Why Do Management Theories Say What They Do? Toward a Management M-Theory

Abstract

There is a large and growing imbalance between the differentiation and integration of the management theory literature. As a result, the scholarly field needs better tools of conceptual integration to make sense of its varied questions, topics, disciplines, and communities. Here, I propose a language and logic for addressing this imbalance by addressing the simple but penetrating research question: Why do management theories say what they do? First, the article explores different facets to the question to reveal several alternative reasons for this differentiation. Second, it utilizes the resultant rationales for better understanding past approaches toward theoretical integration. Specifically, I construct a multidimensional framework that can be used to reconcile these rationales—that is, integrate the integrative frameworks—to propose an answer to the question. Third, it illustrates how this management M-theory (MMT) framework might be used to stitch together the broad spectrum of management theories. Fourth, it considers implications of this mapping for management research, teaching, and practice.

Keywords

theory or theory building manager managerial or management multilevel

There is a large and growing imbalance between the expanding differentiation and lagging integration of the management theory literature. Whereas the study of management and organizations has witnessed a proliferation of explanatory frameworks, the relating of these is comparatively underdeveloped (Kessler, 2013a). This imbalance is problematic because it presents obstacles to both theory development and theory application. On one hand, the lack of a commonly accepted paradigm presents challenges to the understanding and advancement of scientific knowledge (Pfeffer, 1993). Knowledge becomes obscured when a literature becomes atomized and segmented into “camps” (Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007) or “tribes” (Gulati, 2007), with these camps isolated by “fierce pride” (Koontz, 1980), each focusing on different “cuts of reality” (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989), and ultimately advancing “excessive truth claims based on partial analysis and unbalanced assumptions” (Ghoshal, 2005: 77). This problem constrains synergistic knowledge generation.

On the other hand, when this specialized knowledge is not balanced by requisite integration, then an area becomes in danger of losing its “holistic grasp” (Suddaby, Hardy, & Huy, 2011) and “divided” from the complexities of professional practice (Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001). In the “real,” versus purely theoretical, world, the highly specialized issues that different management theories address seldom exist in isolation and cannot reasonably be answered without taking into account the influence of other artificially segregated yet potentially complementary areas of inquiry. This problem constrains systematic knowledge application.

The purpose of this article is to propose a rationale and framework for addressing this imbalance. In doing so, I will explore the basis for a grand, management metatheory. Amid the backdrop of theoretical battles and entrenched conflicts endemic to our field, such a unified theory would be useful for management historians and others to look into the past and trace the divergence and convergence of their developmental trajectories. Speaking to the exponentially increasing breadth and depth of the field, such a unified theory would be useful for management (especially doctoral) students and others to conduct integrative reviews, contextualize scholarly frameworks, and better understand what has been done and how they relate to each other. Given the aforementioned constraints on knowledge generation, such a unified theory would be useful for management scholars to more fully utilize ideas across the disciplinary spectrum to build upon and systematically advance theory. And addressing the potential constraints on knowledge application, such a theory would be useful for management professionals to select and customize toolboxes from a more cohesive “menu” to better construct solution sets that address their particular real-world problems.

In terms of landscaping the balance, a unified “management M-theory” (MMT) framework would preserve all the richness of existing theories but provide the means for stitching together the plurality of their “micro” theoretical maps into a unified, overarching “macro” topography. Whereas some “purists” might argue that each of their research domains is simply different pursuit, with other perspectives offering auxiliary insights, an MMT approach instead conceptualizes their inexorably intertwined interplay as that of different specialized maps focusing on different parts of a shared sphere. Or to put it another way, a nostalgic analogy for this might be that of distinct theoretical “patches” bound together across the coverage area of a common quilt. A more updated analogy would be that of a smartphone’s search app, providing an interactive site map with granular zoom-able theoretical “pages” or functionalities embedded within an overarching program that (a) crawls the field to locate relevant tools based on user needs and (b) links their pages together to address different combinations of issues.

I anchor the following discussion in the simple question, “Why do management theories say what they do?” To answer the question, I first consider several distinct but potentially synergistic rationales for explaining why management theories differ. Second, I propose a metatheory framework for integrating their corresponding integrative approaches. Third, I apply the above to provide an example of how such an MMT framework might be used. Finally, I discuss the implications of a metatheory framework.

Approaches to Management Theorizing

There are many reasons why theories might diverge. For example, they might disagree due to epistemological idiosyncrasies in their language, lexical semantics, and semiotics (Boje, Oswick, Jeffrey, & Ford, 2004). They might also differ due to their political undercurrents and thus perpetuate, or not, due to the power and salesmanship of their proponents and their agendas (Clegg & Haugaard, 2009). Whereas these causes have been discussed quite ably (and in some ways relate to the upcoming discussion of “Schools of Thought” insofar as they indoctrinate researchers into particular lexicons), I focus here on logical or functional explanations endemic to the theorizing as to decrypt their functional bases for departure and explore corresponding opportunities for synthesis. In doing so, I will consider different facets to the question that reveal several apparently alternative but in fact interwoven reasons for this differentiation. Through their amalgamated multilayered and multidimensional approaches they promise to offer significant explanatory power although it is difficult to quantify exactly how much.

To this end, there are six specific questions whose answers are considered basic in information gathering. They are often mentioned in journalism as a formula for piecing together the different aspects of a situation and getting the “whole story” on a subject; as a consequence, an accounting can only be considered complete if it answers these questions. They harken back to Rudyard Kipling’s (1902/2006) classic Just So Stories in which he stated, “I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who.” These very same parameters are endemic to modern-day investigative procedures. I use them here to shine the metaphorical light onto our subject and piece together the particular sources of theoretical differentiation so to extract a basis for metaintegration. In short, management theories might say what they do partly due to their focal points: paradigms, schools, networks, processes, and insights. This is summarized in Table 1 and elaborated below. I therefore propose that all theories might specify where they fall on each of these dimensions to better contextualize their relative space and contribution. I further contend that integrative reviews in a particular area might utilize these “handles” or potential codebooks to organize component theories and better compare and contrast, as well as more accurately contextualize and ably connect them with each other. With such a common language, theoretical boundaries and overlaps would become clearer to researchers and could be used as a basis for a “hyper index” across disciplinary course texts and tomes.

Table 1.

Rationales of Management Theory Integration Approaches.

Question	Approach	Focus	Answer (explaining differentiation)	Mapping tool (enabling integration)
WHY	Paradigm-based	Theory assumptions “Milieus”	It is a function of their underlying (and often underrecognized or underasserted) deep-level philosophical, methodological, and so forth, assumptions.	Overlapping map of interdependent continuums across multiple underlying dimensions . . . to illustrate relationships in an n-dimensional space of paradigmatic domains.
WHO and WHEN	School-based	Theory proponents “Voices”	It is a function of their membership in discrete, often chronological and sometimes literal, “schools” of thought and ownership by a (actual or retrospectively labeled) collection of thinkers/gurus.	Chronological map of major theorists, movements, and views . . . to illustrate evolving relationships in a progressive, selectively overlapping/diverging, and not necessarily linear, space of coagulated schools of thought.
WHERE	Network-based	Theory connections “Inputs”	It is a function of their particular relationships, cross-pollinations, influences, and interactions within and across the research landscape.	Social network map of relationships . . . to spatially illustrate interdependencies in an interconnected web of citations and references (re: distances, clusters, bridges, hubs, etc.)
HOW	Process-based	Theory dynamics “Actions”	It is a function of their different focal domains of investigation and specific variables considered.	Amalgamated activity map of integrated activities and flows . . . to illustrate emerging relationships across process dynamics that span nature, level, and purpose.
WHAT	Insight-based	Theory messages “Outputs”	It is a function of their varying objectives and intended deliverables.	Synthesized map of major theoretical insights and conclusions . . . to illustrate practical relationships across understandings and recommendations.

Paradigms

At the most fundamental unit of analysis, management theories vary based on their originating points of departure, or paradigms—that is, underlying and often unspecified philosophical, methodological, and so forth, assumptions (Suddaby et al., 2011). This is where theory (and theoretical differentiation) begins, and hence where I begin the discussion. Yet, as per Gioia and Pitre (1990), “the use of any single research paradigm produces too narrow a view to reflect the multifaceted nature of organizational reality” (p. 584). Whereas within simple, isolated domains and levels of analysis single paradigms may be “serviceable,” the practice of management seldom affords such opportunities. Thus, on top of these, the article looks to weave them together within a richer, more nuanced, and mutually reinforcing space. As such, paradigms can be differentially classified, and then potentially stitched together, by a map of interdependent continuums based on their multiple underlying foundational paradigmatic dimensions. Illustrations of this particular integrative approach in the management theory literature include Astley and Van de Ven’s (1983) “Central Debates,” Baum and Rowley’s (2002) “Templates,” and Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) “Sociological Paradigms.” For example, Baum and Rowley (2002) classify theories based on their deep-seated rational (e.g., economics), natural (e.g., ecology), and open systems assumptions. Astley and Van de Ven (1983) similarly utilize a deterministic (e.g., system-structural) and voluntaristic (e.g., strategic choice) foundation. These dimensions could be overlaid with other embedded assumptions and sedimented ontologies (Tsoukas, 1994), for instance, whether the nature of social phenomena is inherently objective or subjective (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Such a paradigmatic map would plot management theories, and ultimately locate any specific theory by virtue of its alignment on the preceding axis, within a multidimensional space. It might also facilitate the intersection of seemingly incommensurable approaches while respecting their differences, or what some have termed “paradigm interplay” (Schultz & Hatch, 1996). Because of their centrality, paradigmatic differentiation is thus a primary driver of subsequent dimensions of variation among theories. As such, they are at the core of this consideration (and, later, presented as the hub of Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Visualization of a multilayered metamapping “management M-theory” (MMT) framework.

Schools

Management theories also vary based on their “voices” or membership in a discrete, often chronological and sometimes literal, “school” of thought and ownership by a (actual or retrospectively labeled) collection of proponent thinkers and gurus. These movements are replete with power, politics, and language relationships that cause them to survive, or wither, depending on their ability to garner a following. As such, they can be differentially classified, and then potentially stitched together, by a chronological map of major theorists’ views and subsequent programs to illustrate evolving relationships in a progressive, selectively overlapping and diverging, and not necessarily linear, space of coagulated schools of thought. Alternatively, in lieu of a simple chronology, more thematic or hierarchical metrics can be applied. Illustrations of this particular integrative approach in the management theory literature include Koontz’ (1980) “Management Jungle” and Scott & Davis’s (2006) “Historical Review.” For example, Koontz (1980) argues that the thinking of management scholars could be arranged spatially about a wheel that labeled different schools of thought for tracing the “scope of operational science” back to sociotechnical, rational choice, and similarly championed perspectives. Similarly, Scott and Davis (2006) anchor scholarly models and movements based on their relationships with seminal works of select management theory protagonists (or antagonists, depending on one’s perspective) such as Weber’s “Bureaucratic Theory,” Taylor’s “Scientific Management,” March and Simon’s “Bounded Rationality,” Williamson’s “Transaction Costs,” and Selznick’s “Institutional Theory.”

Networks

Management theories also vary based on their manifest participation patterns or “inputs.” These refer to research cross-pollinations, influences, and interactions within and across the scholarly landscape. As such, they can be differentially classified, and then potentially stitched together, by a social network map to spatially illustrate interdependencies (e.g., theoretical distances, clusters, bridges, hubs, etc.) in an interconnected web of citations and references. Illustrations of this particular integrative approach in the management theory literature include Davis’s (2006) “Map of Topic Popularity,” Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan’s (2007) “Citation Tables,” and Heath and Sitkin’s (2001) and Miner’s (2003) “OB Topic Ratings.” For example, Heath and Sitkin’s (2001) and Miner’s (2003) surveys of organizational behavior (OB) topics reveal diverse lists of interconnected research clusters. In a similarly intended manner, Davis (2006) subjects scholarly organization and management theory (OMT) papers to network analysis to uncover potential relationships between seemingly distinct approaches within its particular academic division’s submissions. Through this, he is able to identify the field’s central theoretical hubs and trace their relationships to more peripheral but related constructs. Also interesting is Davis’s finding that nearly 80% of keywords in the sample were used only once—that is, not shared—which seems to corroborate our field’s propensity for exacerbating versus mitigating theoretical differentiation even in this specialized research domain.

Processes

Management theories also vary based on their focal concerns and domain of investigation, or core actions and behaviors, and the specific variables considered. As such, they can be differentially classified, and then potentially stitched together, by an amalgamated activity map of integrated processes dynamics to illustrate emerging relationships and capture the ebb and flow of management activities across nested levels and processes stages. Illustrations of this particular integrative approach in the management theory literature include Aldrich and Ruef’s (2006) “Evolutionary Framework” and Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) “Development and Change Typology.” For example, Aldrich and Ruef (2006) utilize an evolutionary framework of variation–selection–retention to identify common sets of essential organizational activities that act across different stages and different levels of analysis. To illustrate, whereas some scholars focus on organizational inertia as the source of retentive practices, it can be seen that others choose relatively more macro- or micro-domains to study the impact of institutional pressures, structural and cultural routines, interpretive sensemaking, and coalitions and bargaining. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) add to this a sensemaking template of hierarchical explanatory cycles that reveal different planes of dialectical (e.g., conflict), lifecycle (e.g., growth), and teleological/planned (e.g., goals and implementation) variables and process dynamics. As per Stinchcombe (1991), analyses of these social activities must be seen as nested within each other insofar as theories of individuals are necessarily embedded inside those of larger groups and then inside still larger organizations and institutions.

Insights

Management theories also vary based on their “outputs” or objectives, solutions, and intended deliverables. As such, they can be differentially classified, and then potentially stitched together, by a synthesized map of major theoretical insights and conclusions to reveal comprehensible encapsulations of fundamental management forces and prescriptions regardless of their genesis. Illustrations of this particular integrative approach in the management theory literature include Morgan’s (2006) Metaphorical Images and Davis and Marquis’s (2005) Problem-Driven Approach. For example, Morgan (2006) puts forth that, when all of the prior approaches are taken into account, one can identify patterns in organizations that, notwithstanding their scholarly quibbles, address common sets of management problems and thereby require different genres of managerial interventions. If one is to begin from the end, with these outcomes rather than their underlying beginning assumptions, then different organizational manifestations—be them prisons or brains or machines or organisms—beget different repertoires of managerial prescriptions to leverage their unique advantages and mitigate against their accompanying exposures. This is seen in the migration of much management research to a more event-specific, problem-driven approach (Davis & Marquis, 2005) that starts by identifying/addressing different practical, or as some say theoretically agnostic, “what is actually happening” questions without reliance on or allegiance to any particular paradigm, school, literature, or focus. It is also supported by evolving AACSB International—The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) standards that prod business scholars to conduct more practitioner-friendly research with a primary focus on solving distinct real-world management issues (Gellman, 2016). Here, the “method for settling metaphysical disputes that might otherwise be interminable” are ultimately genres of consequences and theories’ fitness for use (James, 1907, p.28).

