Published Online:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0322

Many influential theories of organization rest on an analogical foundation: we think of the organization as if it were a governance structure, a nexus of contracts, a social network, or an information processing system. We may invoke an analogy simply to express an idea, but analogy use may also constitute a key part of a theoretical explanation and an argument. In this latter—explanatory—use, we not only think but also reason by analogy. But if analogy use constitutes reasoning, it must also be critically evaluated as such. In this article we first combine ideas from the literature on argumentation and cognitive science to examine how analogies are used in organization theory. We then construct a framework to guide the evaluation of reasoning by analogy. Finally, we show that by understanding how analogies are used and evaluated, we can also gain an understanding of how theories progress.

REFERENCES

  • Agarwal R., Hoetker G. 2007. A Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1304–1322.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Albert S., Whetten D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263–295. Google Scholar
  • Allison G. T. 1969. Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review, 63: 689–718. Google Scholar
  • Alvesson M., Kärreman D. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1265–1281.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Alvesson M., Sandberg J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36: 247–271.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Alvesson M., Sandberg J. 2014. Habitat and habitus: Boxed-in versus box-breaking research. Organization Studies, 35: 967–987. Google Scholar
  • Alvesson M., Spicer A. 2012. A stupidity based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 1194–1220. Google Scholar
  • Antonakis J., Bendahan S., Jacquart P., Lalive R. 2014. Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations: 93–117. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Astley W. G., Zammuto R. F. 1992. Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3: 443–466. Google Scholar
  • Augier M., Prietula M. 2007. Historical roots of the A Behavioral Theory of the Firm model at GSIA. Organization Science, 18: 507–522. Google Scholar
  • Bacharach S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 496–515.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bagozzi R. P., Phillips L. W. 1982. Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 459–490. Google Scholar
  • Barney J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120. Google Scholar
  • Barney J. B., Ouchi W. G. 1986. Organizational economics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
  • Bartha P. 2010. By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Bartha P. 2015. Analogy in the natural sciences: Meeting Hesse’s challenge. Philosophical Inquiries, 3: 47–68. Google Scholar
  • Boxenbaum E., Rouleau L. 2011. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36: 272–296.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Boyd R. 1979. Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought: 356–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Brown A. D. 2015. Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17: 20–40. Google Scholar
  • Brown A. D., Starkey K. 2000. Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25: 102–120.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Carter R., Hodgson G. M. 2006. The impact of empirical tests of transaction cost economics on the debate on the nature of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 461–476. Google Scholar
  • Copi I. M. 1982. Introduction to logic (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  • Cornelissen J. P. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30: 751–764.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Cornelissen J. P., Durand R. 2014. Moving forward: Developing theoretical contributions in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51: 995–1022. Google Scholar
  • Cyert R. M., March J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  • Delbridge R., Fiss P. C. 2013. Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38: 325–331.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Eisenhardt K. M. 1989a. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57–74.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Eisenhardt K. M. 1989b. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fama E. F., Jensen M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301–325. Google Scholar
  • Fauconnier G., Turner M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
  • Galbraith J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  • Gavetti G. 2012. Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organization Science, 23: 267–285. Google Scholar
  • Gavetti G., Greve H. R., Levinthal D. A., Ocasio W. 2012. The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 1–40.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gavetti G., Levinthal D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 113–137. Google Scholar
  • Gentner D. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D. S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives: 106–132. Sussex, UK: Harvester Press. Google Scholar
  • Gentner D. 1999. Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), Blackwell companion to cognitive science: 107–113. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  • Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolff P., Boronat C. 2001. Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science: 199–253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  • Gentner D., Markman A. B. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52: 45–56. Google Scholar
  • Gentner D., Smith L. 2012. Analogical reasoning. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior: 130–136. Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  • Ghoshal S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4: 75–91.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ghoshal S., Moran P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21: 13–47.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510. Google Scholar
  • Green S., Li Y., Nohria N. 2009. Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. Academy of Management Review, 52: 11–36.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Hannan M. T., Freeman J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929–964. Google Scholar
  • Hannan M. T., Freeman J. H. 1989. Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  • Hannan M. T., Pólos L., Carroll G. R. 2007. Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  • Harmon D. J., Green S. E., Goodnight G. T. 2015. A model of rhetorical legitimation: The structure of communication and cognition underlying institutional maintenance and change. Academy of Management Review, 40: 76–95.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hart O., Shleifer A., Vishny R. W. 1997. The proper scope of government: Theory and an application to prisons. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112: 1127–1161. Google Scholar
  • Hatch M. J. 1997. Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Hesse M. 1966. Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed and Ward. Google Scholar
  • Hintikka J., Bachman J. 1991. What if . . .? Toward excellence in reasoning. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Google Scholar
  • Hirsch P. M., Levin D. Z. 1999. Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10: 199–212. Google Scholar
  • Hoefer R. L., Green S. E. 2016. A rhetorical model of institutional decision making: The role of rhetoric in the formation and change of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 41: 130–150.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Howard-Grenville J., Metzger M. L., Meyer A. D. 2013. Rekindling the flame: Processes of identity resurrection. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 113–136.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305–360. Google Scholar
