Summary Thought experiments have been used as an effective methodological approach to advance theory in numerous scientific fields. However, they are underutilized in organizational behavior (OB) and adjacent fields. Accordingly, we conducted a comprehensive and multidisciplinary literature review of thought experiments that entailed 174 sources in economics, psychology, marketing, medicine, sociology, finance, and other fields. We used insights from this literature review to define and describe the unique nature of thought experiments and offer a taxonomy of four main types based on a theory's development stage (i.e., early vs. late) and a study's theoretical goal (i.e., confirmation vs. disconfirmation). We also provide a decision‐making tree useful for evaluating whether conducting a thought experiment is beneficial for a particular research situation and which of the four types is most likely to produce a meaningful contribution. Then, we offer best‐practice recommendations for conducting thought experiments that address how to plan, execute, report results, and discuss implications. In addition, we demonstrate the potential of thought experiments by using the best‐practice recommendations to design and conduct a thought experiment in the domain of workplace allyship. Finally, we offer suggestions for future substantive research that would benefit from thought experiment methodology (i.e., diversity, equity, and inclusion; leadership; performance; selection and recruitment; teams; and turnover). Overall, our article offers a comprehensive review and recommendations that we hope will be a catalyst for using thought experiments to advance theory in OB and related fields.

No abstract

We invoke the metaphor of the perfect storm and argue that several factors have converged to create what we label the irresponsible research perfect storm. Many of these issues can be fixed by applying management theories, but we argue this has not been done due to the existence of a research‐research gap. Akin to the research‐practice gap, the research‐research gap is a disconnect between the research academics are producing and the research academics ourselves are using to manage our own business schools, journals, professional associations, and careers. Accordingly, we offer four sets of theory‐based recommendations to quell this storm and narrow the research‐research gap: (1) promote shared governance and accountability across stakeholder groups, (2) expand the definition of scholarly impact, (3) provide journal editors with relevant resources, and (4) strengthen the knowledge, skills, and abilities of current and future scholars.

No abstract

No abstract