Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› smj-theory-development
smj-theory-development
GitHub专为SMJ论文构建理论机制与假设。提供因果逻辑框架，指导选择理论视角、阐明中介机制及调节变量，确保论证严谨且具备可检验性，避免仅做文献综述或简单预测。
Trigger Scenarios
假设仅为符号化预测缺乏逻辑引擎
理论部分仅重述前人发现未构建新论点
无法解释调节变量为何改变效应
战略选择与绩效间的连接机制隐含或模糊
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill smj-theory-development -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "smj-theory-development",
"description": "Use when building the theoretical mechanism and hypotheses for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript. Constructs the argument and develops hypotheses; it does not position the literature or run estimation."
}
Theory Development & Hypotheses (smj-theory-development)
When to trigger
- Your hypotheses read as signed predictions ("X is positively related to Y") with no logical engine
- The theory section restates prior findings instead of building a new argument
- A moderator is added but you cannot explain why it changes the effect
- The mechanism connecting strategic choice to performance is implicit or hand-waved
What SMJ means by "theory"
SMJ wants a causal logic: a chain of premises that explains why a strategic choice or condition produces a performance/advantage consequence, anchored in a recognized strategy perspective. A hypothesis without a stated mechanism is a correlation in disguise. The reviewers expect you to show the logical steps, not just the conclusion.
Choosing and combining lenses
| Lens | Core engine | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Resource-based / capabilities | Heterogeneous, hard-to-imitate resources earn rents (Wernerfelt, 1984, SMJ) | Why advantage persists |
| Dynamic capabilities | Sensing/seizing/reconfiguring under change (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997, SMJ) | Adaptation, renewal |
| Transaction cost economics | Governance minimizes contracting hazards | Make-vs-buy, alliances, scope |
| Agency / governance | Incentive misalignment shapes strategic choice | Boards, ownership, M&A |
| Competitive dynamics | Action–response, awareness–motivation–capability | Rivalry, market entry |
| Behavioral theory of the firm | Aspirations, search, attention | Risk taking, R&D search |
| Real options | Sequential investment under uncertainty | Entry, staging, divestiture |
| Institutional / nonmarket | Legitimacy and regulatory environment shape advantage | CSR, political strategy |
Borrowing a lens is fine; extending or qualifying it is what earns a contribution. State which lens you build on and exactly where you depart from it.
Anchor RBV with Wernerfelt (1984), SMJ when you want an SMJ-internal reference. Barney's much-cited 1991 RBV statement appeared in Journal of Management, not SMJ — do not list it as an SMJ landmark.
SMJ is a theory-develop-and/or-test journal: unlike AMR, it does not publish purely conceptual papers, so your theory must set up implications that are evaluable (testable, or otherwise assessable for qualitative/formal work).
Building the argument (mechanism-first)
- Establish the baseline relationship. State the focal X → Y and the strategy logic for its sign.
- Specify the mechanism. Name the mediating process (e.g., reduced imitation, lower coordination cost, shifted aspirations). The mechanism is the contribution's spine.
- Develop moderators as theory, not robustness. A moderator hypothesis must explain how the boundary condition strengthens or reverses the mechanism — not merely "the effect is bigger for big firms."
- Surface and address the tension. SMJ rewards arguments that resolve a real tension or counter-prediction (e.g., a resource that both enables and constrains).
- State the counterfactual and scope conditions. Where does the logic hold, and where does it break?
Hypothesis craft
- Each H states direction and carries a one-line mechanism in the surrounding text.
- Order hypotheses so the baseline (H1) precedes mediation/moderation (H2, H3…).
- Avoid "kitchen-sink" hypothesizing; 2–4 tightly linked hypotheses beat seven loose ones.
- If you theorize a mediator, plan a mechanism test in
smj-data-analysis(mediation alone is weak evidence).
Checklist
- Every hypothesis is preceded by an explicit causal mechanism
- You name the lens you extend and the specific gap/tension you resolve
- Moderators are theorized (why the mechanism shifts), not bolted on
- A counter-argument / competing prediction is acknowledged and addressed
- Scope and boundary conditions are stated
- The argument predicts something a reader could not already infer from prior work
Anti-patterns
- "X is positively associated with Y" with no mechanism — the most common SMJ theory weakness
- Hypothesis salad: many predictions, no integrating logic
- Re-deriving an established result and calling it theory
- A moderator with no theoretical reason for changing the effect
- Mechanism claimed in theory but never tested empirically
- Using a strategy lens as decoration while the real argument is generic
Output format
【Lens】RBV | dynamic capabilities | TCE | agency | competitive dynamics | BTOF | real options | institutional
【Gap/tension resolved】...
【Mechanism (one sentence)】X affects Y because ...
【Hypotheses】H1 (baseline) / H2 (mediation) / H3 (moderation) — each with its mechanism
【Boundary conditions】...
【Empirical implication】mechanism test needed → flag for smj-data-analysis
【Next step】smj-literature-positioning
Templates & resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— SMJ scope and verified landmark strategy-theory papers (Wernerfelt 1984; Teece, Pisano & Shuen 1997)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:28
