This Point-Counterpoint debate explores the role of prescriptive and descriptive theorizing in management research, particularly in addressing societal grand challenges. Christopher Wickert highlights the debate between the Point and Counterpoint, which argue about the merits and risks of prescriptive theorizing. The Point, by Hanisch, argues that prescriptive theorizing is essential for addressing pressing societal, ecological, and ethical concerns, as it provides a normative foundation for developing impactful theories. It emphasizes the need for a more prominent role of prescriptive theorizing in management research. The Counterpoint, by Horner et al., challenges this view, warning against the risks of decontextualized, overly simple prescriptions and advocating for a more nuanced approach that considers local experiences and contexts. The debate underscores the importance of both descriptive and prescriptive theorizing in management research, emphasizing their complementary roles. However, both sides underemphasize the need for research on performativity and counter-performativity to examine the unintended consequences of theorizing. Performativity refers to how theories shape social reality, while counter-performativity describes situations where theories lead to outcomes contrary to their intended purposes. The debate highlights the need for future research to explore these concepts in the context of societal grand challenges, considering how theories influence practice and how their effects may be unintended or counter-performative. The discussion also raises important questions about the effectiveness of prescriptive theorizing in achieving its intended goals and the potential for unintended consequences. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of how theories are applied in practice, considering the contextual factors that influence their impact. Overall, the debate emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to theorizing that considers both the promises and perils of prescriptive and descriptive approaches in addressing societal challenges.This Point-Counterpoint debate explores the role of prescriptive and descriptive theorizing in management research, particularly in addressing societal grand challenges. Christopher Wickert highlights the debate between the Point and Counterpoint, which argue about the merits and risks of prescriptive theorizing. The Point, by Hanisch, argues that prescriptive theorizing is essential for addressing pressing societal, ecological, and ethical concerns, as it provides a normative foundation for developing impactful theories. It emphasizes the need for a more prominent role of prescriptive theorizing in management research. The Counterpoint, by Horner et al., challenges this view, warning against the risks of decontextualized, overly simple prescriptions and advocating for a more nuanced approach that considers local experiences and contexts. The debate underscores the importance of both descriptive and prescriptive theorizing in management research, emphasizing their complementary roles. However, both sides underemphasize the need for research on performativity and counter-performativity to examine the unintended consequences of theorizing. Performativity refers to how theories shape social reality, while counter-performativity describes situations where theories lead to outcomes contrary to their intended purposes. The debate highlights the need for future research to explore these concepts in the context of societal grand challenges, considering how theories influence practice and how their effects may be unintended or counter-performative. The discussion also raises important questions about the effectiveness of prescriptive theorizing in achieving its intended goals and the potential for unintended consequences. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of how theories are applied in practice, considering the contextual factors that influence their impact. Overall, the debate emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to theorizing that considers both the promises and perils of prescriptive and descriptive approaches in addressing societal challenges.