4.3 Article

Measuring a scientifically multifaceted concept. The jungle of organizational legitimacy

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.10.001

关键词

Organizational legitimacy; Legitimacy measurement; Legitimacy dimensions; Judgment

资金

  1. European Academy of Management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measuring organizational legitimacy presents a challenge for researchers due to the complex construct and diverse methodologies. This paper proposes a general process for measuring organizational legitimacy, providing criteria for selecting measurement instruments and presenting a broader typology of legitimacy dimensions to aid understanding by researchers and managers.
Measuring organizational legitimacy has become a challenge for researchers because they face a multilevel construct, where diverse terminologies, approaches, and evaluators converge. As a consequence, researchers have developed different conceptual proposals that have, in turn, given rise to multiple measurement methodologies, generating some uncertainty among researchers about the best measurement instrument. These methodologies are not generalizable to other contexts, do not integrate the different approaches to assessing legitimacy, nor do they explain their suitability for specific contexts. This paper proposes a general process for measuring organizational legitimacy in any context and across different terminologies, while providing criteria for a justified choice of measurement instrument. The study differentiates between organizational legitimacy measurements based on perceptions and secondary data, as well as between legitimacy as a global or as a dimensions-based judgment. We also present a broader typology of legitimacy dimensions that includes diverse fields of knowledge, avoids overlapping dimensions, and provides concept definitions in order to facilitate understanding by researchers and managers. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. on behalf of AEDEM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据