This editorial, “FROM THE EDITORS: NEW WAYS OF SEEING: ELABORATION ON A THEME,” published in The Academy of Management Journal by Jason D. Shaw, Pratima (Tima) Bansal, and Marc Gruber in April 2017, serves as a profound challenge to the management research community. It encourages scholars to fundamentally reconsider the theoretical foundations of their inquiries, contemplate unique underlying assumptions, and engage in meaningful cross-disciplinary collaborations. The core message is an invitation to achieve “fundamental theoretical departures from those previously observed in the management literature”.
The authors acknowledge that while theory holds a “relatively heavy emphasis” in management research, there’s a tendency to rely on a somewhat narrow set of established theories, especially at a broader meta-theory level. For instance, micro research often clusters around general theories of motivation (e.g., goal setting, expectancy, equity) and social information (e.g., social identity, social exchange). Similarly, macro research frequently operates under major theories involving information asymmetry (e.g., agency, transaction cost), resources (e.g., resource dependence), or institutional environments (e.g., institutional theory, population ecology). This situation, the authors suggest, shows more commonalities than divergences in theoretical approaches.
One key concept introduced is the “streetlight effect,” a convenience-related bias where researchers might inadvertently limit their scope to well-illuminated, existing theories, thereby missing important insights in “darker,” unexplored areas. The parable describes a man searching for his lost keys under a streetlight, not because he lost them there, but because that’s where the light is. In academic terms, commonly used theories become the “logic-in-use,” and efforts often extend and refine these existing frameworks, potentially at the expense of seeking entirely new perspectives. This bias, the editorial notes, is not unique to management research but has been observed in fields like type 1 diabetes treatment, health care policy, and climate change research.
However, the editorial’s intention is not to critique current management research, which has shown “substantial forward-looking progress”. Instead, it aims to send a positive, encouraging message for the development, import, or combination of fundamentally new theoretical underpinnings. The authors explicitly encourage resisting what Dawkins (1998) called the “anaesthetic of familiarity, a sedative of ordinariness, which dulls the senses,” urging scholars to “shake off the anaesthetic” and approach their work with a fresh perspective.
To illustrate “new ways of seeing,” the article provides several compelling examples from existing literature:
- Ecological embeddedness: Whiteman and Cooper (2000) advanced this theory from anthropology, rooted in indigenous environmental knowledge, suggesting that actual physical connections to the land, rather than cognitive or cost-benefit perspectives, may be key to fostering sustainable development.
- Cultural psychology-based theory of intercultural conflicts: Chua (2013) demonstrated that beliefs about cultural incompatibilities and creativity were impacted not by direct individual conflicts, but by “ambient, inert disharmony in the environment”.
- Neuroscience-based theory of leadership complexity: Hannah et al. (2013) developed this to understand leaders’ brain activity, moving beyond conventional psychology-based models to explain effective leadership.
- Austrian economics: Ferrier, Smith, and Grimm (1999) introduced the “perennial gale of creative destruction” (Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1934) to the competitive dynamics literature, completely altering underlying assumptions.
- Historical perspective on WWII: The editorial cites recent evidence suggesting the German army’s early success was due to reliance on illicit drugs, rather than technical superiority. A historian’s comment highlights how an “outsider” with an “open mind and different interests” can bring “fantastic and very illuminating” results.
The editorial also points to several high-potential research areas ripe for new theoretical infusions:
- Inequality: After decades of recycling motivation and injustice theories to explain pay dispersion as either a positive motivational tool or a negative outcome of inequity, the authors argue it’s time for a new perspective beyond this “theoretical dilemma”.
- Sustainable development: Rooted in developmental economics and systems thinking, this area needs interdisciplinary, multilevel research that cuts across time, space, and levels of analysis, integrating insights from both social and natural sciences to improve societal well-being within natural resource constraints.
- Individual and organizational well-being: Research in this area often relies on “longstanding theoretical foundations” related to job characteristics, support, resources, and psychological or physical depletion. The authors, concurring with Ganster and Rosen (2013), see considerable opportunities for “new ways of seeing,” especially through multidisciplinary partnerships incorporating areas like gene-by-environment literature (Sharma et al., 2016) and the neurobiology of habits (Wood & Runger, 2016).
The authors define “newness” along a continuum, from “de novo” original theories to theories new to the management domain but informed by other fields (e.g., biology, history, political science), or related fields (e.g., marketing, information systems), or existing within management but offering unique cross-area insights. They particularly encourage theory development on the “newer” side of this continuum, emphasizing de novo theory development and the application or recombination of disparate ideas from outside the discipline, which can lead to the “greatest insights or course corrections”.
Ultimately, Shaw, Bansal, and Gruber aim to energize the academic community to broaden its theoretical scope, infuse stagnant or mature areas with fresh assumptions, and foster partnerships with researchers across the scientific spectrum. By pushing theoretical boundaries and embracing “new ways of seeing,” the goal is to deepen insights, stimulate cross-disciplinary dialogue, and extend the reach and impact of the management field.
Reference: Shaw, J. D., Bansal, P., & Gruber, M. (2017). From the editors: New ways of seeing: Elaboration on a theme. The Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 397–401. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.20l7.4002