The Role of Dialectical Interrogation in Review Studies: Theorizing from What We See Rather Than What We Have Already Seen

Review-centric works receive increasing attention for generating insightful contributions to management and organization studies. Despite this, the literature on theory building has taken little note of their place in the theorizing process. This deserves attention, however, given the challenges reviews face in theorizing in the absence of new empirical observations. Accordingly, these works run the risk of merely summarizing ‘what we have already seen’, instead of ‘maximizing what we see’. Drawing on the strategies of theorizing from similarities and theorizing from anomalies, we propose dialectical interrogation as a critical step in theorizing through which review scholars imaginatively engage in a back and forth inquiry between the phenomenal world of a given field and existing theory. By analysing selected review studies from top management journals, we reveal that theorizing outcomes occur through two ways of dialectical interrogation (consolidative and disruptive). We contribute by demonstrating that review scholars can enter into powerful theorizing through the consolidative or disruptive interrogation of the review data with extant theory to detect emergence and novelty alongside puzzles, conflicts and paradoxes. Dialectical interrogation can address the shortcomings of current theorizing in review-centric works and bears potential for advancing theories of management and organization studies.     

Cross‐Functional Influence and the Supplier Selection Decision in Competitive Environments: Who Makes the Call?

This paper presents the results of a multiple‐case study that examines how procurement and engineering personnel share priorities, have a common vision, and influence the supplier selection decision in competitive environments of varying risk and uncertainty. We interviewed 113 procurement and engineering respondents from 26 different companies/business units across up‐, mid‐, and downstream segments of the oil and gas industry. Following a middle‐range theorizing approach, we develop a series of working propositions and theoretical frameworks, utilizing goal congruence theory to sharpen proposition development and create suggested extensions for theory. In general, we find that engineering personnel tend to dominate cross‐functional decision making in higher risk environments and that more equal arrangements exist when both risk and uncertainty are low. When competitive environment risk is low but uncertainty is high, considerable disagreement arises over which function “leads” this decision. Higher risk environments drive higher goal congruence through shared vision and consensus on who makes supplier selection decisions.     

Writing Impactful Review Articles

Literature reviews lie at the core of the theorizing process: they provide a reference point for mapping a field of study and form the baseline for developing theoretical contributions. The two Point-Counterpoint articles presented here seek to reflect on the purpose of literature reviews, and offer alternative strategies for writing impactful review articles.