Journal of Management Studies 46:6 September 2009

0022-2380

Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science:

Theory-Building at the Intersection of Disciplines
and/or Fields

Shaker A. Zahra and Lance R. Newey

University of Minnesota; University of Queensland

abstract The intersection of academic disciplines and fields provides an important forum
for creative theory building. In this article, we identify three modes of theory building at the
intersection and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. We position these three modes
relative to one another using the ‘impact wheel’, which visually describes their influence on
five domains: theory, field, discipline, researchers, and external stakeholders. Though impact
on these domains varies across the three modes, maximum impact is created when theory
building at the intersection uncovers new phenomena that revise the boundaries of existing
disciplines and fields while giving birth to new ones. Such theorizing is infrequent and
demands particular skills on the part of researchers to help organization science to realize
more of its potential.

The system of science offers scholars incentives to make a novel contribution every time
they undertake research (Mone and McKinley, 1993). Theory building and testing
occupy a central place in this system. Theory building that involves the intersection of
theories across different fields, disciplines and/or philosophical paradigms is a particu-
larly popular strategy for making a novel impact (Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan, 2007).
Theory building is the quintessential process of ‘intellectual arbitrage’ (Van de Ven and
Johnson, 2006, p. 809) that gives meaning to data, defines phenomena, explains and
interprets findings, and fuels discoveries. Therefore, in this paper, we ask: How can
researchers intersect theories across academic fields and/or disciplines for maximum impact? The
question recognizes a hierarchical structure from theories which aggregate to form fields
(e.g. strategy, organizational behaviour, human resource management (HRM), and
entrepreneurship) which, in turn, accumulate to comprise disciplines (e.g. organization

Address for reprints: Shaker A. Zahra, Department of Strategic Management and Organization and Gary S.
Holmes Center for Entrepreneurship, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 321 19th
Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA (zahra004@umn.edu).

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
1060 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
science, economics, and psychology). We argue that, while combining theories is
common practice, not all modes of intersection have equal impact.
We propose that theory building at the intersection can have different impacts on
five domains: theories, fields, disciplines, research communities, and key external stake-
holders. Having an impact on one domain may also trigger a positive feedback effect
across the others. For instance, the development of a valuable extension to an existing
theory may also assist paradigm development within an emerging field while enhancing
the legitimacy of the parent discipline in the eyes of key external stakeholders such as
industry, government and the wider community.
The resource-based view (RBV) provides an interesting example. The RBV offers an
intriguing blend of management and economic insights (Peteraf and Barney, 2003),
positing that differences in firm performance stem from economic efficiencies resulting
from managers’ creative and superior use of resources. This theoretical synthesis has
enriched and revised theories of competitive advantage in the strategy field. It has also
led to an avalanche of follow-up research that capitalizes on the intersection with theories
from organizational economics (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992), population ecology
(Barnett et al., 1994), institutional theory (Oliver, 1997) and organizational learning (Lei
et al., 1996). The RBV has also informed sister disciplines such as marketing, interna-
tional business, entrepreneurship, production management and HRM, leading to the
proliferation of schools of thought that embrace the inherent paradoxes within the theory
(Lado et al., 2006). This research has lent greater credence to organizational scholarship
generally while compelling managers to deepen their understanding of how they can
proactively create competitive advantages.
Researchers frequently use three generic modes when building theories at the inter-
section of fields and/or disciplines. The modes include: (1) borrowing concepts/theories
from one field or discipline and superficially intersecting with those of another; (2)
borrowing concepts/theories from one field or discipline and intersecting with those of
another in a way that extends one or more of the theories; and (3) borrowing concepts/
theories from one field or discipline and intersecting with those of another in a way that
not only extends one or more of the intersecting theories but transforms the core of fields
and disciplines of which they are a part.
Each mode of theory building at the intersection is distinguished by different levels of
impact across the different impact domains. To capture this impact, we propose a theory
building impact wheel as a tool to visually assess the impact created by the various modes
across the domains. Our core argument is that impact is maximized when a mode of
theory building at the intersection is adopted that affects a greater range of impact
domains. We hope that our framework will highlight the opportunities that are available
for conceiving theory-building strategies for creating maximum impact.
We propose that of the three cross-field/disciplinary theory building strategies, Modes
1 and 2 are in frequent use while Mode 3 is rarely used, yet offers the most potential to
exert significant impact across the domains. Mode 3 requires special skills in theory
building and cross-field/disciplinary communication. Our discussion, therefore, draws
attention to this mode while also showing how impact is (not) created by the other
methods of theory building at the intersection of multiple fields/disciplines (hereafter
‘intersection’).

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1061
Our discussion shows that such research can nurture the growth of the organizational
sciences, rather than handicap its evolution or compromise its identity – as some might
fear (Markóczy and Deeds, 2009). Though we do not advocate conducting inter-
disciplinary research per se, we recognize its value. Creative intellectual arbitrage that
builds on cross-disciplinary research can add significant richness to organizational
research by widening the scope of inquiry and the prism through which researchers view
their research issues, rather than handicap the originality and distinctiveness of this
research. Seen from this perspective, and counter to Markóczy and Deeds (2009), theory
building at the intersection can spark rather than hinder paradigm development. Our
discussion focuses more on how to promote theory building at the intersection; we do not
debate the merits or shortcomings of interdisciplinary research since Markóczy and
Deeds (2009) have aptly discussed these issues.
In the next section of the paper, we expound what it means to intersect theories before
detailing different domains of impact that may be created. We also introduce the impact
wheel, showing how researchers can trigger a positive feedback effect of impact. We then
identify and critique three generic modes of theory building at the intersection, outlining
their relative effects and merits in creating different size impact wheels. We conclude the
paper with a discussion of implications for how researchers can better employ theory
building strategies for maximum impact.

