Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Construct Measurement in Strategic Management: Key Issues and Debate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mergers and Acquisitions

  • 1282 Accesses

Abstract

Constructs constitute the building blocks of theories. Construct measurement represents a key task for any scholar attempting to develop a theoretical contribution or an empirical study. In this chapter, we offer an overview of the measurement process, commonly portrayed in terms of technical issues, such as the validity or the reliability. In contrast, we highlight the importance of conceptualizing constructs and see validity as an ontological issue, not a mere technical problem. We also provide a brief reconstruction of the debate among those who state that management scholars should favor precision and those who, in contrast, advocate for openness in construct measurement. We analyze benefits and pitfalls in both position and we embrace a view that balances the two opposing views by seeking for clarity in construct measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Academy of Management. (2019). Academy of management code of ethics. https://aom.org/About-AOM/AOM-Code-of-Ethics.aspx. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Academy of Management Journal. (2019). Academy of management journal information for contributors. http://aom.org/Publications/AMJ/Information-for-Contributors.aspx. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Academy of Management Review. (2019). Academy of management review information for contributors. http://aom.org/Publications/AMR/Information-for-Contributors.aspx. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Astley, W. G. (1985). Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 497–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avital, M. (2000). Dealing with time in social inquiry: A tension between method and lived experience. Organization Science,11(6), 665–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review,14(4), 496–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Fornell, C. (1982). Theoretical concepts, measurements, and meaning. In C. Fornell (Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis, Vol. II, Measurement and evaluation (pp. 24–38). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly,36(3), 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: Everything that passes for knowledge in society. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review,111(4), 1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal,26(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. E. (1982). A network of validity concepts within the research process. In D. Brinberg & L. H. Kidder (Eds.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science.Forms of validity in research, 12 (5–21).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Paetzold, R. L. (1994). Pfeffer’s barriers to the advance of organizational science: A rejoinder. Academy of Management Review,19(2), 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cording, M., Christmann, P., & King, D. R. (2008). Reducing causal ambiguity in acquisition integration: Intermediate goals as mediators of integration decisions and acquisition performance. Academy of Management Journal,51(4), 744–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corvelléc, H. (2018). Stories of achievements: Narrative features of organizational performance. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1986). Social inquiry by and for earthlings. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science (pp. 83–107). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Wiginton, J. C. (1979). Language and organization. Academy of Management Review,4(2), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta, D. K. (1991). Organizational fit and acquisition performance: Effects of post-acquisition integration. Strategic Management Journal,12(4), 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H., & Vitt, J. (2000). The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behaviour of key inventors. R&D Management,30(2), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal,35(3), 505–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Haleblian, J. (2002). Understanding acquisition performance: The role of transfer effects. Organization Science,13(1), 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal,50(4), 775–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haleblian, J., Kim, J. Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2006). The influence of acquisition experience and performance on acquisition behavior: Evidence from the US commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal,49(2), 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (1991). Synergies and post-acquisition performance: Differences versus similarities in resource allocations. Journal of Management,17(1), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1985). Organization and management. A contingent analysis (4th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, H. A., Hitt, M. A., & Park, D. (2007). Acquisition premiums, subsequent workforce reductions and post-acquisition performance. Journal of Management Studies,44(5), 709–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laamanen, T., & Keil, T. (2008). Performance of serial acquirers: Toward an acquisition program perspective. Strategic Management Journal,29(6), 663–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization. Organization Science, 10(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. M. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review,23(4), 741–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review,55(2), 95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M. L., Westphal, J. D., & Graebner, M. E. (2008). What do they know? The effects of outside director acquisition experience on firm acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal,29(11), 1155–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley, W., Wood, M. S., & Moon, G. (2011). Low heed in organization theory. M@ n@ gement, 14(3), 154–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meglio, O., & Risberg, A. (2010). Mergers and acquisitions—Time for a methodological rejuvenation of the field? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1), 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meglio, O., & Risberg, A. (2011). The (mis) measurement of M&A performance—A systematic narrative literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Management,27(4), 418–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. (1998). National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies,29(1), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, P. (1993). On the measurement of competitive strategy: Evidence from a large multiproduct U.S. firm. The Academy of Management Journal,36(6), 1652–1669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1959). Tests and measurements: Assessment and prediction. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osigweh, C. A. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 579–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, V. M., & Thanos, I. C. (2010). Measuring the performance of acquisitions: An empirical investigation using multiple criteria. British Journal of Management,21(4), 859–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, K. M., Meglio, O., Bauer, F., & Tarba, S. (2018). Managing patterns of internationalization, integration, and identity transformation: The post-acquisition metamorphosis of an Arabian Gulf EMNC. Journal of Business Research,93, 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partington, D., & Jenkins, M. (2007). Deconstructing scholarship: An analysis of research methods citations in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods,10(3), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic writing. Journal of Management Studies,54(5), 747–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1994). Pfeffer slips! Academy of Management Review, 19, (191–194).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review,18(4), 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1995). Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science,6(6), 681–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porrini, P. (2004). Can a previous alliance between an acquirer and a target affect acquisition performance? Journal of Management,30(4), 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saussure, F. D. (1974). Course in General Linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). New York: Philosophical.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal,43(6), 1248–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O., & Goerzen, A. (2010). Alliance management capability: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. Journal of Management,36(5), 1192–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. R., & Fowler, K. L. (1990). Post-acquisition financial performance and executive compensation. Strategic Management Journal,11(7), 559–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management,19(2), 385–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secord, P. F. (1986). Explanation in the social sciences and in life situations. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 197–221). University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., & Dean, J. W., Jr. (1991a). Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Management,17(4), 681–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., & Dean, J. W., Jr. (1991b). Dimensions and constructs: A response to Dess and Rasheed. Journal of Management,17(4), 711–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H., & Montgomery, C. A. (1987). Corporate acquisition strategies and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal,8(4), 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, R. A., Jr., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleptsov, A., Anand, J., & Vasudeva, G. (2013). Relational configurations with information intermediaries: The effect of firm-investment bank ties on expected acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal,34(8), 957–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review,35(3), 346–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. (1995). Crossroads style as theory. Organization Science,6(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N., & Grant, J. H. (1986). Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: A critique and proposal. Academy of Management Review,11(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, F. (2005). On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in management research. Academy of Management Journal,48(6), 978–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warriner, C. K., Hall, R. H., & McKelvey, B. (1981). The comparative description of organizations: A research note and invitation. Organization Studies,2(2), 173–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., Hernandez, E., & Banerjee, S. (2010). Prior alliances with targets and acquisition performance in knowledge-intensive industries. Organization Science,21(5), 1072–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review,24(4), 725–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller, R. A., & Carmines, E. G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The link between theory and data. CUP Archive.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Benevento, Italy

    Olimpia Meglio

Authors
  1. Olimpia Meglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olimpia Meglio .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Meglio, O. (2020). Construct Measurement in Strategic Management: Key Issues and Debate. In: Mergers and Acquisitions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40459-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation