Contribution Framing (jms-contribution-framing)

When to trigger

• A reviewer or coauthor asks "what exactly does this contribute to theory?"
• The discussion section restates results instead of stating what changed in the conversation
• The paper has findings but no crisp one-sentence claim
• Practical implications are an afterthought ("managers should be aware…") rather than earned
• The contribution is over-claimed (grand) or under-claimed (buried, hedged)

The JMS contribution bar

A JMS paper must articulate a theoretical contribution that engages an organizational phenomenon and says what it changes — its house phrasing is the "so what for management theory and practice." Two things are non-negotiable: the contribution is to a theory/conversation (not just "we found an effect"), and it is commensurate with the evidence (neither inflated nor hidden). Because JMS is pluralist, the contribution can be a refined construct, a process model, a boundary condition, a reconciliation, or a challenge to orthodoxy — but it must be nameable in one sentence.

Build the contribution claim

State it in this shape and pressure-test each slot:

"We contribute to [named conversation] by showing [specific theoretical insight], which revises/extends/reconciles [prior understanding] under [scope conditions]."