Organization theory sometimes has the appearance of an overgrown field in which rival gardeners compete to plant ever-new hybrid varieties with little attention to the practical usefulness of the plants. Some years ago a president of the Academy of Management assailed the whole field of man- agement for its failure to deliver on its promise of relevance to practitioners. Management research was, he wrote, ‘an incestuous, closed loop’ within which researchers talked only to each other (Hambrick, 1994, p. 13). This theme is echoed in the current reflections of Starkey and Madan (2001) who call for several dramatic steps to remedy what they see as a crisis of relevance. First, they call for the inclusion of practitioners in the planning and execution of management research. Second, they ask business schools to follow the examples set by corporate training centres such as McDonald’s Hamburger Univer- sity in terms of emphasizing skill development rather than arcane research topics. Third, they call for greater emphasis on the convenient packaging of knowledge in terms of web-based deliverables and on-site corporate programmes as opposed to a continuing focus on campus-based academic programmes. Starkey and Madan are not alone in their critique. Writers have assailed various organ- ization theories because they are bad for practice (Ghoshal and Moran, 1996) or because they are opposed to the interests of managers (Donaldson, 1995). Other branches of management knowledge (such as strategy) may have implications for prac- tice, but the idea of offering lessons from organ- ization theory strikes many people as risible. At the risk of creating laughter, therefore, we propose to show that even organization theory, this much- maligned corner of the management jungle, con- tains surprisingly powerful insights for practitioners. Starkey and Madan foresee the demise of the business school unless researchers hand over to practitioners the power to set the research agenda. In contrast, we foresee an increasing impatience with trivial ideas focused on short-term organiza- tional performance. We sense a hunger among both academics and practitioners for theory-based British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, Special Issue, S55–S59 (2001) © 2001 British Academy of Management The Consolations of Organization Theory Martin Kilduff and Mihaela Kelemen* The Pennsylvania State University, 403 Beam Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA email: Mkilduff@psu.edu *Department of Management, University of Keele, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, North Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK email: m.l.kelemen@mngt.keele.ac.uk The call for greater relevance in management research leads us to examine the remedies offered by organization theory to organizational problems. In contrast to Starkey and Madan (2001), we argue that research engagement with other academic disciplines helps produce broadly useful knowledge. Installing practitioners in central places in the research process may focus research on short-run rather than deep-seated processes. We illustrate the relevance of organization theory through two examples of how apparently esoteric knowledge (produced through cross-disciplinary collaboration) can have surprising application. First we show how the social network perspective proved useful in rescuing a manager from the perils of unpopularity. Second, we show how deconstruction can uncover the institutionalized routines that disempower managers and workers. Neither the management training centers nor the web-based learning initiatives admired by Starkey and Madan are likely to deliver insights that address deep-seated processes of change within society. Collaboration with academics across the university can further our goals of research relevant to practitioners.