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
amr-topic-selection— lock the theoretical puzzle (the "why doesn't existing theory explain this?")amr-literature-positioning— identify the conversation to challenge and extendamr-theory-development— build constructs, relationships, propositions, boundary conditionsamr-methods— theory-construction craft: construct domains, mechanisms, assumptionsamr-data-analysis— argument development: logic checks, counterfactuals, alternative explanationsamr-contribution-framing— differentiate the new theory from prior workamr-tables-figures— finalize the conceptual figure / typology / propositions tableamr-writing-style— AOM house style; argument-driven prose (polish)amr-submission— ScholarOne preflightamr-review-process— understand the developmental review you are about to enteramr-rebuttal— after the R&R
amr-writing-styleis 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-developmentthenamr-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-processthenamr-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-positioningand jump to building — reviewers first ask whose conversation you are in. - Do not let
amr-tables-figurespretty up a model before the propositions and mechanisms exist. - Do not let
amr-rebuttaldraft 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.mdand confirm on the official AMR / AOM author page.


