Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory

Research output: Contributions to collected editions/worksContributions to collected editions/anthologiesResearch

Standard

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

Research output: Contributions to collected editions/worksContributions to collected editions/anthologiesResearch

Harvard

McKinley, W 2005, Construct Objectification and De-Objectification in Organization Theory. in A Linstead & S Linstead (eds), Thinking Organization. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 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 (Eds.), Thinking Organization (pp. 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, editors, Thinking Organization. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 2005. p. 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 -

Recently viewed

Activities

  1. “Visual Rhetoric as a three-dimensional practice. Theorizing the interconnections between the visual rhetorical objects and the process of spectatorship”
  2. Temporary Organizing and Organizing Trmporality: On the Multilayered Architecture of Accelerators
  3. Expertise in law: 'from above' and 'from below'
  4. Employer Longevity Readiness Index Workshop: Session 2: How do you build a longevity readiness Index?
  5. Travelling Codes
  6. Research Workshop “Innovation and Value Creation” - 2009
  7. How does tree sapling diversity influence browsing intensity by deer across spatial scales?
  8. On Borders, Boundaries, Clouds, and Globalization. And on China.
  9. ‘Thinking the Problematic‘
  10. Digitalization and Organizational Learning: Use the Double-Loop
  11. Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2023
  12. Harvard Universität
  13. Mathematical and Computational Applications (Fachzeitschrift)
  14. Project Workshop on "Worker Flows, Match Quality, and Productivity" - 2019
  15. Curating Diversity in Global Performance Art
  16. Evaluation of tension-compression asymmetry in nanocrystalline PdAu using a Drucker-Prager type constitutive model.
  17. Symposium "Art and its Frames - Continuity and Change" 2014
  18. Comfort and Intervention Behavior of Drivers in Highly Automated Vehicles with Headway Control
  19. International Conference of EAS and ISME - 2007
  20. Migrations of Knowledge - Migknow 2014
  21. The Predictive Power of Social Media Sentiment for Short-Term Stock Movements
  22. Co-creating transformative processes - a designerly approach
  23. Education for Sustainable Development – Experiences from Theory and Practice
  24. Requests in Nigerian and British English conversational interactions: A corpus-based approach.
  25. Research Workshop “Innovation & Value Creation"
  26. 3rd International Conference on Innovations in Bio-Inspired Computing and Applications: Program Committee Member - IBICA2012
  27. Prototypes: The Usefulf Ambiguity of the „Biological Computer" (Annual Meeting of the AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CYBERNETICS)