Theories in organizational science often suffer from fuzzy boundaries, overlapping constructs, and limited falsifiability, raising concerns about coherence and cumulative progress. In response, we explore the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool for advancing theory-building in organizational science. We conceptualize AI as a theoretical workshop, arguing that when embedded within a human-in-the-loop framework, AI can assist with generating theoretical arguments, evaluating the logical coherence and completeness of theories, and formalizing them through computational modeling. These advances improve the quality of new theories while pruning inadequate theoretical frameworks. AI also lowers barriers that have historically limited progress by democratizing access to computational tools and enabling more dynamic, iterative, and interdisciplinary theorizing. Although integration of AI demands careful attention to ethical considerations and cannot replace the judgment, creativity, and contextual expertise of researchers, its potential to transform organizational research is substantial.
Plain Language Summary Title:
Artificial Intelligence Tools Can Improve How We Theorize About Organizations.
Plain Language Summary: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how researchers develop and improve theories in the field of organizational sciences. Traditionally, creating theories about workplace behavior and organizational dynamics has been a slow and complex process, often limited by human capacity to analyze large amounts of information or test complex ideas. AI changes this by acting like a “theoretical workshop”, providing tools that help researchers identify connections, test ideas, and refine their work with greater precision and creativity. For example, AI can scan thousands of research papers to uncover patterns and relationships that might otherwise go unnoticed. It can also help researchers spot inconsistencies or gaps in their theories, ensuring that ideas hold together logically. Additionally, AI enables the use of simulations, allowing researchers to test how their ideas play out over time in a virtual environment before conducting real-world experiments. This approach helps researchers develop stronger and more practical theories about how organizations work and how they can improve. While AI offers exciting possibilities, it is not a replacement for human creativity or judgment. Researchers must use AI responsibly, ensuring that the insights it provides are accurate and aligned with ethical principles.For example, they must avoid biases in the data AI analyzes and make sure their models reflect real-world complexities. In short, AI helps researchers build better theories about how organizations function by enhancing their ability to analyze data, test ideas, and explore new possibilities. By using AI thoughtfully, organizational scientists can create insights that lead to more effective, inclusive, and adaptable workplaces..
AlvessonM.SandbergJ. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0188
4.
ArendR. J.SarooghiH.BurkemperA. C. (2016). Effectuation, not being pragmatic or process theorizing, remains ineffectual: Responding to the commentaries. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 549–556. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0086
5.
BacharachS. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308374
6.
BanduraA. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
7.
BartunekJ. M.LeiC. Y. (2023). Creating theory that is generative for scholarship and practice. Organizational Psychology Review, 20413866231207000. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231207001
8.
BassB. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
9.
BezrukovaK.GriffithT. L.SpellC.RiceV.YangH. E. (2023). Artificial intelligence and groups: Effects of attitudes and discretion on collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 48(2), 629–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011231160574
BraunM. T.KuljaninG.GrandJ. A.KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T. (2022). The power of process theories to better understand and detect consequences of organizational interventions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.125
12.
BurnsJ. M. (1978). Leadership.. Harper & Row.
13.
CornelissenJ. P. (2025). The problem with propositions: Theoretical triangulation to better explain phenomena in management research. Academy of Management Review, 50(2), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0297
14.
CroninM. A.StoutenJ.Van KnippenbergD. (2021). The theory crisis in management research: Solving the right problem. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0294
15.
CroninM. A.VancouverJ. B. (2019). The only constant is change: Expanding theory by incorporating dynamic properties into one’s models. In The handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 89–114). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000115-005
16.
DayS.RennieS.LuoD.TuckerJ. D. (2020). Open to the public: Paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing. Research Involvement and Engagement, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-0182-y
17.
DishopC.OlenickJ.DeshonR. (2020). Principles for taking a dynamic perspective. In GriepY.HansenS. D.VantilborghT.HofmansJ. (Eds.), Handbook of temporal dynamic organizational behavior, vol. 1: A dynamic Look at organizational behavior topics (pp. 26–43). Edward Elgar.
18.
DorobantuS.GruberM.RavasiD.WellmanN. (2024). The AMJ management research canvas: A tool for conducting and reporting empirical research. Academy of Management Journal, 67(5), 1163–1174. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2024.4005
19.
EndertonH. B. (2001). A mathematical introduction to logic (Second).
EronenM. I.BringmannL. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586
23.
FoaE. B.FoaU. G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchange. In ThibautJ. W.SpenceJ. T.CarsonR. C. (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 99–131). General Learning Press.
24.
FoaE. B.FoaU. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In GergenK. J.GreenbergM. S.WillisR. H. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 77–94). Plenum.
FoaU. G.FoaE. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Charles C. Thomas.
27.
GershensonS.PolikoffM. S.WangR. (2020). When paywall goes AWOL: The demand for open-access education research. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20909834
28.
GrimmV.RailsbackS. F.VincenotC. E.BergerU.GallagherC.DeAngelisD. L.EdmondsB.GeJ.GiskeJ.GroeneveldJ.JohnstonA. S. A.MillesA.Nabe-NielsenJ.PolhillJ. G.RadchukV.RohwäderM.-S.StillmanR. A.ThieleJ. C.AyllónD. (2020). The ODD protocol for describing agent-based and other simulation models: A second update to improve clarity, replication, and structural realism. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4259
29.
GuestO.MartinA. E. (2021). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585
30.
HambrickD. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166119
31.
HanniganT. R.HaansR. F. J.VakiliK.TchalianH.GlaserV. L.WangM. S.KaplanS.JenningsP. D. (2019). Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 586–632. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099
32.
HarmanG. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning.
33.
