Point/Counterpoint introduction: The future of theory in organizational behavior research

• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Author: Jessica M. Nicklin,Paul E. Spector
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2116
• Date: 01 November 2016

Point/Counterpoint introduction: The future of

theory in organizational behavior research

JESSICA M. NICKLIN

1

*AND PAUL E. SPECTOR

2

1

University of Hartford, West Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

2

University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, U.S.A.

Keywords: theory; research; publication; organizational behavior

Introduction: the future of theory in organizational behavior research

Since Hambrick (2007) and (Locke, 2007) published papers critical of how a deductive theory-driven approach to

research has become dominant in the organizational sciences, a growing discussion has emerged about th e appro-

priate role of theory. One notable example is a 2015 debate on the issue at the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology conference that is the basis for this point/counterpoint exchange. Jessica Nicklin

served as the moderator for that debate, and here, she takes on the role as co-editor for this installment of

point/counterpoint in Journal of Organizational Behavior. The other debate participants are authors of the four pa-

pers that comprise this exchange.

The organizational sciences were traditionally viewed as largely atheoretical and in fact were once criticized for

being too empirical in nature. This is a far cry from where we are as a discipline today—where theory is heavily

emphasized, and so much so that it is difficult for one to get published without making a “solid”theoretical contri-

bution. This has created some controversy among scholars, with some purporting that theory is essential for organi-

zational research, and others suggesting that the emphasis on theory is hindering the advancement of the field. We

currently face a sort of ironic dead-end cycle, whereby researchers are expected to generate elaborate, novel, and

interesting theory to publish in premier journals (such as Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management

Journal, and Journal of Applied Psychology); yet, these theories rarely, if ever, get tested because testing and

replication of a previously published theory would not be viewed as a significant new theoretical contribution. This

then begs the question: What is the future of theory in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behavior Research?

The current point/counterpoint exchange begins with a paper by Jeffrey M. Cucina and Michael A. McDaniel,

who argue that much of what is labeled as theoretical contributions in our field is actually pseudotheoretical

writing, often composed of poorly constructed hypotheses that lack empirical support and replication. They fur-

ther suggest that by placing too much emphasis on pseudotheory, the field is not following the scientific method,

leading to a poor understanding of organizational issues. They go so far as to suggest that the current publication

process in organizational behavior research is “dysfunctional and often a detriment to the trustworthiness of our

cumulative knowledge.”They urge scholars to refocus research on the scientific method (which defines theory as

a well-supported and well-replicated hypothesis), as opposed to emphasizing and rewarding the development of

pseudotheory.

*Correspondence to: JessicaM. Nicklin, Universityof Hartford, Departmentof Psychology, 200Bloomfield Avenue, WestHartford CT 06117, U.S.A.

E-mail: nicklin @hartford.edu

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 26 May 2016, Accepted 30 May 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1113–1115 (2016)

Published online 13 July 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2116

Point-Counterpoint