A practical guide for making theory contributions in strategic management

Abstract

Rather than introducing radical new “grand theory” paradigms, most theory contributions in strategic management extend, clarify, or apply received theories in new and interesting ways. Here we offer a guide on how to make these kinds of contributions to theory. Theory usually begins with a research question, which can come from the phenomenon of interest, variations/limitations of existing theory, or intellectual creativity. Along with the question, there are a number of more craftsmanship‐level aspects of a theory where contributions can be made: the mode of theorizing, the level of analysis, an understanding of the underlying phenomenon, causal mechanisms, constructs and variables, and boundary conditions. These aspects of the theory lead to a set of outcomes in the form of explanations, predictions, or prescriptions. The articles in this special issue are interpreted through our framework as illustrations of this approach to making theory contributions.

60 Years of March and Simon’s Organizations: An Empirical Examination of its Impact and Influence on Subsequent Research

“…In line with Makadok et al’s () lever 3 of advancing theory (‘Where’), we suggest that M&S ’s ideas should be extended to the context of new organizational forms. For these phenomena, research can draw on important insights developed in the book that relate to the role of organizational structures and how they can help overcome the problems of division of labour and/or integration of effort.…”

“…In line with Makadok et al’s () lever 2 of advancing theory (‘Who’), we stress the importance of future research addressing the above issue of new forms of organizing by bringing together different levels of analysis; that is, linking the micro‐level (individuals) with the meso‐level (organizations). Thereby, we believe that research can benefit from continuing to draw from, and thereby extending some of M&S ’s ideas.…”

“…Related to Makadok et al’s () lever 6 of advancing theory (‘When’), we believe that M&S ’s assumptions need to be more critically applied to the today’s context of innovation and change. Linked to the idea of co‐creation, today’s business environments have also led to core business processes, such as innovation, being distributed across the ecosystem, thereby indicating a need for permeable firm boundaries (Randhawa et al, ).…”

Logics, Leaders, Lab Coats: A Multi‐Level Study on How Institutional Logics are Linked to Entrepreneurial Intentions in Academia

“…Specifically, we expand extant theorizing by identifying regulative, normative and cognitive institutional elements as important contextual roots from which leaders' influence on academic entrepreneurship originates. Moreover, our study contributes to extending our knowledge by highlighting organizational-level logics as an important boundary condition (Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan, 2007;Makadok et al, 2018) that may strengthen or weaken leaders' influence.…”

“…Situated at the intersection of academic fields (Zahra and Newey, 2009), our study contributes to theory development by combining and synthesizing ideas (Makadok et al, 2018) from institutional theory, person-environment fit theory and leadership research in the field of science commercialization (Wright and Phan, 2018). Specifically, we developed multi-level theory (Hitt et al, 2007) to conceptualize and examine the largely unexplored mechanisms and processes (Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan, 2007) that constitute the cross-level link between organizational-level institutional context and the entrepreneurial intentions of academics.…”