Academy of Management fleview

1998, Vol. 23, No. 4, 741-755.

TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF
MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONSTRUCTS
KENNETH S. LAW
Hong Kong University of Science & Technology

CHI-SUM WONG
Chinese University of Hong Kong

WILLIAM H. MOBLEY
Hong Kong University of Science & Technoiogy
PDI Global Research Consortia

We propose a taxonomy oi multidimensional constructs based on the relations be-

tween the construct and its dimensions. Multidimensional constructs that exist at
deeper levels than their dimensions we term latent model. We call constructs formed
as algebraic functions of their dimensions aggregate model, whereas constructs
formed as different profiles of dimensional characteristics we term profile model. We
discuss the nature of multidimensional constructs defined under these models and
their operationalizations in empirical research.

We refer to a construct as multidimensional management literature, in which relations with

when it consists of a number of interrelated
attributes or dimensions and exists in multidi-
mensional domains. In contrast to a set of inter-
related unidimensional constructs, the dimen-
sions of a multidimensional construct can be
conceptualized under an overall abstraction,
and it is theoretically meaningful and parsimo-
nious to use this overall abstraction as a repre-
sentation of the dimensions. For example, an
employee's satisfaction with his or her work,
coworkers, supervisor, promotion, and pay are
five interrelated constructs that can be grouped
together theoretically under an overall abstrac-
tion called ;ojb safis/action (Locke, 1969; Smith,
Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Since the dimensions
enrichbut at the same time constrainour un-
derstanding of the overall multidimensional
construct, a necessary condition for a multidi-
mensional construct to be well defined is that
the relations between the overall construct and
its dimensions must be specified. Without a
specification of these relations, one cannot de-
rive the overall construct from its dimensions
and can only conduct research at the dimen-
sional level, even though these dimensions are
claimed theoretically to be under an overall con-
struct.
Unfortunately, there are many multidimen-
sional constructs developed by scholars in the
741
their dimensions are unspecified. A good exam-
ple is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
Organ (1988) proposes that OCB consists of five
dimensions: civic virtue, sportsmanship, altru-
ism, conscientiousness, and courtesy. However,
there is no discussion in the literature on OCB
about the relations between OCB as a multidi-
mensional construct and its five dimensions. We
argue that the nature of a multidimensional con-
struct differs when different interpretations are
attributed to the relations between the overall
construct and its dimensions. For example, the
meaning of OCB when it is defined as the com-
mon factor underlying its five dimensions is dif-
ferent from the case when OCB is defined as a
simple sum of its dimensions. The relations be-
tween OCB and other constructs in its nomolog-
ical network also differ when different mean-
ings are attributed to the OCB construct based
on its relations with its dimensions.
Therefore, our major purpose in this article is
to delineate the various possible ways a multi-
dimensional construct can relate to its dimen-
sions. The discussion results in a proposed tax-
onomy of multidimensional constructs. The
framework of the article is as follows. We first
discuss the necessary elements of a good clas-
sification system and explain why our proposed
taxonomy is an acceptable one. This is followed
742 Academy of Management Review
by an introduction of the two decision rules for
our proposed taxonomy, and the definitions and
characteristics of the three models of multidi-
mensional constructs formed using these two
decision rules. We then discuss the conceptual
and practical problems of declaring a construct
as multidimensional without specifying the re-
lation between the dimensions and the overall
construct. Finally, we discuss issues concerning
operationalization of multidimensional con-
structs and the implications of different types of
multidimensional constructs for research de-
sign.
We highlight here that, although many exam-
ples used in the following discussions are
drawn from the literature of microlevel organi-
zational behavioral research, the conceptualiza-
tion of multidimensional constructs can be
equally generalized to other areas of manage-
ment studies. In fact, we have deliberately cho-
sen some examples from macrolevel strategic
research in order to illustrate the broad applica-
tion of our discussion.
OUR PROPOSED TAXONOMY AS A
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Fleishman and Mumford (1991) define a clas-
sification system as a set of specified rules for
describing the structure of and relations among
a set of objects drawn from some domain that
permits similar units to be assigned to a smaller
number of categories. They identify four basic
steps that are required to generate a classifica-
tion:
1. specification of the domain of objects to be
classified,
2. definition and measurement of the essen-
tial properties of objects lying in this do-
main,
3. appraisal of the relative similarity of these
objects to each other, and
4. specification of decision rules for determin-
ing when objects display sufficient similar-
ity to permit assignment to a common cate-
gory.
We have strictly followed Fleishman and
Mumford's guidelines in our development of the
proposed taxonomy of multidimensional con-
structs. The domain of objects to be classified
(step 1) in our proposed taxonomy is all multidi-
mensional constructs in the management stud-
ies area. We define the three models of multidi-
October
mensional constructs in the next section. We
also discuss operationalization of the taxonomy
(step 2), as well as conceptual similarities and
differences (step 3) between the models. Finally,
in order to distinguish clearly between the three
models of multidimensional constructs, we in-
troduce two decision rules (step 4)relational
level and relational formto guide us in our
classification of multidimensional constructs.
THE PROPOSED TAXONOMY OF
MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONSTRUCTS
According to Fleishman and Quaintance
(1984), the most powerful determinant of a clas-
sification system is its intended purpose. Our
major purpose for proposing a classification
system for multidimensional constructs is to
challenge researchers to clearly define the rela-
tions between a multidimensional construct and
its dimensions. Without specifying these rela-
tions, the various dimensions are simply a col-
lection of related variables, and there is no need
to label them as components of a multidimen-
sional construct. In order to define our three
models of multidimensional constructs, we in-
troduce two classification criteria: (1) relational
level and (2) relational form.^
Relational level indicates whether the multi-
dimensional construct exists at a deeper and
more embedded level than its dimensions or
whether it exists at the same level, as a combi-
nation of its dimensions. In the former case, the
multidimensional construct is an unobservable
construct that underlies different dimensions.
Each dimension of the multidimensional con-
struct is a different manifestation or realization
of the construct. Conceptually, one can think of
the multidimensional construct under this con-
dition as a higher-order abstraction underlying
its dimensions. We label multidimensional con-
structs that belong to this category as latent
model, li the multidimensional construct exists
at the same level as its dimensions and is de-
fined as a combination of its dimensions, in-
stead of as a latent construct underlying its di-
mensions, we need to invoke the relational form
criterion.
' We thank an anonymous reviewer, who assisted us in
developing these two classification criteria.
1998 Law, Wong, and Mobley 743

Relational iorm indicates whether the multi-
dimensional construct can be formed as an
algebraic function of its dimensions. This
classification rule applies only if the multi-
dimensional construct does not exist at a deeper
conceptual level than its dimensions. In some
multidimensional constructs the dimensions of
the construct can be algebraically amalgam-
ated into an overall representation of the con-
struct. We label constructs in this category as
aggregate model. In other cases, because of the
theoretical nature of the construct, the multidi-
mensional construct is interpreted as various
profiles formed by pairing the characteristics of
different dimensions. Here, levels of the multidi-
mensional construct are determined by profiling
levels of each of the dimensions. We label this
as the profile model of multidimensional con-
struct in our proposed taxonomy.
Figure 1 shows a diagrammatic representa-
tion of the two criteria in this proposed taxon-
omy and the three resulting models of multidi-
mensional constructs. In Table 1 we summarize
the three models of multidimensional constructs
and give examples from the literature for each
model. Given our two classification criteria and
the three resulting types of multidimensional
constructs, we now turn to a discussion of the
characteristics of each model, some examples of
each, and their similarities and differences.
Type I: The Latent Model
We classify a multidimensional construct as
latent model if it is a higher-level construct that
underlies its dimensions. For latent multidimen-
sional constructs, the dimensions are simply dif-
ferent forms manifested by the construct. It is
possible to compare the dimensions of a latent
multidimensional construct with the different
items used to measure a unidimensional con-
struct in a measurement scale. In a measure-
ment scale all items are measuring the same
construct, with a certain degree of error. Simi-
larly, different dimensions of a latent multidi-
mensional construct represent the same con-
struct, with different degrees of accuracy. Under
the latent model, therefore, we define the multi-
dimensional construct as the commonality
among the dimensions. However, there is a lim-
itation to this comparison. Whereas the items
used to measure a unidimensional construct are
all observable variables, the dimensions of a
multidimensional construct usually are unob-
servable latent variables.
One good example of a latent multidimen-
sional construct is general mental ability (GMA),
in the area of selection testing. If we follow the
two-factor theory of Spearman (1927), GMA is
defined as the general latent construct underly-
ing different ability dimensions, such as verbal

FIGURE 1
Proposed Taxonomy of Multidimensional Construct

Relational level
(Does the multidimensional
construct exist at the same
level as its dimensions?)

.r I
No Yes

Latent Relational form

model (Can the dimensions be algebraically
combined to form an overall
representation of the construct?)
\
r
No Yes

Profile Aggregate
model model
744 Academy of Management Review
TABLE 1
A Taxonomy of Multidimensional Constructs, with Examples
Models
Latent model: constructs as underlying higher-order
abstractions behind their dimensions
Aggregate model: constructs exist at the same level as
their dimensions and are formed as a mathematical
function of their dimensions
Additive
Multiplicative
Profile model: constructs exist at the same level as their
dimensions and are formed as various combinations
of their dimensional characteristics
Unclassified: constructs without clear specification of the
relations between the overall construct and the
dimensions
ability, quantitative ability, reasoning ability,
and associative memory.
In addition to GMA, there are many constructs
in the management literature that are defined
as latent model. For example, Granzin (1980) de-
fines 5 orthogonal second-order factors behind
the 15 first-order factors extracted from 58 items
measuring physical distribution activities.
These five second-order factors are (1) internal
materials movement, (2) information-system op-
erations, (3) facilities planning, (4) traffic man-
agement, and (5) external materials movement.
Since these 5 second-order factors are defined
as the latent constructs underlying the 15 first-
order factors, Granzin has defined 5 multidimen-
sional constructs with the 15 first-order factors
as their dimensions. One of these five con-
structsinformation-system operations, for ex-
ampleis defined as a latent multidimensional
October
Examples
End-user computing satisfaction (Doll, Xia, & Torkzadeh,
1994)
g-factor (Spearman, 1927)
Personality traits (Rounds & Tracey, 1993)
Physical distribution activities (Granzin, 1980)
Role stress (McGee, Ferguson, & Seers, 1989)
Upward-influence tactics (Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, &
Goodman, 1997)
Dysfunctional thought process (Judge & Locke, 1983)
Job characteristics (Stone, 1976)
Job-related tension (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Fnoek, &
Rosenthal, 1964)
Job satisfaction (Lawler, 1983; Locke, 1969)
Organic management system (Keller, 1978)
Social readjustment (Holmes & Rahe, 1976)
Job motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980)
Foci of commitment (Becker & Billings, 1993)
Influence tactics (Kipnis, Schmidt, Swaffin-Smith, &
Wilkinson, 1984)
Organizational environment (Duncan, 1972)
Personality traits (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970; Gough,
1987; Hathaway & McKinley, 1967)
Vocational interests (Holland, 1973; Strong, 1943)
Culture (Hofstede, 1984)
Organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1988)
Self-concepts (Marsh & Gouvernet, 1989)
Support for innovation (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978)
Time urgency (Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, & Colvin, 1991)
construct underlying its three dimensions of
customer relations, inventory management, and
system design.
We derive our third example of a latent mul-
tidimensional construct from Farmer, Maslyn,
Fedor, and Goodman's (1997) study of the factor
structure of upward influence tactics. Farmer et
al. uses Schriesheim and Hinkin's (1990) instru-
ment to identify 3 broad upward-influence strat-
egies (hard, soft, and rational) out of an 18-item
instrument measuring 6 influence tactics (asser-
tiveness, rationality, coalition, upward appeal,
ingratiation, and exchange). These 3 broad in-
fluence strategies were defined by Farmer et al.
as the second-order factors behind the 6 influ-
ence tactics, which were, in turn, defined as the
first-order factors underlying the 18 measure-
ment items. Farmer et al. have, therefore, iden-
tified three multidimensional constructs (hard.
1998 Law, Wong, and Mobley
soft, and rational upward-influence strategies),
each with two dimensions, and each dimension
measured by three items in the scale.
In fact. Farmer et al.'s findings provide a per-
fect justification for our argument that a multi-
dimensional construct is not well defined unless
its relations with its dimensions are theoreti-
cally specified. The Farmer et al. results seem to
confirm the theorization of the three multidimen-
sional constructs labeled as hard, soft, or ration-
al upward-influence strategies. However, one
would need further evidence that the three sec-
ond-order factors collapse into one single under-
lying third-order factor if one is interested in an
overall multidimensional construct defined as
"the general use of upward-influence strate-
gies." In other words, one can end up with three
multidimensional constructs or one single mul-
tidimensional construct of upward-influence
tactics, depending on how one specifies the re-
lations between the construct and its dimen-
sions. That is, the multidimensional construct of
upward-influence tactics may indicate an over-
all latent construct showing the degree to which
an employee would try to influence his or her
supervisor. But upward-influence tactics may
also indicate a collection of three multidimen-
sional constructs representing whether an em-
ployee would try to influence his or her supervi-
sor through soft, hard, or rational means.
This example illustrates that simply showing
the existence of some distinct but interrelated
dimensions does not clearly define what we
mean by the multidimensional construct. Re-
searchers have to specify the ultimate level
where the multidimensional construct is defined
before they can determine the meaning of the
construct. To make the issue more complicated,
being the latent higher-level construct underly-
ing its dimensions is only one possible way of
specifying the relations between a construct
and its dimensions. We discuss the other possi-
bilities in the following sections.
Type II: The Aggregate Model
The latent model requires that the dimensions
are manifestations of the multidimensional con-
struct, which implies that the construct leads to
the dimensions. If this were not true, the only
possibility would be that the construct is formed
from its dimensions, because the construct and
the dimensions cannot be independent of each
745
other. If the construct is formed from its dimen-
sions, our second classification criterion
relational formspecifies how.
There are two possible answers to the ques-
tion of relational form: (1) the dimensions may
be combined algebraically or (2) they may not.
Constructs defined under the first case are ag-
gregate multidimensional constructs, whereas
those defined under the second case are profile
multidimensional constructs. Under the aggre-
gate model, the multidimensional construct is
formed as an algebraic composite of its dimen-
sions. The multidimensional construct can be a
linear or nonlinear function of its dimensions,
and the dimensions may also have unit weights
or differential weights while forming the overall
construct.
A good example of an aggregate multidimen-
sional construct is the motivating potential of a
job. Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980) define
motivating potential as a multidimensional con-
struct, with the degree of skill variety, task au-
tonomy, task significance, task identity, and the
amount of feedback its five dimensions. They
also explicitly specify a nonlinear functionthe
Motivating Potential Score (MPS)of the five
core job characteristic dimensions in their orig-
inal conceptualization of the job motivation con-
struct.
This construct measured by MPSnamely, the
motivating potential of a jobis a very good
example to illustrate the aggregate model. Al-
though it is perfectly legitimate to argue that
these five dimensions form an overall represen-
tation of the how motivating a job is, it makes no
sense to argue that there exists a latent con-
struct called motivating potential that can be
manifested solely as, for example, task auton-
omy or task significance. The construct of moti-
vating potential, therefore, should, logically be
defined under the aggregate model, instead of
the latent model, of multidimensional con-
structs.
Another good example of an aggregate multi-
dimensional construct is job satisfaction. Locke
(1969) and Lawler (1983) define overall job satis-
faction as the sum of such facets as satisfaction
with pay, coworkers, work, supervisor, and pro-
motion. They also explicitly argue that it was
not necessary in their study to use a weighted
sum, because the satisfaction scores themselves
took importance into account (see, for example,
Mobley & Locke, 1970). No dimension alone can
746 Academy of Management Review
represent a latent construct called overall job
satisfaction; this construct exists only as the
summed aggregate of its dimensions.
Our third example of an aggregate multidi-
mensional construct is social readjustment.
Holmes and Rahe (1978) introduced the construct
of social readjustment to measure how much
readjustment a person needs to respond satis-
factorily to stressful life-changing events. They
designed the Social Readjustment Rating Scale
(SRRS) to measure the number of occurrences of
43 life-changing events, such as death of a
spouse, marriage, pregnancy, and vacation, in
the lives of the respondents during the preced-
ing year. For each respondent the number of
occurrences was multiplied by scaling weights
and summed to create a life-changing score,
representing the multidimensional construct of
social readjustment. Each of these 43 life-
changing events, therefore, can be viewed as a
dimension. The dimensions combine together
into a linear composite to form the multidimen-
sional construct of social readjustment.
Similar to the case of the motivating potential
of a job, it is illogical to say that social readjust-
ment is a higher-order latent construct underly-
ing the 43 life-changing events. Instead, each of
the possible events is a component of a con-
struct representing the degree of social readjust-
ment a person has to face in a given year.
Type III: The Profile Model
There are some multidimensional constructs
scholars theorize at the same level as their
dimensions but do not define as algebraic func-
tions of their dimensions. Because of their theo-
retical nature, the dimensions of these multidi-
mensional constructs cannot be combined
algebraically. As a result, researchers usually
specify various levels of their dimensions and
interpret the construct by profiling the levels.
One obvious example of a profile multidi-
mensional construct is personality. The Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), for example, was
developed to represent the personality of a
person in four dimensions: (1) introversion-
extroversion, (2) sensing-intuition, (3) thinking-
feeling, and (4) judging-perception (Myers &
McCaulley, 1985). Myers and McCaulley then
fully crossed these 4 dimensions of the multi-
dimensional construct of personality to repre-
October
sent 16 different possible personality profiles
of individuals.
Other personality instruments, such as the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(Hathaway & McKinley, 1967), the California
Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987), the Six-
teen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell,
Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970), and the Big Five person-
ality scale (McCrae & Costa, 1989), all attempt to
represent the personality construct as different
profiles of personality dimensions. Scholars nat-
urally describe personality as various profiles
or types, because it is theoretically meaningless
to algebraically aggregate introversion and
conscientiousness to represent how strong the
personality of a person is. In addition, one
would not say that there is a latent construct
called "personality" that is manifested as vari-
ous personality dimensions. Instead, each and
every researcher on personality would represent
the construct as a profile combination of differ-
ent personality dimensions.
From the area of organizational commitment
comes the concept of foci of commitment,
which forms another example of the profile
model. In their conceptualization of employee
commitment in the workplace, Becker and Bill-
ings (1993) developed a scale to measure the
commitment of employees to four foci (the or-
ganization, top management, supervisor, and
work group) and identified four profiles of
commitment: (1) the "globally committed," who
have strong commitment to the organization
and top management; (2) the "committed," who
commit an equal extent to each of the four foci;
(3) the "uncommitted," who have low commit-
ment to each of the four foci; and (4) the
"locally committed," who have strong commit-
ment to the work group only.
Our third example of a profile multidimen-
sional construct is the widely cited concept of
organizational environment (Duncan, 1972) in
the area of strategic management. Duncan con-
ceptualizes organizational environment by two
dimensionsnamely, the simple-complex and
the static-dynamic dimensions. These two di-
mensions are dichotomized and fully crossed to
form four profiles of organizational environ-
ment. According to Duncan, these profiles would
have different impacts on various organization-
al structures and processes.
1998 haw, Wong, and Mobley
A Comparison and Contrast of the Three
Models of Multidimensional Constructs
In the discussion above we have used our two
evaluation criteriarelational level and rela-
tional formto distinguish among the three
models of multidimensional constructs. In addi-
tion to these two evaluation criteria, we can also
compare and contrast the three proposed mod-
els of multidimensional constructs from at least
two different perspectives: (1) interpretation of
the nature of the construct and (2) definition of
true variances of the construct.
Nature of the construct under the three mod-
els. Under both the latent and aggregate mod-
els, a multidimensional construct can be sum-
marized as a single overall representation of all
the dimensions; in the latent model the overall
construct is the latent commonality underlying
the dimensions, whereas in the aggregate
model the overall construct is the mathematical
composite formed from the dimensions. In con-
trast, a profile multidimensional construct can
be interpreted only as a set of profiled charac-
teristics of the dimensions; there is not a single
theoretical overall construct that summarizes
and represents all the dimensions. For example,
although a person can be identified as high or
low in general mental ability and job satisfac-
tion, one cannot say that a person is high or low
in personality. Personality as a profile multidi-
mensional construct can be interpreted only un-
der various profiles. A person can score high or
low in one personality profile but not high or low
in personality as an overall construct.
The meaning of a multidimensional construct
classified as latent model is also totally differ-
ent from one classified as aggregate model. Un-
der the latent model the overall latent construct
leads to various dimensions of the construct,
because the dimensions are simply different
ways the construct is realized. In contrast, the
overall construct is formed from its dimensions
under the aggregate model. Since the relational
direction between the overall construct and its
dimensions is exactly opposite under the latent
and aggregate models, the meaning of the con-
struct also will be theoretically different. This
difference in meaning between the latent and
aggregate models also imposes some restric-
tions on the relations among the dimensions of
the construct. Since the latent construct under
the latent model is defined as the commonality
747
among the dimensions, the dimensions of con-
structs under the latent model have to be corre-
lated. This restriction, however, is not required
for both the aggregate and profile models. We
discuss this characteristic of the latent model
more in-depth in the section on operation-
alization of the three models.
In addition to the meaning of the construct, the
nature of the multidimensional construct is dif-
ferent under the three models. If the dimensions
of the construct are continuous in nature, the
theorized higher-order construct underlying the
dimensions in the latent model also will be con-
tinuous. Similarly, an aggregate multidimen-
sional construct usually will be continuous if the
dimensions are continuous, because the mathe-
matical functions used to combine the dimen-
sions usually are continuous functions.
However, this is not true for profile multidi-
mensional constructs. In order to form various
profiles, one needs to partition each dimension
artificially into different discrete levels, even if
the dimensions are originally continuous in na-
ture. As a result, researchers theorizing about a
profile multidimensional construct usually
would end up classifying subjects as belonging
to or excluded from a particular profile. For ex-
ample, a researcher using the MBTI as a mea-
sure of personality usually would conclude
whether a person belongs to the ISTJ type in-
stead of how strong an ISTJ type the person is.
Although dichotomization of profiles (i.e., speci-
fying whether or not a person belongs to that
profile) is the common practice of researchers
defining multidimensional constructs under the
profile model, we would argue that this is not a
mandatory requirement of the profile model. We
discuss the possibility of interpreting a profile
as a continuous variable in the section on opera-
tionalization of the three models.
Definition of true variances of the construct.
We can also compare and contrast the three
models of multidimensional constructs using
the variance partitioning perspective. Nunnally
(1978) proposes that the observed variances of a
variable can be partitioned into four elements:
(1) common variances, (2) group variances, (3)
specific variances, and (4) random variances.
We would apply this argument to each dimen-
sion of a multidimensional construct. We show
three of these four components of the variances
of a dimension in Figure 2 under the latent
model.
748 Academy ol Management Review October

