Pseudotheory proliferation is damaging the organizational sciences

• Author: Michael A. McDaniel,Jeffrey M. Cucina
• Date: 01 November 2016
• Published date: 01 November 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2117

Pseudotheory proliferation is damaging the

organizational sciences

JEFFREY M. CUCINA

1

*AND MICHAEL A. MCDANIEL

2

1

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

2

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, U.S.A.

Summary In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the role of theory in organizational behavior (OB)

research. Authors are strongly encouraged to develop “theory”in their manuscripts and to make “theoretical

contributions.”This trend is in stark contrast to the process used in other fields of science. Our counterparts in

those fields follow the scientific method and define theory as a concise and elegant hypothesis that has

survived extensive empirical testing. Rather than being based on extensive empirical research, many of

OB’s theories are based on a limited number of primary studies (at best) or speculation and conjecture

(at worst). OB researchers are discouraged from testing other researchers’theories or replicating previously

published work. Consequently, many OB theories do not meet the criteria for a true scientific theory. We

propose that OB researchers should re-embrace the scientific method and focus on creating a body of

empirical research that could be used in the future to establish true scientific theories (through extensive

hypothesis testing, empirical research, and conceptual replications) rather than concocting pseudotheories.

Research in the personnel selection subfield of OB provides a reasonable exemplar of this model, yet it has

been derided of late for being too atheoretical. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: theory; research methods; scientific method; hypothesis

The best approach to drawing valid conclusions in any science, including organizational behavior (OB), is to

incorporate the scientific method in the study of organizational variables. Although OB researchers strive to be

scientists, they are largely failing in this aspiration. In recent decades, OB research has become less of a science

and more of an exercise in creative writing by its overemphasis on “theory”(Hambrick, 2007; McKinley, 2010;

Pfeffer, 2007). Ironically, theory plays a critical role in science, yet our field has embraced an incorrect definition

of theory, a definition at odds with most scientific disciplines. Additionally, problems with our current model for

disseminating research results make it difficult to establish true scientific theories and evaluate the validity of many

OB theories, especially as authors and journals shun the replication work that is needed to establish true scientific

theories (Barends et al., 2012; Makel et al., 2012). In this paper, we address several questions that we have seen arise

concerning theory. Specifically, we define and explain the following: (1) what a scientific theory is; (2) what makes

a theory good or bad; (3) what a theoretical contribution is; (4) whether science can overemphasize theory; (5)

whether researchers should have to make a theoretical contribution in their papers and presentations; (6) how papers

with strong results but no strong “theory”should be viewed; and (7) implications for practice.

How Do You Define Theory? Or in Other Words, What Is Theory to You?

Many scientific fields show a strong consensus in definitions of theory. Unfortunately, OB, other areas of manage-

ment, and most of the social sciences lack a consensus on a definition of theory. Sutton and Staw (1995, p. 372)

*Correspondence to: Jeffrey M. Cucina, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC, U.S.A. E-mail: jcucina@gmail.com; jeffrey.

cucina@cbp.dhs.gov

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 25 May 2016, Accepted 30 May 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1116–1125 (2016)

Published online 13 July 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2117

Point-Counterpoint