姝 Academy of Management Review
2011, Vol. 36, No. 4, 607–609.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0209
EDITOR’S COMMENTS: WHAT IS THE FUTURE
OF THEORY?
Despite recent concerns that management is
far too consumed with theory (Hambrick, 2007),
the last three plus years I’ve served as editor of
the Academy of Management Review (AMR)
have led me to consider a much different future
for our discipline, a future without theory.
Ponder these statistics. From 2006 to 2010, new
manuscript submissions at AMR ranged be-
tween 400 and 500 each year, while new manu-
script submissions at our sister empirical jour-
nal, the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ),
increased from 622 in 2006 to 1,083 in 2010. Dur-
ing the same time period, membership in the
Academy of Management grew by 3,000, to just
below 20,000 members. There is a widespread
belief that the Academy’s journals should be
publishing more articles given the growth in
membership, and the current editor of AMJ, Ja-
son Colquitt (2011), has pledged to do so. Yet
AMR continues to publish the same proportion
of submissions. Why hasn’t submission volume
at AMR kept pace with the growth of member-
ship and the growth in submission volume at
AMJ?
This is a question my associate editors—J.-P.
Bonardi, Mason Carpenter, Cindy Devers, Ade-
laide King, Dave Lepak, Jeff LePine, Gerardo
Okhuysen, and Roy Suddaby—and I have given
considerable thought. Our editorial review
board discussed this matter at our 2010 meeting
in Montreal. Even among an audience of advo-
cates for theory (as I’ll assume our editorial
board members are), there was surprise at the
relative flat level of AMR submissions, and se-
rious debate ensued about the causes and what
we can do to address the problem.
Among the most likely reasons we’ve collec-
tively come up with are (1) a perception that
fewer journals will publish theory articles, mak-
ing writing one a riskier proposition given jour-
nal acceptance rates; (2) a perception that writ-
ing theory is “harder” than writing empirical
papers; (3) explicit doctoral training in research
methods and methodologies, but little to none in
theory; and (4) the growing popularity of “three-
paper” dissertations in lieu of one large project.
I argue the first is a misperception. The second
607
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
and third are surely related and, like the last
potential reason, can be remedied, but it will
take important change on our part.
First, there are relatively few journals with a
mission that excludes theory-only papers. One
notable exception is AMJ, but it is one of the only
journals I’m aware of with an exclusively empir-
ical mission. In fact, in recent years several
prestigious management journals have made a
call for more theory submissions. Recent editors
of the Journal of Applied Psychology and Person-
nel Psychology—Steve Kozlowski and Fred
Morgeson, respectively— have repeatedly en-
couraged theory submissions. The Journal of
Management has devoted special issues re-
cently to theory-only papers as a way of encour-
aging more theory papers. Theory papers are
published in Administrative Science Quarterly,
Organization Science, and Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, to name just an additional few. So
the argument that there are fewer “homes” for
theory is a misperception. Perhaps there is a
related concern that reviewers in journals that
publish both theory and empirical papers some-
how prefer or expect to review empirical papers.
Editors who continue to stress that their journal
welcomes both types of contributions and re-
viewers who can be open to theory papers can
overcome this.
Second, we often hear colleagues complain
that writing a theory paper is harder than writ-
ing an empirical paper. I can honestly say that,
as many times as I’ve heard this, I’ve also heard
the reverse—that writing an empirical paper is
more difficult. After all, with theory there are no
boundaries posed by what is measurable. While
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say,
I can’t help but think this sentiment is related to
the third concern—the lack of formal doctoral
training in theory building as compared to re-
search methods. Doctoral students are provided
with a good deal of insight into research meth-
ods, research design, and qualitative and quan-
titative analytic skills. There are countless “how
to” books and articles on research design and
methods. While there are a number of compel-
ling articles written about what makes good the-
608 Academy of Management Review
ory, theory development and writing aren’t ame-
nable to a proscribed set of sequenced steps
that result in good theory. If research methods
are science, theory is an art. That said, in our
discussions at the meeting, it was clear more
can be done to educate doctoral students on the
art of theory. To this end, we’ve created a depos-
itory on AMR’s website for syllabi and resources
on theory building. We encourage you to view
these materials and submit other ideas about
educating new scholars in the art of theory
building. If we value theory as a discipline, we
can insist that doctoral education address the-
ory building. We can, as mentors, require doc-
toral students to write theory papers in their
coursework.
