Management publications are dominated by studies that offer statistical evidence in support of theorized relationships (i.e. p < .05). We contend that important advancements to our understanding can be gained by well-conducted studies that result in so-called “non-findings” (i.e. p > .05). Our essay not only highlights the necessity of moving beyond current publication practices, but we also issue a call to begin publishing research studies that advance knowledge, effectively leverage data, and comprehensively emphasize implications for both scholars and practitioners.
AlvessonMKärremanD (2007) Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review32: 1265–1281.
2.
AlvessonMSandbergJ (2011) Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review36: 247–271.
3.
BanksGCO’BoyleEHPollackJM, et al. (2016) Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management42: 5–20.
4.
BansalPCorleyK (2012) Publishing in AMJ—Part 7: What’s different about qualitative research?Academy of Management Journal55: 509–513.
5.
BedeianAGTaylorSGMillerAN (2010) Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning and Education9: 715–725.
6.
BerghDD (2003) Thinking strategically about contribution. Academy of Management Journal46: 135–136.
7.
BerghDDSharpBAguinisH, et al. (2017) Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings. Strategic Organization15: 423–436.
8.
BettisRA (2012) The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theories. Strategic Management Journal33: 108–113.
BonoJEMcNamaraG (2011) Publishing in AMJ—Part 2: Research design. Academy of Management Journal54: 657–660.
11.
CampbellDTFiskeDW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin56: 81–105.
12.
CertoSTSirmonDGBrymerRA (2010) Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning and Education9: 591–606.
13.
ColquittJAGeorgeG (2011) Publishing in AMJ—Part 1: Topic choice. Academy of Management Journal54: 432–435.
14.
DavisMS (1971) That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences1: 309–344.
15.
DrazinRVan de VenAH (1985) Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly30: 514–539.
16.
EthirajSKGambardellaAHelfatCE (2017) Improving data availability: A new SMJ initiative. Strategic Management Journal38: 2145–2146.
17.
GeletkanyczMTepperBJ (2012) Publishing in AMJ—Part 6: Discussing the implications. Academy of Management Journal55: 256–260.
18.
GrantAMPollockTG (2011) Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal54: 873–879.
19.
HambrickDC (2007) The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?Academy of Management Journal50: 1346–1352.
20.
HelfatCE (2007) Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization5: 185–192.
21.
HerndonTAshMPollinR (2014) Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Cambridge Journal of Economics38: 257–279.
22.
HillADKernDAWhiteMA (2014) Are we overconfident in executive overconfidence research? An examination of the convergent and content validity of extant unobtrusive measures. Journal of Business Research67: 1414–1420.
23.
HuffAS (2000) 1999 Presidential address: Changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management Review25: 288–293.
24.
KacmarKMWhitfieldJM (2000) An additional rating method for journal articles in the field of management. Organizational Research Methods3: 392–406.
25.
KepesSBanksGCMcDanielM, et al. (2012) Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods15: 624–662.
26.
MillerD (2007) Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strategic Organization5: 177–184.
27.
O’BoyleEHBanksGCGonzalez-MuléE (2017) The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management43: 376–399.
28.
PfefferJ (2007) A modest proposal: How we might change the process and product of managerial research. Academy of Management Journal50: 1334–1345.
29.
ReinhartCMRogoffKS (2010) Growth in a time of debt. American Economic Review100: 573–578.
30.
RosenthalR (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin86: 638–641.
31.
RousseauDM (2006) Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management?”Academy of Management Review31: 256–269.
32.
SparroweRTMayerKJ (2011) Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal54: 1098–1102.
33.
WhettenDA (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review14: 490–495.
34.
WoodwardJ (1958) Management and Technology: Problems and Progress in Technology, 3rd edn. London: HMSO.
