Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory

Publikation: Beiträge in SammelwerkenAufsätze in SammelwerkenForschung

Standard

Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory. / McKinley, William.
Thinking Organization. Hrsg. / Alison Linstead; Stephen Linstead. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005. S. 112-135.

Publikation: Beiträge in SammelwerkenAufsätze in SammelwerkenForschung

Harvard

McKinley, W 2005, Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory. in A Linstead & S Linstead (Hrsg.), Thinking Organization. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, S. 112-135. <https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780203414002-15>

APA

McKinley, W. (2005). Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory. In A. Linstead, & S. Linstead (Hrsg.), Thinking Organization (S. 112-135). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780203414002-15

Vancouver

McKinley W. Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory. in Linstead A, Linstead S, Hrsg., Thinking Organization. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 2005. S. 112-135

Bibtex

@inbook{a594c9ce5b1948e2b4b86bc38df9a761,
title = "Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory",
abstract = "In the past decade, organizational scholars have devoted considerable attention to an epistemological analysis of the constructs that populate their discipline. For example, Osigweh (1989) noted the lack of precision in many organization theory constructs and identified the phenomena of “concept traveling” and “concept stretching” as important issues. Law et al. (1998) presented a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs, classifying them by the way in which individual dimensions relate to the overall domain of the construct. For example, they pointed out that multidimensional constructs can conform to a latent model, in which case their dimensions are all manifestations of a more general underlying construct; an aggregate model, in which case individual dimensions sum to define the domain of the construct; or a profile model, in which case interactions between dimensions define specific parts of the construct domain. In a similar type of analysis, Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) described the structure and function of “collective constructs,” arguing that this type of construct emerges from interactions between members of a collectivity.",
keywords = "Management studies",
author = "William McKinley",
year = "2005",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780415333641",
pages = "112--135",
editor = "Alison Linstead and Stephen Linstead",
booktitle = "Thinking Organization",
publisher = "Routledge Taylor & Francis Group",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory

AU - McKinley, William

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - In the past decade, organizational scholars have devoted considerable attention to an epistemological analysis of the constructs that populate their discipline. For example, Osigweh (1989) noted the lack of precision in many organization theory constructs and identified the phenomena of “concept traveling” and “concept stretching” as important issues. Law et al. (1998) presented a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs, classifying them by the way in which individual dimensions relate to the overall domain of the construct. For example, they pointed out that multidimensional constructs can conform to a latent model, in which case their dimensions are all manifestations of a more general underlying construct; an aggregate model, in which case individual dimensions sum to define the domain of the construct; or a profile model, in which case interactions between dimensions define specific parts of the construct domain. In a similar type of analysis, Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) described the structure and function of “collective constructs,” arguing that this type of construct emerges from interactions between members of a collectivity.

AB - In the past decade, organizational scholars have devoted considerable attention to an epistemological analysis of the constructs that populate their discipline. For example, Osigweh (1989) noted the lack of precision in many organization theory constructs and identified the phenomena of “concept traveling” and “concept stretching” as important issues. Law et al. (1998) presented a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs, classifying them by the way in which individual dimensions relate to the overall domain of the construct. For example, they pointed out that multidimensional constructs can conform to a latent model, in which case their dimensions are all manifestations of a more general underlying construct; an aggregate model, in which case individual dimensions sum to define the domain of the construct; or a profile model, in which case interactions between dimensions define specific parts of the construct domain. In a similar type of analysis, Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) described the structure and function of “collective constructs,” arguing that this type of construct emerges from interactions between members of a collectivity.

KW - Management studies

M3 - Contributions to collected editions/anthologies

SN - 9780415333641

SN - 9780415488013

SP - 112

EP - 135

BT - Thinking Organization

A2 - Linstead, Alison

A2 - Linstead, Stephen

PB - Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

ER -