THE IMPACT WHEEL OF THEORY BUILDING AT THE INTERSECTION

Intersecting Theories and Boundaries
Sutton and Staw (1995) regard ‘theory’ as a set of logically-interconnected arguments
that tell a story about why certain acts, events, structure and thoughts occur. ‘Theory
building’ then is a process aiming to produce new theory about an empirical phenom-
enon (Weick, 1995). Theories can emerge through induction, as in the grounded theory
tradition (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Suddaby, 2006). They can also result through
deduction by recognizing patterns in empirical data. Abduction is a third way of devel-
oping theory, where researchers go back and forth between induction and deduction.
Finally, theory building can unfold as a result of a creative synthesis of existing theoretical
insights by capitalizing on the intersection of two or more fields and/or disciplines, which
is the focus of this paper.
Theory building at the intersection plays a vital role within the repertoire for pro-
ducing knowledge. Absent such syntheses, scholars may develop only partial views of
complex organizational phenomena, blind spots remain unexposed, powerful new lenses
go undeveloped and theories fail to reach their potential for impacting fields, disciplines
and external stakeholders. In addition, without theoretical integration, problems within
fields and disciplines remain intractable and, as a whole, the discipline of organization
studies stagnates and even fails to generate coherent insights, frameworks, models and
theories. The contributions of evolutionary economics to strategy (Gavetti and Levinthal,
2004) and psychology to micro-organizational behaviour represent examples of how
inter-disciplinary research can yield theoretical apparatus that cohere, complement and
conceive paradigmatic research agendas.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

1062 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
Intersecting theories, however, is not without challenge as each may entail quite
disparate philosophical underpinnings that are hard to reconcile. Pure theoretical inte-
gration in the form of the mixing of central propositions is not always feasible or even
desirable because of paradigm incommensurability. For example, the classic conflict
between the ontological and epistemological assumptions of qualitative and quantitative
research methods has led to warring tribes whose differences appear irreconcilable. More
optimistically, some researchers espouse a meta-view, which allows for the juxtaposition
of different lenses and the enriching of a multi-perspective story about empirical objects
of inquiry (Gioia and Pitre, 1990). Theory building at the intersection directly confronts
these challenges driven by a belief that more comprehensive and impactful understand-
ings result from creative synthesis and combination, whether through the blending of
core propositions, embracing paradox and/or the bridging of transition zones between
paradigms (Gioia and Pitre, 1990).
We will now outline how the intersection of theories can create impact in different
ways by identifying different impact domains.

Impact Domains
Impact means to have ‘a forcible effect on something’, to ‘make an impression’, ‘to
influence’. Great theories have deep and enduring influence on subsequent theorizing
and the world of practice. They also influence knowledge creation, diffusion and utili-
zation by gaining the attention of other scholars and inhabiting the most prestigious
outlets that communicate those ideas. The highest goal of research is to generate this type
of far-reaching impact upon many different targets.
In Figure 1, we attempt to systematically capture the relationship between modes
of theory building at the intersection and various impact domains. This relationship is
depicted by an impact wheel radiating from a mode of theory building at the intersection.
The wheel depicts five main impact domains and recognizes that different modes of
theory-building at the intersection have different effects on these impact domains. The
five domains are also interrelated such that influencing one can cause positive feedback
effects amongst the others. The positive feedback effects created by different modes of
theory building at the intersection, along with the degree of impact on each domain,
yields different wheel sizes, indicating the overall influence on the impact domains.
Different modes of theory building at the intersection can be distinguished by the size
and symmetry of the impact wheel they create.

Impact 1: Theory development. When theory building involves the intersection of two or
more theories, concepts and/or ideas the results may have important impacts on one or
more pre-existing theories. For example, Burgelman’s (2002) longitudinal study of Intel
has extended the frontier of the field of strategy by focusing on how strategy-making is an
organizational process that shapes the destiny of the firm. His conceptual framework
intersected concepts from strategy and evolutionary organization theory, a combination
that not only represented novel theory building that significantly broadened the field of
strategy, but also had implications for key debates such as strategic positioning versus
competence, exploitation versus exploration (March, 1991), resource allocation myopia

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1063

Field Development
Impact on:
Theory Development Theoretical paradigms:
Impact on: – Relative explanatory and predictive ability to address
Theories: core issues that define the field
– Relative explanatory and predictive ability to – Extending and/or challenging existing paradigms or
address core focal issue of theory inspiring new ones
(relative to other theories within and/or across – Ability of the field to provide answers to the needs
fields) of external constituents relative to other fields
– Interestingness, internal and external validity, Institutional supports:
reliability – Proliferation and standing of journals, development
of professional associations, conferences and
community of researchers
High

Medium

Low

Mode of Theory-
Researcher Development Building at the External Stakeholder Impact
Impact on: Intersection Impact on:
– Follow-on research The practical needs of
– Attraction of other researchers – industry
to agenda – government
– Researcher’s teaching – community

Discipline (e.g. organization studies) Development

Impact on:
Theoretical paradigms:
– Relative explanatory and predictive ability to address core
issues that define the discipline
– Extending and/or challenging existing paradigms or inspiring
new ones
– Ability of the discipline to provide answers to the needs of
external constituents relative to other disciplines
– Scientific credibility of discipline versus other disciplines.
Institutional supports:
– Proliferation and standing of journals, development of
professional associations, conferences and community of
researchers

Figure 1. Impact wheel

in the face of disruptive technologies (Christensen, 1997), dynamics of resource allocation

