Requisite Organization theory claims that it can bring about profound organizational change, with substantial increases both in productivity and in well-being at the workplace, within a short time and at very low cost.
On the other hand, diffusion of RO theory is notably limited, and the interventions based on it, though often highly successful, are relatively scarce. This appears as a paradox, and a tragic one if the claims are valid.
There are several possible reasons that would explain this paradox. The most likely one is that RO theory has not been more widely accepted because it is almost universally misunderstood, sometimes even among its own practitioners. This is due to the fact that RO theory is absolutely singular and idiosyncratic. This, however, is not obvious, so people attempt to understand it by assimilation to other organizational or psychological paradigms, and thus incur misinterpretations.
Some of the most frequent misunderstandings of RO theory are examined and clarified, with the aim of providing breakthroughs in understanding to critics, supporters and above all those who attempt to learn it.
The conclusion is that RO theory has not been refuted, and there is sound evidence of its potential for positive change. It is therefore proposed that both practitioners and officers with executive responsibilities on organizational policy and practice should direct their attention to the fact that it is at present the best founded proposal that we have for improving both the creation of wealth and the quality of life at the workplace.