michailova et al., 2014;
positioning, and can problematize the process and the outcome to stimulate subsequent theorizing. Pentland, 1999
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   77

advances in conceptual rigor and specificity and/or enables operationalization and testing—or
practical utility—can be applied to the problems facing practitioners (Corley & Gioia, 2011)
(i.e., problems that matter; Pfeffer, 1993). Therefore, while the theory must be different from
received wisdom to warrant a second look, it must be similar enough to what is known to be
comprehensible (McKinley, Mone, & Moon, 1999). By linking a theory with what is already
known, the theorist imbues novelty with meaning and thus sets up a dynamic tension and inter-
play between novelty and continuity (McKinley et al., 1999: 638).
Building on the importance of coherence to a theory contribution (Azevedo, 2002),
Shepherd and Sutcliffe (2011) offer the following principles for assessing the theoretical con-
tribution of theorizing outcomes: (1) A broader theory is a better theory. A broader theory is
one that explains more facts and, in doing so, provides a more coherent explanation than one
that explains fewer facts. The breadth of a theory is the range of phenomena encompassed by
the theory (Bacharach, 1989: 509). (2) A simple theory is a better theory. A simpler theory is
one that requires the fewest assumptions (Read & Marcus-Newhall, 1993) and is more parsi-
monious. A theory is less parsimonious when factors can be deleted because they add little
additional value to our understanding (Dubin, 1978; Whetten, 1989). A good theory finds a
balance between being overly exhaustive and overly exclusive (Feldman, 2004: 566). (3) A
theory with explicit mechanisms is a better theory. Mechanisms offer an explicit explanation
for proposed relationships (Davis & Marquis, 2005). Anderson and colleagues (2006: 102)
define social mechanisms as “theoretical cogs and wheels that explain how and why one thing
leads to another.” In describing a good theory, Whetten (1989) suggests the theory must offer
an explanation of why. (4) A theory with fewer acceptable alternative explanations is a better
theory. The evaluation of a theory is partly comparative in that a judge is partially influenced
by the availability of alternate explanations and how good they are (Read & Marcus-Newhall,
1993; Thagard, 1989). A better theory is one that loosens “the normal science straightjacket”
(Daft & Lewin, 1990) to offer something new (Feldman, 2004; Mone & McKinley, 1993) that
challenges and extends existing knowledge (Davis, 1971; Whetten, 1989).
However, a theory (or other form of theorizing outcome) itself may stimulate additional
theorizing. For example, theorists can be reflexive, that is, reflect and take account of the
research process by recognizing the situated nature of knowledge and knowledge creation
underlying the theorizing outcome. Alvesson, Hardy, and Harley (2008) suggest that reflex-
ivity can be stimulated by practices that (1) use different perspectives to establish a different
frame of reference from that used in the original theorizing in order to see things differently
and thus recognize that these different perspectives represent a source of new knowledge; (2)
use a different voice to that used in the original theorizing outcome to understand how voice
influences perspective (see also Pentland, 1999); (3) use different positionings to understand
how time and context influence the choice of perspective (see also Pentland, 1999); and (4)
destabilize a perspective through questioning the conditions and consequences of theory con-
struction and thus problematizing the process and outcome of the original theorizing.
Reflexivity as a trigger for new theorizing may also depend on how researchers exit from
their field work. Interestingly, Michailova and colleagues (2014) propose that paradoxical
thinking and revelatory theoretical outcomes can come from a field work exit in which the
relationship between the researcher and the subjects (or informants) is terminated and not
easily reengaged for research purposes; the argument is that the disruption in the relationship
enables the theorist to disconnect (physically, mentally, and emotionally) from the field
78   Journal of Management / January 2017

enabling the abstraction necessary for theorizing, provides the irritant necessary for abduc-
tive research, and takes the researcher out of her or his comfort zone provides a basis for a
eureka moment.