Proposed Metamapping Framework

I now combine the above reasons for differentiation to better understand how past approaches toward theoretical integration relate to each other. Taken together, they suggest a multidimensional answer to my opening question that integrates each of the prior rationales and synergistically incorporates them into a complementary metamodeling process.

Rationales for Theory Integration

Each of the approaches described in Table 1 leans on different investigative questions as the basis for explaining theoretical differentiation and subsequently proposing their alternative means of integration. Paradigm-based approaches address the “Why” aspect of the research question. School-based approaches address the “Who” and “When” aspects of the research questions. Network-based approaches address the “Where” aspect of the research question. Process-based approaches address the “How” aspect of the research question. Insight-based approaches address the “What” aspect of the research question. However, the questions can and must come together—that is, complement each other—to gain an accurate view of a reality. However, this is not a simple, equal process insofar as more deep-seated analyses (e.g., assumptions) provide foundational platforms from which subsequent dimensions emerge.

In addition, each of the above approaches adopts a different focus or point of departure. As inferred previously, paradigm-based approaches work primarily from theory assumptions or their different management “milieus.” School-based approaches work primarily from theory proponents or their different management “voices.” Network-based approaches work primarily from theory connections or their different management “inputs.” Process-based approaches work primarily from theory dynamics or their different management “actions.” Insight-based approaches work primarily from theory messages/issues or their different management “outputs.”

Finally, to advance further along the bridge from differentiation to integration, each of the above approaches when taken to its logical conclusions leads to a different mapping strategy. Paradigm-based approaches offer overlapping maps of interdependent continuums across multiple underlying dimensions . . . to illustrate relationships in an n-dimensional space of foundational domains. School-based approaches offer chronological or theme-based maps of major theorists, movements, and views . . . to illustrate evolving relationships in a progressive, selectively overlapping/diverging, and not necessarily linear, space of coagulated schools of thought. Network-based approaches offer social network maps of relationships . . . to spatially illustrate interdependencies in an interconnected web of citations and references (re: network distances, clusters, bridges, hubs, etc.). Process-based approaches offer amalgamated activity maps of integrated activities and flows . . . to illustrate emerging relationships across process dynamics that span nature, level, and purpose. Insight-based approaches offer synthesized maps of major theoretical insights and conclusions . . . to illustrate practical relationships across understandings and recommendations.

Toward a Management “M-Theory”

From this, I am now able to aggregate the aforementioned mapping tools to construct a multidimensional framework that can be used to reconcile these rationales—that is, integrate the above integrative frameworks—into a more unified, cogent answer to the article’s research question. This is because individually each of the above approaches provides a partial answer to the question, “Why do management theories say what they do?” However, when taken together, they promise to offer an even more comprehensive representation and, instead of being constrained by their particular perspectives, better see the proverbial “whole elephant” (By, Hughes, & Ford, 2016) of management theory. To take this next step puts us squarely in the realm of metatheory.

Tsoukas (1994, p.299) argues that a “metatheory of management is necessary in order to a) elucidate the nature of management and b) to delineate the scope of applicability of various perspectives on management” by logically relating theories to each other and moving beyond the “either/or polarization” in management literature. Such approaches can be seen, to various degrees, in the sweeping frameworks of Drucker, Fayol, and similar others as well as in D. T. Campbell’s (1969) fish scale model of omniscience and Baum and Rowley’s (2002) mapping model. For example, as per D. T. Campbell (1969, p.328), “. . . the only hope of a comprehensive social science, or other multiscience, lies in a continuous texture of narrow specialties with overlap with other narrow specialties.” And as per Baum and Rowley (2002, p.21), “Our reading indicates that while there are unmistakable demarcations among the perspectives, there are also dense interconnections and substantial overlaps among them.” Lamentably, efforts toward such a grand synthesis have been largely neglected in favor of greater myopia and territoriality in management scholarship (Davis & Marquis, 2005).

Extending Tsoukas, such a grand theory would help us understand the larger management system—for example, how theories contribute to the larger dynamic, akin to how organs contribute to the body, lobes to the brain, atoms to the cell, and so forth. This would be useful for better integrating management educational curricula and pedagogy such as how courses fit together, and within them how topics fit together, and within them how theories fit together. This would be useful for better contextualizing management scholarship (Rousseau & Fried, 2001) and providing a map for integrating diverse spheres across as well as within traditional Academy of Management (AOM) levels and domains. This would also be useful for better practically understanding the interaction of management phenomena and how theoretical interventions interact with each other, akin to how pharmaceutical and other medical interventions interact, to produce (unintended) consequences and influence complex organizational outcomes. For example, how the intellectual and structural resources of a firm (e.g., knowledge-based view) constrain or facilitate the generation of new ideas (e.g., brainstorming capacity) and subsequent innovation diffusion.

I will thus adapt to the management theory field what has become known in theoretical physics as an M-theory integrating perspective, as described by Stephen Hawking (Kessler & Bartunek, 2014), that is similar in spirit to the aforementioned Donald Campbell’s “fish scale” model of overlapping perspectives. Here, theories are like maps or fish scales that themselves can be viewed as parts of a more general theory held together where their ranges overlap. Applying this logic, the current article will explore a “meta” integration framework for management theories and, by extension, offer a path toward a metamap of the management field that may guide scholarly and pedagogical, and practical conversations. That is to say, instead of regarding the above theories and the various integrative approaches as irreconcilable charts, I see them all as part of a larger management theory atlas. This promises to move theoretical understanding past Thompson’s (1967) pooled and sequential interdependence and toward capturing their intensive, reciprocal interaction. Theories are simply pooled when they are independently constructed and advocated within a differentiated (e.g., via increasingly specialized journals, conferences, textbooks) space. This is, by many accounts, the default or majority state of the literature. Theories are merely sequential when they are discretely arranged in some linked order or continuum such as across curricula, courses, or a syllabus. This is characteristic of more developed, multidisciplinary platforms. Theories are intensively linked when they are simultaneously intertwined, rippling across space and time to reveal mutual dependence and interconnected dynamics. This is the approach advocated here where such an organic overlaying and unfolding of embedded management maps (see Figure 1) reveals their relationship within an integrated, interdependent, multifaceted topography of the field.

As per D. T. Campbell (1969), a comprehensive, integrated understanding of a scientific field is impeded by the ethnocentrism of component disciplines that evidence “symptoms of tribalism” when their narrow, redundant piling up of highly similar specialty viewpoints to the neglect of a broad-based integration (p. 328). This problem results in interdisciplinary gaps between groups as well as unrecognized overlaps across groups. To address this, Campbell calls for corresponding interdisciplinary remedies that might work toward “collective comprehensiveness through overlapping patterns of unique narrownesses.” For example, at one level, each of the above approaches applies a different framework to bridge understandings between different specialized communities of management knowledge. At another level, the approaches themselves can be pulled together on a higher epistemological plane to provide a larger perspective of the unified entity.

As per Hawking and Mlodinow (2010), M-theory modeling is described as a similar stitching together of seemingly disparate physical theories that unifies different forces within a multidimensional space to provide a more complete and accurate map of the whole. In a sense, it works to combine different theories’ maps into a larger and more comprehensive one, or if you like, different theories’ laws into an overarching system.

M-theory is not a theory in the usual sense. It is a whole family of different theories, each of which is a good description of observations only in some range of physical situations. It is a bit like a map. . . . To faithfully map the entire earth, one has to use a collection of maps, each of which covers a limited region. The maps overlap each other, and where they do, they show the same landscape. M-theory is similar. The different theories in the M-theory family may look very different, but they can all be regarded as aspects of the same underlying theory . . . applicable only in limited ranges. . . . But just as there is no flat map that is a good representation of the earth’s entire surface, there is no single theory that is a good representation of observations in all situations. . . . Each theory in the M-theory network is good at describing phenomena within a certain range. Wherever their ranges overlap, the various theories in the network agree, so they can all be said to be parts of the same theory. (pp. 8, 58, emphasis added)

Specific to management, as per Kessler (2013a),

Theories are like maps. They are more or less accurate depictions of a delineated area or landscape. As such, they have limited ranges of application, which are separated by explicitly acknowledged or implicitly active boundary conditions. As Dr. Hawking argues, and most management scholars would readily agree, there is at this time no single theory-of-everything (TOE) that is a good representation of all observations in all situations. Similarly, as inferred by numerous EMT entries, it is no easy task capturing the complex configurations of factors that combine to influence organizational success and differentiate the sage management scholar or continuously successful manager from their less distinguished counterparts. It is therefore necessary to “stitch together” (a la image or photo stitching) these depictions to see how each image relates to one another and, in the process, gain a better panoramic perspective of the overarching vista. This suggests that theories need not be seen as necessarily competing visions of reality but instead as representing potentially complementary mappings of different networked components within a multifaceted and multileveled reality. Areas of correspondence represent prospects for theoretical synergy. Areas of divergence represent prospects for theoretical reconciliation and extension (recalling dialectical arguments that a meeting of a thesis and its antithesis has the potential to yield synthesis). Ultimately, they are all contributors to a broader, more inclusive map; that is, they may all be part of the same “Management M-Theory.” (pp. xxx-xxxi)

Thus, as per Kessler and Bartunek (2014),

What might scholars do to adapt a physics-based M-theory to management? We suggest, following Kessler (2013b), that it would involve the creation of a hierarchical series of maps. These maps would be based on “stitching” different management theories together in ways that (1) across multiple layers of theorizing, present a more panoramic perspective of their complementary, interrelated landscapes and then (b) combine to synthesize these layers and their evolutions over time in a way that eventually reveals one all-inclusive metamap. (p. 238)

For example, evoking Whetten (2014), paradigms and schools might be seen as more sweeping, “general theory” conceptualizations that provide the context for networks to form, which in turn provide the vehicles for process-based “mid-range theory” modeling and insight-based application. Notwithstanding one’s starting point, the cross-sectional amalgamation itself suggests that the levels are inexorably intertwined:

Fundamental management paradigms and assumptions underlie . . .

Coagulated management schools and views, which relate to each other within . . .

Derivative (scholarly) management networks of nodes and links, that model . . .

Manifest management processes across levels and activities, to propose …

Central management insights and messages (borne out in observation/practice).

In a sense, the above may represent a particular instance of a more encompassing view of a nested Guttman-like scaling that relates the approaches. Specifically, it suggests that within distinct paradigms niches . . . schools form communities of scholars . . . whose research networks emerge, develop, grow, and regenerate to link or connect the schools . . . and direct their focus on particular process levels and variables . . . and that these are projected to explain, predict, and control different management phenomena.

Utilizing such a stacked modeling approach, theories can be seen to evolve in a myriad of ways. For example, they can start in the lab to “bottom-up” . . . (a) formulate the underlying assumptions of management theory, (b) then trace how these assumptions construct the basis for coagulated views and schools of thought, (c) and assemble (internally via protagonists’ motivations or externally via institutions’ mandates) within derivative scholarly networks, (d) to address discrete yet interrelated processes and management phenomena, (e) which are extrapolated to offer core insights and solve real problems. Alternatively, theories can start in the field to “top-down” . . . (a) observe and develop core problem-driven insights, (b) which can be used to understand discrete yet interrelated processes and management phenomena, (c) with these “puzzle pieces” connected across derivative scholarly theory networks, (d) to reconcile potentially conflicting or paradoxical coagulated views, (e) which ultimately unearth deep-seated fundamental management assumptions.

Thus, taken together, to answer the article’s titled question, management theories essentially say what they do based on their implicit or explicit choices along these dimensions: Do this (insight—what) at this domain/level of activity (process—how) based on this research stream (theoretical network—where) from this general perspective (school of thought—who and when) derived from these underlying assumptions (paradigm—why).

Shaping an MMT

I now provide an example of how the aforementioned framework might be used to shape an MMT. The illustrative vehicle for this section is the Encyclopedia of Management Theory (EMT; Kessler 2013b), a 282-entry thousand-plus page compendium of the major theoretical frameworks in the management field. Insofar as the EMT represents the vast diversity of the field it can serve as a useful although imperfect proxy to explore ways of integrating it. Whereas the length of fully conducting such combinatory analyses greatly exceeds that allotted to this article, I thus constrain the discussion to how such inquiries might be guided.

With regard to mapping foundational level of theoretical assumptions, although there are multifarious foundational foci from which to choose, one can heuristically combine and collapse them to a simplified three-dimensional space (as it is much easier to view reality if we artificially constrain our perspective). Here, one can construct a representational room or cube in which to place the EMT’s 282 diverse entries using a strategically selected subset of these paradigmatic dimensions. For instance, as a worked example of a “route map,” different management theories may be plotted on continuums indicating the degree to which they assume a relatively more (a) objective or subjective reality—length of room, (b) deterministic or voluntaristic engine—width of room, and (c) rational or natural logic—depth of room. Using the exemplar of teamwork an objective, deterministic, rational theory of group size and structure (i.e., plot of 1,1,1 on the above graphical description) would partially overlap with an objective, voluntaristic, rational theory of role identity (1,2,1) but have a very different “location” than a subjective, voluntaristic, natural one (2,2,2) of say power and control. Moreover, because different theories tend to concurrently interact and diverge from each other across manifold paradigmatic location, they might be more appropriately represented on this type of map in a manner akin to what physicists have termed “strings” rather than discrete points in space per se.

