• Mon espace de travail
  • Aide IRIS
  • Par Publication Par Personne Par Unité
    • English
    • Français
  • Se connecter
Logo du site

IRIS | Système d’Information de la Recherche Institutionnelle

  • Accueil
  • Personnes
  • Publications
  • Unités
  • Périodiques
UNIL
  • English
  • Français
Se connecter
IRIS
  • Accueil
  • Personnes
  • Publications
  • Unités
  • Périodiques
  • Mon espace de travail
  • Aide IRIS

Parcourir IRIS

  • Par Publication
  • Par Personne
  • Par Unité
  1. Accueil
  2. IRIS
  3. Publication
  4. Advancing the Measurement of Organizational Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status: First-order Judgments vs Second-order Judgments—Commentary on “Organizational legitimacy, reputation and status: Insights from micro-level management”
 
  • Détails
Titre

Advancing the Measurement of Organizational Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status: First-order Judgments vs Second-order Judgments—Commentary on “Organizational legitimacy, reputation and status: Insights from micro-level management”

Type
article
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Périodique
Academy of Management Discoveries  
Auteur(s)
Haack, Patrick
Auteure/Auteur
Sieweke, Jost
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
Haack, Patrick  
Liens vers les unités
Département de stratégie  
ISSN
2168-1007
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2020-03
Volume
6
Numéro
1
Première page
153
Dernière page/numéro d’article
158
Langue
anglais
Résumé
As improving the construct validity of measures has been a fundamental concern in management research, we commend Bitektine and colleagues for their efforts to develop and validate individual-level measures for organizational legitimacy, reputation, and status. However, we have some concerns with regard to their measurement approach. Specifically, although Bitektine and colleagues stress the multi-level nature of social evaluations, they do not translate this insight into a measurement instrument that acknowledges that individual evaluators hold both private judgments (“first-order judgments”) and judgments about the collective-level judgment (i.e., judgments of the judgments of other evaluators in a specific reference group, or “second-order judgments”). These two types of individual judgments reflect different facets of social evaluations and have different effects on individual behavior, and thus researchers need to avoid conflating them within a measurement instrument. Our commentary seeks to complement the approach of Bitektine and colleagues by sensitizing readers to the distinction between first-order and second-order judgments and by developing recommendations for future scale development efforts. These recommendations are given in a spirit of collegiality and with an understanding that progress in social evaluation research requires the concerted effort of many researchers over many years.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_59DDC189B5DD
DOI
10.5465/amd.2019.0103
Permalien
https://iris.unil.ch/handle/iris/61555
Date de création
2019-05-02T14:43:04.740Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-20T15:35:24Z
  • Copyright © 2024 UNIL
  • Informations légales