hrm-theory-development
GitHub专为人力资源管理（HRM）论文提供理论构建支持。当假设缺乏机制解释、存在HARKing风险或理论薄弱时触发。通过AMO、社会交换等框架推导先验假设，明确因果链条与边界条件，确保理论严谨性及实践启示，避免纯心理过程漂移。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill hrm-theory-development -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "hrm-theory-development",
"description": "Use when the theoretical argument and hypotheses are the bottleneck for a Human Resource Management (Wiley \"HRM\") manuscript — building an HRM\/OB mechanism (AMO, HR-system strength, signaling, social exchange) and deriving testable predictions a priori. Builds the theory; it does not run the analysis (hrm-data-analysis)."
}
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)
| Mechanism family | What it explains | Process verb |
|---|---|---|
| AMO (ability–motivation–opportunity) | how a bundle of HR practices raises performance via three pathways | enables / motivates / affords |
| HR-system strength (Bowen & Ostroff) | how distinctive, consistent, consensual HR signals create a shared climate | signals / aligns |
| Social exchange / POS | why employees reciprocate investment with effort, commitment, citizenship | reciprocates / obligates |
| Signaling | how HR practices communicate intent to employees and applicants | signals / screens |
| Ability/sorting & human capital | how practices change the stock or flow of skills | selects / develops |
| AMO + climate cross-level | how unit HR systems shape individual outcomes through climate | cascades / shapes |
For each hypothesis, write the explicit chain: antecedent (HR practice/system) → mechanism (named theory + process) → outcome (defined construct, stated level) → form/direction → boundary (moderator and why the slope changes). Keep the theory at the level where the mechanism operates and flag cross-level mediation as such.
Multilevel and "black box" discipline
- HRM's core debate is the HR–performance black box: do not assert a link without theorizing the intervening climate, attitudes, or capabilities, and do not infer the mechanism from a significant indirect effect alone.
- Beware construct drift: "HPWS," "high-commitment," "high-involvement," and "HR system" are not interchangeable — define yours and stay consistent.
- For multi-level theory, distinguish the intended HR system (espoused policy), the implemented system (what managers enact), and the perceived system (what employees experience); a great deal of HRM contribution lives in that gap.
Checklist
- Every hypothesis has an explicit mechanism (named HRM/OB theory + process verb), not just a predicted sign
- The HR practice/system construct is defined and not conflated with adjacent labels
- Level of analysis is stated and consistent across argument and design; cross-level paths flagged
- Mediators (the black box) and moderators are theorized a priori with substantive reasons
- Hypotheses were fixed before analysis (no HARKing)
- A theoretical-model figure maps one-to-one to the hypotheses
- The mechanism is close enough to HR design that a practice implication is visible
- At least one rival explanation (e.g., reverse causality, selection) is named
Anti-patterns
- Label-as-theory: invoking "social exchange" or "AMO" by name without using its actual logic
- Bald predictions: "practice X relates to outcome Y" with no why
- Black-box skipping: an HR→performance arrow with no theorized intervening process
- HARKing: every hypothesis supported and none surprising
- Construct conflation: HPWS / high-commitment / HR strength used as synonyms
- Level confusion: theorizing a unit-level climate effect but arguing it in individual-psychology terms
- Practice-blind theory: an elegant mechanism with no implication any HR function could act on
Output format
【Focal mechanism】AMO / HR-system strength / social exchange / signaling / human capital (process verb: ...)
【HR construct】practice / bundle / system — defined; level stated
【H1 (focal effect)】HR antecedent → mechanism → outcome; direction/form; level
【H2 (black box / mediation)】intervening climate/attitude/capability
【H3+ (boundary)】moderator + reason the slope changes
【Rival explanation addressed】reverse causality / selection / ...
【HARKing check】hypotheses fixed before analysis? yes/no
【Practice hook】what the theory implies for HR practice
【Next skill】hrm-literature-positioning, then hrm-methods
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:18
