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:
- 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.
- Theoretical development. Constructs defined → assumptions → relationships + mechanisms → propositions (each earned by argument). This is the body and the bulk.
- The conceptual model / figure integrated where it clarifies the argument.
- 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/APA style mechanics. APA-style author–date in-text citations; full reference
list per the Academy of Management (APA-derived) style guide; double-spaced manuscript.
(APA edition UNVERIFIED — confirm in the style guide; see
resources/official-source-map.md.) Verify current length and abstract limits before submitting (also UNVERIFIED here). Submission-stage facts such as AMR's current editor, no-fee policy, and ScholarOne link belong inamr-submissionandresources/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