With regard to mapping theoretical schools of thought, we might align the EMT entries chronologically by the era and champion(s) from which they emerged. This is approximated to some extent in its “Appendix A: Chronology of Management Theories” that traces the temporal evolution of their development. Moreover, we might look to further organize and consolidate this list into a thematic representation of its progression such as within classical, to scientific, to humanistic, to contingency, to behavioral, to quantitative, and so forth, historical periods and movements. Alternatively, one might seek an even more complex multidimensional thematic organization of management schools of thought in the spirit of Koontz’s (1980, pp. 175-176) proverbial jungle. Here, reconciliation should be attempted with the appreciation of its context, that

well meaning researchers and writers, mainly from academic halls, were attempting to explain the nature and knowledge of managing from (six) different points of view . . . referred to as “schools.” . . . (which) led to a jungle of confusing thought, theory, and advice to practicing managers . . . The proverbial jungle has perhaps been made more impenetrable by the infiltration in our colleges and universities of many highly, but narrowly, trained instructors . . . some professors believe they are teaching management when they are only teaching these (particular) specialties.

Further to this, it must be undertaken with a mind-set akin to D. T. Campbell’s (1969) “interdisciplinary specialist” so as to supersede Koontz (1980, p. 183) warning that

the varying approaches, each with its own gurus, each with its own semantics, and each with a fierce pride to protect the concepts and techniques of the approach from attack or change, make the theory and science of management extremely difficult for the intelligent practitioner to understand and utilize.

With regard to theoretical networks, we might subject the entries to statistical social network analysis so as to derive research patterns and clusters among them. For the purpose of exploring alternative route maps through these networks, I conducted a rudimentary analysis¹ of the sets of 282 EMT entry cross-references that provide links to other entries. Due to inherent limitations, it is intended merely as illustrative of how one might go about pursuing this approach and certainly not as a definitive representation. Briefly, the holistic or macroanalysis reveals the following properties: First, the density of its management theory network (defined as the ratio of edges to the maximum possible number of edges) is .022. Second, the diameter of its management theory network (defined as the length of the longest shortest path between any two nodes in the network) is 8. Third, the reciprocity of its management theory network (defined as the fraction of mutual connections in the graph, and in this case, a mutual connection exists between theory i and j if i references j AND vice versa) is .220. I therefore conclude that the current management theory landscape, insofar as it is represented by the EMT proxy, looks to have (a) Low density—it is loosely structured; (b) Long range—it is broadly distributed; and (c) Relatively small reciprocity—it is asymmetrically connected. This differentiation-integration imbalance was subsequently corroborated by a second, more focused analysis of the encyclopedia’s subset of core or “anchor” entries. In this network, there is found an even higher degree of differentiation as represented by a greater diameter and less reciprocity.

A relational or meso-analysis of the preliminary network’s “cliques” further reveals that there exist many mutually citing mininetworks of management theories within the larger network that unevenly borrow from and contribute to one another. Here are identified upward of 36 distinctive and loosely connected cliques containing at least five theories each. In addition, a frequency or microanalysis of the preliminary network’s component theory “nodes” reveals patterns consistent with the above. First, there is a great deal of variance in the in-degree of nodes (i.e., the number of other nodes that have edges pointing to the given node—in this case, it is one measure of the connectivity of a theory in the network regarding the number of theories that reference it). Second, there is also a great deal of variance in the betweenness-centrality of nodes (i.e., the number of shortest paths between any two other nodes that pass through the given node—in this case, it is another measure of the connectivity of a theory in the network as this theory is a kind of gatekeeper between other two theories).

Taken together, these observations reinforce the notion that rather than uniform, tightly connected distributions around shared network center(s), there instead exist differentiated constellations of theories which—akin to what some term self-perpetuating “echo chambers” (Abdul-Jabbar & Obstfeld, 2016)—are disproportionately connected to and (intentionally) isolated from others in the larger management universe. As a result, even though it was clearly no easy task to assemble an encyclopedic review of such a diverse set of management theories, it might prove even more arduous a task to coherently put the segregating components together because it would entail superseding entrenched mental models of subgroup identity and reality (e.g., Lord & Hall, 2005).

With regard to theoretical processes, the EMT entries might be incorporated into a larger unfolding map of management activities in a manner similar to assembling jigsaw puzzle pieces—except here the picture is overlapping and multidimensional. In general, such a process approach lines up with Hitt and colleagues’ (2007, p. 1387) arguments that “the central theme of multilevel thinking is that organizational entities reside in nested arrangements.” It also squares with what Suddaby and colleagues (2011) term within-area/dynamic “gists” combining epistemologies and Metaphorical bricolage. In short,

by developing a gist (a holistic representation of a literature) researchers can then focus their attention on specific aspects of the literature to identify a tension, opposition, or contradiction, which represents the starting point of novel theorizing . . . blending explicit constructs from multiple knowledge domains can produce creative output . . . (including those that share) the same input frame . . . (as well as) noncontiguous domains. (p. 243)

To this end, and in terms of plotting a route map across processes, one could utilize the EMT readers’ guide categories (which are partly based on the AOM division structure) to organize and then plot the categories of theories across logical and temporal dimensions to sketch an amalgamated management dynamic (as described in Kessler 2013b). Through this preliminary rendering, one could illustrate that its rooted theories indeed address common management phenomena albeit nested within different levels, focusing on different forces and variables, occurring across different stages and phases, and acting from different perspectives . . . as interrelated parts of a nondiscrete and evolving larger management “process.”

For instance, looking specifically within the New Product Development (NPD) processes, we might utilize this approach to panoramically portray its different overlapping activities as involving individual creative actors, within larger research/project groups, embedded within even larger particular organizational designs and cultures, working within still larger industrial and (inter)national contexts . . . propelling resultant operational and technological initiation, choice, implementation, and diffusion activities . . . that are in turn facilitated or impeded by strategic, leadership, and institutional forces . . . across iteratively evolving but uneven cycles of change. Of course, different management scholars might choose to focus their research efforts on any of these levels or stages of the process. As a result, they would find that their theories were more appropriate for different divisions and journals even though they are considering complementary conceptual elements of the same essential NPD phenomena. Moreover, within an NPD course or seminar, participants could not only be trained in each of the aforementioned areas but also be educated as to the way different pieces of the puzzle fit together and the systemic implications of different interventions across interdependent components as well as the entire system.

With regard to theoretical insights, the EMT entries might be boiled down to their essential “take-aways” for managers and then these might then be combined into metamessages both within and across theoretical categories. I illustrate this utilizing the EMT “Appendix B—Central Management Insights” (i.e., summary statements of theories’ basic messages). For instance, and in terms of plotting a route map across insights, when considering the EMT Category “Managing People, Personality, and Perception” utilizing an insight approach, we can reconcile each of the encapsulated upshots from the 27 individual theories in this section² and combine them into the following metainsight: (a) Individual personality characteristics, values, needs, emotional and social capabilities, mood and emotion, deep-seated desires (e.g., for consistency, meaning, and rationalization), level of attachment, sense of meaning, efficacy and esteem, behavioral intentions . . . (b) and perceptions (e.g., of fairness, personal power, group membership), cognitive structures, causal and exchange relationship beliefs, images of desired outcomes, construal and definitions of self, shared identity, sense of capability and value . . . (c) are effected by organizational context, job resources, management expectations, rationalized images and symbols, agency relationships, social interactions, subjective norms, institutionalized practices and structures . . . (d) and impact job attitudes, affective commitments and engagements, decisions, specific behaviors, and performance.

