From organization-studies-skills
Positions an Organization Studies manuscript within its theoretical conversation, articulating what the field knows, misses, and the gap the paper closes.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/organization-studies-skills:orgstud-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The theory exists (from `orgstud-theory-development`) but the paper does not say *whose conversation* it advances or *what it changes*
orgstud-theory-development) but the paper does not say whose conversation it advances or what it changesAt OS, the literature section is where you earn the right to make a theoretical claim. It is not a neutral map of prior work; it is a constructed account of a specific conversation that sets up exactly the gap your theory fills. OS reviewers — often the very scholars who built these conversations — judge whether you have (1) identified the right interlocutors, (2) read them accurately and generously, and (3) located a gap that is real, non-trivial, and closable with your evidence.
The standard OS move: synthesize the conversation into a tension or unresolved problem, then show that existing accounts cannot resolve it, then position your mechanism as the resolution. This is the inverse of a "gap-spotting" list. A gap stated as "no one has studied X in setting Y" is weak at OS; a gap stated as "the field assumes A, but phenomenon B shows A cannot hold, so we need a new account of C" is strong.
OS conversations are bounded and have canonical anchors. Name yours:
State which one (or which bridge between two) you advance, with its key works. Vague positioning ("the organizations literature") reads as not knowing the field.
The same phenomenon is studied differently across venues; your framing must signal OS, not a sibling. Against ASQ, foreground process/critical/European theorizing over the US variance template. Against Organization Science, foreground interpretive/sociological theory over modeling and multi-paradigm breadth. Against JMS, foreground a sharper single theoretical conversation over pluralist breadth. Against AMR, show your empirical material does theoretical work (AMR is theory-only). The reviewer should never think "this belongs at a different journal."
A study of how a hospital merged two clinical units first framed its gap as "post-merger integration is understudied in healthcare." An OS reviewer would read that as an empirical gap, not a theoretical one. The repositioned framing instead synthesized the institutional-logics conversation into a tension: the literature assumes competing logics are either segregated or blended, yet the case shows actors holding both as a deliberate, ongoing accomplishment that neither segregation nor blending describes. Now the gap is an assumption-failure in a named conversation, and the paper's process model of "sustained holding" is positioned as its resolution. Same data, very different OS prospects.
【Conversation】the specific OS literature + canonical anchors
【Synthesized tension】the unresolved problem/assumption the field cannot currently resolve
【Gap】stated as tension/assumption-failure (not "understudied")
【Your move】how the theory resolves the tension
【Sibling differentiation】why OS not ASQ / Org Science / JMS / AMR
【Next skill】orgstud-methods
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin organization-studies-skillsPositions Organization Science manuscripts by joining conversations, problematizing assumptions, and integrating across disciplines (org theory, strategy, sociology, economics, psychology).
Positions an Administrative Science Quarterly manuscript within organization-theory conversations by naming the conversation, characterizing assumptions, locating tensions, and staking a theoretical opening.
Evaluates whether a phenomenon and research question can yield a theoretical contribution for Organization Studies (OS) journal. Diagnoses fit, scope, and theoretical generativity for OS's European audience.