Abstract:This article examines organization, management, and leadership theory development and evolution from the perspectives of legitimacy and efficacy. Based on this examination, we support rigorous testing and grounded theory approaches, advocate the use of evidence-based theory development, and offer the 5P's Model of Strategic Leadership as an example of a model that originated from evidence-based theory development. We suggest that researchers, faculty members, and business practitioners should be able to contemplate and debate the usefulness of various theories and models with the understanding that application is essential for substantiation of their worth. In this article, we analyze existing organizational theory, but we also advocate the introduction of new organization theories. This can occur if researchers in the various educational institutions, business organizations, professional organizations, and media outlets are more open to the creation of a variety of models and theories, the legitimacy and usefulness of which can later be substantiated through application. Introduction The objectives of this article are: (1) to examine the history of various organization theories and their development from the perspective of legitimacy and efficacy, (2) to analyze selected debates regarding theory development and various theories, (3) to advocate the use of evidence-based theory development, and (4) to provide an example of a model and related theories that we created after reviewing existing theories and determining gaps in terms of implementation and alignment. We are not rejecting the need for rigorous testing of theories. We are simply advocating the proposal of conceptual theories and models for debate and potential usefulness. Then through application of the theories, they can be tested in terms of validity and the extent to which they are useful. This paper suggests that many very useful new organizational theories and models as well as extensions and adaptations of other theories and models have been, and are being, developed. The difficulties in getting these theories and models considered for legitimacy and usefulness range from realistic questions to superciliousness as struggles and debates continue among theorists, practitioners, and empirical scientists. Walsh, Meyer, and Schoonhoven (2006: 657) suggest other potential problems including "the irrelevance of organization theory," the debates among two groups-those who "argue for closer ties to business practice" and those who "argue for maintaining our academic distance," and the fact that organization theorists "find ourselves so self-critical and . . . fundamentally, adrift." We would not go so far as to say that we are adrift, but we are perhaps so self-critical that we do not allow theories to be presented so that they can be debated. We believe that an understanding of, and appreciation for, the history of management and organization theory is valuable. Yet we as management and organization theorists, scholars, and researchers are also aware that times have changed, and continue to change, dramatically. Business planning horizons are much shorter and competitive pressures (often intense) lead to a more rapid rate of business innovation than ever before. We propose that we, as the academicians studying these phenomena, should be thinking innovatively about the theory development process. We suggest that the originators of new theories and models and extensions of existing theories and models should be able to present in the literature for debate and later testing for application potential. To facilitate organization theory development for introduction and application in today's rapidly changing environment, we advocate the evidence-based approach and other innovative approaches to the creation of new, and the extension of existing, theories and models. Debates among Theorists While various management and organization theories have been empirically tested over the years, many of them were initially proposed as conceptual theories and models and as such, accepted as legitimate prior to empirical testing. …

Learning from Testimony on Quantitative Research in Management

Are rigor and transparency enough? Review and future directions for case studies in technology and innovation Management

Embracing the Paradigm Shift from Variable-Based to Case-Based Modeling

Theory, explanation, and understanding in management research

Improving the credibility of case study research in international business studies and beyond: a simple fix for a serious problem

Why does Faithful Epistemic Representation Matter for Management Practices? The Case of the Natural Environment in Management Theory

Advancing Research Methodologies in Management: Revisiting Debates, Setting New Grounds for Pluralism

Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

A New Approach to Management Methodology:Quasi-Experimentation Design Based Field Research

Big Data, Proxies, Algorithmic Decision‐Making and the Future of Management Theory

What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research

Between Sweet Harmony and a Clash of Cultures: Does a Joint Academic–Practitioner Review Reconcile Rigor and Relevance?

Supervised machine learning for theory building and testing: Opportunities in operations management

The Legitimacy and Efficacy of Current Organizational Theory: An Analysis

Making Quantitative Research Work: From Positivist Dogma to Actual Social Scientific Inquiry

Contemporary Test Validity in Theory and Practice: A Primer for Discipline-Based Education Researchers

Perspective from the Literature on the Role of Expert Judgment in Scientific and Statistical Research and Practice

Where the Model Frequently Meets the Road: Combining Statistical, Formal, and Case Study Methods

Computational Experiments in Management Science and Research

Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

Unfulfilled Promise: Laboratory experiments in public management research