Common variances are those shared by all
dimensions of the multidimensional construct.
They are represented by the blackened area in
the latent model (top diagram) in Figure 2.
Group variances are those shared by only
some dimensions and are represented by the
striped area in the latent model in Figure 2.
Specific variances are the variances unique to
a single dimension. They appear as shaded
areas in the latent model in Figure 2. Random
variances are observed variances caused by
random factors. In order to keep the diagrams
simple and clear, we omit random (error) vari-
ances from Figure 2.
Under the latent model, the multidimensional
construct is the latent higher-order construct un-
derlying the dimensions. Therefore, we consider
only common variances or covariances shared
by all dimensions as true variances of the con-
struct. We treat variances specific to one dimen-
sion (specific variances), covariances shared by
some dimensions only (group variances), and
random variances as error variances in the la-
tent model. As a result, only the black area in
Figure 2 is considered as the true variances of
the latent multidimensional construct.
Under the aggregate model, the multidimen-
sional construct is defined as an algebraic com-
posite formed by the dimensions. Specific vari-
ances and group variances, therefore, are also
part of the true variance of the construct, and
only random variances are considered as error
variances. As a result, we consider the whole
area marked in gray in the second diagram in
Figure 2 as true variances of the aggregate mul-
tidimensional construct.
For the profile model we use the simplified
case of dichotomizing each dimension in order

FIGURE 2
Three Proposed Models of Multidimensional Constructs from the Variance Partitioning
Perspective
Dimension 1

