amr-workflow

AMR Theory-Building Workflow (amr-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which amr- skill to use at the current stage* of an Academy of Management Review manuscript.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as AMR — the Academy of Management's premier theory-development journal. AMR publishes conceptual articles that build new theory; per its scope, submissions "must extend theory in ways that develop testable knowledge-based claims." It contains no datasets, no hypothesis tests, no results section — empirical hypothesis-testing is the lane of its sibling AMJ. The deliverable is a genuinely new theoretical contribution: new constructs, a new process model, or a reconceptualization — developed with rigorous logic, explicit assumptions, propositions, and boundary conditions. If the project has data and tests, it belongs at AMJ / ASQ / SMJ, not AMR.

The AMR contribution bar is set by two AMR-published editorials worth keeping in view at every stage: Whetten's "What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?" (1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371) — the What/How/Why/Who-Where-When rubric — and Suddaby's "Editor's Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization" (2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419). Pure-theory exemplars built by argument alone: Oliver, "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes" (1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002); Dyer & Singh, "The Relational View" (1998, DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632). References follow APA-style (AOM house style).

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on a conceptual paper
• A draft arrives and you must locate its bottleneck (puzzle? logic? contribution?)
• Work is thrashing between theorizing, figure-building, and writing
• An AMR decision letter (developmental review) has arrived and the work shifts to revision

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Idea is vague; not sure there is a real theoretical puzzle	amr-topic-selection
Have a puzzle but constructs/relationships/logic are not built	amr-theory-development
Unsure which conversation to enter or what to "challenge"	amr-literature-positioning
Propositions exist but the construction method feels thin	amr-methods
Propositions stated but underlying logical argument is missing	amr-data-analysis
Cannot articulate what is NEW vs. prior theory	amr-contribution-framing
Box-and-arrow figure has no mechanism / typology not earning its keep	amr-tables-figures
Prose reads like a literature review, not an argument	amr-writing-style
Ready to submit; need the ScholarOne preflight	amr-submission
Want to understand AMR's developmental, multi-round review	amr-review-process
Received an R&R; need to write the response document	amr-rebuttal

Default order

1. amr-topic-selection — lock the theoretical puzzle (the "why doesn't existing theory explain this?")
2. amr-literature-positioning — identify the conversation to challenge and extend
3. amr-theory-development — build constructs, relationships, propositions, boundary conditions
4. amr-methods — theory-construction craft: construct domains, mechanisms, assumptions
5. amr-data-analysis — argument development: logic checks, counterfactuals, alternative explanations
6. amr-contribution-framing — differentiate the new theory from prior work
7. amr-tables-figures — finalize the conceptual figure / typology / propositions table
8. amr-writing-style — AOM house style; argument-driven prose (polish)
9. amr-submission — ScholarOne preflight
10. amr-review-process — understand the developmental review you are about to enter
11. amr-rebuttal — after the R&R

amr-writing-style is a late-stage polish. Do not polish prose before the theory's logic stands up (amr-data-analysis) and the contribution is differentiated (amr-contribution-framing).

Decision shortcuts

• "I have an interesting phenomenon but no theory" → amr-topic-selection
• "I don't know whose theory I'm arguing with" → amr-literature-positioning
• "I have propositions but no logic connecting them" → amr-data-analysis
• "My P1–P5 read like assertions" → amr-theory-development then amr-data-analysis
• "A reviewer will ask 'what's new here?'" → amr-contribution-framing
• "My model figure is boxes and arrows with no mechanism" → amr-tables-figures
• "It reads like a review essay" → amr-writing-style
• "I'm about to hit submit" → amr-submission
• "I got a Reject & Resubmit / Major Revision" → amr-review-process then amr-rebuttal

Differences vs. AMJ / ASQ / SMJ skill stacks

If the manuscript has data, measures, and statistical tests, an empirical-management stack (AMJ / ASQ / SMJ) fits better. The core split:

• AMR: builds theory; the contribution IS the theory; no data; propositions, not hypotheses tested.
• AMJ / ASQ / SMJ: test theory; hypotheses, samples, estimation, results.

A common failure is sending an AMR draft that is really an under-powered empirical paper, or an AMJ draft whose "theory" is a literature summary. Pick the right stack early.

Anti-patterns

• Do not skip amr-literature-positioning and jump to building — reviewers first ask whose conversation you are in.
• Do not let amr-tables-figures pretty up a model before the propositions and mechanisms exist.
• Do not let amr-rebuttal draft a response before the theory itself has actually been revised.
• Do not treat AMR as a venue for data; route empirical work elsewhere.

Volatile specifics (editor-in-chief, exact length/abstract limits, fees, APA edition, acceptance rate) change or could not be machine-verified — see resources/official-source-map.md and confirm on the official AMR / AOM author page.