Construct Mixology: Forming New Management Constructs by Combining Old Ones

Abstract

We review the practice of building new psychological constructs by combining older constructs (a process we refer to as construct mixology), with a focus on the impact, methodology, and substantive knowledge implications of this practice. Our review suggests that some of the most influential micro-level constructs in the field of management are either new compound constructs or old constituent constructs that have been used in some form of mixology. Furthermore, we review a range of methodological approaches that researchers have employed when conducting construct mixology over the last 30 years. These strategies range from disavowing the role of the constituent constructs to explicitly acknowledging and modeling the relationships between constituent constructs and their corresponding (superordinate) compound constructs. The scientific consequences of these approaches include both unrecognized redundancy (reinventing the wheel, or confirming classic findings without realizing it) and heightened explanatory power (resulting from using broad compound constructs). To illustrate the variation of methods and implications, we review several exemplars of compound constructs that have enjoyed popularity in OB/HR, including work engagement, emotional intelligence, organizational commitment, and core self-evaluations. We also highlight seven cardinal construct domains that are often sampled during construct mixology. Prescriptions for future construct mixology efforts are provided.

Notes

1. Similarly, Cole, Walter, Bedeian, and O’Boyle (2012) demonstrated via meta-analysis that each dimension of engagement showed a disattenuated correlation of .7 or higher with at least one dimension of burnout.

2. We are claiming for the sake of the argument that there is a fair amount of overlap between job satisfaction and value congruence. Locke (1969) explicitly defines job satisfaction as, “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (p. 316), although we acknowledge that the two may not be exactly equal in all cases.

3. At this point, it is important for us to clarify that: (a) disavowing can sometimes be valid, when the construct being disavowed is in fact not a constituent construct, and (b) avowing can sometimes be invalid, when the construct being designated as a constituent construct is in fact not a constituent construct. But the question of whether the disavowed and avowed constructs are indeed constituent constructs should be resolved through item-level factor analysis (and perhaps through content validity analysis; see Hinkin, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Inappropriately avowing a nonconstituent construct can slow scientific progress, just as disavowing a constituent construct does.