scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Nathan P. Podsakoff

Bio: Nathan P. Podsakoff is an academic researcher from University of Arizona. The author has contributed to research in topics: Organizational citizenship behavior & Construct (philosophy). The author has an hindex of 28, co-authored 41 publications receiving 59152 citations. Previous affiliations of Nathan P. Podsakoff include University of South Carolina & University of Florida.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results is examined, potential sources of method biases are identified, the cognitive processes through which method bias influence responses to measures are discussed, the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases is evaluated, and recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and Statistical remedies are provided.
Abstract: Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.

52,531 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The meaning of the terms "method" and "method bias" are explored and whether method biases influence all measures equally are examined, and the evidence of the effects that method biases have on individual measures and on the covariation between different constructs is reviewed.
Abstract: Despite the concern that has been expressed about potential method biases, and the pervasiveness of research settings with the potential to produce them, there is disagreement about whether they really are a problem for researchers in the behavioral sciences. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to explore the current state of knowledge about method biases. First, we explore the meaning of the terms “method” and “method bias” and then we examine whether method biases influence all measures equally. Next, we review the evidence of the effects that method biases have on individual measures and on the covariation between different constructs. Following this, we evaluate the procedural and statistical remedies that have been used to control method biases and provide recommendations for minimizing method bias.

8,719 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: New and existing techniques are integrated into a comprehensive set of recommendations that can be used to give researchers in MIS and the behavioral sciences a framework for developing valid measures.
Abstract: Despite the fact that validating the measures of constructs is critical to building cumulative knowledge in MIS and the behavioral sciences, the process of scale development and validation continues to be a challenging activity. Undoubtedly, part of the problem is that many of the scale development procedures advocated in the literature are limited by the fact that they: (a) fail to adequately discuss how to develop appropriate conceptual definitions of the focal construct; (b) often fail to properly specify the measurement model that relates the latent construct to its indicators; and (c) underutilize techniques that provide evidence that the set of items used to represent the focal construct actually measures what it purports to measure. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to integrate new and existing techniques into a comprehensive set of recommendations that can be used to give researchers in MIS and the behavioral sciences a framework for developing valid measures. First, we briefly elaborate upon some of the limitations of current scale development practices. Following this, we discuss each of the steps in the scale development process while paying particular attention to the differences that are required when one is attempting to develop scales for constructs with formative indicators as opposed to constructs with reflective indicators. Finally, we discuss several things that should be done after the initial development of a scale to examine its generalizability and to enhance its usefulness.

1,966 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Results indicated that OCBs are related to a number of individual-level outcomes, including managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria, and some evidence that O CBs are causally related to these criteria is provided.
Abstract: Although one of the main reasons for the interest in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) is the potential consequences of these behaviors, no study has been reported that summarizes the research regarding the relationships between OCBs and their outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide a meta-analytic examination of the relationships between OCBs and a variety of individual- and organizational-level outcomes. Results, based on 168 independent samples (N 51,235 individuals), indicated that OCBs are related to a number of individual-level outcomes, including managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria (e.g., employee turnover intentions, actual turnover, and absenteeism). In addition, OCBs were found to be related (k 38; N 3,611 units) to a number of organizational-level outcomes (e.g., productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover). Of interest, somewhat stronger relationships were observed between OCBs and unit-level performance measures in longitudinal studies than in cross-sectional studies, providing some evidence that OCBs are causally related to these criteria. The implications of these findings for both researchers and practitioners are discussed.

1,847 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a comprehensive set of recommendations that can be used to give researchers in MIS and the behavioral sciences a framework for developing valid measures is presented. But the scale development and validation of constructs is still a challenging activity.
Abstract: Despite the fact that validating the measures of constructs is critical to building cumulative knowledge in MIS and the behavioral sciences, the process of scale development and validation continues to be a challenging activity Undoubtedly, part of the problem is that many of the scale development procedures advocated in the literature are limited by the fact that they (1) fail to adequately discuss how to develop appropriate conceptual definitions of the focal construct, (2) often fail to properly specify the measurement model that relates the latent construct to its indicators, and (3) underutilize techniques that provide evidence that the set of items used to represent the focal construct actually measures what it purports to measure Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to integrate new and existing techniques into a comprehensive set of recommendations that can be used to give researchers in MIS and the behavioral sciences a framework for developing valid measures First, we briefly elaborate upon some of the limitations of current scale development practices Following this, we discuss each of the steps in the scale development process while paying particular attention to the differences that are required when one is attempting to develop scales for constructs with formative indicators as opposed to constructs with reflective indicators Finally, we discuss several things that should be done after the initial development of a scale to examine its generalizability and to enhance its usefulness

