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

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)

1. Establish the baseline relationship. State the focal X → Y and the strategy logic for its sign.
2. Specify the mechanism. Name the mediating process (e.g., reduced imitation, lower coordination cost, shifted aspirations). The mechanism is the contribution's spine.
3. 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."
4. 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).
5. 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)