---

name: amann-organizing-framework description: Use when building the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).

Organizing Framework — the Acceptance Bar (amann-organizing-framework)

When to trigger

• The coding matrix is built but the draft would read like a list of papers
• Sections are named after sub-topics ("Antecedents", "Outcomes") rather than ideas
• You cannot state in one sentence the new way of seeing the field the review delivers
• A reader could not predict why streams are grouped as they are, or what the review argues

Why the framework is the whole game at Annals

Annals is "reviews with an attitude": it does not reward accurate summary, it rewards theory advancement through synthesis. The acceptance bar is whether the review imposes an organizing logic the field did not have — a typology, a process model, an integrating construct, a reconciliation of rival camps — that makes scattered work legible and generates a research agenda. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. This is what separates Annals from a descriptive review and from its sibling AMR, where new theory stands alone rather than emerging from a literature. Choose the spine deliberately:

| Spine type | Organizes the field by | Best when | |-----------|------------------------|-----------| | Typology / taxonomy | mutually-exclusive categories of mechanism, form, or approach | the field is fragmented into incommensurable camps | | Process / stage model | a temporal or causal sequence (how a phenomenon unfolds) | the literature studies pieces of one process in isolation | | Integrating construct | a higher-order concept that subsumes scattered variables | many parallel constructs are really facets of one thing | | Dialectic / reconciliation | thesis–antithesis–synthesis across rival positions | a live debate has hardened into camps that talk past each other | | Multi-level architecture | individual ↔ team ↔ organization ↔ field linkages | the literature is siloed by level of analysis |

Pick one primary spine; a second axis can be a within-section ordering, but a review with two competing spines reads as two reviews.

The test of a framework that clears the bar

• Generative: it predicts where the gaps are — empty cells become the future-research agenda Annals demands, not omissions.
• Reconciling: apparent contradictions become explained (studies disagree because they sit in different cells, different levels, or theorize different constructs).
• Integrative: it makes previously siloed streams speak to each other, not just sit side by side.
• Portable: a reader can restate the spine after one read and slot a new paper they encounter into it.
• Has attitude: it takes a position — names what the field got wrong, what it over-studied, what it ignored — rather than neutrally cataloging.

Stress-test by placing 5 hard cases (papers that resist categorization). If three have no home, the spine is wrong — redesign before drafting.

The framework is also what lets the review be selective without being incomplete: once each cell is defined, confirmatory work is cited in clusters within its cell while the prose discusses only the cell-defining studies. A review without a spine must either summarize everything (bloat) or omit silently (gaps). Design the spine before deciding what to foreground.

Checklist

• [ ] One primary spine chosen (typology / process / integrating-construct / dialectic / multi-level)
• [ ] The review's one-sentence new way of seeing the field is written
• [ ] Every category traces to coded matrix rows (no empty rhetorical buckets)
• [ ] The framework reconciles at least one live contradiction or debate in the field
• [ ] Empty cells are surfaced as the future-research agenda (generativity)
• [ ] The framework takes a position (the Annals "attitude"), not a neutral tour
• [ ] 5 hard-case papers each have a natural home
• [ ] Section headings name ideas/mechanisms, not "antecedents / outcomes / moderators"
• [ ] A non-specialist could restate the spine and slot a new paper into it

Anti-patterns

• The annotated bibliography: stream-by-stream summaries with no integrating idea (the cardinal Annals reject)
• The "antecedents–outcomes–moderators" skeleton dressed up as a framework (it organizes nothing)
• A typology whose categories overlap so every paper is cited in three cells
• Two competing spines fighting for control of the same review
• A framework so bespoke only the author can apply it (not portable)
• A descriptive map with no agenda and no position — coverage without the "attitude"

Output format

【Spine type】typology / process / integrating-construct / dialectic / multi-level
【New way of seeing the field】"<one sentence the review argues>"
【Categories】<the cells / stages / levels, each MECE>
【Reconciliation】<which contradiction or debate the framework explains>
【Future-research agenda】<empty cells surfaced as the agenda>
【Attitude】<the position the framework takes — what the field got wrong/missed>
【Hard-case test】5 awkward papers each placed? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-evidence-standards (fill cells with appraised, balanced evidence)