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: A set of conceptual criteria is developed that can be used to determine whether a construct should be modeled as having formative or reflective indicators, and an estimate of the extent of measurement model misspecification in the field is estimated.
Abstract: A review of the literature suggests that few studies use formative indicator measurement models, even though they should. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to (a) discuss the distinction between formative and reflective measurement models, (b) develop a set of conceptual criteria that can be used to determine whether a construct should be modeled as having formative or reflective indicators, (c) review the marketing literature to obtain an estimate of the extent of measurement model misspecification in the field, (d) estimate the extent to which measurement model misspecification biases estimates of the relationships between constructs using a Monte Carlo simulation, and (e) provide recommendations for modeling formative indicator constructs.
5,022 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
Book•
15 Jun 2005
TL;DR: The Good Sam: Its Roots, Structure, and Frameworks OCB in the Context of Organization Theory Attitudinal and Dispositional Antecendents of OCB The Impact of Leadership and Work Environments on OCB as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The Good Sam The Study of OCB: Its Roots, Structure, and Frameworks OCB in the Context of Organization Theory Attitudinal and Dispositional Antecendents of OCB The Impact of Leadership and Work Environments on OCB The Effects of OCB on Performance Evaluations and Judgments The Effects of OCB on Organizational Performance and Success Implications for HR Practitioners and OCB Researchers Appendix References Index About the Authors
1,893 citations
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
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
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