In this paper we aim to contribute to the recent debate on non-empirical theory confrmation by analyzing why scientists accept and trust their theories in the absence of clear empirical verifcation in social sciences. Given that the philosophy of social sciences traditionally deals mainly with economics and sociology, organization theory promises a new area for addressing a wide range of key questions of the modern philosophy of science and, in particular, to shed a light on the puzzling question of non-empirical theory assessment, acceptance, corroboration and development. Although institutional theory of organizations cannot be directly tested and evaluated via empirical data, this theory nevertheless became a dominant theory of organization-environment relations and most organizational researchers routinely use it as a standard theoretical framework for making sense of empirical fndings. We analyze the trajectory of institutional theory development and proliferation and argue that it enjoys its current status of the standard theory of organizational sociology because (1) it is fexible enough to account for most organizational processes and phenomena; (2) it has suppressed existing alternative theories that are less fexible; (3) because scientists do not tend to look for alternatives for once winning theory and (4) due to the dysfunctional requirement to “develop theory” in top journals in organization and management studies. Finally, we argue that “a too-much-plasticity efect”, has a negative impact on institutional theory in the long run. It is explained why, despite the dominant position in organizational research, institutional studies cannot be regarded as a normal science while the progress of this theoretical problem is rather an illusory efect then a growth of knowledge.