Process Theorizing: Too Important to Ignore in a Kaleidic World

Both Professors Donaldson (2002) and Watson (this issue) highlight the important role that theory plays in management education, but limit their discussion to variance theory—one of two fundamental types of theory in social science research (Mohr, 1982). Given that variance theory has long been the dominant paradigm held by scientists and philosophers as well as the general public (Mohr, 1982), it isn’t surprising that both professors emphasize this orientation. By doing so, however, they neglect the other fundamental type of theory: process theory. By treating “explained-varianceas-the-only-form-of-theory,” neither professor is able to address the complex dynamics of a variety of fundamental organizational processes including adaptation, coevolution, improvisation, selection, and self-organization, illustrating how a favored paradigm holds powerful sway over what we can and cannot see (Kuhn, 1996). Variance theory explains the variation in a dependent variable as a result of the variation in an independent variable(s) [Mohr, 1982]. More generally, this approach attempts to explain a phenomenon using a small set of well-developed variables, embedded in a nomological net, tested with statistical techniques, and suited to predicting specific outcomes that are unaffected by the temporal ordering of the independent variables (Hayek, 1967; Mohr, 1982). Alternatively, process theory develops a causal explanation of a sequence of events over time by telling a story about how and why a phenomenon evolved as a result of the temporal ordering and probabilistic interaction of numerous events (Mohr, 1982). Because process models usually address multiple levels and units of analysis and utilize qualitative (as well as quantitative) analysis techniques to make sense of time-ordered data, they tend to be rich in context, high in complexity, and dynamic in character (Langley, 1999). Indeed, there is more than one form of good theory (DiMaggio, 1995; Ofori-Dankwa & Julian, 2001; Weick, 1995). The variance theoretic approach, rooted in mechanics and logical positivism, is appropriate for developing and testing falsifiable theories about simple phenomena, but less suitable for theorizing about path-dependent, nonlinear, organic processes in which myriad interactions give rise to complex social phenomena (Hayek, 1967; Ofori-Dankwa & Julian, 2001). Modeling such complex phenomena calls for process theories situated at a higher level of abstraction and oriented toward prediction of how general patterns of change unfold. Such theories are inherently less able to be falsified and more difficult to verify with statistical techniques (Hayek, 1967; Ofori-Dankwa & Julian, 2001). As Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek notes, “This is the price we have to pay for an advance into the field of complex phenomena” (1967: 29). He goes on to assert: “Predictions of a pattern are nevertheless both testable and valuable. Since the theory tells us under which general conditions a pattern of this sort will form itself, it will enable us to create such conditions and to 1 While Donaldson explicitly features variance theoretic models (2002: 103–104) and Watson (this issue) makes them the centerpiece of his response, neither considers process theory. However, Donaldson reveals a strong interest in processes when discussing such topics as organizational adaptation over time, the rise and fall of management fads and fashions over time, decision-making processes, rivalrous processes involving temporary competitive advantage, and managerial action (2002: 102, 104). Watson does likewise when discussing how educators will be called upon by students and stakeholders “to explain events in the business world” (p. 286) such as “the actions of [corrupt Wall Street] analysts” (this issue, p. 286, emphasis added). This disconnect between their espoused view of theory (explanation of variance) and what their discourse often revealed to be important (explanation of process) is noteworthy on at least two counts. First, it creates some degree of confusion by indiscriminately mixing variance and process theoretic ideas (Mohr, 1982). Second, it demonstrates a natural tendency to interpret reality using “process-theoretic machinery”—that is, “by elaborating the flow of events, telling how something happens” (Mohr, 1982: 214). Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2003, Vol. 2, No. 3, 288–291.