Requiring doctoral students to write theory
papers is not the only active step we can take.
Over the past decade we’ve seen an increase in
three-paper dissertations across North Ameri-
can doctoral-granting institutions.1 The logic
here is compelling—why ask doctoral students
to write a big, traditional dissertation that
would then have to be broken up into journal
submissions when instead they can write three
ready-for-submission journal-length articles?
One obvious reason is that traditional scope
dissertations include substantial theory build-
ing. Granted, my doctoral experience is quite
dated, but my advisers always used to say that
if my empirical results didn’t work, I would at
least have a theory paper to publish from the
dissertation, if they did their jobs correctly. For
three-paper dissertations, how many schools re-
quire one or more to be theory only? I know at
my own institution we learned the hard way;
after several students chose three empirical
studies, we instituted the restriction that at least
one of three be purely theory. I understand the
pressures to publish as a doctoral student, but I
fear we are letting short-term pragmatics keep
our students from struggling to build theory. De-
veloping good theory may come naturally to
some, but if not to all, why allow students to
earn a Ph.D. without this skill? While I happen
to agree with Don Hambrick (2007) that not every
empirical contribution need include a theoreti-
cal contribution, I fear we lose a key aspect of
our discipline without active steps to nurture
and maintain it.
1
I cannot speak to the trends outside of North America.
October
As Hambrick (2007) points out, theory is (like it
or not) a key differentiation of management from
marketing, accounting, finance, information sys-
tems, and supply chain research. If we value
prescription and description, we cannot simply
be guided by what the data tell us. As we know,
many important constructs are not easily or per-
fectly measured. Theory has an important place
in our discipline as citation impact scores to
AMR have consistently shown. Emulating other
disciplines that do not embrace theory only
leads to competitive parity. I would argue that
theory is not merely a differentiator for us as
management scholars but, rather, a competitive
advantage in educating business students and
influencing the practice of business. It is too
much a part of our identity to sit by and watch it
become minimalized.
Our team is at the end of its tenure at this
venerable journal. We ask you to join us in ad-
vocating a role for theory. This past Academy of
Management (AOM) meeting in San Antonio
saw the revival of AMR’s theory writing and
theory reviewing workshops. We hope this con-
tinues annually. As an editorial team, we have
encouraged some AOM divisions with little rep-
resentation in AMR submissions (e.g., Opera-
tions Management) to institute “best theory con-
ference paper” awards. Divisions have long
recognized best papers. If we want theory to be
more prominent, these types of awards can go a
long way toward affirming theory’s role in our
field.
As mentors, we can change doctoral curricu-
lum and requirements to include more theory
building. If young scholars do not embrace the-
ory early on, this could end up being a career-
long decision. We cannot afford to sacrifice im-
portant skills of theory development for what is
perceived to be quicker publications. For those
of you who are further along in your careers,
push yourself to develop theory, especially if
you are more commonly drawn to data. Submit
these papers to AMR.
I know I speak for our entire editorial team
when I say the last three years have been a
labor of love. While we may have felt over-
whelmed at times by the submissions and deci-
sion letters in queue to be written, we all wish a
greater workload for incoming editor Roy
Suddaby’s team and those of AMR in the future.
We will take additional workload as a sign that
2011 Editor’s Comments 609

theory is indeed alive and well and valued by Hambrick, D. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to
our management colleagues. theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 50: 1346 –1352.

REFERENCES
Colquitt, J. 2011. From the editors: The next three years at
AMJ—Maintaining the mission while expanding the Amy Hillman
Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 9 –14. Editor