(Bower, 1970), and the interplay of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportu-
nities (Zahra, 2008).
In a clinical sense, theoretical development involves positively impacting the structural
properties and ‘interestingness’ of a theory (Davis, 1971). These properties include telling
a unique story relative to other explanations about why particular phenomena occur.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

1064 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
Included is the gathering of evidence of the validity of core propositions, as well as efforts
to widen their content and empirical generalizability. A good theory is also internally
consistent, meaning it is logically and empirically valid within its boundaries. Theoretical
progress thus also requires close definition of these boundary conditions and underlying
assumptions. Impact is also enhanced when all this is done in a way that excites the
imagination.
This clinical view is contrasted with a perspective of science as socially constructed
truth, where theoretical hegemony is thought to have little to do with empirical accuracy
and more to do with interestingness and popularity within the socially constructed system
of science (Astley, 1985). For this reason, Weick (1995) observes that a good theory
explains, predicts and delights.

Impact 2: Field development. Theories also aggregate within fields. Terms like ‘field’ and
‘discipline’ are often used interchangeably but we differentiate them here in order to
recognize hierarchical structures in the organization of scientific knowledge. By ‘field’ we
mean aggregated areas of study that roughly correspond to the Divisions that exist in the
Academy of Management, for instance. Included are organization theory, HRM, strat-
egy, cognition, entrepreneurship, international business, as well as technology and inno-
vation management. Each field is populated (or even dominated) by several key theories
that define the phenomena and inform the core questions that shape the boundaries of
the field. Thus, notwithstanding some recent objections (e.g. Markóczy and Deeds,
2009), progress in the field depends greatly on theory development.
Theory development may have a positive impact upon field development if it
contributes to paradigm development (Pfeffer, 1993) and/or paradigm diversification
(Cannella and Paetzold, 1994; Van Maanen, 1995). It contributes to field development
to the extent that the former identifies and/or addresses key questions that define a field
and creates unique conceptual frameworks not present in other fields. These develop-
ments can significantly enhance the legitimacy of a field by cultivating increased inde-
pendence from the theoretical frameworks of other fields and increasing citation rates
within other disciplinary journals. Legitimacy is also established through the building
of the institutional infrastructure surrounding a field, including the proliferation of jour-
nals with greater academic standing, professional associations, conferences, academic
appointments and attraction of a community of researchers (Busenitz et al., 2003; Low,
2001). Without assessing the impact of theory development on field development, aca-
demic fields languish through the lack of coordination and economies of research scale
are not leveraged to produce coherent, rigorous and powerful knowledge.

Impact 3: Discipline development. Fields aggregate to form disciplines. For instance, the
organization studies discipline includes organizational behaviour, HRM, marketing,
accounting, and strategy, among others. This level of aggregation also has important
objectives that theory building at the intersection can, and needs to, impact. Disciplines
share similar objectives to fields, only at a higher level of aggregation. Disciplines
co-evolve through good research and the evolution of supporting institutional structures
such as cross-field conferences, cross-field publications, professional associations and
development of a community of committed and talented researchers and students. The

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1065
discipline of organization studies competes (and collaborates) directly with economics,
psychology, anthropology, political science, etc for the attraction of researchers and
students, the allocation of resources, as well as external stakeholder legitimacy.
As with fields, the identity of a discipline may change over time as its constituents
debate the boundaries and objects of inquiry such as has occurred in the broadening of
focus from administrative science to organization studies (Palmer, 2006). Such academic
entrepreneurship can influence and even shape the course of a discipline by promoting
creative and imaginative theory building that considerably enriches fields – a spiralling
of positive impact on theory, field and discipline development. Consequently, the impact
of theory building on discipline development is measured not just in terms of extensions
to existing paradigms but in challenging traditional world views and contributing to
more diverse trajectories that reform the core of a discipline’s self-concept. Theory
building thus plays a vital role in the development, evolution and reformation of an
entire discipline.

Impact 4: Researcher development. Theories, fields and disciplines realize their potential
through the efforts of capable researchers. As an impact domain, researcher develop-
ment refers to the extent to which researchers are motivated to pursue subsequent
research inferred by an initial theory building at the intersection effort. This is an
important impact domain because follow-on cumulative work contributes to the sub-
stance of fields and disciplines as well as the potential for extensive influence on the world
of practice. An effort focusing on theory building at the intersection has an impact on
researcher development to the extent to which researchers receive intrinsic and extrinsic
validation for their effort. This can also lead them to prioritize the research agenda in
their portfolio, continue related research, attract other researchers to their agenda, and
develop additional ideas through teaching. The potential for contagion among other
researchers and students is an important dynamic that directly affects theory, field,
discipline and external stakeholder development.

Impact 5: External stakeholder development. The development of theories, fields and disci-
plines coevolves with key external constituents. Organization science theories can enrich
or even change practice by identifying new phenomena for investigation and conse-
quently need new and creative thinking. Times of significant social and economic
transitions often render redundant the explanatory power of old theories, inviting new
theories and fields of inquiry (Davis and Marquis, 2005). These dynamics indicate a need
to stay relevant and suggest that the external landscape is a fertile area for ongoing
theory, field and discipline development – impact begets greater impact.
There are inevitable conflicts in theory building that aim to address both the practical
challenges of external constituents and a dominant paradigm that asserts the need
for generalizability (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005). Prescriptive theory building demands
comprehensive understanding of specific situations often containing peculiarities that
prohibit wider application. But impact is not just in the form of step-by-step recommen-
dations, as rules for riches can begin to lose their strategic value as soon as they are
known. Rather, practitioners are impacted in terms of their conceptual development,
revising subjective beliefs and/or lending of third party influence to effect change.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

1066 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
Theory offers lenses with which managers can frame issues, compensate for the unreli-
ability of intuition and ‘common sense’, trigger innovative thinking, and clarify causal
relationships influencing firm objectives as well as empower resource allocation. Positive
impact of theory building on key external constituents includes rates of theory imple-
mentation and diffusion within an industry, to the extent to which they influence
conversations at practitioner conferences as well as changes to economic and social
structures and policies.

