Theoretical Literature Review: Tracing the Life Cycle of a Theory and Its Verified and Falsified Statements

Abstract

The Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) has proven to be a source of knowledge providing research in the forms of theory development, literature reviews, educational and descriptive analyses, critical analyses, and empirical research studies. Given this vast body of knowledge, there has not been a call for researchers to provide a literature review format for tracing the life cycles of individual theories, differentiating between formal and informal theories within human resource development’s (HRD) body of knowledge. The current article proposes a format for conducting a theoretical literature review, using path-goal leadership theory and the learning organization as two examples to showcase the benefits of using a theoretical literature review. Incorporating theoretical literature reviews to some of the AHRD’s journals could help in identifying and mapping the field’s formal and informal theories while aiding in providing additional historical reviews for the discipline.

Keywords

theoretical literature review theory literature review knowledge base reference discipline

Popper (2002) explained that theories are “perpetually changing” (p. 50), leading to one explanation of why branches of science rarely form “an elaborate and logically well-constructed system of theories” (p. 50). Lincoln and Lynham (2011) identified the importance theory has to a particular field of study: “Good quality theory is imperative to sound, informed practice and the continued development and maturity of the field” (p. 3). Likewise, Godfrey-Smith (2003) highlighted that a paradigm, or research program, is an evolving entity and is only successful if its predictive capabilities, through its body of formal theories, continue to improve. Problems arise, however, when a field of study is unable to identify or develop a consensus within its body of knowledge as to what constitutes the research program’s set of formal theories. This problem is prevalent in the Human Resource Development (HRD) program. Storberg-Walker (2007) claimed, “In the discipline of HRD there is no consensus on the ‘right’ paradigm or the ‘right’ set of assumptions” (p. 316). Also, Hamlin (2007) identified the field of HRD as being “segmented, incomplete, lacking comprehensiveness and coherence” (p. 42). Carlile and Christensen (2006) reported that some of managements’ most respected scholars took the position that only a paucity of theories was “intellectually rigorous, practically useful, and able to stand the tests of time and changing circumstances” (p. 1). By developing and providing sound formal theories that represent the HRD program, better predictive capabilities and opportunities for integration within the field as well as outside the field (Choate et al., 2012) can arise. This leads to the following important questions: What are HRD’s most researched and pragmatic theories? What are HRD’s formal theories? Are these formal theories represented in the current literature? Although the current article cannot, nor is it intended to, answer these questions, the presented theoretical literature review will aid in the discipline’s ability to formulate a response to each.

As a scientific discipline grows, its body of knowledge also grows. This body of knowledge presents and challenges the discipline’s formal and informal theories. Tracing a specific program’s set of formal and informal theories becomes critical for a field to present a unified explanation of current phenomena. In reporting about the importance of keeping up with the history of knowledge for a particular program, Kuhn (2012) recommended documenting both the successive increments to knowledge and any obstacles inhibiting the accumulation of knowledge. As a method of helping HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners stay current with HRD’s body of knowledge, and to better identify what the program’s formal and informal theories are, the current article introduces the concept of a theoretical literature review, a historical perspective of a theory’s life cycle. It is presented here as a new method of tracking and documenting the life cycle of a program’s formal and informal theories, specifically for the HRD program.

Literature Reviews

Before conducting research, Boote and Beile (2005) highlighted the point that scholars need to understand what had been done before. They also identified the importance of researchers being able to cite previous work related to their research to support the scientific process of cumulative research that builds upon prior research. Boote and Beile identified the following key objectives that a literature review should provide to research:

• It sets the broad context of the study.

• It clearly demarcates what is and what is not within the scope of the investigation.

• It situates an existing literature in a broader scholarly and historical context. (p. 4)

As theory provides the foundation to most research endeavors, Rocco and Plakhotnik (2009) agreed that theory also provides the grounding for literature reviews. Rocco and Plakhotnik indicated that research develops from the researcher’s implicit or explicit theory, depending on whether the research effort is quantitative or qualitative. In either case, the theory is the key driver to research efforts and literature reviews. Literature reviews must be able to provide a clear theoretical framework (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009) so that others can build upon one’s literature review, providing further support for or against the theoretical framework.

Deficiencies arise in research when a theory is chosen at one point in time with no consideration of what has been tested, verified, or falsified. These shortcomings lead to a false or incomplete presentation of the theoretical framework, further hindering the rigor of the research process. Connelly (2014) highlighted this by stating, “When research results are not what were expected, two reasons are possible: either the research design or measurement of variables was flawed, or the theory guiding the research did not fit the situation or population” (p. 188). House (1996) identified two traps that social scientists fall into when describing his newly modified path-goal theory. For the first trap, House explained that “we too often use existing measures merely because they are available” (p. 346), whereas the second trap highlighted that “we often become trapped in our own paradigms” (p. 346). Expanding a theoretical framework that had been supported in one system (i.e., situation, environment, culture, sample) by introducing it to a different system would fall under the theory-testing category. In this case, parts of the theoretical framework may be verified while other parts may not, requiring the theoretical framework to be modified for this new system. Over time, as the original theoretical framework and its modified framework are exposed to further testing, the results could be that there are two separate theoretical frameworks, one for each system. However, this process becomes problematic when researchers assume that a theoretical framework that had been supported in one system will naturally be supported in a different system. This is what House referred to when indicating that we can be trapped within our paradigms. Theoretical frameworks need to be tested for a variety of systems over time and must be shown to be verified for these different systems before they can become a supporting theory for a specific program. Literature reviews, regardless of whether they are part of a larger research study, an integrative literature review (Torraco, 2005, 2016), or a stand-alone theoretical literature review as presented in the current article, should present “the most important feature of the explanation of a model, conceptual framework, or theory” (Torraco, 2016, p. 422). Torraco (2016) indicated that researchers should also be able to explain how the theoretical framework overcomes “omissions, deficiencies, or other problems in the literature” (p. 422).

One example of this can be found in the literature related to agency theory. Agency theory essentially identifies a transaction between two parties, a principal and an agent, in which the former expects to gain value from the transaction (Bosse & Phillips, 2016). Agency theory has been identified as one of the more dominant theories within the field of economics (Bosse & Phillips, 2016), placing agency theory as a formal theory. The problem, however, that continues to surface in the literature, relates to explaining the “ubiquitous agency problem and how to address it” (Bosse & Phillips, 2016, p. 276). In their article, Bosse and Phillips (2016) highlighted the vast empirical evidence supporting agency theory within the organization literature, as well as identifying conflicting findings that further question portions of the theory (e.g., board composition does not predict firm performance). Also, Hendry (2002) highlighted two primary questions relating to the assumptions set for agency theory:

To what extent are agency theory’s predictions dependent on its particular behavioral assumptions and to what extent on more general properties of agency relationships? Can they be generalized or extended so as to allow for different behavioral assumptions, more naturally appropriate to the management context? (p. 98)

Even with a formal theory such as agency theory, continuous refinement is essential as change is inevitable: “Key parts of agency theory deserve further examination and refinement” (p. 280). It is in a theoretical literature review where such findings would surface, better identifying future research opportunities.

Research findings relating to a specific theory should be synthesized to identify the theory’s boundaries and limitations over time, where the theory can be used to successfully predict outcomes, as well as identifying the different systems in which the theory cannot be used to predict outcomes. Failure to provide such a synthesis, according to Choate et al. (2012), “can lead to wasted research effort and resources, resulting from reinvention of the wheel, so to speak, and a failure to make the appropriate links to relevant subdisciplines” (p. 595). Failure to provide such a synthesis for a particular program could also lead to misrepresentation of the program’s set of formal theories. Christensen and Raynor (2003) supported this point by indicating that successfully verified theories should provide predictability to a field of study.