Pragmatic Empirical Theorizing

The foregoing discussion has reviewed existing understandings of how to effectively
identify an anomaly and then conceive, construct, and evaluate a theory as expressed by our
leading theorists. A recurring issue in this literature, however, is an ongoing tension between
the emphasis that should be given to prior and emerging knowledge or between the existing
theoretical literature and empirical observation. A growing concern, expressed most ably by
Hambrick (2007), is that management scholarship’s obsession with theory often impedes the
publication of research that identifies a new but undertheorized phenomenon. Hambrick
(2007: 1346) concludes that management scholarship has a

theory fetish [that] prevents the reporting of rich detail about interesting phenomenon for which
no theory yet exists. And it bans the reporting of facts—no matter how important or how
competently generated—that lack explanation, but that once reported, might stimulate the search
for explanation.

Indeed, Harris, Johnson and Souder (2013: 451) suggest that “many of the interesting gaps to
be filled by empirical research may be in phenomenological understanding rather than in
questions about theoretical axioms.”
Hambrick is joined by a long list of eminent scholars who also argue that theory is increas-
ingly becoming a restrictive rather than a generative tool for creating new knowledge in
management. Miller, Greenwood, and Prakash (2009: 278), for example, describe the current
approach by top-tier management journals as narrowing the notion of a contribution to theory
(i.e., applying a straightjacket) to topics that fit neatly within contemporary popular theories
and allow the development and tweaking of those theories. Miller is supported in his notion
of theory as a straightjacket by Sutton and Staw (1995: 381), who note that “the problem with
theory building may also be structural” in that data can only be interpreted through the lens
of existing theory, and as a result, “the craft of manuscript writing becomes the art of fitting
concepts and arguments around what has been reassured and discovered.”
Here, as Suddaby (2014a, 2014b) observes, Hambrick is expressing the longstanding frus-
tration and tension between rationalism and empiricism. Rationalists see knowledge as most
valuable when it is abstracted into general principles and relationships—namely, theory. New
empirical knowledge can only be understood when viewed through the lens of theory, and
rationalists would scoff at the assumption that a new phenomenon can be understood in the
absence of theory. What makes the phenomenon new, they would argue, can only be assessed
with an understanding of the extant literature. Rationalists construct new knowledge largely
through deduction from prior knowledge. It is this conforming influence of prior theory that
management scholars see as a confining straightjacket requiring a contribution to theory that,
in turn, limits access to elite management journals.
The alternative to rationalism is empiricism, which advocates a focus on direct empirical
observation without the confining influence of theory. Knowledge is accumulated by induc-
tion (i.e., building observation on observation, fact on fact), and purist empiricists will argue
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   79

that prior theory clouds observation and impedes the construction of knowledge through
brute facts. This view—evident in Hambrick (2007) and others’ (e.g., Pfeffer, 2014) impas-
sioned pleas for less theory—is perhaps best illustrated in Kerr’s (1998, in Bern, 1987: 173)
observation:

There are two possible articles you can write: (1) the articles you planned to write when you
designed your study, or (2) the article that makes the most sense now that you have seen the
results. They are rarely the same and the correct answer is (2). … [T]he best journal articles are
informed by the actual empirical finding from the opening sentence.