Common variances |

Specific variances

Dimension 2 Dimension 3

Latent model

Aggregate model Profile model

1998 Law, Wong, and Mobley
to come up with a profile representing the mul-
tidimensional construct for illustrative pur-
poses. The straight lines that cut each ellipse
into two halves are the dichotomization criteria.
For one specific profile, which is defined as high
in all three dimensions, we consider only the
areas marked in dots as part of the true vari-
ances of this particular profile. It is clear in this
illustration that, similar to the aggregate model,
common variances, specific variances, and
group variances are all considered in defining
this profile multidimensional construct. As a re-
sult, depending on the dichotomization criterion,
the portion that is considered as true variances
for the Figure 2 profile may or may not cover the
common variances, group variances, or specific
variances of a specific dimension.
Viewing multidimensional constructs from
this variance partitioning perspective shows
that we are not suggesting a system that cate-
gorizes multidimensional constructs based sim-
ply on their operational definition. Instead, we
argue that multidimensional constructs defined
under the three models are theoietically differ-
ent constructsdifferent because the definition
of the true variances of the construct differs, and
we cannot claim that they are only different
operationalizations of the same construct.
MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONSTRUCT: THE
UNCLASSIFIED CASES
There are some multidimensional constructs
in the literature for which the author does not
specify the relations between the overall
construct and its dimensions. For example,
Hofstede (1984) develops four dimensions of the
culture of a society: individualism, power dis-
tance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance.
However, he presents no theoretical discussion
of the relations of these cultural dimensions
with the multidimensional construct of culture.
Other examples of multidimensional constructs
under this unclassified category include organ-
izational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988), pro-
cedural justice (Folger & Konovsky, 1989), per-
ceived social support (Pierce, Sarason, &
Sarason, 1991), multidimensional self-concepts
(Marsh & Gouvernet, 1989), and time urgency
(Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, & Colvin, 1991). The
authors label all these constructs as multidi-
mensional, but leave unclear or unspecified the
749
relations between the construct and its dimen-
sions.
We argue that multidimensional constructs
for which relations with their dimensions are
not specified are not well developed. The rela-
tion between the construct and its dimensions is
a necessary element in the definition of a mul-
tidimensional construct for at least three rea-
sons: (1) definition of the research question,
(2) theoretical parsimony, and (3) relations with
other constructs.
Definition of the Research Question
Without correct specifications of the relations
between multidimensional constructs and their
dimensions, one would set up research hypoth-
eses at the construct level, conduct analyses at
the dimension level, but make conclusions at
the construct level. Using national culture as an
example, if individualism and power distance
(Hofstede, 1984) are only two correlated con-
structs, they can be treated as distinct con-
structs, and it may not be necessary to label
them as different dimensions of national cul-
ture. We would not use individualism and power
distance as two separate independent con-
structs and draw the conclusion that "culture"
has an effect on a dependent variable when
either individualism or power distance shows a
significant relation with that dependent vari-
able.
In contrast, we suggest that the profile model
may be a good choice for a multidimensional
construct such as national culture. Researchers
may develop different profiles of culture and
test the relations between some predictor and
criterion variables under different cultural pro-
files. In a more recent work, Hofstede (1994) ap-
pears to head in that direction.
Theoretical Parsimony
Whereas analyses of the relations between
specific dimensions of a multidimensional con-
struct with other constructs may enrich our un-
derstanding of the construct, treating dimen-
sions as a set of individual variables precludes
any general conclusion about the relations be-
tween a multidimensional construct and other
constructs. Only when the interrelations be-
tween a multidimensional construct and its di-
mensions are specified can we derive overall
750 Academy of Management Review
and parsimonious conclusions about the role of
the multidimensional construct in its nomologi-
cal network. Again, it is difficult to draw conclu-
sions about the overall construct unless empiri-
cal analyses are conducted at the construct
level instead of the dimension level.
Relations with Other Constructs
We have discussed that the definition of true
variance of a multidimensional construct differs
among the three models. A researcher may,
therefore, arrive at different conclusions when
using different definitions of a multidimen-
sional construct. In fact, MacCallum and Browne
(1993) and Law and Wong (in press) have dem-
onstrated the differences in parameter esti-
mates with different specifications of the rela-
tions between the dimensions and the overall
multidimensional construct in structural equa-
tion modeling.
OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE PROPOSED
TAXONOMY
After having discussed the theoretical impli-
cations of the proposed taxonomy, we now dis-
cuss how to operationalize the three possible
models of multidimensional constructs in actual
research practices. We illustrate this issue in
the context of covariance structure analysis or
structural equation modeling.
We have chosen covariance structure as the
illustrating tool for three reasons. First, factor
analysis and regression analysis are the two
most common techniques used in studies of mul-
tidimensional constructs. Scholars have shown
that both of these techniques are simply special
cases of the technique of covariance structure
analysis. Therefore, we discuss the empirical
application of the models in a more general
context by framing them under the technique of
covariance structure analysis. Second, covari-
ance structure analysis is gaining widespread
acceptance and is growing in importance in
management research (Medsker, Williams, &
Holahan, 1994). Thus, our discussion of the opera-
tionalization of the three models with this tech-
nique would be beneficial to the increasing
number of researchers using this technique.
We emphasize that our discussion of the opera-
tionalization of the three models using covari-
ance structure analysis is for illustrative pur-
October
poses only. Most of the basic ideas in the
following discussion could still be applied when
using other analytical techniques.
The Latent Model
Since latent multidimensional constructs are
realized through their dimensions, one possible
way to operationalize the latent model is to rep-
resent the multidimensional constructs as the
common factor underlying their dimensions. In
covariance structure analysis the dimensions of
a multidimensional construct usually are esti-
mated by a number of observed variables or
indicators. We may view the dimensions as
common factors underlying the indicators and
operationalize the overall multidimensional
construct as a higher-order factor underlying the
dimensions (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Depending
on the nature of the construct, the overall latent
construct(s) can be defined as a group of second-
order factors or one single higher-order factor
underlying the first-order dimensions.
For example, in the case of general mental
ability, we define the g-factor as a single higher-
order factor underlying the specific ability di-
mensions. In the case of upward-influence tac-
tics, we define three interrelated constructs
(hard, soft, and rational strategies) as the factors
underlying the six influence strategy dimen-
sions.
Since we define the latent overall construct as
the commonality among its dimensions, we can
estimate it from the variance-covariance matrix
among the dimensions of the construct using the
technique of confirmatory factor analysis. This
characteristic of the latent model is in sharp
contrast to the nature of aggregate multidimen-
sional constructs.
The Aggregate Model
For the aggregate model we define the multi-
dimensional construct as an algebraic function
of its dimensions. As we have discussed, a la-
tent multidimensional construct can be inter-
preted as a common factor of its dimensions; a
common factor is also a linear function of its
component variables. There are, however, fun-
damental differences between the conceptual
meaning of the functional relations between the
construct and its dimensions under the latent
and aggregate models. We can estimate a mul-
 1998 Law, Wong, and Mobley
tidimensional construct under the latent model
from the covariance structure of its dimensions
because it is conceptualized as the commonality
among the dimensions. In contrast, we concep-
tualize an aggregate multidimensional con-
struct as a composite formed from its dimen-
sions. The mathematical relations between the
composite and the dimensions can be totally
independent of the covariance structure of the
dimensions. For example, multidimensional
constructs under the aggregate model can have
