Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization

By Eyal Yaniv. 2011

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cc534c09e1e9ef5c9737e8277fe792e8c5c757f2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Career Preparedness Among Adolescents: A Review of Key Components and Directions for Future Research (2020, background): “This integration helps to provide conceptual clarity to the field which is important to facilitate communication, improve empirical analysis, and increase innovation in the field (Suddaby, 2010).”
Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences (2016, background): “First, it attempts to mitigate the ongoing problem in the organizational literature of poor conceptual clarity (Locke, 2012; Molloy et al., 2011; Suddaby, 2010).”
Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale (2013, background): “clear definition of the construct being measured (Suddaby, 2010).”
Offshoring innovation to emerging markets: Organizational control and informal institutional distance (2014, background): “Given the central role of construct development in theory-building scholarship (Suddaby, 2010), efforts to develop a more fine-grained conceptualization of an existing construct constitute an opportunity to advance theory (Venkatraman, 2008; Vergne, 2011).”
Job Burnout and Employee Engagement (2012, background): “In this respect, it has been suggested that construct validity flows from a researcher’s ability to formulate concepts into variables and, in turn, variables into measures (Suddaby, 2010).”
Making Intangibles “Tangible” in Tests of Resource-Based Theory (2011, methodology): “Yet construct clarity is rarely achieved in management scholarship, which causes needless misunderstandings and controversy among scholars (e.g., Lepine & King, 2010; Suddaby, 2010).”
Benevolent Leadership: Conceptualization and Construct Development (2011, methodology): “consistency test of whether the core construct of benevolent leadership demonstrated greater resilience than its four foundational subscales (Suddaby, 2010).”
Digital Business Model, Digital Transformation, Digital Entrepreneurship: Is There A Sustainable “Digital”? (2020, background): “Therefore, it is key to have a common understanding of these interrelations, as this is a prerequisite for exchanging and building knowledge and, ultimately, applying “digital” to sustainable economic and environmentally friendly activities [4].”
Theorizing the meaning(s) of ‘expatriate’: establishing boundary conditions for business expatriates (2016, methodology): “We build on the five well-established stages of insights from social science theory (Locke, 2012; Suddaby, 2010) and first identify four boundary conditions that specify who is and who is not included in the concept of business expatriates.”
Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predisposition for growth (2013, background): “Accordingly, we suspect that the construct ‘entrepreneurial intentions’ is too broadly defined and lacks construct clarity (Suddaby, 2010) and thus potentially confounds prior research results.”