Advertisement

Delimiting Performance Outcomes

  • Arch Woodside
  • Rouxelle de Villiers
  • Roger Marshall
Chapter
  • 601 Downloads

Abstract

Conventional correlational analysis and conventional null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) (e.g., multiple regression analysis including structural equation modeling) assume symmetrical relationships between the independent variables and a dependent variable (Fiss, 2011; Ragin, 2006b, 2008a; Woodside, 2013). The conventional methods represent a “net effects” estimation approach to research (Ragin, 2006b). This means that if the researcher using traditional statistical analysis models a high performance outcome (e.g. the ability to develop product innovations) then the inverse (namely the inability for inventors to successfully develop innovations) results from the same causes, except that the sign of the coefficients change (Fiss, 2011). Net-effects thinking is problematic since significant correlations among the independent variables almost always occur in studies with high numbers of variables (e.g. 10 or more).

References

  1. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  3. Gladwell, M. (2010). Amazon exclusive: Malcolm Gladwell reviews The Checklist Manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Checklist-Manifesto-How-Things-Right/dp/0805091742/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362928191&sr=11&keywords=Checklist+Manifesto
  4. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Fast and frugal forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4), 760–772. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.05.01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lambert, S. J., & Fairweather, J. R. (2010). The socio-technical networks of technology users’ innovation in New Zealand: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Canterbury: Lincoln University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10182/3339.Google Scholar
  6. McClelland, D. C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews. Psychological Science, 9(5), 331–339. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Prado, A. M., & Woodside, A. G. (2013). Causal recipes of firm self-regulation via adoption of international produce certification standards. Alajuela: INCAE Business School.Google Scholar
  8. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ragin, C. C. (2006a). How case-orientated research challenges variable-orientated research. Comparative Social Research, 16, 27–42.Google Scholar
  10. Ragin, C. C. (2006b). The limitations of net-effect thinking. In B. Rihoux & H. Grimm (Eds.), Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis. Beyond the quantitative-qualitative divide (pp. 13–41). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ragin, C. C. (2006c). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpj019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ragin, C. C. (2008a). Online tutorial: Qualitative comparative analysis and fuzzy sets. Retrieved from http://www.fsqca.com
  13. Ragin, C. C. (2008c). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ragin, C. C., & Fiss, P. C. (2008). Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: An empirical demonstration. In C. C. Ragin (Ed.), Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond (pp. 190–212). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling of adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66, 463–472. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zipple, A., & Gawande, A. (2010). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 34(1), 76–77. doi: 10.2975/34.1.2010.74-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arch Woodside
    • 1
  • Rouxelle de Villiers
    • 2
  • Roger Marshall
    • 3
  1. 1.Boston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of MarketingUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Marketing, Advertising, Retailing & SalesAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations