Author
Philip M. Podsakoff
Other affiliations: Pennsylvania State University, Indiana University, College of Business Administration
Bio: Philip M. Podsakoff is an academic researcher from University of Florida. The author has contributed to research in topics: Organizational citizenship behavior & Organizational behavior. The author has an hindex of 64, co-authored 99 publications receiving 102887 citations. Previous affiliations of Philip M. Podsakoff include Pennsylvania State University & Indiana University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: An investigation into how individuals form perceptions of overall voice behavior in group contexts indicates that the magnitude of the relationship between observers' ratings of group voice behavior and their perceptions of group performance was higher when raters used group-referent, as opposed to an individual- Referent, items.
Abstract: This article reports an investigation into how individuals form perceptions of overall voice behavior in group contexts. More specifically, the authors examine the effect of the proportion of group members exhibiting voice behavior in the group, the frequency of voice events in the group, and the measurement item referent (group vs. individual) on an individual’s ratings of group voice behavior. In addition, the authors examine the effect that measurement item referent has on the magnitude of the relationship observed between an individual’s ratings of group voice behavior and perceptions of group performance. Consistent with hypotheses, the results from 1 field study (N = 220) and 1 laboratory experiment (N = 366) indicate that: (a) When group referents were used, raters relied on the frequency of voice events (and not the proportion of group members exhibiting voice) to inform their ratings of voice behavior, whereas the opposite was true when individual-referent items were used, and (b) the magnitude of the relationship between observers’ ratings of group voice behavior and their perceptions of group performance was higher when raters used group-referent, as opposed to an individual-referent, items. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for scholars interested in studying behavioral phenomena occurring in teams, groups, and work units in organizational behavior research
20 citations
19 citations
13 citations
25 Aug 2018
13 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors found that organizational members rely upon similar causal schemata to explain performance outcomes, and that motivation and ability were more important causes of success than failure.
Abstract: SUMMARY Supervisors in five organizations and subordinates in three organizations were asked how important four primary causes of behaviour-motivation, ability, luck and task difficulty-were as causes of subordinate performance. Consistent across all eight samples, organizational members perceived motivation and ability as more important causes of subordinate success than failure. Task difficulty was perceived as a more important determinant of failure than task ease was of success. Luck was the least important cause of both success and failure. Factor analysis revealed that supervisors and subordinates utilized the internal-external locus of causality dimension to explain subordinate success and failure. It was concluded that organizational members rely upon similar causal schemata to explain performance outcomes.
12 citations
Cited by
More filters
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
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify six categories of self-reports and discuss such problems as common method variance, the consistency motif, and social desirability, as well as statistical and post hoc remedies and some procedural methods for dealing with artifactual bias.
14,482 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors go beyond the existing distinction between attitudinal and behavioral commitment and argue that commitment, as a psychological state, has at least three separable components reflecting a desire (affective commitment), a need (continuance commitment), and an obligation (normative commitment) to maintain employment in an organization.
9,212 citations
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 1981
TL;DR: This book presents a meta-leadership framework for a post-modern view of leadership that considers the role of language, identity, and self-consistency in the development of leaders.
Abstract: Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. Managerial Work Chapter 3. Effective Leadership Behavior Chapter 4. Leading Change and Innovation Chapter 5. Participative Leadership and Empowerment Chapter 6. Leadership Traits and Skills Chapter 7. Contingency Theories and Adaptive Leadership Chapter 8. Power and Influence Tactics Chapter 9. Dyadic Relations and Followers Chapter 10. Leadership in Groups and Teams Chapter 11. Strategic Leadership in Organizations Chapter 12. Charismatic and Transformational Leadership Chapter 13. Ethical, Servant, Spiritual, and Authentic Leadership Chapter 14. Cross-cultural Leadership and Diversity Chapter 15. Developing Leadership Skills Chapter 16. Overview and Integration
7,693 citations