dimensions that are totally uncorrelated (such
as the 43 life-changing events on social read-
justment)a phenomenon that is unacceptable
under the latent model.
In the context of covariance structure analy-
sis, this conceptual difference between the la-
tent and aggregate model can be visualized in a
path diagram. A latent multidimensional con-
struct implies that it would have structural
paths or arrows pointing to its dimensions. In
contrast, there would be structural arrows point-
ing from the dimensions to form an aggregate
multidimensional construct.^ With exactly oppo-
site structural directions between the dimen-
sions and the construct, the resulting estimates
of structural parameters would be diametrically
different for each of the two models.
Since we cannot derive, under the aggregate
model, the exact mathematical form between
the construct and its dimensions from the co-
variance structure of the dimensions, we have
two possibilities for determining the relative
weights of each dimension in forming the final
construct. In some cases the exact algebraic
function can be determined theoretically. For
example, Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980) ex-
plicitly define overall job characteristics as a
multiplicative nonlinear function of the five core
job characteristics. Similarly, Locke (1969) ex-
plicitly defines overall job satisfaction as the
Simple sum of its dimensions.
There are, however, cases when theories con-
cerning the construct are not detailed enough to
prescribe the exact algebraic relation between
the multidimensional construct and its dimen-
sions. For such cases we suggest the use of the
^ Note that the .structural paths or arrows do not imply that
these dimensions are external "causes" of the construct. The
dimensions are not causes of the multidimensional con-
struct; they are part of the definition of the multidimensional
construct.
751
common assumption of a linear relationship be-
tween the construct and its dimensions and es-
timation of the weights of different dimensions
based on the relations between the construct
and other constructs in its nomological network.
For example, job satisfaction may be defined as
a mathematical aggregate of its five dimensions
with the weights in forming the aggregate un-
known. If turnover and absenteeism are two con-
structs theorized as outcomes of job satisfaction,
the weights of the dimensions in forming the
aggregate job satisfaction construct can be es-
timated through the covariance structure of the
five job satisfaction dimensions and turnover/
absenteeism. A major characteristic of this
structural model is that there is a core construct
called job satisfaction, which has structural re-
lations with its dimensions and the two depen-
dent variables of turnover and absenteeism, but
there is not any observable indicator of this core
construct of job satisfaction.
MacCallum and Browne (1993) have specified
two necessary conditions for identifying a struc-
tural model involving the kind of unobserved
variables defined as linear composites of other
variables. First, a scale must be established for
the composite variable either (1) by fixing the
weight for one of the paths from an indicator to
the composite variable at some nonzero value,
usually 1.0, or (2) by fixing the variance of the
composite variable at some nonzero value, usu-
ally 1.0. Second, the composite variable must
emit paths to at least two different latent vari-
ables. These requirements have to be fulfilled
for structural models involving aggregate mul-
tidimensional constructs when the weights of
the dimensions in forming the aggregate are
unknown.
The Profile Model
A profile multidimensional construct will
cause complicated issues in structural equation
analysis. Usually, researchers using the profile
model will qrtificially dichotomize each dimen-
sion and use different combinations of the di-
chotomized dimensions to form various profiles
of the multidimensional construct. Using Becker
and Billings' (1993) commitment foci as an exam-
ple, respondents either belong to the profile la-
beled "globally committed" or not, although we
have interval measures of their commitments to
different foci.
752 Academy of Management Review
This artificial dichotomization of multidimen-
sional constructs after they are defined under
the profile model may reduce their observed cor-
relations with other variables. To minimize the
effects of this problem, we suggest that each
profile of the construct can be operationalized
empirically as the centroid of all the data points
classified under the profile using the dichotomi-
zation criterion. The profile centroid is the point
in the multidimensional space where the score
on each dimension is equal to the average of all
the data points classified under this profile. As a
result, it possesses the "typical" characteristics
of all the points defined in the profile. The sim-
ilarity of each data point with this profile then
can be defined as the reversed Euclidean dis-
tance between the data point and the profile
centroid in the multidimensional space. Once
the degree of profile characteristics is defined,
the multidimensional construct then can be
modeled with other constructs in its nomologi-
cal network.
Although this operationalization of the profile
model of a multidimensional construct can solve
the problem of artificial categorization of contin-
uous dimensions, one limitation of this ap-
proach is that the profile centroid is empirically
defined. One would, therefore, need a large rep-
resentative sample in order to obtain stable and
valid estimates of the profile centroid.
An Integrative Discussion
Once again, we emphasize the classification
of multidimensional constructs into the three
proposed models as a theoretical, rather than
empirical, issue. There is ample evidence that
many constructs have a strong theoretical basis
to be classified under one of the three models of
multidimensional constructs. Personality and
career interests seem to be concrete examples of
profile constructs, because researchers' primary
purpose in introducing these constructs is to
group individuals into different profiles. Spear-
man's (1927) definition of the g-factor clearly
makes it a latent construct. In contrast, job mo-
tivating potential as defined by Hackman and
Oldham (1976) is clearly aggregate model. It is
illogical to represent job motivating potential as
latent model because Hackman and Oldham
discuss job motivating potential as an outcome
of job characteristics. It is difficult to argue that
there exists an abstract construct of job motivat-
October
ing potential that is manifested through differ-
ent job characteristics. In other words, it does
not make any conceptual sense to argue that a
job is motivating and so it has more job charac-
teristics (e.g., skill variety). On the contrary, it
makes perfect sense to argue that a job is rich in
job characteristics (e.g., skill variety) and so it is
motivating. Unfortunately, job design studies in
the literature utilizing structural equation mod-
eling totally ignore this conceptual and theoret-
ical characteristic of the construct and use the
dimensions of job characteristics as indicators
of the overall construct (see, for example, James
& Tetrick, 1986, and Mathieu, Hofmann, & Farr,
1993) in confirmatory factor analyses.
Similarly, although primary job satisfaction
theorists such as Locke (1969) and Lawler (1983)
define job satisfaction as the composite formed
from its dimensions, Schmitt and Bedeian (1982),
Netemeyer, Johnston, and Burton (1990), and
Vandenberg and Scarpello (1990) operationalize
job satisfaction as the common factor underly-
ing its dimensions in their confirmatory factor
analyses. It is interesting to note that Parson
and Hulin (1982) and Judge and Locke (1993) both
use the argument that job satisfaction can be
defined as the common factor underlying its di-
mensions because the dimensions are substan-
tially correlated. We do not think that a high
correlation among the dimensions is good evi-
dence that the variables can be defined as la-
tent model. Although we acknowledge that, as
science progresses, some earlier conceptions
about constructs will need reinterpretation, we
feel such reinterpretation should be made with
sound theoretical justification and strong empir-
ical support. A high correlation among the di-
mensions of a multidimensional constructby
itself, and without conceptual justificationis
not strong enough evidence to reinterpret the
construct as latent model instead of aggregate
model.
Finally, there are special operational con-
cerns for multidimensional constructs for which
relations between the constructs and their di-
mensions are not specified. Without a strong
theoretical basis to define these constructs un-
der one of the three models, we suggest that
logical considerations may be used with empir-
ical means to test the choice of a specific theo-
retical model of multidimensional constructs.
We use the construct of organizational citizen-
ship behaviors (OCB) as an illustration.
1998 Law, Wong, and Mobiey
Organ (1988) proposes that OCB consists of
five dimensions: (1) civic virtue, (2) sportsman-
ship, (3) altruism, (4) conscientiousness, and
(5) courtesy. Since Organ does not clearly define
the interrelations between the construct and its
dimensions, we argue that OCB may be defined
under all three models of multidimensional con-
struct.
One can, for example, define OCB as an alge-
braic functionor simple sumof the five di-
mensions. Under this aggregate model, an em-
