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: