஽ Academy of Management Review 2010, Vol. 35, No. 3, 346–357. EDITOR’S COMMENTS: CONSTRUCT CLARITY IN THEORIES OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION One of the more commonly cited reasons for narrowly constituted on empirical questions of rejecting a manuscript at AMR is that reviewers operationalization and measurement. feel the submission lacks “construct clarity.” Yet Nor is my intent to discuss the broader ques- reviewers (and editors) often find it difficult to tion of what constitutes “good” theory. This topic articulate precisely what construct clarity is. In- has already received substantial prior, more deed, in contrast to other social sciences, such skilled attention (i.e., Bacharach, 1989; Sutton & as sociology and psychology, where the nature Staw, 1995; Weick, 1989). While recognizing that and role of constructs are subjects of consider- strong, clear constructs contribute to good the- able debate, the field of management seems ory, my goal here is more modest. I simply in- unusually silent on the subject. The absence of tend to focus the discussion on why we need an open discussion about theoretical constructs clear constructs in developing theories of man- is somewhat surprising given their widespread agement and how best to accomplish this. use in and undeniable importance to manage- This essay proceeds in four parts. In the first I ment theory. discuss what constitutes a theoretical construct The purpose of this essay, thus, is twofold. My and how to best create clarity in our constructs. first objective is pragmatic. I hope to offer some Second, I outline why we need clear constructs degree of clarification about how the issue of in management theory. In the third part I outline construct clarity is dealt with at AMR.Idosoby how the term construct means different things to offering a review and synthesis of prior writing different kinds of researchers, and I explore how on the subject in management journals and in standards of construct clarity vary across epis- journals from related social science disciplines. temological and methodological divisions. Fi- nally, I present a more normative argument Ideally, this will assist authors of prospective about the need for more open dialogue about the AMR manuscripts to improve the clarity of their role of constructs in our discipline. theoretical constructs. My second objective is less pragmatic but, arguably, more important. I hope to open a dialogue within the AMR com- munity about the role and use of constructs in WHAT ARE CONSTRUCTS ...AND WHAT IS developing theories. CONSTRUCT CLARITY? Before doing this, however, I should be clear Constructs are conceptual abstractions of about the scope of this essay. The intent is not to phenomena that cannot be directly observed discuss issues of construct validity. This is a (MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948). Kerlinger de- subsidiary topic of high importance that has fines a construct as a concept that has “been received and continues to receive considerable deliberately and consciously invented or attention (i.e., Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Cook & adopted for a special scientific purpose” (1973: Campbell, 1979; Schwab, 1980). Questions of 29). Constructs are not reducible to specific ob- construct clarity and validity are quite distinct servations but, rather, are abstract statements of (Bacharach, 1989). Issues of construct validity, categories of observations (Priem & Butler, 2001). which flows from the ability to crisply and pre- Clear constructs are simply robust categories cisely describe theoretical constructs, are more that distill phenomena into sharp distinctions that are comprehensible to a community of researchers—that is, animal, mineral, or vege- table; gas, liquid, or solid. I thank Bob Gephart, Bob Hinings, Dave Whetten, and the editor and associate editors of the Academy of Management Constructs are the foundation of theory. Bach- Review for their helpful and stimulating comments on ear- arach defines theory as a “system of constructs lier versions of this essay. in which the constructs are related to each 346 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2010 Editor’s Comments 347 other by propositions” (1989: 498). Just as con- Perhaps the most common definitional issue structs are the building blocks of strong theory, in manuscripts is that authors simply fail to clear and accurate terms are the fundament of define their constructs. Authors often use terms strong constructs. As Sutton and Staw (1995) re- described as constructs and assume that the mind us, constructs are not a substitute for the- reader understands the intended meaning. This ory. They are, however, essential to the process is clearly problematic since any word has both a of building strong theory. Constructs, therefore, denotative and connotative meaning. In The are a necessary but insufficient condition for Structure of Complex Words, famous literary theory. critic William Empson (1995/1951) demonstrates The essence of construct clarity comprises that even individual words like “knowledge” four basic elements. First, definitions are impor- and “honest” contain a complex “inner gram- tant. Construct clarity involves the skillful use of mar” that can generate multiple and sometimes language to persuasively create precise and contradictory interpretations of the same word. parsimonious categorical distinctions between Offering definitions of key terms and constructs, concepts. Second, construct clarity requires the thus, is a bare minimal standard of construct author to delineate the scope conditions or con- clarity. textual circumstances under which a construct A good definition should accomplish several will or will not apply. Third, not only must the tasks. First, the definition should effectively theorist offer clear conceptual distinctions, but capture the essential properties and character- he or she must also show their semantic rela- istics of the concept or phenomenon under con- tionship to other related constructs. Finally, the sideration. theorist must demonstrate a degree of coher- Second, a good definition should avoid tautol- ence or logical consistency of the construct in ogy or circularity. This occurs when a theorist relation to the overall theoretical argument he uses elements of the term being defined in the or she is trying to make. definition or incorporates antecedent or out- Reviewers are quick to reject a manuscript come variables as part of his or her definition. where the core constructs are weakly defined, where Thus, defining a “transformational leader” as a contextual conditions are not specified, or where “leader who transforms organizations” is an their connection to other constructs and to the empty definition because it uses the construct in overall theory is not clear. Unfortunately, the the definition. Similarly, defining “cognitive typical rejection letter offers little space to con- ability” as “a capability that enables people to textualize or elaborate these conditions. How do learn more effectively in contexts that are dy- these constituent elements contribute to clear namic or complex” creates confusion because it construct development? How do they contribute incorporates, as part of the definition, anteced- to theory? More significantly, what can I, as an ent variables (i.e., complex and dynamic con- author, do to ensure that the constructs used in texts) that are likely causally related to the con- my theoretical argument meet the requisite struct being defined. standard for clarity and precision? My intent is Third, a good definition should be parsimoni- to address these questions in the balance of this ous. That is, it should try to capture as concisely section. I begin by elaborating each of the four as possible the essential characteristics of a subcomponents of construct clarity described phenomenon or concept. The challenge here is above under the following four headings; defi- twofold. On the one hand, the definition should nitions, scope conditions, relations between focus the meaning of the term as narrowly as constructs and coherence. possible. On the other hand, there is a danger of overshooting the mark—offering a construct definition that is so narrow it lacks relevance Definitions and cannot be generalized. Theory construction relies on the ability of These three characteristics of a good defini- theorists to accurately abstract empirical phe- tion are intended to help fix the meaning of a nomena into robust conceptual generalizations. theoretical term. Meanings, however, are notori- Accomplishing this requires an unusual skill in ously difficult to specify, for a variety of reasons. translating abstract concepts into crisply de- One reason is that the meanings of words are fined theoretical constructs. never fixed or permanent. When different re- 348 Academy of Management Review July searchers apply an existing construct to a new inition—which they then recalibrate by trim- empirical context, they often change the mean- ming away the surplus meaning of prior uses ing of the term, however slightly. Over time and and introducing their own three salient at- over multiple empirical applications, the defini- tributes (power, legitimacy, and urgency). In this tion of a construct tends to drift—that is, it ac- way the authors demonstrate their command of quires substantial