ployee is expressing OCB if she or he shows one
or more of the five named behavioral dimen-
sions. However, one can also define OCB as the
conimon or latent factor underlying these five
dimensions. An employee should then express a
great extent of each and every citizenship be-
havior dimension in order to score high on the
OCB construct.
Finally, one can identify different profiles of
employees' expression of OCB and use these
profiles to represent the multidimensional con-
struct of OCB. For example, one may use the
technique of cluster analysis to group the sub-
jects in a sample into different clusters with
different characteristics on civic virtue, sports-
manship, altruism, conscientiousness, and cour-
tesy. After identifying one meaningful cluster as
the OCB profile of interest (e.g., high on altruism
and low on all other four dimensions), one can
then define the level of OCB of a specific subject
as the negative Euclidean distance of the OCB
ratings of this subject from the centroid of the
identified cluster in the multidimensional
space.
After showing the above three operation-
alizations of the multidimensional construct of
OCB, a researcher then can test the comparative
accuracy of the three definitions of OCB. We
suggest that model accuracy can be determined
by at least two evaluation criteria. First, under a
correct definition of OCB, the OCB construct
should have expected relations with other con-
structs in its nomological network in a criterion
validity sense. Second, with the correct specifi-
cation of the relations between the construct
and its dimensions, one should attain accept-
able goodness-of-fit indices in the covariance
structure analysis. The model that best fits the
above two criteria then could be concluded to be
an acceptable definition of the multidimen-
sional construct of OCB.
753
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Although there has been limited discussion in
the existing literature about how constructs can
be formed from their dimensions (Foa, 1965),
scholars have never proposed a systematic tax-
onomy of multidimensional constructs. We pro-
pose, in this article, a taxonomy based primarily
on the relations between a multidimensional
construct and its dimensions. We argue that a
multidimensional construct in which relations
with its dimensions are not specified is not well
defined. Laskey, Day, and Crask (1989) have
identified three requirements for a good classi-
fication scheme. First, a good classification
scheme should lead to mutually exclusive and
exhaustive categories. Second, the classifica-
tion scheme should capture meaningful differ-
ences of the objects being classified, while re-
maining parsimonious. Third, the classification
scheme should be operational. There should ex-
ist some strategies so that objects are consis-
tently categorized according to the rules for
classification.
Our proposed classification scheme has met
all three requirements. First, we have argued
that the three models of multidimensional con-
structs should be theoretically determined by
our two evaluation criteria: relational level and
relational form. The two evaluation criteria will
lead to three mutually exclusive (latent, aggre-
gate, and profile) models of multidimensional
constructs. Since the answers to our two evalu-
ation criteria are either yes or no, our proposed
classification must be exhaustive. Second, we
have discussed the conceptual differences in
the meaning of multidimensional constructs de-
fined under these three models. We have, there-
fore, captured meaningful differences among
different multidimensional constructs, while
keeping the total number of models to a parsi-
monious number of three. Finally, our two eval-
uation criteria of relational level and relational
form will lead to clear operational guidelines for
researchers in defining their multidimensional
constructs.
We believe this proposed classification
scheme will clarify the fundamental character-
istics of various multidimensional constructs.
This clarification is important for both concep-
tual and empirical reasons. Conceptudlly, the
meaning of the multidimensional constructs un-
der the three models will be totally different.
754 Academy of Management Review
Empirically, a multidimensional construct cate-
gorized as latent model may be operationalized
as the common factor underlying its dimensions.
Under the aggregate model, the multidimen-
sional construct may be operationalized as the
composite construct formed from its dimensions.
Finally, we suggest that the reversed distance of
a data point from the centroid of the profile can
be used as an operational definition of the mag-
nitude of profile characteristics of the data
point.
Given the serious conceptual and empirical
implications for the classification of multidi-
mensional constructs and the existence of un-
classified constructs in the literature, we
strongly recommend more research on the re-
examination of these unclassified constructs.
Future empirical research should clearly dis-
cuss and classify the multidimensional con-
structs so that the appropriate means of opera-
tionalization can be adopted.
REFERENCES
Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. 1993. Profiles of commitment: An
empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14:
177-190.
Cattell, R. B., E3Der, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. 1970. Handbook
for Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF).
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. 1994. A coniirmatory
iactor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction
instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18: 453-461.
Duncan, R. B. 1972. Characteristics of organizational envi-
ronments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 17: 313-327.
Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S.
1997. Putting upward influence strategies in context.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 17-42.
Fleishman, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. 1991. Evaluating classi-
fications of job behavior: A construct validation of the
ability requirement scales. Personnel Psychology, 44:
523-575.
Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. 1984. Taxonomies of
human performance: The description of human tasks.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Foa, U. G. 1965. New developments in facet design and
analysis. Psychological Review, 72: 262-274.
Folger. R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and
distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions.
Academy o/. Management Journal, 32: 115-130.
Gough, H. G. 1987. California psychological inventory ad-
ministrator's guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol-
ogists Press.
October
Granzin, K. L. 1980. Physical distribution: A description of its
structure by means of second-order factor analysis. Jour-
nal of Business Research, 8: 213-223.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the
design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. 1967. Manuai for the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture's consequences: International dif-
ferences in wort-related values. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. 1994. Management scientists are human. Man-
agement Science, 40: 4-13.
Holland, J. L. 1973. Maiing vocational choices: A theory of
careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. 1976. The social readjustment
rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1: 213-
218.
Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. 1982. Unidimensional mea-
surement, second order factor analysis, and causal mod-
els, flesearch in Organizational Behavior. 4: 267-320.
James, L. R., & Tetrick, L. E. 1986. Confirmatory analytic tests
of three causal models relating job perceptions to job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 77-82.
Judge, T. A., & Locke, E. A. 1993. Effect of dysfunctional
thought processes on subjective well-being and job sat-
isfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 475-490.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Fnoek, J. D., &
Rosenthal, R. 1964. OrganizafionaJ stress: Studies in role
conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Keller, R. T. 1978. Dimensions of management system and
performance in continuous-process organizations. Hu-
man i?elations, 31: 5975.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swaffin-Smith, C, & Wilkinson, I.
1984. Patterns of managerial influence: Shotgun manag-
ers, tacticians, and bystanders. Organizational Dynam-
ics, 12(Winter): 58-67.
Landy, F. J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. 1991. Time
urgency: The construct and its measurement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76: 644-657.
Laskey, H. A., Day, E., & Crask, M. R. 1989. Typology of main
message: Strategies for television commercials. Journal
of Advertising, 18: 36-41.
Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. In press. Multidimensional con-
structs in structural equation analysis: An illustration
using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs.
Journal of Management.
Lawler, E. E., III. 1983. Satisfaction and behavior. In R. M.
Steers, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behav-
ior {3rd ed.): 332-345. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E. A. 1969. What is job satisfaction? Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 4: 309-336.
MacCallum, R. C, & Browne, M. W. 1993. The use of causal
1998 law, Wong, and Mobley 755

