Theory Development (hrm-theory-development)

When to trigger

• Hypotheses read as bald predictions ("HPWS is positively related to performance") with no mechanism
• You have results and are tempted to write hypotheses around them (HARKing risk)
• The argument leans on one borrowed citation rather than a developed HRM logic
• A mediator (the "black box" between HR practices and outcomes) is in the data but not theorized
• A reviewer says "the theory is thin," "why would this practice produce this outcome?", or "the mechanism is a label, not an argument"

The HRM theory bar

HRM publishes work that explains how HR practices and systems shape attitudes, behavior, and performance — and under what conditions. The contribution must be theoretical, empirical, and/or methodological, but even an empirically driven paper needs an articulated mechanism written before the results are known. Crucially, the theory should sit close enough to HR design that a practice implication falls out of it; pure psychological process with no HR-system anchor drifts toward PPsych/JAP.

For qualitative / theory-building work, HRM does not expect a priori hypotheses; it expects a grounded model with emergent propositions and the same demand for a transparent mechanism. For critical reviews and meta-analyses, the "theory" is the organizing framework that turns scattered findings into a cumulative HRM claim.

The HRM theory toolkit (use the right lens)