How should one make sense of these two diametrically opposed views of theory? We
conclude our review with a proposed alternative that offers a middle ground between these
two extreme positions. We term this alternative view pragmatic empirical theorizing, which
draws largely from the renowned founder of American Pragmatism, Charles Saunders Peirce
(1958). Pragmatic theorizing promotes abductive reasoning as a practical compromise of
induction and deduction and more realistically captures the authentic process by which theo-
rizing occurs.
Through pragmatic empirical theorizing scholars can discover and engage interesting
findings as a transparent step within the hypothetico-deductive process (but not the comple-
tion of all steps in the process). Interesting facts, such as anomalies that are not easily
explained by our current theories, are important because they trigger inquiry. Indeed, these
anomalies trigger abduction, which is central to the logic of discovery (at least to the tradition
of pragmatism; Hanson, 1958; see also Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008; Swedberg,
2014; Van de Ven, 2007). Therefore, theorizing can be triggered by interesting facts. Rather
than simply offering the interesting facts upon which others can theorize, scholars who dis-
cover these interesting facts can make a more substantial contribution by taking a first attempt
at an explanation—the opportunity to offer a story that explains the why of the found
relationships.
In contrast to presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori (PPHA; also known as Hypothesizing
After Results Are Known [HARKing]), a pragmatic theorizing approach to understanding
entrepreneurial phenomena presents post hoc propositions as post hoc—transparently theoriz-
ing from results. This overcomes many of the criticisms of PPHA as mentioned above (Kerr,
1998; Bedeian, Taylor, & Miller, 2010) because many of these criticisms can be attributed to
the lack of transparency (or deception) about the process. The problems arise from deceptively
disguising theorizing from findings as a priori hypotheses. Apparently, the disguise is needed
because of journals’ theory fetish, but through pragmatic empirical theorizing, scholars can
satisfy both the potential of the discovery of anomalies and the need for theory by more accu-
rately reflecting the process. We are not so naïve to believe that this does not require a shift in
the research mindset of authors, reviewers, and editors, but the recognition of the need for new
discoveries, the emphasis on theory, and the perhaps widespread practice of PPHA suggests
that the community of scholars might be open to a pragmatic empirical theorizing approach,
an approach that uses empirical inspiration from interesting findings about management phe-
nomena to inform and motivate an initial conjecture and refinements to the conjecture all
while critical steps in this process are documented and reported.
With pragmatic empirical theorizing, facts can play an important role in triggering (i.e.,
informing and motivating) theorizing to offer a tentative (and perhaps highly speculative)
80   Journal of Management / January 2017

explanation for the data. This theorizing can be bundled with the facts to represent a theoreti-
cal contribution—that is, theorizing need not be expelled from the current paper to be the
exclusive challenge of future research. We propose that as the discoverer or creator of the
anomaly, the scholar has the opportunity to offer a first explanation. A problem and one step
toward its resolution is a more solid foundation for a contribution to our understanding than
the recognition of a problem alone. Admittedly, taking a guess at a possible explanation
makes one vulnerable to being challenged and having one’s work replaced by a better expla-
nation of the phenomenon—but only if we are lucky. As the story progresses across subse-
quent papers, so too does the original contribution (or at least it should).
Therefore, we agree with Hambrick’s (2007) point that facts can trigger theorizing. Rather
than interesting findings having to be explored across papers, we hope scholars begin to recog-
nize that interesting findings can lead to theorizing within a single paper (and that recognition
needs to include reviewers and editors). That is, data does not have to follow theory. Indeed, to
the extent that data highlights an unmet expectation (i.e., of an explanation for an empirical
phenomenon), an abductive process can be triggered that “works backward to invent a … the-
ory that would make the surprise meaningful. . . . [Abduction] assigns primacy to the empirical
world, but in the service of theorizing” (Van Maanen et al., 2007; see also Swedberg, 2014).
While descriptive accounts can provide interesting questions, theorizing is needed to offer
novel insights. Indeed, the notion of contribution has rested on the insight offered by a paper
(insight that is original and useful; Corley & Giola, 2011). Future contributions will likely come
from scholars’ transparently offering interesting findings and then theorizing on possible expla-
nations for them (rather than presenting them as theory testing or presenting only interesting
findings). Papers presenting the outcomes of pragmatic empirical theorizing are likely to have
sections like the following (in order): Introduction, Research Method, Multiple Tests, Multiple
Results, Initial Theoretical Model and Propositions, Discussion, and Conclusion.

Conclusion
Our intent in this article was to review and integrate the rapidly growing literature on
theorizing in management scholarship. Our hope was that by focusing on what leading man-
agement theorists have to say about the process, we would be able to accumulate knowledge
on the tools for producing exemplary theory. In doing so, our objective is to reinforce the
notion that creative theory building is not the exclusive domain of elite or experienced man-
agement scholars but rather is a technical craft that can be learned and applied. We believe
that we have accomplished those objectives in this review article.
We identified and elaborated a number of activities that produce effective theories. The
first activity we present, which we term the theorizing trigger, requires the aspiring theorist
to identify a tension that will motivate the rest of the theorizing process. Management theo-
ries are typically triggered by tensions that exist between what we know and what we observe.
We then identified a range of tensions that have historically generated sound theory. The next
set of activities presented that facilitate the conceiving and constructing of theories involves
developing the main characters (or constructs), constructing the context or setting, and
actively engaging the audience’s imagination through the introduction of plots and themes.
Finally, we explored how the theorist needs to select the story elements that build the narra-
tive arc of a theory, that is, justify and evaluate the theory.
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   81

After reviewing the literature on theorizing, we offered an approach to theorizing which

we believe has great potential to generate new theories of management. Pragmatic empirical
theorizing builds on the recognition that interesting findings may be an important source of
new theories and overcomes the lack of transparency offered by PPHA—presenting post hoc
hypotheses as a priori. We are interested in others’ responses to pragmatic empirical theoriz-
ing and we hopefully see its use and eventual acceptance as a legitimate tool for theorists.
Each of the tools offered in this article requires exceptional skill and insight, likely involv-
ing a degree of detail that extends far beyond the scope or space of this article. Our intent is
to initiate the conversation necessary to make theorizing a point of ongoing reflection in our
scholarly community. It is but a preliminary step that offers a common language and a pro-
posed causal process that requires elaboration by a community of like-minded scholars. The
project of building better theory, like all research, is a communal effort, and we hope that this
brief sketch sets the stage for an ongoing and focused conversation.

Note
1. These approaches for building a story (i.e., using metaphor, anthropomorphizing, blending, and bricolage) are
distinct from the notion of borrowing, which does little to facilitate effective theorizing. Borrowing refers to import-
ing largely fully formed theories from other scholarly domains to explain management phenomena. This might be
useful but does not likely provide a theoretical contribution. Indeed, it has been argued that management scholars
overrely on theory borrowing (Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011; Whetten, Felin, & King, 2009). Common forms
of borrowing include using concepts from studies in other social contexts—horizontal borrowing—or using con-
cepts developed at a different level of analysis—vertical borrowing (Whetten et al., 2009). The problem (over and
above the challenge of generating a theoretical contribution) is that these forms of borrowing could (likely do)
ignore differences across contexts and/or across levels important in knowledge production.

References
An asterisk (*) indicates that the paper is included as part of the formal review.
Abbott, A. 2004. Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. New York: W. W. Norton.
*Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. 2008. Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization
and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3): 480-501.
*Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of
Management Review, 32(4): 1265-1281.
Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision mak-
ing: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 123-148.
Anderson, P. J., Blatt, R., Christianson, M. K., Grant, A. M., Marquis, C., Neuman, E. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M.
2006. Understanding mechanisms in organizational research reflections from a collective journey. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 15(2): 102-113.
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. 2001. The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial work and
organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 74: 391-411.
Azevedo, J. 2002. Updating organizational epistemology. In J. Baum (Ed.), Companion to organizations: 715-732.
Oxford: Blackwell.
*Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review,
14: 496-515.
Barkema, H. G., Chen, X. P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. S. 2015. West meets East: New concepts and theories.
Academy of Management Journal, 58(2): 460-479.
Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47(4): 644-675.
82   Journal of Management / January 2017