Positive Feedback Effect in the Wheel

The impact wheel in Figure 1 captures the interrelationship between the impact domains
and shows how this interrelationship can lead to a positive feedback effect. Developing
theories with great explanatory and predictive power in important empirical phenomena
can lend legitimacy to relevant fields, accentuating the importance of a discipline in
adding value to key stakeholder values. Organizational theories may thus filter through
into practitioner discourse, fundamentally reconstituting the reality they initially
described (Astley, 1985). This process may then trigger a promising new trajectory of
research and theory building, generating a multiplier effect radiating across the impact
domains. Capitalizing on this positive feedback effect requires understanding the differ-
ent effects that different modes of theory building at the intersection can have and the
different impact wheel sizes they create. Finally, Figure 1 suggests a reason where
progress in theory building and use could be slow. The interrelations among the five
impact domains often exert pressure on one another, creating opportunities for new
theorizing. Yet, these interrelationships are one of the reasons why theory may not
progress as much as researchers hope; attempting to influence other impact domains
sometimes restrains the total progress of the impact wheel.

GENERIC MODES OF THEORY BUILDING AT THE INTERSECTION

Researchers working at the intersection use three key modes of theory development:
borrowing and replicating (Mode 1), borrowing and extending (Mode 2), and transform-
ing the core (Mode 3). Each of these modes or ways of theorizing has different effects
throughout the impact wheel. Modes 1 and 2 have low and moderate overall impact
wheels respectively, while Mode 3 has the potential to maximize impact across all five
domains we have just discussed. We will now elaborate on the three modes.

Mode 1: Borrowing and Replicating

This mode centres on borrowing concepts and theories from within or across fields and
disciplines to study phenomena at the intersection. For example, researchers studying
international entrepreneurship (IE) have made use of theories that relate to organiza-
tional learning (Zahra et al., 2000), liability of newness (Sapienza et al., 2006), intra-
organizational networks, and knowledge creation and exploitation. In all these studies,
focus has centred on borrowing and applying theories from other fields and/or disci-
plines to understand IE phenomena. Yet, the use of these theories to motivate explana-

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1067
tions of IE activities has tended to ignore the uniqueness of the phenomena explored,
missing an opportunity to develop new theories. Researchers have used Mode 1 exten-
sively in as diverse fields as international business (Buckley and Lessard, 2005), manu-
facturing strategy (Brown et al., 2007) and strategic HRM (Lepak and Snell, 1999), to
mention a few.
Mode 1 has the potential to fuel methodological diversity, where researchers assess the
utility (e.g. predictive power) of the newly imported theories and related findings.
However, studies following this mode have also failed to give back to the original theories
or challenge their assumptions in the context of the new phenomena being examined.
They also fail to generate findings that could alter the boundaries of these theories or
their basic propositions. As a result, Mode 1 can promote replication studies.
Lane et al.’s (2006) critique of the reified use of the absorptive capacity construct
provides a telling example of how Mode 1 theorizing can handicap research streams by
rendering contributions suspect, misspecified and even misleading. Another example is
the widespread use of the RBV in the literature to study aspects of competitive advan-
tage. However, the RBV contains a coherent set of propositions that together comprise
the theory (Arend, 2006). Studies that assert the importance of resource uniqueness
without appreciating the overall theoretical story of which it is a part are not engaging
the RBV and may not make a compelling contribution to the theory. Overall, despite its
value-added, Mode 1 is the least productive in terms of creating an impact wheel
(Figure 1). It offers little advance to paradigm development, journal and other institu-
tional supports of fields or the legitimacy of the overall discipline. Lacking theoretical
value, most of this work also fails to achieve academic or managerial credibility.

Mode 2: Borrowing and Extending

Here, theories imported from parent fields/disciplines are frequently used to spark
research on a phenomenon at the intersection and communicate the findings back to
scholars in these original fields/disciplines. Scholars in recipient fields might even extend
the original ideas underlying the theories imported and then communicate these to
scholars elsewhere. Perhaps more important, researchers identify some salient but
unique research issues and questions at the intersection and proceed to study them,
making use of imported theories. Thus, in Mode 2, scholarly discourse across disciplines/
fields unfolds between two or more disciplines/fields and also at that unique point of
intersection.
For instance, the RBV had been invoked to explain a host of entrepreneurial outcomes
(e.g. Barney et al., 2001; Westhead and Wright, 2001). These studies explain how
entrepreneurs mobilize different resources to build their firms’ resource base. Research
has begun to redefine key notions in the field of entrepreneurship about the concept of
resources by including entrepreneurs’ passions and emotions (e.g. Baron, 2008; Cardon
et al., 2009). It also highlights the importance of resourcefulness in extracting value from
the firm’s possessions and defining the meaning of resources (Packalen, 2007). Likewise,
research on teams, whether focused on project-specific or strategic teams has initially
borrowed heavily from social psychology but its accumulated findings have drawn
attention to the multi-level implications of team activities. Similarly, research connecting

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

1068 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
strategy and operations management has challenged the narrow functional definition of
the role of manufacturing, offering a broader and richer view of the contributions of this
activity in enabling strategic moves that redefine the firm’s value chain and alter the
dynamics of competition in the industry (Brown et al., 2007).
Ongoing research on the nature of dynamic capabilities within entrepreneurial firms
offers another example of this mode (Zahra et al., 2006). This research examines the
birth, emergence, exploitation, evolution and integration of capabilities as a means of
building new ventures’ competitive repertoire. It highlights important differences in the
capabilities of new ventures vs. established companies. This research suggests that new
ventures may have dynamic capabilities whose texture might differ markedly from those
found in established companies.
In each of the areas we have just mentioned, researchers have used Mode 2 to apply
theories to new phenomena or in new settings, seeking to improve our understanding of
the limits of these theories while refining and revising received theory. Not only do we
know more about the boundaries of these theories and their robustness but we also
appreciate the differences that underlie their key predictions and findings. This under-
standing helps in assessing the usefulness of the theories in question, revising their
original propositions.
Using Mode 2 often fails to redefine the core of the discipline or field itself, imposing
a limit on its overall impact wheel. One reason is that researchers often do not diffuse
their findings back to those fields/disciplines from which they have borrowed theories.
Writing for one’s disciplinary colleagues is one thing, but communicating and persuading
peers in other disciplines are challenging tasks that require different skills. Scientific
norms, languages and knowledge structures are frequent impediments that can stifle this
interdisciplinary dialogue. Political and interpretive barriers also slow down interdisci-
plinary conversations and knowledge sharing. This sharing could be a time consuming
and formidable task that receives little academic recognition or support.
A drawback of Mode 2 is researchers’ near-sighted focus on revising and extending
original theories, sometimes by violating boundary conditions. Researchers importing
a theory from another field/discipline often believe that it could be adapted to explain
the new phenomena in which they are interested. This focus on phenomena blinds
some to the pitfalls of ignoring a theory’s original assumptions. Williamson (1999)
argued that transaction cost economics (TCE) and competence perspectives in the
strategy field have much to offer each other. However, he lamented that critiques of
TCE had misunderstood key tenets of the theory. Gavetti et al. (2007) argue that
evolutionary economics has the potential to make a significant difference to the future
evolution of the strategy field if researchers are careful to embrace the foundational
pillars (along with some new developments) on which the ‘behavioural’ approach rests.
Ignoring these pillars sets the stage for fruitful debates and rebuttals across fields and
disciplines, sometimes making it impossible to see how the results of using the theory
in a new context might enrich research in the parent discipline. These clashes also
persist because researchers may not fully understand the fundamental debates or
norms of science that dominate the parent field/discipline, making it harder to engage
that influential audience in ways that promote exchange of ideas that could transform
the field.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1069
Mode 3: Transforming the Core
In Mode 2, researchers typically apply well-known theories to new phenomena and
settings and diffuse their findings to the parent fields/disciplines from which they have
borrowed. This focus can refine existing theories and redefine their boundaries. Yet, the
core of the parent and recipient fields/disciplines remains more or less the same. To
revise this core, however, researchers frequently need to develop new theories at the
intersection and then transfer these theories and related findings to those in the parent
and recipient fields/disciplines. Findings need to be diffused by researchers in the parent
fields and/or disciplines in ways that convey mastery of the key issues at the core of
those fields/disciplines and how the use of existing theory revises these issues, chal-
lenges accepted norms and paradigms, and opens up the field anew to discussion and
exploration.
Mode 3 has several distinguishing characteristics. Notably, theories could be imported
to examine a phenomenon in the recipient field/discipline and then results are commu-
nicated back to the original field/discipline. Original theories could also be developed by
building on clinical research conducted in the field/discipline and then the findings are
debated across fields/disciplines. Whether imported or developed, theories are also
synthesized with a focus on a unique domain that lies at the intersection. Finally, findings
at the intersection are used to define, frame or revise core issues in the recipient
fields/disciplines or original fields/disciplines themselves. A maximal wheel of impact is
possible as revisions and maybe revolutions to the core of fields add new lustre to the
discipline of organizational sciences overall, which in turn feeds and is fed by a new
practitioner audience with particular needs.
Research on social entrepreneurship (SE) illustrates this point. Researchers have used
research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and entrepreneurship to define this
territory and define different types of social ventures (e.g. Zahra et al., 2008), mirroring
the practices we have already associated with Mode 2. Studies of SE, however, promise
to alter prevailing notions of entrepreneurship where the motivation to create a new
venture is assumed to be financially driven. Insights from emerging SE research have
already encouraged researchers to redefine the concept of entrepreneurship itself by
recognizing that wealth encompasses financial and social dimensions. Defining the field
as such can inspire explorations of the nature of social wealth, how it relates to financial
wealth, and how to best capture social wealth. Researchers can also probe the changing
nature of entrepreneurial ventures.
The emergence of SE has also drawn attention to the critical links that exist between
these activities, CSR and bottom of the pyramid (BOP) strategies that companies use to
address the needs of the poor (Zahra et al., 2008). Independent entrepreneurs and
corporations are likely to use SE as a means of creating new companies. The BOP
approach appears to be more salient to corporations. Thus, discussions of SE have the
potential to revise and even enrich the notion of CSR. The ethical implications of CSR,
BOP and SE are becoming an important topic of inquiry, promising to transform
managerial thinking and academic research on the ethics of addressing the needs of the
poor and disadvantaged around the globe. This discussion is likely to revise the bound-
aries and definitions of the field of entrepreneurship itself.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