Cooper (2003) pointed out that, over the past 25 years, both scientific and research synthesis methods have changed to reflect the growing field of research. Because most research synthesis methods are relatively new, Cooper indicated that they were either “incomplete, or incompletely understood” (p. 3). Torraco (2005) highlighted that a literature review (integrated) “reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature” (p. 356) with some literature reviews focused on research methods and theories (Torraco, 2016). The focus of the current article is to introduce a method for synthesizing the theoretical life cycle of an individual theory within the boundaries of a particular program, providing that field with a better understanding of a theory’s verified, falsified, or altered framework. Implementing theoretical literature reviews could be a means of helping programs to identify their set of formal and informal theories. The field of HRD can benefit by utilizing theoretical literature reviews in that they could better identify its set of formal and informal theories, providing a platform for future research endeavors for HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners.

What Is Theory?

In its most basic form, a theory either predicts or explains a phenomenon. Theories are constructed by the human mind to understand our surrounding environment and can become quite complex. Theories are needed “to satisfy a very human ‘need’ to order the experienced world. The only instrument employed in the ordering process is the human mind and the ‘magic’ of human perception and thought” (Dubin, 1978, p. 7). Theories are put into practice to help us “understand, explain, anticipate, know, and act” (Lynham, 2002a, p. 222) in our surroundings or environment.

Within the literature, there are a variety of definitions for theory. Theory has been defined as “the mental image or conceptual framework that is brought to bear on the research problems” (Van de Ven, 2007, p. 19). Theory has also been defined as the development of “a system of coherent, disciplined and rigorous knowledge and explanation” (Lynham, 2002a, p. 229), and as “an explanation of relationships among concepts or events within a set of boundary conditions” (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010, p. 112). Compared with the previous definitions, Jaccard and Jacoby’s (2010) definition included boundary conditions between the concepts (or constructs) and events (context). For the current article, theory will be defined as a conceptual framework that identifies the connections, or lack of connections, between concepts/constructs to describe a phenomenon that furthers the academic knowledge base and supports researchers and practitioners in the field in which the phenomenon takes place. This definition places the primary function of the theory as describing a phenomenon (explaining or predicting) furthering the literature (the boundary conditions) as well as providing utility (supporting researchers and practitioners).

HRD—The Boundary Conditions

The literature within the field of HRD has been uncertain in its efforts to create a definition of HRD. Scholars within HRD have posed the question of whether HRD should even be defined (McLean & McLean, 2001); in doing so, a definition would place artificial boundaries around the discipline. Also, many of the definitions in the literature have constrained HRD within the context of North America and for developed countries. McLean and McLean (2001) highlighted this focus by providing various definitions of HRD from other countries (e.g., China, France, Korea). Other studies have looked at HRD definitions through a historical lens. In their study, Han, Chae, Han, and Yoon (2017) analyzed HRD definitions historically and categorized the historical trends into three evolutionary periods; developing definition of disciplinarity, competition and selection between major paradigms, and divergence and expansion of topics. These evolutionary definitions were “grounded based on the intellectual evolutionary framework” (Han et al., 2017, p. 309), which in part, were dictated by theory.

As the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) evolves and expands in this age of globalization and complexity, so to should the field’s knowledge base. This knowledge base is in part driven by the theories that are presented, cited, and tested within the field of HRD. The field of HRD needs to “create systematic pathways for supporting and embracing this co-evolution” (Watkins & Marsick, 2016, p. 478). The AHRD has built its credibility, in part, by providing a strong theory base (Watkins & Marsick, 2016); as such, the field must further this knowledge base during this time of expansion and evolution. One method of providing a systematic pathway for AHRD to continue evolving is by identifying and presenting this theory base using a theoretical literature review. The authors of the current article decided against presenting one single definition of HRD, rather, the presentation of the theoretical literature review can better contribute to the field’s theory base within the context of whichever definition of HRD one prescribes to. A definition is situated in the context and, in turn, the context determines the segment of HRD that is to be reviewed. For example, the knowledge base for HRD would be different compared with the knowledge base for national human resource development (NHRD), organization development (OD), or virtual human resource development (VHRD). The boundary conditions identified by the researcher conducting a theoretical literature review will define the segment of HRD that they are addressing (e.g., HRD, NHRD, VHRD). By identifying formal and informal theories for each bounded segment of HRD (e.g., NHRD, VHRD), the field can better identify these systematic pathways and then, and only then, provide more complete definitions for HRD. As an example, the phenomena that are researched within NHRD and the theories used to structure this body of research, once better identified through theoretical literature reviews, will provide additional context and evidence for the field’s definition.

The Life Cycle of a Theory

A theory can be either verified or falsified according to Popper (2002), and one that is verified can only remain verified for a short period. It is the scientific process that challenges a theory through multiple tests, resulting in a theory that has “proved its mettle” (Popper, 2002, p. 10), if only for a short time. These theories that have passed the test of rigor are considered formal theories in which branches of science stand behind. Alternatively, theories that have either not been tested or have only been exposed to a single test represent informal theories.

Formal theories are necessary for a discipline to build their knowledge base. A program’s knowledge base is where it demonstrates its theoretical and pragmatic impact (Serenko & Bontis, 2013a) on science. Informal theories provide explanations for new phenomena as well as provide alternative theories that challenge existing formal theories. New knowledge is contributed through the interplay between formal and informal theories. Formal theories are replaced with new or informal theories, providing a program with better explanations to problems or phenomena that are more representative of changes in the environment. This process referred to as repeated overthrow by Kuhn (1970), and refinement by Swanson and Chermack (2013), provides scholars and scholar-practitioners with the tools necessary to address current problems and phenomena while allowing a program to continue providing a continuous updated theoretical knowledge base.

A conceptual map of a theory’s life cycle is provided in Figure 1. This figure distinguishes informal theories, the early or initial stages of a theory, from formal theories, a program’s foundation. A program allows formal theories to remain part of their foundation as long as they can withstand continuous testing. Likewise, informal theories provide a program with a body of alternative theories that can be tested and considered as replacements for formal theories that have proven to be no longer valid.

Figure 1.

Life cycle of a theory.

Figure 2.

Path-goal theory in HRD literature.

The phases relating to an informal theory consist of theory development, peer-review-for-publication process, and theory testing. Theory development begins with a problem and can be conducted through numerous theory development models: Dubin’s Theory-Research Cycle (Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002b), Lynham’s General Method (Lynham, 2002a), Christensen and Raynor’s Theory Building Model (Christensen & Raynor, 2003), Van de Ven’s Engaged Scholarship Model (Van de Ven, 2007), and Carlile and Christensen’s Process of Building Theory (Carlile & Christensen, 2006). This short list of theory-building models is not exhaustive but is representative of significant contributions to theory building.

Once a theory has been developed and is in a format that is acceptable for publication, the theory passes through its peer-review-for-publication process. This phase categorizes the presented theory as an informal theory for the program. If a theory is not accepted through the peer-review process, then the scholar or scholar-practitioner needs to rework the theory and address the concerns and comments provided by the reviewers before resubmitting the theory. Once accepted, an informal theory can either remain stagnant or proceed to the next phase, the theory-testing phase. If a theory is viewed as being worthy of consideration by those within the program, the theory can advance from an informal theory to the initial stages of becoming a formal theory.

An informal theory that has been accepted by a program challenges scholars and scholar-practitioners to subject the theory to undergo empirical tests. This process presumes a theory is worth its mettle, as depicted by Popper (2002). The transformation of a theory, from an informal to a formal theory, requires that the informal theory is exposed to critical analysis and continuous refinements. Only after an informal theory has been exposed to a series of empirical tests and refinements (Swanson & Chermack, 2013) can it reach the category of being considered a formal theory. Formal theories are continuously challenged by alternative theories. If an alternative theory proves to be more representative than an existing formal theory, the new alternative theory replaces the formal theory, transforming the original formal theory into an informal theory. This constant interplay between theories is represented in the last phase in the life cycle, identified as accepted theory/continuous refinement cycle continues. The confirmation and continuous refinement cycles challenge formal theories, resulting in a program’s ability to provide current and updated theories as part of its knowledge base.

A theoretical literature review is presented here as a tool for HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners to better identify and provide support for HRD’s set of formal theories. A theoretical literature review provides a historical perspective of a theory (as presented in Figure 1) identifying

what theories are considered formal theories,

what theories are considered informal theories,

what informal theories are considered alternative theories to specific formal theories,

what empirical tests have been conducted, and

what refinements have been made to an informal theory during its transformation to being considered a formal theory.

To compose a theoretical literature review, the following steps from Cooper’s (2003) taxonomy are recommended.

Cooper’s Taxonomy

Cooper (2003) presented a taxonomy identifying six characteristics distinguishing between literature reviews (also presented in Torraco, 2016). The characteristics identified for a theoretical literature review are summarized in Table 1. The first distinction related to the focus of the literature review, consisting of four components: research findings, research methods, theories, and practices or applications (Cooper, 2003). For the theoretical literature review, the focus would be on the third component, theories. The second distinction in Cooper’s taxonomy identified the goal of the literature review, consisting of three components: integration, criticism, and identification of central issues. The goal for a theoretical literature review would be to concentrate on integrating empirical evidence that identifies both supporting and falsified statements for a particular theoretical framework with a predefined program. Cooper’s third distinction, perspective, consisted of having either a neutral representation or taking a specific position (a viewpoint from one perspective). A theoretical literature review should provide a neutral representation, providing only a representation of the theoretical framework for a predefined program as represented by that program’s body of knowledge or literature.

Table 1.

Theoretical Literature Review Characteristics.

Characteristics	Description
Focus	Theory
Goal	Integrating empirical evidence highlighting support for and falsification of theoretical statements.
Perspective	Neutral, providing a representation of the theory from the literature.
Coverage	Exhaustive with selective criteria.
Organization	Historical, demonstrating how a specific theory has been tested, its supported and nonsupported hypotheses, and any adjustments to the theory.
Audience	HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners, students.

Note. Characteristics of Cooper’s (2003) Taxonomy. HRD = human resource development.

Cooper’s (2003) fourth distinction consisted of coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective criteria, representative, and central or pivotal. In the context of composing a theoretical literature review, the coverage should be exhaustive with selective criteria. This coverage should include an exhaustive search of all conceptual representations and empirical tests of the chosen theory with the selective criteria of identifying the verified and falsified statements of the theoretical system only within a predefined program. This coverage should also include the theory’s origination, determining which field of study the theory originated from and when it was first introduced to the targeted program’s literature (HRD’s literature). The parameters of this “predefined program” will be set by the researchers. These parameters could be the four sponsored AHRD journals (Advances in Developing Human Resources [ADHR], Human Resource Development International [HRDI], Human Resource Development Quarterly [HRDQ], and Human Resource Development Review [HRDR]). However, it could also list additional HRD journals external to the sponsored AHRD journals (European Journal of Training and Development [EJTD], International Journal of Training and Development [IJTD], Journal of Workplace Learning [JWL], and Performance Improvement Quarterly [PIQ]). The researchers will be responsible for defining this coverage and for providing an explanation of why this coverage was required.

Organization, Cooper’s fifth distinction, consisted of three categories: historical, conceptual, and methodological. A theoretical literature review would best be served as providing a historical review of a theory’s life cycle, providing how a particular theoretical framework had been tested, its supported hypotheses, any nonsupported hypotheses, and any alternative hypotheses that were provided when making necessary adjustments to the theory due to these nonsupported hypotheses. Last, Cooper presented the audience as the final distinction composed of specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, students, and the general public. While the appeal of a theoretical literature review could be beneficial to all four of those identified by Cooper, it is the researcher’s responsibility to accurately identify the audience for their theoretical literature review.

Path-Goal Theory—An Example

The following sections provide a brief example of what a theoretical literature review would look like for an informal theory. In viewing path-goal theory within the HRD literature, a review was conducted. This brief theoretical literature review

provides a brief background of path-goal theory,

identifies when path-goal theory was introduced into the HRD literature,

follows path-goal theory throughout the HRD literature while identifying its purpose,

identifies any modification to path-goal theory, and

determines whether path-goal theory would be considered either a formal or informal theory for the program of HRD.

A search was conducted in each of the four HRD journals (ADHR, HRDI, HRDQ, and HRDR) for the term path-goal theory. A total of 19 articles were returned. After reviewing these articles, it was determined that only six articles (four conceptual, two empirical) included path-goal theory with the other 13 articles only briefly mentioning path-goal theory.

Background of Path-Goal Theory

House (1971) extended previous research efforts from Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory, from Georgopoulos, Mahoney, and Jones’s (1957) article titled “A Path-Goal Approach to Productivity,” and from Evans (1970) research that looked at the relationship between path-goal and supervisory behavior. The initial premise in House’s (1971) research was that an individual’s performance was partially determined by how well one is motivated. Georgopoulos et al. highlighted in their path-goal hypothesis that motivation is dependent on

(a) the particular needs of the individual as reflected in the goals toward which he is moving, and (b) his perception regarding the relative usefulness of productivity behavior as an instrumentality, or as a path to the attainment of these goals. (p. 345)

House (1971) first presented and tested the path-goal theory looking at the effects of leadership behaviors as determined by Evans (1970); leader initiating structure, leader consideration) on the constructs of subordinate satisfaction, motivation, and performance. House (1971) initially identified two leader behaviors: “path-goal clarifying behavior and behavior directed toward satisfying subordinate needs” (House, 1996, p. 326). In this initial presentation, House identified that the theory still needed to be tested and further modified before becoming a viable theory: “The theory shows promise and warrants further testing” (p. 337). Later, House and Mitchell (1975) expanded these leader behaviors to include four leadership behaviors: directive path-goal clarifying leader behavior, supportive leader behavior, participative leader behavior, and achievement-oriented behavior (see House, 1996, for discussion).

House (1996) reviewed research relating to the original (House, 1971) path-goal theory. In his 1996 article, House identified that the results had been mixed with some reports indicating that the theory had never been adequately tested. House (1996) refined the path-goal theory to represent a dyadic theory between the leader and the follower, looking at task and person supervisory relationships and behaviors.

House also began to separate the path-goal theory from Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory by stating, “We have come to realize that individuals are not nearly as rational or cognitively calculating as valence-expectancy theory would have us believe” (House, 1996, p. 332), calling for the theory to be reformulated or modified. House’s (1996) modified theory addressed empowerment behaviors as well as the conditions in which these behaviors could be fostered. House (1996) identified 10 leader behaviors in his modified Path-Goal Theory of Work Unit Leadership. These leader behaviors were presented as being “theoretically acceptable, satisfying, facilitative, and motivational for subordinates” (House, 1996, p. 335). These leader behaviors are presented in Table 2 along with a brief description of the leader’s roles that help support the respective leader behavior.

Table 2.

House’s (1996) Path-Goal Theory of Work Unit Leadership.

Leader behaviors	Description
Path-Goal Clarifying Behaviors	Clarifying subordinates performance goals
	Clarifying means by which subordinates can effectively carry out tasks
	Clarifying standards by which subordinate’s performance will be judged
	Clarifying expectations that others hold for subordinates to which the subordinate should and should not respond
	Judicious use of rewards and punishment, contingent on performance
Achievement Oriented Leader Behavior	Fosters achievement oriented behavior
Achievement Oriented Leader Behavior	Encourages subordinates to take calculated risks
Work Facilitation	Effectively plan, schedule, and organize work
	Coordination of work
	Technological support
	Address uncertainty
	Remove obstacles to performance
Supportive Leader Behavior	Provide psychological support for subordinates
Interaction Facilitation	Facilitates collaborative and positive interaction
	Resolves disputes/conflict
	Facilitate communication
	Promotes collaboration and interdependence
Group Oriented Decision Process	Provides group oriented decision making processes
Representation and Networking	Provide adequate resources
Representation and Networking	Networking for group
Value-Based Leader Behavior	Articulate a vision
	Demonstrate self-confidence
	Take calculated risks
	Communicate performance expectations
	Appreciative inquiry
Shared Leadership	Provide peer leadership opportunities

Source. House (1996, pp. 336-346).

House further invited empirical testing of this newly modified path-goal theory. In his 1996 article, House identified some of the methodological problems that contributed to the inconsistent results of the original 1971 path-goal theory. House (1996) encouraged testing the current theory and acknowledged the importance of the processes of theory testing and theory modification.

Path-Goal Theory in HRD Literature

The previous section identified where path-goal theory came from and when it was introduced into the HRD literature. The following two sections review path-goal theory within the literature of HRD, beginning with conceptual articles followed by empirical articles.

Conceptual articles

Path-goal theory was introduced to the HRD literature by Hamlin (2004). Hamlin presented House’s path-goal theory by acknowledging each version (House, 1971; House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1974) along with other literature relating to path-goal theory. In Hamlin’s article, it was mentioned that path-goal theory had produced some inconsistent results. Due to this, path-goal theory had led to other advanced theories of leadership; cognitive resource theory of leadership, charismatic leadership, and value-based leadership (Hamlin, 2004). These new advanced theories of leadership, including House’s (1996) version, were developed partially to account for the inconsistencies of past research relating to House’s (1971) and House and Mitchell’s (1975) models. By indicating that this had “led to the development of better theories” (Hamlin, 2004, p. 194), it could be interpreted that future research studies should implement these newer theories unless a reason is provided by the researcher as to why they are using an older version of path-goal theory.

Path-goal theory was also introduced to the HRD literature in 2007 (Callahan & Rosser, 2007; Callahan, Whitener, & Sandlin, 2007; Sudbrack & Trombley, 2007; Whitener, 2007) in a special issue of ADHR identifying how modern media can inform leadership education and development. In their discussions, Callahan and Rosser (2007), Callahan et al. (2007) and Whitener (2007) identified House’s (1971) path-goal theory. Callahan and Rosser (2007) identified path-goal theory as one of three situation theories of leadership, with the other two being contingency and situational theories. Northouse’s (2004) and Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg’s (2005) textbooks on leadership were referenced by Callahan and Rosser; however, path-goal theory was not specifically defined within the article. Callahan et al. (2007) identified path-goal theory as one of the many theories that “inform research and practice in HRD today” (p. 148). Again, path-goal theory was listed as a situational theory of leadership using Northouse (2004) as a reference. Path-goal theory was presented in Callahan et al.’s (2007) figure that included four behaviors of leaders (directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented). However, no reference to House was made in this article and given that the four behaviors of leaders were first identified by House and Mitchell (1975), they should have been referenced. Likewise, given that Northouse (2004) was referenced, House’s (1996) updated path-goal theory (see Table 2) should have been presented rather than the four leadership behaviors from House and Mitchell (1975), unless a reason for using an older version of path-goal theory was provided, in which none was given. In addition, Callahan et al. (2007) identified path-goal theory as being “grounded in expectancy theory” (p. 153). This assumption could be correct if the authors were referencing either House (1971) or House and Mitchell (1975), which they did not. However, given that the reference was from Northouse (2004), post House’s (1996) modified version of path-goal theory, this assumption is incorrect given that House’s (1996) model specifically demarcated path-goal theory from expectancy theory.

Sudbrack and Trombley (2007) identified five leadership theories when using the TV series “Lost” as a tool of reinforcing leadership theory in practice. Sudbrack and Trombley identified both House (1971) and House (1996) models of path-goal theory and identified six leader behaviors; directive-path, goal-clarifying, supportive, participative, achievement-oriented tasks, and relationship-related behavior. Here, the authors provided support for the six leader behaviors that they utilized in their leadership development programs and also recognized the most current path-goal theory by House (1996). Last, Whitener (2007) only listed the textbook from Northouse (2004) and used House and Mitchell’s (1975) model with no reference to either House (1971), House and Mitchell (1975), or House (1996). Whitener utilized the four leader behaviors of directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented, but only referenced Northouse (2004) for these behaviors.

While each of these conceptual articles used path-goal theory (among others) and modern media as a tool for teaching leadership development, current versions of a theory should be highlighted as a means of keeping students informed. If a version of a theory is used that is older than its most current version, then an explanation should be provided as to why the older version is being used. This aids in keeping a program’s knowledge base up to date, it aids in keeping the knowledge base consistent and current, and it further supports the presentation and testing of informal and formal theories for a particular program.

Empirical articles

Djibo, Desiderio, and Price (2010) provided the first research study that included some of the components relating to path-goal theory. Their study explored leader behavior in relation to the work attitudes and behaviors of temporary employees. Djibo et al. (2010) utilized the constructs of organizational commitment (OC), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and perceived leader behavior (PLB) in their research. Here, Djibo et al. identified PLB as derived from path-goal theory while acknowledging all three of House’s models (House, 1971; House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1975) plus an additional reference to House and Dessler (1974). Measures for the perceived leadership construct came from House and Dessler’s (1974) PLB scale that incorporated three subscales—Instrumental, Supportive, and Participative Leader Behavior. Although the PLB subscales were used in this research for the construct of PLB that was derived from path-goal theory, this study did not test path-goal theory, only a portion of the theory.

Kim (2014) utilized path-goal leadership and organizational support as the theoretical foundation in their research on perceived managerial coaching behavior and employee outcomes. Kim referred to House’s (1996) model when framing the constructs of employee role clarity, satisfaction with work, and job performance in relation to managerial coaching. However, Kim discussed the leadership behaviors of directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented from House & Mitchell’s (1975) model, without distinguishing the differences between the 1971, 1974, and 1996 models of path-goal theory. In addition in House’s (1996) model, coaching is a leadership behavior that falls under the construct work facilitation. This was not mentioned in Kim’s (2014) study, it was only suggested that “managerial coaching can also be considered an effective management and leadership behavior in the path-goal leadership context” (p. 63). For Kim’s study, path-goal theory was only used to generate further knowledge between perceived managerial coaching behavior and employees. Unfortunately, this research study was not one that tested the path-goal theory. For this reason, the author’s claim that their research extended the path-goal theory literature is weak in that this study did not fully test the path-goal theory nor did they recognize coaching in House’s (1996) model.

Summary for Path-Goal Theory

In the two previously mentioned quantitative articles, Djibo et al. (2010) and Kim (2014), the most current path-goal theory from the extant literature was not utilized. Only previous versions of path-goal theory had been utilized, and only selective portions of each were tested. Hamlin (2004, 2007) identified that path-goal theory research and other contingency models have been inconsistent, and recommended that further research uses newer updated versions of path-goal theory (i.e., charismatic leadership, value-based leadership). These recommendations were not followed in research studies that followed. As a result, path-goal theory within the program of HRD has resulted in inconsistencies.

In relation to the theoretical literature review, within the HRD literature, the most current version of the path-goal theory (House, 1996) has not been tested. Also, none of the path-goal theories (House, 1971; House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1975) have been tested within the HRD literature. Regarding the path-goal theory, our conclusion would be that this theory would be classified as being an informal theory within the discipline of HRD. The path-goal theory has been introduced into the HRD literature. It has been presented in four different conceptual articles (Callahan & Rosser, 2007; Callahan et al., 2007; Sudbrack & Trombley, 2007; Whitener, 2007), identified in one empirical article (Hamlin, 2004), and used in two quantitative articles (Djibo et al., 2010; Kim, 2014). However, the path-goal theory has not been tested within the lens of HRD, providing the path-goal theory as only being an informal theory in need of testing and modification before moving on to a formal theory for the discipline of HRD.

The Learning Organization Theory—A Second Example

This section looks at the learning organization theory presented by Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996). This review examines the theory’s empirical evidence from published works within HRDQ only. Watkins and Kim (2017) provided an excellent review of the theory, its history, validation efforts of its measurement (Dimensions of the Learning Organization [DLOQ]), and complications that have been experienced along the way. For brevity purposes, this example only presents a theoretical literature review from empirical articles within HRDQ.

The learning organization (LO) has been identified as a construct that has expanded HRD’s perspective regarding the development of “broad skill sets, abilities, and knowledge” (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004, p. 280) in today’s sociotechnical environment. The LO has been represented by Watkins and Marsick’s (1993, 1996) DLOQ scale. These efforts in developing the DLOQ scale, and the efforts by other HRD researchers to aid in validating the scale “are of great importance in constructing the basic notions of the measurement factors of the learning organization” (Song, Joo, & Chermack, 2009, pp. 47-48).

Ellinger, Ellinger, Yange, and Howton (2002) identified Watkins and Marsick’s (1996) conceptualization of the learning organization as their theoretical framework when testing the relationships between the learning organization concepts and firm performance. The theoretical framework for the learning organization has predominantly been Watkins and Marsick’s (1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1999) representation. In its basic form, the learning organization was defined as “one that learns continuously and transforms itself” (Ellinger et al., 2002, p. 7). A more complete definition has been provided in Marsick and Watkins (1999) updated definition:

Our model emphasizes three key components: (1) systems-level, continuous learning (2) that is created in order to create and manage knowledge outcomes (3) which lead to improvement in the organization’s performance, and ultimately its value, as measured through both financial assets and nonfinancial intellectual capital. (See also Ellinger et al., 2002; Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004)

The concept of the learning organization was initially presented as six dimensions (Watkins & Marsick, 1993) and was later updated to include a seventh dimension (strategic leadership). Each dimension is “distinct but interrelated dimensions of a learning organization at individual, team, and organizational levels” (Yang et al., 2004, p. 34). Table 3 provides the learning organization key dimensions and their respective definitions.

Table 3.

Learning Organization Theory Definitions.

LO dimension	Level of analysis	LO/OL	Definition	Additional sources
Continuous Learning	People	LO	An organization’s effort to create continuous learning opportunities for all of its members.	Ellinger Ellinger, Yange, and Howton (2002); Haeffner, Leone, Coons, and Chermack (2012)
Inquiry and dialogue	People	OL	An organization’s effort in creating a culture of questioning, feedback, and experimentation.	Ellinger et al. (2002); Haeffner et al. (2012)
Team Learning	People	OL	The spirit of collaboration and the collaborative skills that undergird the effective use of teams.	Watkins and Marsick (1996, p. 6); Ellinger et al. (2002); Haeffner et al. (2012)
Empowerment	People	OL	An organization’s process to create and share a collective vision and get feedback from its members about the gap between the current status and the new vision.	Ellinger et al. (2002); Haeffner et al. (2012)
Embedded System	Structural	LO	Efforts to establish systems to capture and share learning.	Ellinger et al. (2002); Haeffner et al. (2012)
System Connection	Structural	LO	Reflects global thinking and actions to connect the organization to its internal and external environment.	Ellinger et al. (2002); Haeffner et al. (2012)
Strategic Leadership	Structural	OL	The extent to which leaders think strategically about how to use learning to create change and to move the organization in new directions or new markets.	Watkins and Marsick (1996, p. 7); Ellinger et al. (2002); Haeffner et al. (2012)

Note. Definition provided by Yang et al. (2004, p. 34). Levels of analysis by Yang et al. (2004, p. 41, Figure 1). LO/OL characteristics provided by Song, Too et al. (2009, p. 47). LO = Learning Organization; OL = Organizational Learning.

This learning organization framework has been refined and supported to represent the following benefits:

1. It has a clear and inclusive definition of the construct of the learning organization.

2. It includes dimensions of a learning organization at all levels.

3. This model not only identifies main dimensions of the learning organization in the literature but also integrates them in a theoretical framework by specifying their relationships.

4. It defines the proposed seven dimensions of a learning organization from the perspective of action imperatives and thus has practical implications. (Yang et al., 2004, p. 35)

The learning organization dimensions have been identified as being multidimensional, consisting of two levels of analysis, people and structural levels (see Table 3; Song, Joo, & Chermack, 2009; Yang et al., 2004). In the development of the DLOQ, Yang et al. (2004) identified the people level to represent both individual and team levels of analysis: “We hypothesized that the organization needs to work with people at the individual and group level first” (p. 40). The second level of structure represents the organizational level of analysis: “the structural level learning activity could serve as a refining function by filtering and incorporating individual and group learning into the organization’s mission or ultimate performance outcomes” (p. 41). These structural dimensions became the mediators between the individual and team level of analysis and organizational performance measures. In this sense, the structural dimensions are mediators to organizational performance. However, Song, Joo, and Chermack (2009) acknowledged the structure and people levels, they associated the dimensions of continuous learning, system connection, and embedded systems relating to learning organization processes and the dimensions of dialogue and inquiry, team learning, empowerment, and strategic leadership as being associated to organizational learning processes.

The study presented by Ellinger et al. (2002) did not identify this multidimensional characteristic whereas the study by Egan et al. (2004) did. However, due to potential multicollinearity problems, Egan et al.’s study did not utilize all seven latent dimensions, they composed LO into one construct. Yang et al. (2004) validated Watkins and Marsick’s (1993, 1996) DLOQ instrument and identified, “The learning organization is a multidimensional construct” (p. 51). In Joo’s (2010) study, the instrument from Yang et al. (2004) was incorporated in his study, however the instrument was not represented as being multidimensional: “This treats organizational learning culture [learning organization] as a single (unidimensional) construct” (p. 76). A few studies (Frehlich, Segers, & Van den Bossche, 2014; Joo, 2010) measured individual’s perceptions of the seven LO scales to justify the single level of analysis. In other studies, Haeffner, Leone, Coons, and Chermack (2012) acknowledged the DLOQ as representative of three levels (individual, team, organizational) however, their level of measurement was at the individual level of analysis.

In their study, Egan et al. (2004) utilized Watkins and Marsick’s (1993, 2003) instrument. However, they identified organizational learning culture as being representative of this scale rather than identifying it as learning organization along with other studies (Frehlich et al., 2014). The study from Joo (2010) utilized the scale identified in the Yang et al.’s (2004) study to represent organizational learning culture even when Yang et al. (2004) identified learning organization. In contrast, Song, Kim, and Kolb (2009) identified learning organization culture while using the DLOQ measurement. This kind of confusion was highlighted in Watkins and Kim’s (2017) article that differentiated organizational learning from learning organization. They highlighted that some previous studies have been “fraught with conceptual and definitional confusion” (p. 2), as in the case with the studies identified in this theoretical literature review. Given that the definitional/theoretical framework and the measurements for the learning organization identified in the Egan et al. (2004), Joo (2010), and Song, Kim, and Kolb (2009) studies were the same as those for the learning organization, their research falls under the learning organization framework and not organizational learning culture or learning organization culture.

Transition From Informal to Formal Theory

The instrument developed by Yang et al. (2004) provided the beginnings of the theory-testing stage for the learning organization theory, operationalized by the DLOQ instrument. The structural model presented by Yang et al. identified this as a starting point: “Substantive studies are needed to identify and confirm underlying dimensions for this complex concept” (p. 52). This study (Yang et al., 2004) moved the Watkins and Marsick’s (1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1999) learning organization theory from being an informal theory to the beginning stages of being a formal theory.

To further position the learning organization theory to be a formal theory within the field of HRD, additional testing would be required. Further testing of the theory and its measurement had been conducted in various international countries as well as in the United States. This is identified in Song et al.’s table (Table 2, p. 50) in which testing this theory had been conducted in Korea (Song, Joo, & Chermack, 2009), China (Zhang, Zhang, & Yang, 2004), Taiwan (Lien, Hung, Yang, & Li, 2006), Latin America (Hernandez, 2000), and the U.S. (Ellinger et al., 2002; Yang et al., 2004). Only two of these studies were published in AHRD publications (Ellinger et al., 2002; Yang et al., 2004), with the others being published outside of AHRD publications. These studies are important for the development and testing of the learning organization theory and for validation of the DLOQ instrument. The studies external of AHRD journals add to the theory development stages especially due to the inclusion of these studies’ outcomes within HRDQ publications. These additional tests further identify Watkins and Marsick’s learning organization theory as being a formal theory within the AHRD.

As a formal theory, the learning organization (Watkins & Marsick, 1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1999) theory meets the needs called for by HRD researchers. This was highlighted by Song, Joo, and Chermack (2009): “Using Lynham’s general method of theory building in applied disciplines (2002), the DLOQ is one of the rare examples that a theory has been conceptually developed, operationalized, confirmed, and applied in the discipline of HRD” (p. 58). In addition, Watkins and Kim (2017) highlighted research findings related to the DLOQ from additional sources external of the HRD literature, showing the theory’s utility. This theory provides additional insights into how organizations create learning environments that contribute to the organization’s performance goals and stated mission. This goal is crucial for “practice, research, and theory building” within the field of HRD as called for by Egan et al. (2004, p. 281).

Needing Further Refinement

Further testing and refinement of the theory is required within the HRD discipline. Some structural as well as definitional confusion requires clarification to better position this theory for future testing and refinement. For example, the learning organization theory that was presented by Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996) was not a measure of culture, rather it was to represent learning in organizations within the behavioral, cognitive, and cultural domains (Watkins & Kim, 2017). Culture is a separate construct than the learning organization. This point was highlighted by Watkins and Kim (2017) by identifying that Hofstede’s cultural characteristic of individualism “was negatively correlated to the learning organization dimensions” (pp. 7-8). Culture can affect how each dimension is represented (Watkins & Kim, 2017) and should not be conflated as being the same construct. In addition, the DLOQ instrument was validated as a multidimensional construct, yet some studies within the HRD literature utilized it as a single-dimensional construct. Model misspecification has occurred among the studies within the HRD literature, requiring better distinctions to be made between “the focal unit, the level of measurement, and the level of analysis” (Watkins & Kim, 2017, p. 10). The focal unit is the organization (learning organization), the level of measurement is people and structural (Yang et al., 2004), where people represent the individual level and structure spans both the team and organizational levels. The level of analysis includes each of the three levels of analysis (individual, team, organization). Given this structure, the learning organization theory should be a multilevel theory with cross-level interactions between each of the three levels of analysis (Individual × Team, Team × Organization, Organization × Individual), at a minimum. For a theoretical model to be “correctly specified, the level of analysis needs to be in congruence with the level of measurement” (Turner, Petrunin, & Allen, 2015, p. 466; see also Rousseau, 1985). None of the studies identified for this theoretical literature review sample test the LO theory as a multilevel theory.

The Stages of the Learning Organization Theory

The learning organization theory had become an acceptable informal theory with its introduction into the field of HRD through Watkins and Marsick’s (1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1999) representations. This theory has challenged existing theories within the LO field (Watkins & Kim, 2017; Yang et al., 2004). As identified previously, informal theories provide explanations for phenomena as well as provide alternative theories to existing theories. By this set of criteria, Watkins and Marsick’s (1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1999) learning organization theory had become an acceptable informal theory for the field of HRD.

In line with the characteristics of repeated overthrow (Kuhn, 1970), Watkins and Marsick’s (1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1999) learning organization theory has challenged existing theories and has been exposed to various empirical tests involving different cultures and contexts, placing this theory as a formal theory for the field of HRD. This point is highlighted first by Yang et al. (2004): “Watkins and Marsick’s (1993) approach is the only theoretical framework that covers all four understandings of the idea of a learning organization in the literature” (p. 35), and later by Haeffner et al. (2012) by stating that this theory had a history from a variety of studies.

Currently, even though Watkins and Marsick’s (1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1999) learning organization theory is considered a formal theory for the field of HRD, it still has structural and definitional issues that need to be refined (as identified in this short example). This places Watkins and Marsick’s learning organization theory as a formal theory in the final category in Figure 1 as Accepted Theory/Continuous Refinement Cycle Continues.

Summary for the Learning Organization Theory

While the learning organization framework has been refined as noted by Yang et al. (2004), this refinement has taken place primarily in the DLOQ measurement and not the theory. Advancements in the theory’s definition have been updated, and the most recent definition provided earlier by Marsick and Watkins (1999) places this theory as a multilevel theory. To further advance this theory as a formal theory, it should be determined within the field of HRD whether the learning organization dimensions are multidimensional, single-dimensional, or both. The dimensions (level of measurement) should match the multilevel nature of the theory (level of analysis). It is possible that the learning organization could be both a single-level theory and a multilevel theory. In this case, the field of HRD will need to determine what the theory (not instrument) should look like as a multidimensional theory compared with a single-dimensional theory. This point was further highlighted by Watkins and Kim (2017):

Given these complexities, a more precise analytic approach is required. When variations and errors that come from individual observations and nested hierarchical structures are appropriately analyzed, studies would be able to answer how variables of interest at different levels (e.g., leadership traits at the individual level) affect the organizational learning culture. Then, the question remaining is to accurately compare or interpret data that combines different levels and units of analysis, addressing issues relating to this combination in a rigorous manner using multi- or cross-level analysis approaches. (p. 10; see also Tuggle, 2016)

Discussion

A researcher chooses to test a theory, add to a theory, or build a new theory at the start of the project. Stating that there is a gap or depicting the conflicting theories within the introduction sets the stage for the research, yet it is not enough justification for the direction of the research (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). A researcher needs to describe how the research question presented is to be answered through an inductive theory-building approach or the deductive examination for testing a theory. Although researchers often consider induction to be theory-free and is used to build a theory from the research, both induction and deduction require the measurement of constructs and are connected to prior theory (Gehman et al., 2017). Furthermore, theory-building includes generalization from empirical observation to either develop an explanation for the findings by the creation of a new theory or the refinement of a developed theory to advance the theory’s development within a cycle of induction, deduction, and abduction (Gehman et al., 2017).

“Replication is appropriate in theory-testing research, but in theory-building research, the goal is a new theory” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548). The logic employed within replication studies confirms the emergent relationships in the theory. Whereas, within theory-building research, the researcher seeks to reframe perspectives, develop a framework, and establish a model that represents the constructs and the evidence. The goal of theory-building research is to examine the relationships between phenomena in a new way and then describe those associations. Replication is necessary to test and confirm the generalizability and internal validity of the new theory. These replication studies help to move a theory through its life cycle and level of formality, from not formal, to informal, to formal.

The majority of empirical studies are a collection of data to support or refute hypothetical positions based upon theory and advance the knowledge about the theory, possibly only in a very small way. To break this common accepted method of research, studies should be a continual cycling of theory and data to examine these theoretical foundations. At times, the researchers should reorganize the constructs in a new order to develop a new theory, especially when the life cycle of an existing formal theory does not hold true anymore or new framework does not fit any existing model. Explorations using multilevels has become easier through advances in technology, facilitating the testing of theories for accuracy and applicability in new ways and within complex organizations and environments (Turner et al., 2015). The authors offer a call to researchers to gather additional evidence to expand the generalizability of existing theories or develop new theoretical explanations for phenomena whose constructs organize differently due to change.

Conclusion

Kuhn presented the view that a paradigm defines a scientific program until change is required and a revolution occurs, altering the original paradigm to a new scientific paradigm representative of the postrevolutionary program (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). Kuhn’s theory is similar to Biology’s evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). Here, the similarities between the two were presented by Godfrey-Smith: “We have the same long periods of stability and resistance to change, punctuated by unpredictable, rapid change to fundamentals” (p. 100). Although revolutions are not believed to be a requirement for a program to adjust to change, it is believed that a program needs to provide an efficient body of knowledge consisting of both formal and informal theories. This efficiency, the type we are aiming for through the introduction of a theoretical literature review, is representative of Kuhn’s idea of a program’s problem-solving power. This problem-solving power is more representative of a program’s ability to produce solutions to problems through the program’s knowledge base that has grown over time, rather than changing due to a revolution. Also, having a clearly identified knowledge base allows researchers to emerge into interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research efforts with other disciplines, requiring the field of HRD to have a clearly identifiable foundation. Ruona (2017) highlighted this point by stating, “Scholars in the field would have to be pointedly focused on generating research and theories that provide a deep basis to inform evidence-based practice” (p. 560). Having the ability for a program to capture part of its knowledge base, through theoretical literature reviews, aids HRD in obtaining and solidifying its problem-solving capabilities.

HRD is a relatively new academic discipline who just experienced its 25th anniversary in 2017. As a young program, the ultimate goal that could be obtained is to become known as a reference discipline. Reference disciplines provide theoretical and methodological foundations and are typically highly cited by other disciplines (Serenko & Bontis, 2013b). Being considered a reference discipline also provides a form of legitimacy for HRD in that other fields of study see the knowledge presented by HRD as being “worth referencing” (Kjaergaard & Vendelo, 2015, p. 138). Today, although the field of HRD is a vibrant and productive discipline, it is only on the cusp of becoming a reference discipline. Future research efforts should be geared toward identifying HRD’s impact on other disciplines. Research efforts could explore which disciplines inform HRD and which disciplines are informed by HRD. Serenko and Bontis (2013b) identified some advantages of becoming a reference discipline. Some of these advantages include being able to outline the discipline’s evolution of research and being able to present a historical representation of that evolution. Kjaergaard and Vendelo (2015) identified that extending one’s theoretical base was one means of increasing the number of citations from outside the discipline. Further identifying the field’s theoretical base, as proposed in the current article through theoretical literature reviews, would aid in extending HRD’s theoretical base for other disciplines to replicate.

To achieve these advantages and to set the path toward becoming a full reference discipline, the proposed theoretical literature review is just one tool that could be implemented within the HRD program. Providing a separate category for some of the AHRD publications for theoretical literature reviews could begin the process of the discipline’s mapping and identifying its formal and informal theories. This would first require a look inward to better identify the formal and informal theories of the field as well as provide a full historical map or representation of the field’s theories, one at a time. This is in line with McLean’s (2017) recommendations for the field of HRD. McLean reiterated that knowing one’s history was critical before fully understanding the field. It was recommended for the journals of AHRD to broaden their scope by “embracing this significant [historical] form of research” (McLean, 2017, p. 570).

Implementing theoretical literature reviews as a standard for some of AHRD’s publications could begin the process of extending HRD’s legitimacy and reach, providing further reasons for other disciplines to consider HRD worthy of referencing. Mapping out a discipline’s formal and informal theories begins the process of building, and solidifying, its knowledge base—one that becomes the foundation of making a reference discipline.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

John R. Turner

Author Biographies

John R. Turner, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of North Texas for the Department of Learning Technologies in the College of Information. His research interests are in team science, team cognition, performance improvement, knowledge management, leadership, theory building, complexity theory, multilevel models, and meta-analysis techniques. He has published articles in Advances in Developing Human Resources; Human Resource Development Review; International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, & Society; Journal of Information and Knowledge Management; Journal of Knowledge Management; Performance Improvement; and Performance Improvement Quarterly.

Rose Baker is an assistant professor in the Department of Learning Technologies, College of Information, University of North Texas. Her research includes open learning, management techniques and statistical applications for operations and performance improvement, survey and evaluation design, and impact and prevention of substance use. Dr. Baker holds a PhD in Instructional Systems from The Pennsylvania State University and is certified as a PMP® by the Project Management Institute.

Frank Kellner is a PhD student in the Applied Technology and Performance Improvement program at the University of North Texas and is an adjunct business management instructor for Tarleton State University. His research focuses on the impact stress and emotional intelligence has in the workplace.

References

Antonakis

Cianciolo

A. T.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.). (2005). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Boote

D. N.

Beile

(2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34, 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X134006003

Bosse

D. A.

Phillips

R. A.

(2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of Management Review, 41, 276-297. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0420

Callahan

J. L.

Rosser

M. H.

(2007). Pop goes the program: Using popular culture artifacts to educate leaders. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 269-287. doi:10.1177/15234223062989020

Callahan

J. L.

Whitener

J. K.

Sandlin

J. A.

(2007). The art of creating leaders: Popular culture artifacts as pathways for development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 146-165. doi:10.1177/1523422306298856

Carlile

P. R.

Christensen

C. M.

(2006, July). The cycles of theory building in management research. Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5422.html

Choate

D. M.

Prather

C. M.

Michel

M. J.

Baldridge

A. K.

Barnes

M. A.

Hoekman

. . . Crowl

T. A.

(2012). Integrating theoretical components: A graphical model for graduate students and researchers. Bioscience, 62, 594-602. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.10

Christensen

C. M.

Raynor

M. E.

(2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 81, 66-74. Retrieved from http://hbr.org

Connelly

L. M.

(2014). Use of theoretical frameworks in research. Medsurg Nursing: Official Journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, 23, 187-188. Retrieved from http://www.medsurgnursing.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/MSNJournal.woa

10.

Cooper

(2003). Psychological bulletin: Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3-9. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.3

11.

Djibo

I. J. A.

Desiderio

K. P.

Price

N. M.

(2010). Examining the role of perceived leader behavior on temporary employees’ organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 321-342. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20049

12.

Dubin

(1978). Theory building (Rev ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

13.

Egan

T. M.

Yang

Bartlett

K. R.

(2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 279-301. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1104

14.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

15.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

Graebner

M. E.

(2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

16.

Ellinger

A. D.

Ellinger

A. E.

Yange

Howton

S. W.

(2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 5-21. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1010

17.

Evans

M. G.

(1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277-298. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(70)90021-8

18.

Frehlich

Segers

Van den Bossche

(2014). Informal workplace learning in Austrian banks: The influence of learning approach, leadership style, and organizational learning culture on managers’ learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 29-57. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21173

19.

Gehman

Glaser

V. L.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

Gloia

Langley

Corley

K. G.

(2017). Finding theory-method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1056492617706029

20.

Georgopoulos

B. S.

Mahoney

G. M.

Jones

N. W.

Jr. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 345-353. doi:10.1037/h0048473

21.

Godfrey-Smith

(2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Haeffner

Leone

Coons

Chermack

(2012). The effects of scenario planning on participant perceptions of learning organization characteristics. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 519-542. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21147

23.

Hamlin

R. G.

(2004). In support of universalistic models of managerial and leadership effectiveness: Implications for HRD research and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 189-215. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1098

24.

Hamlin

R. G.

(2007). An evidence-based perspective on HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 42-57. doi:10.1177/1523422306294494

25.

Han

S. -h.

Chae

Han

S. J.

Yoon

S. W.

(2017). Conceptual organization and identity of HRD: Analyses of evolving definitions, influence, and connections. Human Resource Development Review, 16, 294-319. doi:10.1177/1534484317719822

26.

Hendry

(2002). The principal’s other problems: Honest incompetence and the specification of objectives. Academy of Management Review, 27, 98-113. doi:10.5465/amr.2002.5922406

27.

Hernandez

(2000). The impact of the dimensions of the learning organization on the transfer of tacit knowledge process and performance improvement within private manufacturing firms in Columbia (Order No. 9994101). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (304588080).

28.

House

R. J.

(1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339. doi:10.2307/2391905

29.

House

R. J.

(1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7

30.

House

R. J.

Dessler

(1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In Hunt

Larson

(Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29-55). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

31.

House

R. J.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

32.

House

R. J.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1975). Path-goal theory of leadership (Technical Report No. 75-67). Seattle: Department of Psychology, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA009513

33.

Jaccard

Jacoby

(2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

34.

Joo

B.-K.

(2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The roles of perceived organizational learning culture, leader-member exchange quality, and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 69-85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20031

35.

Kim

(2014). Assessing the influence of managerial coaching on employee outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 59-85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21175

36.

Kjaergaard

Vendelo

M. T.

(2015). The role of theory adaptation in the making of a reference discipline. Information and Organization, 25, 137-149. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2015.04.002

37.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In Lakatos

Musgrave

(Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1-23). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Kuhn

T. S.

(2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

39.

Lien

B. Y.

Hung

R. Y.

Yang

(2006). Is the learning organization a valid concept in the Taiwanese context? International Journal of Manpower, 27, 189-203. doi:10.1108/01437720610666209

40.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Lynham

S. A.

(2011). Criteria for assessing theory in human resource development from an interpretive perspective. Human Resource Development International, 14, 3-22. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.542895

41.

Lynham

S. A.

(2002a). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 221-241. doi:10.1177/1523422302043002

42.

Lynham

S. A.

(2002b). Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin’s method. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 242-276. doi:10.1177/15222302004003003

43.

Marsick

V. J.

Watkins

K. E.

(1999). Facilitating learning organizations: Making learning count. Aldershot, England: Gower.

44.

McLean

G. N.

(2017). Personal reflections: The value of a history of the academy, personally and professionally. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 566-574. doi:10.1177/1523422316660149

45.

McLean

G. N.

McLean

(2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4, 313-326. doi:10.1080/13678860110059339

46.

Northouse

P. G.

(2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

Popper

(2002). Popper: The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Routledge Classics.

48.

Rocco

T. S.

Plakhotnik

M. S.

(2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 120-130. doi:10.1177/1534484309332617

49.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1985). Issues in multilevel research: Theory development, measurement, and analysis. In Cumming

L. L.

Straw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-37). London, England: JAI Press.

50.

Ruona

W. E. A.

(2017). Evolving human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 551-565. doi:10.1177/1523422316660968

51.

Serenko

Bontis

(2013a). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2013 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 307-326. doi:10.1108/13673271311315231

52.

Serenko

Bontis

(2013b). The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management academic discipline. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 137-155. doi:10.1108/13673271311300840

53.

Song

J. H.

Joo

B.-K.

Chermack

T. J.

(2009). The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ): A validation study in a Korean context. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 43-64. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20007

54.

Song

J. H.

Kim

H. M.

Kolb

J. A.

(2009). The effect of learning organization culture on the relationship between interpersonal trust and organizational commitment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 147-167. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20013

55.

Storberg-Walker

(2007). From others: Appropriating social capital theories for “doing” HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 312-340. doi:10.1177/1523422306304097

56.

Sudbrack

Trombley

(2007). Lost: A survival guide to leadership theory. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 251-268. doi:10.1177/1523422306298901

57.

Swanson

R. A.

Chermack

T. J.

(2013). Theory building in applied disciplines. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

58.

Torraco

R. J.

(2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283

59.

Torraco

R. J.

(2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to ex-plore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 45, 404-428. doi:10.1177/1534484316671606

60.

Tuggle

F. D.

(2016). Gaps and progress in our knowledge of learning organization. The Learning Organization, 23, 444-457. doi:10.1108/TLO-09-2016-0059

61.

Turner

J. R.

Petrunin

K. F.

Allen

(2015). Developing multilevel models for research. In Wang

(Ed.), Handbook of research on scholarly publishing and research methods (pp. 463-489). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-7409-7.ch023

62.

Van de Ven

A. H.

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

63.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

64.

Watkins

K. E.

Kim

(2017). Current status and promising directions for research on the learning organization. Human Resource Development Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21293

65.

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

V. J.

(1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systematic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

66.

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

V. J.

(Eds.). (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

67.

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

V. J.

(2016). Development of academic programs in human resource development in the United States. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 467-480. doi:10.1177/1523422316660967

68.

Whitener

J. K.

(2007). Year of wonders: The wonder of leadership. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 214-235. doi:10.1177/1523422306298860

69.

Yang

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

V. J.

(2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 31-55. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1086

70.

Zhang

Yang

(2004). Learning organization in mainland China: Empirical research on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 258-273. doi:10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00213.x