The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and Practical Usefulness of Organizational Behavior

Theories: A Quantitative Review

Author(s): John B. Miner
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 250-268
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214194 .
Accessed: 29/08/2012 17:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Academy of
Management Learning & Education.

http://www.jstor.org

 AcademyofManagement
Learningand Education,2003,Vol.2,No.3. 250-268.

The Rated Importance,

ScientificValidity,and
Practical Usefulness
of Organizational
BehaviorTheories:A
QuantitativeReview
JOHNB. MINER

/analyze ratedimportance,extentofrecognition,
validity,and usefulnessof 73
establishedorganizationalbehaviortheories,differentiating
betweentheviews ofjudges
withexpertisein organizationalbehaviorand in strategicmanagement.The results
indicatean increasinglymaturescience withmanymorepositiverelationshipsamong
thevariables consideredthanexistedpreviously.The findingshave majorimplications
forlearningand educationactivities,such as textbookwritingand organizational
behaviorcoursedesign in thattheyindicatewhichtheoriesshouldbe stressedand which
shouldbe given minimal,ifany,attentionat different
levels of theeducationalprocess.
Atvariouspointsscientificdisciplinesneed totake
stock of theirprogressand use the information
thusmarshaledas feedbacktoreadjusttheirgoals
and approaches. By drawingupon knowledgeof
past successes and failuresof a discipline,they
can oftenrecast its thrustintothe future.Organizational behavior is no exception,and I attempt
heretomakea contribution
ofthiskindtothefield.
Specifically,the objective is to take stock of 73
established theories of organizational behavior
(broadlydefined),and to determinefromthis assessmentwhat implicationsemergeforthe future
ofthediscipline.I soughtthesame objectivein an
earlierevaluation of muchthe same kindcarried
out from1977-1982and published somewhatlater
(see Miner,1984,1990).In essence, then,this is a
20+ year update on the earlier analysis which
takes intoaccount the growthand otherchanges
thathave occurredin organizationalscience over
the interim,and extendsthatanalysis in several
new directions.
Some timeago KurtLewin indicatedthat"nothing is as practical as a good theory"(1945: 129).
This statementhas been treatedas somethingofa
dictum(Van de Ven, 1989).However,if "practical"
250

is viewed as meaning thatwhich is usefulin an

applied settingto achieve some goal, and "good
theory"refersto theoryof a kind that produces
valid scientificknowledge(understanding,
predicthenLewin'sstatementbecomesa testtion,truth),
able hypothesis.I proposeto do so here.
A thirdcontribution
to whichI aspire is to provide informationon the extent that consensus
prevails with regard to organizationalbehavior
and thustheextentto whicha solid knowltheory,
base
existswithinthefield.Thereappears to
edge
be a widespreadbeliefthatthe degree ofconsensus among knowledgeable scholars that marks
any mature science and that produces positive
consequences formembersis lackingin organizationalbehavior(Pfeffer,
1993,1995).Fragmentation
and partisan politics are
caused by controversy
said to be rampantand are even extolledon occasion (Clegg, Hardy,& Nord,1996).The analyses
reportedhereprovideinputregardingthisissue as
ofthe year 2000.
Fourth,I compare data fromthe past withthe
currentscene. Whathas changed?Has therebeen
Is organizationalbehaviormovany improvement?
ing toward maturity(or away fromit)? How do

2003

Minei

comparisonsover timecontributeto the developmentofmandates forthe future?

Finally,I hope to provide assistance to those
who teach organizationalbehaviorcourses at any
level in selectingwhichtheoreticalcontentto emphasize; in doingthisI draw upon findingsrelated
to all fourofthe precedingissues.

251

ESTABLISHING JUDGES TO ASSESS THE

THEORIES

The sources of the judges (knowledgeablescholars) wereessentiallythesame as thoseused in the

prioranalysis- past presidentsoftheAcademyof
Management,past editorsoftheAcademyofManagementJournalpast editorsof the Academyof
ManagementReview,and editorial(review)board
membersfromboth of these publications(in this
instancefortheyears 1999and 2000).This process
ESTABLISHING THEORIES TO BE STUDIED
produced226 individualswho were contactedby
The theoriesjudges were asked to evaluate were
mail,ofwhom95 providedusable responsesfora
accumulated in several different
ways; I present
42% response rate; this contrastswith a 35% reand analyze all 73 in Miner(2002a).In 1984I evalsponse in the earlier study (Miner, 1984). Two
uated a numberof theorieswhere the selection
roundsof mailings were involved,the firstround
processwas guided by a surveyofknowledgeable
yielding 67 judges who replied fromNovember,
scholars of the time who nominatedtheoriesfor
2000throughJanuary,2001,and the second round
inclusion.To this list was added an even larger
28 judges who repliedduringFebruaryand March,
groupof theorieswhichalso metthe criteriathat
2001.
(1),theauthor(s)had producedsubstantialtheoretThe judges ranged in age from32 to 74 years
ical work;(2), this theoreticalwork is identified witha mean of48.1years.The sex breakdownwas
withthe fieldof organizationalbehavior;and (3),
78% male and 22% female.Therewere 17 who rewithinorganis recognizedas significant
thetheory
sided outside the UnitedStates in 9 countries.All
izationalbehavior.The thirdpointwas addressed
appear to have held doctorates.Data were obincludsources
on
various
tainedon thesubjectarea ofthedoctorate,as well
published
by drawing
and
Hickson
Bedeian
as areas of researchspecialization,teachingspe(1993),
(1992-1998),
Pugh
ing
Pollard (1974,1978),Wren and Greenwood(1998),
cialization, and consultingspecialization. From
thisinformation
Tosi (1984),Mathur(1990),and Donaldson (1995).
judges wereassigned togroupsas
Note that fourof these sources were writtenby
having primaryexpertisein eitherstrategicmanauthorsfromoutsidethe UnitedStates.
agementor organizationalbehavior.The strategic
These theoriesmaybe dividedas to contentinto
managementgroupnumbered24,with67%having
and
motivation
labeled
degrees in thatfieldand another17%in managepergeneral(7);
categories
ment.The 71 organizationalbehavior specialists
i.e.,
ception(16);leadership(17);organizationwide,
had 49%oftheirdegrees in OB, 21%in psychology
systemconcepts,bureaucracyrelated,and other
orsocial),and 15%in hu(industrial/organizational
such (27);and decision making(6). Theyalso may
or
industrial
relations.There was
man
resources
be categorizedto representthe various stages in
limited
across
some
overlap
groupsin that29% of
the historicaldevelopmentof organizationalbethe
strategicmanagementgroup indicated some
haviorfromthosethatpredatethe actual creation
OB
activityand 13%oftheorganizationalbehavior
ofthefield,all ofwhichare general in natureand
covermultiplecontentareas (7);to first-generation groupindicatedsome strategicactivity.Nevertheless, these two groupswere clearlydistinct;they
theories,whichwere initiatedin the period from
weretheonlydistinctgroupsofany size thatcould
or in a fewcases somewhatearlier,
themid-1950s,
be
identified.Thus strategicmanagement,in adto the initial part of the 1970s (46); to bridging
dition
to organizationalbehavior,was studiedbetheories,definedas having clear ties to earlier
data available made itpossible todo so.
cause
the
theories,but appearing initially
first-generation
somewhatlater,from1975up throughthe 1980s(7);
and finallyto second-generationtheories,which
ESTABLISHING KEY VARIABLES TO BE
came on the scene fromthe mid-1970son intothe
MEASURED
1990s(13).In this connectionnote thatin mostinRated Importance of Theories
restances it takes roughly10 years forsufficient
Each judge was asked to rate each ofthe 73 theosearch to emerge to assess a new theoryaderies on a 7-pointscale ofimportancefromlow (1) to
quately.These 73 theoriesare listedby name and
was definedas includingmodels,
author(s)in Table 1. Of these theories,17 have
high(7).A fheory
definitionalsystems,analyticalschema,and powauthors who have substantial ties to countries
The criteriaindicatedto evaluate
erfulconstructs.
otherthantheUnitedStates.

252

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

September

TABLE1
TheoriesIncludedin StudySample and ImportanceRatings
Mean ImportanceRating
TheoriesEvaluated(Listedby Generationand Content)
Behavior(General)
Preorganizational
1. Conceptualizations
DerivedfromtheHawthorneStudies
WilliamDickson)
(EltonMayo,FritzRoethlisberger,
2. The FunctionsoftheExecutiveConcepts(Chester
Barnard)
3. Social PsychologicalViews ofLeadershipand Change
(KurtLewin)
4. Social Philosophyand PropheticStatementson
Management(MaryParkerFollett)
5. TheoryofBureaucracy(Max Weber)
6. Generaland IndustrialManagementFormulations
(HenriFayol)
7. ScientificManagementFormulations
(Frederick
Taylor)
FirstGenerationTheories(Motivation)
8. Need Hierarchy
Theory(AbrahamMaslow)
9. Existence,Relatedness,and GrowthTheory(Clayton
Alderfer)
10. Achievement
Motivation
Theory(David McClelland)
11. Psychoanalytic
TheoryAppliedto Organizations(Harry
Levinson)
12. Motivation
HygieneTheory(FrederickHerzberg)

Total

Organizational
Behavior

4.51

4.65

4.33

4.41

5.15

5.31

3.15

3.28

5.74
3.48

MajorReferences

% WhoDid
NotEvaluate

&
Mayo(1933);Roethlisberger
Dickson(1939)
Barnard(1938)

5.90
3.73

&
Lewin(1947);Lewin,Lippitt,
White(1939)
Follett(1924);Metcalf&
Urwick(1940)
Weber(1947,1968)
Fayol (1949)

4.47

4.63

Taylor(1903,1911)

4.14
3.41

4.14
3.58

Maslow (1954,1962)
Alderfer
(1972)

2
15

4.88
2.75

5.15
2.84

McClelland(1961,1975)
Levinson(1964,1973)

5
23

3.73

3.81

5.28

5.61

5.62
5.23

5.96
5.41

4.08

4.27

Mausner,&
Herzberg,
Snyderman(1959);Herzberg
(1966,1976)
Hackman& Lawler(1971);
Hackman& Oldham(1980)
Vroom(1964)
Porter& Lawler(1968);Lawler
(1973)
Deci (1975);Deci & Ryan(1985)

25

4.07

4.25

Hamner(1974a,1974b)

12

4.01

4.31

13

5.57
5.56

5.93
5.97

3.99

4.05

Luthans& Kreitner
(1973,1975,
1985)
Adams (1963,1965)
Locke(1968,1970);Locke&
Latham(1990)
Miner(1965,1993)

