Organizational performance is one of the most important constructs in management research. Reviewing past studies reveals a multidimensional conceptualization of organizational performance related predominately to stakeholders, heterogeneous product market circumstances, and time. A review of the operationalization of performance highlights the limited effectiveness of commonly accepted measurement practices in tapping this multidimensionality. Addressing these findings requires researchers to (a) possess a strong theoretical rationale on the nature of performance (i.e., theory establishing which measures are appropriate to the research context) and (b) rely on strong theory as to the nature of measures (i.e., theory establishing which measures should be combined and the method for doing so). All management research on performance should explicitly address these two requirements. The authors conclude with a call for research that examines triangulation using multiple measures, longitudinal data and alternative methodological formulations as methods of appropriately aligning research contexts with the measurement of organizational performance.

This paper presents a framework that helps researchers to design and validate both formative and reflective measurement models. The framework draws from the existing literature and includes both theoretical and empirical considerations. Two important examples, one from international business and one from marketing, illustrate the use of the framework. Both examples concern constructs that are fundamental to theory-building in these disciplines, and constructs that most scholars measure reflectively. In contrast, applying the framework suggests that a formative measurement model may be more appropriate. These results reinforce the need for all researchers to justify, both theoretically and empirically, their choice of measurement model. Use of an incorrect measurement model undermines the content validity of constructs, misrepresents the structural relationships between them, and ultimately lowers the usefulness of management theories for business researchers and practitioners. The main contribution of this paper is to question the unthinking assumption of reflective measurement seen in much of the business literature.

No abstract

No abstract

ethical product features, willingness-to-pay, survey methods,

Many consumers profess to want to avoid unethical offerings in the marketplace yet few act on this inclination. This study investigates the nature of the rationales and justifications used by consumers to make sense of this discrepancy. The data was collected via indepth interviews across eight countries. The respondents were presented with three ethical consumption scenarios, and discussed their views on the consumption issues as well as their consumption behavior. The majority of the discussion focused around their rationalizations for their lack of ethical consumption patterns. Three justification strategies emerged from the data: economical rationalization, institutional dependency, and developmental realism. Economic rationalization focuses on consumers wanting to get the most value for their money, regardless of their ethical beliefs. Institutional dependency refers to the belief that institutions such as the government are responsibility to ethically regulate what products can be sold. Finally, developmental realism features the rationalization that some unethical behaviors on the part of corporations must exist in order for macro level economic development to occur. Consumer resistance in the marketplace is currently limited to small niche groups. This study investigates why resistance is so limited, in spite of survey results which suggest that a much larger group of people are interested in ethical consumption. This is the first study to investigate the nature of consumer rationales, and reinforces the need for non-survey-based research to understand nuanced consumer reactions and behaviors in ethical consumerism.

social issues, best–worst experiments, cross-country study,

Many empirical examinations of foreign direct investment location choice have relied on the use of secondary data and surveys on the choices made by firms about the form and location of overseas investment. These studies have two inherent and related problems. First, they rely solely on the location choices made by different firms, and assume that the domains of possible options considered were the same. Second, there is an assumption about the rules used by firms to make these decisions, yet the decisions are made by boundedly rational managers. After reviewing the literature, this study examines managers’ choices about foreign investment location through the use of structured experimentation. The results show that in creating sets of investments to ‘consider’, managers appear to follow fairly rational rules. However, the choice of actual ‘investments’ appears less aligned to traditional models. Journal of International Business Studies (2007) 38, 1069–1094. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400311