HarrisonJ. R.LinZ.CarrollG. R.CarleyK. M. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586485
34.
JärvinenM.Mik-MeyerN. (2025). Gaming and performance metrics in higher education: The consequences of journal lists. Sociology, 00380385251313899. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385251313899
JumperJ.EvansR.PritzelA.GreenT.FigurnovM.RonnebergerO.TunyasuvunakoolK.BatesR.ŽídekA.PotapenkoA.BridglandA.MeyerC.KohlS. A. A.BallardA. J.CowieA.Romera-ParedesB.NikolovS.JainR.AdlerJ., …, & HassabisD. (2021). Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature, 596(7873), 583–589. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2
KilduffM.O’SullivanD. (2024). Where’s the theory contribution? An answer in four parts. Organizational Psychology Review, 20413866241233740. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241233739
39.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4), 270–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614533586
40.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (2022). The data revolution and the interplay between theory and data. In MurphyK. R. (Ed.), Data, methods, and theory in the organizational sciences. Routledge.
41.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (2024). A multilevel, emergent journey to unpack team process dynamics. Small Group Research, 56(3), 487–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241281347
42.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33(5–6), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2552
43.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119
44.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2016). Capturing the multilevel dynamics of emergence: Computational modeling, simulation, and virtual experimentation. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614547955
45.
KuljaninG.BraunM. T.GrandJ. A.OlenickJ. D.ChaoG. T.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2024). Advancing organizational science with computational process theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 35(4), 101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101797
46.
LeavittK.SchabramK.HariharanP.BarnesC. M. (2021). Ghost in the machine: On organizational theory in the age of machine learning. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 750–777. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0247
47.
MarkovskyB.KazemiA. (2012). Formalizing foa’s social resource theory of exchange. In TörnblomK.KazemiA. (Eds.), Handbook of social resource theory (pp. 81–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_5
48.
McGrathS. W.RussinJ.PavlickE.FeimanR. (2024). How can deep neural networks inform theory in psychological science?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(5), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214241268098
49.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V. M.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.Percie du SertN.SimonsohnU.WagenmakersE.-J.WareJ. J.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
50.
NadkarniS.GruberM.DeCellesK.ConnellyB.BaerM. (2018). New ways of seeing: Radical theorizing. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4002
51.
NobleS. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
52.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
53.
OlenickJ.DishopC. (2022). Clarifying dynamics for organizational research and interventions: A diversity example. Organizational Psychology Review, 12(4), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221112427
54.
OlenickJ.WalkerR.BradburnJ.DeShonR. P. (2018). A systems view of the scientist–practitioner gap. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.8
55.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115624965
56.
PopperK. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. Routledge and Keagan Paul.
RailsbackS. F.GrimmV. (2019). Agent-based and individual-based modeling: A practical introduction, Second edition. Princeton University Press.
59.
RousseauD. M. (2024). Reviews as research: Steps in developing trustworthy synthesis. Academy of Management Annals, 18(2), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2024.0132
60.
RousseauD. M.ManningJ.DenyerD. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211651
61.
SaylorsR.TrafimowD. (2021). Why the increasing use of complex causal models is a problem: On the danger sophisticated theoretical narratives pose to truth. Organizational Research Methods, 24(3), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119893452
62.
SchwarzG. M. (2023). Down the garden path: Modelling theory won’t fix the theory crisis. Organization Studies, 44(7), 1191–1194. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231164116
63.
ShallueC. J.VanderburgA. (2018). Identifying exoplanets with deep learning: A five-planet resonant cchain around Kepler-80 and an eighth planet around Kepler-90. The Astronomical Journal, 155(2), 94. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa9e09
SilverD.HuangA.MaddisonC. J.GuezA.SifreL.van den DriesscheG.SchrittwieserJ.AntonoglouI.PanneershelvamV.LanctotM.DielemanS.GreweD.NhamJ.KalchbrennerN.SutskeverI.LillicrapT.LeachM.KavukcuogluK.GraepelT.HassabisD. (2016). Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587), 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16961
66.
SmaldinoP. E.CalanchiniJ.PickettC. L. (2015). Theory development with agent-based models. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4), 300–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614546944
SuddabyR. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.3.zok346
69.
SuddabyR.HardyC.HuyQ. N. (2011). Introduction to special topic forum: Where are the new theories of organization?Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.36.2.zok236
70.
TourishD. (2019). Management studies in crisis: Fraud, deception and meaningless research. Cambridge University Press.
71.
VancouverJ. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.02.001
72.
VancouverJ. B.WangM.LiX. (2020). Translating informal theories into formal theories: The case of the dynamic computational model of the integrated model of work motivation. Organizational Research Methods, 23(2), 238–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118780308
73.
VancouverJ. B.WeinhardtJ. M. (2012). Modeling the mind and the milieu: Computational modeling for micro-level organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 602–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112449655
74.
VancouverJ. B.WeinhardtJ. M.VigoR. (2014). Change one can believe in: Adding learning to computational models of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.002
75.
VancouverJ. B.WeinhardtJ. M.WangM. (2023). Better theory, methods, and practice through computational modeling. In VancouverJ. B.WangM.WeinhardtJ. M. (Eds.), Computational Modeling for Industrial-Organizational Psychologists (pp. 3–33). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003388852-2.
76.
van KnippenbergD.SitkinS. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.759433
77.
VyasB. (2024). Ethical implications of generative AI in art and the media. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 4(4), 2582–2160.
78.
WeinhardtJ. M.VancouverJ. B. (2012). Computational models and organizational psychology: Opportunities abound. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386612450455
79.
WoodG.PhanP. H.WrightM. (2018). The problems with theory and new challenges in theorizing. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0123
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