  • Johnson-Laird P. N. 2006. How we reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Kennedy P. 2008. A guide to econometrics (6th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  • Ketokivi M., Mahoney J. T. 2016. Transaction cost economics as a constructive stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15: 123–138.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ketokivi M., Mantere S. 2010. Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35: 315–333.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kilduff M. 1993. Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18: 13–31.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kilduff M., Tsai W., Hanke R. 2006. A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31: 1031–1048.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Krugman P. 1996. A country is not a company. Harvard Business Review, 74(1): 40–51. Google Scholar
  • Kuhn T. 1993. Metaphor in science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.): 533–542. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Kuhn T. S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Lakatos I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge: 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Leavitt K., Mitchell T. R., Peterson J. 2010. Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 644–667. Google Scholar
  • Locke K., Golden-Biddle K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1023–1062.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mahoney J. T. 2005. Economic foundations of strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Mantere S., Ketokivi M. 2013. Reasoning in organization science. Academy of Management Review, 38: 70–89.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • March J. G. 1994. A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • March J. G. 2010. The ambiguities of experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
  • March J. G., Simon H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  • McKelvey B. 1997. Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8: 352–380. Google Scholar
  • McKelvey B. 2002. Model-centered organization science epistemology. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations: 752–780. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  • Meehl P. E. 1990. Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1: 108–141. Google Scholar
  • Mintzberg H. 1979. The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  • Morgan G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 605–622. Google Scholar
  • Morgan G. 2016. Commentary: Beyond Morgan’s eight metaphors. Human Relations, 69: 1029–1042. Google Scholar
  • Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  • Ocasio W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 187–206. Google Scholar
  • Oswick C., Fleming P., Hanlon G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318–337.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ouchi W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129–141. Google Scholar
  • Patton M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Penrose E. T. 1952. Biological analogies in the theory of the firm. American Economic Review, 52: 804–819. Google Scholar
  • Penrose E. T. 1995. The theory of the growth of the firm (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Pfeffer J. 1981. Power in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar
  • Pfeffer J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599–620.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pfeffer J. 2005. Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4: 96–100.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Platt J. R. 1964. Strong inference. Science, 146: 347–353. Google Scholar
  • Porter M. E. 1981. The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6: 609–620.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ramoglou S., Tsang E. W. K. 2016. A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41: 410–434.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Reichenbach H. 1938. Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundation and the structure of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Rindfleisch A., Heide J. B. 1997. Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61: 30–54. Google Scholar
  • Ross S. A. 1973. The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63: 134–139. Google Scholar
  • Ryle G. 2009. The concept of mind (60th anniversary ed.). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  • Santos F. M., Eisenhardt K. M. 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16: 491–508. Google Scholar
  • Selznick P. 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  • Shelanski H. A., Klein P. G. 1995. Empirical research in transaction cost economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11: 335–361. Google Scholar
  • Shepherd D. A., Suddaby R. 2017. Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43: 59–86. Google Scholar
  • Shepherd D. A., Sutcliffe K. S. 2011. Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, 36: 361–380.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Stanford K. 2013. Underdetermination of scientific theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/scientific-underdetermination/. Google Scholar
  • Suddaby R. 2014. Editor’s comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39: 407–411.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Suddaby R., Hardy C., Huy Q. N. 2011. Introduction to special topic forum: Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36: 236–246.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Swedberg R. 2014a. The art of social theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  • Swedberg R. (Ed.). 2014b. Theorizing in social science: The context of discovery. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Toulmin S. E. 2003. The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Tsang E. W. K., Ellsaesser F. 2011. How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 404–419.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tsoukas H. 1991. The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16: 566–585.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Van de Ven A. H., Poole M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 510–540.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • van Fraassen B. C. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
  • Van Maanen J. 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6: 133–143. Google Scholar
  • Vaughan D. 2014. Analogy, cases, and comparative social organization. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Theorizing in social science: 61–84. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Walker G., Weber D. 1984. A transaction cost approach to make-or-buy decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 373–391. Google Scholar
  • Walton D. N. 2010. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Weber M. 1997. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Weick K. E., Roberts K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381. Google Scholar
  • Weingast B. R., Marshall W. J. 1988. The industrial organization of Congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets. Journal of Political Economy, 96: 132–163. Google Scholar
  • Whetten D., Felin T., King B. 2009. Theory-borrowing in organizational studies: Issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35: 537–563. Google Scholar
  • Whetten D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490–495.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. 1971. The vertical integration of production: Market failure considerations. American Economic Review, 61: 112–123. Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. 1981. The modern corporation: Origins, evolution, attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, 19: 1537–1568. Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. 1991. Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 75–94. Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. 1994. Transaction cost economics and organization theory. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology: 77–107. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. 2003. Examining economic organization through the lens of contract. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12: 917–942. Google Scholar
  • Wooldridge J. M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
  Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900