--- name: amr-workflow description: Use when deciding which amr-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a theory-building manuscript from theoretical-puzzle framing through developmental-review revision for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills. --- # 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.