*Bechky, B. A. 2011. Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders.
Organization Science, 22: 1157-1167.
Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. 2010. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins
and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4): 715-725.
Bern, D. J. 1987. Writing the empirical journal. In M. Zanna & J. Darley (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical
guide for the beginning social scientist: 171-201. New York: Random House.
Bochner, A. P. 1985. Perspectives on inquiry: Representation, conversation, and reflection. In M. L. Knapp & G.
R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication: 27-58. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
*Boxenbaum, E., & Rouleau, L. 2011. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organiza-
tional theory. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 272-296.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced
evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 1-34.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of
Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1281-1303.
*Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribu-
tion? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12-32.
Cornelissen, J. P. 2004. What are we playing at? Theatre, organization, and the use of metaphor. Organization
Studies, 25(5): 705-726.
*Cornelissen, J. P. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review,
30(4): 751-764.
*Cornelissen, J. P. 2006. Metaphor and the dynamics of knowledge in organization theory: A case study of the
organizational identity metaphor. Journal of Management, 43: 683-709.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4): 281-302.
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 1990. Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An
editorial essay. Organization Science, 1(1): 1-9.
*Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. C. 1999. Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective:
Some implications for theory building. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 346-357.
*Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organization theory in the early 21st century: Institutional fields
and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4): 332-343.
*Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. 2007. Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy
of Management Review, 32: 480-499.
Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(4): 309-344.
de Vries, T., Hollenbeck, J., Davison, R., Walter, F., & Van der Vegt, G. In press. Managing coordination in mult-
iteam systems: Integrating micro and macro perspectives. Academy of Management Journal.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
*Donaldson, L., Qiu, J., & Luo, B. N. 2013. For rigour in organizational management theory research. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(1): 153-172.
*Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understand-
ing of modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19: 230-251.
Dreyfus, H. L. 1995. Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s being and time. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Dubin, R. 1978. Theory building. New York: Free Press.
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006. Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 51(1): 59-96.
Durkheim, E. 1895/1964. The rules of sociological method and selected texts on sociology and its method. London:
Macmillan.
Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to
Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613-619.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532-550.
*Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy
of Management Journal, 50(1): 25.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.
Psychological Review, 114(4): 864-886.
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   83

Feldman, D. C. 2004. What are we talking about when we talk about theory? Journal of Management, 30(5): 565-
567.
*Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5):
1240-1253.
*Fiss, P. C. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research.
Academy of Management Journal, 54: 393-420.
*Folger, R., & Turilo, C. J. 1999. Theorizing as the thickness of thin abstraction. Academy of Management Review,
24(4): 742-758.
Freeman, J., & Hannan, M. T. 1989. Setting the record straight on organizational ecology: Rebuttal to Young.
American Journal of Sociology, 95(2): 425-439.
*Fry, L. W., & Smith, D. A. 1987. Congruence, contingency, and theory building. Academy of Management Review,
12(1): 117-132.
Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. 2013. A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management
Review, 38(1): 157-160.
Geertz, C. 1980. Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. The American Scholar, 49(2): 165-179.
*George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 2000. The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26:
657-684.
Gersick, C. J. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of
Management Journal, 31(1): 9-41.
*Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review,
15: 584-602.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies in qualitative research. London:
Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
*Hallier, J., & Forbes, T. 2004. In search of theory development in grounded investigations: Doctors’ experiences
of managing as an example of fitted and prospective theorizing. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8): 1379-
1410.
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of
Management Journal, 50(6): 1346-1352.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,
82(5): 929-964.
Hanson, N. R. 1958. Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. London:
Cambridge University Press.
*Harris, J. D., Johnson, S. G., & Souder, D. 2013. Model-theoretic knowledge accumulation: The case of agency
theory and incentive alignment. Academy of Management Review, 38(3): 442-454.
Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. 2014. Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: A qualitative study
of modern dancers. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1256-1283.
Hassard, J. 1993. Sociology and organization theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Held, V. 2005. The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. 2010. Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative
identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 135-154.
*Jacques, R. 1992. Critique and theory building: Producing knowledge “from the kitchen.” Academy of Management
Review, 17: 582-606.
Jameson, D. A. 2001. Narrative discourse and management action. Journal of Business Communication, 38(4): 476-511.
Kaplan, A. 1964. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Kerr, N. L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
2(3): 196-217.
Kilduff, M. 2006. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 252-255.
*Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. B. 2011. From blue sky research to problem solving: A philosophy of science
theory of new knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 36: 297-317.
*Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis.
Academy of Management Review, 19: 195-229.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science,
4(2): 195-208.
84   Journal of Management / January 2017

*Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691-710.
Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. 2012. Care and possibility: Enacting an ethic of care through narrative practice.
Academy of Management Review, 37(4): 641-663.
*Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. I. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4): 672-690.
*Locke, E. A. 2007. The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6): 867-890.
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual
coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5):
1023-1062.
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. 2008. Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in
the research process. Organization Science, 19(6): 907-918.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through para-
dox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 221-240.
March, J. G. 1970. A fellow from Kansas. In C. B. Schoonhoven & F. Dobbin (Eds.), Stanford’s organization theory
renaissance, 1970–2000: 233-239. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. 2015. Folding under pressure or rising to the occa-
sion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(5): 1313-1333.
McKelvey, B. 1982. Organizational systematics-taxonomy, evolution, classification. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
*McKinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. 1999. Determinants and development of schools in organization theory.
Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 634-648.
Merton, R. K. 1967. On theoretical sociology. New York: The Free Press.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American
Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
*Michailova, S., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., Ritvala, T., Mihailova, I., & Salmi, A. 2014. Breaking the silence
about exiting fieldwork: A relational approach and its implications for theorizing. Academy of Management
Review, 39(2): 138-161.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process.
Academy of Management Review, 3(3): 546-562.
Miller, D., Greenwood, R., & Prakash, R. 2009. What happened to organization theory? Journal of Management
Inquiry, 18(4): 273-279.
Mills, E. S. 1959. Uncertainty and price theory. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 73(1): 116-130.
Mintzberg, H. 2005. Developing theory about the development of theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great
minds in management: The process of theory development: 355-372. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen.
Academy of Management Review, 26: 530-547.
Mohr, L. B. 1982. Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mone, M. A., & McKinley, W. 1993. The uniqueness value and its consequences for organization studies. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 2(3): 284-296.
*Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and problem solving in organization theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25: 605-622.
Morgan, G. 1983. More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28(4): 601-607.
Morgan, G. 1996. An afterword: Is there anything more to be said about metaphor. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.),
Metaphor & organizations: 227–240. London: SAGE Publications.
*Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for
multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 249-265.
Nicolini, D. 2009. Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections.
Organization Studies, 30(12): 1391-1418.
*Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Julian, S. D. 2001. Complexifying organizational theory: Illustrations using time research.
Academy of Management Review, 26: 415-430.
Okhuysen, G. A., Lepak, D., Ashcraft, K. L., Labianca, G. J., Smith, V., & Steensma, H. K. 2013. Theories of work
and working today. Academy of Management Review, 38(4): 491-502.
 Shepherd, Suddaby / Theory Building   85

*Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organiza-
tional theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318-337.
*Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. 2002. Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond
orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27: 294-303.
Payne, G. T. 2006. Examining configurations and firm performance in a suboptimal equifinality context.
Organization Science, 17(6): 756-770.
Peirce, C. S. 1934. How to theorize. In The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 5: 413-422. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. 1958. Selected writings (values in a universe of chance). New York: Courier Corporation.
*Pentland, B. T. 1999. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4): 711-724.
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable.
Academy of Management Review, 18(4): 599-620.
Pfeffer, J. 2014. The management theory morass: Some modest proposals. In J. A. Miles (Ed.), New directions
in management and organization theory: 457-468. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
*Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. 2005. Building organization theory from first principles: The self-enhancement motive
and understanding power and influence. Organization Science, 16(4): 372-388.
*Pinder, C. C., & Moore, L. F. 1979. The resurrection of taxonomy to aid the development of middle range theories
of organizational behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 99-118.
Pollock, T. G., & Bono, J. E. 2013. Being Scheherazade: The importance of storytelling in academic writing.
Academy of Management Journal, 56: 629-634.
*Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy
of Management Review, 14: 562-578.
Ragin, C. C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Read, S. J., & Marcus-Newhall, A. 1993. Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed pro-
cessing account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3): 429-447.
Runkel, P. J., & Runkel, M. 1984. A guide to usage for writers and students in the social sciences. Totowa, NJ:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Rynes, S. L. 2002. Some reflections on contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 311-313.
Rynes, S. L. 2005. Taking stock and looking ahead. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 732-737.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between
practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 340-355.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Margolis, J. D. 2012. Care and compassion through an organizational
lens: Opening up new possibilities. Academy of Management Review, 37(4): 503-523.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. 2011. Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization?
Organization, 18(1): 23-44.
*Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. 2011. Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy
of Management Review, 36(2): 338-360.
Schoenewolf, G. 1990. Emotional contagion: Behavioral induction in individuals and groups. Modern
Psychoanalysis, 15(1): 49-61.
*Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G. 2006. Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal
of Management Studies, 43(8): 1821-1835.
*Shapira, Z. 2011. “I’ve got a theory paper—Do you?”: Conceptual, empirical, and theoretical contributions to
knowledge in the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 22(5): 1312-1321.
Shepherd, D. A. 2015. Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cogni-
tively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4): 489-507.
*Shepherd, D. A., & Sutliffe, K. M. 2011. Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization.
Academy of Management Review, 36: 361-380.
*Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2015. The use of anthropomorphizing as a tool for generating organizational
theories. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1): 97-142.
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. 2015. Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1): 11-46.
86   Journal of Management / January 2017

*Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing.
Academy of Management Review, 36: 281-403.
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1968. Constructing social theories. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Suddaby, R. 2010. Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1): 14-20.
Suddaby, R. 2014a. Indigenous management theory: Why management theory is under attack and what we can do to
fix it. In J. A. Miles (Ed.), New directions in management and organization theory: 447-456. Newcastle-Upon-
Tyne, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Suddaby, R. 2014b. Why theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(4): 1-5.
Suddaby, R., Hardy, C., & Huy, Q. 2011. Special topic forum on theory development: Where are the new theories
of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 236-246.
Surdu, I., & Mellahi, K. In press. Theoretical foundations of equity based foreign market entry decisions: A review
of the literature and recommendations for future research. International Business Review.
*Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 371-384.
Swedberg, R. 2014. The art of social theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thagard, P. 1989. Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(3): 435-467.
*Thompson, M. 2011. Ontological shift or ontological drift? Reality claims, epistemological frameworks, and the-
ory generation in organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 36: 754-773.
Tronto, J. C. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Psychology Press.
*Tsang, E. W. K., & Ellsaesser, F. 2011. How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building. Academy of
Management Review, 36: 404-419.
Tsoukas, H. 1991. The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of
Management Review, 16(3): 566-585.
*Turner, B. A. 1983. The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of organizational behaviour. Journal
of Management Studies, 20(3): 333-348.
Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Drazin, R. 1985. The concept of fit in contingency theory. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 7: 333-365. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
*Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review,
31: 802-821.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3): 510-540.
Van Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 539-550.
*Van Maanen, J. 1995. Crossroads style as theory. Organization Science, 6(1): 133-143.
Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. The interplay between theory and method. Academy of
Management Review, 32(4): 1145-1154.
Wang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. 2015. Alliance capabilities review and research agenda. Journal of Management,
41(1): 236-260.
Weber, M. 2001. In D. Chalcraft & A. Harrington (Eds.), The protestant ethic debate: Max Weber’s replies to his
critics, 1907-1910. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
*Weick, K. E. 1974. Amendments to organizational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 17: 487-502.
*Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 516-531.
*Weick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-390.
Weick, K. E. 2014. The work of theorizing. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Theorizing in social science: The context of dis-
covery: 177-194. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization
Science, 16(4): 409-420.
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 490-495.
*Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. 2009. The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current
issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35: 537-563.
*Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review,
24(4): 725-741.
*Zahra, S. A., & Newey, L. R. 2009. Maximizing the impact of organization science: Theory-building at the inter-
section of disciplines and/or fields. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 1059-1075.