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]."

• Named conversation — must match what jms-literature-positioning staked.
• Specific insight — a mechanism, construct, model, or condition, not a restated finding ("trust mediates" is a finding; "trust substitutes for formal control only when ties are multiplex" is a contribution).
• What it revises — the prior belief your work changes; if nothing changes, there is no contribution.
• Scope conditions — where the claim holds and where it does not; bounding a claim strengthens it at JMS.

Calibrate the size of the claim

Earn the practice implication

JMS values practical relevance, but it must be derived from the theory, not bolted on. Ask: given the mechanism, what should a specific decision-maker do differently, and under what condition? Generic "managers should pay attention to X" is not an implication — name the actor, the decision, and the contingency.

Checklist

• The contribution is stated in one sentence using the named conversation
• It is a theoretical insight (mechanism/construct/model/condition), not a restated finding
• It names what prior understanding it revises/extends/reconciles
• Scope conditions are stated (where it holds / does not)
• The claim is commensurate with the evidence — not inflated, not buried
• One or two integrated contributions, not a sprawl of thin ones
• The practice implication names an actor, a decision, and a contingency

Anti-patterns

• Finding dressed as contribution: "we showed a significant effect" with no theoretical translation
• Grand-claim inflation: cosmic significance unsupported by a single study's evidence
• Buried contribution: the "so what" hidden in the discussion instead of leading the intro
• Contribution sprawl: a bullet list of five weak contributions instead of one strong one
• Bolt-on practice section: generic managerial advice not derived from the mechanism
• Conversation drift: the framed contribution targets a different conversation than the positioning

Output format

【Conversation】named conversation (must match positioning)
【Contribution sentence】"we contribute to … by showing …, revising … under …"
【Type】mechanism / construct / process model / boundary condition / reconciliation / challenge
【Scope conditions】where it holds / does not
【Size check】over-claim? under-claim? finding-as-contribution? → fix
【Practice implication】actor + decision + contingency
【Next step】jms-tables-figures, then jms-writing-style