Further to this, one could also consider the EMT category “Managing Motivation.” Such an inductive synthesis of the theories in this section could yield the following combined insight statement³: (a) Human needs and acquired motives, which can be systematically categorized but vary across both people and life stage, . . . (b) can be positively or negatively affected by job design (dimensions and characteristics), psychological empowerment, and degree of autonomous versus controlled motivation type . . . (c) and shaped by specific challenging goals, alignment of expectancies with organizational objectives, responsibilities and norms . . . (d) and reinforced by antecedents and contingent consequences as well as the perceived fairness and locus (intrinsic and extrinsic) of these consequences . . . (e) to influence psychological states and drives as well as behavioral patterns and outcomes.

Taking the above to its logical conclusion, an output-based management metamap could collect and combine all of the EMT theories’ central management insights to plot their overlaps and distinctions. This would enable us to develop synthesized domains’ insights for not just the previously presented two categories but instead each of the EMT’s 18 readers’ guide categories (or, if one prefers, 20+ AOM divisions). After this, each of these metainsights would then need to be interlaced so as to produce a grand, albeit probably very lengthy and complex, encapsulation of harmonized management theory insights. However, this puts us up against the inevitable tradeoff in social science between advancing frameworks that are differentially general, accurate, and simple (Weick, 1999).

Discussion and Implications

In this article I have explored a rationale, common language, and integrative logic for conceptually metamapping the management theory landscape. I further propose that it has the potential to provide a richer and more inclusive way to examine issues pertaining to management and organizations, make connections that this domain has not adequately reconciled, and addresses the pesky paradigm-pluralism paradox—that is, tension between (a) positivists and relativists (see, for example, Pfeffer, 1993 and Van Maanen, 1995) as well as (b) within and between participants of the so dubbed “paradigm wars” (Willmott, 1993). Instead of getting bogged down into increasingly differentiated camps and their competing narratives, a metamap approach enables more complex explanations of organizational management phenomena by pursuing methods of integration. As per Davis (2006), “a distinctive strength of organizational researchers must be an understanding of aggregation processes” (p. 115). I therefore suggest that working toward such an atlas has meaningful potential implications for advancing (a) scholarship and theory development, (b) pedagogy and educational innovation, and (c) practice and management solution sets.

Management Research

Good theory papers both (a) build broader coherence by bridging existing theories across level and disciplines to enhance the scope of our current knowledge as well as (b) project future directions where the literature might, can, or ought to be going based on its past and current state (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015). Appropriately, I propose that there are potential cross-sectional and longitudinal advantages from working toward a metaintegrated MMT. First, at any given point of time, an MMT offers a vehicle to help theorists discover similarities and transcend differences to have meaningful conversations within and between their differentiated domains (e.g., Van de Ven, 2007). It does so via a uniquely simultaneously pluralistic and synergistic logic endemic to M-Theory or Fish-Scale approaches. By recognizing and explaining differentiated theoretical perspectives, it leverages the requisite scholarly complexity, stylistic variety, and learning opportunities endemic in the diversity of our field. In addition, it simultaneously offers a path for collaboratively, iteratively reconciling intra- as well as interfield tensions by discovering theoretical connections within a multidimensional shared space. I echo Pfeffer that

disciplines characterized by a too low as well as too high degree of theoretical pluralism will be confronted with a string of specific problems . . . Among the problems affecting too-pluralistic disciplines are an inability to make good choices among competing theories resulting in disciplinary fragmentation and a consequent inability to effectively generate and absorb new knowledge. (1995, p. 685)

. . . the question for organizational science is whether the field can strike an appropriate balance between theoretical tyranny and an anything goes attitude, which seems to be more characteristic of the present state. (1993, p. 616)

I therefore put forth that a management theory metamap reveals the paradigm-pluralism debate to be a false choice. That is to say, you can have diversity and unity, pluralism and paradigm, conversation within and between areas, and maps that provide for specialty as well as consensus. Here I diverge from Pfeffer’s assertion that “The question is whether the social structure and organization of the field encourage resolution of diverse ideas or the continued particularistic advancement of separate agendas” (p. 616). These are not divergent endpoints locked in a zero-sum competition. Instead a management metamap is simultaneously inclusive allowing for the development of fine-grained development of domain-, level-, paradigm-, and method-specific contextualized Aristotle-like management truths (or lowercase managements) . . . while offering a synergistic, living framework for reconciling them—and making sense of overlaps and contradictions/paradoxes—into a big-picture understanding of fundamental Plato-like management Truth (or uppercase Management). It does this by balancing pluralistic exploitation of individual theory with paradigmatic exploration of theories’ selection, preserving within-domain theoretical depth while examining across-domain field breadth, retaining but contextualizing theory micro-logic within an overall systemic macro-logic, acknowledging each piece’s uniqueness while showing how the puzzle fits together, and respecting theoretical diversity while providing paths toward consensus. To the extent that one has sufficient metacognitive awareness and appreciation (cf. Lord & Hall, 2005) of other perspectives, an MMT approach provides a vehicle for pursuing this. However, to the extent that one is limited in his or her access to and alacrity for complementary information, it also provides a developmental nudge to supersede the imposed constraints of one’s theoretical “cave” and at least consider its possibilities.

An MMT thus allows each theory legitimacy/providence in its demarked domain while separating out the larger questions of cross-theory dynamic interaction and systemwide effects. In short, pluralistic theoretical truths are the granular necessities to approximate more sweeping paradigmatic Theoretical Truths. If assumption–school–network–process–insight parameters are specified, then apparently “competing” theories can both be true in their differentiated domains while contributing to an integrated Hegelian-like “thesis + antithesis = synthesis” higher order unification. As such, the MMT classification schemata allows for more a powerful lens to be created via the combinatory effects of management theory lenses that can (a) survey the entire system and (b) capture general systemic effects while (c) directing attention to appropriate component theories’ job-specific tools. This is useful academically for understanding, educationally for explaining, and practically for predicting management phenomena.

Extending this logic, following Kessler and Bartunek (2014, p.241)

management scholars might learn to think more like cartographers—sharpening and harmonizing their maps and their boundaries to understand the design of a management landscape more comprehensively. This would facilitate internal conversations between theorists to help improve the integration of different internal “camps” and “tribes,” create connections between those studying “alternative cuts” of management reality, combine different levels of analyses and factor in diverse assumptions, translate insights across varied approaches and languages, and reduce false but nonetheless irksome barriers arising from theoretical pride and myopia.

More specifically, a management theory metamap might delineate the “room” to thrive within your cross-sectional and longitudinal focus, help identify theoretical overlaps and explain potential contradictions and tensions between them, and consequently provide a mechanism to reconcile and synergize differentiated theories within and across their shared spaces.

Second, by its very nature, an MMT can be projected across time to explain how management scholarship has evolved (i.e., to illuminate theories’ progressively tapering range of past paths) as well were it might go in the future (i.e., to project theories’ path-dependent arc of prospective trajectories). We know from physics that (a) the past is a probabilistic function of gradually shrinking possibilities moving from where we came from to the present day and (b) the future is a probabilistic function of gradually expanding possibilities moving from the present day away toward where we are going (Hawking, 2001). One can also use this logic in a management based M-theory. Tracing the theories backward, we can reveal and better understand their past—that is to say, the progressively tapering range of explanations for how we arrived at a management theory: The particular combination of assumptions that we have adopted (why/fundamental paradigms) . . . formed our perspectives (who and when/schools of thought) . . . which then influenced our research connections (where/active networks) . . . which then oriented our attention within this domain (how/focal processes) . . . and which ultimately shaped our tangible messages (what/proposed insights). For example, contingency theory (cf. Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) emerges from objectivist-functionalist assumptions, is shaped by the design and environmental schools, is catalyzed by the organizational theory scholarly network, emphasizes structural differentiation and integration activities, and proposes that the choices that are made must fit the level of uncertainty in the environment.

Similarly, projecting the theories forward, one can appreciate and better anticipate their future—that is to say, the progressively expanding parameters where a management theory might take us: The particular messages we now advance (what/proposed insights) . . . will work to orient our subsequent attention (how/focal processes) . . . which will influence our subsequent research connections (where/active networks) . . . which will form our subsequent overarching perspectives (who and when/schools of thought) . . . and which will progressively evolve our underlying combinatory assumptions (why/fundamental paradigms).

Utilizing the backward-facing lens, management historians could explore the underpinnings of theoretical divergence and convergence across each of these levels to trace (and predict?) evolutions. As per Will Durant (2014), “It is a mistake to think that the past is dead. Nothing that has ever happened is quite without influence at this moment. The present is merely the past rolled up and concentrated in this second of time” (p. 157). And as per Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman (2015),

the present (and our soon to be experienced past) was selected by the confluence of multiple events and processes that occurred across many levels . . . it is the operation of external constraints from higher level systems and internal (horizontal) constraints from systems at the same level, along with the connections among these levels, that constrain encountered potentialities to create attractors and, if these constraints are sufficient, to cause potentialities to collapse as the future moves toward the present. (pp. 268/272)

Moreover, management doctoral students and researchers could make better sense of a highly differentiated and segmented field to contextualize and integratively review perspectives. As per Gilson and Goldberg (2015), conceptual integration can “bridge existing theories in interesting ways, link work across disciplines, provide multilevel insights, and broaden the scope of our thinking” (p. 128). Whereas an EMT is useful in its elemental delineation, it may therefore become even more so when used with a coalesced map so that one can better expand one’s approach and then assess–choose–use theories better.

Ultimately, this process helps up to appreciate that theories are ways of seeing as well as ways of not seeing. Each choice that is made, or reality that is achieved, progressively builds from prior outcomes and constrains the range of possible future outcomes. This is true for the physical properties of light and the evolution of time generally . . . as well as to the unfolding of an intellectual pursuit such as specific permutations of management theorization. Therefore, I suggest that any effort to predict how the management field will evolve should examine or at least consider its progressive paths from deductive foundational mind-sets and conventions that lead to its inductive manifest issues and concerns. As per D. T. Campbell (1969), this may be done within an overarching, integrated framework that makes space in our field not just for disciplinary specialists working separately but also for “interdisciplinary specialists” who reconcile differentiated emphases within shared understandings.

Management Education

In terms of the possibilities for the advancement of management education, I propose that an integrated approach to management pedagogy offers additional potential benefits. First, it facilitates transitions from (a) artificial “either-or,” “which theory is best?” teaching approaches that segment the literature to (b) constructing more strategic, mindful collections of integrated choices that seek to unite it. Second, it supersedes (a) myopic considerations of conveniently segmented domain silos in favor of (b) more holistic perspectives of the field that better contextualize course contents and their component lessons. Third, it encourages teachers and learners to go beyond (a) stagnant tradition-based methods for conveying differentiated bits and bytes about management and move to (b) more dynamic, evolving path for educational innovation and curricular redesign around integrated multilevel, multistage dynamics.

Within the classroom, this helps students to link theoretical tools across modules as well as with other courses in their major, school, and university curricula. This mirrors the systems-based view of reality (e.g., Capra & Luisi, 2014) to provide better perspective as well as better show how their educational components converge. Students have been shown to robustly engage in discussions that help them put together seemingly diverse lessons and utilize them to solve real-world problems insofar as it relates to the closer alignment of knowledge with personalized paths (Meyer & Land, 2005), better integration with practical issues (Costigan & Brink, 2015), and more developmental coaching-based approaches to professional effectiveness (Whitmore, 2009). Moreover, insofar as the next generation of management students and employees are projected to become even more reflective and big-picture (Tarique, 2014), this should become even more important in designing effective educational experiences.

As example of how this might be done, albeit on a lesser scale, consider the following. At the theory level, the OB insights of goal-setting and self-determination theories do not compete but rather synergistically enrich each other’s articulation of where motivation emerges and how it can be streamed. Moreover, at the course level, OB itself does not compete with human resources management (HRM) or business policy and strategy (BPS) but rather provides a complementary narrative that informs and is informed by programmatic and overarching institutional interventions. Pushing the envelope even further, these “courses” and their “theories” can be combined into multidisciplinary problem-based modules to uncover the reciprocal (vs. pooled or sequential—see Thompson, 1967) interdependencies endemic in their understanding and utilization. The natural outcome of such a shift would be to produce students who do not pursue rote memorizations of differentiated models and their protagonists but instead think in terms of complementary curricula—that is, via multidisciplinary problem-based combinations of traditionally discrete courses—that inform and are informed by each other. Although more common in executive education and development programs, there are ample precedents for this across academic institutions and business schools (e.g., Mintzberg, 2004).

Therefore, a critical implication of the aforementioned MMT framework is a vehicle for management education to supersede artificially adversarial, myopic, and stagnant pedagogical approaches and instead facilitate holistic theoretical perspective of the field. Through this expanded perspective, its proponents could better contextualize courses and their management lessons, illuminate a strategic metamap of complementary choices, and provide mechanisms for educational innovation and curricular redesign around integrated learning communities.

Management Practice

In terms of the possibilities for the advancement of management practice, a metamap might be useful for addressing some of the most often discussed challenges of the field, for example, bridging theory–practice divides (e.g., Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008; Rynes et al., 2001) and overcoming “knowing-doing” gaps (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Consistent with this, I propose that revealing and reconciling its endemic, albeit largely artificial, barriers could be extremely practical for enhancing the potential utility of management theory. In this sense, an MMT approach might contribute to synergistically combine theoretical insights to offer managers integrated “solution maps” for understanding and addressing the issues that matter most to them.

As an illustrative of how this might be done, again on a lesser scale, consider the following two examples. In making sense of the dizzying array of prescriptions that populate the leadership literature, Jago (1982) stitches theories together in a complementary metamodeling to reconcile their different interventions across dominant assumptions, schools of thought, research networks, and emphasized variables. In doing this, he shows how such practical frameworks help actual managers get beyond the “thousands of studies” and terminologies within a “fragmented literature lacking consistency and a programmatic thrust” to better understand the leadership process in its entirety and expand its practical usefulness “for the selection, placement and training of leaders.” Similarly, Locke and Latham (2004) offer a motivation-based “metatheory—the process or processes through which we can build more valid, more complete, and more practical theories” to stitch together diverse models of workplace motivation into an integrated problem-oriented framework (p. 389). Insofar as integrative reviews organize component theories by these dimensions to better compare/contrast them, the contribution of an MMT is just as much process as it is content – e.g., to inspire more contextualized treatments and integrative efforts, to provide tools (assumptions, schools, networks, actions, insights) that can be used to explore the “transition zones” between frameworks, and to work toward a metalevel perspective (Gioia & Petre, 1990).

Through each of the above efforts, the principals aim to provide practitioners an integrated user-friendly menu of options in their specialized area to address different dominant challenges that they might encounter in the workplace. The larger issue remains, however, to then integrate leadership and motivational theories with each other as well as within the context of other complementary management domains. This would work to help convert our aforementioned management ‘maps’ into broader based or integrated playlists of ‘apps’ (Kessler & Bartunek, 2014) that “facilitate external conversations between theorists and their external constituencies to better engage the ‘end-user’ and relate theory with practice in goal-oriented, customizable” ways (p. 241). At minimum, such a metaframework would provide pragmatic functionalities for diagnosing (i.e., effectively locating the relevant theoretical tool(s) based on the issues encountered) situations and applying (i.e., efficiently utilizing their tools with an appreciation for critical interdependencies and potential interaction effects) appropriate remedies.

Certainly, the theory–practice divide is imposing enough without injecting a further level of abstraction. Depending on how it is used, MMT can be part of the problem or part of the solution. If it pulls back from existing, concrete interventions, then it might exacerbate divisions. If it pushes toward integrated app-based, user-friendly, logically organized tool sets, then it can ameliorate them by (akin to the logic of pharmacology) helping select a given management theory treatment solution given its inherent boundary conditions and contextualized interactions.

To conclude, I paraphrase Lewin’s (1951) notion that if there is “nothing as useful as a good theory” then a metamapping framework for management theory—one that synergistically integrates its frameworks—would then be that much more useful a resource for scholars, educators, and practicing managers alike. Through such a framework, we might enable a better understanding of management theorization across levels and stages, reconcile their approaches within a synergistic yet pluralistic logic, from this build an integrated management toolbox to address their dominant problems, and ultimately allow for the execution of appropriate optimally fit interventions that can be targeted and implemented within a complementary, systematic management methodology.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the editorial team of this special issue as well as Andrew H. Van de Ven for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Associate Editor: Lucy Gilson

Notes

Author Biography

Eric H. Kessler, PhD is the Henry George Professor of Management in the Lubin School of Business at Pace University and the General Editor of the Encyclopedia of Management Theory. As a recognized authority on organization management and global leadership he has published five critically acclaimed books, authored over 100 scholarly papers, and worked with numerous government and private organizations. He also serves on several professional boards, is a Fellow/Past President of the Eastern Academy of Management, and has been inducted into Phi Beta Kappa as well as honorary societies in business, forensics, economics, and psychology.

References

Abdul-Jabbar

Obstfeld

(2016). Writings on the wall: Searching for a new equality beyond Black and White. New York, NY: Time.

Aldrich

H. E.

Ruef

(2006). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Astley

W. G.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 245-273.

Baum

Rowley

(2002). Companion to organizations: An introduction. In Baum

(Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 1-34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Boje

D. M.

Oswick

Jeffrey

Ford

J. D.

(2004). Language and organization: The doing of discourse. Academy of Management Review, 29, 571-577.

Burrell

Morgan

(1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London, England: Heinemann.

R. T.

Hughes

Ford

(2016). Change leadership: Oxymoron and myths. Journal of Change Management, 16, 8-17.

Campbell

D. T.

(1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish scale model of omniscience.” In Sherif

Sherif

C. W.

(Eds.), Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences (pp. 328−348). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Capra

Luisi

P. L.

(2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Clegg

S. R.

Haugaard

(2009). The Sage handbook of power. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Colquitt

J. A.

Zapata-Phelan

C. P.

(2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303.

12.

Costigan

R. D.

Brink

K. E.

(2015). Another perspective on MBA program alignment: An investigation of learning goals. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14, 260-276.

13.

Csárdi

Nepusz

(2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. Interjournal Complex Systems, 1695, 1-9.

14.

Davis

G. F.

(2006). Mechanisms and the theory of organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 114-118.

15.

Davis

G. F.

Marquis

(2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early 21st century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16, 332-343.

16.

Durant

(2014). Fallen leaves. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

17.

Gellman

(2016, April 6). A new push for real-world lessons at business schools. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-new-push-for-real-world-lessons-at-business-schools-1459972295

18.

Ghoshal

(2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 75-91.

19.

Gilson

L. L.

Goldberg

C. B.

(2015). So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40, 127-130.

20.

Gioia

D. A.

Pitre

(1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, 584-602.

21.

Gulati

(2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 775-782.

22.

Hawking

(2001). The universe in a nutshell. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

23.

Hawking

Mlodinow

(2010). The grand design. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

24.

Heath

Sitkin

S. B.

(2001). Big-B versus Big-O: What is organizational about organizational behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 43-58.

25.

Hitt

M. A.

Beamish

P. W.

Jackson

S. E.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385-1399.

26.

Jago

A. G.

(1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28, 315-336.

27.

James

(1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28.

Kessler

E. H.

(Ed.). (2013a). Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Kessler

E. H.

(2013b, August). Management m-theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Lake Buena Vista, FL.

30.

Kessler

E. H.

Bartunek

J. M.

(2014). Designing management maps and apps: Insights for discovering and creating our management realities. Academy of Management Review, 39, 234-243.

31.

Kipling

(2006). Just so stories. Project Gutenberg. Original work published (1902). Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2781.

32.

Koontz

(1980). The management theory jungle revisited. Academy of Management Review, 5, 175-187.

33.

Lawrence

P. R.

Lorsch

J. W.

(1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.

34.

Lewin

(1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers ( Cartwright

, Ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

35.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2004). what should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29, 388-403.

36.

Lord

R. G.

Dinh

J. E.

Hoffman

E. L.

(2015). A quantum approach to time and organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 40, 263-290.

37.

Lord

R. G.

Hall

R. J.

(2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591-615.

38.

Meyer

J. H. F.

Land

(2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 255-289.

39.

Miner

J. B.

(2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 250-268.

40.

Mintzberg

(2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

41.

Morgan

(2006). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

42.

Pfeffer

(1993). Barriers to the advancement of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.

43.

Pfeffer

(1995). Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science, 6 (6), 681-686.

44.

Pfeffer

Sutton

R. I.

(2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

45.

Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578.

46.

Rousseau

D. M.

Fried

(2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1-13.

47.

Rousseau

D. M.

Manning

Denyer

(2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through reflective reviews. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 475-515.

48.

Rynes

S. L.

Bartunek

J. M.

Daft

R. L.

(2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340-355.

49.

Schultz

Hatch

M. J.

(1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21, 529-557.

50.

Scott

Davis

G. F.

(2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

51.

Stinchcombe

A. L.

(1991). The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about mechanisms in social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 21, 367-388.

52.

Suddaby

Hardy

Huy

Q. N.

(2011). Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36, 236-246.

53.

Tarique

(2014). Seven trends in corporate training and development: Strategies to align goals with employee needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson FT Press.

54.

Thompson

J. D.

(1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

55.

Tsoukas

(1994). What is management? An outline of a metatheory. British Journal of Management, 5, 289-301.

56.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

57.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Poole

M. S.

(1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540.

58.

Van Maanen

. (1995). Style as theory. Organization Science, 6, 133-143.

59.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

60.

Weick

K. E.

(1999). Conclusion theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24, 797-806.

61.

Whetten

(2014). Theory development. In Kessler

E.H.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Management Theory (pp. 849-855). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

62.

Whitmore

(2009). Coaching for performance: GROWing human potential and purpose: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.

63.

Willmott

(1993). Paradigm gridlock. Organization Studies, 14, 727-731.