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.

/pdf/common-method-biases-in-behavioral-research-a-critical-53ocysaemj.pdf

Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects

A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment

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.

Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It

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

/pdf/leadership-in-organizations-7uklakdk5o.pdf

Leadership in Organizations

Scholarly interest in employee voice behavior has increased dramatically over the past 15 years. Although this research has produced valuable knowledge, it has focused almost exclusively on voice as a positively intended challenge to the status quo, even though some scholars have argued that it need not challenge the status quo or be well intentioned. Thus, in this paper, we create an expanded view of voice; one that extends beyond voice as a positively intended challenge to the status quo to include voice that supports how things are being done in organizations as well as voice that may not be well intentioned. We construct a framework based on this expanded view that identifies 4 different types of voice behavior (supportive, constructive, defensive, and destructive). We then develop and validate survey measures for each of these. Evidence from 5 studies across 4 samples provides strong support for our new measures in that (a) a 4-factor confirmatory factor analysis model fit the data significantly better than 1-, 2-, or 3-factor models; (b) the voice measures converged with and yet remained distinct from conceptually related comparison constructs; (c) personality predictors exhibited unique patterns of relationships with the different types of voice; (d) variations in actual voice behaviors had a direct causal impact on responses to the survey items; and (e) each type of voice significantly impacted important outcomes for voicing employees (e.g., likelihood of relying on a voicing employee's opinions and evaluations of a voicing employee's overall performance). Implications of our findings are discussed.

Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors.

The purpose of the present review is to examine the potential problems caused by measurement model misspecification in the field of leadership. First, we discuss the conceptual differences between the four types of measurement models that have been used in leadership research and provide a set of criteria that could be used to decide upon the appropriate model. Following this, we examine the extent of measurement model misspecification by conducting a review of the leadership literature and applying these criteria. Next, we discuss the potential consequences of measurement model misspecification on conclusions made about the structural relationships between constructs. Finally, we discuss the implications of our study for leadership research.

The mismeasure of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research

Among the most widely used conceptualizations of social power is the five-fold typology developed by French and Raven in 1959, and numerous field studies have used this conceptualization over the past few decades. Unfortunately, however, a majority of them suffer from severe methodological shortcomings that make their interpretation problematic at best. In this article, we discuss these problems and present a reanalysis of the literature, which strongly suggests that at least some of our knowledge about the five bases of power is methodologica lly suspect. Following this, we also present and discuss suggestions for improving future research in this domain. Social power and influence processes have occupied a central place in psychological theories over the past few decades, perhaps most notably in the areas of industrial/ organizational and social psychology. Undoubtedly, among the most popular and widely accepted conceptualizations of social power is the five-fold typology developed by French and Raven in 1959. In fact, despite recent criticisms that have been advanced against this conceptualization (e.g., Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980), the French and Raven typology is widely used. For example, a survey of the authors' bookshelves disclosed that it was included in every survey textbook in the areas of organizationa l behavior and social psychology! An examination of the research literature also discloses that numerous studies have used French and Raven's typology. However, only field studies seem to have used explicit and complete operationalizations of the French and Raven framework. Although experimental studies often mention the French and Raven power bases, such studies either investigate only a subset of the five power

/pdf/field-studies-of-french-and-raven-s-bases-of-power-critique-54ycitk2tr.pdf

Field studies of French and Raven's bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research.

Despite the fact that several studies have investigated the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and performance appraisal ratings, the vast majority of these studies have been cross-sectional, correlational investigations conducted in organizational settings that do not allow researchers to establish the causal nature of this relationship. To address this lack of knowledge regarding causality, the authors conducted 2 studies designed to investigate the effects of task performance, helping behavior, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal evaluations. Findings demonstrated that each of these forms of behavior has significant effects on performance evaluation decisions and suggest that additional attention should be directed at both voice and organizational loyalty as important forms of citizenship behavior aimed at the organization.

/pdf/effects-of-task-performance-helping-voice-and-organizational-56sj4ikthl.pdf

Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings.

Despite the importance of establishing good, clear concept definitions in organizational research, the field lacks a comprehensive source that explains how to effectively develop and articulate a concept’s domain. Thus, the purpose of this article is to explain why clear conceptual definitions are essential for scientific progress and provide a concrete set of steps that researchers can follow to improve their conceptual definitions. First, we define what is meant by a concept, describe the functions served by concepts in scientific endeavors, and identify problems associated with a lack of conceptual clarity. Then we explain why it is so difficult to adequately define concepts. Next, we provide a series of recommendations for scholars in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences who are either trying to define a new concept or revise the definition of one that already exists in the field. Following this, we provide some examples that generally meet the criteria for a good conceptual definition....

Philip M. Podsakoff

Papers

Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors.

The mismeasure of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research

Field studies of French and Raven's bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research.

Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings.

Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences: