In their compelling editorial, “Reengaging with the Classics,” Bermiss, Farh, Simons, ter Wal, von Krogh, and Gruber (2025) present a powerful argument for the enduring value and necessity of revisiting foundational management theories in an era characterized by rapid transformation and unprecedented organizational challenges. They contend that rather than being relics of the past, these classic texts offer indispensable insights into the fundamental assumptions, frameworks, and questions that continue to shape management thought, providing a robust lens through which to comprehend and address modern issues, such as the rise of artificial intelligence and escalating geopolitical tensions.
The authors begin by defining a “management classic” as a widely influential article or book that has profoundly shaped theory and practice, typically by initiating or significantly redirecting a major conversation within the field. This designation, while somewhat subjective, is ultimately socially constructed and reconstructed by members of the field, consistently reevaluated and judged to be foundational to an important theoretical perspective or paradigm. A key indicator of a classic’s strength is its regular and continuous citation, even if sometimes for normative or symbolic purposes, distinguishing it from general classics from other disciplines.
Despite their foundational role, management classics frequently lose contemporary relevance, not due to rigorous critique, but often through “institutional forgetting”. This phenomenon occurs partly because classic works, especially books, are rich and broad, leading to a selective focus on certain aspects over time, often resulting in “typified” citations that can narrow understanding. Paradoxically, Bermiss et al. (2025) highlight that critical assessments can actually renew interest in a classic, much like Granovetter’s (1985) critique of transaction cost economics stimulated further research, rather than diminishing its influence. This underscores that substantive re-engagement, going beyond mere symbolic homage, is crucial for generating significant value for contemporary research.
To facilitate this substantive re-engagement, the editorial proposes three practical and generative pathways for integrating classic theories into current research:
- Revising a Classic: This approach involves challenging taken-for-granted assumptions, refining scope conditions, and incorporating under-theorized dimensions to adapt theories to new contexts and phenomena, such as new organizational forms or digital environments.
- A prime example is Sine, Mitsuhashi, and Kirsch (2006), who revised Burns and Stalker’s (1961) structural contingency theory. Burns and Stalker’s original work identified mechanistic and organic structures, positing that an organization’s ideal structure is contingent on environmental conditions (mechanistic for stable, organic for dynamic). However, Sine et al. (2006) challenged this applicability for new ventures in highly dynamic environments. Drawing on Stinchcombe’s (1965) “liability of newness,” they argued that new ventures actually benefit from adopting mechanistic structures to reduce ambiguity, enhance coordination, and increase legitimacy during their early, resource-constrained stages. Their analysis of Internet firms revealed that those with higher formalization and administrative intensity outperformed those with more organic structures. This revision provided valuable insights: showing that structural effectiveness is contingent on organizational life stage, recasting formalization as a strategic asset, and introducing administrative intensity as a novel performance driver in new ventures.
- Repurposing a Classic: This pathway entails leveraging key insights from a classic work to resolve problems in adjacent theories or to apply them to new phenomena for which the classic holds relevance but has not been traditionally utilized. The authors note that classic works are often rich but applied narrowly.
- Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory, for instance, became central to social networks but played a less prominent role in justice and interpersonal trust research until Organ (1990). Colquitt and Rodell (2011) repurposed Blau’s work to reexamine the relationship between justice and trust, addressing an oversimplified portrayal in the literature. By building on Blau’s notion of a “willingness to trust,” they concluded that informational justice—managers sharing honest justifications—holds unique relevance to the “willingness to be vulnerable,” fostering emotional ties. Their study introduced a novel insight: informational justice, rather than procedural justice, might be the more critical “exchange currency” in fostering reciprocation. This approach is particularly fruitful for understanding new phenomena, such as exchange and power dynamics in platform and gig economies.
- Rediscovering a Classic: This approach requires a deep re-acquaintance with the original work to overcome selective attention and identify previously overlooked theoretical claims or unexplored ideas that can address contemporary questions. Research monographs, due to their comprehensive nature, offer particular promise in this regard.
- March and Simon’s (1958) Organizations is a classic known for its rich engagement with topics like bounded rationality. Trevor (2001) exemplified rediscovery by aiming to advance individual voluntary turnover research. He identified two key untested implications from March and Simon’s framework, which characterized the actual ease of movement as a function of both individual attributes and general economic conditions, contradicting contemporary theorizing that often focused solely on job availability. By carefully reinterpreting March and Simon’s insights on decisions to participate and external factors, Trevor (2001) effectively brought a multilevel perspective back into focus, demonstrating that the classic’s conceptual richness continues to offer valuable, yet-untested ideas applicable across different periods.
Bermiss et al. (2025) further illustrate the heightened relevance of classic works by demonstrating how they can illuminate transformational challenges:
- The AI Era: March and Simon’s (1958) insights on cognitive constraints and how organizational structure can alleviate decision-making challenges remain pertinent as scholars explore how AI systems might help overcome these constraints. Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job design theory, influenced by Herzberg, is also vital, as AI transforms work and necessitates new skill sets, bringing questions about its impact on the “motivating potential of work” to the forefront. Recent research (Jia, Luo, Fang & Liao, 2024) demonstrates this, finding that AI assistance can enhance creativity for highly skilled salespeople but heighten negative emotions for lower-skilled ones. Emerging questions invite repurposing other classics related to evolving roles (Katz & Kahn, 1966), role conflict and ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964), job resources and demands (Karasek, 1979), and even conflict navigation (Mary Parker Follett, 1995) to understand the social and efficiency trade-offs.
- Large Digital Technology Firms: Alfred Chandler’s foundational classics, Strategy and Structure (1962) and Visible Hand (1977), observed how firms used technology to gain efficiency and diversify. Today, digital technologies similarly enable operational efficiencies and diversification in large tech companies. While Chandler’s theories offer a starting point, vigilant reading is crucial to appreciate their original context and critically examine assumptions, such as the role of middle-level management (MLM) which may differ significantly in today’s more centralized, digitally-enabled organizations.
- Organizational Leadership in an Era of Political Polarization and Geopolitical Tension: James MacGregor Burns’s (1978) Leadership introduced “transforming leadership,” where leaders and followers elevate each other to higher levels of motivation and morality, moving beyond a “naked power” approach. In today’s politically polarized and geopolitically tense world, Burns’s questions are remarkably relevant. Leaders face a unique conundrum: how to exhibit transformational leadership when compliance with external forces might conflict with espoused values, or how to prioritize safety amid instability. This calls for a potentially “fluid, even ambidextrous and paradoxical form” of leadership, potentially reigniting new insights from Burns’s work on mobilizing consensus and dissensus.
In conclusion, Bermiss et al. (2025) stress that management classics represent an underutilized wealth of ideas and knowledge. They call for scholars to move beyond normative and ceremonial citations, engaging substantively with these works to avoid “scholarly laziness” and to generate profound theoretical and practical insights for our transformational times. This substantive re-engagement is also a critical responsibility for those who train future scholars, encouraging them to delve into, decipher, and build upon the rich knowledge offered by the classics. Ultimately, the editorial advocates for a proactive approach from all in the scholarly community to ensure that foundational ideas continue to drive theoretical development and provide actionable implications for the complexities of the modern organizational world.
Reference: Bermiss, Y. S., Farh, C. I. C., Simons, T., ter Wal, A. L. J., von Krogh, G., & Gruber, M. (2025). Reengaging with the classics. Academy of Management Journal, 68(3), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2025.4003