1,783 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The meaning of the terms "method" and "method bias" are explored and whether method biases influence all measures equally are examined, and the evidence of the effects that method biases have on individual measures and on the covariation between different constructs is reviewed.
Abstract: Despite the concern that has been expressed about potential method biases, and the pervasiveness of research settings with the potential to produce them, there is disagreement about whether they really are a problem for researchers in the behavioral sciences. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to explore the current state of knowledge about method biases. First, we explore the meaning of the terms “method” and “method bias” and then we examine whether method biases influence all measures equally. Next, we review the evidence of the effects that method biases have on individual measures and on the covariation between different constructs. Following this, we evaluate the procedural and statistical remedies that have been used to control method biases and provide recommendations for minimizing method bias.

8,719 citations

Book
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a detailed, worked-through example drawn from psychology, management, and sociology studies illustrate the procedures, pitfalls, and extensions of CFA methodology.
Abstract: "With its emphasis on practical and conceptual aspects, rather than mathematics or formulas, this accessible book has established itself as the go-to resource on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Detailed, worked-through examples drawn from psychology, management, and sociology studies illustrate the procedures, pitfalls, and extensions of CFA methodology. The text shows how to formulate, program, and interpret CFA models using popular latent variable software packages (LISREL, Mplus, EQS, SAS/CALIS); understand the similarities and differences between CFA and exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and report results from a CFA study. It is filled with useful advice and tables that outline the procedures. The companion website offers data and program syntax files for most of the research examples, as well as links to CFA-related resources. New to This Edition *Updated throughout to incorporate important developments in latent variable modeling. *Chapter on Bayesian CFA and multilevel measurement models. *Addresses new topics (with examples): exploratory structural equation modeling, bifactor analysis, measurement invariance evaluation with categorical indicators, and a new method for scaling latent variables. *Utilizes the latest versions of major latent variable software packages"--

7,620 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An extensive search in the 30 top ranked marketing journals allowed us to identify 204 PLS-SEM applications published in a 30-year period (1981 to 2010), and a critical analysis of these articles addresses the following key methodological issues: reasons for using PLS, data and model characteristics, outer and inner model evaluations, and reporting.
Abstract: Most methodological fields undertake regular critical reflections to ensure rigorous research and publication practices, and, consequently, acceptance in their domain. Interestingly, relatively little attention has been paid to assessing the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in marketing research—despite its increasing popularity in recent years. To fill this gap, we conducted an extensive search in the 30 top ranked marketing journals that allowed us to identify 204 PLS-SEM applications published in a 30-year period (1981 to 2010). A critical analysis of these articles addresses, amongst others, the following key methodological issues: reasons for using PLS-SEM, data and model characteristics, outer and inner model evaluations, and reporting. We also give an overview of the interdependencies between researchers’ choices, identify potential problem areas, and discuss their implications. On the basis of our findings, we provide comprehensive guidelines to aid researchers in avoiding common pitfalls in PLS-SEM use. This study is important for researchers and practitioners, as PLS-SEM requires several critical choices that, if not made correctly, can lead to improper findings, interpretations, and conclusions.

5,328 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work draws from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM) to develop a comprehensive nomological network of the determinants of individual level IT adoption and use and present a research agenda focused on potential pre- and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adopted and use of IT.
Abstract: Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre- and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.

5,246 citations

01 May 1997
TL;DR: Coaching & Communicating for Performance Coaching and communicating for Performance is a highly interactive program that will give supervisors and managers the opportunity to build skills that will enable them to share expectations and set objectives for employees, provide constructive feedback, more effectively engage in learning conversations, and coaching opportunities as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Building Leadership Effectiveness This program encourages leaders to develop practices that transform values into action, vision into realities, obstacles into innovations, and risks into rewards. Participants will be introduced to the five practices of exemplary leadership: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart Coaching & Communicating for Performance Coaching & Communicating for Performance is a highly interactive program that will give supervisors and managers the opportunity to build skills that will enable them to share expectations and set objectives for employees, provide constructive feedback, more effectively engage in learning conversations, and coaching opportunities. Skillful Conflict Management for Leaders As a leader, it is important to understand conflict and be effective at conflict management because the way conflict is resolved becomes an integral component of our university’s culture. This series of conflict management sessions help leaders learn and put into practice effective strategies for managing conflict.

4,935 citations