We suggest that the organizational science’s increasing preoccupation with “interesting” theories and “counterintuitive” facts can lead to nonreplicable findings, fragmented theory, and irrelevance. The focus on the interesting and novel reveals a profound misunderstanding of the scientific enterprise. Organizational scholarship will be better off if it reverts to according primacy to the problem being solved over novel theory development.
AdamsJ. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social. Psychology, 62, 335–343.
2.
AhlstromD. (2011). Clearing the first hurdle at the Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2), 171–177.
3.
ColquittJ. A.GeorgeG. (2011). Publishing in AMJ – Part I – Topic choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432–435.
4.
DaftR. L.LewinA. Y. (1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket?An editorial essay Organization Science,. 1(1), 1–9.
5.
DavisM. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Toward a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy and Social Science, 1, 309–344.
6.
EdenD.RynesS. (2003). Publishing across borders: Furthering the internationalization of AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 679–783.
7.
FerrisG. R.HochwarterW. A.BuckleyM. R. (2012). Theory in the organizational sciences: How will we know it when we see it?Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 94–106.
8.
FestingerL.RieckenH. W.SchachterS. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9.
GillG.BhattacherjeeA. (2009). Fashion versus informing: Response to Baskerville and Myers. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 667–671.
10.
HambrickD. (1994). What if the academy actually mattered?Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11–16.
11.
HeathC.HeathD. (2010). Switch: How to change when change is hard. New York: Broadway Books.
12.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London, UK: Penguin Books.
13.
MarkoczyL.DeedsD. L. (2009). Theory building at the intersection: Recipe for impact or road to nowhere?Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 1076–1088.
14.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
15.
PearceJ. L. (2007). Organizational behavior unchained: Commentary on giving peace a chance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1097–1100.
16.
PondyL. R. (1979). Theories of extreme cases. Working paper, College of Commerce, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
17.
PopperK. (1935). Logik der Forschung (Logic of scientific discovery). Vienna, Austria: Springer.
18.
ReayT.WhettenD. A. (2011). What constitutes a theoretical contribution in family business?Family Business Review, 24(2), 105–110.
19.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.
20.
RussellB. (1931). The scientific outlook. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
21.
SchwarzG. M.HuberG. P. (2008). Challenging organizational change research. British Journal of Management, 19(S1), S1–S6.
22.
ShortJ. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1312–1317.
23.
StawB. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.
