| name | jmgmt-theory-development |
| description | Use when the theoretical argument is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — building constructs, mechanisms, boundary conditions, and a priori hypotheses (or a review's organizing framework). Constructs the theory; it does not run the analysis (jmgmt-data-analysis) or write the contribution paragraph (jmgmt-contribution-framing). |
Theory Development (jmgmt-theory-development)
When to trigger
- Hypotheses read as bald predictions ("A is positively related to B") with no mechanism
- You have results and are tempted to write hypotheses around them (HARKing risk)
- The argument leans on one borrowed theory name (e.g., "social exchange") without using its logic
- Mediators/moderators sit in the data but are not theorized
- A meta-analysis or review needs an organizing framework, not just a coding scheme
- A reviewer says "the theory is thin," "underdeveloped," or "why would this be true?"
The JOM theory bar
JOM publishes empirical, theoretical, and review work, but in every case the theoretical contribution is the gate. For an empirical paper, each hypothesis must be derived from an articulated mechanism, before the results are known, and a reader should finish the front end understanding why the effect occurs and under what conditions it strengthens or reverses. For a meta-analysis, the synthesis must be organized by theory so that moderators adjudicate competing accounts — JOM does not reward a coefficient census. For a systematic review (Review Issue), the deliverable is an integrative framework plus a forward agenda; a chronological catalogue is desk-rejected.
Building a hypothesis (the mechanism chain)
For each focal hypothesis, write the explicit chain — do not skip steps:
- Antecedent — the predictor and why it matters in this context.
- Mechanism — the theoretical process linking antecedent to outcome (social exchange, signaling, attention allocation, identity threat, resource dependence, conservation of resources). Name the theory and the process verb (motivates, signals, depletes, legitimates).
- Outcome — the dependent construct, defined at a stated level of analysis.
- Direction & form — sign, and whether linear, curvilinear, or threshold (justify a turning point with two opposing forces, not a significant squared term).
- Boundary — the moderator(s) and the substantive reason the mechanism is stronger/weaker.
State the level of analysis explicitly (individual, team, firm) and keep the theory at the level where the mechanism operates; flag cross-level mediation as such. Draw a theoretical-model figure (boxes and arrows) that maps one-to-one to the hypotheses.
Constructs earn their keep
JOM (and its sibling research-methods reviewers) is unusually alert to construct proliferation and jangle/jingle problems. Before adding a construct, show: a clear conceptual definition, its dimensionality, where it sits in the nomological net, and how it is distinct from neighboring constructs already in the literature. A new construct with no discriminant story is a liability, not a contribution.
Mediation, moderation, and rival theories
- Mediation: theorize the process construct before testing it; a significant indirect effect is evidence for a theorized mechanism, never a substitute for the theory.
- Moderation: "it depends" is not a theory until you say why it depends.
- Rival explanations: name at least one competing theoretical account and explain how your design or moderators distinguish it — JOM reviewers push hard on alternatives.
Theory for a review or meta-analysis
- Meta-analysis: state the theoretical question the synthesis answers; pre-specify moderators that map to competing theoretical predictions, so the meta-analytic interaction is a theory test.
- Review: build an organizing framework (a typology, a process model, an integrative 2×2) that imposes structure on the literature and surfaces the unanswered questions that become the agenda.
Worked vignette (illustrative)
Consider a claim that CEO humility raises firm innovation. A bald version states the sign and cites a humility paper. A JOM-grade version writes the chain: antecedent (CEO humility) → mechanism (humility lowers status threat among the top management team, so members voice dissenting ideas — name the process: legitimates upward voice) → outcome (innovation, at the firm level) → form (positive, possibly attenuating at very high levels as decisiveness suffers) → boundary (the effect is stronger under environmental dynamism, because dissent is more valuable when the future is uncertain). Now mediation (TMT voice) and moderation (dynamism) are theorized a priori, the level shifts (individual trait → firm outcome) are explicit, and a rival account (humility is just agreeableness) can be named and addressed — the difference between a desk reject and a contribution.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- HARKing: hypothesizing after results are known — reviewers detect it when every hypothesis is supported and none is surprising
- Bald predictions: "A is positively related to B" with no why
- Borrowed theory: invoking a famous theory by name without using its actual logic
- Mechanism by mediation: claiming a process exists only because the indirect effect is significant
- Construct proliferation: a "new" construct that is an old one relabeled, with no discriminant evidence
- Catalogue review: a literature summary with no framework and no forward agenda
Output format
【Article type】empirical / meta-analysis / review
【Focal theory】... (process verb: ...)
【H1 (focal effect)】antecedent → mechanism → outcome; direction/form; level
【H2 (mechanism/mediation)】...
【H3+ (boundary/moderation)】reason the slope changes
【Construct check】new construct? discriminant story: ...
【Rival explanation addressed】...
【HARKing check】hypotheses fixed before analysis? yes/no
【Model figure / framework】matches hypotheses one-to-one? yes/no
【Next step】jmgmt-literature-positioning
