The experience of Whetten (1989) has been that available frameworks that communicate the necessary ingredients of a theoretical contribution are as likely to obfuscate, as they are to clarify meaning. The intent of this article is not to create a new conceptualization of theory, but rather to propose several simple concepts for discussing the theory development process. It is a personal reflection. This article is organized around three key questions: (1) what are the building blocks of theory development? (2) What is a legitimate value-added contribution to theory development? and (3) What factors are considered when judging conceptual papers?

What are the building blocks of theory development?

A complete theory must contain four essential elements:

What. Which factors should be considered as part of the explanation of the social or individual phenomena of interest? Two criteria exist for judging if we have included the “right” factors: comprehensiveness (i.e., are all relevant factors included?) and parsimony (i.e., should some factors be deleted because they add little additional value to our understanding?).

How. How are the set of factors related? Operationally this involves using “arrows” to connect the “boxes”. Such a step adds order to the conceptualization by explicitly delineating patterns. In addition, causality is introduced. The what and how elements constitute the domain or subject of the theory. The more complex the set of relationships under study, the more useful it is to graphically depict them. Formal models aid theory developers and users to assess the balance between parsimony and completeness.

Why. What are the underlying psychological, economic or social dynamics that justify the selection of factors and the proposed causal relationships? This rationale constitutes the theory’s assumptions and provides the basis for judging the reasonableness of the proposed conceptualization.

During the theory-development process, logic replaces data as the basis for evaluation. Theories must convince others that their propositions make sense and therefore they have to explain the whys underlying the reconstituted whats and hows. Combing the hows and whats produces the typical model (the link between theory development and empirical research), from which testable propositions can be derived. To avoid vacuous discussions, propositions should be well grounded in the whys, as well as the hows and the whats.

What and how describe, only why explains. Data, whether quantitative or qualitative, characterize; theory supplies the explanation for the characteristics. Therefore, a good theory should include a plausible, cogent explanation for why we should expect certain relationships in our data. Together these three ingredients provide the basis of a simple theory. If propositions are used, they should be limited to specifying the logically deduced implications for research of a theoretical argument.

Who, where, when. These conditions place limitations on the propositions generated from a theoretical model and set the boundaries of generalizability. As such, they constitute the range of the theory. Although theorists cannot be sensitive to all possible boundary constraints, clearly there is value in conducting some simple mental tests of the generalizability of core propositions. Sensitivity to context is especially important for theories based on experience. According to the contextualist perspective (Gergen, 1982), meaning is derived from context.

Although it is important for theorists to be sensitive to context, the who, where and when of a theory are typically discovered through subsequent tests of the initial, rudimentary theoretical statement (what, how, why). In the process of testing these ideas in various settings, we discover the inherent limiting conditions.

What is a legitimate, value-added contribution to theory development?

To get a publication in theory journal, a set of criteria should be fulfilled:

What and how. Although it is possible to make an important theoretical contribution by simply adding or subtracting factors (whats) from an existing model, this seldom satisfies reviewers. The value of a proposed change in a list of factors can be demonstrated by describing how this change affects the accepted relationships between the variables (hows). The addition of a new variable to an existing list should not be mistaken as a theoretical contribution. Relationships, not lists, are the domain of theory. Important changes in a theory’s what and how are frequently stimulated by surprising research results.

Why. Probably the most fruitful, but also the most difficult avenue of theory development. It commonly involves borrowing a perspective from other fields, which challenges the underlying rationales supporting accepted theories. This aspect of conceptual development is particularly critical, and generally overlooked. Theories are often challenged because their assumptions have proven to be unrealistic.

Who, when, where. Generally, it is insufficient to point out limitations in current conceptions of a theory’s range of application. Theorists need to understand why this abnormality exists, so that they can revise the how and what of the model to accommodate this new information. Conversely, applying an old model to a new setting and showing that it works as expected is not instructive by itself and has no theoretical merit, only if something about the new setting suggests that the theory shouldn’t work under those conditions. Theorists need to learn something new about the theory itself as a result of working with it under different conditions. There is a need for a theoretical feedback loop.

Three broad themes underlie this section: (1) proposed improvements addressing only a single element of an existing theory are seldom judged to be sufficient, (2) theoretical critiques should marshal compelling evidence (either logical, empirical or epistemological) and (3) in general, theoretical critiques should propose remedies or alternatives.

What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?

These seven key questions summarize the concerns raised most frequently by our reviewers. Together they constitute an answer to the question ‘what constitutes a publishable theory paper?’

1. What’s new? Does the paper make a significant, value-added contribution to current thinking? Scope reflects the level of theorizing (how much of the field is impacted), degree reflects the radicalness of the proposal (how different is this from current thinking). In general, scope is less important than degree in determining the theoretical contribution.

2. So what? Will the theory likely change the practice of organizational science in this area? The purpose of a standard theoretical paper should be to alter research practice, not simply to tweak a conceptual model in ways that are of little consequence.

3. Why so? Theory development papers should be built on a foundation of convincing argumentation and grounded in reasonable, explicit views of human nature and organizational practice.

4. Well done? The paper should reflect seasoned thinking, conveying completeness and thoroughness, and have a high quality.

5. Done well? Is the paper well written, easily and enjoyable to read?

6. Why now? Papers should not be redundant, unconnected or antiquated on the moment of submitting.

7. Who cares? A paper may be technically adequate, but inherently uninteresting to most of the broad audience. In general, even highly specialized papers should be linked to core management or organizational concepts and problems, otherwise they are more appropriate for a discipline-based journal.

In conclusion, the theory-development process and criteria for judging theoretical contributions need to be broadly understood and accepted so that editors and contributors can communicate effectively.