Janice C. Molloy

Making Intangibles “Tangible” in Tests of Resource-Based Theory A Multidisciplinary Construct Validation Approach

The authors identify theoretical disconnects among resource-based theory (RBT), conceptualizations of intangible resources (intangibles), and measures of intangibles. Specifically, the authors’ survey of 186 recent empirical tests of RBT suggests that measures of intangibles are often assigned with little theoretical conceptualization of the intangible construct or connection with RBT. This lack of theoretical justification undermines confidence in measures and empirical findings, leaves central RBT questions unaddressed, and constricts the usefulness of RBT. Furthermore, their survey suggests that the dominant approach to measuring intangibles is mechanical and unidisciplinary (i.e., rooted in either economics or psychology). The authors argue that the challenge of measuring intangibles is primarily theoretical. Thus, mechanical and unidisciplinary approaches are problematic for they sustain theoretical disconnects among RBT and intangible conceptualizations and measures. Moreover, a multidisciplinary construct validation approach is required to remedy the respective deficiencies of economic and psychological approaches and integrate their complementary strengths. The authors present such an approach, which they call the multidisciplinary assessment process (MAP). The MAP guides scholars in creating theories of intangibles that are specific to their RBT study. These theories are the focal point of the MAP and clarify what, specifically, the intangible is and how firms use the intangible to create and appropriate economic value. In turn, these theories inform the measurement and validation steps of the MAP, so that intangibles are assessed with greater credibility.

The Myth of “the” Micro-Macro Divide: Bridging System-Level and Disciplinary Divides

We clarify that management scholars do not have a shared conceptualization of what the terms micro and macro mean. Therefore, there is not one, but rather there are multiple micro—macro divides within management. Specifically, there are three micro—macro divides that separate scholarship at three levels of the social and economic systems that management scholars study. These system levels include individuals and groups, organizations, and the broader social and economic systems (which contain individuals and organizations—such as industries, labor markets, and societies). Scholarship at these three system levels is often based in different disciplines. For example, scholarship on individuals and groups is often based in psychology whereas scholarship regarding organizations and social and economic systems is often based in economics or sociology. Yet there are fundamental differences in the theoretical assumptions and methodological traditions underlying these disciplines. We call these differences disciplinary divides and argue that because disciplinary divides oftentimes coexist with system-level divides, scholars bridging system levels need to be cognizant of disciplinary divides. The purpose of this article is to help scholars bridge these divides. To this end, we first identify the nature and specific types of divides. We then present a content analysis of 300 articles as a snapshot of the extent to which bridging scholarship is conducted. Finally, we provide a road-map that details the specific intellectual steps required to bridge system-level and disciplinary divides and make one’s scholarship more accessible to scholars from other disciplines and management subdomains.

The assessment of commitment: : Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach

This study presents a new approach to assessing commitment reflecting the Klein, Molloy, and Brinsfield (2012) reconceptualization. Klein et al. recast the construct to address issues hindering commitment scholarship, but their claims cannot be tested with existing measures. This paper presents a 4-item measure consistent with the Klein et al. conceptual definition, a measure intended to be unidimensional and applicable across all workplace targets. Our purpose is to present the development of and provide initial validity evidence for this new commitment measure and to compare it to existing alternative measures. Hypotheses around these objectives were tested with data gathered across 5 samples yielding 2,487 participants representing a wide range of jobs, organizations, and industries. Each sample examined a unique set of variables and targets that together provide a comprehensive test of this new measure relative to 8 different targets, several constructs within the nomological network, and 4 prior commitment measures. Results support our hypotheses regarding (a) the measures properties and structure, (b) convergence and divergence with prior measures of commitment and other constructs in the nomological network, and (c) advantages over prior measures. These findings support the validity of this new approach to assessing commitment, laying the foundation for future research to address critiques of the commitment construct; better examine the multiple commitments individuals simultaneously hold; and bring consistency, synergy, and integration to commitment scholarship across workplace targets. The conceptual, methodological, and practical benefits of the measure are discussed, along with study limitations and future research opportunities.

Human Capital Pipelines Competitive Implications of Repeated Interorganizational Hiring

This article offers pipelines as a new perspective on human capital heterogeneity between firms. Using resource-based theory logic, we define pipelines as repeated interorganizational hiring and a practice firms use to differentially acquire and accumulate human capital and mitigate human capital risks. Pipelines are a ubiquitous staffing practice with ambiguous implications for firm performance that to date have eluded scholarly examination. Thus we use a systems framework to highlight input, output, and process contingencies in which pipeline hiring can create advantage over rivals—contingencies of human capital scarcity in the labor market, the choice of firm activity system, and product market ambiguity (i.e., credence qualities), respectively. Collectively, the article’s theoretical foundations provide new insights for human resource, strategy, and human capital fields and open the conceptual space of pipelines for examination by organizational scholars. We discuss the theoretical, empirical, and practical implications accordingly.

Scarce Human Capital in Managerial Labor Markets

Strategic human capital scholars are increasingly recognizing the importance of human capital scarcity for explaining individual and firm outcomes. This article focuses on scarce human capital in the top manager labor market—and in particular, patterns in which top managers and firms form employment relationships. This examination redirects strategic human capital scholarship in three important ways. First, the findings point to the importance of specifying an omission from prior human capital scholarship: the relationship between human capital and the firm’s resource base (e.g., potential complementarities). Second, the article illustrates the need to simultaneously consider both human capital scarcity and complementarities, and reinforces that scarce human capital can indeed be general human capital. Finally, the theory explains how complementarities fundamentally alter value creation and appropriation dynamics. Specifically, complementarities facilitate the matching of the best managers and firms with the most productive resources, increase the size of the pie (financial proceeds) from the employment relationship, and can enhance the manager’s bargaining power in the division of these proceeds.