4.21
4.38

4.39
4.60

3.06

2.98

3.26

3.28

3.99
4.35

4.11
4.58

28. LeadershipPatternChoice Theory(RobertTannenbaum, 2.93

WarrenSchmidt)
29. Normative
DecisionProcessTheory(VictorVroom,Philip 4.26
Yetton,Arthur
Jago)
30. InfluencePowerContinuumTheory(FrankHeller)
2.54

3.02
4.44

31. Contingency
TheoryofLeadership(FredFiedler)

4.33

13. JobCharacteristics
Theory(RichardHackman,Edward
Lawler,GregOldham)
14. ExpectancyTheory-Workand Motivation(VictorVroom)
15. ExpectancyTheory-ManagerialAttitudes
and
Performance
EdwardLawler)
(LymanPorter,
16. CognitiveEvaluationTheory(EdwardDeci, Richard
Ryan);A bridgingtheory
17. OperantBehaviorand Reinforcement
Theory(Clay
Hamner)
18. OrganizationalBehaviorModification
(FredLuthans,
RobertKreitner)
19. EquityTheory(StacyAdams)
20. Goal-SettingTheory(EdwinLocke,GaryLatham)
21. Role Motivation
Theory(JohnMiner)
FirstGenerationTheories(Leadership)
22. TheoryX and TheoryY (Douglas McGregor)
23. Considerationand InitiatingStructure
(JohnHemphill,
RalphStogdill,CarrollShartle)
24. ManagerialGridTheoryofLeadership(RobertBlake,
JaneMouton)
25. SituationalLeadershipTheory(Paul Hersey,Kenneth
Blanchard)
26. Path-GoalRelationshipTheory(MartinEvans)
27. Path-GoalTheoryofLeader Effectiveness
(RobertHouse)

4.21

2.71

McGregor(1960,1967)
Stogdill& Coons (1957);
Shartle(1979)
Blake & Mouton(1964);Blake
& McCanse (1991)
Hersey& Blanchard(1969)
Evans (1970,1974)
House (1971);House &
Mitchell(1974)
Tannenbaum& Schmidt(1958)

25
2
13

5
5
3
1

6
4
25
1
17
15
5
19
7
37

6
Vroom& Yetton(1973);Vroom
& Jago(1988)
47
Heller(1971);Heller& Wilpert
(1981)
5
Fiedler(1967);Fiedler&
Chemers(1974)
(table continues)

2003

Miner

253

TABLE 1
Continued
Mean Importance Rating
% Who Did
Not Evaluate

Total

Organizational
Behavior

3.20

3.29

Fiedler & Garcia (1987)

31

4.40

4.69

Graen, Dansereau, & Minami

(1972); Graen & Cashman
(1975); Graen & Scandura
(1987)

16

3.48

3.66

14

35. Control Theory and the Control Graph (Arnold

Tannenbaum)

3.46

3.58

36. Group-Focused Systems Theory (Ralph Stogdill)

37. Social Psychology of Organizations (Daniel Katz, Robert
Kahn)
38. Sociotechnical Systems Theory (Eric Trist,Fred Emery)

3.24
5.19

3.44
5.33

Likert(1961, 1967);Likert&
Likert(1976)
Tannenbaum (1968);
Tannenbaum, Kavcic,
Rosner, Vianello, & Wieser
(1974)
Stogdill (1959, 1966)
Katz & Kahn (1966, 1978)

4.83

5.09

39. Sociological Open Systems Theory- Organizations in

Action (James Thompson)
40. Mechanistic and Organic Systems (Tom Burns, G. M.
Stalker)
41. Technological Determinism (Joan Woodward)
42. Technology in a Comparative Framework (Charles
Perrow)
43. Contingency Theory of Organizations - Differentiation
and Integration(Paul Lawrence, JayLorsch)
First-GenerationTheories (Bureaucracy-Related Concepts)
44. Theoretical Underpinnings of the Aston Studies (Derek
Pugh, David Hickson, C. R. Hinings)

5.48

Theories Evaluated (Listed by Generation and Content)

32. Cognitive Resource Theory (Fred Fiedler, Joseph Garcia)
A biidging theory
33. Vertical Dyad Linkage/Leader Member Exchange Theory
(George Graen)
First Generation Theories (Systems Concepts of Organization)
34. Theory of Systems 1-4 and 4T (Rensis Likert)

Major References

32

39
4
8

5.60

Emery & Trist (1973); Trist,

Emery,& Murray (1990, 1993,
1997)
Thompson (1967)

5.12

5.42

Burns & Stalker (1961)

4.20
4.27

4.33
4.38

Woodward (1965, 1970)

Perrow (1967)

8
9

5.38

5.39

Lawrence & Lorsch (1967);

Lawrence & Dyer (1983)

4.24

4.28

12

45. StructuralContingency Theory (Lex Donaldson) A

bridging theory
46. Theory of Differentiationin Organizations (Peter Blau)

4.27

4.33

Pugh, Hickson, & Hinings

(1969); Pugh & Hickson
(1976); Pugh & Hinings
(1976); Pugh & Payne (1977)
Donaldson (1985, 1995, 1996)

4.18

4.31

13

47. Dysfunctionof Bureaucracy (VictorThompson)

48. Compliance Theory (Amitai Etzioni)
49. Goal Congruence Theory- Personality and Organization
(Chris Argyris)
50. Theory of Organizational Learning and Defensive
Routines (Chris Argyris)A bridging theory
51. Theory of Bureaucratic Demise (Warren Bennis)

3.22
3.85
4.26

3.38
3.95
4.38

Blau & Schoenherr (1971);

Blau (1974)
Thompson (1961, 1969, 1976)
Etzioni (1961, 1975)
Argyris(1957, 1964, 1973)

4.20

4.23

2.66

2.75

52. Grid Organization Development (Robert Blake, Jane

Mouton)
53. Process Consultation Theory of Organization
Development (Edgar Schein)
54. Theory of Organizational Culture and Leadership (Edgar
Schein) A bridging theory
55. Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Change in Organization
Development (Robert Golembiewski) A bridging theory

3.03

First-GenerationTheories (Organizational Decision Making)

56. Theory of AdministrativeBehavior/Organizations
(HerbertSimon, James March)

14

27
23
7
12
32

3.03

Argyris(1990, 1992);Argyris&
Schon (1996)
Bennis (1966); Bennis & Slater
(1968)
Blake & Mouton (1968, 1969)

3.90

4.02

Schein (1969, 1987, 1988)

16

4.61

4.85

Schein (1985, 1992)

3.48

3.77

Golembiewski, Billingsley, &

Yeager (1976);
Golembiewski (1986)

5.76

5.81

1
Simon (1947); March & Simon
(1958)
(table continues)

17

8
31

254

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

September

TABLE 1
Continued
Mean ImportanceRating
% WhoDid
NotEvaluate

Total

Organizational
Behavior

57. BehavioralTheoryoftheFirm(RichardCyert,James
March)
58. Garbage Can ModelofOrganizationalChoice (Michael
Cohen,JamesMarch,JohanOlsen)

5.60

5.43

Cyert& March(1963)

4.33

4.38

59. OrganizationalLearningConcepts(JamesMarch)A
bridgingtheory
60. Social PsychologyofOrganizing/Sense-making
Theory
(KarlWeick)
Second-Generation
Theories(Motivation
and Perception)
61. TheoryofBehaviorin Organizations(JamesNaylor,
RobertPritchard,
Daniel Ilgen)
62. Attributional
ModelofLeadershipand thePoor
Subordinate(TerenceMitchell,Stephen
Performing
Green)

5.31

5.20

5.51

5.41

Cohen,March,& Olsen (1972);

Cohen & March(1974);
March& Olsen (1976)
Levitt& March(1988);March
(1991)
Weick(1969,1995)

3.74

3.94

4.02

4.18

3.61

TheoriesEvaluated(Listedby Generationand Content)

Second-Generation
Theories(Leadership)
63. ImplicitLeadershipTheories-Leadershipand
Information
Processing(RobertLord,KarenMaher)
64. SubstitutesforLeadership(StephenKerr)
65. CharismaticLeadershipTheory(RobertHouse)
66. Transformational
and TransactionalLeadershipTheory
(BernardBass)
67. The RomanceofLeadership(JamesMeindl)
Second-Generation
Theories(ConceptsofOrganization)
68. ResourceDependenceTheory-The ExternalControlof
Gerald Salancik)
Pfeffer,
Organizations(Jeffrey
69. OrganizationalEcology(MichaelHannan,JohnFreeman,
GlennCarroll)
70. Neoinstitutional
Environments
and
Theory-Institutional
Organizations(JohnMeyer,RichardScott)
71. Neoinstitutional
and
Theory-Institutionalization
CulturalPersistence(LynneZucker)
72. Neoinstitutional
in
Theory-Institutionalism
OrganizationalAnalysis(WalterPowell,Paul DiMaggio)
Second-Generation
Theories(OrganizationalDecisionMaking)
73. Image Theory(Lee RoyBeach,TerenceMitchell)

a theoryas importantwere that the theory(1)

should have proveduseful in understanding,exoforganiplaining,and predictingthefunctioning
zations or the behavior of people in them; (2)
should have generatedsignificantresearch;and
(3) shouldhave clear implicationsforpracticeand
applicationin some area ofmanagementororganizational functioning.
However,respondentswere
asked to utilize any othercriteriaof importance
thattheymightconsideruseful.Thus the importance ratingswere expected to subsume strongly
held values and institutionalization
processes in
addition to the three criteriaspecificallynoted.

MajorReferences

6
2

& Ilgen
Naylor,Pritchard,
(1980)
Green& Mitchell(1979);
Mitchell& Wood (1980);
Mitchell,Green,& Wood
(1981)

28

3.84

Lord& Maher(1991)

27

4.22

4.46

15

4.43

4.76

4.70

5.06

Kerr& Jermier
(1978);Kerr&
Slocum(1981)
House (1977);Shamir,House,
& Arthur
(1993)
Bass (1985,1998)

3.29

3.46

Meindl(1990,1995)

27

5.35

5.29

Pfeffer
& Salancik (1978)

4.90

4.88

4.80

4.79

4.64

4.51

Hannan& Freeman(1989);
Hannan& Carroll(1992)
Meyer& Scott(1983);Scott&
Meyer(1994)
Zucker(1977,1988)

5.26

5.22

DiMaggio& Powell (1983);

Powell & DiMaggio(1991)

23

3.66

3.65

Mitchell& Beach (1990);Beach

(1990,1993)

35

12

8
5

17
20

Importancewas selected forratingbecause it had

been measuredin thepriorstudy(Miner,1984)and
valbecause it has the potentialforincorporating
ues and institutional
1990).
(Miner,
processes
The mean importanceratingsgivenby thetotal
groupofjudges (N = 95) and by theorganizational
behaviorcomponent(N = 71)- thoseconsideredto
be themostknowledgeablescholarswithregardto
- are
a sample oforganizationalbehaviortheories
presentedin Table 1. Therethe totalgroupmeans
range from2.54to 5.76;thosefortheorganizational
behaviorratersfrom2.71to 5.97.Table 1 also contains in thelast columninformation
on thepercent

2003

Miner

whodid notevaluateeach theory.

Further
treatment
factoroccursin AppendixA.
ofthisfailure-to-rate
Clearlythe ratingsdo discriminatewell among
the various theories.But do theydiscriminatein
the same manneras the nominationsused in the
earlier study?This is an empiricalquestion that
can best be answeredbycorrelatingthefrequency
ofnominationforthe34 theoriesconsideredin 1977
withthe mean ratinggiven by the organizational
behaviorjudges in the currentstudyto the same
theories.Few judges witha strategicmanagement
specializationwere included in the early group,
and accordingly,this is the appropriatecomparison. The correlationis a highlysignificant.49**.
Furtherevidence on the reliabilityof the importance ratingscomes fromthe correlationof the
mean ofthe firstroundratingsofeach theory(the
first67 judges) withthemean forthesecond round
value across
subjects(thelast 28).This test-retest
roughly10 weeks is .92**.
EstimatedScientificValidityand Usefulnessin
Practice
I rated estimatedscientificvalidityon a 5-point
scale intendedto indicatewhether"good theory/'
and thus improvedunderstandingand prediction
had been attained. The extentof logical consistencyand othercriteriaof "good theory"were invokedhere (see Miner,2002a),but the keyconsiderationwas theextentto whichtrueresearchtests
of the theoryhad indeed been carriedout,and if
theyhad, whethertheysupportedthe theory.Details on these ratingsare given in AppendixB, I
also made estimated usefulness ratings on a
5-pointscale withthe objectiveof testingLewin's
hypothesis.Details on these ratingsare given in
AppendixC. Furtherthoughtson themeasurement
ofbothvalidityand usefulnessappear in Appendix D.
ESTABLISHING THAT THE GROUP OF JUDGES IS
REPRESENTATIVE

Evidenceon theprobabilityofnonresponsebias in
surveyssuch as this (where58% did notrespond)
maybe obtainedbycomparingtheresponseson the
studyvariables relatedto individualsof the firstroundrespondents
67)withthoseofthe
(numbering
second-round
28).Theseare
(numbering
respondents
thesamplesused inthetest-retest
analysis.Ifdifferitis also likelythatno differences
encesare minimal,
and nontherespondents
wouldbe foundcomparing
1 to
from
Round
found
are
If
differences
respondents.
Round2, thistrendshouldbe perpetuatedintothe
of
group,and therepresentativeness
nonrespondent

255

the respondentgroupof judges comes intoserious

question(Rogelberg& Luong,1998).
Comparisons between the first-and secondroundrespondentsweremade forthemean importance ratingsforeach theory;thefrequencyoffailure to rate foreach theory;forthe mean overall
importancerating given by the individual; the
ofstrategicmanagementversusorganproportion
izational behavior respondents;the proportionof
(50 years or older)versus secondfirst-generation
generation(under50 years) respondents;and for
the proportion
ofrespondentswho proposedadditional theoriesbeyondthe base 73 when given a
chance to do so versus those who did not.
Of these 150comparisonsbetweenRound 1 and
Round2, six yielded significantresults,all at p <
.05. Five of these were on the importanceratings
and one on failureto rate. By chance alone one
wouldexpecttofind7.5differences
atp < .05in 150
comparisons.Thus,theevidence supportstherepresentativenessof the group of judges, and appears to rule out nonresponsebias. Notealso that
themeantheory
.92.
ratingsacrossroundscorrelated
ESTABLISHING THAT THE LIST OF THEORIES
STUDIED IS COMPLETE

Afterrespondingto the 73 itemsdealing withparticulartheories,thejudges were asked thefollowing question:

Arethereany othertheoriesthatshouldhave
been includedin thislist?Please indicatethe
importanceof each theoryyou nominateusing the (1 to 7) scale.
Of the 95 judges 52 (55%) leftthis section blank.
Amongthose who did respond,the mean number
of theoriesnominatedwas 3.0. Names of theory
authorswere providedin only47% ofthese cases,
and importanceratingsweregiven77%ofthetime.
nominatedwere strategicmanMostfrequently
- resource-based (12 nominaagement theories
tions);agency (10 nominations);transactioncosts
Of
I/Oeconomics(6 nominations).
(10nominations);
these nominations79% came fromstrategicmanagement judges. There was a scatteringof other
strategicmanagementand economicstheoriesas
well,typicallynominatedbythestrategicmanagementjudges and whenratedgivenhighratings(6s
nomiand 7s), as were the othermorefrequently
nated strategicmanagementtheories.The problem here is thatthese are not organizationalbehaviortheories,and thusdo notmeetthespecified
criteriaofthe analysis.
Whenconsiderationis givento thenominations

256

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

of appropriate,organizationalbehavior theories,
threeemergewithmorethantwonominations;all
withsix nominations,
almostexclusivelynotedby
behavior
organizational
judges, and typically
These
three theoriesare lagiven high ratings.
beled organizationaljustice,network,
and identity,
butwithlittleconsistencyas to the authorsspecified.No othertheorieshave any meaningfulnumbers, and these three receive nominationsfrom
only 6% of the judges; 8% of the organizational
behaviorgroup.On thisevidence it seems appropriatetoconcludethattheoriginal73 theoriesrepresent a reasonably complete listing.Note also
that nominationsby judges from outside the
UnitedStates unearthedfew new theoriesof an
internationalnature and did nothingto change
thisconclusion.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS OF JUDGES
Strategic Management vs. Organizational
Behavior

At various pointsin the precedingdiscussion the

strategic management-organizational behavior
differential
among judges has come up. However,
Table 1 indicatesthe issue mostforcefully:
If one
comparesthe mean importanceratingsforthe total group of judges with those forthe organizational behavior group only,certain patternsbecome manifest.Withonlya fewexceptions(theory
numbers8, 24,and 52),the importanceratingsfor
the total groupare consistentlylower than those
fororganizationalbehaviorthroughall first-generation theoriesuntil the organizationaldecisionmakingtheoriesare reached.Withinthislatterset
of first-generation
theories,however,the pattern
shiftsso thatthe totalmeans are moreoftenthan
nothigher.Amongthe second-generation
theories
of motivationand leadership the balance moves
back to favorthe organizationalbehaviorjudges,
but this does not hold trueforthe conceptsof ortheories;therethe
ganizationand decision-making
totalgroupmeans are consistently
higher.1
1Theabove is
aboutthe
onlya roughanalysis.Whatis different
totalgroupdata is thatit containsthe strategicmanagement
judges;thus,toreallyunderstandwhatis happeninga comparisonneeds tobe made betweenthestrategicmanagementand
theorganizationalbehaviorgroups.The resultsofsuch a comparisonindicatethatthereare 17 instanceswheretheorganizationalbehaviormeans are higherat p < .01,and another7 at
p < .05;differences
atp < .10werecalculatedas well,and there
are 10 of these. In contrastonly one strategicmanagement
mean is higherand thatis fortheCyertand Marchbehavioral
ofthefirm,
a theory
witha strongaffinity
witheconomics
theory
and an economistas its primaryauthor.The mean of means

September

Takingall the evidence and the logical factsof

the situationintoaccount,it seemed best to concentrateon the organizationalbehaviorgroupof
judges as being the trulyknowledgeablescholars
here,and it is theirdata thatare used in the following analyses. Strategicmanagement,withits
close affiliationwith economics,is apparentlya
distinctentityas opposed toorganizationalbehavior(see Miner2002a,fora discussionofthe issues
one mightexpectthat
involvedhere).Accordingly,
werestrategicmanagementtheoriesunderconsideration,the same tendenciesto fail to rate and to
ratelowerwouldappear amongorganizationalbeofthisanalysis is the
haviorjudges. A by-product
that
recommendation
strong
publicationsbe evaluated (peer reviewed)onlyby those whose disciplinaryorientationsfitthematerial;otherwise,the
possibilityofrejectingmanuscriptswhichmake a
substantialcontribution
is high.
First-vs. Second-Generation
In the same ways thatstrategicmanagementand
organizationalbehaviorjudges were expected to
was anticipated as
differ,a similar differential
betweenfirst-generation
(50and over)and secondgeneration(under 50) judges. Specifically,firstgenerationjudges werebelieved likelyto ratesecond-generationtheorieslower and to fail to rate
themmorefrequently;
thesame tendenciesshould
exist when second-generationjudges rated firstacross all theoriesis 3.80forthe strategicmanagementgroup
and 4.40 forthe organizationalbehaviorjudges (t = 9.12**).
Clearlythe strategicmanagementratersgive lowerscores to
mostorganizationalbehaviortheories.The patternnotedfor
Table 1 is once again manifest.
Data were also obtained on the failure-to-rate
factor.One
mightexpect thatorganizationalbehaviorjudges would rate
moreof theirown theoriesand strategicmanagementjudges
would feel less capable of makingthese ratingsof theories
outsidetheirfield.Indeedthatis whathappens.In 28 cases the
organizationalbehaviorratersevaluatethetheory
significantly
morefrequently;
the reverseoccursonlytwice.Althoughusuof significant
results,the
ally witha slightlylowerproportion
same patternoffindingsacross generationsand contentareas
notedforthe mean ratingsis foundfornumberof ratings(or
failureto rate)as well. The strategicmanagementgroupfeel
less able toratemostoftheseorganizationalbehaviortheories,
except forthose dealing with decision-makingand secondnature.
generationtheoriesofan organizationwide
One resultofthepatternnotedis thatwhile20 theoriesearn
a reallygood rating(a score of5.0 or higher)fromtheorganizational behavior judges, only 10 do so when the strategic
thetheoriesso
managementjudges are involved.Furthermore,
ratedbythestrategicmanagementgroupare without
exception
ofa decision-making
ororganizationwide
nature;thegood theories as ratedby the organizationalbehaviorgroupare more
balanced, and includea numberofmicroformulations.

2003

Miner

1discuss therationalebehind
generationtheories.2
in Miner(2002a).
this generationaldifferentiation
This analysis does not overlap withthe previous
one since the relationshipinvolvedwas notclose
to being significant(x2 = 2.63,ns; df = 1).
Fromtheevidenceonly7 ofthe 146comparisons
were significantat the .05 level or better.All fit
theoreticalexpectations,butthenumbersinvolved
are notabove chance levels. Certainlythereis no
basis here forchoosing one set of ratings over
another,as was the case in choosingthe organizational behaviorjudges over those of a strategic
in termsof
managementnature;thedifferentiation
the generationof the group doing the judging is
notthatstrong.
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG VARIABLES

The analyses thatfolloware modeled afterMiner

(1984),althoughthe resultsare farfrombeing the
same.
Importanceand Validity
Whereaspreviouslytherewas no evidence ofany
relationshipbetween importanceand validity,
now such a relationshipis apparent,althoughthe
chi-squarereachesonlythep < .10level (see Table
2). When,however,the full range of values are
broughttotheanalysis,thecorrelationwithimportance emerges as .44**.Thus, we now have evidence thatthe twoare significantly
related;it apin this
has
occurred
a
real
that
change
pears
regard.
Importanceand Usefulness
The organizationalbehaviorratingsofimportance
exhibita significant
relationshipto estimatedusefulnessin practice(see Table 3)- notstrong,buta
over what was indicatedin the
real improvement
2Data

comparingmean importanceratingsby the age-based

generationof the ratersin factyielded only one significant
difference
(at p < .05);a second-generation
theorywhichwas
raters.In twoinstances
ratedhigherby thesecond-generation
raters
theoriesbyfirst-generation
theratingsoffirst-generation
higher,
gave evidenceofa tendencytowardbeingsignificantly
but onlyat p < .10.In spite of thisdearthof resultsthe firstgenerationmean of 4.32 was above the second-generation
mean of4.23(t = 2.79**),
presumablybecause therewere more
theoriesand because the ratingsof the two
first-generation
generationswere highlycorrelated(r = .94). Insofaras the
numberofratingsis concerned,thepictureis somewhatmore
theories
all involvingpre-OBor first-generation
differentiated,
(older)
that were rated more frequentlyby first-generation
judges.Therewere six such instancesat p < .05or better.

257

TABLE2
EstimatedScientificValidityin Relationto Mean
OrganizationalBehaviorImportanceRating
Organizational Behavior Importance Rating
Estimated
Scientific
Validity
High (4 & 5)
Mixed (3)
Low(l&2)

Low
(2.71-3.99)

Medium
(4.00-4.99)

High
(5.00-5.97)

3
9
10

11
9
11

11
6
3

X2 = 9.14; p < .10;d/ = 4.

Miner(1984)report.Yet the correlationusing the

full range of variables is only .17 (p = .14),still
betterthan the p value reportedpreviously,but
lacking significance.It appears overall that the
usefulnessfactordoes contribute
totheimportance
and
this
ratings,
certainly
relationshiphas imover
the
but
it
is stillnotstrong.
proved
years,
Validityand Usefulness
AlthoughtheLewinhypothesiswas notsupported
in the Miner (1984)analysis, it is now. Perhaps
what is needed to confirman hypothesisof this
type is a more mature science. The chi-square
value in Table 4 is significantat p < .01 and the
correlationobtainedis .32**.
Thereare 18 theoriesthatscore higheron usefulnessthan on validity.In these cases the applications appear to have detached themselvesfrom
the underlyingtheory,developing a life of their
own, presumablythrougha process of trial and
error(Weick,1987).Thisprocessappears tobe particularlycharacteristicof theorieshaving a tie to
organizationdevelopmentin some form.Of the 18
theoriesinvolved,13 have such a tie. Also 3 more
are of a pre-OBnature,where practical applicaTABLE3
EstimatedUsefulnessin Applicationin
Relationto Mean OrganizationalBehavior
ImportanceRating
Estimated
Usefulness in
Application
High (4 & 5)
Questionable (3)
Low (1 & 2)

Organizational Behavior Importance Rating

~~
Low
(2.71-3.99)

Medium
(4.00-4.99)

High
(5.00-5.97)

0
10
12

3
14
14

7
5
8

/ = 12.26;p < .05; df = 4.

258

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

September

TABLE4
RelationshipBetweenEstimatedUsefulnessin Applicationand EstimatedScientificValidity
EstimatedScientificValidity

EstimatedUsefulness
in Application

Low (1 & 2)
(N = 0)

High(4 & 5)

Questionable(3)

Low (1 & 2)

(N = 12)
1. Mayoet al.
6. Fayol
7. Taylor
12.Herzberg
22.McGregor
30. Heller
34.Likert
50. Argyris
(Learning)
51. Bennis
52. Blake & Mouton(OD)
53. Schein(OD)
54. Schein(Culture)
(N = 12)
2. Barnard
4. Follett
8. Maslow
23. Hemphill
24. Blake & Mouton(Leadership)
25. Hersey& Blanchard
28. R. Tannenbaum& Schmidt
40. Burns& Stalker
41.Woodward
42. Perrow
59. March
60. Weick

Mixed(3)
(N = 2)
38. Trist& Emery
43. Lawrence& Lorsch

(N = 6)
11.Levinson
31. Fiedler(Contingency)
47. V. Thompson
49.Argyris(Congruence)
55. Golembiewski
64. Kerr

(N = 16)
9. Alderfer
16.Deci & Ryan
26. Evans
27. House (PathGoal)
32. Fiedler& Garcia (Cognitive)
36. Stogdill
37. Katz& Kahn
39.J.Thompson
45. Donaldson
48. Etzinoi
57. Cyert& March
58. Cohen et al
61. Nayloret al.
67. Meindl
69. Hannanet al.
72. Powell & DiMaggio

High(4 & 5)
(N = 8)
3. Lewin
10.McClelland
13.Hackmanet al.
18.Luthans& Kreitner
20.Locke& Latham
21. Miner
29. Vroomet al. (Normative)
66. Bass
(N = 11)
5. Weber
14.Vroom(Expectancy)
15.Porter& Lawler
17.Hamner
19.Adams
33. Graen
44. Pughet al.
46. Blau
68. Pfeffer
& Salancik
70. Meyer& Scott
73. Beach & Mitchell
(N = 6)
35.A. Tannenbaum
56. Simon& March
62. Mitchell& Green
63. Lord& Maher
65.House (Charismatic)
71.Zucker

X>= 16.90;p<. 01;a7/= 4.

tions have oftenoutdistancedthe validityof the

underlyingtheory.
Evenmorefrequentare cases in whicha theory's
validityoutdoes its usefulness;a numberof good
theorieshave not provenverypractical.In all 39
theorieswere consideredto have highervalidity
thanusefulness.Of these,11 were second-generation theories(of the 13 such theoriesconsidered)
and 4 were bridgingtheoriesdeveloped fromfirstgenerationsources but in the second-generation
timeperiod(outofthe7 such theoriesconsidered).
It appears fromthese data thatthe recentperiod
has stressedthevalidityofitstheorizing,
butat the
expense of practical application. The need fora

new breed of"applicationtheorists"who can take

the good theoriesof othersand extendtheminto
the worldofpracticeappears to be accelerating.
The Validity-Usefulness
Matrixand
Content
Theory
The validity-usefulnessmatrixofTable 4 may be
completed,notwithspecifictheories,but withthe
contents,orareas, oftheoryformulation
(see Table
5). The high-high theoriesdeal mostlywithmotivation,but include some in the leadership area.
When the net is extended more broadly in one
directionor the other,the mixof theorycontentis

Miner

2003

259

TABLE5
Matrixin TermsofAreas ofTheoryFormulation
The Validity-Usefulness
EstimatedScientificValidity
EstimatedUsefulnessin Application

Low (1 & 2)

Mixed(3)

High(4 & 5)

Systems(38,43)

Questionable(3)

Bureaucracy(50,51,52,53,54)
General(1,6, 7)
Leadership(22,30)
Motivation(12)
Systems(34)

Bureaucracy(47,49,55)
Leadership(31,64)
Motivation(11)

Low (1 & 2)

Leadership(23,24,25,28)
Systems(40,41,42)
General(2,4)
Decision Making(59,60)
Motivation(8)

Leadership(26,27,32,67)
Motivation(9, 16,61)
Systems(36,37,39)
Bureaucracy(45,48)
Decision Making(57,58)
Organization(69,72)

High(4 & 5)
Motivation(10,13,18,20,21)
Leadership(29,66)
General-Motivation
(3)
Motivation(14,15,17,19)
Bureaucracy(44,46)
Organization(68,70)
(5)
General-Bureaucracy
Leadership(33)
DecisionMaking(73)
Leadership(63,65)
Motivation
(62)
Systems(35)
DecisionMaking(56)
Organization(71)

Areas ofTheoryFormulation
Validity-Usefulness

OtherThan Motivation

Motivation

11
45

10
7

(4&5, 4&5M3, 4&5H4&5, 3)

Othercombinations
/ = 9.72;p < .01;df = 1.

expanded considerably,even thoughthe motivational factorcontinuesto add numbers.Since in

the Miner(1984)study,motivationtheoriesclearly
dominatedthis analysis, holdingall of the positions in the high-high categoryand yielding a
chi-square,thesignificanceofthis
verysignificant
once again using the morerewas
tested
finding
cent data. The results at the bottomof Table 5
indicatea similarsituationin 2000-2001.Motivationcontinuestoholda highlysignificant
position,
even thoughforcedto share its dominance with
theoriesof otherkinds.If one wishes to create a
with
whichis also constructed
highlyvalid theory,
thepurposeofenhanced usefulnessin practicein
mind,it would be best to look to motivationtheories,oftenwitha morelimiteddomain,foran appropriatemodel.

frequentdisciplinaryoriginamong the theoriesis

psychologywith52%;secondis sociologywith12%,
followedby organizationalbehavior at 10% and
politicalscience at 8%.No otherdisciplineextends
beyond4%,althoughthereare a numberoffields
represented.
The Miner(1984)findingsusing thismatrixindicated a highlysignificantdominanceof psychologyamong thevariousdisciplinesrepresented.In
factpsychologyheld almost all of the top spots.
However,this is no longertruein 2000-2001,and
manymoretheoriesset forthby psychologistsare
furtherdown in the validity-usefulness matrix.
The resultis thatpsychologyno longeroccupies a
strongposition(y2= 2.57,p < .20,df=
significantly
1). I suspect thatthis representsa trendintothe
future,and that psychology'shold on theoretical
dominancein the fieldwill continueto shrink.

Matrixand Professional
The Validity-Usefulness
Degree Source
A different
type of overlay forTable 4 may be
obtained by enteringinto the matrixthe departmentor programfromwhich the highestprofessional degree of the theorist(s)was obtained.
Whenthereare multipleauthors,thepredominant
disciplineamongthemis used; thus,thenumberof
entriesequals the numberof theories.The most

ImplicationsforTeachingand Learning:
Undergraduates
stateoftheory
Giventhisassessmentofthecurrent
in organizationalbehavior,and drawingupon the
data ofTable 1,it is possible to specifysomething
about the implicationsforcourse development.I
startwithmysuggestionsforwhat should be emphasized in undergraduatecourses,where in my

260

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

September

suchas
relatedviews,tothemorerecentpositions
Acrossthe27suchtheories
neoinstitutional
theory.
themeanimpor(28ifoneincludesWeberhimself)
tanceratingis 4.38(4.43withWeber);7 achieve
values of 5.00or above (8 withWeber).Several
theorieshave declined
organization
development
in importance,
but twoothersremainat thetop
and
level:Tristand Emery's
sociotechnical
theory,
oforganLawrence
andLorsch's
contingency
theory
as
izations.Bothofthelatterare systemstheories
Motivation
(andPerception)
well, as are the Katz and Kahn theory,
James
Motivation
has notonlyexhibited
consider- Thompson'stheory,
and the Burnsand Stalker
theory
able validityand usefulnessovertheyears,but
view of mechanisticand organicsystems.Alalso itgeneratesa meanimportance
ratingof4.59. thoughthesetheorieshave held positionsin the
and personality
more over-5.00
othersystems
suchas
motivation,
theories,
Certainly
theory
category,
are notengagedina "greatdisappearing Likert's
broadly,
systems1 to4 and Woodward's
technologact"as somehave claimed(Nord& Fox,1996).In
ical determinism,
have declinedsharply.
fact6 ofthe 16suchtheoriesare ratedat 5.00or
none of the bureaucracy-related
Interestingly,
aboveinimportance.
A number
oftheselatterthe- views(otherthanthatofWeber)achievethetop
orieshave increasedin importance
overthepast
on importance,
category
althoughSchein'stheory
20yearsincluding
McClelland'sachievement
mo- ofcultureand leadershipcomesclose.Thegroup
tivation
Hackmanand Oldham'sjob char- oftheories
with5.00orbetter
is
theory,
importance
ratings
acteristics
Adams'sequitytheory,
and in
roundedoutwithPfeffer
and Salancik'sresource
theory,
particularLocke's goal-settingtheory.The dedependencetheoryand Powell and DiMaggio's
clineshave been primarily
in some of themore versionof neoinstitutional
Indeedrecent
theory.
humanistic
theories.
Alltheabove,plustheVroom institutional
approachesseemtohave movedbeand Porter
and Lawlerversionsofexpectancy
the- yondthe"neo"stagealready(Dacin,Goodstein,
&
in textbooks
and
area to stress.
Scott,2002).This is an important
ory,deservedetailedexposition,
in class.
Whethersystemstheory,which has probably
theperiodofitsgreatestpopularpassed through
will continueto holdits current
ity,
highimporLeadership
tance ratingremainssomethingof a question.
is inferment
at thepresent
thecontinuing
thrust
oforganization
detime, However,
Leadership
theory
becausethereare so fewdominant
drivea
probably
posivelopment
practicewill almostcertainly
tions.The meanimportance
oftheory
ratingis 4.00among
reemergence
buildingin thatarea,perthe 17theories,
and onlyBass's transformational haps workingfromthe frameworks
providedby
andSchein'stheory
oforgantheoryis ratedabove 5.00.The latteris closely sociotechnical
theory
followedby House's charismatictheoryand
izationalculture.Thisremainsa significant
subGraen'sleader memberexchangetheory,
which jectarea toteach,one withconsiderable
practical
has movedup substantially
inimportance
overthe
relevance.
years.Yet thedeclineof path-goaltheoryin its
variousforms
and ofFiedler'stheorizing
has left
ofa void in theleadershiparea. Per- DecisionMaking
something
haps thebestwaytodeal withthelackofimpor- Thereare onlysix entrieson ourlistoforganizatantleadership
theories
is tocombinemotivational tionaldecision-making
buttheyare imtheories,
and leadershipcontent
undera "micro"
umbrella. pressive.Themeanimportance
ratingis 4.98,and4
Thereare,in fact,somenewtheories,
suchas the
theoriesare ratedat 5.00orabove.Thesefourare
Miner(2002b)extensionofrolemotivation
theory the workin the 1940sand 1950sof Simonand
intotheleadershipdomain,thatbridgethesetwo
of
March,theCyertand Marchbehavioraltheory
thefirm,
March'sviewsonorganizational
subjectareas.
learning,
andWeick'stheories
oforganizing
andsensemakTheoriesin thisarea are probablynotgiven
ing.
Organizations
theattention
in undergraduate
teachingthatthey
Macrotheories
of organizational
and
shouldbe. Mysuggestion
is tocombinethemwith
structuring
covera widerangefrom
of organization,
thus giving
functioning
organization the macrotheories
tosystems
tobureaucracy- themgreatervisibility.
development
concepts,
viewwe shouldstresswhatthefieldconsidersto
be important,
and cease to give equal billingto
theorieswhichused to be consideredimportant
(butare notnow)or neverwereevaluatedvery
Thesesuggestions
are brokendownby
positively.
content
areas andholdbothfora generalcoursein
behaviorand formorespecialized
organizational
coursesin thevarioussubjectareas.

2003

Miner

261

ImplicationsforTeachingat the Masters

(MBA)Level

ImplicationsforTeachingat the Doctoral

(PhD) Level

MuchofwhatI have said above holds at the masterslevel as well,especially forgeneraland executiveMBA courses in organizationalbehavior.In
addition,a historicalperspectiveshould be incorporatednot because these conceptsare currently
ofgreatvalue but because theyindicatethe multidisciplinaryorigins of organizationalbehavior
and pointup the need forthe scientificbase that
ultimatelyemerged.This would require incorporatingthe views inherentin the seven preorganizational behavior perspectivesin Table 1#especiallythoseofLewinand Weber,whichcontinueto
exertan influencetoday.
Anotherissue here involvesthe teachingof applications.Masters-levelstudentsneed to understand the applications to practicethat organizational behavior's theories have generated, and
theyneed to understandthemin depth.In fact,I
have in mindto writea book on thistopic,simply
to providea synopsisof materialthatis not adequately emphasized in currenttextbooks.Such a
book would draw upon the implicationsforpracticeofthe27theoriesin thefourupperrightcells of
Table 4. It would not deal with the 34 theories
havinglittleusefulnessbecause these theorieseitherlack specific applications or have applicationsthathave been discreditedby research;nor
would it introducethe 12 additionaltheorieswith
low validitybecause some degree of validityis
necessarytogeneratea trulyusefulapplication(in
a scientificsense).
I am well aware thatmanyofthetheoriesthatI
have excluded above continueto have considerfororganizational
able appeal fortextbookwriters,
and forpracticingmanagbehaviorpractitioners,
ers,especially certainofthe theorieslisted in the
of
low-lowcell ofTable 4. In partthisis a function
in part it is a consequence of
institutionalization;
but decliningappeal of a humanthe continuing,
in
isticethic; partit is a carryoverfromorganizationalbehavior'ssuccesses ofthepast. Butthisis a
timewithnew theoriesand new research,
different
Ifwe
and consequently,withnew understandings.
continueto have faithin science and its products,
thentheseanachronismswill eventuallytake care
ofthemselves.One way thatthismighthappen is
thatcertainoftheexcludedtheorieswouldcometo
generatesupportiveresearchon boththeirpropositionsand theirapplicationsofa kindthatsimply
does notexistat present(and thusrelegatesthem
to the excluded cells ofTable 4).

As one movesto morespecialized coursesprimarily at the doctorallevel, it becomes importantto

teach not only good theory,but also not-so-good
theory.Now the goal increasinglybecomes one of
critiquingtheoriestoteachskillsin evaluatingany
new theorythatcomes on the scene, and perhaps
even develop theabilityto createnew theory.Capabilities such as these require teaching which
contraststheoriesat different
levels of"goodness"
and with different
of
research support.
degrees
Materialforthispurpose may be foundin myOrganizational Behavior (Miner,2002a). Here it becomes absolutely essential to integratecontent
courses withteachingdealing withresearchdesign.
Atthedoctorallevel it is also important
to introduce studentsto the original materials.Table 1,
undertheheadingMajorReferencesprovideswhat
is needed forthis purpose. These referencesare
primarilyto keybooks thatpresentthetheoriesin
theiroriginalform,but in some instancesjournal
articles and book chapters are noted as well. I
have selected these referencesforthe purpose of
providingstatementsofthecontentofeach theory.
However,some sources also contain original research and researchreviews.
OTHER KEY FINDINGS

relatedtoconsensus
Several othersets offindings,
withinthe field and to changes over time,also
requireelaboration.The range of importanceratings given to the various theoriessuggestsa substantial lack of consensus, somethingthat has
been widelybemoaned,and occasionallyextolled,
in the organizationalbehavior field in the past
(see forinstance Roberts,Weissenberg,Whetton,
Pearce, Glick,Bedeian, Miller,& Klimoski,1990).
Whenall 95judges are invoked,86%ofthetheories
have all ratingpointsfrom1 to7 filled,and another
12%have 6 pointsfilled.As indicatedin Appendix
E, however,thesedata clearlyoverstatethecase in
a negativesense. Thereare problemsin calculating consensusestimatesthatneed to be takeninto
account.
Change
Withregardtochange theconcernhereis firstwith
whethertherehas been a change in the theories
introducedin thesecond generation,as opposed to
the first.The answer is that only in the case of
estimatedvalidityis a significantdifferenceob-

262

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

tained. The 13 second-generation

theoriesare
morevalid thanthe60 othertheories(^ = 8.95*,
df= 2).Usefulness,
and failuretorate
importance,
do notproducesignificant
differences,
although
thevalidityof the second-generation
theoriesis
wellabovetheirestimated
usefulness.
thefirstanalysis(Miner,1984)to
Changesfrom
thisone inratedimportance
havebeennotedprenochangeofmorethanonecell
viously.
Although
occurred,
usingthe3-pointsystemof theearlier
analysis,some47%retainedtheiroriginalrating,
withupwardand downwardshiftsbeingequally
and useprevalent.
Changesinestimated
validity
fulnessoccurred
less frequently,
andthosethatdid
occurwere due to supplemental
theoryor new
researchadded sincetheinitialanalysis.
CONCLUSIONS

In 1984I concludedwiththefollowing
summary:
sucOverall,inspiteofpocketsofsubstantial
cess,thepicturepresented
bythisstocktaktheories
is nothighly
ingoforganization
positive.Thefeedbackis at leastas negativeas
it is positive,sufficiently
negativeso thata
ofgoals,paradigms,
and basic
readjustment
(Miner,
processesappearsworthconsidering
1984:303).

September

and cease to develop.

whatit has accomplished
Thereis muchmoretoaccomplishas I have indicatedelsewhere(Miner,
2002a).Thepresentstock
thata solid base has
takingindicates,however,
beencreatedon whichtobuildforthefuture.
In concluding
thisarticleI wantto say a word
about the processof conducting
surveysof this
kind.Myimpression
is thatthecurrent
approach
a majoradvanceoverwhatwas done
represents
20+ yearsago.Yetthereareareas inwhichfurther
couldbe made,especiallywithreimprovements
Also,thereare
gard to consensusmeasurement.
theculquestionsthatmightbe raisedregarding
turallimitations
ofthedata presentedhere.Cerexist(see Lammers,
variations
tainlysuchcultural
1990).I have notedat otherpointsin thisarticle
whereindividualsand theoriesfromoutsidethe
UnitedStateshave been introduced.
Myguess is
are conthatinsofar
as Englishlanguagetheories
cerned,thecoverageis quiteappropriate.
Beyond
itis impossible
tosay;somecultural
that,however,
bias surelyexists,butdata toindicatehowmuch
are notavailable.
on therelevanceofthefindFinally,a comment
I would
forlearningandeducation:
ingspresented
hopethatthesedata willnotonlyinfluence
theory
formulation
and development,
butalso thecontent
oftextsand courseofferings
in thefield.We need
to pointup those ideas thathave established
value,and to stopemphasizingthosethathave
not.Organizational
behavior'sbodyofvalid and
usefulknowledgeis nowsufficient
so thatwe do
notneedtoembellishitwithourfailures.

Now,however,thisnegativepictureappears to
havechangedsubstantially;
thefeedbackis much
morepositive,
consistent
witha morematurescience.Organizational
behavioris clearlydifferentiatedfromstrategicmanagement.
Validityand
usefulness
are contributors
toperceptions
oftheo- REFERENCES
reticalimportance.
Lewin'sdictum
reofinequity.
(hypothesis)
Adams,J.S. 1963.Towardan understanding
Journal
ofAbnormaland Social Psychology.
67:422-436.
gardingthe tie betweentheoryand practicereceivessolidsupport.
has cometoshare
Psychology
Adams,J.S. 1965.Inequityin social change.In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.),
its dominantpositionin the validityusefulness
Advancesin experimentalsocial psychology*
(Vol.2: 267299).New York:AcademicPress.
matrix
withotherdisciplines,
thuscreating
a more
diversified
base. A consensusregard- Alderfer,
C. P. 1972.Existence,relatedness,and growth:
Human
knowledge
needs in organizationalsettings.New York:Free Press.
ing the theoretical
knowledgepossessed by the
fieldappears to be emerging,
C. 1957.Personality
and organization.
NewYork:Harper
althoughit is not
Argyris,
&Row.
clearhowstrong
thisconsensusis. Ournewerthe.thathave survivedfromthe
ories,and a number
C. 1964.Integratingthe individualand the organizaArgyris,
are ofhighvalidity.
tion.New York:Wiley.
previousgeneration,
All thisbodes well forthe future
of organiza- Argyris,C. 1973.Personalityand organizationtheoryrevisited.
tionalbehavior.
A call fora readjustment
ofgoals,
Administrative
Science Quarterly.18: 141-167.
and basic processesno longerseems
paradigms,
C.
1990.
Argyris,
Overcoming
organizationaldefenses:Facilitatwarranted.
Yetwe havetoa degreelostsightofthe
ing organizationallearning,Boston,MA:Allynand Bacon.
usefulnesscriterion,
and the matterof practical Argyris,C. 1992.On organizationallearning,Cambridge,MA:
application;perhapssome will believe thatwe
Blackwell.
have becometooacademic.In anyeventI do not
Argyris,C, & Schon, D. A. 1996.OrganizationallearningII:
wishto arguefromtheresultsreported
herethat
Theory,method,and practice, Reading, MA: Addisonbehaviorshouldbe satisfiedwith
organizational
Wesley.

2003

Miner

Barnard, C. I. 1938. The functionsof the executive. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
Bass, B. M. 1985.Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformationalleadership: Industrial military,and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Beach, L. R. 1990. Image theory:Decision making in personal
and organizational context. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Beach, L. R. 1993.Making the rightdecision: Organizational culture,vision,and planning. Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

263

ganization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Donaldson, L. 1996. The normal science of structural contingency theory. In R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational studies: (57-76). London: Sage.
Emery,F. E., & Trist,E. L. 1973.Toward a social ecology. London:
Plenum.
Etzioni,A. 1961,1975.A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement,and theircorrelates. New
York: Free Press.

Bedeian, A. G. 1992-1998.Management laureates: A collection of

autobiographical essays (Vol. 1-5). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Evans, M. G. 1970. The effectsof supervisory behavior on the

path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,5: 277-298.

Bennis, W. G. 1966. Changing organizations: Essays on the development and evolution ofhuman organization. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Evans, M. G. 1974. Extensions of a path-goal theoryof motivation. Journalof Applied Psychology,59: 172-178.

Bennis, W. G., & Slater, P. E. 1968. The temporarysociety. New

York: Harper & Row.
Blake, R. R., & McCance, A. A. 1991.Leadership dilemmas - Grid
solutions. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton,J.S. 1964.The managerial grid. Houston,
TX: Gulf.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J.S. 1968. Corporate excellence through
grid organization development. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton,J.S. 1969.Building a dynamic corporation
through grid organization development. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Blau, P. M. 1974.On the nature of organizations.New York:Wiley.
Blau, P. M., & Schoenherr,R. A. 1971. The structureof organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Brief,A. P., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Theory in organizational
behavior: Can it be useful? Research in Organizational
Behavior, 13: 327-352.
Burns,T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961.The management of innovation.
New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C, & Nord,W. R. 1996.Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage.
Cohen, M. D., & March,J.G. 1974.Leadership and ambiguity: The
American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, M. D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. 1972. A garbage can
model of organizational choice. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17: 1-25.
Cyert,R. M., & March, J.G. 1963.A behavioral theoryof the firm.
Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J.,& Scott, W. R. 2002. Institutional
theoryand institutionalchange: Infroductionto the special
research forum.Academy ofManagement Journal,45: 45-56.
Deci, E. L. 1975.Intrinsicmotivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L, & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and selfdeterminationin human behavior. New York: Plenum.
DiMaggio, P. J.,& Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited:
Institutionalisomorphismand collective rationalityin organizational fields.American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
Donaldson, L. 1985.In defense of organization theory:A reply to
the critics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Donaldson, L. 1995.American anti-management theories of or-

Fayol, H. 1949. General and industrial management. (C. Storrs

trans.) London: Pitman.
Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fielder, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. 1974.Leadership and effective
management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J.E. 1987. New approaches to effective
leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: Wiley.
Follett, M. P. 1924. Creative experience. New York: Longmans,
Green.
Golembiewski, R. T. 1986.Contours in social change: Elemental
graphics and a surrogate variable for gamma change.
Academy of Management Review, 11: 550-566.
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. 1976.Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of
change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12: 133-157.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J.F. 1975.A role-making model of leadership in formalorganizations: A developmental approach.
In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers:
(143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State UniversityPress.
Graen, G., Dansereau, F., & Minami, T. 1972.An empirical test of
the man-in-the-middlehypothesisamong executives in a hierarchical organizationemployinga unit-setanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,8: 262-285.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward a psychology of
dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9:
175-208.
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. 1979. Attributionalprocesses of
leaders in leader-member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,23: 429-458.
Hackman, J.,& Lawler, E. E. 1971. Employee reactions to job
characteristics. Journalof Applied Psychology,55: 259-286.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Workredesign. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hamner,W. C. 1974a.Reinforcement
theoryand contingencymanIn H. L. Tosi & W. C.
in
settings.
organizational
agement
Hamner (Eds.), Organizational behavior and management: A
contingencyapproach: (86-112).Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.
Hamner, W. C. 1974b.Workermotivationprograms: Importance
of climate, structure,and performance consequences. In
W. C. Hamner & F. L. Schmidt (Eds.), Contemporaryprob-

264

Academy of Management Learning and Education

lems in personnel: Readings in the seventies: 280-308. Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.

Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. 1992.Dynamics of organizational

populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. New
York: Oxford UniversityPress.

September

Levitt,B., & March, J.G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual

fleview of Sociology. 14: 319-340.
Lewin, K. 1945.The research center forgroup dynamics at Massachusetts InstituteforTechnology. Sociomefry,8: 126-135.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1989. Organizational ecology.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method

and reality in social science; Social equilibria and social
change. Human Relations. 1: 5-41.

Heller, F. 1971.Managerial decision-making: A study of leadership styles and power-sharing among senior managers.
London: Tavistock.

Lewin, K., Lippitt,R., & White, K. 1939. Patterns of aggressive

behavior in experimentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology. 10: 271-299.

Heller, F. A., & Wilpert, B. 1981. Competence and power in

managerial decision-making: A study of senior levels of
organization in eight coun tries. New York: Wiley.

Likert, R. 1961. New patterns of management. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. 1969. Life cycle theoryof leadership. Training and Development Journal.23(2): 26-34.
Herzberg,F. 1966. Workand the nature of man. Cleveland, OH:
World.
Herzberg,F. 1976.The managerial choice: To be efficientand to
be human. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.
Herzberg,F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. S. 1959.The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
House, R. J. 1971. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.
AdministrativeScience Quarterly. 16: 321-338.
House, R. J.1977.A 1976theoryof charismatic leadership. In J.G.
Hunt& L. L. Larson (Eds.),Leadership- The cuttingedge: (189207).Carbondale, IL: SouthernIllinois UniversityPress.
House, R. J.,& Mitchell, T. R. 1974. Path-goal theoryof leadership. Journalof ContemporaryBusiness. 3(4): 81-97.

Likert,R. 1967. The human organization: Its management and

value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert,R., & Likert,J.G. 1976. New ways of managing conflict.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E. A. 1968.Toward a theoryof task motivationand incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.3:
157-189.
Locke, E. A. 1970.Jobsatisfaction and job performance:A theoretical analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 5: 484-500.
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. 1986. Work motivation theories. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1: 1-35.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990.A theoryof goal setting& task
performance. Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice Hall.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966, 1978. The social psychology of

organizations. New York: Wiley.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and information

processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston,
MA: Unwin Hyman.

Kerr,S., & Jermier,J.M. 1978. Substitutes forleadership: Their

meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance.22: 375-403.

Luthans, F., & Kreitner,R. 1973. The role of punishment in organizational behavior modification(O.B. Mod.). Public Personnel Management. 2(3): 156-161.

Kerr,S., & Slocum, J.W. 1981. Controlling the performance of

people in organizations. In P. C. Nystrom& W. H. Starbuck
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational design. (Vol. 2: 116-134).
New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Luthans, F., & Kreitner,R. 1975. Organizational behavior modification. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Luthans, F., & Kreitner,R. 1985. Organizational behavior modification and beyond: An operant and social learning approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Lammers, C. J. 1990. Sociology of organizations around the

globe. Similarities and differencesbetween American, British, French,German, and Dutch brands. Organization Studies. 11: 179-205.

March, J.G. 1991.Exploration and exploitation in organizational

learning. Organization Science. 2: 71-87.

Lawler, E. E. 1973.Motivation in work organizations. Monterey,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

Lawrence, P. R., & Dyer, D. 1983. Renewing American industry:

Organizing for efficiencyand innovation. New York: Free
Press.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York:

Wiley.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch,J.W. 1967.Organization and environment: Managing differentiationand integration. Boston,
MA: Graduate School of Business Administration,Harvard
University.
Lee, C, & Earley, P. C. 1988. Comparative peer evaluations of
organizational behavior theories. Boston, MA: Unpublished
manuscript,NortheasternUniversity.
Levinson, H. 1964. Emotional health in the world of work. New
York: Harper & Row.
Levinson, H. 1973. The great jackass fallacy. Boston, MA: Graduate School of Business Administration,Harvard University.

Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York:

Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. 1962.Toward a psychology ofbeing. Princeton,NJ:
Van Nostrand.
Mathur, N. 1990. Life and work of management thinkers.Agra,
India: Sahitya Bhawan.
Mayo, E. 1933.The human problems of an industrial civilization.
New York: Macmillan.
McClelland, D. C. 1961.The achieving society. Princeton,NJ:Van
Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C. 1975.Power: The inner experience. New York:
Irvington.

2003

Miner

265

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Pollard, H. R. 1974.Developments in management thought.New

York: Crane, Russak.

McGregor, D. 1967. The professional manager. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Pollard, H. 1978.Trendsin management thinking:1960-70. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Meindl, J.R. 1990.On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12:
159-203.

Porter,L. W., & Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial attitudes and

performance.Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Meindl, J. R. 1995. The romance of leadership as a followercentric theory:A social constructionistapproach. Leadership Quarterly,6: 329-341.
Metcalf,H. C, & Urwick,L. F. 1940.Dynamic administration:The
collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper.
Meyer,J.W., & Scott, W. R. 1983. Organizational environments:
Ritual and rationality.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miner,J.B. 1965.Studies in management education. New York:
Springer.
Miner,J.B. 1984. The validity and usefulness of theories in an
emerging organizational science. Academy of Management Review. 9: 296-306.
Miner,J.B. 1990.The role of values in defining the 'goodness' of
theories in organizational science. Organization Studies.
11: 161-178.
Miner,J.B. 1993.Role motivation theories. London: Routledge.

Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. The new institutionalism

in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.
Priem,R. L., & Rosenstein, J.2000. Is organization theoryobvious
to practitioners? A test of one established theory.Organization Science, 11: 509-524.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J.1976.Organizational structurein its
context: The Aston programme I. Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J.1993.Great writerson organizations:
The omnibus edition. Aldershot,UK: Dartmouth.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J.,& Hinings, C. R. 1969. An empirical
taxonomy of structuresof work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 115-126.
Pugh, D. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1976. Organizational structure
extensions and replications: The Aston programme II. Lexington,MA: D. C. Heath.

Miner,J.B. 2002a. Organizational behavior: Foundations, theories, and analyses. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Pugh, D. S., & Payne, R. L. 1977. Organizational behavior in its

context: The Aston programme III. Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath.

Miner,J.B. 2002b. The role motivationtheories of organizational

leadership. In F. J.Yammarino & B. J.Avolio (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead:
(309-338). New York: Elsevier.

Roberts,K. H., Weissenberg, P., Whetten,D., Pearce, J.,Glick, W.,

Bedeian, A., Miller, H., & Klimoski, R. 1990. Reflections on
the field of organizational behavior. Journal of Management Systems, 2(1): 25-38.

Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. F. 1990.". . . Do I love thee? Let me

count ..." Toward an understanding of intuitiveand automatic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 47: 1-20.

Roethlisberger,F. J.,& Dickson, W. J.1939.Management and the

worker:An account of a research program conducted by the
Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Mitchell,T. R., Green, S. G., & Wood, R. E. 1981.An attributional

model of leadership and the poor performingsubordinate:
Development and validation. Research in Organizational
Behavior. 3: 197-234.

Rogelberg, S. G., & Luong, A. 1998. Nonresponse to mailed surveys: A review and guide. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 7: 60-65.

Mitchell, T. R., & Wood, R. E. 1980. Supervisor's responses to

subordinate poor performance: A test of an attributional
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
25: 123-138.
Naylor, J. C, Pritchard,R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. 1980. A theory of
behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.
Nord, W. R., & Fox, S. 1996. The individual in organizational
studies: The great disappearing act? In S. R. Clegg, C.
Hardy,& W. R. Nord,(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies: (148-174). London: Sage.
Perrow, C. 1967. A frameworkfor the comparative analysis of
organizations. American Sociological Review. 32: 194-208.
Pfeffer,J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable.
Academy of Management Review. 18: 599-620.
Pfeffer,
J.1995.Mortality,reproducibility,and the persistence of
styles of theory.Organization Science. 6: 681-686.
Pfeffer,
J.,& Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external controlof organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York:
Harper & Row.

Schein, E. H. 1969.Process consultation: Its role in organization

development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. 1985, 1992. Organizational culture and leadership:
A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. 1987. Process consultation, volume 11:Lessons for
managers and consultants. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. 1988. Process consultation, volume I. Its role in
organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Scott, W., & Meyer, J.W. 1994. Institutional environmentsand
organizations: Structural complexity and individualism.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shadish, W. R. 1989.The perception and evaluation of quality in
science. In B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, R. A. Neimeyer, &
A. C. Houts (Eds.), Psychology of science: Contributionsto
metascience: 383-426. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shamir, B., House, R. J.,& Arthur,M. B. 1993. The motivational
effectsof charismatic leadership: A self-conceptbased theory. Organization Science. 4: 577-594.
Shartle, C. L. 1979. Early years of the Ohio State University
leadership studies. Journalof Management, 5: 127-134.

266

AcademyofManagementLearningand Education

behavior.A studyofdecisionSimon,H. A. 1947.Administrative

makingprocesses in administrativeorganizations.New
York:Free Press.
Stogdill,R. M. 1959.Individualbehaviorand groupachievement.New York:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Stogdill,R. M. 1966.Dimensionsoforganizationtheory.In J.D.
Thompson(Ed.),Approachestoorganizationaldesign:3-56.
PA: University
ofPittsburgh
Press.
Pittsburgh,
Stogdill,R. M.,& Coons,A. E. 1957.Leaderbehavior:Itsdescriptionand measurement.
Columbus,OH: BureauofBusiness
Research,Ohio State University.

September

Van de Ven,A. H. 1989.Nothingis quiteas practicalas a good

AcademyofManagementReview,14:486-489.
theory.
New York:Wiley.
Vroom,V. H. 1964.Workand motivation.
Vroom,V. H.,& Jago,A. G. 1988.Thenew leadership:Managing
participationin organizations.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Vroom,V. H., & Yetton,P. W. 1973.Leadershipand decisionPress.
ofPittsburgh
PA: University
making.Pittsburgh,
ofsocial and economicorganization.
Weber,M. 1947.Thetheory
(Eds. and Trans.,T. Parsons& A. M. Henderson).NewYork:
Free Press.

Tannenbaum,A. S. 1968.Controlin organizations.New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Weber,M. 1968.Economyand society.VolumesI-II1.(Eds. and

New York:Bedminster.
Trans.G. Roth& C. Wittich).

Tannenbaum,A. S., Kavcic, B., Rosner,M., Vianello, M., &

Wieser,G. 1974.Hierarchyin organizations:An internationalcomparison.San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

oforganizing.Reading,
Weick,K. E. 1969.Thesocial psychology
MA:Addison-Wesley.

Tannenbaum,R. A., & Schmidt,W. H. 1958.How to choose a

leadershippattern.HarvardBusinessReview,36(2):95-101.
Taylor,F. W. 1903.Shopmanagement.NewYork:Harper& Row.
Taylor,F. W. 1911.Theprinciplesofscientific
management.New
York:Harper& Row.
Thompson,J. D. 1967. Organizationsin action. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
V. A. 1961.Modernorganization.New York:Knopf.
Thompson,
V. A. 1969.Bureaucracyand innovation.University,
Thompson,
AL:University
ofAlabama Press.
V. A. 1976.Bureaucracyand themodernworld.MorThompson,
ristown,
NJ:GeneralLearningPress.
Tosi,H. L. 1984.Theoriesoforganization.New York:Wiley.
Trist,E. L, Emery,F., & Murray,H. 1990,1993,1997.The social
engagementofsocial science:A Tavistockanthology.Vols.
I-III. Philadelphia,PA: University
ofPennsylvaniaPress.

Weick,K. E. 1987.Theorizingabout organizationalcommunication.In F. M. Jablin,L. L. Putnam,K. H. Roberts,& L W.

Porter(Eds.),Handbookof organizationalcommunication:
An interdisciplinary
perspective:(97-122).NewburyPark,
CA: Sage.
Weick,K. E. 1995.Sensemakingin organizations.Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woodward,J.1965.Industrialorganization:
Theoryand practice.
Press.
London:OxfordUniversity
Woodward,J.1970.Industrialorganization:Behaviorand control.London:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Wren,D. A.,& Greenwood,R. G. 1998.Managementinnovators:
Thepeople and ideas thathave shaped modernbusiness.
New York:OxfordUniversity
Press.
in cultural
Zucker,L. G. 1977.The role of institutionalization
persistence.AmericanSociologicalReview.42: 726-743.
CulZucker,L. G. 1988.Institutional
patternsand organizations:
tureand environment.
Cambridge,MA:Ballinger.

APPENDIXA
Failure to Rate a Theory
FromthebeginningI recognizedthatsome ofthejudges would notbe able to ratecertaintheoriesand thatthisfailure-to-rate
variablemightyieldusefulinformation
in its own right.Accordingly
aftereach theorytherewas a line thatread:
Cannotassess

Reason?

Althoughnotall who checked"cannotassess," and thusdid notrate,provideda reason,mostdid. These reasonswereas follows:
Notfamiliar
Unfamiliar
Haven'tstudiedcarefully
Neverheardof
Don'tknowenough
Nottoo familiar
No knowledgeof
Don'tremember
Unknown
Notsureof
Lack offamiliarity
Outsidearea
Do notknow
Unaware
It is apparentthatchecking"cannotassess" characteristically
meanta lack ofknowledgeoftheparticulartheory.In addition,
therewereinstanceswheretheitemwas simplyskipped;in such cases therewas less basis forattributing
causation;but
knowledgedeficienciesmaywell have been involvedheretoo.
Of the95 judges,20 actuallyratedall 73 theories.Fromtherethefailure-to-rate
variable rose to as highas 50 theories,witha
mean of9.78per judge overall.Of thetotalpossible ratings,13.4%werenotmade- .7% involvingskippingand 12.7%"cannot
assess."

2003

Miner

267

APPENDIXB
Rated Validity

APPENDIXD
Thoughtson MeasuringValidityand Usefulness

The ratingscale used to appraise validityrangedfrom1 at

thelow end (wheretheresearchevidencewas either
or did notexistto a sufficient
nonsupportive
degree,in
spiteofthefactthatadequate timehad elapsed to permit
studiesto be conducted)to 5 at thehighend (where
substantialsegmentsofthetheoryhad been supportedby
a sizable bodyofsubsequentresearch).These ratingswere
based on manyyearsofstudyoftheindividualtheories
and relatedresearch;theyweremade in late 2000and were
notinformed
by theresultsoftheimportancerating
thesevalidity
procedure.The rationalesunderlying
estimatesare spelled out in considerabledetail in Miner
(2002a).Thusa specificsourceexistsproviding
foreach rating.Althoughmade by one
documentation
theviews ofmany
person,theseratingsincorporated
others,bothcriticsand enthusiasts.
All fivepointson thevalidityscale werein factutilized;the
was essentially
mean ratingwas 3.05and thedistribution
normal.Evidenceofthelack ofbias inherentin such
ratingsderivesfromtheirrelationshipto similarratings
providedby othersforoverlappingtheories.Lockeand
theorieswhich
Henne(1986)publisheddata on 8 motivation
withmyearlyratingswas .94.
overlapped;thecorrelation
Lee and Earley(1988)providedvaliditydata obtainedfrom
and leadership
a surveyof 127scholarson 13motivation
withthosesame
theorieswhichoverlapped;thecorrelation
ratingswas .75.On thislimitedevidenceit appears thatthe
ratingsforestimatedscientificvaliditywerethemselves
valid. Evidenceofreliabilityforthetheoriesratedin 1977
theseearlierratingswith
was calculatedby correlating
value
This lowerboundtest-retest
thosegivenin 2000-2001.
withinwhichmuchnew inputto
across a 20+ yearinterim,
theratingprocesswas absorbed,was .89**.

The validityand usefulnessmeasures described surferfromthe

possibilitythattheyare biased in thattheyderivefromthe
judgmentsofa single person.In thatrespectthisreviewis
similarto otherliteraturereviews;the views ofthe author,both
as to selectionofthe underlyingliteratureand as to
ofthatliterature,
are paramount.The ratingsmade
interpretation
here derivefromextensivestudyofthe writing(critique,
research,meta-analyses,etc.)surroundingeach theory(Miner,
2002a).
One reason forusing thismeasurementprocedurewas to replicate
the earlier(Miner,1984)studyat a 20+ year interval.Butthere
were also reasons fornotusing alternativemeasurement
approaches. Meta-analyses ofthe researchsurroundinga theory
could have been relied upon,except thatthiswould have
severelyrestrictedthe numberoftheoriesthatcould have been
considered.Furthermore,
meta-analysesdo notnecessarilycover
any morestudies than a thoroughliteraturesearch,oftenfailto
and neglect
weightthe betterconductedstudies appropriately,
manyofthe findingsfroma given studybecause ofthe
independencerequirement.Thereare even instanceswhere
different
meta-analysesofthe researchon a given theoryreach
conclusionsthatare at variance withone another(see Miner,
2002a).In any event,theoryusefulnessis rarelythe subjectof
meta-analysis.
Anothermeasurementpossibilityis the use ofcitationcounts.
however,researchindicatesthatpublications
Unfortunately,
whichperform
particularlywell on these countsdo so less
because oftheirperceivedqualityor because oftheirusefulness
than because oftheirusefulnessto scholars in
to practitioners
etc.).This
carryingout professionaltasks (researchmethodology,
does notappear to be the kindofmeasure thatwould yield the
desired (Shadish, 1989).
typeofinformation
This bringsus back to some typeofratingprocedure,perhaps
to provideinputas to
using knowledgeable practitioners
usefulnessin application.Yet even well-educatedpractitioners
seem on the evidence to lack any real understandingof
organizationalbehaviortheories(Priem& Rosenstein,2000).
Thus,thisapproach comes up shortinsofaras providinga truly
informedgroupofjudges to assess validityand usefulness.
This same problemofpossessing adequate knowledgeoftheories
themselves,the researchon them,and the relevantliterature
plagues otherapproaches to ratingtheoryvalidityand
usefulness,as opposed to the much moreglobal importance
ratings.It is relativelyeasy to findspecialists who can evaluate
motivationor leadership theoriesin thismanner.This has been
done, and the resultscompare well withmyown ratings.
Generalizingfromthese samples to othertheoreticalcontent
domains withinorganizationalbehaviorseems entirelyjustified.
ofdomain specialists does seem to
The added contributions
supportat least the validitypartofthe equation.
Ratingall the theoriesacross domains is anothermatter.Ed Locke
in his reviewofMiner(2002a)says "Itmusthave takenabout ten
years to put thisbook together."Countingthe inputfromvarious
earlierversions,thisestimateis notfarfromthe truth.The point
is thatreviewingall the evidence (includingmeta-analyses)to
make meaningfulratingsofthe validityand usefulnessof73
widelydistributedtheoriesis notsomethingwe in the fielddo
often.I did itonlyto writea book,and thenonlyin my
It is too much to ask thatothersdo the same, and as
retirement.
Locke says "I doubtanyone will again forthe next20 years."
For all these reasons I believe the typeofquantitative(butstill
personal) reviewI have settledupon is the mostfeasible
approach to evaluating the theoriesoforganizationalbehaviorat
the presenttime.For those who remainskepticalI ask onlythat
theyread the documentationon whichthe ratingsare based in
Miner(2002a);thenreevaluate theirposition.

APPENDIXC
Rated Usefulness
The ratingscale used to evaluate estimatedusefulnessin
practiceextendedfrom1 at thelow end (wherethetheory
to practicein any meaningful
clearlyhad notcontributed
way,eitherbecause applicationswerenotgeneratedor
because researchor experiencehad provedthem
essentiallyuseless) to 5 at thehighend (whereone or more
highlyviable applicationshad been generatedand shown
by researchto producetheintendedresults).These ratings
made in late 2000are also documentedin Miner(2002a).
Again,althoughmade by a singleperson,theyutilizedthe
views ofmanyotherswho had publishedregardingthe
theory.
Againall fivepointson thescale wereutilized;themean
ratingwas 2.47.Therewas, however,a heavyweighting
towardthelow end ofthescale (Is and 2s) and a deficiton
thehighend (4s and 5s). Questionshave been raised
regardingthistypeofanalysis (Brief& Dukerich,1991)and
indeedcomparativedata involvingtheoryratingsprovided
I believe thatdata on
by othersare lacking.Nevertheless,
thepotentialforpracticalapplicationofourtheoriesare
needed,and thattestsofLewin'shypothesisshouldbe
lowerboundvalue,
carriedoutperiodically.The test-retest
obtainedin thesame manneras forthevalidityestimate,
was .83**.

268

Academy of Management Learning and Education

September

APPENDIXE
ProblemsWithConsensus Calculations
Whentheanalysis is limitedto the71 judges in theorganizationalbehaviorgroup,thefiguresare reducedto 71%withall 7
because a numberoftheorieshave outlierswithonlya
ratingsfilledand 25%with6 pointsoccupied.This analysis suffers
singlejudge's ratingat one or bothoftheextremes.Whenthese instancesare eliminated,theorganizationalbehaviorjudges'
figuresfallto 41 and 41%.Applyinga goodness-of-fit
analysis to thesedata, withfiguresforthetotalsample of95 supplying
theexpectedvalues, a significant
difference
is obtained(x2 = 16.07**,
di = 2). Consensus is clearlygreateramongthe
organizationalbehaviorratersthanforthetotalgroup.This positionis confirmed
by thesmalleraverage standarddeviationof
theorganizationalbehaviorratingsthanis foundin thetotalgroup(t = 3.84**).
A problemexists,however,due to thevariationin standardsapplied by different
judges. The average ratingby an organizational
behaviorjudge was spread across 3.66scale points;forthetotalgroupthisspread was 4.48.Quite evidentlysome judges
consistently
apply negativestandards,othersare morepositive.Whatwe do notknowis to whatextentthesejudges with
apparentstrongresponsetendencieswouldcontinueto exhibitthesame behavioron otherratingscales withquite different
thusdemonstrating
theuse ofstable differences
in standards.The researchas currently
conceiveddoes notpermita
content,
correction
fordisparatestandards.Yet such differences
mustexist;consensusclearlyis greaterthanthecurrent
data indicate.
Furthermore,
comparisondata utilizingthekeytheoriesofotherdisciplinesand appropriateratersfromthosedisciplinesare
lacking.Thus in certainrespects,withregardto consensus,thisanalysis representsa pilotinvestigation
servingmoreto
unearthdesign needs and keyvariables thanto providedefinitive
answers.
JohnMineris a writerand consultantin Eugene,Oregon(Professor
Emeritus,
Georgia State
and State University
of New Yorkat Buffalo).He holds a PhD fromPrinceton
University
in personalitytheoryand clinicalpsychology.
His current
researchcenterson role
University
motivation
withemphasison entrepreneurial,
and hierarchic
theory
professional,
organizations.