asq-workflow

Administrative Science Quarterly Workflow (asq-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which asq- skill to use at your current stage*.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) — a top, theory-driven journal in organization theory and the sociology of organizations, founded in 1956 by James D. Thompson (first editor 1956–1973; author of Organizations in Action) and published by SAGE in association with the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University. Its motto: "Dedicated to advancing the understanding of administration through empirical investigation and theoretical analysis." ASQ's hallmark is a deep, often surprising theoretical insight about organizations, delivered with superb craft. It publishes both rigorous quantitative work and rich qualitative/inductive studies (grounded-theory, ethnographic, historical) — method follows the theoretical question. The current Editor is Beth Bechky (UC Davis; term began July 1, 2025, succeeding Christine Beckman and András Tilcsik), an ethnographer of work and occupations — a signal of ASQ's openness to inductive fieldwork. ASQ has no submission fee, is exceptionally selective (reported acceptance ~8%), uses APA references (since January 2025), and is distinctive among management journals for its standing book review section.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?"
• The user drops a draft and needs the current bottleneck diagnosed
• Work keeps ping-ponging between theory, methods, and prose with no clear state
• An ASQ decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into review/rebuttal mode

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Idea is interesting but not yet surprising; unsure it fits ASQ	asq-topic-selection
Have a phenomenon but no theoretical engine / mechanism	asq-theory-development
Lit review reads like a list; not in dialogue with org-theory traditions	asq-literature-positioning
Unsure whether design should be qualitative or quantitative; rigor gaps	asq-methods
Have data but coding/analysis is opaque; no data-to-theory link	asq-data-analysis
Can't state the contribution as a "so-what" for organization theory	asq-contribution-framing
Tables/figures are dense or do not show the data structure (qual or quant)	asq-tables-figures
Prose is flat, jargon-heavy, or "variance-speak" where process is needed	asq-writing-style
Preparing to submit; need a preflight checklist	asq-submission
Want to understand ASQ's developmental review before/after submitting	asq-review-process
Received an R&R and need to write the response	asq-rebuttal

Default order

1. asq-topic-selection — lock the puzzle and the surprising organizational insight
2. asq-theory-development — build the theoretical engine (process or variance) before data work
3. asq-literature-positioning — situate in organization-theory conversations
4. asq-methods — choose and justify design (qualitative or quantitative); set the rigor bar
5. asq-data-analysis — execute analysis and the data-to-theory link
6. asq-contribution-framing — sharpen the theoretical "so what" once results exist
7. asq-tables-figures — finalize data tables, data-to-theory tables, models, figures
8. asq-writing-style — full-manuscript prose and craft polish
9. asq-submission — pre-submission preflight
10. asq-review-process — understand the developmental, multi-round process
11. asq-rebuttal — after the R&R decision

asq-writing-style and asq-tables-figures are late-stage polish — do not run them while the theoretical contribution is still unsettled. At ASQ, craft cannot rescue a thin idea.

Decision heuristics

• "I have a result but no surprise" → asq-topic-selection
• "My theory is a box-and-arrow model with no mechanism" → asq-theory-development
• "My lit review cites everyone but argues with no one" → asq-literature-positioning
• "I ran hypotheses but learned nothing new about organizations" → asq-theory-development then asq-contribution-framing
• "My informant quotes are decorative, not evidentiary" → asq-data-analysis
• "Reviewer says 'this is a method in search of a theory'" → asq-contribution-framing
• "I'm about to submit tonight" → asq-submission
• "I got a high-risk R&R with three reviewers" → asq-review-process then asq-rebuttal

Differences vs. other management packs

• ASQ: theory first; surprise and craft are paramount; qualitative/inductive work is fully first-class (think Barley's 1986 CT-scanner study or Weick's 1993 Mann Gulch paper); process theory is common; the sociology-of-organizations lineage is central. Reviews books as well as articles.
• AMJ: empirical, hypothesis-testing norm dominates; strong quantitative bar.
• AMR: theory-only; no data at all.
• SMJ: strategy-focused; firm performance / competitive advantage outcomes central.

A pure conceptual paper fits an AMR-style stack better. A hypothesis-testing study aimed purely at firm-performance outcomes with no organizational-theory surprise may belong at SMJ — at ASQ a thin contribution dressed in a strong method will not survive screening, however clean the identification.

Anti-patterns

• Do not skip asq-theory-development and rush to data — at ASQ the contribution is theoretical, not methodological.
• Do not let asq-tables-figures polish exhibits before the contribution is settled.
• Do not let asq-rebuttal draft a response letter before the manuscript itself has been revised.
• Do not assume "more sophisticated method" substitutes for a new organizational insight.