amr-writing-style

name	amr-writing-style
description	Use when polishing the prose and structure of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript to AOM house style and an argument-driven voice. Late-stage polish; it does NOT build theory or check logic — do those first with amr-theory-development and amr-data-analysis.

Writing Style: AOM House Style, Argument-Driven Prose (amr-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The theory and contribution are settled; now the prose needs polish
• The draft reads like a literature review or an essay, not a built argument
• Sections are present but the manuscript does not "flow" toward the contribution
• You are unsure of AMR's structural conventions

AMR's structure (durable form)

AMR conceptual articles follow a recognizable arc. Verify exact requirements on the current AOM author page, but the durable shape is:

1. Introduction — the theoretical puzzle. Open with the tension, not a definition or a dictionary opening. State the puzzle, the conversation, and your move within the first two pages. Tell the reader what theory cannot currently do and that this paper fixes it.
2. Theoretical development. Constructs defined → assumptions → relationships + mechanisms → propositions (each earned by argument). This is the body and the bulk.
3. The conceptual model / figure integrated where it clarifies the argument.
4. Discussion. Contribution (what's new, differentiated), boundary conditions, and implications for theory, future research, and practice.

There is no methods, results, or data section — AMR is theory-only. The reasoning is the contribution, so make the Why vivid (Whetten, AMR 1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371); define constructs precisely and consistently (Suddaby, AMR 2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419). Exemplar to study for narrative: Oliver's "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes" (AMR 1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002) — puzzle → typology → propositions → implications, no methods, no results.

Voice and prose discipline

• Argument, not survey. Every paragraph should advance the theory. If a paragraph only reports what others found, it is review filler — cut or repurpose it to set up your move.
• Define before you use. A construct's first appearance carries its definition; use the exact same label every time afterward. Terminological drift reads as conceptual fuzziness.
• Signpost the logic. "Because... it follows that..."; "This implies..."; "We therefore propose..." Make the inferential moves visible — at AMR the prose is the proof.
• Propositions in the text are set off and numbered, each immediately following the argument that earns it.
• Precision over flourish. AMR prizes conceptual precision. Avoid vague intensifiers ("very important," "highly significant") and metaphors that do no theoretical work.
• No hypothesis vocabulary. Never write "we hypothesize," "H1," "results show," "we find," or "supported / not supported." AMR uses propositions because nothing is tested; that vocabulary is AMJ's and reads immediately as wrong-journal to AMR editors.
• AOM style mechanics. Use the Academy of Management Style Guide: author–date in-text citations, full reference list, Times New Roman 12-point body text, double-spaced manuscript, 1-inch margins, no page numbers or running heads in the submitted manuscript, and an abstract of no more than 200 words. Treat "APA-style" as shorthand for AOM's author–date mechanics, not a claim about a named APA edition. Verify current manuscript length limits before submitting. Submission-stage facts such as AMR's current editor, no-fee policy, and ScholarOne link belong in amr-submission and resources/official-source-map.md, not in prose edits.

Self-edit passes

• Puzzle pass: is the tension on page 1–2, or buried?
• Survey pass: highlight every sentence that only reports prior work; if it does not set up your move, cut it.
• Definition pass: is every construct defined once and labeled consistently?
• Inference pass: can a skeptical reader follow each step from premise to proposition?
• So-what pass: does the discussion differentiate the contribution, not restate it?

Checklist

• Introduction states the puzzle and the move within ~2 pages
• No methods/results/data section exists
• Every paragraph advances the argument; no review-essay filler
• Constructs defined on first use; labels consistent throughout
• Inferential connectives make the logic explicit
• Propositions are numbered and follow their arguments
• Discussion differentiates the contribution and states implications
• AOM author-date citations and reference style applied (verify current guide)

Anti-patterns

• A literature review masquerading as theory: paragraphs of "X found... Y found..."
• A dictionary or epigraph opening that delays the puzzle
• Construct labels that drift (same idea, three names)
• Buried propositions the reader must hunt for
• Empty intensifiers and decorative metaphor substituting for precise claims
• A discussion that summarizes the paper instead of stating what is newly thinkable

Output format

【Puzzle on page 1–2?】yes / fix
【Review-essay filler】[paragraphs to cut/repurpose]
【Construct-label consistency】ok / drift at: ...
【Logic signposting】explicit / add at: ...
【AOM style】citations + references conform (verify)
【Next step】amr-submission