Editor’s Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization

One of the more commonly cited reasons for rejecting a manuscript at AMR is that reviewers feel the submission lacks “construct clarity.” Yet reviewers (and editors) often find it difficult to articulate precisely what construct clarity is. Indeed, in contrast to other social sciences, such as sociology and psychology, where the nature and role of constructs are subjects of considerable debate, the field of management seems unusually silent on the subject. The absence of an open discussion about theoretical constructs is somewhat surprising given their widespread use in and undeniable importance to management theory. The purpose of this essay, thus, is twofold. My first objective is pragmatic. I hope to offer some degree of clarification about how the issue of construct clarity is dealt with at AMR. I do so by offering a review and synthesis of prior writing on the subject in management journals and in journals from related social science disciplines. Ideally, this will assist authors of prospective AMR manuscripts to improve the clarity of their theoretical constructs. My second objective is less pragmatic but, arguably, more important. I hope to open a dialogue within the AMR community about the role and use of constructs in developing theories. Before doing this, however, I should be clear about the scope of this essay. The intent is not to discuss issues of construct validity. This is a subsidiary topic of high importance that has received and continues to receive considerable attention (i.e., Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Schwab, 1980). Questions of construct clarity and validity are quite distinct (Bacharach, 1989). Issues of construct validity, which flows from the ability to crisply and precisely describe theoretical constructs, are more narrowly constituted on empirical questions of operationalization and measurement. Nor is my intent to discuss the broader question of what constitutes “good” theory. This topic has already received substantial prior, more skilled attention (i.e., Bacharach, 1989; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1989). While recognizing that strong, clear constructs contribute to good theory, my goal here is more modest. I simply intend to focus the discussion on why we need clear constructs in developing theories of management and how best to accomplish this. This essay proceeds in four parts. In the first I discuss what constitutes a theoretical construct and how to best create clarity in our constructs. Second, I outline why we need clear constructs in management theory. In the third part I outline how the term construct means different things to different kinds of researchers, and I explore how standards of construct clarity vary across epistemological and methodological divisions. Finally, I present a more normative argument about the need for more open dialogue about the role of constructs in our discipline.