576425

research-article2015
GOMXXX10.1177/1059601115576425Group & Organization ManagementGilson and Goldberg

Editorial
Group & Organization Management
2015, Vol. 40(2) 127­–130
Editors’ Comment: © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
So, What Is a sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601115576425
Conceptual Paper? gom.sagepub.com

Lucy L. Gilson1 and Caren B. Goldberg2

When developing the Call for Proposals for Group & Organization
Management’s (GOM) Conceptual Issue, we had lengthy discussions with
colleagues and with each other about the best way to phrase the Call, and to
increase the likelihood that potential authors would submit viable proposals.
However, these conversations quickly turned to questions regarding “what is
a conceptual paper?” Are conceptual papers just papers without data? Are
conceptual papers different from theoretical papers? What about review
papers, are they different from these? Within the management field, we tend
to group nonempirical papers into theory, review, or commentary/critique
pieces (Cropanzano, 2009). So, what is a conceptual paper? To some extent,
the answer to each of the questions posed above is, “yes, but not quite.” Thus,
in the Call for Proposals, we noted that “beyond summarizing recent research,
manuscripts should provide an integration of literatures, offer an integrated
framework, provide value added, and highlight directions for future inquiry.
Papers are not expected to offer empirical data.” So, what does this really
mean?
The simplest question to answer is that of whether conceptual papers are
simply papers without data. Yes, conceptual papers do not have data, because
their focus is on integration and proposing new relationships among con-
structs. Thus, the onus is on developing logical and complete arguments for
associations rather than testing them empirically. The “but not quite” part of
the response to this question centers on the fact that there are plenty of papers
that have no data, but which, nonetheless are not what we would consider
conceptual papers.

1University of Connectuct, Storrs CT, USA

2George Mason Univesrity, Fairfax VA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Emails: lgilson@business.uconn.edu; caren.goldberg@yahoo.com
128 Group & Organization Management 40(2)

Much has been written on what constitutes a good theory paper. For exam-
ple, Whetten (1989) noted that conceptual papers should be judged on the
basis of seven criteria: (a) What’s new? (b) So what? (c) Why so? (d) Well
done? (e) Done well? (f) Why now? and (g) Who cares? Weick (1989) posited
that writing theory is an iterative process based on disciplined imagination
rather than a focus on validation. And Van de Ven (1989) built upon Weick’s
recommendations describing good theory building as that which seeks to
address or resolve tensions, inconsistencies, and contradictions surrounding
an issue. Interestingly, Cropanzano (2009) described theory papers as more
interesting when they “underscore commonalities that build coherence”
(p. 1306).
Although conceptual papers need not address all of Whetten’s seven ques-
tions in equal detail or resolve an existing tension in the field, it is critical that
they take a problem-focused approach and address the what’s new question
thoroughly. Unlike a theory paper, conceptual pieces need not propose new
theory at the construct level (Cropanzano, 2009), but rather they seek to bridge
existing theories in interesting ways, link work across disciplines, provide
multi-level insights, and broaden the scope of our thinking. This notion of
conceptual pieces as providing a bridge or link is important in the manage-
ment field where we have a great number of interesting theories that, while
advancing our thinking, are often difficult to test, meaning that they remain
elegant theories that are never empirically tested. This raises questions regard-
ing the trade-off between thought provoking and relevant. However, it is the
“what’s new” question that distinguishes a conceptual paper from a review.
Reviews are useful, important, and like theory papers, highly cited
(Antonakis, Bastardoz, Liu, & Schriesheim, 2014). A good review piece pro-
vides a qualitative overview of the extant literature in a specific field of study
with the authors offering a critique and summary that “provides a contribu-
tion value akin to valuable works of art” (Short, 2009, p. 1312). In addition to
a retrospective review, review pieces also offer future directions that are ori-
ented toward where the literature ought to be going based on where it has
been. In effect, review papers ground the reader, then set a course for where
research in this field should be heading. In a similar vein, a good conceptual
piece starts with an overview of the domain and the state of the science; what
do we know, where have we come from, and what are the areas yet to be
examined. However, given that review is not the sole focus of the paper, this
section needs to be very tightly focused. For example, in this issue, the paper
by Sharma and Kirkman very specifically reviews prior work on empowering
leadership and not other forms of leadership or empowerment. In a concep-
tual paper, the review section should be relatively brief, as the piece then
moves to tackle one area in need of attention from a theoretical lens.
Editorial 129

In the current issue, this theoretical lens takes several different forms. For
example, the papers by Sherman and Morley and Lichtfeld and colleagues
both call upon the reader to reconsider how constructs have been previously
defined. Beyond demonstrating the limitations of extant construct defini-
tions, these papers explain how we might be able to better predict work-
related outcomes by refining how we conceptualize psychological contracts
and creativity. Neither paper is positioned as a thorough review of the extant
literature nor do they seek to propose a new theory. Rather, they both propose
a number of new links and associations that refine how we consider the
papers focal constructs.
A good conceptual paper may also build theory by offering propositions
regarding previously untested relationships. Unlike, a purely theoretical
paper, the propositions in a conceptual paper should be more closely linked
to testable hypotheses and in doing so offer a bridge between validation and
usefulness (Weick, 1989). The Mael and Jex paper does this with workplace
boredom, whereas the Sharma and Kirkman paper does this with empower-
ing leadership.
Another commonality among the papers in this special issue is that each
one offers at least one figure. Although a figure is not a formal requirement
of a conceptual paper (Sutton & Staw, 1995), they are nearly universally used
in conceptual work (Fulmer, 2012). In keeping with the goal of bridging the-
ory and review, figures offer the reader a convenient means of understanding
typologies, as in the Lichtfeld et al.’s and Mael and Jex’s papers. In addition,
they provide the reader with a clear and simple depiction of the authors’ view
of how constructs are related; this is clearly illustrated in the Mael and Jex,
Sharma and Kirkman, and Sherman and Morley articles. Certainly, the adage,
“a picture is worth a thousand words,” is highly germane to conceptual
articles!
We were pleased by both the quantity and quality of the proposals we
received in response to the call. Furthermore, we were delighted to see that
the range of topics spanned the breadth of GOM’s scope. In the end, some-
what interestingly, the issue, itself, hangs together nicely with four papers
that all address different topics (i.e., empowering leadership, creative ideas,
workplace boredom, and psychological contracts) with each article fulfilling
Cropanzano’s final point that “a good article is a bit of everything” (p. 1309).
In closing, we want to thank the Gayle Baugh who started GOM’s conceptual
issue in 2010 and entrusted her baby into our hands; we hope you are as
pleased with this issue as we are. We also want to offer a huge thank you to
all our reviewers who worked tirelessly to provide guidance and input at vari-
ous points in the process. Given that so many of us had questions about what
is a conceptual issue, reviewing and guiding this process was a learning
130 Group & Organization Management 40(2)

experience for all of us, but without you, this issue would not have come to
fruition.

References
Antonakis, J., Bartardox, N., Liu, Y., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2014). What makes arti-
cles highly cited? The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 152-179.
Cropanzano, R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management:
General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35, 1304-1311.
Fulmer, I. S. (2012). Editor’s comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety
and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, 37, 327-331.
Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35,
1312-1317.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 371-384.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 486-489.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 516-531.
Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14, 490-495.