Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsCommunityBlog
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

ProTermsPrivacyRefunds
Back to skills

Organization Studies

ASecurity

Use when targeting Organization Studies (OS) or deciding whether a European organization-theory / process / institutional / critical manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

1,052 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 6/5/2026
ai-agentsgotesting

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 6/5/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill organization-studies --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Organization Studies?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Organization Studies
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-organization-studies/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-organization-studies)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: organization-studies
description: Use when targeting Organization Studies (OS) or deciding whether a European organization-theory / process / institutional / critical manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Organization Studies (organization-studies)

## Journal positioning

Organization Studies (OS) is the flagship journal of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS), published by SAGE, and the leading home for European organization theory. Its intellectual center is theoretical sophistication and qualitative depth: process theorizing, institutional theory, organizational discourse and sensemaking, practice perspectives, and critical approaches to organizations. OS rewards conceptual ambition and craft over technique; it is not an outlet for variance-model hypothesis testing or applied managerial prescriptions. The audience is organization theorists, many in the European tradition, so a paper must offer a genuine theoretical contribution to how we understand organizing.

This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the EGOS / Organization Studies / SAGE site and the submission system.

## When to trigger

- The author names Organization Studies / OS (or the EGOS / European organization-theory tradition) as the venue.
- A paper makes a process, institutional, discursive, or critical theoretical contribution, usually through qualitative depth.
- A theory-rich qualitative study needs a home that values interpretive and critical scholarship.
- The author needs OS's desk-reject risks and a credible `administrative-science-quarterly` / `human-relations` / `journal-of-management-studies` alternative list.

## Scope & topic fit

- Process and practice theorizing; institutional theory and institutional work; organizational identity, sensemaking, and discourse.
- Critical management and organization studies; power, control, and the politics of organizing.
- Qualitative, ethnographic, historical, and interpretive research with theoretical ambition.
- Conceptual papers that develop or reorient organization theory in the European tradition.

## Method & evidence bar

- The theoretical contribution to organization theory is the gate; method serves the argument.
- Qualitative and interpretive craft is high — immersive fieldwork, transparent analysis, and a compelling, reflexive data-to-theory path are expected.
- Theory and evidence must be deeply integrated; thin theorizing bolted onto rich data will not pass.
- Critical and process work must be rigorous and grounded in scholarship, not polemical.

## Structure & house style

- The front end develops a theoretical problem with conceptual ambition and engages a live theoretical conversation.
- Qualitative papers present a transparent, reflexive analytic narrative rather than a variance-model setup.
- The discussion is substantial and states the contribution to organization theory and its broader implications.
- OS prizes elegant, scholarly, theoretically literate prose; framing reflects European organization-studies sensibilities.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Organization Studies submission guidelines / SAGE author guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check word/length limits, abstract format, anonymization for double-blind review, reference style, and any essay/conceptual article-type rules.
- Re-check current open-science, data-transparency (as appropriate for qualitative work), and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] One sentence stating the contribution to organization theory in the process/institutional/critical tradition.
- [ ] The qualitative/interpretive craft is transparent, reflexive, and meets OS standards.
- [ ] Theory and evidence are deeply integrated; the theorizing is the contribution.
- [ ] The paper engages a live theoretical debate, not an applied managerial question.
- [ ] Framing, references, and anonymization match the current OS guide.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A variance-model, hypotheses-and-regressions study with no process/interpretive theorizing.
- An applied or managerial-prescription paper with no theoretical contribution.
- Rich data with thin or generic theory; or critical claims that are polemical rather than scholarly.
- A US-style empirical paper that ignores the European organization-theory conversation.

## Re-routing decision

- US-style theory-driven hypothesis testing → `academy-of-management-journal`; sociology-of-organizations craft at top selectivity → `administrative-science-quarterly`.
- Multidisciplinary org theory including computational/quantitative → `organization-science`; theory-development with pluralistic methods → `journal-of-management-studies`.
- Pure conceptual theory → `academy-of-management-review`; integrative review → `academy-of-management-annals`.
- Interdisciplinary critical/qualitative social science of work → `human-relations`; broad management empirics → `journal-of-management-en`; strategy → `strategic-management-journal`; entrepreneurship → `entrepreneurship-theory-and-practice`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Organization Studies
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is the org-theory contribution + qualitative craft at OS's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / length / references / article type / AI disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```

Attribution

brycewang-stanfordbrycewang-stanford
View sourceMore from brycewang-stanford →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Know which skills are safe — weekly.

Best new skills + every skill we flagged as malicious. From the team that scanned 103,619.

Join free

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Know which skills are safe — weekly.

Best new skills + every skill we flagged as malicious. From the team that scanned 103,619.

Join free

Related Skills

Caveman

Ultra-compressed communication mode that cuts output tokens while keeping technical accuracy. Levels: lite, full, ultra and the wenyan variants. Use for /caveman, "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "be brief" or "less tokens".

1066601 votes

Hyperplan

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', ...

693161 votes

Mcp Code Execution

Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.

3351 votes

catchup

Recovers the conversation and failed tool calls of a previous Codex, Claude Code, Antigravity, Cline, Copilot CLI, Cursor, DeepSeek Harness, Kimi, OpenCode, Pi Agent, or ZCode session. Use when the user says "catch up", "what did the last session do", "get me up to speed", "I switched agents", asks to recover/summarize a previous session before continuing, or asks to diagnose or report a catchup failure. Do NOT use for the current conversation, git history, or any non-agent log.

691 votes

math-skill

A comprehensive mathematical reasoning skill for AI assistants — handles arithmetic to research-level problems with rigorous step-by-step reasoning, systematic verification, and transparent uncertainty handling

381 votes
View all in ai-agents →