This paper examines the nature of management theory through the lens of Robert Sutton and Barry Staw's influential 1995 work, What Theory Is Not. It explores whether management models and typologies qualify as genuine theory, concluding that both fall short of strong theory on their own. The paper identifies the defining characteristics of strong theory — including simplicity, interconnectedness, logical argumentation, grounding in past work, and the ability to answer "why" questions — and contrasts these with weak theory elements such as data, references, and hypotheses. Karl Weick's theorizing model and contributions to organizational theory are also discussed, situating the analysis within the broader history of organizational thought.
Management has become an indispensable matter for the development of virtually any activity today. Given the complexity and importance of modern activities, it is imperative to apply management principles to them and everything they comprise. Hence, the importance of management in general, and of organization in particular, is clear. Without a strong theoretical basis, however, management processes cannot be applied successfully.
Robert Sutton and Barry Staw contributed significantly to management literature by studying organizational behavior and by expressing their views on what management theory is, what it is not, and what it should be. In their 1995 work entitled What Theory Is Not, the authors agree that there is practically no consensus regarding what constitutes theory, but that there is, however, some consensus regarding what theory is not.
Regarding what theory is, the authors identify four dimensions that must be taken into consideration. These dimensions are framed as questions in the book's chapters: Is a model theory? Is a typology theory? Does the strength of a theory depend on how interesting it is? Is falsifiability required for the existence of a theory? (Sutton & Staw, 1995).
The first subject under discussion concerns management models and whether they can be considered theory. As noted in the book, there is no clear consensus on this question. The reason is that management models are generally regarded as quite controversial, and discussions on the subject usually lead to various conclusions. For example, "some people use them as important tools for analyzing businesses and developing strategies. Others call them buzzwords, used by consultants to boost their profile" (Recklies, 2001).
Models cannot be considered strong theory. Even the controversy surrounding the subject supports this view. Models essentially reproduce reality in a simplified manner: they "show those elements of reality — that can be a business or an industry — that are relevant for analysis of a certain problem. Furthermore, models normally limit the number of elements included, in order to reduce complexity" (Recklies, 2001). Management models routinely leave aside elements deemed irrelevant, and that selective exclusion is itself a reason why they cannot qualify as strong theory. Moreover, in order to perform an accurate analysis of any given matter, one must consider several models simultaneously, since no single model captures all elements of a situation.
Another reason why management models cannot be considered strong theory is that they were created to reflect conditions that characterized a particular moment in time. Those conditions change, and the models are therefore no longer applicable to newer situations. As one commentator puts it, "in our time, a single e-start-up can revolutionise the business models of whole industries. That makes many of the old models limited in their validity" (Recklies, 2001).
Such models are also susceptible to being treated as mere fashion. Various authors propose new management models based on the practices of successful businesses, presenting them as universally applicable — a perception that is clearly incorrect. A business model cannot be applied to every type of situation, by every type of company, or at any point in time. Therefore, models are better understood as useful indicators than as strong theory; they are helpful when making decisions, but insufficient on their own.
Regarding typology and whether it constitutes theory, there is likewise no consensus. The situation of typologies is, however, slightly different from that of models. Even if typologies cannot be considered theory in their own right, they maintain close connections with theory, influencing it in the following ways:
Typologies are useful for linking empirical information to abstract formal models. In other words, typologies connect existing theory to proven practice — the practice represented by models that reproduce reality and that can be applied to similar situations. This function, however, confirms that typologies serve as a link between theory and practice, rather than constituting strong theory themselves.
Typologies can help develop and expand theory. They can be used to identify the causes responsible for the emergence of a particular situation, to determine the factors that influence its course, and to anticipate its possible outcome. Yet because typologies cannot be applied to every type of situation, they cannot be considered strong theory.
Typologies help in testing existing theory. As one scholar notes, "typologies can help identify good cases to study and to engage in counterfactuals" (Rothman, 2004).
Ultimately, typologies cannot be considered strong theory because they depend on existing theory — they reflect it rather than generate it. Typologies cannot stand alone; they are useful only when backed by strong theory. Their role is to support, develop, expand, and test theory, not to replace it. You can read more about typology as an analytical tool on Wikipedia.
"References, data, and hypotheses as weak theory"
"Five defining attributes of strong management theory"
"Weick's imaginative model of theory construction"
No matter the field it refers to, strong theory must meet a series of requirements, even if there seems to be no consensus on what theory actually is or what it should be. These requirements include simplicity, interconnectedness, clarity, providing logical arguments, and including past theoretical work. It seems, however, to be considerably easier to determine what weak theory is. In the weak theory category one must include: references, lists of variables, hypotheses, and diagrams. These tools are not useless — they are simply insufficient when used alone. They are, however, very helpful in developing strong theory: in supporting it, expanding it, broadening the directions it follows, and in testing it.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.