indicators in covariance structure models: Some practi-
cal issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114: 533-541.
Marsh, H. W., & Gouvernet, P. J. 1989. Multidimensional self-
concepts and perceptions of control: Construct valida-
tion of responses by children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81: 57-69.
Mathieu. J. E., Hofmann, D. A.. & Farr, J. L. 1993. Job percep-
tion-job satisfaction relations: An empirical comparison
of three competing theories. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes. 56: 370-387.
McCrae. R. R.. & Costa. P. T., Jr. 1989. The structure of inter-
personal traits: Wiggin's circumplex and the five-factor
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56:
586-595.
McGee, G. W., Ferguson, C. E., Jr., & Seers, A. 1989. Role
conflict and role ambiguity: Do the scales measure these
two constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 815-
818.
Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan. P. J. 1994. A review
of current practices for evaluating causal models in
organizational behavior and human resources manage-
ment research. Journal of Management, 20: 439-464.
Mobley, W. H., & Locke, E. A. 1970. The relationship of value
importance to satisfaction. Organizafionai Behavior and
Human Per/ormance- 5: 463-483.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. 1985. Manuai; A guide to the
development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. 1990. Analysis
of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equa-
tions framework./oumaJ of Applied Psychology, 75: 148-
157.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychomefric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Organ. D. W. 1988. Organizafionai citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.
Parson, C. K., & Hulin, C. L. 1982. An empirical comparison of
item response theory and hierarchical factor analysis in
applications to the measurement of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 826-834.
Pierce, G. R.. Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. 1991. General
and relationship-based perceptions of social support:
Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 61: 1028-1039.
Rounds, J., & Tracey. T. J. 1993. Prediger's dimensional rep-
resentation of Holland's RIASEC circumplex. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78: 875-890.
Schmitt. N.. & Bedeian. A. G. 1982. A comparison of LISREL
and two-stage least squares analysis of a hypothetical
life-job satisfaction reciprocal relationship. Journal oi
Applied Psychology, 67: 806-817.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. 1990. Influence tactics
used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical anal-
ysis and refinement of the Kipnis. Schmidt, and Wilkin-
son subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 246-
257.
Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. 1978. Measuring the per-
ceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 63: 553-562.
Smith, P. C . Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. 1969. The measure-
ment of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy
for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Spearman, C. 1927. The abilities of man. New York: Macmil-
lan.
Stone, E. F. 1976. The moderating effect of work-related val-
ues on the job scope-job satisfaction relationship. Or-
ganizationai Behavior and Human Performance, 15: 147-
167.
Strong, E. K. 1943. Vocafionai interests of men and women.
Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello. W. 1990. The matching model:
An examination of the processes underlying realistic job
preview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 60-67.

Kenneth S. Law received his Ph.D. in human resource management from the Univer-
sity of Iowa. He is an associate professor in the Department of Management of the
Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. His research focuses on human
resource management, management in the People's Republic of China, and method-
ological issues in management research.
Chi-Sum Wong is an associate professor of management at the Chinese University of
Hong Kong. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior and human resource
management from Purdue University. His research interests include job analysis and
design, application of structural equation modeling, and organizational behavior in
Chinese societies.
William H. Mobley is Vice President of Personnel Decisions International Corporation
(PDI) and Managing Director of PDI's Global Research Consortia. He provides man-
agement and organizational research and consulting services for multinational firms
doing business throughout Asia and elsewhere in the world. He earned his Ph.D. in
industrial-organizational psychology from the University of Maryland. He is best
known for his research, writing, and consulting on employee motivation, turnover, and
selection and international and strategic human resources management.