1070 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
Similarly, the importation of evolutionary economics into the strategy field has led to
the revision of neoclassical economic assumptions of actors’ rational choice behaviour;
assumptions originally inherited by strategy scholars (Gavetti and Levinthal, 2004). In
turn, issues peculiar to the strategy field such as how both routinized and cognitive forms
of behaviour can be synthesized into a coherent microfoundational framework can
provoke thoughtful re-examination of core issues in evolutionary economics.
The power of Mode 3 theorizing lies in its potential to map out a new research
domain, one that demands solving a theoretical puzzle and doing so by developing a new
field. Though Markóczy and Deeds (2009) suggest that the use of this approach can slow
the evolution of a distinctive management discipline, we believe that research that follows
Mode 3 theorizing can challenge, inform and redefine the core of scholarship in existing
disciplines, creating maximum impact wheel size (Figure 1). It can also compel research-
ers in original disciplines to rethink or even question their long held assumptions and
assess the robustness of their arguments, analyses and findings. This soul-searching
process can usher in a new wave of ideas that revitalize original disciplines. Any discipline
should interact with and use insights from other disciplines to continue to flourish.
Economists and sociologists have learned a great deal from incorporating biological and
genetics models in their research, leading to new theoretical perspectives. As a result, we
worry that Markóczy and Deeds (2009) confuse creative theory building with mindless
and meaningless replications that do not promote scholarly progress.

DISCUSSION
We have argued that focusing on the intersection of fields and disciplines offers an
important opportunity to theorize in ways that can challenge, reframe and redefine core
issues in a field/discipline. It also provides an opportunity to challenge and revise
accepted assumptions as well as established questions and traditions in the original fields
from which theories have been drawn. The intersection of scholarly fields and disciplines
provides a new ‘market space’ for original ideas that fosters theory building and testing.
As with such new market spaces, research at the intersection has to create its own agenda
and corresponding stakeholders, build momentum for new and original thinking, attract
and retain competent researchers, and use their skills to address questions that trespass
boundaries. Such research has enriched natural sciences, leading to important break-
throughs that revolutionized the original disciplines of chemistry, biology, and physics.
This type of research can have such a profound effect on administrative sciences as well.
Other researchers espouse different, indeed contrary views, to those we have proposed
throughout this article. Markóczy and Deeds (2009), who believe that the time has come
for the management discipline to develop its own paradigm, suggest that research at
the intersection might slow down the emergence of such a paradigm. We respectfully
disagree because we believe theory building at the intersection could enrich and expedite
the emergence of such a paradigm. Insular conceptualizations of organizational phe-
nomena could also be dangerous to better theorizing and effective managerial practices.
Self-reliance in developing our discipline does not require isolating it from other impor-
tant disciplines and perspectives; this could only limit our capacity to tackle meaningful
research questions.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1071
As espoused here, intersection is about generating better ideas through academic
entrepreneurship. Borrowing from other fields and disciplines need not equate to depen-
dence if management researchers combine innovation (the ability to think in ways
distinct to management) and entrepreneurship (the ability to spot opportunities for
theoretical contribution to the management discipline) together with their borrowed
theories. The discipline of management is thus subject to the same forces of ‘creative
destruction’ as the phenomena it seeks to describe (Kuhn, 1962; Schumpeter, 1942). The
challenge remains one of attaining the right mix of continuity, which builds the absorp-
tive capacity of researchers, and novelty, which maintains relevance and incentivizes the
search for better ideas (Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan, 2007; Markóczy and Deeds, 2009;
McKinley et al., 1999).
We do agree with Markóczy and Deeds (2009), however, regarding the need to be
creative, thoughtful and percipient in identifying relevant issues of central importance to
managers and organizations. We need to recognize, restore and capitalize on the ‘mana-
gerial’ quality of management research, consistent with Markóczy and Deeds (2009).
Engaged scholarship, where researchers and managers collaborate and work jointly to
define questions and their relevance, is a promising avenue towards this goal (Van de
Ven and Johnson, 2006). This approach would help address one of the major concerns
that Markóczy and Deeds (2009) have expressed; they disagree with our position that we
need ‘more theory development at the intersection of borrowed theories . . . [and pro-
posed that] Instead the discipline needs to clean up the mess in our existing theoretical
base . . .’. Still, we believe that the problem lies not in theories developed at the inter-
section but instead in the way organizational researchers use these theories, often vio-
lating their boundaries and assumptions.
Markóczy and Deeds (2009) highlight several recent critiques of obsession with theory
in administrative sciences (e.g. Hambrick, 2007), a phenomenon we have also noted
earlier. However, we believe that organizational researchers have trivialized application
of theory to a small and even obvious set of questions, rather than building frameworks
that guide research as well as practice. It is especially easy to critique research conducted
at the intersection of academic disciplines (Markóczy and Deeds, 2009). However,
ineffective practice in conducting this research should not obscure our appreciation of
the merits of theory building at the intersection.
Towards this end, we have identified three modes that researchers can employ, with
each mode having varying levels of impact – ranging from mere borrowing of concepts
to extending original theories to more ambitious redefining and even transforming of the
core of parent fields and disciplines. We have also presented researchers with a way to
think about different domains of impact by proposing the impact wheel as a way of
visualizing and capturing this effect across different constituents. While many have
argued the merits of interdisciplinary research (e.g. Mahoney and McGahan, 2007), we
have extended these sentiments by identifying different modes of theory-building at the
intersection and the circumstances in which they are likely to exert minimal impact
(Mode 1) or more far-reaching influence (Modes 2 and 3). Our framework thus clarifies
a path to avoid the ‘hype’ (Knights and Willmott, 1997) of interdisciplinary and inter-
field research by delineating how it may be substantive and impactful. Table I compares
and contrasts the three modes of theory building at the intersection.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

1072 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
Table I. Comparison of the three modes of theory building at the intersection

Dimension Modes

1 2 3

Focus Importation of theory from Intersection of one field/ Using intersection as a new
other fields discipline and another domain to develop new theory
Objective Enrichment and extension Boundary definition Domain definition
Critical skills Empirical Synthetic integration Theory construction
Cross-disciplinary
communication
Use Widespread Frequent Rare

Still, creative theory building at the intersection of disciplines and/or fields does not fit
neatly into three distinct categories because different theory building efforts can create
different impact domains, manifesting as asymmetric impact wheels. For instance, orga-
nizational research could have significant theoretical, field and discipline impact but
wield much less influence on managerial practice. Alternatively, theory building at the
intersection may focus on practical problem solving, yielding significant workplace
impact but which contributes little to theory, field or discipline development. We have
highlighted these modes to illustrate three generic impact wheels, while at the same time
recognizing the wide and uneven effects possible from different theory building efforts. In
addition, our derivation of the three modes is based on logic and experienced observa-
tion of popular strategies, along with their strengths and weaknesses. A more systematic
examination of intersection modes used in research may identify additional modes
and/or refine our framework.

IMPLICATIONS
Our model of the impact wheel can be used as both a lagging and a leading indicator.
The latter is particularly important in guiding research design. The ‘impact wheel’
(Figure 1) clarifies the range of impact domains and their antecedents. Novice
researchers typically search for a contribution, often defined in theoretical terms. The
impact wheel and Mode 3 theorizing at the intersection encourages researchers to spot
limiting assumptions not only at the level of theories but also entire fields/disciplines.
Their ability to spot these limiting assumptions and generate insights at the intersection
(e.g. social entrepreneurship) can yield far-reaching impact in terms of theoretical,
field, discipline, researcher and practical development. Researchers also exert wider
impact by including not only theoretical implications of their papers but also being
mindful of the effect of their contributions on other impact domains (Figure 1). This
may be old hat for some experienced researchers but may be valuable steering to the
novices of our trade. It helps the younger and perhaps less experienced scholars to

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1073
become more aware of a bigger picture, how fields and disciplines evolve, the dyna-
mics associated with that evolution, and leverage points for maximizing impact across
the domains.
We have argued that Mode 3 theory building is likely to generate the richest insights
that could transform core fields and/or disciplines. But, at the same time and as a leading
indicator, it may be the mode over which researchers have the least amount of control.
The social construction of paradigms, their allies and gatekeepers can govern the reward
system and so critically influence what is accepted and what is not (Astley, 1985).
However, we make more visible the antecedents that need to be influenced within each
impact domain to create possible positive feedback effects (Figure 1). Influencing these
factors, such as generating sub-fields and challenging accepted paradigms, requires
ongoing efforts at championing and conversation generation, both inside and outside the
published domain. These factors, along with theory-building, are things over which
researchers do have some control. Despite the shortcomings that Markóczy and Deeds
(2009) have noted, researchers can use these insights to produce interesting and creative
scholarship that has the potential to inform managerial practice.

CONCLUSION
Novel combinations of theories lie at the heart of understanding the complexity of
organizational phenomena. Combination provides a provocative context for theories,
shedding light on their strengths and weaknesses as well as enhancing their potential for
impact by serving to clarify and extend. Different modes of intersecting theories create
different levels of impact ranging from minimal to far-reaching. Awareness of these
modes and the different impact domains they affect is an important step forward in
charting pathways for advancing organization science, assessing alternative ways to
resolve fundamental issues, extend frontiers, and guide the productivity of novice and
established researchers.
Developing skills at intersection has costs and benefits as the propagation of new fields
gives rise to issues of legitimacy, paradigm convergence/diversification, cross-border
communication as well as the promise of fresh and exciting answers to complex phe-
nomena. The relative distribution of these costs and benefits reflects researchers’ mode
of theory-building at the intersection. Not all modes are created equal in terms of impact,
thus placing onus upon researchers to be mindful of the nuances of ‘intersection’ and
how it can profoundly shape the evolution of theories, fields, disciplines and the world of
practice. Crafting new theories at the intersection can enrich discourse in organization
sciences, stimulating radical innovation in the focus and methods of inquiry. Such
innovations create platforms for theorizing anew. Waves of creative synthesis, empirical
inquiry and revolutionary theorizing can highlight the contributions of organization
sciences and reinforce, rather than dilute, their identity and impact.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge with appreciation the support of Steven Floyd and Mike Wright, and the helpful comments
of Nachiket Bhawe, Hans Rawhouser and Patricia H. Zahra. We have benefited also from the comments of

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

1074 S. A. Zahra and L. R. Newey
participants in new faculty and doctoral consortia and workshops at the Academy of Management, Academy
of International Business, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, and Strategic Management
Society. We have also learned a great deal from the rich discussions in the theory building seminar and
Strategic Management & Organization Department Seminar series at the University of Minnesota and owe
special debt to Andy Van de Ven.

REFERENCES
Arend, R. J. (2006). ‘Tests of the resource-based view: do the empirics have any clothes?’. Strategic Organi-
zation, 4, 409–22.
Astley, W. G. (1985). ‘Administrative science as socially constructed truth’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,
497–513.
Barnett, W. P., Greve, H. R. and Park, D. Y. (1994). ‘An evolutionary model of organizational performance’.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 11–28.
Barney, J., Wright, M. and Ketchen, D. J. Jr (2001). ‘The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after
1991’. Journal of Management, 27, 625–41.
Baron, R. (2008). ‘The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process’. Academy of Management Review, 33,
328–40.
Bennis, W. G. and O’Toole, J. (2005). ‘How business schools lost their way’. Harvard Business Review, May,
96–104.
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the Resource Allocation Process. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, S., Squire, B. and Blackmon, K. (2007). ‘The contribution of manufacturing strategy involvement
and alignment to world-class manufacturing performance’. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 27, 282–302.
Buckley, P. J. and Lessard, D. R. (2005). ‘Regaining the edge in international business research’. Journal of
International Business Studies, 36, 595–9.
Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy Is Destiny: How Strategy Making Shapes a Company’s Future. New York: Free
Press.
Busenitz, L. W., Page West, G. III, Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N. and Zacharakis, A. (2003).
‘Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions’. Journal of Management, 29,
285–308.
Cannella, A. A. and Paetzold, R. L. (1994). ‘Pfeffer’s barriers to the advance of organization science: a
rejoinder’. Academy of Management Review, 19, 331–41.
Cardon, M., Wincent, J., Singh, J. and Drnovsek, J. (2009). ‘The nature and experience of entrepreneurial
passion’. Academy of Management Review, in press.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Colquitt, J. A. and Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). ‘Trends in theory building and theory testing: a five-decade
study of the Academy of Management Journal’. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281–303.
Davis, G. F. and Marquis, C. (2005). ‘Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century:
institutional fields and mechanisms’. Organization Science, 16, 332–43.
Davis, M. S. (1971). ‘That’s interesting’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, 309–44.
Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D. A. (2004). ‘The strategy field from the perspective of Management Science:
divergent strands and possible integration’. Management Science, 50, 1309–18.
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D. and Ocasio, W. (2007). ‘Neo-Carnegie: the school’s past, present and reconstruct-
ing for the future’. Organization Science, 18, 523–36.
Gioia, D. A. and Pitre, E. (1990). ‘Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building’. Academy of Management
Review, 15, 584–602.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New
York: Aldine.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). ‘The field of management’s devotion to theory: too much of a good thing?’. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 1346–52.
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1997). ‘The hype and hope of interdisciplinary management studies’. British
Journal of Management, 8, 9–22.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., Wright, P. and Kroll, M. (2006). ‘Paradox and theorizing within the resource-
based view’. Academy of Management Review, 31, 115–31.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009

 Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science 1075
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. and Pathak, S. (2006). ‘The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and
rejuvenation of the construct’. Academy of Management Review, 31, 833–63.
Lei, D., Hitt, M. A. and Bettis, R. (1996). ‘Dynamic core competencies through meta-learning and strategic
context’. Journal of Management, 22, 549–69.
Lepak, D. P. and Snell, S. A. (1999). ‘The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital
allocation and development’. Academy of Management Review, 24, 31–48.
Low, M. (2001). ‘The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose’. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 25, 17–25.
Mahoney, J. T. and McGahan, A. M. (2007). ‘The field of strategic management within the evolving science
of strategic organization’. Strategic Organization, 5, 79–99.
Mahoney, J. T. and Pandian, J. R. (1992). ‘The resource-based theory within the conversation of strategic
management’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363–80.
March, J. G. (1991). ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
Markóczy, L. and Deeds, D. L. (2009). ‘Theory building at the intersection: recipe for impact or road to
nowhere?’. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1076–88.
McKinley, W., Mone, M. A. and Moon, G. (1999). ‘Determinants and development of schools in organi-
zation theory’. Academy of Management Review, 24, 634–48.
Mone, M. A. and McKinley, W. (1993). ‘The uniqueness value and its consequences for organization
studies’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2, 284–96.
Oliver, C. (1997). ‘Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource-based views’.
Strategic Management Journal, 18, 697–713.
Packalen, K. A. (2007). ‘Complementing capital: the role of status, demographic features and social capital
in founding teams’ abilities to obtain resources’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 873–91.
Palmer, D. (2006). ‘Taking stock of the criteria we use to evaluate one another’s work: ASQ 50 years out’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 535–59.
Peteraf, M. A. and Barney, J. B. (2003). ‘Unraveling the resource-based tangle’. Managerial and Decision
Economics, 24, 309–23.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). ‘Barriers to the advance of organization science: paradigm development as a dependent
variable’. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.
Sapienza, H. J., Autio, E., George, G. and Zahra, S. A. (2006). ‘A capabilities perspective on the effects of
early internationalisation on firm survival and growth’. Academy of Management Review, 31, 914–33.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
Suddaby, R. (2006). ‘From the editors: what grounded theory is not’. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
633–42.
Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (1995). ‘What theory is not’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–84.
Van de Ven, A. H. and Johnson, P. E. (2006). ‘Knowledge for theory and practice’. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 802–21.
Van Maanen, J. (1995). ‘Fear and loathing in organizational studies’. Organization Science, 6, 687–92.
Weick, K. E. (1995). ‘What theory is not, theorizing is’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–90.
Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (2001). ‘The internationalization of new and small firms: a resource-based
view’. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 333–58.
Williamson, O. E. (1999). ‘Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives’. Strategic Management
Journal, 20, 1087–108.
Zahra, S. (2008). ‘The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities’. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 243–57.
Zahra, S., Ireland, D. and Hitt, M. (2000). ‘International expansion by new venture firms: international
diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning and performance’. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 925–50.
Zahra, S., Sapienza, H. and Davidsson, P. (2006). ‘Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review,
model and research agenda’. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 917–55.
Zahra, S., Rawhouser, H., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D. and Hayton, J. (2008). ‘Globalization of social
entrepreneurial opportunities’. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 117–31.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009