FROM THE EDITORS ADVANTAGES OF STARTING WITH THEORY

The field of management is in a period of critical self-reflection about several issues, including the prevalence andpotentially pernicious consequences of presenting results of post-result theorizing or “HARKing” (hypothesizing after the results are known; Kerr, 1998) within the realm of deductive hypothesis-driven quantitative research. As the common story goes, a researcher collects or obtains a dataset with only a very general research question in mind, or perhaps none. Once a dataset including many measures is obtained, he or she scours a correlation matrix for unanticipated significant associations, focusing on those that may deviate from conventional wisdom or the body of empirical findings in the literature. Alternatively, the researcher runs dozens of models looking for signs of moderation, mediation, or both. Once a set of “novel” and “significant” findings have been identified, the process of story building begins. The researcher searches for applicable theory, disregarding those too far afield from the measurements in the model and selecting one ormore for use in story crafting.With the adopted logical framingnowinuse, the findings are “predicted” under the guise of the “hypothetico-deductive” approach (Hempel, 1966) as though the author had theorized first and analyzed later. This approach in the realm of quantitative deductive research is certainly prevalent. About a third of psychology authors surveyed in John, Loewenstein, and Prelec (2012) admitted to this practice, and, although such data frommanagement researchers are not available to my knowledge, my experience is that the practice seems common in our community as well. History has produced many interpretations of the practice, ranging from the benign (e.g., a psychological, but otherwise inconsequential, distinction compared to predictions developed a priori) to the pernicious (see Hitchcock & Sober, 2004, for a review). In management and related disciplines, journals are replete with editorials outlining ethical issues arising from post-result theorizing (e.g., Hollenbeck & Wright, 2017; Leung, 2011), papers containing quantitative evidence of bias resulting from the practice (e.g., Bosco,Aguinis, Field, Pierce, &Dalton, 2016; O’Boyle, Banks, & Gonzalez-Mule, 2017), and other papers offering empirical solutions (e.g., Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2014). In this editorial, I take a different approach and discuss the likely outcomes of post-result theorizing from the perspective of the review process. My focus is on work submitted as though it was conducted with a hypothesis-driven deductive approach and not on inductive theory building in case-based and other qualitative approaches. Perhaps themost frequent question one receives as editor-in-chief of Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) is some variation of this: “What is your best advice for publishing in the Journal?” There is, of course, no clear or foolproof answer to this question. AMJ is a big-tent journal, receiving and accepting manuscripts from across the spectrum of management. Potential paths to success are likely just as numerous as the types of papers that are ultimately accepted in the Journal. Even within topic or research design domains, the process is complex; any offered advice comes with the caveat that there is no magic elixir. But, there seems to be an assumption in the literature, as is evident in many of the editorials that appear on the topic, that post-result theorizing is widely used because it is believed to be an effective approach for publishing in high-quality outlets. For example, Starbuck (2016: 171) referred to it as a “success-facilitating practice.” Certainly, papers whose authors have taken this approach have made it through the review process, which has, in turn, created interpretation issues and bias in the literature. Some authors appear to be rather skilled at this type of approach. For the rest of us, however, Iwould characterize HARKing not as a “success-facilitating” but a “rejection-creating” practice. It would be difficult to quantify my opinions in the absence of a large prospective study that assessed authors’ approaches to conducting the research and the outcomes of the review process. My judgment is based Thanks to Markus Baer, Katy DeCelles, Jessica Rodell, and Lisa Leslie for insight and input on drafts of this editorial.