Menu

Individual skill

hrm-literature-positioning

0upvotes

Use when staking the contribution of a Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM") manuscript against the right conversation — and against the siblings it is confused with (HRMJ, Personnel Psychology, JAP, AMJ). Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-line claim (hrm-contribution-framing).

Human-Resource-Management-Skills/skills/hrm-literature-positioning/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,405
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Literature Positioning (hrm-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The intro reviews "everything on the topic" instead of the specific HRM conversation the paper joins
- A reviewer asks "what do we now know that we didn't?" and the answer is fuzzy
- The paper could plausibly be read as a Personnel Psychology, JAP, or HRMJ paper
- You are citing the dependent-variable literature but not the HR-practice literature (or vice versa)
- The contribution is "first study in [country/sector]" with no theoretical or systemic advance

## Position against the conversation, not the topic

HRM contributions are judged relative to a **specific scholarly conversation** — e.g., the HR–performance black box, HR-system strength and climate, the implementation gap, line-manager enactment, talent differentiation, HR and well-being, HR analytics. Identify the **2–4 anchor works** that own your conversation and state precisely how your paper **extends, qualifies, reconciles, or overturns** them. Vague positioning ("little is known about X in Y") is a desk-screen risk because the EIC gates on fit and contribution before review.
Back to top