The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation
Abstract
A set of ground rules and vocabulary to facilitate focused discussion about the structure of organization and management theories are proposed. The many previous efforts at defining and evaluating theory help establish criteria for theory construction and evaluation. In the establishment of these criteria, description is distinguished from theory, and a matrix of criteria for evaluating the variables, constructs, and relationships that together compose a theory is developed. The proposed matrix may be useful both for defining the necessary components of good theory and for evaluating and/or comparing the quality of alternative theories. Finally, a discussion of the way theories fit together to give a somewhat broader picture of empirical reality reveals the lines of tension between the two main criteria for evaluating theory.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, as mentioned above, existing GVC frameworks (e.g., Gereffi, 1994;Henderson et al., 2002) and typologies (e.g., Gereffi et al., 2005) do not provide detailed causal mechanisms (Bunge, 1997), and thus do not constitute predictive theory of GVC in a sense of offering ''a statement of relations among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints'' (Bacharach, 1989: 496).”
From Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature (2020) · cites this paper as Bacharach, 1989
Citations
Cites
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Hammer, T. H., Anderson, J., Gurdon, M., Jick, T., Petit, A., Stern, R., Schwartz, H., Vardi, Y., & Dunnette, M. D. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391755 · Cited by 11,945
The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.
Delatour, G. S., Weber, M., Henderson, A. M., & Parsons, T. (1948) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2086579 · Cited by 11,300
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
(2019) · AEA Papers and Proceedings · doi:10.1257/pandp.109.612 · Cited by 10,902
Research in Organizational Behavior.
Grimes, A. J., Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392975 · Cited by 10,899
Social Theory and Social Structure
Ross, E. J., & Merton, R. K. (1958) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3709394 · Cited by 10,315
Cited by
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/4132319 · Cited by 7,449
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20650284 · Cited by 4,944
An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259140 · Cited by 4,544
Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research?
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4011928 · Cited by 4,461
Metadata
- Authors
- Bacharach, S. B.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bacharach, Samuel B.
- ORCID
- Bacharach, Samuel B.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1989-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 496
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120489714
- Cited by
- 2,305
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 87 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 136 · 2022: 112 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 90 · 2015: 119 · 2014: 100 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 83
- FWCI
- 20.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- organizational theory, management theory, theory evaluation, theory development, theory comparison, theoretical integration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amr.1989.4308374
- The paper
- Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308374
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
